Talk:Europe/Archive1

Nice

Nice of our little wandal to remind us of some of these pages. Susan^{talk to me} 05:15, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I never saw this one before. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 05:38, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Haha, yes, they are our little reminder that hitting "random page" once in a while can be quite interesting. I hope the current content is not too embarrassing... human 16:00, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Not at all. Also, I for one am certainly looking forward to the time when Quebec decides to embrace their true destiny and join Our Glorious Union instead of that... thing they're part of now. :nods: --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:41, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Once the US wises up and starts encouraging other places to join their Union, I envision a 20-30 year period of "Union" building competetion... we get Cuba, Iraq, South Korea, Mexico (etc.), the EU picks up the Commonwealth, North Africa, the Central Asian SSRs... speaking of which, Ukraine isn't in the EU yet, are they? human 16:46, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Not yet, still too much economic and political turmoil there. Plus Russia would throw a fit if they were allowed in now. 10-20 years, maybe, if things continue to improve. But I could certainly see at least some of the North African countries in the Union at some point in the future. The Mediterranean has always tied people around it together, rather than dividing them, at least until Europe went on that silly Middle Eastern colonization binge in the 19th century. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:53, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

What? That's it? Scores of countries, and all we bother mentioning are a handful? Fruitcake! -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:58, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Turkey

We say: In an interesting side note, Turkey is trying to join the EU. If certain legal, social and being "predominantly Muslim" hurdles can be cleared, they would be the first country not in Europe[4] to join the European Union, and could mark an end to the US-led policy of Islamophobia followed by current member states. It is my understanding that the US favours Turkey's membership of the EU.--Bob^{bing up} 14:20, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, maybe that second part of the sentence should just be dropped. One, it's totally speculative, and two, the "EU" is not exactly 100% behind the US' adventures in Muslimland. I think the reason the US is for Turkey's membership is twofold - to "reward" a stalwart cold war ally (although they wouldn't let us use them to attack Iraq...), and to continue the "surrounding" of Russia being done via the EU and attempts to enlarge NATO? Of course, what constitutes "US favor" is pretty murky these days - does it mean what the Admin wants, with their Nixonian support rates, what the chattering classes think, what polls say, what Senate leaders want...? human 14:41, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

Without checking anywhere, I thought that Turkey's membership was "official" US policy somewhere. I think Germany is one of the main ones against Turkish membership.--Bob^{bing up} 14:47, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

And also, I now have to type my untyped thought... what does the EU care who the US thinks they should allow or bar joining their nice little club? human 14:57, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

Old Europe?

WE talk about "old Europe" in this article. Is this still relevant? Do people still use this phrase?--Bob^{bing up} 11:41, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

No one ever used it except GWB, as I recall. It is teh too phunnie though. A nice historical joke... like most of the article? We could always write "Europe is the western end of the Eurasian land mass, extending from the Urals tot he Atlantic and the Mediterranean..." Yawn, I got bored, gimme some more of that ole timey Yerp! ħuman 20:38, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Why so anti-French?

I think we make a point of not resenting modern day Germany for Nazism & World War Two, so why are we still resenting France for being defeated by the Nazis? The "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" stuff in this article doesn't appear to be entirely jokey. Some of it seems pretty xenophobic to me. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:30, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, it's a bit odd. I tried to update it to refer to the point of view of the Bush administration.--Bob^{bing up} 10:37, 19 February 2009 (EST)

dont you think

that the concept of Europe is sorta rascist. I mean the idea that white people somehow deserve their own continent is absurd in my opinion.

What's "reserved for whites" about it? It's a geographic region, west of the Urals and north of the Mediterranean. The entire idea of a "continent" is as poorly defined and ultimately not very useful as "planet" once was... ħuman 23:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

um most other continents are home to native populations of more than one race. For example in Africa there are white people in the North, and black people in the south plus people other than blacks and white such as the Khoisan etc. In Asia there are whites in the west, Indians who are there own category racially and Asians such as Chinese and Japanese. In the Americas also the native peoples are also very diverse. However in Europe everyone native is white.

Oh really? Surely native-born children of immigrants are natives (like the young girls who lived in the second house we lived in in Wales, who were "people of color" and almost certainly native-born Europeans?)? Alternatively, since Europe is fairly inhospitable, all so-called "natives" are immigrant stock... ħuman 04:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

ok 99.99% percent of the people living in Europe about 400 years ago, where white. Maybe Indian subcontinent should be a continent b/c its diverse to. Hell maybe china and the middle east should be continents also. Just because the Greeks though that Europe was a contient doesn't mean that we should consider it that way. They also thought everyone who wasn't greek was a barbarian.

Well, obviously, you're completely correct. And so wrong you're not even wrong. What hell is your point? ħuman 01:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

that Europe shoudn't be a continent on virtue of its non-diversity and the fact it is a part of asia

Maybe you should make this argument to professional geographers and get the error rectified? ħuman 21:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

just because most people think its a continent doesn't mean its a continent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum its ironic that a liberal wiki would support a racist concept (or ethnocentric one)

If you must quote Wikipedia, how's this: "Europe (pronounced /ˈjɜrəp/, /ˈjʊərəp/) is, by convention, one of the world's seven traditional continents.[my emphasis] Comprising the westernmost peninsula of Eurasia, Europe is generally divided from Asia to its east by the water divide of the Ural Mountains, the Ural River, the Caspian Sea, and by the Caucasus Mountains to the south" wp:Europe? Now go away & stop bothering us unless you've something useful to contribute. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 14:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I live in Spain and many of the people in the southern part are pretty swarthy - certainly when compared to the Scandinavians. But so what? Does a geographical area need a mixture of skin colours to qualify for a certain designation? Does Asia? Why?--Bob^{bing up} 18:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(EC with same point as Bob) I'd take issue with the concept of Yourpeon's being white. Many "natives" in the Mediterranean area are of decidely swarthy complexion. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Is "African" racist (refering to dark brown/black populace)? Is Asian racist (referring to brown/"yellow" populace). Teh BoN's trolling. DFTT ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 18:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)