Aggressive, backstabbing; more or less we could say it fits the profile. However, I didn't heard about Ieyasu that he was dumb; nor isolationist for that matter, but that's another story.

Due to his crankiness and isolationism, he's always falling behind in tech badly from mid game on... he's always dead last in my games. It's like he has a tag "keeping this land for you, come and take it when you need it"...

I agree on the baseline - Toku's AI behaviour is not doing him any good. He's not trading, he will at times overexpand stifling his own research... He can be a pain if he gots to Rifling - in that case the land he kept for you will come with quite price tag.

However - he will not backstab you. He is in fact the most trusthworthy AI in the Game IF you manage to get him to like you in the first place.

^^Agreed.

You just have to be the same religion as him and he'll be happy.

I am playing a game as Shaka where Toku is techleader and has a vassal. It is odd, at the very least...

Toku's game is war. War early, war often. War all the time if you can help it. If you're not at war, you're consolidating and preparing for another one.

It's no surprise that the AI does badly with this leader - it generally sucks at war.

I chalk it up to Toku's personality which is what makes the game so interesting. Very nice to have ONE leader in teh game that is an isolationist. Historical relevance? Well it is a game mind you.

Toku also needs alot of catering to. He may like you but dilikes everyone else. He will frequently ask you to cancel border wit other AIs and you get some real nasty diplo penalities if you refuse. Overall, he's generally easier to just ignore if at a distance, or attack early if adjacent.

I actually really like Toku in my games as a diplo partner. He's the only AI I consider to act normally when it comes to war. IE: He's friendly with me, annoyed with Civ-X. I ask him to DoW Civ-X he always says 'Hell yeah I'll DoW on that sucka!'. He's one of the few highly loyal leaders who'll attempt to crush mutual enemies anytime you ask. All too often I have friendly AI civs that will never DoW on civs we're both annoyed/furious with for me (even when I have no vassals mucking up the friendship). Even when we've shared religion and traded for thousands of years they still refuse like stupid wastes of trading partner space. Again Toku just wants to bring the pain to anyone who even looks funny at your alliance, and he'll NEVER backstab you. Once you're trading techs with him he's as good as gold.

Tokugawa once gifted me one of his cities...on his own accord. He just popped up and said, here, take this city as a gratitude for our friendship. Granted it was a city that was under heavy cultural influence from me and would've revolted sooner or later. But I have never had the AI voluntarily gift me anything when not in permanent alliance, nevermind an actual city. It definitely changed my opinion of Tokugawa. The difficulty with him is actually trying to get him to friendly status.

I still remember he was the first civ I took out, playing my first game of Civ. He does seem to really fall behind in score. It seems like one of the other AIs always declares war on him. It really gets on my nerves that he won't open up and trade half the time.

I think what gets him in trouble is that limited tech trading he subscribes to. He always seems to be running behind in some aspects on tech in my games. To top it off, he seems to be one of the poor generals in the game.

the problem with the current code is exactly what I'm experiencing again in the current game:

he doesn't ob till he's pleased, random religion spreads to him, different then everyone's else, he switches to that religion and then, since no ob, he can't be converted to anything else. So... he's even more annoyed with everyone, declares right, left and center and right now he... still researches civil service(took him 60 turns or so... a ton for immortal, even if marathon). That with the biggest landbase. He doesn't have CoL so probably maintenance just kills him. He's around 5-10 behind all the rest of us, that, again, with the biggest landbase and good land(tons of calendar cash resources, gems and all the jazz in the jungle).

He always opens strong, however I seldom see him going past samurais. Needless to say it's a matter of time till the other 2 guys on my continent(izzy and suleiman) will kick him; or try to... as I'll have to feed him techs yet again... He's judaist despite judaism being, like everything else, spanish... on obviously a buddhist continent, as we all know what izzy researches first... Heck, even my rush target(louis, who ended up his voluntary vassal) techs faster according to espionage... and he's left with 3 lousy cities in the desert that I cba to take...

P.S - and loyality(though he's loyal only at friendly, at pleased he'll backstab without a blink) wasn't either somethin' that struck me as one of ieyasu's traits:p

woot... after I fed him 3 techs, he got to samurais... then I had to feed him engineering too... izzy might even take my private real estate(needless to say he felt like declaring on her with half of her power)...

I agree on the baseline - Toku's AI behaviour is not doing him any good. He's not trading, he will at times overexpand stifling his own research... He can be a pain if he gots to Rifling - in that case the land he kept for you will come with quite price tag.

However - he will not backstab you. He is in fact the most trusthworthy AI in the Game IF you manage to get him to like you in the first place.

He can decide to attack you at pleased and can be bribed to attack civs he's pleased with. He is NOT trustworthy. He is a backstabber, like most warmongers. Very few warmongers are trustworthy, like Brennus and Boudica.

Never happened to me.

Regardless, that's how he's coded in the files that run each AI's personalities.

I remember that back in Warlords, if you gifted Toku a decent tech the first turn you met him, meaning the very first time his mug pops up on your screen to say "Hello", he would go to pleased and be willing to open borders / trade with you. From there on out, just raise the diplo like any other leader. He makes a great friend if you can get him to open up.

He kind of annoys me if he spawns near me. He doesn't like trading and he's protective...very annoying. If he's anywhere but next to me though, I like him because he tends to incite wars and is almost never a threat to win the game.

Regardless, that's how he's coded in the files that run each AI's personalities.

I doubt that these values come into play very often. If he is pleased with you, you are probably his best friend and he will be too busy loathing all the others to backstab you.

And someone else bribing him to attack you would first have to accomplish the not-so-small feat of becoming his friend.

That's a rhetorical question :D

Toku will usually be friendly with any other warmonger that shares his religion. He'll start off pleased because of similar peaceweights and warmonger respect and itll only get higher. It's not rare for warmongers sharing religions to be at friendly with each other in the BCs. So it's not really having friends that screws him, it's the fact that he won't even trade techs with his friends.

So yeah, if he's the only warmonger and everybody else is people like Mansa, Elizabeth, Lincoln, etc. He won't have any friends.

Him getting bribed might not come into effect because most of the people he's friends with also don't tech well. Except if Toku is even farther behind than them, then he might.

There's just nothing about him that would make him a better attack dog or friend than any other warmonger.The other warmongers are easier to befriend and are just as easy to bribe and are more willing to trade if they get a tech you don't.

ywah its true that Toku is one stupid shogun, but hey at least his UU is cool

I agree, he is just hurting himself by not trading. I've had fun games with him though were I managed to get him as an ally.
I remember one OCC particularly, where I played as Stalin on a pangaea map and after a while it boiled down to me and Tokugawa vs almost all the other civs. He was extremely backwards with had made him a tempting target for some of the others, I guess they regretted that decision after I gifted him half a dozen techs, including metal casting machinery and civil service.. :lol:

His generally unpleasant nature makes him a better friend if you get there. Just like in real life, you often can't rely on 'everyone's darling' while 'a bastard, but our bastard' can be a staunch and loyal ally.

His aversion to trade means you can build him up as a military ally without having him trade away your precious techs, and he will backstab more rarely than the code implieds since he'll usually dislike everyone else.

I've yet to meet anyone who wasn't too stupid for their own good. I know im too stupid for my own good.

trustworthy warmongers are only brennus and hanibal from my experience. boudica ain't, as she can declare at pleased. Ok, and all the zealots, but those are a distinct flavour of warmongering.

the other issue is he starts as pleased with warmongers; and we all know there are few warmongers who found a religion; hence, in half of the games he ends up with a different religion then everyone else. A human can survive that, if he wants to be different for his own fun, np; but the ai can't really overcome fighting against the world... I think he's the only one that constantly gets mc, machinery and cs after me(and usually I get them post liberalism); and that usually because I gift them to him...

p.s - he still has the biggest landmass after I got rifling, he still doesn't even have col....

Toku is obviously not in the game to try and win the game, but just to bother you.

fat chance; he lacks the ob with suleiman to reach me:p

declared once, but we all know suleiman likes a little bribe to cancel things with others:p

obviously after that he was pissed with suleiman and no more ob ever:p

Hmm. I just wrapped up a game where Tokugawa AI was the dominant power. I was isolated as Zara Yaqob, so I decided to go for a Cultural Victory. I sent a few Caravels to the other continent. Guess what I found?

Genghis had been eaten by barbs. Mansa Musa had taken Karakorum, and settled Gao to the north. the southerly Stalin had declared war, taking Kumbi Saleh and Timbuktu, vassalizing Mansa. To the north, Isabella had launched a holy war against Tokugawa, who had around 15 cities of peaceful REXing and two barb cities under his belt, against her 10. He grabbed two border cities, made peace, swung south, and captured Gao, leaving Mansa with one city. He then proceeded to the continent's east coast (middle of it, he was on the northwest) and settled two more cities, claiming both coasts as his. When I met the continent, everyone was at war with him, but he was winning!

Then, I met Roosevelt, who, also isolated, was the other tech leader (besides me). Pretty weird game.


The point is, in a good area, Tokugawa can set himself up as a dominant player, especially if he gets smart and REXes and conquers cities.

Hmm. I just wrapped up a game where Tokugawa AI was the dominant power. I was isolated as Zara Yaqob, so I decided to go for a Cultural Victory. I sent a few Caravels to the other continent. Guess what I found?

Genghis had been eaten by barbs. Mansa Musa had taken Karakorum, and settled Gao to the north. the southerly Stalin had declared war, taking Kumbi Saleh and Timbuktu, vassalizing Mansa. To the north, Isabella had launched a holy war against Tokugawa, who had around 15 cities of peaceful REXing and two barb cities under his belt, against her 10. He grabbed two border cities, made peace, swung south, and captured Gao, leaving Mansa with one city. He then proceeded to the continent's east coast (middle of it, he was on the northwest) and settled two more cities, claiming both coasts as his. When I met the continent, everyone was at war with him, but he was winning!

Then, I met Roosevelt, who, also isolated, was the other tech leader (besides me). Pretty weird game.


The point is, in a good area, Tokugawa can set himself up as a dominant player, especially if he gets smart and REXes and conquers cities.

Thing is, AI's like Cathy do that sort of thing routinely. Unlike toku, they don't just bury themselves in ancient techs and get smacked around because they don't trade. Unless toku spawns next to you and you're in a situation where you kind of have to fight him, he's usually worthless. Even in the game you describe, he basically cast the world into war, and as the leader in that war was probably worse than any other AI would have been in that situation.

The only other AI that I can think of that just sucks universally is Ghandi, because his peace weight gets him spanked. That can still mean challenge, though, if another AI kills him before you do and gets big.

trustworthy warmongers are only brennus and hanibal from my experience. boudica ain't, as she can declare at pleased. Ok, and all the zealots, but those are a distinct flavour of warmongering.

Boudica can't attack at pleased. If she attacked you at pleased she decided to do so while cautious or you had a vassal that she disliked.

List of warmongers who will never attack at pleased or friendly and can't be bribed too

Brennus
Boudica
Cyrus
Hannibal
Justinian
Mehmed
Saladin
Wang Kon (while he has a high peaceweight and no warmonger respect his aggression is high)

Any other warmonger can attack you at pleased.

mehmed is a notorious backstabber:p

otherwise, more or less I agree, though I never put cyrus among warmongers

That list is based on the info from http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=236346 and the info from that comes directly from the game's files. It's possible for any civ to backstab you if they decide to attack right before their relations with you improve or if you have vassals.

Personally i always thought Hannibal was a backstabber too until i studied that reference sheet some more. I think he gets that reputation because he'll almost always convert to free religion and that will drop a lot of people's relations with him to cautious if it was only pleased before.

Cyrus is a warmonger because he not only has 2 militaristic traits, but his aggression is high.

Aggressive, backstabbing; more or less we could say it fits the profile. However, I didn't heard about Ieyasu that he was dumb; nor isolationist for that matter, but that's another story.


I heard another story in fact, a story where the whole Japan was isolationist, mind you a single person...

I heard another story in fact, a story where the whole Japan was isolationist, mind you a single person...

It was isolationist, but that was to prevent the outflow of resources for its own survival. And Tokugawa was a shrewd politician and didn't act like a constipated clown. The Civ Toku is either there for flavour or reflects the developers' incomplete grasp of history.

It was isolationist, but that was to prevent the outflow of resources for its own survival. And Tokugawa was a shrewd politician and didn't act like a constipated clown. The Civ Toku is either there for flavour or reflects the developers' incomplete grasp of history.

Or maybe a backhanded attempt to cover multiple eras in history with one leader. I don't like it though...he winds up so ineffective. Could you imagine playing in a game with all rival AI's using this personality? It'd be like dropping a difficulty level maybe. If you could defend yourself, you'd win.

The developers HAVE a grasp of history?

The singlemost incredible thing Japan is known for is extreme fast reverse-teching. Or just teching, actually.

Japan went from feudal agricultural economy to industrialized powerhouse in the blink of an eye. It went from devastated war victim to economic powerhouse quite dramatically, too, and no accident. It continues to lead world research into a lot of (admittedly obtuse) research options. Some of those options (like solar cars) actually go on to have devastating impact on their competitiveness.

When they got Gunpowder, they figured out the best ways to use it. When they got Battleships, they proceeded to trounce a major industrial power in the only perfect naval battle ever recorded.

If the authors knew anything about history, they should be building up Japan as a tech-hungry warmonger with hyper-elite troops of all kinds, resistant to WW and with a peaceable and decidedly fanatic population.

Charismatic/Protective would probably be better for it as a nation than Aggressive/Protective. After all, no one ever really got scared of invasion by Samurai (or Ashigeru) except other Japanese states.

The developers HAVE a grasp of history?

The singlemost incredible thing Japan is known for is extreme fast reverse-teching. Or just teching, actually.

Japan went from feudal agricultural economy to industrialized powerhouse in the blink of an eye. It went from devastated war victim to economic powerhouse quite dramatically, too, and no accident. It continues to lead world research into a lot of (admittedly obtuse) research options. Some of those options (like solar cars) actually go on to have devastating impact on their competitiveness.

When they got Gunpowder, they figured out the best ways to use it. When they got Battleships, they proceeded to trounce a major industrial power in the only perfect naval battle ever recorded.

If the authors knew anything about history, they should be building up Japan as a tech-hungry warmonger with hyper-elite troops of all kinds, resistant to WW and with a peaceable and decidedly fanatic population.

Charismatic/Protective would probably be better for it as a nation than Aggressive/Protective. After all, no one ever really got scared of invasion by Samurai (or Ashigeru) except other Japanese states.

Well said! Rather than be offended, I just find it amusing how ass-backward CIV can be. The Incas are often the most technologically advanced civilization while the Japanese are often the most backward. :crazyeye: Well, as you pointed out, Japan WAS backward until it did lots of 'tech-trading' with Europe and became a military powerhouse. Personally I would like to see some other leaders for Japan rather than just miserable old Toku. They could have done without HRE and just given Protective/Imperialistic to Emperor Meiji. That would have been sweet and quite appropriate.

I'd call Maiji Japan more aggressive them protective. Invasions of Taiwan, Korea etc.

Aggressive in the colloquial sense, not Aggressive in the Civ trait sense. After all, it's not like they invaded Korea and Taiwan with Samurai.

They did that with Gunpowder troops. In fact, the latter wars of unification were won by Nobunaga with Gunpowder troops, so I wouldn't say that their melee troops should be anything special.

All colonial powers were agressive.

I still oppose Meji, though, since he is not personally significant and there isn't one leader in the same period that can claim that much credit. And I don't think Charismatic fits Japan that well. I think Industrious or even Spiritual (for switching between civics, especially Police State) would be better.

And I'm not a fan of the "Japan is way cool, dude!" attitude either, because that frequently smacks of the same lack of historical knowledge (like how samurais were supposedly almost invincible until gunpowder or something - they were not). RA3, which promises the reverse with a super high-tech Empire of Japan, is equally laughable. Where would the Empire of Japan get the technology and resources to build super robots without extensive trade with the West and the rest of the world (like it is having now)? The Empire became almost an autarky.

Industrious is completely off the map. None of the Wonders in the game map to Japan, and they're not exactly the wonderbuilder kind of people, any moreso than everyone else.

Spiritual could work, except that the Meiji Restoration was marked by conflict and bloodshed. Not the smooth transition one would expect of a Spiritual Civ.

