Leaders we don't want.

shakas also realy annoying, and Ghandi i mean hes not even a poltical ruler...all he did was make india more spiritual
 
zzyardtop said:
shakas also realy annoying, and Ghandi i mean hes not even a poltical ruler...all he did was make india more spiritual
Click to expand...

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 dislike having Gandhi in the game over say Asoka or even Akbar. I understand that he'll give the game a token "peace loving builder" and that someone needs to fill that but I'd prefer the Egyptian leader play that role. I just plain don't think that Gandhi "represents" Indian history as well as Asoka (who would probably be my first choice)...

I also think that having Shaka just because he'll fill the "war war war war war" style of play is stupid when we have Genghis Khan. And what did Montezuma "acheive" exactly (or for that matter the Aztecs, who in my view are pretty much a city-state)...

Pity they got rid of religion though since that gave leaders an extra thing that makes them different. Maybe they'll go back to civ III style more based on race though...
 
phungus420 said:
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.
Click to expand...

A little bit of advice. Resorting to name calling and insults isn't helping your cause. :)

Since you've waded in here guns blazing, perhaps you'd like to explain what you know about the social mores of the Zulus and how they were different from the European colonizers. That would be very interesting and quite informative I'm sure.
 
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.
 
Look, yes there are leaders and civs included in the game who didn't "achieve much". The Zulu never became a major power the way the British or the Romans did. But then again, Civ isn't a game about recreating history. What if things went differently? What if Alexander of Mycenea didn't die at age 30 whatever? Perhaps he would have conquered Rome. What if the Mongols didn't fight with each other before invading Europe? What if the Byzantines had held off the Ottomans at Constantinople? What if the Persians had conquered the Greeks? What if Hitler had attacked Russia before France? Etc, etc, etc. Each civ in the game has the chance to become a power, just like in real life. You might play a game where Hammurabi gets wiped out early because he started near Darius who immortal rushed him. Just like in real life. Shaka might be very backwards and get invaded by England and beat. Just like in real life. But these things are only possibilities. That's why I don't mind having civs like the Aztecs and the Zulu in the game.
 
phungus420 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are really bitter aren't you? Relax please. :)

I am white Canadian myself and trust me, I am no neo liberal. I also don't hold disdain for anyone and I certainly don't have white man's guilt. I am objective however and well versed in history having studied it in University.

I never said the Zulus were saints and personally Shaka (which means bastard in Zulu I believe) had a very unhappy life. An accurate description of him would be psychopathic.

or instance the Zulu's exterminating neighboring tribes in outright genocide, or pedophilia, or using child soldiers, under Shaka
Click to expand...

Of course none of these things happened in "enlightened" Europe at the time. Heaven knows there wasn't any child labour. I'm sure if you looked at 19th century Europe you wouldn't find any pedophilia going on. Pederasty ring a bell?
Europeans never practiced genocide in the new world or in Africa did they? They never passed out disease ridden blankets in the new world to decimate native populations. The South African Colonialists never practiced genocide against the Bushmen did they? That's only for savages of course.

Don't worry though. I am not say white people are the cause of all of Africa's problems. They certainly aren't totally innocent either. The issue isn't black and white. (No pun intended.)
 
Tusked said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
war ensemble said:
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.
Click to expand...

He kill anyone who he thought might stand in his way.
 
Fifty, even.
 
My maths makes that 51 years :)
 
Razorwing said:
I thought it was annoying when I got Germany and the Holy Roman Empire in the same game. It's the same country, dammit! :p 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.
Click to expand...

You gotta have Stalin in the game. The man was the undisputed dictator of the USSR and transformed it from a weakened agricultural state into a very powerful, modern industrial one, that pretty much single-handedly defeated Hitler's armies and then went onto expand the "Russian" empire into central Europe and rival the USA in power for the next 30 years. Admittedly, that was achieving at appalling cost in human lives and misery.

I think, though, that he should not be identified as "Stalin of the Russians", but "Stalin of the USSR".
 
phungus420 said:
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.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
 
the Falcon said:
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! :lol:
Click to expand...

Of course Shaka was the founder of the Zulu Empire and laid down the foundations for Zulu military organization and strategy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Moff Jerjerrod
Thank you to all CFC unit creators!
Replies
4
Views
168
Aiken_Drumn
Aiken_Drumn
W
Unrestricted leaders and civ uniques
Replies
10
Views
669
ArchGhost
ArchGhost
U
Pre-hispanic Mesoamerica (leaders, civs, maps, scenarios, mods)
Replies
0
Views
259
uriel Deveaud
U
Navelgazer
Dream Civs/Leaders for Civ 7
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
3K
Alexander's Hetaroi
Alexander's Hetaroi
Birdjaguar
[RD] War in Gaza: News Thread
24 25 26
Replies
516
Views
19K
Crezth
Crezth
Top Bottom