Firaxis and the Gross Misrepresentation of Non-Western History?

If you want someone or some nation to resent and dislike you, do something good for them. The best thing you can do for anyone is spill your blood to save their freedom. Three times in the 20th century the US saved the freedom of those countries that have free systems from totalitarian evil.
WWI: Stayed out of the war, only joined after one of their cruise ships was sunk by the Germans.

WWII: Stayed out of the war, only joined after the Japanese blew up half of their navy.

Cold War: Stayed out of the war, only joined after Russia set off a nuclear bomb, and showed itself capable of threatening the USA.
Interesting... the above two quotes are not contradictory.

Wodan
 
*nod* -- the point is, the USA stepped into those wars after they themselves where endangered.

WWI was an inter-imperial war: it wasn't a grand war against tyranny. It was a war between a newly powerful industrialized Germany vs. the old France and British powers. The American intervention was about defending it's own imperialist and other interests.

In WWII, it was only after the British, Chinese and Russians sacraficed huge numbers of their own people that the USA walked in and helped. Had the British, Chinese and Russians rolled over and accepted the easy way out of surrender, the USA would have been economically strangled in the post-war era, not Russia.

My point is, claiming that USA's actions where for the good of old Europe misses who paid the blood-price for freedom in WW2. And ignores the massive Empire that USA built up during the Cold War under the excuse of "we need to contain Communism" -- now that Communism is pretty much dead, and the US empire rolls on...

There are better reasons to project the suspicion of Europe towards the USA than "the USA did them good, they hate the USA for that".
 
to add to Yakk, those wars were fought in the US' interests, which is okay, because all nations have their own interests.

WWI, as Yakk said, was just a inter-imperial war. in fact, it was almost like any old war in Europe since the dark ages - the powers of Europe needing to fight one another. the Central Powers weren't "evil" - they were as "evil" as the Allies.

WWII, though yes, one would say the US was righteous in freeing a lot of people from "evil", but, again, they originally wanted to stay isolated and not help those people at all. only after they themselves were under attack did they decide to help others. and anyhow, the "evil" that rose before WWII (i.e. Hitler, etc.) was only due to WWI, which itself was just more or less mostly a continental war with limited world involvement, save the US and Japan (and not a world war).

as for the Cold War, well, yes, Democracy may allow you to curse the government more freely than Communism, but so what? the US was just trying to fight for its worldy position as the Soviets - the ideology used on both sides was just a "brainwashing" technique.


the Europeans are smart (of course). they knew the US, like all other nations, was acting in its self-interest. and normally they would respect that. but when the US went and arrogantly said they went in just to save the European's butt, the Europeans knew the US was mostly lying, and thats why they hate them.
 
Saladin is the perfect example of both Western-based and fame based bias. Yes, he is famous in Western culture as an anti-Crusader leader, but of little important indigenous importance compared with, say, actual caliphs like Harun Al-Rashid or Muawiyah I.

Hah! I knew Harun Al-Rashid because of Neil Gaiman's wonderful Sandman (the issue was called "Ramadan", in a probably more correct spelling)
 
If we must use labels, I think I agree that WWI could be distilled down to the label of "Imperialism". It was much more like "what has gone before" (during the 18th and 19th centuries), except on a bigger scale both macro and micro.

WWII, however, I think would be more of a war of national ideologies.

I think it is a disservice to discount the US effort in WWII and call it self-serving and/or defensive. For one thing, the US had a huge contribution before Pearl Harbor. This contribution included military (Flying Tigers etc), military technology, as well as incredible amounts of war materiels/foodstuffs/etc.

Why did the US not begin active military operations before then? (Even discounting such things as the Flying Tigers?) To answer that question, we would have to delve into the politics of the situation. As with any republic, one has to deal with those dynamics before you get to unified action. There was a very strong feeling that the war was Europe at it's old game (which it had been playing for hundreds of years). And, the Nazis were far from morons and actively supported the US domestic opposition. Actually, it's amazing what the US did without a war declaration.