Nah. Charismatic works best. Their people persevere under the most trying of circumstances, and they're known for elite units. In fact, that was one of the most influential effects of the Zero fighter and the Samurai mentality of not minding death - towards the end of the Pacific war, none of the Japanese Aces were alive and it was really the Aces that made the Zero the terror of the skies in the early part of the Japanese expansion.

Protective will reflect their Castle-building tendency and also the tough defenses of Pacific Islands during the war. The trait combo would make him similar to Churchill currently, which is an amusing coincidence given that both empires are island powers.

Yup, Japan with a industrious leader would be far more fitting... the reverse engineering thay di in the XVI and XIX centuries is really a :drool: acheivement

And Tokugawa personality as a isolacionist is far from the truth: the story of the Japan closure to foreigners ( except some small areas for Koreans and Dutch ) start with a wreckage of a Spanish ship in Japan... Spanish nobles were really loudmouthed in those days and started threathning Tokugawa with Philip II power, showing them a globe with the extent of Spanish empire at the time... Toku, pretending to be stupid ,asks them how a small country like Spain could had conquered so vaste domains. The Ship captain responds that Philip sent missionaries in front to convert the people and then they helped him to conquer ( it was that way they conquered the Philipinnes ). Toku, that already had problems with Christian-flavoured revolts (in fact they were more poor peasants revolts, but as in Rome Christianity calls more for the poor than for the rich .... ), decides to close acess to all nations except Koreans and Dutch ( that didn't wanted more than commerce ) and starts a heavy Christian hunt ( that ends in the famous Shimabara revolt )

Now a question: wouldn't you do the same? ;)

It does seem odd that Toku would be programmed to be so anti-social (and therefore self-destructive) when the Civilopedia describes Toku as being very shrewd. He would know better than to be truly isolationist.

Industrious is completely off the map. None of the Wonders in the game map to Japan, and they're not exactly the wonderbuilder kind of people, any moreso than everyone else.

It is not. Industrious also gives a bonus to forge construction (and factories? I've actually forgotten), which we all know is very helpful in increasing productivity. And there already are leaders with the Industrious trait whose civilizations are not attributed any Great Wonders, especially in Warlords and vanilla.

Spiritual could work, except that the Meiji Restoration was marked by conflict and bloodshed. Not the smooth transition one would expect of a Spiritual Civ.

You're talking about the Satsuma Rebellion, yes? Compare the period with the revolutions and conflicts that marked similar transitions in Europe.

Nah. Charismatic works best. Their people persevere under the most trying of circumstances, and they're known for elite units. In fact, that was one of the most influential effects of the Zero fighter and the Samurai mentality of not minding death - towards the end of the Pacific war, none of the Japanese Aces were alive and it was really the Aces that made the Zero the terror of the skies in the early part of the Japanese expansion.

Protective will reflect their Castle-building tendency and also the tough defenses of Pacific Islands during the war. The trait combo would make him similar to Churchill currently, which is an amusing coincidence given that both empires are island powers.

Charismatic should require the leader to actually be so. Can you point to any leader who truly deserves that? The only person who can rightly qualify is Oda Nobunaga, but he is in the same period as and surpassed by Tokugawa.

And the castle building 'tendencies' are a small blip in the radar. The French were famous castle and fortress-builders. Do they get the Protective trait just because of that? Protective does reflect the conservative policies of the Tokugawa Shogunate, though.

I'm a fan of Japanese culture and have lived in Japan for 5 months. I can easily state that the current traits for Tokugawa (aggressive / protective) are totally inaccurate and an insult to the nation on the whole. Seems that the americans can't get over WW II. I am sure they stabled Japan as "aggressive" as a result. Protective? Where did that come from?

Perhaps aggro / protective were relevant to Tokugawa himself but certainly does not apply to todays Japanese mindset nor history of the past few centuries.

Having lived in Japan, I can say there are two words to describe the Japanese, their working ethics, as well as mentality as a whole:

1) Industrious
2) Organized

The industrious attribute of the Japanese was proven when they industrialized about 3x faster compared to UK / USA. At one point, they were shown a steam based functional miniature locomotive by the British. Fascinated with the technology, they had a REAL locomotive linking Tokyo and Osaka a mere 25 years later.

Their industrious nature was also demonstrated post WW II in their astounding reconstruction / recovery efforts on the whole. Also when they started making cars, their quality quickly outclassed that of american counterparts, and they even invented new factory standards for constructing cars that the AMERICANS learned from and are still using today. That industrious enough?

As for organized you can say that its simply relates to their efficiency. Though their systems are often inflexible and by the book, they tend to be very fast at getting things done. They are particularly efficient / organized when working in groups, more then any country I have seen. They practice groupism over individualism. I heard an analogy describing them as a "school of fish". The whole group moves and turns exactlty at the same time... :p

Their transportation infrastructure and service is the most efficient in the world. The bullet train that links Tokyo / Osaka has been in service since the late 60's and has had ZERO fatalities / accidents since. No other transportation service of its kind has such a record. So I feel its quite fair to state that such an achievement could not have been accomplished without being super organized. This is just an example, I could cite countless others.

Aggressive / Protective? I don't think so!

I'm a fan of Japanese culture and have lived in Japan for 5 months. I can easily state that the current traits for Tokugawa (aggressive / protective) are totally inaccurate and an insult to the nation on the whole. Seems that the americans can't get over WW II. I am sure they stabled Japan as "aggressive" as a result. Protective? Where did that come from?

Perhaps aggro / protective were relevant to Tokugawa himself but certainly does not apply to todays Japanese mindset nor history of the past few centuries.

Having lived in Japan, I can say there are two words to describe the Japanese, their working ethics, as well as mentality as a whole:

1) Industrious
2) Organized

The industrious attribute of the Japanese was proven when they industrialized about 3x faster compared to UK / USA. At one point, they were shown a steam based functional miniature locomotive by the British. Fascinated with the technology, they had a REAL locomotive linking Tokyo and Osaka a mere 25 years later.

Their industrious nature was also demonstrated post WW II in their astounding reconstruction / recovery efforts on the whole. Also when they started making cars, their quality quickly outclassed that of american counterparts, and they even invented new factory standards for constructing cars that the AMERICANS learned from and are still using today. That industrious enough?

As for organized you can say that its simply relates to their efficiency. Though their systems are often inflexible and by the book, they tend to be very fast at getting things done. They are particularly efficient / organized when working in groups, more then any country I have seen. They practice groupism over individualism. I heard an analogy describing them as a "school of fish". The whole group moves and turns exactlty at the same time... :p

Their transportation infrastructure and service is the most efficient in the world. The bullet train that links Tokyo / Osaka has been in service since the late 60's and has had ZERO fatalities / accidents since. No other transportation service of its kind has such a record. So I feel its quite fair to state that such an achievement could not have been accomplished without being super organized. This is just an example, I could cite countless others.

Aggressive / Protective? I don't think so!

The leader traits in Civ 4 are reflections of the personalities of the leaders themselves, not the civilizations they represent. This is why some civs have more than one leader with very different traits. Since you admit that Agg/Pro is appropriate for Tokugawa the person himself, it would seem that the game designers got it right.

The leader traits in Civ 4 are reflections of the personalities of the leaders themselves, not the civilizations they represent. This is why some civs have more than one leader with very different traits. Since you admit that Agg/Pro is appropriate for Tokugawa the person himself, it would seem that the game designers got it right.

They didn't. Even the Civilopedia seems to offer a different story than the one in civ. I think they just needed some personality templates to fill and Tokugawa just happened to be saddled with one through the vague historical proxy of the isolationism of the Tokugawa Shogunate and the aggressiveness of Imperial Japan.

aelf:


It is not. Industrious also gives a bonus to forge construction (and factories? I've actually forgotten), which we all know is very helpful in increasing productivity. And there already are leaders with the Industrious trait whose civilizations are not attributed any Great Wonders, especially in Warlords and vanilla.


Touche, and yet Japanese are naturally productive as a result of their society and their upbringing, not as a result of their leader. Moreover, this group thinking and productivity is arguably only extant after the extensive social reconstruction of the Tokugawa and Meiji eras. I don't know if the Japanese prior to the Sengoki Jidai could be said to be more productive than, say, the Chinese, whose economy has dominated the entire region (continent? world?) for centuries.


You're talking about the Satsuma Rebellion, yes? Compare the period with the revolutions and conflicts that marked similar transitions in Europe.


Why would Europe be the benchmark? What about the multiple bloodless coups and relatively quick modern transition of the Thais?


Charismatic should require the leader to actually be so. Can you point to any leader who truly deserves that? The only person who can rightly qualify is Oda Nobunaga, but he is in the same period as and surpassed by Tokugawa.

And the castle building 'tendencies' are a small blip in the radar. The French were famous castle and fortress-builders. Do they get the Protective trait just because of that? Protective does reflect the conservative policies of the Tokugawa Shogunate, though.


Why should these characteristics be aligned with their colloquial meanings in the personal sense? Charismatic means no more than a peaceable populace and limited hyper-elite troops. Tokugawa and his heirs have rightfully shown themselves to be capable of inspiring their people to behave such.

Why should Protective be mapped to conservatism? It should be mapped to great gunpowder troops and a proclivity for fortifications - because that's what the trait does. If every major European Civ were Protective (and Castles were great to build at the pricepoint), then perhaps we would see the requisite amount of Castle-building in the game.

But samurais ARE cool. The fact that they were not necessarily more elite warriors than their european counterparts can't take anything away from that!
To me that's just the fascination of a more modernized part of the world looking at another culture that still has a more feudal-agrarian society and worship a warrior code (the social elite at least).
If the japanese had been the shipbuilders and traders and say England an isolationist country that they visited, they might have gotten the same fascination of the warrior code there.

Touche, and yet Japanese are naturally productive as a result of their society and their upbringing, not as a result of their leader. Moreover, this group thinking and productivity is arguably only extant after the extensive social reconstruction of the Tokugawa and Meiji eras. I don't know if the Japanese prior to the Sengoki Jidai could be said to be more productive than, say, the Chinese, whose economy has dominated the entire region (continent? world?) for centuries.

Why should these characteristics be aligned with their colloquial meanings in the personal sense? Charismatic means no more than a peaceable populace and limited hyper-elite troops. Tokugawa and his heirs have rightfully shown themselves to be capable of inspiring their people to behave such.

I think it comes down to which traits should be attributed to the people and which to the leader. It does seem that I am willing to attribute Industrious to the people but not Charismatic, but you are not being consistent here either. In my defense, it's at least perfectly fine to call a people Industrious, but not so for Charismatic.

Why would Europe be the benchmark? What about the multiple bloodless coups and relatively quick modern transition of the Thais?

I can turn around and ask you the same question. Why look at the Thais and not the Europeans? Besides, Europe has been a key player in shaping world history to this day, much more so than Thailand.

Why should Protective be mapped to conservatism? It should be mapped to great gunpowder troops and a proclivity for fortifications - because that's what the trait does. If every major European Civ were Protective (and Castles were great to build at the pricepoint), then perhaps we would see the requisite amount of Castle-building in the game.

Then Protective would be a total misnomer for the trait. I'm not defending what the Protective trait is like in Civ. But, in name, it does fit somewhat into the isolationist-defensive outlook of a civilization.

But samurais ARE cool. The fact that they were not necessarily more elite warriors than their european counterparts can't take anything away from that!
To me that's just the fascination of a more modernized part of the world looking at another culture that still has a more feudal-agrarian society and worship a warrior code (the social elite at least).
If the japanese had been the shipbuilders and traders and say England an isolationist country that they visited, they might have gotten the same fascination of the warrior code there.

Cool is cool, but it does not extend to depicting katanas as able to slice medieval swords in half and such. Or consistently depicting the Japanese as able to field large Gundam-like robots. That is buying into the myths and wrong perceptions perpetrated by anime culture.

Katanas did not need to be sharpened regularly because of the folding technique that the Japanese used to make swords in order to conserve iron, which Japan lacked. But it was, in reality, relatively flimsy and made to cut into flesh. The European sort of metal armor, which was largely not present in feudal Japan, would have been virtually impervious to the katana (except for the gaps in the joints), while the Japanese wicker armor would not have been able to withstand a blow from a broadsword.

I don't think anyone believes the Japanese can actually field Gundams, or that Koreans can turn into hydralisks for that matter :lol:. It's interesting how different regions of the world had to adapt their weaponry to the available resources. The Japanese katana wouldn't penetrate heavy armor, but then again what army in that region could field huge amounts of soldiers with that kind of armor? It would be prohibitively expensive.

Actually, at some point European armor got too strong for broadswords too. This is one of the reasons civ 4 uses maces in that time - thick armor does much less against blunt force trauma...especially if one were to get hit in the head. Rare are depictions of realistic mace usage in movies/anime/anything really. Kind of a shame. I guess they just aren't cool enough.

I don't think anyone believes the Japanese can actually field Gundams

Kids do. I remember having an argument with another kid about the size of a T-rex when I was very young. I told him that a T-rex was about 5m, but he insisted that it was as tall as the sky. That's a good example of how kids buy into what TV and computer games seem to tell them. I think I prefer not misleading kids so much by continuously giving them the same tired old . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. What's worse, some older anime fans actually come to some sort of a personal belief that there is an element of truth in anime. Talk to these people and they will tell you that the katana is the most superior sword in the world (like in Kill Bill?).

You'd be surprised at the (small) extent of knowledge the average person has.

To me the legend of the Samurai are more connected to Bushido and Zen mastery than belief in superior weapon technology. A spiritual philosophy that can be used to excel at all forms of martial arts. But it would be naive to think that every samurai would have that kind of psychological mastery, I expect that was much more an exception than a rule.

Edit: There are of course similar examples from other parts of the world, in the west for example some of the practices of the Knights Templar and other religious orders.

aelf


I think it comes down to which traits should be attributed to the people and which to the leader. It does seem that I am willing to attribute Industrious to the people but not Charismatic, but you are not being consistent here either. In my defense, it's at least perfectly fine to call a people Industrious, but not so for Charismatic.


I've been consistent, as far as I can tell. I only refer to trait term as a technical word for what it does. What it means colloquially is none of my concern.


I can turn around and ask you the same question. Why look at the Thais and not the Europeans? Besides, Europe has been a key player in shaping world history to this day, much more so than Thailand.


Only in the last 500 years. Spice and commodities trade in the SE Asian region has had a greater influence on East Asian policies than Europe for a long while, and that in turn influenced the Indian Ocean trade and culture as well. Arguing that the game should be based on European sensibilities because Europeans are more important as a people borders on racist.

Why look at the Thais and not the Euros? I didn't say not to consider the europeans. I just said that the Thai experience compared to the Japanese experience is less violent. German unification seems to be fairly quick and comparatively painless as well, if you really want to focus on Euros only.


Then Protective would be a total misnomer for the trait. I'm not defending what the Protective trait is like in Civ. But, in name, it does fit somewhat into the isolationist-defensive outlook of a civilization.


Not arguing that Protective is totally misnamed. I like to use the trait to attack, especially with Gunpowder troops. The massively increased firepower of China and gunpowder on the attack alone should tell you that the trait is NOT defensive in nature, all superficial impressions to the contrary.

After 1000 AD Toku is out of the game , totally backward his land can be taken by whoever builds some contempary units at that time. He sometimes rushes me however between 1000BC and 1 AD, i'm not always ready for that.

I've been consistent, as far as I can tell.

Maybe you have. I misread something.

Only in the last 500 years. Spice and commodities trade in the SE Asian region has had a greater influence on East Asian policies than Europe for a long while, and that in turn influenced the Indian Ocean trade and culture as well. Arguing that the game should be based on European sensibilities because Europeans are more important as a people borders on racist.

Speaking of the spice trade, Thailand didn't really have much to do with it. Arab traders were responsible for bringing spice to European attention, which eventually changed the face of the world. Asians were never as keen on spices as that. Thailand is also a relatively new dynasty. It's pretty pointless to say that they are the successors of the Khmer or the Saliendra because they are quite different, so historically speaking there really isn't anything very interesting about it except that it was never colonialised.

As for being racist, I can't be racist towards myself, can I? I'm not Thai, but coming from SEA and having roots in East Asia, I readily admit that most of Asia has not been very influential in shaping the world as it is.

