Der Kopf..Re the definition of Europe based on geography you outlined is on very shaky ground..
That is because your school book geography answer is what has been handed down to you & the rest of us, without any critical thinking. It especially doesn't make any sense given all that we know about the " Plate - tectonic " model of continents....
Before modern maps & geographers " Europe " was simply a loose social entity, that evolved through-out the centuries.
The Romans would not have understood our concept of " Europe ". Even after the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe consisted of sovereign principalities all owing a regal allegiance to a central holy mother church in Rome.
With the rise of European colonial empires, the 19th century map makers appreciated ( as did the politicians ) the need to distinguish "Europe" as being somehow seperate from the colonies, & the rest of the world.
Hence the geographical term.." Subcontinent " was created...It has been handed down from generation to generation as a good way of seperating Europe from the hordes, the " not like us " people considered to be coolies, slaves, lackies, or simply culturally colorful but primitive types to be seen through the colonies.
England used the " sub-continent " model for it's colonial definition of " India ", with neat geographical lines sealing the fate of hundreds of thousands of muslims & hindus, along with all the current " border" tensions between India & Pakistan. So sub-continent carried forward a subliminal ( and at times not so subtle message ) that Europe was for europeans....how-ever they define themselves..
And that is what I mean..Europe is a relatively recent concept and as such may change yet again..& why not ? It has in the past & most certainly will in the future...
I think there's more to it than school book geography. What about tectonics? What about the flow of the rivers east and west of the Ural? I do agree that in this, you see the zeal of European geographists to delineate clearly their soil from the other world, but such is life on the Eurasian-African continent (I mean, I could take my motorcycle and drive to Africa, crossing only rivers and canals).
Ah well, the nineteenth century, with its penchant for the people, the folk, and the folk spirit. What could you expect from them otherwise than trying their hand at post-justifying Europe?
I answered your question mainly as I understood your question: the festival is not in conflict with the present day accepted geographical concept of Europe.
However, people as far Georgia, Kazachstan, Kirgizistan may well look very European, because, in fact they are. People in Afghanistan, shave off the beards, and you end up with south-eastern Europeans. Not many people know that the languages we speak these days (English, Dutch, German, French, Spanish) stem from the proto-language of Indo-European. Meaning a language used in India as well. Indian, Sanskrit, is in fact a distant cousin of all our languages (well, at least those of you who speak a language stemming from Indo-European).
I'm all for redefining concepts, and I'm FOR allowing Turkey to enter SOME KIND OF union, but not the European. That is the bottom line. Europe is what we were taught it was. I have no problem setting that aside and start belonging to some new concept, a union that would span from Zeebrugge, 7 miles from here at the coast up to Vladivostock, way on the furthest edge of Russia, near Japan, I wouldn't call it Europe though. Maybe Hugo or something.
Not sinking the boot in re Europe borders...I hail from a weird mixture of Venetian, Austro-Hungarian with a little bit of German saukraut thrown in for good measure.
Like you, I am deeply interested in the evolution of languages. (I knew about Sanskrit but you forgot to mention Aryan ) .. Also signs, symbols, etc.most fascinating..
Re TURKEY
Am in two minds about Turkey being admitted.
Wonder if European powers in Brussels make it a condition that they leave Cyprus...but I suspect that would seriously piss the Turks off..so it won't happen at least not for another generation or two...
Re PLate Tectonics..
Well it Shows that Europe is part of Asia..full stop..
Also happens to show that India is directly connected to Australia & that the Himalayas have been thrust up as a result of the Indo - Australian Plate crashing into Asia.
From a Plate techtonics point of view..Indonesia has absolutely no territorial claim to Irian Jaya, ( west papua ) because it is not part of the archapeligo that makes up the Indonesian plate..Part of Indonesia's original claim to West papua was on the basis of Geographical terms..
This may seem like horse shit until you think about the claims to natural fish stocks, minerals etc that are being ripped off by the Indonesians...\
No, I think these divisions were made at a time when there was no way of investigating tectonics. Geographers were happy to just draw lines at 'natural borders' (a sea, a mountain range), and apparently, the Ural and the black sea were enough for them. But you're right they might prove a lot of geography incorrect.
No, I think these divisions were made at a time when there was no way of investigating tectonics. Geographers were happy to just draw lines at 'natural borders' (a sea, a mountain range), and apparently, the Ural and the black sea were enough for them. But you're right they might prove a lot of geography incorrect.
And to think the whole idea of Plate techtonics was thought laughable just over 50 years ago...
With all the heat generated over evolution I keep expecting some whacko fundamentalist group in USA to jump up & down announcing that Plate Techtonics isn't based on God's word..& should be banned..
or at least taught side by side with the idea of the Flat Earth / Cosmic Goat theory ..
