I'm not European (not that this matters anyway) - and the three languages I mentioned were Spanish, English, and Portuguese just because those are the primary languages spoken across the hemisphere.
In Europe a lot of people speak English as a second language but by and large many member states speak predominantly more languages - Spanish in Spain, Portuguese in Portugal, French in France, Italian in Italy (there's 4 different major language groups right there) and when you add in economy size, prominence on the global stage, geopolitical interests, history, and more it seems to me, in my opinion of course, it's a bit more difficult to wrangle, say, Germany and France together who have collectively killed millions of each others citizens versus, idk, Mexico and Colombia who are certainly distinct and have their own rich national and regional cultures (just like the United States even) but speak the same language and, in my view, get a long a little bit better.
I'm not arguing that there isn't a vibrancy in culture or that these countries are entirely homogenous. I'm arguing it would be easier to wrangle them together in a bloc of sorts than it was to get (and keep) the EU together.
For what it's worth a lot of cultural differences are becoming increasingly (unfortunately) minor differences at best because of globalization and the Internet and other communication technologies.
> and the destruction of thousands of spoken languages
Eh thousands of languages were destroyed by war and destitute and colonialization of various sorts throughout history. I'm not going to put a random assortment of them on a pedestal to get angry about just because they happened to be more recent (400 years ago). But anyway isn't China currently destroying spoken languages in places like Tibet and Xinjiang?
Sorry for assuming you were European in expressing what I see as ironic. Perhaps itself ironic as a mistake. My bad.
I think Europe and the Americas are differently heterogeneous and differently homogeneous. Certainly the Europeans have made more practical strides in building a coalition across their members than, say, South America or Central America. The reality is that Europe demonstrates a higher degree of solidarity between states than these other places. So it's strange to me to argue the opposite.
But if I understand, your assertion is that the Mayans, the islanders of the Caribbean, the people of Peru, or the Amazonians are less culturally different from one another than the citizens of, say, Greece and Norway? I'm not sure I buy it personally .. but I can see your argument.
> prominence on the global stage,
not...really a solid argument for how well they would combine, but clearly a major contributor to how how much you know about them.
And FYI those languages didn't disappear 400 years ago. They are spoken today. Guatemala alone recognizes 25 current spoken languages - Spanish and 24 languages that are completely unrelated to any European language.
> For what it's worth a lot of cultural differences are becoming increasingly (unfortunately) minor differences at best because of globalization and the Internet and other communication technologies.
Good news! Many of these languages are still spoken today because these people still live in societies without the internet and other communication technologies! They don't even speak Spanish, their national official language, because they don't know anyone who speaks Spanish.
You don't have to know history, but try knowing a little bit more about current politics and geography before the sweeping statements?
> not...really a solid argument for how well they would combine,
It makes it easier. As a hypothetical you can imagine a pre-EU European continent for example, empire, colonies, and more. It would be much more difficult to get those countries to form a bloc because of the number of interests and where they conflict across the globe.
Now take a set of countries that do not have broad geopolitical considerations or have fewer - those countries simply have less to argue about and less complex arrangements to worry about. No colony, no overseas empire, no war.
It seems intuitive to me it’s much easier to get those countries to agree to various political arrangements and then we can mix in other considerations.
> And FYI those languages didn't disappear 400 years ago. They are spoken today. Guatemala alone recognizes 25 current spoken languages - Spanish and 24 languages that are completely unrelated to any European language.
I didn’t say they were gone - the person I was replying to said they were destroyed by Spanish and Portuguese colonialism. Separately, yes those languages are spoken, isn’t there some 180 languages spoken in New York? But you would still characterize the United States as an English speaking country. Just like no matter how many languages were spoken in Brazil it’s still a Portuguese speaking country.
Please stop wasting time with random comments like this. Not only do I generally not care but they are bad practices per the site guidelines.