Why look at the Thais and not the Euros? I didn't say not to consider the europeans. I just said that the Thai experience compared to the Japanese experience is less violent. German unification seems to be fairly quick and comparatively painless as well, if you really want to focus on Euros only.

German unification took 2 major wars! You can even trace the process back to the Sixty Years' War, which was very bloody indeed. Or at least to the French Revolutionary wars, which also had an impressive body count. Not to mention the revolutions that took place, especially in 1848. The Meiji Restoration cannot be compared to what Germany experienced. The Thai experience is not exactly bloodless either. Thailand has experienced quite a few military coups to date and is still ironing out many kinks in its democratic system.

Not arguing that Protective is totally misnamed. I like to use the trait to attack, especially with Gunpowder troops. The massively increased firepower of China and gunpowder on the attack alone should tell you that the trait is NOT defensive in nature, all superficial impressions to the contrary.

I think Protective is not too bad as it is.

aelf:


Speaking of the spice trade, Thailand didn't really have much to do with it. Arab traders were responsible for bringing spice to European attention, which eventually changed the face of the world. Asians were never as keen on spices as that. Thailand is also a relatively new dynasty. It's pretty pointless to say that they are the successors of the Khmer or the Saliendra because they are quite different, so historically speaking there really isn't anything very interesting about it except that it was never colonialised.

As for being racist, I can't be racist towards myself, can I? I'm not Thai, but coming from SEA and having roots in East Asia, I readily admit that most of Asia has not been very influential in shaping the world as it is.


I beg to differ. Asia is probably the singlemost influential continent in the world, and has been throughout history . Chinese technology, in particular, permeated every major European power during their diaspora, from compasses, to paper, to clockworks, to gunpowder weaponry.

The Philippine Archipelago and the Malaccan powers were quite keen on the spice trade, just as China was also keen on the porcelain trade. Like it or not, the usual European powers simply weren't a major player on the world stage since Rome.

The Ottoman Empire formed a good portion of Western Asia and Eastern Europe and was extremely influential. The Mongols conquered the world! How can you say that Asia has not been influential in shaping the world? It's very much arguable that Chinese, South Asian, and SEAsian culture and thinking have so deeply permeated the world that the current Europeans are merely successor cultures to that.

Do you use paper?
Do you use Asian-derived spices for cooking?
Have you heard of or believe in reincarnation?
Do you go out to eat?
Do you know what a wheelbarrow is?
Does your culture use fireworks to celebrate major events?
Do modern ships adhere to many of the principles evideningt in the SouthEast Asian Trading Junk?
Are Singapore and Hong Kong major trading ports and are they more Eastern or Western in culture?

Whether you're SEAsian or not, you cannot deny the incredible importance Asian cultures, peoples, and events have had on the world scene.

I haven't even gone on to the Arabic and Indian preservation of Hellenic and Hellenistic heritage, without which we would not have as much of the Greek and Roman influences as we now have.


German unification took 2 major wars! You can even trace the process back to the Sixty Years' War, which was very bloody indeed. Or at least to the French Revolutionary wars, which also had an impressive body count. Not to mention the revolutions that took place, especially in 1848. The Meiji Restoration cannot be compared to what Germany experienced. The Thai experience is not exactly bloodless either. Thailand has experienced quite a few military coups to date and is still ironing out many kinks in its democratic system.


If you trace similar events enough, you could say that German unification took 10000 years! The Meiji Restoration was merely a continuing move away from concentrating Imperial power in the throne itself, which means you could include the Sengoku Jidai in Japanese evolution, if you really wanted to.

True, the Meiji involved a policy change that took power away from the Samurai and for modernization, but that kind of change involved a lot of factors working under the veneer of society and also took a long time. Major changes tend to be like that.

Thailand is still technically a Monarchy, and in that the people don't really follow the generals, it's still very much a monarchy. That's the reason the coups are generally not as bloody as they could be. Some of those coups ARE bloodless, with nary a shot fired.

This is rather getting far afield.

I beg to differ. Asia is probably the singlemost influential continent in the world, and has been throughout history . Chinese technology, in particular, permeated every major European power during their diaspora, from compasses, to paper, to clockworks, to gunpowder weaponry.

The Philippine Archipelago and the Malaccan powers were quite keen on the spice trade, just as China was also keen on the porcelain trade. Like it or not, the usual European powers simply weren't a major player on the world stage since Rome.

The Ottoman Empire formed a good portion of Western Asia and Eastern Europe and was extremely influential. The Mongols conquered the world! How can you say that Asia has not been influential in shaping the world? It's very much arguable that Chinese, South Asian, and SEAsian culture and thinking have so deeply permeated the world that the current Europeans are merely successor cultures to that.

Do you use paper?
Do you use Asian-derived spices for cooking?
Have you heard of or believe in reincarnation?
Do you go out to eat?
Do you know what a wheelbarrow is?
Does your culture use fireworks to celebrate major events?
Do modern ships adhere to many of the principles evideningt in the SouthEast Asian Trading Junk?
Are Singapore and Hong Kong major trading ports and are they more Eastern or Western in culture?

Whether you're SEAsian or not, you cannot deny the incredible importance Asian cultures, peoples, and events have had on the world scene.

I know all that. Asians should know these things from elementary school level. First, I said MOST of Asia hadn't been too influential, not all of it. We didn't talk about China so I didn't mention it.

Of course the Philippines and Malacca were keen on the spice trade. They were in control of the resource, being the nearest empires, and they made money from it. Which people wouldn't be interested in something that they can sell for a good price? But was China or Thailand as interested in spice as the Europeans? And does it really matter in the bigger picture whether spice was sold to traders by the empires that did or by other organised tribal groups?

I haven't even gone on to the Arabic and Indian preservation of Hellenic and Hellenistic heritage, without which we would not have as much of the Greek and Roman influences as we now have.

Again irrelevant. Asians don't generally see the Middle East as part of Asia, and for good historical reasons. And we didn't talk about India. There are many more Asian countries and cultures besides the obvious ones and hence the majority is relatively obscure to the rest of the world.

If you trace similar events enough, you could say that German unification took 10000 years! The Meiji Restoration was merely a continuing move away from concentrating Imperial power in the throne itself, which means you could include the Sengoku Jidai in Japanese evolution, if you really wanted to.

Wrong. What I meant by tracing was direct tracing of historical causes and consequences, not talking about tracing human history all the way back to the invention of fire. Do you know the Treaty of Westphalia?

Even with the Sengoku period, Japanese history is not nearly as violent as German history.

True, the Meiji involved a policy change that took power away from the Samurai and for modernization, but that kind of change involved a lot of factors working under the veneer of society and also took a long time. Major changes tend to be like that.

Doesn't change the fact that it was still a relatively stable process.

Thailand is still technically a Monarchy, and in that the people don't really follow the generals, it's still very much a monarchy. That's the reason the coups are generally not as bloody as they could be. Some of those coups ARE bloodless, with nary a shot fired.

So? The point is it wasn't such a quiet or successful affair as you made it sound. There were rebellions against the modernising kings, and the process is still ongoing today.

the mongols never conquered the world, bar movies and in general asia wasn't too influential in shaping the world probably due to the innate isolationism they had(n.b - not considering middle east and arabs which were imho something neither asian nor european at least because that place was the pit stop for everyone). Even more, neither paper nor reincarnation(if you can put this as a +, which can be highly debatable) have anything to do with politics... and shaping the world is politics and military. And I doubt even asians would pretend to have shaped the world... you can't close your country and then wonder why you didn't influence others...

however, I was talking about tokugawa's ai playstyle, not about what if samurais were good warriors or bad; for that we have mtw, or not even that, but probably mtw with major mods. Definitely if you go on the idea that each leader combo of traits have to be unique, someone will end up with less cheesy things like agg/pro. The samurai is undoubtly a respectable uu, however, they can do that much when facing rifles or infantry which seems to be the faith of toku each game... and that exactly because the trade limit is so high...

n.b. - leaving traits aside, which again, I doubt anyone can argue around(again, if each combo has to be unique... you can't have 90% of the leaders charismatic, despite the fact they all probably were since is a sine qua non condition for any great leader) the actions of each leader(or more like, the "atmosphere" each leader creates) are surprisingly close to reality. Look at stalin or mao for instance or at the diff. between caesar and octavian... But again, that trade limit should be lowered :p

aelf:


I know all that. Asians should know these things from elementary school level. First, I said MOST of Asia hadn't been too influential, not all of it. We didn't talk about China so I didn't mention it.


By that definition most of the world hasn't been too influential. I daresay that French and Dutch influence hasn't had all that many long-lasting cultural effects on East Asia, for instance. French have been kicked out of Vietnam and the rest of the European powers have vacated as well.

What of Venezuelan native culture? How much of that is left? Is American culture even still recognizably British?

In any given era in any given location, there will be few movers and shakers. Asian movers and shakers are up there with the best of them; Asian powers have always been somewhere on the world stage.


Of course the Philippines and Malacca were keen on the spice trade. They were in control of the resource, being the nearest empires, and they made money from it. Which people wouldn't be interested in something that they can sell for a good price? But was China or Thailand as interested in spice as the Europeans? And does it really matter in the bigger picture whether spice was sold to traders by the empires that did or by other organised tribal groups?


Not AS interested, but yes, they were interested as well. Spice and local crafts flowed out of the Philippines in exchange for porcelain and cannon and gunpowder (among other things). I'm not as conversant with the Malaccan powers, but from what I know, they traded heavily with China as well. You can't NOT do that. China itself imported spices from all over, and there are some spices and herbs you can find cheapest or best in the SEAsian region.

Of course, the Spanish and the Portuguese were keen on spices, but the British were after something else entirely: tea. The SEAsian region controls the vital sea routes from China to the Indian Ocean and thence to Europe and Britain. This has always been an important economic and military choke point, even today.

So yes, I would say that SEAsian history and powers were rather central to world history.

Thailand, in fact, was so strategic that it was able to maneuver a armistice between the French and the British: a mutual agreement NOT to invade the nation so as to keep as a "neutral" buffer zone to both their interests.

Even so, British control of the Malayan peninsula and Singapore proved to be of overwhelming importance in all sorts of ways.

How can you say that these regions have no influence on world events? How can you say that the rulers, powers, and peoples of this area don't impact the world?


Again irrelevant. Asians don't generally see the Middle East as part of Asia, and for good historical reasons. And we didn't talk about India. There are many more Asian countries and cultures besides the obvious ones and hence the majority is relatively obscure to the rest of the world.


AND the majority of Europe is equally obscure to the rest of the world. Do Asians generally see the Middle East as part of Asia? I don't know. Certainly, I think so since it's, well, factually correct. There's no disputing it.

The Chinese don't see the Middle East as part of China, and Japan doesn't see the Middle East as part of its "East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere," but that's not saying that the Middle East isn't in Asia. That's preposterous.

Are there many more Asian countries that are obscure? There are many South American and European countries that are just as obscure. Asia just has more because it's, well, bigger than all of them. Of the remaining continents, North America doesn't have obscure countries because it only has 3, and Australia only has 1!

Saying that "most of" Asia (you know, the continent on the map, like we generally refer to when we say "Asia") has had no impact on world history is just mindbogglingly wrong. Parthian Empire? Seleucid Empire? Ottoman Empire? Central Asian steppe tribes (Huns, Magyars, etc)? Arabian emirates? Baghdad? Persia?

Nearly every part of Asia has been rather central to world history at one point or another. Even when it's not the dominant political or military power, Asia's vast population, unique resources, and economic might (India, jewel of the British Empire?) have always insured that its always in the thick of things. It ALWAYS matters.

Compare that to Northwestern Europe. It's only really been important in the last 500 years, give or take. Prior to that, even the Roman Empire considered that area relative hinterland.

aelf:


Wrong. What I meant by tracing was direct tracing of historical causes and consequences, not talking about tracing human history all the way back to the invention of fire. Do you know the Treaty of Westphalia?

Even with the Sengoku period, Japanese history is not nearly as violent as German history.


We're talking about government transitions here, not entire histories.


Doesn't change the fact that it was still a relatively stable process.


Stable compared to European power struggles? Well, compared to those, nearly everywhere else in the world is stable.


So? The point is it wasn't such a quiet or successful affair as you made it sound. There were rebellions against the modernising kings, and the process is still ongoing today.


The coups in Thailand don't overthrow the king. That doesn't usually happen. The PM changes, the king is retained. In fact, the king's blessing is sort of necessary for the new PM to be seen as legitimate and in at least one recent instance, the king requested two feuding sides to set their conflicts aside for a while.

Civilian casualties are kept to a minimum, only the interested powers kill each other. That's as civilized an uprising as you can probably hope to get anywhere.

Don't you think its somewhat silly arguing which culture had the 'most' influence on world cultures. The cultural and technological creativity of nearly all major powers over the milennia have had influence on how we live today.

Has asia had influence over the course of human development? Of course and its a large one at that, spanning many centuries. Asia and particularly China and India have influenced the culture, technology, spirituality and diet in virtually every part of the world in many different historical periods. This influence has waxed and waned in different periods, which brings me to my next point.

Has Europe had an influence over the course of human development? Of course, just because that influence has taken place mostly in the last 500 years makes absolutely no difference to the end result. The relative decline of both China and India from the 17th-early 20th centuries facilitated the dramatic rise of European domminance of many areas of the world. That European domminance has affected every part of the world, in different ways and in different intensities.

As I sit here today in Canada, I can look to my European modeled system of government, the asian spices or south american potatos in my kitchen cabinet, the african coffee on my desk or a whole host of other things that originated in a staggering number of cultures around the world. So whats the point of this? Simple, every culture has influenced the development of the world at one time or another. There are countries with greater or smaller influences at different points in time. The point of history is not to say nahnahnah my culture has had more historical influence than yours. The point of history is to document those influences determine their causes and effects, large and small. Arguing whether chinese gun powder, british steam engines, indian religions or french legal codes are more influential is pointless and distracts from the more important tasks of history.

Cheers

Exactly. Meaning that basing the game off of mostly Europe is a necessity because of the target demographic, not because it's naturally been a more important player in world history.

Seriously. Hit the books, guys.

I haven't seen a single thing in these arguments that justifies why Toku is unrealistically isolationist and stupid in Civ 4. If this guy doesn't have one of his relations saved via religion he's totally useless. Japan needs another leader in this game too. Most of the Civs in the game have leaders of different styles that reflect their influence on their contries in their eras. Japan has NOBODY else? I don't buy it.

That was pretty much universally agreed upon as totally inappropriate. Japan is quick to adapt technology and quick to develop incremental improvements towards a perfect model. It even innovates completely new technology once in a while.

As a representative of the nation through the ages Toku-Japan is an extremely poor fit.

I would that Japan's motto through thair history is exactly the opposite of what Toku AI does in this game: "We are so superior to the foreigns that we can use what they do better than us to strengthen us".... the contacts with China ( more or less peaceful... and their more or less proxy attempts to submit Korea to their interests ), the way they seized the Portuguese weaponry and convert them to their use ( I hope that nobody thinks that Tokugawa rose to power with a army of sword bearing Samurai.... ), all the things that happened since Meiji restoration ( or revolution... Japanese prefer the first term ).....

If we want the truth, what happened in Japan buring the Bafuku period is mutatus mutandis what the European noble class tried to do with x-bows and gunpowder weaponry: the upper class, threatned with the possibility of a peasant army armed with that kind of weapons to beat them in battle, tried to ban them via Church ( a concept that does not exist in japan as the Europeans saw it.... ). The diference is that nobody tried to really invade Japan during the Bafuku period, while Europe only stopped being stormed by Islamic flavoured military actions in the beggining of the XVIII century... Japan could give themselfs the luxury of having a innefective army and Europe didn't....

So.. who should be leader #2 for Japan and what traits and personality should he/she have? (I'm guessing it's a he)

Seriously. Hit the books, guys.

Sorry, but I have to say at this point that you don't seem to have much more historical knowledge than I do. Especially given the fact that you simply labelled the German unification as a peaceful process. The debate on whose influence is more prevalent up to this point in history is normative, but I can tell you from one Asian perspective that, up to this point, Asia has been left behind. As an Asian, I do not subscribe to the kind of patronising sense of Asian exoticism that many people in the West do not even realise they have when they talk about how Asian cultures as just as important or influential (not necessarily, but often true). It's a normative debate, yes, but my point of view is substantiated by a broad knowledge and not simply nonsense. You can disagree, but I challenge you to point out some real flaws in it instead of simply trying to put it down as racism or ignorance.