And that is what I mean..Europe is a relatively recent concept and as such may change yet again..& why not ? It has in the past & most certainly will in the future...
I don't know what you call relatively new concept. But i would say that the concept of Europe is older than the concept of US. What is new is the unification of europe opposed to the old puzzle of europe.
Europe is far different from Asia, in a ethnic and cultural point of vue. The only problem of europe is to define is eastern limit. Do europe include russia, bellarussia, Ukrainia or not ?
European countries are not particularly important, becoming less so going forward. Therefore it does not seem sensible to group important countries with countries who are essentially retired from the world scene.
Well I guess we are a republic but more to the point is the other criteria that don't fit us. Although lawyers are pushing us toward a ridiculous regulation of sorts.
Since when is being a republic required for being a european state? italy was not in europe before the end of the II world war (and it wasnt even invented before the 1800s). also UK, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Monaco etc etc are not in Europe, right?
Europe is far different from Asia, in a ethnic and cultural point of vue. The only problem of europe is to define is eastern limit. Do europe include russia, bellarussia, Ukrainia or not ?
Yes.
And the "Mediterranea" includes Mediterranean Europe, Turkey, Israel and Northern Africa facing the Mediterraneo.
I have no idea what this thread is about let alone what the idea of Europe is. Let's ditch the whole "nation" thing altogether. Europe is a dintinguishable land mass, a continent, not a political entity despite the EU any more than NATO is about nations bordering the North Atlantic any more. Nationalism is dangerous not only for Europe (or continentalism I suppose) but for the Us, the middle east, etc. It's sooo... 18th century.
My favorite definition of europe is EU and "abroad". whatever part of europe is not part of the union, e.g. switzerland or monaco, they are abroad. otherwise, where ever i am (or would be) inside EU i'm just there and not abroad.
So, should Europe be a place, a culture, a type of people, a political system etc..
In that case...Australia, North & South America, should be automatic members of the EU.
No there is also a geographical situation.
However Australia, north and south america (but in south america things are more mixed), are issue from the people fleeing out Europe in the last 5 centuries. Because of this many common points all this countries are belonging to the same group : it's the occidental world.
[B Australia, north and south america ... are issue from the people fleeing out Europe in the last 5 centuries. [/B]
On a slighty different tangent. you raise an interesting point, because here in Australia, there is a great debate as to whether Australia was " Invaded "?
There is much bitterness & acrimony over the issue, as it touches directly upon Native / Aboriginal land rights.
Some in this hot debate, argue that it was " invaded ", while others agrue that it was " settled ".
You make an interesting about how many many Europeans were " fleeing "...over the centuries.
So they can't be seen as " Invaders " or at least shouldn't be labelled as such..
Added to that group one must also include prisoners & indentured labourers & forced slave labour..
None of these groups had any choice in the matter of their transportation.
So I doubt that we should call any such Europeans (to Australia at least)..... invaders...
On a slighty different tangent. you raise an interesting point, because here in Australia, there is a great debate as to whether Australia was " Invaded "?
There is much bitterness & acrimony over the issue, as it touches directly upon Native / Aboriginal land rights.
Some in this hot debate, argue that it was " invaded ", while others agrue that it was " settled ".
You make an interesting about how many many Europeans were " fleeing "...over the centuries.
So they can't be seen as " Invaders " or at least shouldn't be labelled as such..
Added to that group one must also include prisoners & indentured labourers & forced slave labour..
None of these groups had any choice in the matter of their transportation.
So I doubt that we should call any such Europeans (to Australia at least)..... invaders...
\
All the human history is made of migration, invasions wars ...
The notion of private landscape do not exist in the aborigen culture for a lonely person. Private landscape exist only for a group. Same apply for the indians in US.
I must go to eat, i will continue this discussion later
All the human history is made of migration, invasions wars ...
The notion of private landscape do not exist in the aborigen culture for a lonely person. Private landscape exist only for a group. Same apply for the indians in US.
I must go to eat, i will continue this discussion later
european origin people fleeing to other continents will not make the new, european-fleed continents be able to be considered europe. apart from the slaves imported from africa, north _AND_ south america would be "europe" too, and so would australia. and they are not.
in the world there are over 80 million people (there are 60 million habitants in italy) that are italians or descendents of italian emigrants. that makes 40-60 % of the population of argentina (over 25 million people in south america) being able to try to get to europe or italy and getting the citizenship thanks to their (grand)parents (and 25 million of italo-descendents in north america, and 5 % of the australians..). argentina is not in europe, period. in 1900 são paulo had 200 000 abitants of which 50 % were italians and 50 % portuguese. and são paulo has never been in europe.
and i never have understood people defining themselves as some americans do, e.g. "i am 25% danish, 25% senegalese, 25% polish and 25% greek". right. you have NEVER been out of USA, you don't speak any languages (other than english) spoken in "your countries", not danish, seneglaese (and probably you have even no idea what languages they speak there), or polish, or greek. you are american, period. your grandparents were born in those other countries, and your parents in USA, spending maybe their honeymoon in greece, but it doesn't make you greek.
