Firaxis and the Gross Misrepresentation of Non-Western History?

[AnaNg]

Which are...?

I would have thought it was clear by the quote. I don't have an idealized view of communism nor do I marginalize the horror that the GLF was. However, pragmatically (as opposed to some knee-jerk "Oh lordy communism is the debil" mindset) I can look at in broader terms.

As I have stated - they're moving forward from where they are. They've developed a hybrid right now - will it ever be an American-style democracy? Probably not. Does it need to be? Probably not.

Please re-read my posts. Please point out where my idealized view is apparent. Hey, perhaps I do have one and my pinko-tinted glasses don't show it. But I think you'll find a moderate approach that acknowledges that all revolutions are bloody, that China's seems particuarly so because of the scale (as compared to, say, France which was no less bloody but is a fraction of the size) and that China's is particularly raw because of it's relative newness in history as compared to other revolutions that resulted in similar modernization.

That I state that China is making a transition more gracefully than many of its modern counterparts doesn't mean I have an idealized view of communism nor does it mean that I think it should be a permament system. I thought I made it clear in my posts but maybe not: It seems to be working as a transitional system and China is redefining it progressively as time goes on.

 

[AnaNg]

One has only to look at Eastern Europe to see how quickly capitalism and democracy have helped those countries to catch up to Western countries (and the same is true of China).

You must be joking. Or did you forget Bosnia and what happened when the various nation-states that were previously, forcibly, aligned went at each others throats often with incredibly bloody results. I seem to recall genocide being bandied about.

All transitions are bloody.

That you point and scoff at one and hold another up as a gem seems to make you the idealist, wouldn't you say?

 

[ukrneal]

I would have thought it was clear by the quote. I don't have an idealized view of communism nor do I marginalize the horror that the GLF was. However, pragmatically (as opposed to some knee-jerk "Oh lordy communism is the debil" mindset) I can look at in broader terms.

As I have stated - they're moving forward from where they are. They've developed a hybrid right now - will it ever be an American-style democracy? Probably not. Does it need to be? Probably not.

Please re-read my posts. Please point out where my idealized view is apparent. Hey, perhaps I do have one and my pinko-tinted glasses don't show it. But I think you'll find a moderate approach that acknowledges that all revolutions are bloody, that China's seems particuarly so because of the scale (as compared to, say, France which was no less bloody but is a fraction of the size) and that China's is particularly raw because of it's relative newness in history as compared to other revolutions that resulted in similar modernization.

That I state that China is making a transition more gracefully than many of its modern counterparts doesn't mean I have an idealized view of communism nor does it mean that I think it should be a permament system. I thought I made it clear in my posts but maybe not: It seems to be working as a transitional system and China is redefining it progressively as time goes on.

My comments are less about China specifically and more about Comminism in general. It's hard to respond to several posters at once, which was what I was trying to do. I would interpret China's moves forward as having been made despite communism, not because of it. One must at the very least respect what they have accomplished. It is pretty clear to me, however (and you may disagree), that it was communism that held them back.

 

[Peter Harris]

I've gotten fed up saying Taizong should be leader of the Chinese. If Westerners were taught in any detail about his reign and the greatness of Tang culture in general, he'd be a shoe in.

<snip>.

I don't care who leads China in Civ4 so long his name sounds Chinese.

BTW There are couple a good choices of notable leaders who ruled China, Kublai Khan and Gengis Khan.

 

[ukrneal]

You must be joking. Or did you forget Bosnia and what happened when the various nation-states that were previously, forcibly, aligned went at each others throats often with incredibly bloody results. I seem to recall genocide being bandied about.

All transitions are bloody.

That you point and scoff at one and hold another up as a gem seems to make you the idealist, wouldn't you say?

Bosnia's problem is nationalist in nature. Communism didn't solve that problem either, just hid it for a while.

All transitions are bloody? How about the Velvet Revolution?

Well, I am biased against socialism. All the evidence I see supports that view. Government ownership and interference is bad in my opinion and that view is generally borne out by the results. I have yet to see a case where a government has done a better job than a private company for example (when trying to do the same thing). So it is not so much idealism (I realize there are drawbacks to all systems), but rather identifying the best there is at the moment.

