Does Stalin really belong in the game?

[Comrade Alex]

Ah yes i see how the Lincoln thing makes sense now, thanks.

Right. Stalin was so vicious to Ukrainians that the German invaders were initially widely welcomed, until they managed to ruin their opportunity by being even more brutal.

To be honest, I wouldn't say widely welcomed. Despite the purges and famines most Ukrainians were still fiercly patriotic and resentful of the Nazi invaders. Of course, there were many collaborators, and sympathy for the Nazis was particularly strong amongst the old Kulaks and Christians.

So I'd say it was pretty half-half.

 

[GVBN]

No. Civ4 should have 32 Gandhis, no military units and no domination or conquest victories. Happy games only

 

[a4phantom]

Ah yes i see how the Lincoln thing makes sense now, thanks.

You were right that the Emancipation Proclamation was a stilted piece of political gamesmanship, not statement of principle. The direct purpose wasn't to free any particular slaves (as it applied to areas outside Union control), it was to shame Europeans out of supporting or recognizing the Confederacy without alienating the Border States (Slave States that sided with the Union). For examples of Lincoln at his moral best check out his Gettysburg Address and Second Inaugural Address. But also remember that winning the Civil War and abolishing slavery were inextricably tied.

To be honest, I wouldn't say widely welcomed. Despite the purges and famines most Ukrainians were still fiercly patriotic and resentful of the Nazi invaders. Of course, there were many collaborators, and sympathy for the Nazis was particularly strong amongst the old Kulaks and Christians.

So I'd say it was pretty half-half.

Well I hadn't presumed to put a percentage to it, but what you're describing fits my definition of "widely". I'd also say that any statistically recognizable percent of a conquered population preferring the invaders to the old regime is a huge advantage, one that the Nazis threw away in their automatic recourse to mass murder and humiliation.

 

[a4phantom]

No. Civ4 should have 32 Gandhis, no military units and no domination or conquest victories. Happy games only

Also no deserts or tundra (except for ones containing resources), no global warming, sickness or unhappiness, no unenlightened civics, and rivers no fat cross worth of space without a river.

 

[Comrade Alex]

Refusing to put leaders in due to tact is just a bit stupid

Hitler shouldn't be in because his efforts were ultimately fruitless (still not sure why Montezuma II is in the game.___) But Stalin had one of the greatest impacts on the twentieth century, and turned Russia into a superpower.


I'd like to see a version of civ in 50, or 100 years.


any money it'll include Putin.

 

[a4phantom]

Refusing to put leaders in due to tact is just a bit stupid

Why is that? Do you think the game faces any negative publicity or loss of sales because it doesn't include Hitler? Including Hitler as a playable character would subject it to both.

Hitler shouldn't be in because his efforts were ultimately fruitless (still not sure why Montezuma II is in the game.___) But Stalin had one of the greatest impacts on the twentieth century, and turned Russia into a superpower.

Montezuma's in because he's the Aztec leader some people have actually heard of.

 

[Grimz101]

whos was the first Russian leader i heard of?
Stalin!
Thats why he is in

 

[WICKLC1]

Not true. Stalin viewed non-Russian ethnicities as threats in-and-of-themselves, even though he himself was Georgian. The average Russian had to be suspicious or unlucky to draw Stalin's specific wrath (rather than just be carelessly sacrificed in war or industrialization), whereas Jews and Georgians and Ukrainians and Catholics and others were targeted.

Probably because less people of those ethnicities were communists and were religious.

 

[WICKLC1]

I'm having a problem every time I read the word "deserve". As in "everyone deserves an equal chance".

"Deserve" to me starts to convey that the person should have a sense of Entitlement, which is another thing altogether. And that's the sort of thing that leads the way to a welfare economy, which is a road to ruin.

What we're talking about here is giving each individual an equal chance at education, food, etc. and an equal chance to make himself or herself a success in life. Those are two different things, really. I think the U.S. probably is the best in world history at the latter, but IMO isn't all that high at the former.

Another conceptual problem I'm having in this discussion with "deserves" is Who is going to mandate how this is done, Who is going to implement, and Who is going to enforce it? Each nation's government? The UN? Should one nation be going into another and telling them how to run their social services?

Wodan

Everyone deserves an equal chance to pursue happiness, but nobody is entitled to happiness.

 

[LAW_FREAK]

Of course Stalin should be in the game. While he may have been responsible for the deaths of millions, that does not have direct bearing on a video game.

This game includes 'great' leaders. Not necessarily beneficent leaders. Great leaders are the ones that were responsible for major events, good or bad.

So because Stalin killed millions, led a side of the Cold War, and made communism a major form of government, thanks to others as well, he is in this game.

ps. always a bad idea to make political statements you cant back up on the web.

 

[caketastydelish]

Agreed. But then we should say that one nation should leave another nation alone. Also, charities should stick to their own nation.


"Our"? So, you're a citizen of the U.S.?


Simply having good public schooling is not what I was talking about. I was talking about providing individuals social services above and beyond certain "basic needs" or above community services.

The opportunity to equal education is a community service that applies to the populace as a whole, like roads. This is not at all what I mean when I said "welfare state".

When a government starts providing individuals things above and beyond the basics, that's when you start to get a welfare state.


So you're saying "post hoc, ergo propter hoc"?

There are many factors that contribute to an economy, both positive and negative. It's not a zero-sum game. Ideally, each citizen would want his government to do all of the positive things, and none of the negative things. But, it's certainly positive for a government to have a net positive effect, in spite of doing a couple of negative things, or to have a net negative effect, despite doing some positive things. Heck, the majority of the cause/effect could in fact be indirect factors pretty much out of the control of the government. So, applying either credit or blame without at least a modicrum of good logic and analysis of all the causal factors seems nonsensical.