Comments
That is because your school book geography answer is what has been handed down to you & the rest of us, without any critical thinking. It especially doesn't make any sense given all that we know about the " Plate - tectonic " model of continents....
Before modern maps & geographers " Europe " was simply a loose social entity, that evolved through-out the centuries.
The Romans would not have understood our concept of " Europe ". Even after the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe consisted of sovereign principalities all owing a regal allegiance to a central holy mother church in Rome.
With the rise of European colonial empires, the 19th century map makers appreciated ( as did the politicians ) the need to distinguish "Europe" as being somehow seperate from the colonies, & the rest of the world.
Hence the geographical term.." Subcontinent " was created...It has been handed down from generation to generation as a good way of seperating Europe from the hordes, the " not like us " people considered to be coolies, slaves, lackies, or simply culturally colorful but primitive types to be seen through the colonies.
England used the " sub-continent " model for it's colonial definition of " India ", with neat geographical lines sealing the fate of hundreds of thousands of muslims & hindus, along with all the current " border" tensions between India & Pakistan. So sub-continent carried forward a subliminal ( and at times not so subtle message ) that Europe was for europeans....how-ever they define themselves..
And that is what I mean..Europe is a relatively recent concept and as such may change yet again..& why not ? It has in the past & most certainly will in the future...
Ah well, the nineteenth century, with its penchant for the people, the folk, and the folk spirit. What could you expect from them otherwise than trying their hand at post-justifying Europe?
I answered your question mainly as I understood your question: the festival is not in conflict with the present day accepted geographical concept of Europe.
However, people as far Georgia, Kazachstan, Kirgizistan may well look very European, because, in fact they are. People in Afghanistan, shave off the beards, and you end up with south-eastern Europeans. Not many people know that the languages we speak these days (English, Dutch, German, French, Spanish) stem from the proto-language of Indo-European. Meaning a language used in India as well. Indian, Sanskrit, is in fact a distant cousin of all our languages (well, at least those of you who speak a language stemming from Indo-European).
I'm all for redefining concepts, and I'm FOR allowing Turkey to enter SOME KIND OF union, but not the European. That is the bottom line. Europe is what we were taught it was. I have no problem setting that aside and start belonging to some new concept, a union that would span from Zeebrugge, 7 miles from here at the coast up to Vladivostock, way on the furthest edge of Russia, near Japan, I wouldn't call it Europe though. Maybe Hugo or something.
Not sinking the boot in re Europe borders...I hail from a weird mixture of Venetian, Austro-Hungarian with a little bit of German saukraut thrown in for good measure.
Like you, I am deeply interested in the evolution of languages. (I knew about Sanskrit but you forgot to mention Aryan ) .. Also signs, symbols, etc.most fascinating..
Re TURKEY
Am in two minds about Turkey being admitted.
Wonder if European powers in Brussels make it a condition that they leave Cyprus...but I suspect that would seriously piss the Turks off..so it won't happen at least not for another generation or two...
Re PLate Tectonics..
Well it Shows that Europe is part of Asia..full stop..
Also happens to show that India is directly connected to Australia & that the Himalayas have been thrust up as a result of the Indo - Australian Plate crashing into Asia.
From a Plate techtonics point of view..Indonesia has absolutely no territorial claim to Irian Jaya, ( west papua ) because it is not part of the archapeligo that makes up the Indonesian plate..Part of Indonesia's original claim to West papua was on the basis of Geographical terms..
This may seem like horse shit until you think about the claims to natural fish stocks, minerals etc that are being ripped off by the Indonesians...
No, I think these divisions were made at a time when there was no way of investigating tectonics. Geographers were happy to just draw lines at 'natural borders' (a sea, a mountain range), and apparently, the Ural and the black sea were enough for them. But you're right they might prove a lot of geography incorrect.
Originally posted by der Kopf
I'm inclined to say tectonics, schmectonics.
No, I think these divisions were made at a time when there was no way of investigating tectonics. Geographers were happy to just draw lines at 'natural borders' (a sea, a mountain range), and apparently, the Ural and the black sea were enough for them. But you're right they might prove a lot of geography incorrect.
And to think the whole idea of Plate techtonics was thought laughable just over 50 years ago...
With all the heat generated over evolution I keep expecting some whacko fundamentalist group in USA to jump up & down announcing that Plate Techtonics isn't based on God's word..& should be banned..
or at least taught side by side with the idea of the Flat Earth / Cosmic Goat theory ..
Originally posted by aquafire
And that is what I mean..Europe is a relatively recent concept and as such may change yet again..& why not ? It has in the past & most certainly will in the future...