Anyway, as my closing words, let me just point out that although Asia has been left behind thus far, just watch out - you'll get your butts kicked one day! ;)

^^ That earlier post should have been posted after this.

By that definition most of the world hasn't been too influential. I daresay that French and Dutch influence hasn't had all that many long-lasting cultural effects on East Asia, for instance. French have been kicked out of Vietnam and the rest of the European powers have vacated as well.

Don't be begging the question here. Most of the world hasn't been too influential, I don't disagree with that. And the fact that colonial powers were kicked out has no bearing on the debate except in pointing out the relative decline of Europe in the past century or so. But when they were there, they have had massive influence. For example, do you know how many Dutch words there are in the Indonesian language (which I speak)?

In any given era in any given location, there will be few movers and shakers. Asian movers and shakers are up there with the best of them; Asian powers have always been somewhere on the world stage.

Except for Japan, who has been a real Asian mover and shaker for the past few centuries?

Not AS interested, but yes, they were interested as well. Spice and local crafts flowed out of the Philippines in exchange for porcelain and cannon and gunpowder (among other things). I'm not as conversant with the Malaccan powers, but from what I know, they traded heavily with China as well. You can't NOT do that. China itself imported spices from all over, and there are some spices and herbs you can find cheapest or best in the SEAsian region.

Of course, the Spanish and the Portuguese were keen on spices, but the British were after something else entirely: tea. The SEAsian region controls the vital sea routes from China to the Indian Ocean and thence to Europe and Britain. This has always been an important economic and military choke point, even today.

So yes, I would say that SEAsian history and powers were rather central to world history.

Thailand, in fact, was so strategic that it was able to maneuver a armistice between the French and the British: a mutual agreement NOT to invade the nation so as to keep as a "neutral" buffer zone to both their interests.

Even so, British control of the Malayan peninsula and Singapore proved to be of overwhelming importance in all sorts of ways.

How can you say that these regions have no influence on world events? How can you say that the rulers, powers, and peoples of this area don't impact the world?

Passively, yes. I wasn't talking about passive influence, which is not really influence at all. This is what I meant by patronising: Asia is influential because it has been an exotic land that everyone wants to get a piece of. I'm sorry, but I'd rather admit that my country has not been influential, then.

AND the majority of Europe is equally obscure to the rest of the world. Do Asians generally see the Middle East as part of Asia? I don't know. Certainly, I think so since it's, well, factually correct. There's no disputing it.

The Chinese don't see the Middle East as part of China, and Japan doesn't see the Middle East as part of its "East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere," but that's not saying that the Middle East isn't in Asia. That's preposterous.

The idea of Europe and Asia as separate continents is preposterous in the first place. Sure, the Middle East did influence Asia, for example through the Muslim Caliphates and through trading. However, is the Middle East seen by Asians as part of Asia in a cultural and even historical sense? No. I don't care about the racial or geographical theories that your scholars have come up with in the past, especially the mumbo-jumbo about the Orient.

Are there many more Asian countries that are obscure? There are many South American and European countries that are just as obscure. Asia just has more because it's, well, bigger than all of them. Of the remaining continents, North America doesn't have obscure countries because it only has 3, and Australia only has 1!

Saying that "most of" Asia (you know, the continent on the map, like we generally refer to when we say "Asia") has had no impact on world history is just mindbogglingly wrong. Parthian Empire? Seleucid Empire? Ottoman Empire? Central Asian steppe tribes (Huns, Magyars, etc)? Arabian emirates? Baghdad? Persia?

Nearly every part of Asia has been rather central to world history at one point or another. Even when it's not the dominant political or military power, Asia's vast population, unique resources, and economic might (India, jewel of the British Empire?) have always insured that its always in the thick of things. It ALWAYS matters.

Compare that to Northwestern Europe. It's only really been important in the last 500 years, give or take. Prior to that, even the Roman Empire considered that area relative hinterland.

Blah. I didn't say that most of Asia had NO impact on history. I simply said that most of Asia hasn't been as influential as Europe up to this point. Guess what, the most revolutionary changes in world history happened in the last 500 years.

I'm frankly unconcerned that Asia hasn't been as influential to date. We will get there, don't you worry.

We're talking about government transitions here, not entire histories.

It's strange that you ask me to hit the books but haven't been doing so yourself. Do you know German history or do you not? You talked about German unfication. Is that a 'government transition'?

Stable compared to European power struggles? Well, compared to those, nearly everywhere else in the world is stable.

No. China wasn't so stable either. Japan was far more stable.

The coups in Thailand don't overthrow the king. That doesn't usually happen. The PM changes, the king is retained. In fact, the king's blessing is sort of necessary for the new PM to be seen as legitimate and in at least one recent instance, the king requested two feuding sides to set their conflicts aside for a while.

Civilian casualties are kept to a minimum, only the interested powers kill each other. That's as civilized an uprising as you can probably hope to get anywhere.

Do you know that Thai modernisation began with Chulalongkorn and before? And there were factions that were unhappy with the path that the Chakri dynasty took, resulting in rebellions that threatened the position of the royal family. It's not so simple.

Anyway, I'm not going to bother any longer with the sort of sentimentalist (and vaguely patronising/racist) arguments that have often come up so far. Unless you are going to offer some interesting facts for debate, I'm not going to respond anymore.

aelf:

If you really want to, we can continue this, but as I said earlier, this IS getting somewhat far afield.


Don't be begging the question here. Most of the world hasn't been too influential, I don't disagree with that. And the fact that colonial powers were kicked out has no bearing on the debate except in pointing out the relative decline of Europe in the past century or so. But when they were there, they have had massive influence. For example, do you know how many Dutch words there are in the Indonesian language (which I speak)?


Do you know how many Chinese and Indian terms there are in pretty much every language? Arabic isn't too far behind either.

Spanish is spoken in half the Americas and English and French in the other. This isn't merely borrowing words. They've supplanted a good part of the native language wholesale.

The European diaspora and invasions HAVE had a significant impact on world history, but that doesn't mean that Asia hasn't had its own influence. That's just plain wrong.


Except for Japan, who has been a real Asian mover and shaker for the past few centuries?


India's economy and culture have permeated Britain almost as much as Greek culture and philosophy have permeated Rome. It's been economically important to Britain for most of its life as an Empire and its liberation from British rule and subsequent political and philosophical output has had a profound influence on the world today. What would the world today look like without the actions of Gandhi? Very different, I would imagine.

So yes, India has been a mover and a shaker.

The Ottoman Empire's decline and subsequent events of WWI were also pretty significant, I would imagine, particularly to the East European nations.

Russia itself has most of its land in Central and Northeast Asia. Surely that's a mover and shaker?

You see, I define "Asian" just as it is: anything in the continent called "Asia" as defined in the map. Why would there be any other definition?


Passively, yes. I wasn't talking about passive influence, which is not really influence at all. This is what I meant by patronising: Asia is influential because it has been an exotic land that everyone wants to get a piece of. I'm sorry, but I'd rather admit that my country has not been influential, then.


Howso? Do we not say that Rome was influenced by Greece, even though Greece didn't really put up much of a fight? Is not the Greek influence spread through history and the world by Macedonian and Roman masters, neither of which are Greek? Don't the Greeks have any "real" influence?

Based on the scientific naming system, modern governmental concepts, and other such sundry, I don't think so.

Asia has been influential because Asians are what a good chunk of Europeans have always aspired to become. The British migrated to India to become Rajahs and Indian rulers of their own - some even fancied themselves truly Indian. The Spanish had no such respect for the New World, but they did manage to try to establish a Filipinas as they imagined such a colony could exist - the depredations are significantly less than in the South American colonies, though some postulate that it's because of the germs and fighting factor.

Asia is a rich land AND contain rich peoples that everyone wants to go to and be a part of. This is still true today. Phuket and other such sites are major summer destinations for a decent fraction of the European tourist population. Europe is now also establishing itself as having that kind of cultural power and aura - some Asians actually want to be Europeans now, and not just for the money, but it still doesn't quite match.

Concentrating on the political and military is senseless because it's fleeting and ephemeral. By that standard, Mongolia is one of the most influential nations on the planet because it held a sizable fraction of Eurasia for a significant amount of time - the largest contiguous land empire ever established. Surely you don't think so. Certainly I can't really point to anything in my life as being influenced by Mongolian identity.

Their influence was felt because of the rather significant Sinicization of well over half Eurasia through the trade influence of the Silk Road. Chinese culture, products, and technology flowed West setting the stage for the European invasions.


The idea of Europe and Asia as separate continents is preposterous in the first place. Sure, the Middle East did influence Asia, for example through the Muslim Caliphates and through trading. However, is the Middle East seen by Asians as part of Asia in a cultural and even historical sense? No. I don't care about the racial or geographical theories that your scholars have come up with in the past, especially the mumbo-jumbo about the Orient.


Middle East is IN Asia. Look it up in a continental map. It's quite clear.

And yes, I'm Asian. The Middle East IS in Asia.

It's true that the Middle East, the Central Steppes, the Indian subcontinent, SEAsia and East Asia should culturally and politically all be continents the equal of Europe. Certainly there exist such conglomerates. Be that as it may, it is beyond contention that the Middle East IS quite factually IN Asia.


Blah. I didn't say that most of Asia had NO impact on history. I simply said that most of Asia hasn't been as influential as Europe up to this point. Guess what, the most revolutionary changes in world history happened in the last 500 years.


Really? Certainly the most recent changes in world history have happened in the last 500 years, so they would loom larger in our view. Most revolutionary, though? I would say that the establishment of continent-wide trading networks is fairly revolutionary. Happened prior to the last 500 years. Wide-ranging communications ala Pony Express (Mongolian invention)? Prior, too.

The most revolutionary change the Euros did is worldwide invasion and extermination on a scale that would shame the Mongols. That IS fairly significant, but hardly the most significant determinant of modern culture and sensibility.


It's strange that you ask me to hit the books but haven't been doing so yourself. Do you know German history or do you not?


The unification of Germany prior to its existence as a nation is not what's being discussed. Before it came into being as a country, you can't even point TO a Germany. Spiritual refers to Civic changes of a prior existing nation, or some similarly significant change in a prior existing nation.


No. China wasn't so stable either. Japan was far more stable.


Isolated nations are usually more stable than nations right in the path of various invasion forces. Australia hasn't been troubled by civil wars and wars of invasion, you'll notice. Switzerland and Greenland, likewise, are not quite as volatile a place. Thing is, there really isn't much of value to want in Japan as a land so people generally don't want to go out there and conquer it.

Compare this to the fractious and continuing history of violent anarchy in the Philippine archipelago, particularly the southernmost islands. The archipelago has been a strategic point for trade and war. It's natural for many nations to want a hand in it, quite apart from its rich natural resources. Aside from that, it's a good staging point for launching pirate raids into the East-West sea trade routes, and it's got lots of cubby holes to hide in, which also makes it a profitable base for pirates and bandits of all sorts.

Japan's relative stability and peaceable history probably has more to do with its location and geography than its peoples or its leaders naturally.


Do you know that Thai modernisation began with Chulalongkorn and before? And there were factions that were unhappy with the path that the Chakri dynasty took, resulting in rebellions that threatened the position of the royal family. It's not so simple.


And those were put down. It's not nearly as bloody as the French Revolution nor the Sengoku Jidai.

Excuse me Roxlinn, my response was meant to point out that BOTH Asian and European civilizations have had impact on the world. Can you seriously argue that England, France, Germany, Russia and Spain did not all have MASSIVE impacts on history. That does not in any way affect the equally MASSIVE contributions and impacts of China, India or Japan. You ought to be the one to hit the books because you clearly have a perception of history as a zero-sum game.

Its not! You should for a minute step out of the nationalistic 19th century theories of history and look at history from some more modern perspectives. I'm not trying to be patronising, but seriously a big problem that professional historians have had to work at in the discipline is the tendancy to only use history for national glorification. Such an approach merely obscures events as they occurred. Perpetuating that style and approach merely makes it more difficult for historians in the present and future attempting to recitfy those errors.

It also does nothing to enhance understanding of different cultures histories and their interactions with one another. How can one understand, in an objective manner, the interactions of cultures and nations if one views one or another as inherently superior? An essential area of history today involves integrating what were previously fairly limited national discourse of history into a more international approach. Such an approach takes into account far more literature, sources, etc. than a national aproach ever can. It also has the advantage of bringing new prespectives to bear on old problems in history. Perhaps most importantly it allows different areas of the world greater understanding of one another through understanding one another's histories.
Cheers,

I'm sorry, but at what point did I say that the Europeans nations did NOT have a major impact on recent world history? I seem to see several mentions of mine to the contrary.

I apologize, I had not read your last post when I wrote that. I just think this debate is getting out of hand. Your last post made some excellent points that I most definately agree on.

Do you know how many Chinese and Indian terms there are in pretty much every language? Arabic isn't too far behind either.

Not on the same terms as Europeans have influences some Asian languages.

Spanish is spoken in half the Americas and English and French in the other. This isn't merely borrowing words. They've supplanted a good part of the native language wholesale.

The European diaspora and invasions HAVE had a significant impact on world history, but that doesn't mean that Asia hasn't had its own influence. That's just plain wrong.

Again, I didn't say Asia did not have its own influence. I'm going to treat any further assertion that I did as irrational and ignore it.

India's economy and culture have permeated Britain almost as much as Greek culture and philosophy have permeated Rome. It's been economically important to Britain for most of its life as an Empire and its liberation from British rule and subsequent political and philosophical output has had a profound influence on the world today. What would the world today look like without the actions of Gandhi? Very different, I would imagine.

So yes, India has been a mover and a shaker.

'Mover and shaker' suggests an active act of influence, not the passive examples you have been describing.

As for Gandhi, it's far too controversial. Inspiring though he is, many historians have now decided that the British did not want to stay in India because they were bankrupt and depended on America (who wouldn't be happy), not because of Gandhi alone. If they could have stayed, they probably would have stayed, satyagraha or no. They've done worse with the Boers.

He did inspire the Civil Rights movement and such, but that is his own influence, not India's.

The Ottoman Empire's decline and subsequent events of WWI were also pretty significant, I would imagine, particularly to the East European nations.

That's another passive example of 'influence'. But that's a difficult question for you: Is Turkey in Europe or in Asia?

Russia itself has most of its land in Central and Northeast Asia. Surely that's a mover and shaker?

Peter the Great made Russia a Western country. About geographical concerns, see below.

You see, I define "Asian" just as it is: anything in the continent called "Asia" as defined in the map. Why would there be any other definition?

Cultural and historical. Thais, Indians, Filippinos, Chinese, Japanese and etc. feel that they have more in common with each other than with Middle Easterners. Do you know of trade or regional groupings formed between Asia and the ME that are not instigated by Islam or oil? Contrast that with the many groups within what is culturally indentified as Asia.

Howso? Do we not say that Rome was influenced by Greece, even though Greece didn't really put up much of a fight? Is not the Greek influence spread through history and the world by Macedonian and Roman masters, neither of which are Greek? Don't the Greeks have any "real" influence?

Did not put up much of a fight? Pyrrhus? You know what a Pyrrhic victory is, right?

And if Greece had only been subjugated by Rome and that's all there is to Greek history, then yes, it would have had a largely passive influence. Even, then, in the field of learning, they would have has a massive active influence. You didn't quote such examples emanating from, say, Thailand or Malacca, only that they were important for their resources and strategic locations, all of which do not simply translate to active influence in any field.

Asia has been influential because Asians are what a good chunk of Europeans have always aspired to become. The British migrated to India to become Rajahs and Indian rulers of their own - some even fancied themselves truly Indian. The Spanish had no such respect for the New World, but they did manage to try to establish a Filipinas as they imagined such a colony could exist - the depredations are significantly less than in the South American colonies, though some postulate that it's because of the germs and fighting factor.

Again, Western exoticism. They did not 'aspire' to become Asians. They were enthralled by the seemingly exotic nature of Asian culture. If they really aspired to be Asians, they would have had to first treat Asians as equals.