 

[troytheface]

what was the point of the op's post? Not liking a couple leader choices because he/she is a self proclaimed expert on eastern history?
What if someone likes Mao or Stalin and think that maybe that those that suffered under their rule WERE antagonists to the new regime?
-I think it is simply a long winded assertion that amounts to "i would have picked other leaders"

 

[snipafist]

All transitions are bloody? How about the Velvet Revolution?

You're confusing revolutions in general with the specific process of becoming a nation-state. Individual revolutions (like the Velvet Revolution you mentioned, or even the election of Hitler into power in Germany) can be surprisingly bloodless, but the transition into nation-stateness is always a mess. The Velvet Revolution was a change in governmental style, but required no transition to a nation-state ideology. Czechoslovakia was already a nation-state, and they merely redrew boundaries later in the Velvet Divorce to better accommodate the nationalist sentiments of the two major nationalities within. There was no need to transform subjects into citizens, which is the primary goal of nation-state building, as all Czechs and Slovakians were already citizens tied to their state and country.

It just so happens that every communist country has been backwards when they adopted communism (no tier-1 country ever became communist, you'll notice) and so their nation-state transition occurred under communist supervision. I still think you're confusing the initial messy nation-state transition of any state with the problems with communism, which is a distinction between the early period of these governments (where they push the nation-state ideal hard to catch up to the rest of the world) and the late period (where the communist system has devolved into a bloody and stagnant theocratic bureaucracy where people are kept in line by secret police).

 

[ukrneal]

You're confusing revolutions in general with the specific process of becoming a nation-state. Individual revolutions (like the Velvet Revolution you mentioned, or even the election of Hitler into power in Germany) can be surprisingly bloodless, but the transition into nation-stateness is always a mess. The Velvet Revolution was a change in governmental style, but required no transition to a nation-state ideology. Czechoslovakia was already a nation-state, and they merely redrew boundaries later in the Velvet Divorce to better accommodate the nationalist sentiments of the two major nationalities within. There was no need to transform subjects into citizens, which is the primary goal of nation-state building, as all Czechs and Slovakians were already citizens tied to their state and country.

It just so happens that every communist country has been backwards when they adopted communism (no tier-1 country ever became communist, you'll notice) and so their nation-state transition occurred under communist supervision. I still think you're confusing the initial messy nation-state transition of any state with the problems with communism, which is a distinction between the early period of these governments (where they push the nation-state ideal hard to catch up to the rest of the world) and the late period (where the communist system has devolved into a bloody and stagnant theocratic bureaucracy where people are kept in line by secret police).

Your answer confuses me. All communist countries were backwards first? Errrr...Germany? And the secret police were in the Soviet Union from the start. Czechoslovakia is a bad exaxmple for you as it is another bloodless transition: one nation splitting into two. China was a nation-state before and after communism too. And their change in governmental style (as you put it) was bloody. I've lost track of what it it you are trying to say.

 

[cybrxkhan]

there is no best government, duh. as some guy i forgot his name said something like, "the best government is that which knows how to, aspires to, and makes the people happy"

not supporting anything, just saying.

 

[snipafist]

Your answer confuses me. All communist countries were backwards first? Errrr...Germany? And the secret police were in the Soviet Union from the start. Czechoslovakia is a bad exaxmple for you as it is another bloodless transition: one nation splitting into two. China was a nation-state before and after communism too. And their change in governmental style (as you put it) was bloody. I've lost track of what it it you are trying to say.

All countries that accepted communism without having it forced on them (Germany and Poland were NOT happy Soviet acquisitions as I'm sure you know). I'm thinking primarily of the Slavic Eastern European countries and the Asian countries that went communist, none of which were remotely close to modernized. You're confusing a nation-state building exercise with a political experience in Czechoslovakia. The Velvet divorce was a state-defining experience, not a nation-state building modernizing endeavor. I know people use the terms nation and state as though they were interchangeable, but they are not.

China was nothing even close to a nation-state before the CCP. With hordes of peasants littering the countryside and all of the early Republics' support coming from cities and all of Chiang's support coming from the industrialists in the cities and the landlords in the countryside, it was impossible to meaningfully integrate the peasantry (90% of the population) into the nation-state ideal. That's not even close to being a nation-state at all.