I don't know what you call relatively new concept. But i would say that the concept of Europe is older than the concept of US. What is new is the unification of europe opposed to the old puzzle of europe.
Europe is far different from Asia, in a ethnic and cultural point of vue. The only problem of europe is to define is eastern limit. Do europe include russia, bellarussia, Ukrainia or not ?
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
European countries are not particularly important, becoming less so going forward. Therefore it does not seem sensible to group important countries with countries who are essentially retired from the world scene.
You've never been out USA I see.
Originally posted by Scott
Well I guess we are a republic but more to the point is the other criteria that don't fit us. Although lawyers are pushing us toward a ridiculous regulation of sorts.
Since when is being a republic required for being a european state? italy was not in europe before the end of the II world war (and it wasnt even invented before the 1800s). also UK, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Monaco etc etc are not in Europe, right?
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Europe is far different from Asia, in a ethnic and cultural point of vue. The only problem of europe is to define is eastern limit. Do europe include russia, bellarussia, Ukrainia or not ?
Yes.
And the "Mediterranea" includes Mediterranean Europe, Turkey, Israel and Northern Africa facing the Mediterraneo.
In that case...Australia, North & South America, should be automatic members of the EU.
And if we consider that " Marxism " was an european socio/poltical Model then how about including China, North Korea.
Hell I think that we should just call the planet E-Yoorrup.
Why not..
Long live the E-Woks
Originally posted by aquafire
So, should Europe be a place, a culture, a type of people, a political system etc..
In that case...Australia, North & South America, should be automatic members of the EU.
No there is also a geographical situation.
However Australia, north and south america (but in south america things are more mixed), are issue from the people fleeing out Europe in the last 5 centuries. Because of this many common points all this countries are belonging to the same group : it's the occidental world.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
it's the occidental world.
Yep, reminds me, I nearly had a big " Occidental " on my way to the studio!
Originally posted by Powerdoc
[B Australia, north and south america ... are issue from the people fleeing out Europe in the last 5 centuries. [/B]
On a slighty different tangent. you raise an interesting point, because here in Australia, there is a great debate as to whether Australia was " Invaded "?
There is much bitterness & acrimony over the issue, as it touches directly upon Native / Aboriginal land rights.
Some in this hot debate, argue that it was " invaded ", while others agrue that it was " settled ".
You make an interesting about how many many Europeans were " fleeing "...over the centuries.
So they can't be seen as " Invaders " or at least shouldn't be labelled as such..
Added to that group one must also include prisoners & indentured labourers & forced slave labour..
None of these groups had any choice in the matter of their transportation.
So I doubt that we should call any such Europeans (to Australia at least)..... invaders...
Originally posted by aquafire
On a slighty different tangent. you raise an interesting point, because here in Australia, there is a great debate as to whether Australia was " Invaded "?
There is much bitterness & acrimony over the issue, as it touches directly upon Native / Aboriginal land rights.
Some in this hot debate, argue that it was " invaded ", while others agrue that it was " settled ".
You make an interesting about how many many Europeans were " fleeing "...over the centuries.
So they can't be seen as " Invaders " or at least shouldn't be labelled as such..
Added to that group one must also include prisoners & indentured labourers & forced slave labour..
None of these groups had any choice in the matter of their transportation.
So I doubt that we should call any such Europeans (to Australia at least)..... invaders...
All the human history is made of migration, invasions wars ...
The notion of private landscape do not exist in the aborigen culture for a lonely person. Private landscape exist only for a group. Same apply for the indians in US.
I must go to eat, i will continue this discussion later
Originally posted by Powerdoc
All the human history is made of migration, invasions wars ...
The notion of private landscape do not exist in the aborigen culture for a lonely person. Private landscape exist only for a group. Same apply for the indians in US.
I must go to eat, i will continue this discussion later
Buon Appetite
in the world there are over 80 million people (there are 60 million habitants in italy) that are italians or descendents of italian emigrants. that makes 40-60 % of the population of argentina (over 25 million people in south america) being able to try to get to europe or italy and getting the citizenship thanks to their (grand)parents (and 25 million of italo-descendents in north america, and 5 % of the australians..). argentina is not in europe, period. in 1900 são paulo had 200 000 abitants of which 50 % were italians and 50 % portuguese. and são paulo has never been in europe.
and i never have understood people defining themselves as some americans do, e.g. "i am 25% danish, 25% senegalese, 25% polish and 25% greek". right. you have NEVER been out of USA, you don't speak any languages (other than english) spoken in "your countries", not danish, seneglaese (and probably you have even no idea what languages they speak there), or polish, or greek. you are american, period. your grandparents were born in those other countries, and your parents in USA, spending maybe their honeymoon in greece, but it doesn't make you greek.