Asia is a rich land AND contain rich peoples that everyone wants to go to and be a part of. This is still true today. Phuket and other such sites are major summer destinations for a decent fraction of the European tourist population. Europe is now also establishing itself as having that kind of cultural power and aura - some Asians actually want to be Europeans now, and not just for the money, but it still doesn't quite match.

'Rich' is such a empty term. Rich in what? Resources? That usually results in poverty, not real wealth. Culture? The Aztecs were rich in culture, but they were destroyed. Again, what you are saying seems to be merely pointing to Western exoticism.

Concentrating on the political and military is senseless because it's fleeting and ephemeral. By that standard, Mongolia is one of the most influential nations on the planet because it held a sizable fraction of Eurasia for a significant amount of time - the largest contiguous land empire ever established. Surely you don't think so. Certainly I can't really point to anything in my life as being influenced by Mongolian identity.

You feel that way because Mongolian influence in you life is largely subsumed within Chinese influence by the Mongolians' own identification with the Chinese. Even then, the Mongolians had a massive influence on Europe and the Middle East.

To be a mover or shaker, you have to be active in your field, and the one that we started off discussing happens to be political. Who has been most politically active in the world stage? Remember, war is a continuation of politics through other means.

Middle East is IN Asia. Look it up in a continental map. It's quite clear.

And yes, I'm Asian. The Middle East IS in Asia.

It's true that the Middle East, the Central Steppes, the Indian subcontinent, SEAsia and East Asia should culturally and politically all be continents the equal of Europe. Certainly there exist such conglomerates. Be that as it may, it is beyond contention that the Middle East IS quite factually IN Asia.

I look at the world map and what I really see is one big continent consisting of what is geographically known as Europe and Asia. Those geographical expressions are a shell leftover from the past.

And do you know what von Metternich said about Italy before the Risorgimento? He said that Italy was a "geographical expression". Is Italy now merely a geographical expression? In the same way, Asia is more than just that. And in the other respects it is quite distinct from the ME.

Really? Certainly the most recent changes in world history have happened in the last 500 years, so they would loom larger in our view. Most revolutionary, though? I would say that the establishment of continent-wide trading networks is fairly revolutionary. Happened prior to the last 500 years. Wide-ranging communications ala Pony Express (Mongolian invention)? Prior, too.

The most revolutionary change the Euros did is worldwide invasion and extermination on a scale that would shame the Mongols. That IS fairly significant, but hardly the most significant determinant of modern culture and sensibility.

How about technological and political changes? Just study the path of history. Take note of the scale in which things happened and tell me whether there is anything before like what happened in the last 500 years. Even the Mongolian explosion cannot be compared to many developments that happened in the last century.

The West brought things to the extent they are now. In the future, the baton might be passed to Asia, at which point in history it might again have more influence on the world than the West.

The unification of Germany prior to its existence as a nation is not what's being discussed. Before it came into being as a country, you can't even point TO a Germany. Spiritual refers to Civic changes of a prior existing nation, or some similarly significant change in a prior existing nation.

I don't know. You brought it up.

Isolated nations are usually more stable than nations right in the path of various invasion forces. Australia hasn't been troubled by civil wars and wars of invasion, you'll notice. Switzerland and Greenland, likewise, are not quite as volatile a place. Thing is, there really isn't much of value to want in Japan as a land so people generally don't want to go out there and conquer it.

Australia was massively invaded by the white man. Switzerland has seen many wars fought on its soil. Greenland isn't even largely populated.

Japan wasn't isolated anymore after the Americans forced the Japanese to open up to trade. That immediately preceded the Meiji Restoration. And the Americans came to Japan for something, yes? Even before that, the Japanese have had dealings with the Spanish, the Dutch and the Portugese, so they were certainly not geographically isolated.

Japan's relative stability and peaceable history probably has more to do with its location and geography than its peoples or its leaders naturally.

See above.

I wouldn't say that the Japanese were peaceful, but they did exhibit the qualities of Spritual. Adherence to Shinto and the associated respect and devotion to the Emperor, a sense of nationalism that prevented massive fractious divisions upon the few changes of government it experienced - those are examples that justify Spiritual as a trait for the Japanese.

And those were put down. It's not nearly as bloody as the French Revolution nor the Sengoku Jidai.

It was not, but it was not smooth sailing either.

aelf:


Again, I didn't say Asia did not have its own influence. I'm going to treat any further assertion that I did as irrational and ignore it.


Alright. Then perhaps you could elucidate this statement a bit more, the thing that started this entire cascade rolling:


coming from SEA and having roots in East Asia, I readily admit that most of Asia has not been very influential in shaping the world as it is.


What do you mean by "most of Asia?" I can more or less dartboard the Asian continent and be relatively sure of hitting something that's been historically influential at one point or another.


Not on the same terms as Europeans have influences some Asian languages.


Major mainland Chinese languages are dead. Zilch. Nonexistent. As in we don't know what they sound or look like. That's pretty influential for Mandarin and the Han, no?

If you want an example of how heavily the European invasions have influenced language, look to South America, not Asia. European language has many obvious recent influence on many SEAsian languages because the occupations have been relatively recent, and the cultural purges especially intense. French had the same effect on the English language, I imagine, after the Norman invasion.

It's been more than 500 years since the East Asians and others have been that dominant militarily and they didn't bother conquering Europe at all. Seems obvious how that would work out.

I wouldn't say that that automatically gives Europe more of an upper hand.


'Mover and shaker' suggests an active act of influence, not the passive examples you have been describing.


Liberating yourself from a world-spanning conqueror as its chief colony doesn't constitute being a mover and shaker? Why not? Does it really matter how they did it? Isn't it the more remarkable that they were able to achieve it through new means?


As for Gandhi, it's far too controversial. Inspiring though he is, many historians have now decided that the British did not want to stay in India because they were bankrupt and depended on America (who wouldn't be happy), not because of Gandhi alone. If they could have stayed, they probably would have stayed, satyagraha or no. They've done worse with the Boers.

He did inspire the Civil Rights movement and such, but that is his own influence, not India's.


If we're going to split hairs, every major influential achievement done to this day was done by individuals, not nations.


Cultural and historical. Thais, Indians, Filippinos, Chinese, Japanese and etc. feel that they have more in common with each other than with Middle Easterners. Do you know of trade or regional groupings formed between Asia and the ME that are not instigated by Islam or oil? Contrast that with the many groups within what is culturally indentified as Asia.


I don't know that there's a "cultural identity" defined as "Asia" that excludes major parts of the continent. Could you substantiate that?

If a leader alone or his allegiances can make a country Western, then the Philippines is a Western country, hands down.


And if Greece had only been subjugated by Rome and that's all there is to Greek history, then yes, it would have had a largely passive influence. Even, then, in the field of learning, they would have has a massive active influence. You didn't quote such examples emanating from, say, Thailand or Malacca, only that they were important for their resources and strategic locations, all of which do not simply translate to active influence in any field.


I didn't quote such examples from Uzbekistan either. Not every region of the globe can be a global cultural power, particularly this close to more powerful cultural powers - India and China. Being subjugated by foreign powers is NOT everything there is to American or Asian history, so no go there, too.

The point is that Greece was never a major military power and yet is influential. Why are you limiting influence to military or political power? Why make an exception for Greece only?


Again, Western exoticism. They did not 'aspire' to become Asians. They were enthralled by the seemingly exotic nature of Asian culture. If they really aspired to be Asians, they would have had to first treat Asians as equals.


Why? That's a very Asian way of thinking. Just because you aspire to be an astronaut doesn't mean that you'll play fair with other aspirants or even the real deal itself. If you're been raised in a dog-eat-dog world, you'll take everybody for everything you can get and give nothing back.


'Rich' is such a empty term. Rich in what? Resources? That usually results in poverty, not real wealth. Culture? The Aztecs were rich in culture, but they were destroyed. Again, what you are saying seems to be merely pointing to Western exoticism.


High levels of population and natural resources, technology, cultural influence. The Aztecs had no hold over Europeans imagination because the Europeans had no idea who the heck these guys were.

What you refer to as "Western exoticism" could equally refer to the way many Asians seem to have a romantic view of the Western world. "Eastern exoticism" is very much evident today as well as "Western exoticism" and both reflect cultural influence.


You feel that way because Mongolian influence in you life is largely subsumed within Chinese influence by the Mongolians' own identification with the Chinese. Even then, the Mongolians had a massive influence on Europe and the Middle East.


Exactly. They have had no lasting influence because nearly all their influence was subsumed by China, even though China itself didn't go abroad and conquer nearly all of Eurasia.

Do Mongolians have a lasting hold on the European and Middle Eastern psyche? Is Mongolia now a major cultural icon among Europeans and Middle Eastern peoples?


To be a mover or shaker, you have to be active in your field, and the one that we started off discussing happens to be political. Who has been most politically active in the world stage? Remember, war is a continuation of politics through other means.


Sorry. I wasn't aware that "influence" was supposed to be "political only."


I look at the world map and what I really see is one big continent consisting of what is geographically known as Europe and Asia. Those geographical expressions are a shell leftover from the past.

And do you know what von Metternich said about Italy before the Risorgimento? He said that Italy was a "geographical expression". Is Italy now merely a geographical expression? In the same way, Asia is more than just that. And in the other respects it is quite distinct from the ME.


Sorry. I am Filipino. We DO NOT identity with the Japanese. At all. Nor with Vietnamese, nor Koreans, not to virtually every nation in the East Asian region. We somewhat identify with Indonesians and Thais, but the religion thing kind of creates a major contrast.

If you want to go beyond geographical location, the Philippines is nearly as much a Western country as an Eastern one - it can't be neatly grouped with any other Asian grouping.


How about technological and political changes? Just study the path of history. Take note of the scale in which things happened and tell me whether there is anything before like what happened in the last 500 years. Even the Mongolian explosion cannot be compared to many developments that happened in the last century.

The West brought things to the extent they are now. In the future, the baton might be passed to Asia, at which point in history it might again have more influence on the world than the West.


Developments that have occurred in the last century are both Asian and European. To tell you the truth, the most influential power in the last century is neither Asian nor European but American. "The West" as it it is called, it not Europe.

If you want to talk about "The West," you're going to have to be a little more explicit.


Australia was massively invaded by the white man. Switzerland has seen many wars fought on its soil. Greenland isn't even largely populated.


1. Australia didn't exist as a nation prior to European invasion. Obviously the reference is after that.

2. Can you honestly say that Switzerland has been less stable than the rest of Europe or central China?

3. Yeah. That's kind of the point.


Japan wasn't isolated anymore after the Americans forced the Japanese to open up to trade. That immediately preceded the Meiji Restoration. And the Americans came to Japan for something, yes? Even before that, the Japanese have had dealings with the Spanish, the Dutch and the Portugese, so they were certainly not geographically isolated.


Isolated in the sense that few conquerors would really want that land.


I wouldn't say that the Japanese were peaceful, but they did exhibit the qualities of Spritual. Adherence to Shinto and the associated respect and devotion to the Emperor, a sense of nationalism that prevented massive fractious divisions upon the few changes of government it experienced - those are examples that justify Spiritual as a trait for the Japanese.


The Sengoku Jidai represented a total collapse of effective government as each Daimyo fought to become Shogun. I would not say that that period of Japanese history isn't a "massive fractious division." At least in the American Civil War, there were two distinct sides.

Prior to the Tokugawa era, it's debatable whether the Japanese exhibited anything more than the usual feudal loyalties. Nationalism? How so?


It was not, but it was not smooth sailing either.


Could you name something smoother, perhaps?

aelf:


What do you mean by "most of Asia?" I can more or less dartboard the Asian continent and be relatively sure of hitting something that's been historically influential at one point or another.

Man, I kind of laughed when I pictured the darts hitting the northern tips of Russia repeatedly. That would be kind of like how I play darts though :mischief:.

Alright. Then perhaps you could elucidate this statement a bit more, the thing that started this entire cascade rolling

Do you understand most of Asia has not been very influential? Or do you still think I meant to say that Asia is not influential.

What do you mean by "most of Asia?" I can more or less dartboard the Asian continent and be relatively sure of hitting something that's been historically influential at one point or another.

Most of Asia means the myriad of countries that you neglect to mention.

Major mainland Chinese languages are dead. Zilch. Nonexistent. As in we don't know what they sound or look like. That's pretty influential for Mandarin and the Han, no?

I can classify the strongest type of your arguments so far as 'appeal to China and India'. Look at what I said above again. Think. I'm not going to reply to anything else you bring up regarding China and India.

But China and India haven't been such great movers and shakers in the last 500 years anyway.

It's been more than 500 years since the East Asians and others have been that dominant militarily and they didn't bother conquering Europe at all. Seems obvious how that would work out.

Now it's time for you to learn the concept of power projection. China didn't so much not bother conquering the world as it didn't have the capability to project its power very far or for a significant length of time. Why? It had to deal with numerous regular internal rebellions and it did not have the same maritime capability as Europe had. The political conditions in China saw to it that China could not expand very far through the sea. Even taking Taiwan was a difficult affair.

I honestly haven't heard the statement "China could have did not bother to conquer the world" since secondary school.

Liberating yourself from a world-spanning conqueror as its chief colony doesn't constitute being a mover and shaker? Why not? Does it really matter how they did it? Isn't it the more remarkable that they were able to achieve it through new means?

It's more like they were liberated by the Nazis, if you want to press the point. It's a good thing colonialism came to an end in India, but I suggest you read up more about satyagraha to understand its effects beyond the simple face value that you get in pop culture. Hit the books, you know.

If we're going to split hairs, every major influential achievement done to this day was done by individuals, not nations.

Ever read anything about the different schools of historical thought? I do believe in the Great Man school, but I wouldn't put it so simply as you just did.

I don't know that there's a "cultural identity" defined as "Asia" that excludes major parts of the continent. Could you substantiate that?

I have. Now could you substantiate how the ME is really part of Asia besides being placed under the same geographical expression on the map? The fact that you are even talking about Asians is indicative of an identity. If Asia is merely a georgraphical expression, then the word 'Asians' would be meaningless, like how you don't talk about the Oceanians. Might as well just refer to them as the peoples of Asia.

I didn't quote such examples from Uzbekistan either. Not every region of the globe can be a global cultural power, particularly this close to more powerful cultural powers - India and China. Being subjugated by foreign powers is NOT everything there is to American or Asian history, so no go there, too.

I knew you would say that. Did you not perceive the context in which I spoke? We were talking about Greece, Greece that produced Alexander, that spawned several empires, that destroyed the greatest power in its half of the world at that time.

And again the 'appeal to China and India'.

The point is that Greece was never a major military power and yet is influential. Why are you limiting influence to military or political power? Why make an exception for Greece only?

Greece was never a major military power? :confused:

Why? That's a very Asian way of thinking. Just because you aspire to be an astronaut doesn't mean that you'll play fair with other aspirants or even the real deal itself. If you're been raised in a dog-eat-dog world, you'll take everybody for everything you can get and give nothing back.

That is percisely not the Asian way of thinking, unfortunately. If Asians respect themselves, they should stop sticking to the ineffectual exotic cultures and ancient glory crap and move on. How did you think Japan became so successful? They admitted they were left behind and learned from those who were ahead.

High levels of population and natural resources, technology, cultural influence. The Aztecs had no hold over Europeans imagination because the Europeans had no idea who the heck these guys were.

But the Europeans were there, just that they were not appreciating it. This is percisely what I meant by the sort of ineffectual way of thinking that I mentioned earlier. Our 'rich' cultures depend on others' appreciation. Other than that, we are nothing much. How about we change that?

What you refer to as "Western exoticism" could equally refer to the way many Asians seem to have a romantic view of the Western world. "Eastern exoticism" is very much evident today as well as "Western exoticism" and both reflect cultural influence.

That is aspiration. Of course, it's twisted into a sort of cultural worship more often than not. But Japan managed it, so there is hope.

Exactly. They have had no lasting influence because nearly all their influence was subsumed by China, even though China itself didn't go abroad and conquer nearly all of Eurasia.

Because the Mongols decided they liked Chinese culture. What if they didn't?

Do Mongolians have a lasting hold on the European and Middle Eastern psyche? Is Mongolia now a major cultural icon among Europeans and Middle Eastern peoples?

Go read up about the Mongolian presence in Europe and the Middle East and what effects it had on the power relations between the Islamic world and Christian Europe. Also, the Mongolians had a vast influence on Russia.

Sorry. I wasn't aware that "influence" was supposed to be "political only."