Again, "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" is how I read that. Please correct me if I'm wrong!

Wodan

Yes, I'm an American.

Also, no I don't believe everything should be exactly equal. As its been mentioned in the thread earlier, some people worked hard for there success. Therefore, it wouldn't be fair for them for them to only get as much money as someone that didn't work hard.

However, I'm saying the basic things, should be equal. Some people deserve the luxuries and others don't. But the most basic things should be equal.

I'm talking healthcare, Public education, etc. I'm not sure what post hoc ergo propter hoc even means.

What you said was a valid point, but it does not disprove mine.

Anyway, lets drop this and talk about Stalin now...

 

[caketastydelish]

The US has built itself a fantastically asristocratic system, don't you think? Everyone gets an equal chance? In America?
So that's why 30% of black people in, say, Florida, have served prison time. So were they economically marginalised, or have a predisposition to crime?

I believe the latter is a view commonly held by white supremacist organisations, and is effectively, cadswallop.

So the USA is a pure Meritocracy then? Then why are men like your president and all his little cousins in power? Nepotism, I think.

If you're in an economic rut in America, it seems to be near impossible to escape, aside from the one-in-a-million Herbert Hoover success story, and immeasurably harder if you're of an ethnic minority. It's simply a Capitalist Feudalism :/

Statistically speaking, more than race, economic status is the number one thing connected with people going to jail. Hundred years ago, America was a divided nation by black and white.

Today, its rich and poor, and it just so happens that percentagely speaking, there are moor poor blacks. You have to remember blacks did not have full equal rights until the 1970's. Even then there was a lot of discrimination. You didn't start seeing true equality until maybe the 80's or so.

The reason there is a higher percentage of them being poor, is because they have not had equal rights until pretty recently. After a while things will start to "balance out" and the race percentages of people in jail and such will even out.

Poor people are more involved with crime, because they think its the only way they can make a lot of money. Also, so many places have requirements such as at least 15% minorities. Infact, lets say a white person and minority are trying to go to college. They both make pretty good grades. There grades are exactly equal. The minority has the better chance of getting accepted. I'm not saying thats even a bad thing, but you can't say white people have the upper hand.

 

[a4phantom]

Statistically speaking, more than race, economic status is the number one thing connected with people going to jail. Hundred years ago, America was a divided nation by black and white.

Today, its rich and poor, and it just so happens that percentagely speaking, there are moor poor blacks. You have to remember blacks did not have full equal rights until the 1970's. Even then there was a lot of discrimination. You didn't start seeing true equality until maybe the 80's or so.

The reason there is a higher percentage of them being poor, is because they have not had equal rights until pretty recently. After a while things will start to "balance out" and the race percentages of people in jail and such will even out.

Poor people are more involved with crime, because they think its the only way they can make a lot of money. Also, so many places have requirements such as at least 15% minorities. Infact, lets say a white person and minority are trying to go to college. They both make pretty good grades. There grades are exactly equal. The minority has the better chance of getting accepted. I'm not saying thats even a bad thing, but you can't say white people have the upper hand.

Good grief.

 

[WICKLC1]

Discrimination against minorities is just not tolerated anymore. It has gone as far as minorities actually having a better chance of being accepted into colleges, getting hired for jobs etc. because of the diversity laws that many places have.

Although diversity laws may have sounded like a good idea, but all they do is discriminate. Ironic isn't it? Schools and employers should just completly disregard race. If a white person is more qualified for a job than a minority then the white person should get the job. Same thing if the minority is more qualified. A highly qualified person should not be passed over in favor of a less qualified person just to make the workplace or school more diverse.

 

[a4phantom]

Discrimination against minorities is just not tolerated anymore. It has gone as far as minorities actually having a better chance of being accepted into colleges, getting hired for jobs etc. because of the diversity laws that many places have.

 

[WICKLC1]

Really, when was the last time a white person discriminated against a minority without getting sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars and being branded as a racist?

 

[Ace of Gold]

just suscribing to this thread, its a interesting topic

 

[a4phantom]

Really, when was the last time a white person discriminated against a minority without getting sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars and being branded as a racist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_Diallo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell_shooting_incident

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A99749-2001May30

I don't know you, and I don't want to, but can I humbly suggest that your problems in life haven't come from being white?

 

[a4phantom]

just suscribing to this thread, its a interesting topic

I didn't want to get drawn into the political discussion but some levels of ignorance just can't be ignored.

Who knew that white people were so oppressed in America?

 

[WICKLC1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_Diallo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell_shooting_incident

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A99749-2001May30

I don't know you, and I don't want to, but can I humbly suggest that your problems in life haven't come from being white?

Diallo's family got 3 million dollars in 2004.

Bell had previously been arrested on drug and firearms charges. The friends with him had been arrested on similar charges. On the night of the shooting a friend of his got into an argument and threatened to get a gun.One of Bell's friends was heard to say "yo, get my gun" as they left the scene. Fearing a shooting may occur, the detective followed the men to their car while alerting his backup team, prompting the team to confront Bell and his companions before they could leave the scene.The undercover, plain-clothed officer who never identified his status ordered Bell to raise his hands after getting in his car. Instead, Bell accelerated the car and hit Gescard Isnora then an unmarked police minivan. A toxicology report reportedly showed that he was legally intoxicated at the time of the shooting.

The disenfranchisement effort was intended to take away the voting rights of convicted felons, not any specific ethnic group.

I got most of that information from the links you posted, next time find articles that support your arguments.