shakas also realy annoying, and Ghandi i mean hes not even a poltical ruler...all he did was make india more spiritual
And lead the Indian people in peaceful resistance, which brought them independence from colonial rule. There is that minor little thing.
Overall this thread is crazy, a bunch of neo liberals throwing around epiteths like "racist", and pretty much every one of them is wrong. From the causes of the civlil war to the social mores of the zulu, you guys don't seem to know squat. The civil war was about slavery, and by any reasonable measure the Zulu were savages. Course I think the Zulu should stay in because they are the best thing sub Sarahan Africa has going in terms of inclusion in the game, and I'd rather not see what is virtually an entire continent left out. A far better "civ" to go would be the Celts, it's not like Europe is under represented, and the "Celts" were no more civilized then the Zulu by any measure I can think of.
I didn't resort to name calling, unless you think "neo liberal" is disparaging (also the use in that context is wrong, as neo-liberal is more referential to matters of economics, and neo-liberals are by most measures "conservative", I suppose Nambi-pamby is more what I was after there, which is disparaging, however very accurate, but I digress).
I suppose you take issue with the fact I point out there are many stupid arguments being made in this thread. Well there are, anyone who believes the civil war wasn't fought over slavery is either a revisionist, reinterpreting historical facts to fit their agenda, or they are simply nieve. When you're a little kid everyone tells you the civil war is about slavery, you get older learn about the economics, and form opinions based on the economic and legal points. But if you pay attention you should realize that every single economic and legal consideration is entirely based on slavery. Realizing and analytically separating the economic and legal issues involved in the civil war from slavery isn't clever, and it's the antithesis of clever not to connect the dots and eventually realize that ever separate issue brought up to explain the civil war derives entirely from the institution of slavery.
Of course I don't think that's what you're taking issue with, Thormodr. My take on it is you're obviously disdainful of all things European (or more likely white, which is kind of funny in it's own right as there is no White race, just various ethnic groups that superficially are less pigmented then other Caucasians), probably caused by white man's guilt, or something related to this. I get it, it's common. But to ignore the fact primitive societies regularly engage in what we consider in this day and age barbaric practices; for instance the Zulu's exterminating neighboring tribes in outright genocide, or pedophilia, or using child soldiers, under Shaka; if you can't accept these practices are pretty much common in pre-enlightenment societies in general, and are morally reprehensible to a modern mind, then that's pretty much it, it just ends the discussion. And that's fine by me. You're enamored by the idea of the noble savage, and have never bothered to think about basic issues like sewage, or the memes caused by the enlightenment, and the effects of these memes and their role on society. Again that's fine, it's not worth bothering with you personally more then this post. Keep living in your ideal, "White man screwed it all up" world, it really isn't worth bothering with more then making a single response post.
or instance the Zulu's exterminating neighboring tribes in outright genocide, or pedophilia, or using child soldiers, under Shaka
Hitler is different because he's basically become a byword for evil. No matter how many people Stalin killed, it was just his paranoia - he thought they'd be problems for the state. Hitler initiated actual racial cleansing, and racial cleansing makes people uncomfortable. Plus, there aren't Neo-Stalinists going around talking about how cool Stalin is and wearing large mustachios.
Stalin did not kill all those people out of paranoia. There's a ton of evidence that suggests he indulged in a ton of caprices, both with saving and killing certain people. And that still doesn't exempt the 10,000,000 killed in the Ukraine.
I really doubt Stalin actually believed that there were Jewish Nazi spies in his Party.
As long as there is no John Howard of the Australian Tribe, I will be content.
Harold Holt of the Atlanteans, on the other hand...
I thought it was annoying when I got Germany and the Holy Roman Empire in the same game. It's the same country, dammit! I would very much like an option that allows the player to block certain civilizations from entering the game, either as main players or as sprouted-off vassal colonies.
But regarding the topic on hand I wouldn't mind losing Stalin. Stalin was a cruel despot who murdered far more people than Hitler did, and I thought it very strange that he's in the game but Hitler isn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_manOf course I don't think that's what you're taking issue with, Thormodr. My take on it is you're obviously disdainful of all things European (or more likely white, which is kind of funny in it's own right as there is no White race, just various ethnic groups that superficially are less pigmented then other Caucasians), probably caused by white man's guilt, or something related to this. I get it, it's common. But to ignore the fact primitive societies regularly engage in what we consider in this day and age barbaric practices; for instance the Zulu's exterminating neighboring tribes in outright genocide, or pedophilia, or using child soldiers, under Shaka; if you can't accept these practices are pretty much common in pre-enlightenment societies in general, and are morally reprehensible to a modern mind, then that's pretty much it, it just ends the discussion. And that's fine by me. You're enamored by the idea of the noble savage, and have never bothered to think about basic issues like sewage, or the memes caused by the enlightenment, and the effects of these memes and their role on society. Again that's fine, it's not worth bothering with you personally more then this post. Keep living in your ideal, "White man screwed it all up" world, it really isn't worth bothering with more then making a single response post.
I wouldn't mind Chifley or Deakin of the Australians, actually.
Except for the fact that Shaka was assassinated on 22 September 1828 and the Battle of Isandlwana took place on 22 January 1879 -- a full 50 years later!