>there's no such thing as a European identity. There are
>nations in Europe, which all have a culture and a language.
>Language and culture may define an identity, but certainly
>not being born on the same continent. Granted, there are
>commonalities between European countries, but they're mostly
>economic: to put it more bluntly, they all follow the
>capitalist economic and political model, and got rich (and
>still do) by exploiting and raping the rest of the world.
>That doesn't constitute an identity. For instance, while
>being French defines me to some extent (which obviously
>doesn't mean I agree with whatever France as a nation did
>and still does), I never considered myself "European". Nor
>"White". Furthermore, considering oneself "White" or
>"European" (in America or any part of the World) is strictly
>a political stance.


any identity is a political statement tho. i mean, european nations have culture*S* and language*S*: to identify onself as french rather than basque is a political choice. and even the process by which one language/culture became the normative one for the nation was a political process -- the creation of the age of nationalism. so, i disagree with your idea that calling yourself "european" is a political stance while calling yourself french is value-neutral.

beyond that, of course there are commonalities in europe beyond their economic systems. i mean, there was a europe culture before capitalism. for one example, there was a time when through out europe, latin was the language of learning.

and i would even say that on one hand, you can say the industrial revolution is an english invention -- though isn't it a product of the scottish enlightenment? -- but you could also say it's a child of the renaissance or the protestant reformation (weber?). and the fact that it spread like wildfire through europe but took a much longer time to take root beyond says something about the common european culture.