This is a list on world history, with subscribers all over the world, and it draws the participation of social groups whose relation might possibly be contradictory. So therefore the use of the term we, as Chris does here, without the particularity and identity of a particular we, must strike most people as rather colonial. In my own city, people of European heritage constitute a minority. The elements of African, Caribbean and Native American culture blend with the traditions of Europe, both East and West, in complex ways that have given rise to various syntheses that are not easily resolved into simple constituent elements. To reduce those proud traditions to that of Europe would only be insulting and, more importantly, fly in the face of the facts.
Culture is a complex flux that is necessarily undefinable.
Everyone's culture is different, and everyone participates in the active construction of culture. To reduce that complexity to European culture is unrealistic, and to freeze that culture by identifying it simply as an inheritance of the past, and to identify that culture in practice with the mental activity of a few white rich males, seems perverse. We all create our own culture, although we don't create it just as we please, but in terms of the various traditions with which we come into contact, we nevertheless are sui generis , not simple agents of the past. There is a long-standing debate between the advocates of Western Civ and of world history, and their difference revolves around the very point that Chris raises. People who advocate Western Civ are indeed seeking the roots of the power culture in the US today.