No, but we were talking about change in government, which is political.

Sorry. I am Filipino. We DO NOT identity with the Japanese. At all. Nor with Vietnamese, nor Koreans, not to virtually every nation in the East Asian region. We somewhat identify with Indonesians and Thais, but the religion thing kind of creates a major contrast.

Have you ever lived in another part of the world far from home?

If you want to go beyond geographical location, the Philippines is nearly as much a Western country as an Eastern one - it can't be neatly grouped with any other Asian grouping.

There is no 'neat grouping'. But the Asian identity is very much alive and distinct from that of the Middle East, as you can see from the numerous regional groupings around.

Developments that have occurred in the last century are both Asian and European. To tell you the truth, the most influential power in the last century is neither Asian nor European but American. "The West" as it it is called, it not Europe.

Less than a century that. And America is essentially culturally European.

1. Australia didn't exist as a nation prior to European invasion. Obviously the reference is after that.

The continent is there and it was inhabited. The only reason why the country Australia has not experienced much upheavel is its extremely short history, not its 'isolation'.

2. Can you honestly say that Switzerland has been less stable than the rest of Europe or central China?

Huh? Since when did I make such a statement? Switzerland is also NOT isolated, by the way.

Isolated in the sense that few conquerors would really want that land.

Only Greenland, in all your examples, is 'unwanted' land, and it's pretty obvious why.

The Sengoku Jidai represented a total collapse of effective government as each Daimyo fought to become Shogun. I would not say that that period of Japanese history isn't a "massive fractious division." At least in the American Civil War, there were two distinct sides.

So are we talking about government change or are we talking about civil war now?

Prior to the Tokugawa era, it's debatable whether the Japanese exhibited anything more than the usual feudal loyalties. Nationalism? How so?

After the Meiji Restoration, yes?

Could you name something smoother, perhaps?

New Zealand? This is an irrelevant question anyway.

This thread got hijacked to hell, but I'm enjoying it, and it's prompted me to actually learn things.

Personally, I find the concept of having more or less influence or even identifying with a country moreso than as individuals as dangerous and ineffective. Besides, such things are prone to changing, often quite drastically and rapidly. India and China are good examples of this, having huge amounts of land and population and finally catching up economically somewhat (the recession is hurting everyone, but once China balances its export-driven and internal demand-driven growth, look out). Still, if you go back far enough people share common ancestry, and this is true in at least 2 religions if you believe in creationism and also evolution (my personal belief, for what that's worth). IMO, that's why influence is irrelevant. At one point, Great Britain had about 1/4 of the world. Is that the case now? No, so what good did it do? People are better off learning and running governments with the interests of individuals at heart (in government's case, this means a collection of individuals, but not necessarily a "nation"). The only good I see in having nations is organization within reasonable areas, as a global government would be quite difficult to run even today, and downright impossible in old times.

Also, what pride was there to be had for a British idiot who contributed little to his society at the height of its dominance? Same goes for citizens of the US today (and man, there seem to be plenty of people who contribute minimally, if at all) and other "major world players". If anything, the best thing a nation can take pride in is making people's lives better as an organizational unit. Resting on the laurels of that will get a nation beat though, so moreso than pride the important thing is lessons learned from such an organizational unit. You can debate which ones were most successful at this in the past all you want, but what really matters is what will be the most effective going forward.

This is the exact reason I hate recognition of racial differences, fanatical allegiance to any country, or identifying oneself as a member of a group rather than as an individual (such an individual should perhaps focus his pride on his contributions to said group, rather than its success without him).

Note: I'm not accusing either of you of any of this of course :). This is just what came to mind after huge threads on arguing eastern vs western influence in history. It seems pretty damned irrelevant, and ideally it would be, as it would cut out a lot of the prejudice I still see today.

This thread got hijacked to hell, but I'm enjoying it, and it's prompted me to actually learn things.

Personally, I find the concept of having more or less influence or even identifying with a country moreso than as individuals as dangerous and ineffective. Besides, such things are prone to changing, often quite drastically and rapidly. India and China are good examples of this, having huge amounts of land and population and finally catching up economically somewhat (the recession is hurting everyone, but once China balances its export-driven and internal demand-driven growth, look out). Still, if you go back far enough people share common ancestry, and this is true in at least 2 religions if you believe in creationism and also evolution (my personal belief, for what that's worth). IMO, that's why influence is irrelevant. At one point, Great Britain had about 1/4 of the world. Is that the case now? No, so what good did it do? People are better off learning and running governments with the interests of individuals at heart (in government's case, this means a collection of individuals, but not necessarily a "nation"). The only good I see in having nations is organization within reasonable areas, as a global government would be quite difficult to run even today, and downright impossible in old times.

Also, what pride was there to be had for a British idiot who contributed little to his society at the height of its dominance? Same goes for citizens of the US today (and man, there seem to be plenty of people who contribute minimally, if at all) and other "major world players". If anything, the best thing a nation can take pride in is making people's lives better as an organizational unit. Resting on the laurels of that will get a nation beat though, so moreso than pride the important thing is lessons learned from such an organizational unit. You can debate which ones were most successful at this in the past all you want, but what really matters is what will be the most effective going forward.

This is the exact reason I hate recognition of racial differences, fanatical allegiance to any country, or identifying oneself as a member of a group rather than as an individual (such an individual should perhaps focus his pride on his contributions to said group, rather than its success without him).

Note: I'm not accusing either of you of any of this of course :). This is just what came to mind after huge threads on arguing eastern vs western influence in history. It seems pretty damned irrelevant, and ideally it would be, as it would cut out a lot of the prejudice I still see today.

I wouldn't say it's irrelevant. Maybe to individuals. But I'm studying politics, and on national levels, it is certainly important to learn from others and from history. We are talking about Japan. That's what Japan did. That's what a lot of the up-and-coming Asian countries do. Why do you think they send their young to West or to the more developed Asian countries? It may seem like very crude way to improve, especially in this comparatively tolerant and relativistic age, but it works.

It's not about showing off who did what. I'm arguing for foreigners here. I think it is so much more productive for one to acknowledge some historical truths and learn from them than to console oneself with thoughts of past glories or indefinable 'riches'. That is one of the psychological conditions that has led to fundamentalism.

Exotic Asia is good for tourism, but not for Asian mindsets.

I wouldn't say it's irrelevant. Maybe to individuals. But I'm studying politics, and on national levels, it is certainly important to learn from others and from history. We are talking about Japan. That's what Japan did. That's what a lot of the up-and-coming Asian countries do. Why do you think they send their young to West or to the more developed Asian countries? It may seem like very crude way to improve, especially in this comparatively tolerant and relativistic age, but it works.

It's not about showing off who did what. I'm arguing for foreigners here. I think it is so much more productive for one to acknowledge some historical truths and learn from them than to console oneself with thoughts of past glories or indefinable 'riches'. That is one of the psychological conditions that has led to fundamentalism.

Exotic Asia is good for tourism, but not for Asian mindsets.

I certainly agree it's good to look at the past as a way to attain methodology of doing well in the future. By irrelevant I'm pointing to the "who was influential" argument. That leads to a tedious discussion of what influential really is defined as, and the relevant thing about those empires wasn't the fact that they were big or controlled how the world developed, but rather that the world did so.

The important point in that post of mine isn't that the Japanese sent/send people over for example, but rather the reasoning behind it: ideally it is to make the lives of PEOPLE better. It's about goal focus...the idea isn't to make Japan more influential directly, but rather to improve. This may very well result in Japan being more influential in the future, but that is just a symptom, not a cause. The meat of the issue is why they become influential then - and invariably this will wind up with something they took away being useful to their lives. In this scenario, it would be true that say the United States "influenced" them, but you can trace chains of influence all the way back to the origin of mankind. IMO, it's pretty useless to do that other than for curious knowledge or why the influence occurred so it can be replicated...the region of the world that this occurs in has little bearing past which area of people are the best off at any given time, but for relevance purposes that is usually a function of CURRENT governance, no?

yyyyyyyaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnn
can we get back to Tokugawa bashing ?

mourndraken:

Sure. Bash away.

aelf


Do you understand most of Asia has not been very influential? Or do you still think I meant to say that Asia is not influential.


"Most" meaning what exactly? The spheres of influence of Russia, China, India, SEAsia and the Middle Eastern nations together already make up "most of Asia." If you count Mongolia and the Koreas as influential as well, what's left? Would you mean that the little that isn't within that sphere?
n

Most of Asia means the myriad of countries that you neglect to mention.


Let's talk land area and population. What percentage of Asia in terms of land and population would you say is not "very influential," though that phrase in itself is really quite subjective.

"Very influential" could simply mean "not the number one power in the world" and yes, most of the world isn't the number one power. Asia has more by virtue of covering more of Eurasia.


I can classify the strongest type of your arguments so far as 'appeal to China and India'. Look at what I said above again. Think. I'm not going to reply to anything else you bring up regarding China and India.

But China and India haven't been such great movers and shakers in the last 500 years anyway.


China and India together make up a sizable fraction of the world population. How can you discount them and the Middle East, and Russia, and Mongolia and still be referring to "most of Asia?"


Now it's time for you to learn the concept of power projection. China didn't so much not bother conquering the world as it didn't have the capability to project its power very far or for a significant length of time. Why? It had to deal with numerous regular internal rebellions and it did not have the same maritime capability as Europe had. The political conditions in China saw to it that China could not expand very far through the sea. Even taking Taiwan was a difficult affair.

I honestly haven't heard the statement "China could have did not bother to conquer the world" since secondary school.


Did I say China? Obviously the only empire that had the capability to cover enough region and had enough power to rule nearly the entire Eurasian continent is the Mongol Empire. Surely that should have been obvious enough. China was never anywhere near Europe and did not have the desire to subjugate Europe, even if it could.


It's more like they were liberated by the Nazis, if you want to press the point. It's a good thing colonialism came to an end in India, but I suggest you read up more about satyagraha to understand its effects beyond the simple face value that you get in pop culture. Hit the books, you know.


So Gandhi was the merely the beneficiary of a global coincidence and nothing more? His actions and its effects were politically unimportant?


Ever read anything about the different schools of historical thought? I do believe in the Great Man school, but I wouldn't put it so simply as you just did.


In that case, neither Europe nor Asia are very influential. It's the people.


I have. Now could you substantiate how the ME is really part of Asia besides being placed under the same geographical expression on the map? The fact that you are even talking about Asians is indicative of an identity. If Asia is merely a georgraphical expression, then the word 'Asians' would be meaningless, like how you don't talk about the Oceanians. Might as well just refer to them as the peoples of Asia.


Uh, Asians IS just a geographical nomenclature. The word "Asians" IS meaningless beyond that because culturally the entire region simply cannot be united under that name (or any name). Calling only East Asians "really Asian" is just complete BS.

So when you say "Asians," you're referring to a geographical name, just as you also do talk about Oceanians (or whatever).


I knew you would say that. Did you not perceive the context in which I spoke? We were talking about Greece, Greece that produced Alexander, that spawned several empires, that destroyed the greatest power in its half of the world at that time.


Alexander is Macedonian, dude, not Greek.


Greece was never a major military power?


Nope. The empire of Alexander the Great was Macedonian, not Greek. The Roman Empire was, well Roman. The greatest military impact the Greeks had would be defeating repeated Persian invasions into their land. By that same argument, the Vietnamese should be even more influential.


That is percisely not the Asian way of thinking, unfortunately. If Asians respect themselves, they should stop sticking to the ineffectual exotic cultures and ancient glory crap and move on. How did you think Japan became so successful? They admitted they were left behind and learned from those who were ahead.


Complete BS. Japanese society is nothing like American society. Its mores are not like American mores and its method of competition and scientific thought are also not the same.

Japan (and Europeans, too, if you must know) simply saw something which they clearly saw was superior performance in the areas they liked and acquired it proactively, THEN proceeded to improve upon it in their own way.

They did NOT "admit they were left behind." They simply saw something others had that they didn't and took it.

It's not so much:

"We're backward, they're superior, let's learn from THEM"

and more of:

"They have something we want. Let's get it and use it the way it's supposed to be used."


But the Europeans were there, just that they were not appreciating it. This is precisely what I meant by the sort of ineffectual way of thinking that I mentioned earlier. Our 'rich' cultures depend on others' appreciation. Other than that, we are nothing much. How about we change that?


Uh... No?

Cultural power and identity is strongly determined by a people appreciating their own culture. Getting others to appreciate it (as the Chinese to the Mongols) is simply a prelude to cultural warfare and eventual assimilation.


Because the Mongols decided they liked Chinese culture. What if they didn't?


What the Europeans were 50 pound weakling and had no guns? Unsupported "what ifs" of this nature are no good. By 1000 AD, China's cultural identity, wealth, and power were so strong that they were able to bring nearby nations within their cultural orbit. A nomadic nation wouldn't have stood a chance.


Go read up about the Mongolian presence in Europe and the Middle East and what effects it had on the power relations between the Islamic world and Christian Europe. Also, the Mongolians had a vast influence on Russia.


Past influence, with little lasting effect apart from the political unification of Russia and India. India would have later been (and was) unified later under British rule, and the Central Asian and Middle Eastern centers have significant enough historical clout not to need a further boost.


No, but we were talking about change in government, which is political.


We were talking about smooth government transitions. I don't know why political influence alone should indicate which standards we should be getting for that. Is the fact that a nation is politically and militarily powerful some kind of indication that it's the norm?

Clearly, if it's considered powerful, it's NOT the norm.


Have you ever lived in another part of the world far from home?


I confess not.


There is no 'neat grouping'. But the Asian identity is very much alive and distinct from that of the Middle East, as you can see from the numerous regional groupings around.


No such thing as "Asian identity." The cultural and political groupings in Asia have no right declaring themselves superior to the others as a matter of course, and thus representative of "Asian identity."

Japanese and Koreans, even, are quick to point out that no, they are NOT Chinese, and that their respective cultures are NOT simply derivations of Chinese culture.

What about SEAsians? Do YOU identify with a Korean enough to forgive someone for calling you a Korean and assuming the same general outlook? ARE you enough of a Korean to be called a Korean? Chinese? Japanese?

I certainly don't, and I've met a fair number of such foreign nationals.


Less than a century that. And America is essentially culturally European.


Yeah... ...I can see where "European" and "American" have the same colloquial connotations. Yeah.


The continent is there and it was inhabited. The only reason why the country Australia has not experienced much upheaval is its extremely short history, not its 'isolation'.


Australia has been a Dominion of the British Empire since 1901. The Philippines is scarcely older than that as a unified state in its current area and has experienced more invasions and counter-invasions.


Huh? Since when did I make such a statement? Switzerland is also NOT isolated, by the way.


So it is more stable? Like I said.


Only Greenland, in all your examples, is 'unwanted' land, and it's pretty obvious why.


The others are also more or less undesirable - generally more trouble than is worth conquering.


So are we talking about government change or are we talking about civil war now?


The two often go together, for obvious reasons. Why differentiate?


After the Meiji Restoration, yes?


Again, debatable whether the Meiji Restoration was anything other than the culmination of a process that took a long time with a lot of kinks, clearly not a quick, painless, and dramatic change.

The people of Japan didn't suddenly develop nationhood after a proclamation.


New Zealand? This is an irrelevant question anyway.


No. It isn't. It tells us that Japanese social and governing transition isn't really as smooth as you make it out to be. I would certainly question whether Japan has the capability to switch religions, social institutions and government types without a hitch.

yyyyyyyyyyaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnn
does any of this thread have anyting to do with Tokugawa ?

The leader traits in Civ 4 are reflections of the personalities of the leaders themselves, not the civilizations they represent. This is why some civs have more than one leader with very different traits. Since you admit that Agg/Pro is appropriate for Tokugawa the person himself, it would seem that the game designers got it right.

This statement is just imprecise. SOME leaders have SOME traits fitting to their charachters, but not all. Also, these leaders influenced their countries so much that the traits can be applied to the Civs as well.

How can a person be Aggressive and Protective at the same time ?
Organized person ? A bit stretched...
Imperialistic PERSON ? How's an Imperialistic person ?

Also, why if Tokugawa is aggressive, his soldiers get a bonus to combat ? Are his soldiers aggressive only because he is ? Nah, this theory of traits applying to leaders ONLY doesn't hold water, really. They mostly apply both to leaders AND civs. In fact, some Civs with more than one leader have common traits. China > Protective, England used to have 2 Financial.

