EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 922
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
| ||
mustaju
Estonia4504 Posts
On August 04 2017 06:38 bardtown wrote: Should say Nordic influence I guess, as I was referring to the bromance with Finland. Looks like Sweden is the next biggest trading partner, too. Also I remember seeing variations on this flag: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://estonianworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/594px-Estonian_alternative_flag_proposal2.svg_.png) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_identity_in_Estonia But yes mostly parroting stuff I don't understand, so feel free to tell me why I'm wrong. This might be of interest to you. https://geert-hofstede.com/countries.html What sets the Anglosphere apart is a heavy focus on individualism. The cultural identity of Estonia is quite complex. The value system is both secular and in a lot of ways ethnically conservative, getting influence, among others, from 19th century founding myths (the idea of a Estonia does not actually meaningfully exist before then) to a special status within the Swedish and Russian Empires. The soviet period clearly had an influence as well, as a lot of Estonian identity is based on just not being soviet anymore. Scandinavian countries have secular, yet liberal traditions, don't define themselves in opposition to the soviet union 25+ years after it was dissolved. Honestly, the reason why Estonia has been successful, in my opinion, is mostly related to meticulously following international norms for survival reasons. It was a complete fluke of history that we ended up with a slightly different political structure than other Baltic countries, which allowed for more efficiency in carrying out western reforms. It could easily have gone very differently at a lot of points in history, culture be damned. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On August 04 2017 07:07 mustaju wrote: The cultural identity of Estonia is quite complex. The value system is both secular and in a lot of ways ethnically conservative, getting influence, among others, from 19th century founding myths (the idea of a Estonia does not actually meaningfully exist before then) to a special status within the Swedish and Russian Empires. The soviet period clearly had an influence as well, as a lot of Estonian identity is based on just not being soviet anymore. Scandinavian countries have secular, yet liberal traditions, don't define themselves in opposition to the soviet union 25+ years after it was dissolved. Honestly, the reason why Estonia has been successful, in my opinion, is mostly related to meticulously following international norms for survival reasons. It was a complete fluke of history that we ended up with a slightly different political structure than other Baltic countries, which allowed for more efficiency in carrying out western reforms. It could easily have gone very differently at a lot of points in history, culture be damned. I think Finns still define themselves in relation to Russia, to some extent, albeit less intimately than Estonia. Also, you call them 'western norms' but they're really not. Your model is very different to France, or Spain, for example. Maybe you're right and it's closer to Germany than the Nordics, I don't know, but it's surely a northern European model at the very least. Agreed that culture can be overruled by significant outside factors. On August 04 2017 07:01 Big J wrote: Having a culture of bombing yourself time and time again was a bit backsetting for large parts of Europe. Good thing the superior EU masterrace culture has repaired that mistake. So in a way I have to agree with bardtown here. Not being a nationalist cultured shithole does a lot of good. As long as you don't fall for the communism trap. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Prince Henrik of Denmark has announced that he does not wish to be buried next to his wife, Queen Margrethe of Denmark, saying he is unhappy he was never acknowledged as her equal. Henrik, 83, married Queen Margrethe in 1967 and was later named prince consort. But he has repeatedly said he would have liked to be named king consort. “It is no secret that the prince for many years has been unhappy with his role and the title he has been awarded in the Danish monarchy. This discontent has grown more and more in recent years,” the palace’s communications chief, Lene Balleby, told the tabloid BT. “For the prince, the decision not to buried beside the queen is the natural consequence of not having been treated equally to his spouse – by not having the title and role he has desired.” That decision has been accepted by the queen, Balleby said. Prince Henrik retired last year and renounced his title of prince consort. Since then he has participated in very few official duties and instead spent much of his time at his private vineyard in France, although he is still married to the queen and they officially live together. In Denmark, a princess traditionally becomes queen when her husband takes the throne. It had been expected that the prince would be buried next to the queen, 77, who is to be interred in Roskilde Cathedral in a sarcophagus made by Danish artist Bjørn Nørgaard. Born Henri Marie Jean André de Laborde de Monpezat on 11 June 1934 in Talence, near Bordeaux, he met Margrethe, then the crown-princess, while he was stationed in London as a diplomat. On marrying her, he changed his name to Henrik, converted from Catholicism to Protestantism and renounced his French citizenship to become a Dane. By the time Margrethe acceded to the throne, the couple had two young children: Prince Frederik, born in 1968, and Joakim, born in 1969. Source | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
On August 04 2017 06:00 bardtown wrote: When you try to explain the success of NZ, Canada and Australia relative to other European states and colonies, you have a few options. 1. It's genetics, 2. It's culture, 3. It's coincidence. Choose your poison, but I think it's pretty obvious that it's culture. It is a shame that the culture along with our train system is deteriorating ;(. Btw there are various kinds of success and I think you could pick almost any country in Europe and it would be a better place to live than the UK right now. There are people that study this stuff for a living. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Nations_Fail Moreover, the problem with those choices is that culture is also random, it's really never the exogenous explanatory variable. Ie, You think Anglicanism and a break from political subservience to the Catholic church played a role? Then isn't the creation of the Anglican church a pretty flukey event? The same can be said about protestantism and the political environments in which it flourished and those where it didn't. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On August 04 2017 14:47 warding wrote: There are people that study this stuff for a living. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Nations_Fail Moreover, the problem with those choices is that culture is also random, it's really never the exogenous explanatory variable. Ie, You think Anglicanism and a break from political subservience to the Catholic church played a role? Then isn't the creation of the Anglican church a pretty flukey event? The same can be said about protestantism and the political environments in which it flourished and those where it didn't. Sure. The process of evolution is basically trial and error. Circumstance plus random noise creates certain beliefs and behaviours and if they work we hang on to them and romanticise their origins. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On August 04 2017 06:00 bardtown wrote: When you try to explain the success of NZ, Canada and Australia relative to other European states and colonies, you have a few options. 1. It's genetics, 2. It's culture, 3. It's coincidence. Choose your poison, but I think it's pretty obvious that it's culture. It is a shame that the culture along with our train system is deteriorating ;(. Btw there are various kinds of success and I think you could pick almost any country in Europe and it would be a better place to live than the UK right now. Yes lets take a look at those countries. New Zealand. A large low density landmass with aboriginals that cannot resist the colonisers. An economy that grew due to said landmass being appropriate to sheep and exporting them to Britain. I have no idea why it has a Dutch name though. Canada. A large low density landmass with aboriginals that cannot resist the colonisers. Was mostly a French colony before the British just happen to recieve the area after fighting a few wars. Australia. A large low density landmass with aboriginals that cannot resist the colonisers. Insert joke about being a dumping ground for criminals. Lets look at South Africa. Colonised by Dutch, before Dutch individuality got overridden by massed British conformity. And then...oh. Oh dear. It's culture right? USA. A large landmass with aboriginals that cannot resist the colonisers. Was a Dutch colony, but see above. And then...Oh. Oh dear. It's culture right? What is the cultural differences relative to other European colonies? Is there anything unique to British Culture? Are we just morally superior in general to other Europeans? What is it bardtown? Generally speaking colonisers value independent thought, but that is likely due to the selective pressure that would have enable them to colonise and thrive in a low density area. For instance, just before WW2, a third of Americans were Germans. Simply put, the British Empire just happened to take, by means mostly foul the best colonising spots of low density areas. In South America and South Africa for instance the region was densely populated enough that it would had been fairly difficult to push away the natives. It's actually really telling that you have completely missed geography, or wars or anything to do with geopolitics at all, as if history simply does not exist. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
I'm not going to explain the differences between British and continental cultures to you. 'Is there anything unique to British culture?' That you can even ask this question shows how severely devalued history education has become in the UK. You're contesting that New Zealand scores in the top 10 in almost every index because they have a good climate for farming sheep. Couldn't make it up. | ||
|
nojok
France15845 Posts
On August 04 2017 21:37 bardtown wrote: You do realise that the USA is the richest country in the world? The only reason I didn't include it in my list is because they separated from the UK earlier and adopted somewhat different institutions. Nevertheless the founding fathers were essentially Englishmen with individualist ideals and the result was an enormously successful country. South Africa is completely incomparable because it still largely consists of its indigenous population. You cannot simply superimpose institutions over preexisting cultures that are not suited to operate within their frameworks. You also don't seem to be aware that there are countries in South America with peaceful histories where the native population was almost entirely replaced with Europeans, like Argentina and Uruguay. I'm not going to explain the differences between British and continental cultures to you. 'Is there anything unique to British culture?' That you can even ask this question shows how severely devalued history education has become in the UK. You're contesting that New Zealand scores in the top 10 in almost every index because they have a good climate for farming sheep. Couldn't make it up. Saying "Our culture is so special and so much better than others" without looking at the context is the root of so many wars. You miserably failed to understand the ONE lesson they want us to learn in history classes and you're speaking like any dictator from all the countries you're looking down on. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On August 04 2017 21:50 nojok wrote: Saying "Our culture is so special and so much better than others" without looking at the context is the root of so many wars. You miserably failed to understand the ONE lesson they want us to learn in history classes and you're speaking like any dictator from all the countries you're looking down on. I do look at the context, it just doesn't change anything. Seriously, the lengths people will go to to deny that some cultures excel in certain areas. And it's just silly to suggest that a belief in the efficacy of things like common law, parliamentary democracy, free market, Anglicanism, empiricism, individualism, liberalism, etc, makes me comparable to a dictator. It should be fairly obvious that patriotism in the UK is defined in opposition to fascism, given the role that it has played in our development over the last few centuries. If all other cultures were wiped off the face of the Earth and replaced with British culture we would be infinitely poorer for it, but just as we can learn from others how to rectify our shortcomings, they too can learn from our successes rather than pretending that they are coincidental. And above all, always remember that New Zealand is the best place to live in the world because it has a good climate for farming sheep. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
On August 04 2017 23:11 a_flayer wrote: I agree Bardtown. Asians, Arabs, Persians, Africans, and so on should start invading and exploit our labor and resources for their own benefit. And then they can label everything that results as "non-Western" with the same level of rigor applied by bardtown  | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On August 04 2017 23:11 a_flayer wrote: I agree Bardtown. Asians, Arabs, Persians, Africans, and so on should start invading and exploit our labor and resources for their own benefit. Someone's been living under a rock for the last couple of years. Nice straw man, by the way. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
Nice hypocrisy, that is. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
| ||