The US today is very different from the US 60 years ago. The same is probably true of most countries. What you guys are saying about the US of 60 years ago is not at all accurate. Actually you've got it about 100% backwards (and not in a good way from the perspective of US support; for all that you're denigrating the US of 60 years ago, the US of today is more willing to be self-sacrificing). Would the US of 60 years ago have pre-emptively declared war if not for Pearl Harbor? Probably not. Maybe if Britain had fallen or something. Would the US of today have pre-emptively declared war? Probably yes. What I'm saying is that the US of today is more willing to meddle and/or exert military power than the US of 60 years ago.

However... the US has not changed in its willingness to support its allies and ideologies. The US of 60 years ago and the US of today are willing to support and bleed for the kind of things we're talking about. That hasn't changed.

Wodan
 
If we must use labels, I think I agree that WWI could be distilled down to the label of "Imperialism". It was much more like "what has gone before" (during the 18th and 19th centuries), except on a bigger scale both macro and micro.

WWII, however, I think would be more of a war of national ideologies.

I think it is a disservice to discount the US effort in WWII and call it self-serving and/or defensive. For one thing, the US had a huge contribution before Pearl Harbor. This contribution included military (Flying Tigers etc), military technology, as well as incredible amounts of war materiels/foodstuffs/etc.

Why did the US not begin active military operations before then? (Even discounting such things as the Flying Tigers?) To answer that question, we would have to delve into the politics of the situation. As with any republic, one has to deal with those dynamics before you get to unified action. There was a very strong feeling that the war was Europe at it's old game (which it had been playing for hundreds of years). And, the Nazis were far from morons and actively supported the US domestic opposition. Actually, it's amazing what the US did without a war declaration.

The US today is very different from the US 60 years ago. The same is probably true of most countries. What you guys are saying about the US of 60 years ago is not at all accurate. Actually you've got it about 100% backwards (and not in a good way from the perspective of US support; for all that you're denigrating the US of 60 years ago, the US of today is more willing to be self-sacrificing). Would the US of 60 years ago have pre-emptively declared war if not for Pearl Harbor? Probably not. Maybe if Britain had fallen or something. Would the US of today have pre-emptively declared war? Probably yes. What I'm saying is that the US of today is more willing to meddle and/or exert military power than the US of 60 years ago.

However... the US has not changed in its willingness to support its allies and ideologies. The US of 60 years ago and the US of today are willing to support and bleed for the kind of things we're talking about. That hasn't changed.

Wodan

um... so do you agree with us, half-agree, or not? :crazyeye: (i'm a bit stupid today)
 
The formula seems to have been "Let's just pick those leaders who are well-known in the West," when it should have been "Let's find out who is considered the greatest leaders by the natives of those civilizations represented."

It makes sense to me to pick names that are well-known. There's no reason they "should" do something different, just because you would like it better.
 
He (Wodan) is saying that America had to overcome a long history of isolationism, that only shocking events could help overcome. He's saying that despite that the USA helped the Allies effort during WWII even before joining them. He's saying that although everyone ultimately looks at their own interests America ultimately will fight for her allies and what it stands for.
(I think that was it, Wodan).
 
If you want someone or some nation to resent and dislike you, do something good for them. The best thing you can do for anyone is spill your blood to save their freedom. Three times in the 20th century the US saved the freedom of those countries that have free systems from totalitarian evil. So, of course, the nations we so saved resent and dislike us for it. Yes, Americans can be arrogant, obnoxious, overbearing and the rest of it. But would you prefer Americans sometimes irritating personalities or to be ruled by Nazi Germany or Communist Russia? Without the US you would be.

If you want someone or some nation to resent and dislike you, do something good for them. The best thing you can do for anyone is spill your blood to save their freedom. The French Empire saved the United States in the Revolutionary War from a much more powerful Britain. So, of course, many Americans resent and dislike the French for it. Yes, French can snooty, and may hate American foreign policy due to Bush. But would you prefer winning the Revolutionary War or to be ruled by monarchs and tyrants? Without the French you would be. :lol:
 
Yes pretty much, Sofista. The US hasn't changed in its willingness to aid allies and what the US stands for, except that I believe modern-day US will do it much faster than the US of 60 years ago.