I'm only going to talk about what I know, which in this case is a bit limited.

mourndraken:


Alexander is Macedonian, dude, not Greek.


Nope. The empire of Alexander the Great was Macedonian, not Greek. The Roman Empire was, well Roman. The greatest military impact the Greeks had would be defeating repeated Persian invasions into their land. By that same argument, the Vietnamese should be even more influential.

.

Yes, Alexander was Macedonian, not Greek. However, calling the pre-Macedonian Greeks lightweight military contenders is simply false. I would recommend the Anabassid by Xenophon. For those unaware of the general account, there was a civil war going on in Persia, and a set of Greek mercanaries were the decisive factor in the battle of Cunaxa. However, due to the chaos of the battle, the guy they were planning on putting on the throne got killed, so strategically, their side "lost" even though they decisively won the battle. Most of the work concerns with the army's attempt to get back home and make enough money (they apparantly were going to get most of their money after the battle, which of course never materialized) to make the trip worthwhile. To make a long story short, they plowed through pretty much most of the Persian resistance with little effort.

Another good campaign to look at is Agesilous's (spelling?) campaign into Egypt. Actually, after the Persian Wars, Greek mercenaries became an extremely sought after resource, and was one of the principle means of bringing wealth back home to the motherland. The Pre-Macedonian Greeks were extremely tough militarily.

What the Greeks were not were conquerors, at least in an outside sense. Almost all Greek military struggles were with other Greeks, and as a result, from an external point of view, they "wasted" their power.

Total side point. There should be some sort of civil war or strife between different parts of the empire in Civ, far worse than that paltry maintenance penalty. I mean, look at Japan before 1640 or so........ (please forgive me if this date for the somewhat shaky unification is wrong. As I implied above, my knowledge of Japanese history is weak)

The important point in that post of mine isn't that the Japanese sent/send people over for example, but rather the reasoning behind it: ideally it is to make the lives of PEOPLE better. It's about goal focus...the idea isn't to make Japan more influential directly, but rather to improve. This may very well result in Japan being more influential in the future, but that is just a symptom, not a cause. The meat of the issue is why they become influential then - and invariably this will wind up with something they took away being useful to their lives. In this scenario, it would be true that say the United States "influenced" them, but you can trace chains of influence all the way back to the origin of mankind. IMO, it's pretty useless to do that other than for curious knowledge or why the influence occurred so it can be replicated...the region of the world that this occurs in has little bearing past which area of people are the best off at any given time, but for relevance purposes that is usually a function of CURRENT governance, no?

Therein lies the difference betwen the Western liberal democratic tradition and other political perspectives. Politics is about power, and nations struggle with each other for power. Having power (both political and economic) might benefit individuals' or the people's lives indirectly, but no necessarily so. Even Western foreign policy is more driven by such geopolitical concerns than by concern for the people's welfare, but the latter might come into consideration anyway. But think about China. On what basis do you think it makes its policy choices?

It might not be true that everyone has the will to power, but if you're talking about countries, now that's more certain.

yyyyyyyaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnn
can we get back to Tokugawa bashing ?

Sure. Go on, then. Blessed are the ignorant for they have fun all day... Especially by 'bashing' people :goodjob:

"Most" meaning what exactly? The spheres of influence of Russia, China, India, SEAsia and the Middle Eastern nations together already make up "most of Asia." If you count Mongolia and the Koreas as influential as well, what's left? Would you mean that the little that isn't within that sphere?

Russia is culturally Western since Peter the Great. No, I don't count Korea, and there's still a lot of Asia left. The whole of SEA did not have much active influence. Bhutan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan, etc. I can rattle off a list of countries that you have neglected to mention. And you haven't really explained why the ME should be considered as part of Asia.

Did I say China? Obviously the only empire that had the capability to cover enough region and had enough power to rule nearly the entire Eurasian continent is the Mongol Empire. Surely that should have been obvious enough. China was never anywhere near Europe and did not have the desire to subjugate Europe, even if it could.

Mongolia did not 'rule' nearly the entire Eurasian continent. They subjugated a lot but administered very little outside of China. Ruling takes a different sort of ability.

So Gandhi was the merely the beneficiary of a global coincidence and nothing more? His actions and its effects were politically unimportant?

Yes, in the sense that it did not directly produce the desired effects, although of course it has affected Indian politics massively.

In that case, neither Europe nor Asia are very influential. It's the people.

Obviously you don't know what you're talking about.

Uh, Asians IS just a geographical nomenclature. The word "Asians" IS meaningless beyond that because culturally the entire region simply cannot be united under that name (or any name). Calling only East Asians "really Asian" is just complete BS.

So when you say "Asians," you're referring to a geographical name, just as you also do talk about Oceanians (or whatever).

Maybe you are right that the Philippines is closer to America than the rest of Asia, because you have no concept whatever of the region and how it figures in the world.

But maybe you just need to live somewhere else for a while to realise that you have more in common with a Japanese or even a Kazakh than you have with a European or a Syrian.

Alexander is Macedonian, dude, not Greek.

That is a laughable statement that an elementary schoolboy might make. So Alexander set off to Macedonise the known world and not Hellenise it? Aristotle taught Alexander to love Macedon and its culture? Just because the other Greek ruling groups considered Phillip II and his countrymen barbarians does not make them less Greek than the people of Pisae were Roman. And do you know anything about the present quarrel in the Balkans about Macedonia and the Greek heritage?

Nope. The empire of Alexander the Great was Macedonian, not Greek. The Roman Empire was, well Roman. The greatest military impact the Greeks had would be defeating repeated Persian invasions into their land. By that same argument, the Vietnamese should be even more influential.

Wrong, not even close. By your definition, only people from Rome were Romans, discounting a vast number of Romans that were not from Rome. Again, you have no concept whatever of cultural identity.

And comparing Vietnam to Greece is simply a hilarious stretch of the imagination.

Complete BS. Japanese society is nothing like American society. Its mores are not like American mores and its method of competition and scientific thought are also not the same.

Japan (and Europeans, too, if you must know) simply saw something which they clearly saw was superior performance in the areas they liked and acquired it proactively, THEN proceeded to improve upon it in their own way.

They did NOT "admit they were left behind." They simply saw something others had that they didn't and took it.

It's not so much:

"We're backward, they're superior, let's learn from THEM"

and more of:

"They have something we want. Let's get it and use it the way it's supposed to be used."

I see that you cannot be convinced to put your little pride down. It's so painfully obvious that Japan could not simply 'take' the technology and knowledge it needed, but had to learn them. And the first step to learning is to humble yourself and acknowledge that you have to learn from others who are better.

Humility is not humiliation, but if you are incapable of the former, then you'll fall so low that the latter will be forced upon you. The mistake that China made.

What about SEAsians? Do YOU identify with a Korean enough to forgive someone for calling you a Korean and assuming the same general outlook? ARE you enough of a Korean to be called a Korean? Chinese? Japanese?

It does happen, and it does rile some people up, but I don't blame anyone because I often can't tell between a Dutch and a German. In any case, I identify a lot more with Japenese people and Korean people than with the English.

The two often go together, for obvious reasons. Why differentiate?

Of course you must. The Sengoku was not a governmental transition. Neither was the American Civil War.

Again, debatable whether the Meiji Restoration was anything other than the culmination of a process that took a long time with a lot of kinks, clearly not a quick, painless, and dramatic change.

The people of Japan didn't suddenly develop nationhood after a proclamation.

It was more dramatic than you think. The Tokugawa Shogunate had maintained the status quo for centuries until the Americans came .That was when the Japanese realised that they must leave the status quo. And the desire to catch up with America and the West lent itself to the creation of a national identity.

No. It isn't. It tells us that Japanese social and governing transition isn't really as smooth as you make it out to be. I would certainly question whether Japan has the capability to switch religions, social institutions and government types without a hitch.

No one can, then.

Now I'm going to be the one suggesting you hit the books, because you don't seem to have a comprehensive knowledge of a lot of the things you are trying to talk about. Some of my views may be quite subjective and I do appreciate debate, but not with someone who pretends to know more than he does. Sorry if I'm being blunt here, but I'm kind of tired having to point out things that should be quite obvious. I'm going to be winding down my participation in the discussion. You can think that you're winning the debate, if you like.

And you haven't really explained why the ME should be considered as part of Asia.
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/3831/mapsdfrfst6.png (http://imageshack.us)

:)

But Roxlimn let me explain why possibly ME is not "part" of Asia

Geographically, yes as the map shows, the ME is in Asia.
However Historically, the Middle east has tangled around more with Europe than it has with China or India.
For Example, it was Greco-Roman Culture that dominated the ME for centuries before the arrival of the Islamic powers. Then after that, Islam itself had many close links with Christianity and Judaism, already florishing in the West. Also the Persian Kingdoms and empires to come, most of them interacted with Europe. It was Cyrus who marched into Europe with its Armies. It was Xeres that demanded the Greeks surrender. True, the great Persian Empires did have borders, trade and links with Central Asia and India, but Europe to them was more of common ground. Greece, with its rocky mountains and unfertile land was more of a prize to the Persian Kings then that of the rich Indic Lands.

Simmilary, Most of the Sassanid Persian Empire was spent fighting its greatest rival the Roman Empire, not India. The Arabs, who later controled Syria and Eygpt, contiuned the Rivalry. The Byzantiums and the Muslims empire to come fought countless battles to gain dominace in Syria and Anatolia, but however only did fight one or two actual battles with China. Battle of Talas(only one i can think of). Any major Empire that was to control Syria and Egypt spent centuries interacting with Europe. Italian Maritime Empires have their Merchants travel to Alexandria, Cyprus, Lebanon and Palestine. You may argue that Arab traders frequently visit India and SEA to trade. True, but thats where they get the goods. The real bargaining and marketing begins at the Eastern Rim of the Mediterean.
Countless wars also drag the ME closer to Europe than that of the more eastern realms of Asia. The most prominent ones are the Crusades. The Ottoman Rulers of Turkey prefer to Invade Europe over Asian lands as the loot was far better and the conditions easier. The Turks themselves adopted European clothes, style and other small cultural changes.
So finally, ME is geographically Asian, but usually in Historic and Political debates the ME is not part of Asia as it has more in common culturally, politically and historically with Europe. But in that sense one cannot say its European. So naturally, one displace the ME as a special Region of its own.

Asia is not China.

China is not Asia.

Asia is not a cultural designation.

Imperialistic PERSON ? How's an Imperialistic person ?


He he, ever read the republic of Plato? He establish a correspondence between the attributes of an state an those of a person's character. In fact, the more I play civ4 the more I believe it was designed by the ghosts of Plato and Hegel.:eek:

Asia is not a cultural designation.

That is mantra that you have to repeat with your select group of intellectual hermits.

I thought you were winding down your participation?

It's exactly that kind of "definition" that makes people say that Iranians, Filipinos, and Indians are "not Asian."

I thought you were winding down your participation?

Winding down not = shutting up.

It's exactly that kind of "definition" that makes people say that Iranians, Filipinos, and Indians are "not Asian."

Nope. Indians are generally recognised as Asians. So are Filipinos. Iranians are not.

aelf:


Nope. Indians are generally recognised as Asians. So are Filipinos. Iranians are not.


By whom, though? There's the rub.

What is the common thread that binds Indians and Filipinos together, but excludes the Middle Eastern states? Religion? Filipinos are mainly Catholics, Indians Hindu, and Middle Easterners Muslim. In terms of religion, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the southern Philippines are (were) predominantly or significantly Muslim in content, a cultural aspect they share more with the Middle Eastern states than with any other "Asian" group.

Could it be foods?
Social structure?
Historical political allegiances?
Economic systems?

You say that Filipinos and Japanese are more alike that Filipinos and Americans or Filipinos and British, or Filipinos and Spanish but being a Filipino myself, I don't find this greater affinity for Japanese in my personal experience, nor in the personal experience of most people of my acquaintance, of various socioeconomic backgrounds. I cull this from my experience treating foreign nationals from the Multinational Village and also from attending to various foreigners at medical tourism spots.

Heck, I'm definitively 1/16 Chinese by blood but I know more Spanish than Chinese. I speak English as a native tongue, even.

It seems as if I'm not really Filipino after all, all evidences to the contrary.

Since you seem to know more about me than me, why don't YOU tell me why I identify more with my Japanese acquaintances even though I don't think so myself?

By whom, though? There's the rub.

By many more people than you can imagine. It might have something to do with the fact that the ME likes to have its own cultural identity, maybe due to factors such as pan-Arabism and Islamism. The latter is gaining popularity in other regions besides the ME, though, so it might affect how things will be.

What is the common thread that binds Indians and Filipinos together, but excludes the Middle Eastern states? Religion? Filipinos are mainly Catholics, Indians Hindu, and Middle Easterners Muslim. In terms of religion, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the southern Philippines are (were) predominantly or significantly Muslim in content, a cultural aspect they share more with the Middle Eastern states than with any other "Asian" group.

Could it be foods?
Social structure?
Historical political allegiances?
Economic systems?

You say that Filipinos and Japanese are more alike that Filipinos and Americans or Filipinos and British, or Filipinos and Spanish but being a Filipino myself, I don't find this greater affinity for Japanese in my personal experience, nor in the personal experience of most people of my acquaintance, of various socioeconomic backgrounds. I cull this from my experience treating foreign nationals from the Multinational Village and also from attending to various foreigners at medical tourism spots.

Heck, I'm definitively 1/16 Chinese by blood but I know more Spanish than Chinese. I speak English as a native tongue, even.

It seems as if I'm not really Filipino after all, all evidences to the contrary.

Since you seem to know more about me than me, why don't YOU tell me why I identify more with my Japanese acquaintances even though I don't think so myself?

I don't know about you, but not going around and meeting enough people from all parts of the world might be why you think so. I lived in a multi-cultural society and now I'm living overseas. My best language is English and I don't exactly like the stereotypical mainlander Chinese, but I can see that there is more of a cultural connection between me and a mainlander Chinese or a Tamil Indian than with an Englishman, even if my Chinese is horrible and I don't speak Tamil.

aelf:

Well, you don't have to take my word for it alone.

My sister lived and worked in Japan for the better part of 6 or 7 years. My brother went to and from Japan, settling for months at a time. I have 5 friends who've lived and worked in Singapore. I've spoken about the topic of relating to foreigners to all manner of people who have to interact with foreigners locally, and I've also had occasion to talk with people who've lived in the US, Ireland, Britain, Australia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and yes, China and Malaysia as well.

There are lots and lots of Filipinos working all over the world and I get to interact with them and foreigners directly in my line of work. The Filipino diaspora is not limited to one country or another and the emigration isn't limited by social or economic class.

I would say that our experience with interacting with all sorts of people the world over kind of lets us know where we stand, even if I personally have not lived beyond the borders of the country for any length of time.

My feedback from these people gives me the impression that of all the peoples Filipinos interact with, they identify with Japanese culturally the least. Cultural connection with China is possible, but it really depends on how much of the local chinese culture you've absorbed. No, most Filipino-Chinese are not Buddhist, nor Confucianist, nor Taoist.

Filipinos identify with Americans the most, not other peoples in Asia, especially because many Filipinos have American relatives of various genetic backgrounds.

The Philippines in Manila is about as multicultural of a country as you can hope for. Singapore is, too, if you prefer. It was lots of representations from India, China, Korea, Japan, Greece. I've met and spoken with a lot of people from a lot of countries, and I've also spoken to people about relating and integrating from people who have had to spend extended time with foreigners in foreign lands.

I won't speak for you or your countrymen, but what makes you think you know enough about Filipinos to speak for us?

aelf:

Well, you don't have to take my word for it alone.

My sister lived and worked in Japan for the better part of 6 or 7 years. My brother went to and from Japan, settling for months at a time. I have 5 friends who've lived and worked in Singapore. I've spoken about the topic of relating to foreigners to all manner of people who have to interact with foreigners locally, and I've also had occasion to talk with people who've lived in the US, Ireland, Britain, Australia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and yes, China and Malaysia as well.

There are lots and lots of Filipinos working all over the world and I get to interact with them and foreigners directly in my line of work. The Filipino diaspora is not limited to one country or another and the emigration isn't limited by social or economic class.