I keep getting the impression that you have no idea whatsoever about what a nation-state is or how it is constructed. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but it's the conclusion that seems simplest.

 

[cybrxkhan]

definitions of nation-state:

from the unrealiable Wikipedia:

Traditionally, a nation-state is a specific form of state, which exists to provide a sovereign territory for a particular nation, and which derives its legitimacy from that function.


from dictionary.com:

a sovereign state inhabited by a relatively homogeneous group of people who share a feeling of common nationality.

-or, alternatively reworded-

n. A political unit consisting of an autonomous state inhabited predominantly by a people sharing a common culture, history, and language.

 

[snipafist]

I'd say it's way more complicated than that. A nation is a people. What makes a nation? The people who say they are part of it. It can be as simple as an ethnicity (we are Italians) or something a bit more complicated involving geographic or ideological elements (we are Americans). Additionally, a nation surmises that the peoples within it are conscious of their nationality and work to further the interests of that nationality, however it is defined. A medieval peasant did not think of himself as "French" so much as he thought of himself as belonging to his hometown or small geographic region that just happened to be within France. He certainly wouldn't have been willing to give it his all for the concept of "France." A country has only become a modern nation when its people are citizens that conceive of themselves as primarily defined and motivated by national interests, and they will pursue those interests independently of coercion. Someone who defines himself as "French" (following the example) rather than "a Christian" or "a painter" or whatnot, is a fine example of the success of this project. You'll likely find you think of yourself primarily by your national allegiance.

The "state" element of a nation-state is different. It's primarily a political and geographical distinction, but it presupposes a relatively strong central government that is capable of influencing the lives of all its subjects, the sort that only really began to come about in the late renaissance and modern period (for a good example, see Bismarck's unification of the Germanies). With a state that is strong enough to direct and influence the lives of citizens and a people who have been led to behave like loyal and active "citizens" of a greater nationality, you then have a nation-state: a people who want to serve their nation willingly and a state strong enough to direct them and make use of their enthusiasm. This is extremely different from pre-modern states, where few if any directed their loyalty or free efforts to furthering the interests of the state, but rather directed such attention to more tangible things like their families, towns, lords, etc.

Let me provide an example:
Most people in a modern nation-state will NEVER see most of the rest of their state (for instance, the US is huge and most will never even see all of their geographic region - the South, New England, the Great Plains, West Coast, etc.). And yet they would still feel outraged if someone invaded part of the state they had never, and likely will never, see because they feel aligned to the myth of the nation-state. Pre-modern people did not feel this way at all. It takes phenomenal resources, both personal and technological, to maintain this type of system, but the sheer amount of work one gets out of it is nothing short of amazing. Simply put, nation-states crush non nation-states and force everyone around them to either become a nation-state to resist the newcomer or be consigned to the dustbin of history.

 

[Black Mech]

1 thing to say here,who playing civ even cares?It's a game that only features civalizations from history, not a history class on your computer.

 

[snipafist]

1 thing to say here,who playing civ even cares?It's a game that only features civalizations from history, not a history class on your computer.

Some of us here actively enjoy history. If you don't, that's fine. But assuming that everyone else is just like you is a bit of a stretch.

 

[cybrxkhan]

^and some of us like debating and bashing at others views of history, no matter if ours or theres is "right" or "wrong".

 

[ukrneal]

All countries that accepted communism without having it forced on them (Germany and Poland were NOT happy Soviet acquisitions as I'm sure you know). I'm thinking primarily of the Slavic Eastern European countries and the Asian countries that went communist, none of which were remotely close to modernized. You're confusing a nation-state building exercise with a political experience in Czechoslovakia. The Velvet divorce was a state-defining experience, not a nation-state building modernizing endeavor. I know people use the terms nation and state as though they were interchangeable, but they are not.

China was nothing even close to a nation-state before the CCP. With hordes of peasants littering the countryside and all of the early Republics' support coming from cities and all of Chiang's support coming from the industrialists in the cities and the landlords in the countryside, it was impossible to meaningfully integrate the peasantry (90% of the population) into the nation-state ideal. That's not even close to being a nation-state at all.