One thing I have been pondering since I posted (i.e., this is in addition to that thought and shouldn't either add or detract from it)...

I find it interesting how the US is "accused" (is that the word) of not helping the world fight against evil / tyranny in WWII, rather of serving self-interest, because the US had to be attacked first. At the same time, I get the impression that most people think of the US as meddling in world affairs where we don't belong (e.g., Iraq). That just seems a little two-faced to me.

Yakk and Cybrxkhan that's isn't addressed to you... we're just talking here. World opinion and that sort of thing. I used the word "meddle" intentionally in post #65 and I think it's apt in how it describes world opinion these days. Do you agree / disagree?

Wodan
 
If you want someone or some nation to resent and dislike you, do something good for them. The best thing you can do for anyone is spill your blood to save their freedom. The French Empire saved the United States in the Revolutionary War from a much more powerful Britain. So, of course, many Americans resent and dislike the French for it. Yes, French can snooty, and may hate American foreign policy due to Bush. But would you prefer winning the Revolutionary War or to be ruled by monarchs and tyrants? Without the French you would be. :lol:
US opinion towards the French is much worse today than it was 20 years ago, let alone 200 years ago. In other words, I think your example doesn't prove your point. Your point may be valid, though.

Wodan
 
To wodan: My point is that the countries don't hate us because we helped to liberate them. They hate us because of Bush's foreign policy (okay, not mentioned) and to claim that they hate us because we did good stuff for them isn't true at all, just like we don't curse the French for sending us Lafayette and beating the English navy at Yorktown.
 
Yes pretty much, Sofista. The US hasn't changed in its willingness to aid allies and what the US stands for, except that I believe modern-day US will do it much faster than the US of 60 years ago.

One thing I have been pondering since I posted (i.e., this is in addition to that thought and shouldn't either add or detract from it)...

I find it interesting how the US is "accused" (is that the word) of not helping the world fight against evil / tyranny in WWII, rather of serving self-interest, because the US had to be attacked first. At the same time, I get the impression that most people think of the US as meddling in world affairs where we don't belong (e.g., Iraq). That just seems a little two-faced to me.

Yakk and Cybrxkhan that's isn't addressed to you... we're just talking here. World opinion and that sort of thing. I used the word "meddle" intentionally in post #65 and I think it's apt in how it describes world opinion these days. Do you agree / disagree?

Wodan

i dunno, but i do know that because the US is the only superpower (though others are starting to catch up), it is because it IS the only one that people don't like it. theres no need for explaining here.

if there was another superpower and the US invaded Iraq, depending on the situation, people actually maybe wouldn't mind as much.

but do realize, there is no "good" "just" nation. thats a myth. as long as there is a human and he is normal, then there is a dark side to him. taths all
 
To wodan: My point is that the countries don't hate us because we helped to liberate them. They hate us because of Bush's foreign policy (okay, not mentioned) and to claim that they hate us because we did good stuff for them isn't true at all, just like we don't curse the French for sending us Lafayette and beating the English navy at Yorktown.
Really? That seems to me to be the exact opposite of what you said before (which, by the way, I mostly agreed with).

I think it's human nature, when you're in a relationship where you are the recipient of gifts or something of the sort, to subconsciously detract or denigrate your 'benefactor'. I don't know if this is some sort of "survival of the fittest" and a benefactor is somehow proving themselves not as ruthless as your mental image of yourself (again I'm talking about the subconscious here). Or, if it's some kind of negative-feedback where you're in a weaker position, therefore your ego is forced to conjure up whatever rationale it must in order to somehow "equalize" things and/or to convince your Id that you are not really weaker, that this is some kind of transient state.

