>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.

when you're basque, that is. Thus we're dealing with a rather limited number of people. But I'm nitpicking (and probably swimming in treacherous waters, too).

>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.
>

You've got a point. I'm not a regionalist, and that's definitely a political value. But the difference is that if the building of an (old) nation like France is indeed a political process, it's also based on much deeper roots: a common territory, with political fronteers corresponding to geographical ones (contrary to what De Gaulle said, France never stood between Dunkerque and Tamanrasset), and very similar languages/dialects (because, frankly, if you except Basque and maybe Breton...). Plus, there's such a thing as History. I'm far from an expert, but I'd say France has been France since the days of Henri IV, ie for around 400 years. It might have been a powerful political statement to call yourself French when you were born in Navarre at the time, but nowadays it's just stating the obvious. Just like a Yoruba landing foot on American shores in 1700 wasn't American or African-American or Black for that matter, but nowadays...you get my point.

Europe, as it is conceived nowadays, is purely political and economical. Until "we" speak the same language from Madrid to Warsaw, it will remain that way. I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon...and call me reactionnary, but I'm not looking forward to that day.

>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.
>

...of the elite. More precisely, the political and economical elite. Just as English is the corporate language of choice nowadays.

>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.

...of the elite. I mean, yeah, the kings in Spain, Austria, France and wherever else were blood-brothers. Does it mean Kant is the product of the same culture as, say, Voltaire?

But I'll be honest and admit I would lie if I said I've never wondered about it myself. There are indeed common traits after all, which can be summed up by saying that Western Europe as a whole did put the world in the fucked up state in which it is now. I just refuse to see that as the product of a common "culture". Or even worse, a common ethnical background. I like to think it's the result of a privileged geographical situation (privileged if you're really keen on conquering the world and mess it up for everybody, that is).