• Businesskasper@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      16 hours ago

      To me, “proud” is the wrong word. I didn’t do anything when it comes to founding the EU. So how can I be proud of something I didn’t do? “Grateful” is the better word in my opinion.

      • Vincent@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        15 hours ago

        The culture that made that happen also played a role in making you who you are. It’s OK to be proud of that.

        (And likewise, it’s good to correct for how your culture influenced you in ways that you aren’t proud of. For example, it took me a long time to realise what Black Peter must look like from the outside.)

    • deHaga@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      It was, but the power monkeys always want more power. And centralising power in Europe has failed every time in history.

      • Skua@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Please tell me you are not trying to argue that the EU is doomed to fail because Hitler and Napoleon both failed

        • Zombie@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          11 hours ago

          The EU is doomed to fail if it continues centralising power though.

          Its strength is in its diversity, its consensus model rather than tyranny of majority, allowing smaller countries a voice against larger ones so that Germany and France don’t entirely dominate.

          The EU has a lot of good, but that doesn’t mean we need to bury our heads in the sand to its negatives either. It’s not perfect. It’s better than many similar organisations, and we should praise it for that, but praise doesn’t mean it’s immune to criticism either.

          • deHaga@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 hours ago

            You nailed it. A cell-like structure is much harder to penetrate. Unlike a homogeneous blob with one supreme leader.

          • Skua@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 hours ago

            I agree with that (for the most part, I think it could do with a bit more centralisation), but I don’t think it’s what “every time in history” is pointing to

        • deHaga@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 hours ago

          The EU was created in 1993. There were no wars in Europe since ww2 until then. Draw your own conclusions

          • Skua@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            8 hours ago

            You have got to be taking the piss

            • 1946: Greek civil war
            • 1956: Hungarian revolution
            • 1974: Turkish invasion of Cyprus
            • 1989: Romanian revolution
            • 1990: Transnistria War
            • 1991: Yugoslav Wars

            This does not even include the many smaller-scale rebellions or anything that happened in the Caucasus

            • deHaga@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 hours ago

              None of those are wars. Bosnia is the first international conflict (war) on European soil since 1945.

              • Skua@kbin.earth
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 hours ago

                The hell is your definition of a war that excludes all of those? The Hungarian revolution, Turkish invasion of Cyprus, and Transnistria war were all international conflicts as well

                I will also note that the Bosnian war is both part of the Yugoslav wars that I mentioned and also kicked off before the Treaty of Maastricht

                • deHaga@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 hours ago

                  Er, the previous definition sets the current one?

                  Conflict is not war. War is international conflict, not two sets of dickheads doing the same thing they’ve been doing for millennia.

                  Here’s a hint. How many countries were involved in Bosnia and when was the first international genocide conviction in Europe since the Nuremberg trials?

    • deHaga@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      18 hours ago

      The top 10% of Europeans own roughly 56% to 75% of total wealth (depending on the specific region), while the bottom half of the population holds as little as 2% to 5%.

    • Jumi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Proud of extorting the whole world for centuries for our wealth? No, thank you

  • plyth@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    To win the cultural and intellectual battle, Europe must staunchly defend its model,

    There is no argument in the article for why this should work in the future.

    Europe profited from post colonial structures.

    Redistribution is a political decision and possible to continue forever. But was redistribution the source of our prospetity, or just a bribe to buy our silence so that the elite could keep plundering the world?

    With competition from China, we can’t keep selling our technology above fair prices. Without those profits will people stay willing to share? Will we be able to maintain culture and education?

    • bossito@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      17 hours ago

      That’s really not true and you should know it. Portugal and Spain are two of the main colonial powers in European history and they were both shit poor in the 70’s. Portugal more than Spain PRECISELY because it still had colonies, that were costing it blood and money for centuries by then.

      I’m not victimizing Portugal, just reminding you, and anyone else who might need to learn this, that colonization was profitable only for short periods into few pockets. Portugal had 3rd world child mortality and alphabetization rates right before joining the EU. Joining an open trade area was the secret to change that.

      Also, another important reminder, most EU member states never had colonies.

      • CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Don’t forget Britain too. They’re not as poor as Spain and Portugal by a long shot but because they had colonies, their manufacturing didn’t need to be competitive, and when the Germans developed industry, the British couldn’t compete. Still can’t.

        That’s not to excuse colonial behaviours but to say that Europe is strong because of it is a misstatement.

        • bossito@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Colonies filled some pockets but for the states, most of the time they were a money drain. Especially when effective colonization (as in taking control of vast territories and “civilize” the people) took place. The real profitable moments were mostly due to trade/piracy, and not territorial control, which is very expensive.