I dunno. That's getting into deep psychology but regardless I've never really been one to play the altruism card myself. Frankly I think it hurts more than it helps. The last thing the planet needs is a global Welfare program of sorts, using armies as Food Stamps.

Enlightened self interest makes much more sense, and helps both parties; it's a healthy relationship rather than an unhealthy one.

...not sure I'm explaining that very well.

Wodan
 
I find it interesting how the US is "accused" (is that the word) of not helping the world fight against evil / tyranny in WWII, rather of serving self-interest, because the US had to be attacked first. At the same time, I get the impression that most people think of the US as meddling in world affairs where we don't belong (e.g., Iraq). That just seems a little two-faced to me.

Well, in WWII had tyranny stayed at home no one would have done a thing (Franco died in his bed), and something has to trigger a reaction. So I agree with you there.
Iraq, ah, let's look at it from the standpoint of serious analysis instead of that of (existing in some circles) knee-jerk anti-Americanism. It breaks into three arguments:
1) Iraq was a menace to no other country, so intervention was little grounded (and a wide majority of the world thought like that). True, Saddam was hardly a loving father to his people, but the principle that a recognized regime can be attacked merely to enforce a change because it does not suit another is liable to justify a possible future misuse. Iraq was a terrible state, but it was not the only one, and if there have to be rules for international policy how will they be taken seriously if the world's superpower will happily do away with them without a serious reason? The problem is, WMD weren't there: who could blame the world opinion when it thinks that oil was behind it?
(Personal note: I'm not saying atrocities can be condoned: America's intervention in Bosnia was a splendid case of using force to do the good thing, something that the EU could not or would not do, and every American should be proud of what you did there. But context matters, which leads to point 2).

2) Iraq was and is a complex place, with a dramatic history and deep internal divisions, all within an even more complex scenario even only within Islam (Sunnite vs. Shiaite, with the topping of the Kurd question). Iraq is now open to the pressure of several different forces, causing further instabiilty in the area as the factions and their sponsors from outside push for their own. But more, now the country is in anarchy and fertile ground for terrorism - this after the intervention hardly improved the West's image in the Muslim world. Who could say with a straight face that Iraq and its surroundings are now safer and more stable than they were? Did the invasion help create better international relationships? They even created a rift within Nato! (Although, like the possible scenario of the USa coming to help an ally, I 100% believe that should push come to shove every nato country would immediately rally around the Stars and Stripes; the best families fight, doesn't mean they won't help each other in need...)

3) Final point: this kind of intervention is made very close to us. And indeed, should things get heated, we're much closer to the line of fire than the USA: unless, say, Iran has missiles capable of reaching your shores and I haven't heard about it. Even accepting that it was done in good meaning (I accept that regarding the American public opinion, much less regarding the government), it's playing gambles on our doorstep. Can you see why we're somewhat apprehensive about it?

(Personal question on the political engineering. Could it be that the USA is still under the idea that what they did in Japan is appliable anywhere: that exporting a democracy is possible everywhere, and that it will be gratefuly accepted both by the laymen and the powermongers?)
 
Oh, the thank god for the french thing? Well, knocking down my fellow american's arrogance always feels good, and what I was trying to say was that Americans don't like the french even though they saved us-- though not because of that. It's really hard to use complex speaking tools when posting.

To sofista: Being an american and having lived overseas (and being the son of a diplomat), I agree with you on some points. However, I think in the Iraq case, it was more a planned dupe of the American people-- and everyone else who marched into Iraq. Unfortunately, Bush doesn't care about Europe and the world-- his promoting American diplomats in Iraq for 1 year over great diplomats in sudan who have served there for 4 years is wrecking the entire system of State Department, and, therefore, I think the Bush administration would be a lot happier if Iran attacked Europe than anyplace else. It would help them justify nuking the Middle East back into the Stone Age.
 
I for one am totally incensed about this threads lack of understanding of the greatist leaders! They Are:

1. Galron of the Klingon Empire. (Star Trek)
2. