I was looking at the cultures of east asia, a part of the map I usually pay very little attention to, and realized that Korean, Japanese and Chinese culture has been forced together in a single culture group. I found this very strange since, for example, India has been divided into no less than 4 different groups (west and east Aryan, Dravidian and Hindusthani). Now I'm fairly familiar with Indian history and I know that India as a cultural and political concept wasn't created until the British Raj in the 19th century, but I would argue that India having different culture groups is less justifiable than say splitting the Latin group, which is a mish-mash of supposed "Italian" cultures, while in fact Italy was just as vague a concept as India. North and South Italy was historically vastly different, and the remains of this difference can be seen even today in Italian politics, even more than 120 years after the unification. Keeping this in mind, and then moving ones gaze to east Asia... well I think you get my point.
Someone might argue that because east Asia shares a political history they could just as well be thrown in with the same culture, and if that's the role culture should play in EU3 then I'll buy that, but in that case you might as well make all of Europe into "European" culture. After all we all sprung from the ashes of Greek and Roman antiquity, and that connection is about as strong as the ties Korea, China and Japan has.
One might also argue that, if I get upset enough to start a thread on it being unjustified to put these distinct cultures into the same group, then why am I not attempting to kill someone over the fact that there is such a thing as the "African" culture group. Well the thing is that Africa is almost always destined to be colonized by Europe anyway. It serves no purpose what so ever to split Africa, because with the lack of centralized states at this time, it would result in a huge amount of groups. Many of these groups would only include a few provinces, all of which would be instant-converted to European culture at the time of the colonialism.
To get back to east Asia, I think that the three "Chinese" cultures (Manchu, Cantonese and Chihan) should be in one group, while removing Korean and Japanese and either putting them in separate groups, or possibly unifying them in one culture group.
Someone might argue that because east Asia shares a political history they could just as well be thrown in with the same culture, and if that's the role culture should play in EU3 then I'll buy that, but in that case you might as well make all of Europe into "European" culture. After all we all sprung from the ashes of Greek and Roman antiquity, and that connection is about as strong as the ties Korea, China and Japan has.
One might also argue that, if I get upset enough to start a thread on it being unjustified to put these distinct cultures into the same group, then why am I not attempting to kill someone over the fact that there is such a thing as the "African" culture group. Well the thing is that Africa is almost always destined to be colonized by Europe anyway. It serves no purpose what so ever to split Africa, because with the lack of centralized states at this time, it would result in a huge amount of groups. Many of these groups would only include a few provinces, all of which would be instant-converted to European culture at the time of the colonialism.
To get back to east Asia, I think that the three "Chinese" cultures (Manchu, Cantonese and Chihan) should be in one group, while removing Korean and Japanese and either putting them in separate groups, or possibly unifying them in one culture group.
, imported Buddhism and all other Chinese thought, etc. etc.