I keep getting the impression that you have no idea whatsoever about what a nation-state is or how it is constructed. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but it's the conclusion that seems simplest.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. I guess this is the time to just end amicably.

 

[dh_epic]

The unfortunate truth is a lot of progress has sometimes occurred under dictators, tyrants, and -- yes -- communists. It's all relative. Compared to America, you see a lot of suffering and not very much wealth. But compared to the way things were before some of these oppressive rulers, you might notice the addition of a constitution, the rights of women, the promotion of education and science over tradition and superstition... it's just unfortunate that it is usually coupled with terrorizing anyone who dares criticize the way forward.

Even Europe had its despots who brought about an authoritative rule of law before they reached that democratic stage.

Saying "nothing good ever came out of Communism" is a mind totally born of propaganda. Reality is much more mixed than this. Not that I'm endorsing Communism, mind you. This is more of a condemnation of Monarchy and religious fundamentalism.

 

[Inspector Javert]

In fact, I didnt even know about Wang Kon or Qin Shin, and strongly dislike Mao being in the game.
People would say that they are more famous, though, and it stimulates sales. Well, I'm not sure if such a butcher really does that...

Amen I thought I was the only one who thought the game honoring a mass murdering #($8#($ like Mao was seriously messed up.

 

[Gooblah]

Okay...China has Mao, Russia has Stalin, Napoleon's the Frenchie, blah, blah, blah. All the countries have had, at one point or another, a butcher/ insane warmonger as a leader. Asoka was before he became Buddhist realizing the pain he was causing. The US may not have had insane warmongers, but Andrew Jackson fits the bill. Isabella of Spain, Montezuma of Aztec (his Pyramids killed a lotta people in the name of religion). All of civilization has been lead by a freak one time or another. The main problem I see is Firaxis's inclusion of these people. Firaxis chose to include Leaders, not Good People and Kindhearted Souls. If they did, half of the leaders wouldn't be there, along with a couple Civs.

 

[martinwgc]

As a Chinese national, I have no problem of picking up Mao Zedong and Qin Shihuang as the representatives of the Chinese civilization.

Contrary to the author's belief, neither Mao Zedong or Qin Shihuang are considered 'solely' butchers by the Chinese. Qin Shihuang is famous for his cruelty, which is true, and he is famous for annilating pre-Qin culture, however, he is also regarded as the founder of a united China. Although before the Qin Dynasty, the Xia, Shang, Zhou dynasties are all regarded as a united country, however, it's more of a confederacy, in which different Zhu-hou, or provinces, have their own currency, army, administration, even spoken language. It's Qin Shihuang that, for the first time in history, united China under one government, one currency, one army, one administration, and one language, thus, he is considered one of the most important figures in the Chinese history, if not the most important one.

Mao Zedong, on the other hand, is the leader that led the Communist Party, which stopped China from being invaded and bullied by the western countries since 1840. He has done many things wrong, however, it's him that led China through industrialization, developed nuclear weapons, ended the history of being invaded and started to act as a major power in world politics and economy. The concept of Mao Zedong as a butcher is a typical western view of communists, which hints all communist leaders kill people for fun and never worry about their own people. However, in reality, Mao and his comrades never did that. They made a lot of wrong policies which led to massive hunger and deaths, which is wrong but understandable, as China started its industrialization on the basis of not being able to make even matches. However, never in any scene are the communists in China comparable with Hitler. They have nothing in common. The author is merely using the 'western view' to criticize another 'western view'.

I do admit there are other equally important figures in the Chinese history other than Qin Shihuang and Mao Zedong. Both of these two leaders are powerful leaders. They excel in both military and administration, but not economics. Some leaders like Li Shimin or to a lesser extent, Liu Che or Aixinjueluo Hongli (or Qianlong) are great leaders that excel in economic management but less in military. Li Shimin is considered as important as Qin Shihuang and Mao Zedong in the Chinese history.

If a third Chinese leader is to be added to the game, I would suggest Li Shimin, Gongsun Xuanyuan (or Huang Di)