I would say that our experience with interacting with all sorts of people the world over kind of lets us know where we stand, even if I personally have not lived beyond the borders of the country for any length of time.

My feedback from these people gives me the impression that of all the peoples Filipinos interact with, they identify with Japanese culturally the least. Cultural connection with China is possible, but it really depends on how much of the local chinese culture you've absorbed. No, most Filipino-Chinese are not Buddhist, nor Confucianist, nor Taoist.

Filipinos identify with Americans the most, not other peoples in Asia, especially because many Filipinos have American relatives of various genetic backgrounds.

The Philippines in Manila is about as multicultural of a country as you can hope for. Singapore is, too, if you prefer. It was lots of representations from India, China, Korea, Japan, Greece. I've met and spoken with a lot of people from a lot of countries, and I've also spoken to people about relating and integrating from people who have had to spend extended time with foreigners in foreign lands.

I won't speak for you or your countrymen, but what makes you think you know enough about Filipinos to speak for us?

I'm just trying explain why you might think that way. My experiences have been the reverse, and I do have first-hand experiences.

Anyway, you've only said that Filipinos identify more with Americans than with the Japanese. Okay, but make a careful distinction between liking and identifying. I like English people more than mainland Chinese people, but that that doesn't mean I identify with English people more.

The best indicator of identification is found when you take a macro view, because individuals often can't tell apart between preference and identification. Look at regional groupings and how global organisations work in regional contexts. And look at inter-regional and intra-regional interactions. Countries that are closer to each other have more rivalry with each other, but they also form a regional identity that becomes clear in international affairs. The problem with Asia as a geographical region is it doesn't have such a strong single identity that can be found, say, in Africa (looking at the African Union). Within the geographical Asia, there are cultural sub-groupings (such as East Asia). However, when you take a look at it, the ME is the furthest removed from the rest of Asia in terms of cultural identity.

Maybe the difficulty with Filipinos is they are assimilated into Spanish and American cultures to a large extent. But even by virtue of proximity alone, you can't say that you don't identify with, say, East Asian countries more than with ME countries.

aelf:


Anyway, you've only said that Filipinos identify more with Americans than with the Japanese. Okay, but make a careful distinction between liking and identifying. I like English people more than mainland Chinese people, but that that doesn't mean I identify with English people more.


Absolutely. I personally can't stand many Americans I know in person. A lot of them are loud, brash, and downright rude. Some of them are pleasant, and there's a fair variation, of course, as is normal. I don't know that I like them any better on the whole than people from anywhere else.

Filipinos eat at American fastfood joints, follow American programs and educational systems, and in these systems study many of the same things as well. We even get taught major subjects in English. We get Cartoon Network and AXN - even imported anime goes by way of the US more often than not - for the English dubbing. Our way of life is ultimately still our own, but it does contain more mainstream American culture in it than mainstream Japanese culture.


The best indicator of identification is found when you take a macro view, because individuals often can't tell apart between preference and identification. Look at regional groupings and how global organisations work in regional contexts. And look at inter-regional and intra-regional interactions. Countries that are closer to each other have more rivalry with each other, but they also form a regional identity that becomes clear in international affairs. The problem with Asia as a geographical region is it doesn't have such a strong single identity that can be found, say, in Africa (looking at the African Union). Within the geographical Asia, there are cultural sub-groupings (such as East Asia). However, when you take a look at it, the ME is the furthest removed from the rest of Asia in terms of cultural identity.


Again, I don't see where you're getting that.

Russia is the most removed from the rest of Asia in terms of cultural identity, because it considered itself part of the cultural orbit of "The West." ME, India, and SEAsia have (as I said) dealings in trade and export since before the advent of Portugese trading in the Indian Ocean. Muslims from ME carried their culture and influence as they headed East, all the way up to China. SEAsia's religious and political systems were profoundly affected by this wave of trading relationships.

This common religious interest ties SEAsians to ME quite strongly considering the distance between them. I've known moderate Muslim Indonesian and Malaysian nationals express dismay at ME's continuing mayhem and some of the actions of their fellow Muslims. You can't say that there's no identification going on there.

Too, Hellenic influence dating back from from Alexander's conquests then Sinicizing influence heading back the other way passed through both the ME and India, and they continue to have similar cultural influences along those lines. The common ground is their relative distance from these centers of cultural export through conquest. Certainly, I would say that Muslim Pakistan (formerly India!) identifies strongly with their ME friends.

There's so much cultural diversity in geographic Asia. It's thoroughly unfair for you or anyone else to simply discount some cultures altogether and call only some cultural orbits "Asia," but dismiss others as so minor that they're "nonAsian."

No, I don't identify with India at all. Virtually no Filipino does. We don't share majority religions. The food is markedly different. Language is different. Political influence has never been common. We don't share military interests. We're not in geographic proximity.

Any identification you're seeing there is utter fantasy. We do NOT identify with Indians any more than we identify with Saudis. In fact, many Southern Filipinos would identify with Saudis more than with any other cultural or political grouping.

So again, what makes you say that Filipinos and Indians more closely identify and resemble each other than Filipinos and Americans, Filipinos and Saudis, and Filipinos and Spanish?

ARE Filipinos even Asian?

Based on these observations, I would say that I'm clearly in a more Westernized society than you are, and yet still not Westernized enough that anyone including ourselves would consider ourselves part of that cultural orbit. Neither would we say that we're that strongly part of the East Asian orbit.

There IS no "Asia" as a vast common cultural grouping that specifically excludes ME. That's ludicrous. ME, India, East Asia, and SE Asia (Central Asia in Russia as well) are all major orbits of cultural identifies and political groupings that are each, in their own right, "Asian." Thus, Asian refers not to a common cultural grouping but several, and in that sense only really makes sense as a geographical denotation.

Absolutely. I personally can't stand many Americans I know in person. A lot of them are loud, brash, and downright rude. Some of them are pleasant, and there's a fair variation, of course, as is normal. I don't know that I like them any better on the whole than people from anywhere else.

Filipinos eat at American fastfood joints, follow American programs and educational systems, and in these systems study many of the same things as well. We even get taught major subjects in English. We get Cartoon Network and AXN - even imported anime goes by way of the US more often than not - for the English dubbing. Our way of life is ultimately still our own, but it does contain more mainstream American culture in it than mainstream Japanese culture.

That is true in many countries. But does that mean everyone automatically identify with Americans? Identification includes empathy or even sympathy towards another culture or with the struggle of people belonging to that culture, familiarity, mutual feeling of inhabiting a common region, acknowledgement of neighbourly or near-neighbourly status (or proximity), feeling of mutual dependency, having similar cultural leanings and habits, relative trust, political and economic dispositions (for lack of a better word) arising specifically from the afore-mentioned things (and not due to ideological reasons), etc... Things some of which are difficult to define but existent. Maybe you like American food, but that doesn't mean a lot of these things exist between Filipinos and Americans.

Again, I don't see where you're getting that.

Russia is the most removed from the rest of Asia in terms of cultural identity, because it considered itself part of the cultural orbit of "The West." ME, India, and SEAsia have (as I said) dealings in trade and export since before the advent of Portugese trading in the Indian Ocean. Muslims from ME carried their culture and influence as they headed East, all the way up to China. SEAsia's religious and political systems were profoundly affected by this wave of trading relationships.

Again, Russia is culturally Western.

This common religious interest ties SEAsians to ME quite strongly considering the distance between them. I've known moderate Muslim Indonesian and Malaysian nationals express dismay at ME's continuing mayhem and some of the actions of their fellow Muslims. You can't say that there's no identification going on there.

Too, Hellenic influence dating back from from Alexander's conquests then Sinicizing influence heading back the other way passed through both the ME and India, and they continue to have similar cultural influences along those lines. The common ground is their relative distance from these centers of cultural export through conquest. Certainly, I would say that Muslim Pakistan (formerly India!) identifies strongly with their ME friends.

Yes, I've mentioned that Islam does have an influence, but it is not that significant in most Asian countries yet. Sympathy does contribute to identification, but it's not enough. Ultimately, most Indonesians, for example, would feel that the ME too far away to be very deeply concerned about it. But if something big happens in, say, India, more of them would feel that it is relevant on a deeper level because it is 'closer to home'. That is part of identification.

There's so much cultural diversity in geographic Asia. It's thoroughly unfair for you or anyone else to simply discount some cultures altogether and call only some cultural orbits "Asia," but dismiss others as so minor that they're "nonAsian."

Rubbish. I never implied anything like that. Again, you are using dubious debating tactics.

No, I don't identify with India at all. Virtually no Filipino does. We don't share majority religions. The food is markedly different. Language is different. Political influence has never been common. We don't share military interests. We're not in geographic proximity.

Any identification you're seeing there is utter fantasy. We do NOT identify with Indians any more than we identify with Saudis. In fact, many Southern Filipinos would identify with Saudis more than with any other cultural or political grouping.

So again, what makes you say that Filipinos and Indians more closely identify and resemble each other than Filipinos and Americans, Filipinos and Saudis, and Filipinos and Spanish?

ARE Filipinos even Asian?

Based on these observations, I would say that I'm clearly in a more Westernized society than you are, and yet still not Westernized enough that anyone including ourselves would consider ourselves part of that cultural orbit. Neither would we say that we're that strongly part of the East Asian orbit.

There IS no "Asia" as a vast common cultural grouping that specifically excludes ME. That's ludicrous. ME, India, East Asia, and SE Asia (Central Asia in Russia as well) are all major orbits of cultural identifies and political groupings that are each, in their own right, "Asian." Thus, Asian refers not to a common cultural grouping but several, and in that sense only really makes sense as a geographical denotation.

This is obviously a pointless debate. I've already pointed out to you signs indicating a common cultural identity, however loose (i.e. trends and organisations forming in and through intra and inter-regional interactions between countries). Yet you insist on talking about how you feel based on very limited ideas of identity. As before, you can't see anything subtler than what is on paper or what is overtly felt. Furthermore, you keep employing dubious debating tactics (strawman, begging the question) and falling back on the same things that have been dealt with (China, India, your own feelings). These things make me ask myself why I want to spend any effort replying anymore.

I can't convince you, nor can anyone else (note that somebody else from Asia also tried), because you just want to believe in what you want to believe. Well, just go on living your life and meeting more people, maybe live overseas for some time, and then decide whether you are proven right or wrong.

Now, I am ceasing my participation in this discussion. Maybe you have a lot of time to waste, but I don't.

To sum up all the arguments on this page, Yes - Tokugawa is too stupid for his own good.

Tokugawa.

Fun to play as.

Only fun to play against if he hits you unguarded(He absoloutely RAPED me in one Terra start, I was just a bit from Machinery....

Then bam. All of the sudden he overruns me with, like, TWENTY Samurai/Knights. I got Machinery for Cho-Ku-Nus...

But No Engineerig to counter the Knights D:

In the end, I started to hold him off...then Monty declared on me from my OTHER border, and they just collectively OWNED me.)

IronicBuddha:

He's generally too stupid for his own good.


That is true in many countries. But does that mean everyone automatically identify with Americans? Identification includes empathy or even sympathy towards another culture or with the struggle of people belonging to that culture, familiarity, mutual feeling of inhabiting a common region, acknowledgement of neighbourly or near-neighbourly status (or proximity), feeling of mutual dependency, having similar cultural leanings and habits, relative trust, political and economic dispositions (for lack of a better word) arising specifically from the afore-mentioned things (and not due to ideological reasons), etc... Things some of which are difficult to define but existent. Maybe you like American food, but that doesn't mean a lot of these things exist between Filipinos and Americans.


And you would know because you're Filipino, I suppose? Perhaps you're intimately familiar with the history between the two countries? No? Then I don't think you have the weight of evidence you think you have.


Again, Russia is culturally Western.


And is thus furtherest removed from the rest of Asia.


Yes, I've mentioned that Islam does have an influence, but it is not that significant in most Asian countries yet. Sympathy does contribute to identification, but it's not enough. Ultimately, most Indonesians, for example, would feel that the ME too far away to be very deeply concerned about it. But if something big happens in, say, India, more of them would feel that it is relevant on a deeper level because it is 'closer to home'. That is part of identification.


And we here in the Philippines don't really care at all. You know the Asian tsunami that devastated so many nations in the Indian Ocean? Not a blip of a wave here. Not physically, and the direct economic impact was small. We felt sympathy for our Asian brothers, but we also felt for the victims of the Katrina disaster. If anything, the tourism industry benefited from having Phuket taken off the map. Callous, I know, but that's how things are. You think most Americans in the Midwest or Hawaii genuinely cared?

I can't say anything for your situation, but I'm quite comfortable in challenging your incredible assertion that Filipinos identify more with India than with Saudi or with the US.


Rubbish. I never implied anything like that. Again, you are using dubious debating tactics.


Why else would you say that a place in a given geographic region shouldn't at least be equally representative of the region?


This is obviously a pointless debate. I've already pointed out to you signs indicating a common cultural identity, however loose (i.e. trends and organisations forming in and through intra and inter-regional interactions between countries). Yet you insist on talking about how you feel based on very limited ideas of identity. As before, you can't see anything subtler than what is on paper or what is overtly felt. Furthermore, you keep employing dubious debating tactics (strawman, begging the question) and falling back on the same things that have been dealt with (China, India, your own feelings). These things make me ask myself why I want to spend any effort replying anymore.


You can talk all you like, but you haven't said anything at all to substantiate your ludicrous assertion. Is the Philippine more closely tied to India than to America? How so? Political allegiance? That can't be. We're allies with the US. Economics? Much of our most relevant exports go there. Many OFWs send money from there. The PSE is closely affected by the trends in Wall Street. Religiously? Gastronomically? Military aid? Membership in international organizations?

Hell, give me anything. What links Filipinos and Indians so closely that we supposedly identify more with each other than Filipinos with Americans and Filipinos and Saudis?

My point is that Asia is a geographic nomenclature. This requires no proving since it's self evident to any educated person. You assert that Asia is more than that, but also that Filipinos are part of this mystical mythical grouping. Your case is as yet nonexistent.


Now, I am ceasing my participation in this discussion. Maybe you have a lot of time to waste, but I don't.


My replies come from my stock familiarity with people who are from around the world and from my knowledge of local and foreign history. Typing my responses takes under a minute. I don't waste a lot of time at all.

My replies come from my stock familiarity with people who are from around the world and from my knowledge of local and foreign history. Typing my responses takes under a minute. I don't waste a lot of time at all.

No surprise there, then. You don't even think beyond what you think you know and feel. I take time because I consider what you say and ask myself why the Asians around me, countries and myself see Asia and the ME as separate and what intergrity within Asia and ME exists to define this difference.

There is no such thing as already knowing everything and not having to consider your position, but that is clearly the attitude you have been adopting (also in view of, ironically, your lightweight throwing around of historical facts - some of which are grossly in error).

Sorry for coming back. I just feel the need to deflate your ego a bit. Call it human weakness.

In truth, I've been doing reading from Agoncillo and others, or McCoy and Scott, among others, if you prefer. It's sort of required reading for college, but also fun to read in themselves. It's for Philippine history.

As I said, I don't presume to speak FOR you, only for myself and my country unless some other Filipino deigns to pipe up. Quite frankly, I really don't see this identification with India you insist exists among most Filipinos. I do see American news events and phenomenon getting talked about at tables around the streets, even if its just incidental "feel-good" news. Can you back up that "identifies with India" with something? Anything? Anything at all?

As far as I can tell, SEAsians pretty much see themselves as a regional and cultural grouping unique and separate from East Asians and South Asians, hence the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Too, the Chinese see themselves as the orbit around which the Japanese, the Koreans, and most of East Asia revolves around. There is some justification for that, though you won't find too many Japanese or Koreans agreeing.

India itself pulls nations around its cultural hold.

These centers for cultural gravity are not identical. They are not part of some coherent whole that I can fathom. India and China co-affect each other culturally, but so does India and SEasia, India and Europe, and India and ME as well. I don't see a common culture binding the whole of the Asian continent. I don't see a common culture binding the whole of even the Asian continent minus ME and Russia.

Each cultural center is its own identity and cannot be said to represent the entirety of the region in itself.

So, what's this "Asian culture" you're referring to? There's East Asian culture, SEAsian culture, even Indian culture, and Russian culture but I wouldn't just lump them all together as similar to each other enough to call them all one.