Who is the most nationalistic group on the Forums?

[Evil Twin]

All hail the People's Republic of Canickistan!

 

[IglooDame]

Moderator Action: Folks, this thread is on the hairy edge of getting moved to the CFC OT forum because it fits better there. You might want to check it out too, where you can discuss topics like nationalism outside the boundaries of Civ4 topics.

 

[bonafide11]

I like the options on here... "the Vietnamese kid" for real made me laugh out loud!

 

[TheLastOne36]

Well USA and Poland win. I think USA would get more votes on the offtopic section lol.

 

[Brancaleone]

In the Age of Empires 3 community, theres a 'big' movement (and by big i mean one forum user, and 100+ "people he knows", who "would buy this game but now they wont", y'know, that kinda of guy) that asks for a patch or xpac who puts the Greeks into the game. Now, Age of empires 3 is about the colonization of the New World; playable nations include England, Russia, France, Dutch, etc, and the Ottomans. Sure, the turks never went to the new world during 1500-1850, but still they are a nice addition to the game. They have the strongest infantry, and they cant train workers, they slowly migrate to their colony for free; its an interesting, different nation to play.

Now 'that guy' wants Greece on the game. According to what ive learnt back then, Greece only got their independence at 1830 or something like that. Also, since then, this little country never really got much importance in the 'big scheme of things'. In a game like Civilization, you NEED Greece, and i wont bother explaining why. But in Age of empires 3?

Y'now these Poland guys here at Civfanatics? Yea, they are that awesome uncle who always brings you a gift, compared to that Greece guy. I went to both Greece and Turkey when i was small and i liked both countries, but that guy really made other greeks look bad. The ammount of racism and misinformation he would show while defending his country getting on the game and criticizing the choose of Ottomans to be the 8° nation of the game was incredible. 'sand pirates who rape people on the roads in turkey' is one of the pearls that i never forgot. 'Why do you care about these scum turks anyway?', he'd say.

Being historical simulations, these games choose to cover a part of the human history. Civilization tries to cover all ages; Age 3 goes for the discovery age; close combat is a modern war game, etc. You cant have the Americans on 'Pre Historical wars 2: beyond the dino', or the greeks on a game about the new world. I always played the brazilians on Civ 2, but im not offended if Firaxis thinks having the Holy Romans on the overcrownded Europe will be better than having Brazil on the forgotten south america (actually i dont care i play sumerians ). Some people could use some common sense.

For example, for years i thought i was going to study history in college, but 2y earlier i decided law school instead; being a big reader of history books is a commom consequence of playing civilization on your earlier years as you may know. But still, i never had read anything about Poland, except a few things about them on the World Wars. Its not a surprise these poland-defenders here could come with some obscure facts about all the great things their country did on the past. Yet, on the pre-BTS age, on the brazilian topic, i got many replies like 'WTH has Brazil ever done?' These two examples clearly show why both Poland and Brazil shouldnt be on Civilization: hollywood dont make movies about us.

And you can always reply with 'just mod Poland/Brazil/etc on your game if you want to', but that dosent matter; yeah, they can do that, but they want YOU to play with or against their nation. They want OTHER people to pillage his country cottages, they want firaxis/ensenble/whatever to pick someone from their hall of historical figures to represent them in the game. Its not to please themselves that they do that, its to piss you off, really. Specifically, its to piss ME off. Me, Brancaleone. Damn you, guys, just play Sumeria and shut up!

-edit: Damn what a long post.

 

[UnspokenRequest]

Actually, I think you'll find it's probably more than 45%. The people who voted in those referenda did so on the grounds they lived in Quebec, right? NOT on the grounds they felt themselves to be Quebecois or whatever. I would have though, especially considering Quebec is still part of Canada, that a significant part of the population of Quebec may not have been born there, not speak French and simply consider themselves Canadian. I think if you took ONLY the people who saw themselves as Quebecois and asked them the independence question the answer would be quite different.

You're right every Quebec citizen voted for the referenda. Nevermind their origins.

However, a few precisions:
The expression "Quebecers" usually applies to every citizen of Quebec. However, there is still a lot of confusion on definition of the word.

Another precision: In English, when they say "Quebecois" this usually refers to the French-speaking portion of Quebec citizens. However this is not a a given. It can also mean citizens of Quebec. For instance, the Conservative federal government passed a motion recognizing that "Quebecois form a nation, within a united Canada". There is still debate as to what "Quebecois" really means in this motion. Is it every citizen, is it the territory of Quebec or is it only the Francophones or everyone identifying with the francophone culture of Quebec? The conservative goverment hasn't been willing to clarify this, as he risks displeasing the hardlines in both camps (ultra-federalists Canadians and ultra-nationalists Quebecers).

Considering these definitions, when I say about 45% (between 40-49% depending on the polls) of Quebecers want to separate from Canada, I refer to the citizens of Quebec, not the Francophones/Quebecois

Now, on the place of French: about 75-80% of the population of Quebec is of francophone descent. About 85% of the population has French as its first language (Francophones + migrants from France, French-Africa, Haïti, etc.). For the other communities, most of them speak French as their second or third language. There aren't much people who can't speak french at all in Quebec (there are some, but not much).

So, as I said between 40-49 % of the citizen of Quebec want independence.
However, if you count only the Francophones (the people who identify as Quebecois first), it's probably closer to 60%.
I'm not sure of the numbers on this, but that is what it used to be last time I heard about such a thing.

The vagueness of the number here is mainly due to the fact that such numbers are rarely published in the medias as it is not really politically correct over here to do these kind of distinction when it comes to sovereignty and the questions of who is a Quebecers or a Quebecois (hence the vagueness of my definitions above).
Such a distinction can be interpreted as a rejection of other ethnic and cultural communities and that is something usually frowned upon.

Jacques Parizeau, Quebec's premier during the last referendum in 1995, said on the night he lost the referendum that the only reason why the independence camp had lost was due to ethnic groups of new migrants and the fact that the NO camp had more money.
People were outraged by the remark and he had to resign. The remark was perceived as a bit racist and as a rejection of migrant communities. These are labels the sovereigntist movement has always tried to avoid at all cost (they always tried to be inclusive despite being mainly composed of Francophones).

Parizeau's remark may have been (remains for many) offensive, but he was still quite close to the truth:
The No camp won over the yes by not much more than 1%. 50,5% for the No and 49,5% for the Yes. This represented about 50 000 people.
It has now been proved that the NO camp didn't respect the election laws and got much more money for its campaign than what it should have had.
It has also been proved a few years ago that many new migrants received their citizenship earlier than expected from Ottawa so that they could vote for the referendum.
Of course, most migrants vote No. Most of them decide to immigrate to Canada, not necessarily Quebec, and many of them don't want any political turmoil of any kind, as it is often one of the reasons they left their country in the first place...
So saying the Yes camp lost because of money and migrants vote is not completely off the mark. Of course, it is only a portion of the truth. Had the Francophones been even more mobilized behind the independance movement, the referendum would have won nonetheless.

I'd like to add that most francophones federalist (who want to remain in Canada) still feel more Quebecois than Canadian. They've got the two identities, Quebecois being slightly more powerful than the Canadian identity...
There are even Quebecois who don't feel Canadian at all, but they still don't want to become independant because they think it'll be a big problem economically. They're afraid for Quebec's economy and its ability to make it out on its own. They think a state of 7,5 millions next to a giant of 300 millions and its henchman of 23 millions wouldn't have much bargaining power... Of course, many prosperous states of around 7 millions exist (Europe has many of them), but none is so close and so isolated like an independant Quebec would be. The plurality of actors in Europe makes it much more easy for small states to promote their interests through alliances with other small or medium states.

Sorry for the numerous digressions.

 

[George2816]

Wow, i woulda thought the USA woulda taken the vote here. If not only because world opinion would put the Flag Wavers ahead of the Poles in terms of blind allegiance, but for the fact that many of the flaming posts have been Americans defending America. I guess the fact that Poland isn't represented in the game that the Poles have to speak up with more strength.

Also, I've noticed an abundance of Europeans on these forums and not so many americans.

Most american's are stupid fat and dumb and think that bush is the greatest thing since slice bread

Moderator Action: This is trolling - warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Arlborn]

Most american's are stupid fat and dumb and think that bush is the greatest thing since slice bread

And you are the smartest guy ever! Congratulations.
Wanna a cookie?




Nice name.

Moderator Action: Instead of feeding trolls, please report them using the 'report post' function.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[UnspokenRequest]

Most american's are stupid fat and dumb and think that bush is the greatest thing since slice bread

Could you be more obvious in your aims?
you purposely want to transform a civil and interesting discussion about nationalism into a name-calling session and USA-bashing thread.

 

[Evil Twin]

Most american's are stupid fat and dumb and think that bush is the greatest thing since slice bread

Let's avert this flame baiting with a Prinny Dance!

Ha dood!
Ya dood!
Here I go dood!
Wah dood!
Dooooooooooood!

 

[George2816]

Could you be more obvious in your aims?
you purposely want to transform a civil and interesting discussion about nationalism into a name-calling session and USA-bashing thread.

I can see what blind nationalism can do to a nation (Can you say Nazi germany?). When a church preacher says that the IRAQI invasion was the best thing to curb terrorism and he will always back bush no matter what he does (doesn't that sound like some people in nazi german again) Also when a US marine says that he thinks and most of the other US marines thinks that IRAQI males are all terrorists and should be killed. Don't you think we ALREADY lost the war with people in the miltary like that??? The USA thinks that miltary might alone can win a war (does that sound like nazi germany again?) With our foreign policies we deserve alot of nukes exploding above our cities. (arming al qaeda to fight USSR just to have them allegedly highjack 3-4 airplanes)(overthrewing a democratically elected person in IRAN in 1953 and replacing him with a dictator that mass murders his people)

 

[cuchulain]

Ehm. Am I supposed to vote for my nation, or the most nationalistic on the boards? Because clearly, Poland with their 100,000,000'000,000 "Why isn't Poland in the game?" threads puts us all to shame. And on that note, please stop spamming the boards with requests for a Polish civ.

 

[Fire.Soul]

Portugal!! =p

 

[rhawn]

Israel isn't a choice but I think they are one of the more nationalistic nations in the world. The population of the nation is composed mostly Zionists and their descendants. Although America has a large nationalist segment of population, I think Israel would be larger per capita. I have no evidence to back this up but just a thought.

 

[Catharsis]

I tried to vote, but I saw 'Rule Britannia' there and had to stand up and salute. We're the most nationalistic, because we rock.

 

[UnspokenRequest]

1) First, I'm not American. See above, I'm a Quebecer (french canadian)
2) Blind nationalism is bad. Almost everyone agrees on this.
3) Your comment seems like a flaming attempt because there are no nuances in it. There are a lot of untruth and prejudices in your affirmation.
I won't get into that precisely as I don't want to get dragged into this kind of conversation.
Throwing insults toward a whole nation is always problematic and untrue.
4) Yes the government of the USA did pretty bad things recently and in the past, but does that justify insulting all its people? No.

 

[DukeTancred]

After all, Israel / Palastine tensions are comprised of both, no? Religious (i.e. Culture) and Holy Land (political? i guess?)

The root of the Question of Palestine is the denial of the ancient multidenominational, multinational nature of Palestine. It was divided by religious aliyah and pan-Arabists, foreigners who destroyed the Palestinian identity to support their Jewish and Arab nationalism. The conflict is often described as being between Israel and Palestine, Jews and Arabs, but it is actually between the nationalists, who say there can't be a single country for both Jews and Arabs in Palestine, and multinationalists, who dream of what would be if there were one. The antagonism between the PNA and Israel, which allows the misconception that the conflict is a tug-of-war between those two groups, is merely the result of nationalism on both sides. It's the prize for nationalism winning the fight, not the fight itself.

 

[hoopsnerd]

You know... something funny is.... I never ever even thought about Poland before I started reading this forum... and now I suddenly find it intensely annoying yet somehow entertaining at the same time... WTH?

 

[hoopsnerd]

4) Yes the government of the USA did pretty bad things recently and in the past, but does that justify insulting all its people? No.

Being insulted is a state of mind. One cannot be insulted unless one allows oneself to be...

As a United States citizen, I AM insulted to be currently represented by the governmental regime that did said "pretty bad things."

I am not insulted by a stupid flame attempt, and he was actually correct in what he said. "most americans are fat and dumb?" that actually might be a factual statement when you break it down... I'm pretty sure that over 50% of Americans are overweight, and if you look at the last 2 elections over 50% of us must certainly be dumb...

Come on people, if you're just walking into his flame-trap what do you expect, an intelligent arguement back from him?

 

[UnspokenRequest]

@hoopsnerd

I refused to talk much about the substance of his post so as not to feed the fire.
You actually responded more to the substance of his comment than I did. So who's walking into his flame-trap?
I did not much more than denouncing his try to start a flaming discussion, I called the cat a cat and said why it was so. Not much more.

From my point of view, insults are not that subjective a matter. An insult is an insult whether someone sees it as such or not. Everything is not 100% relative.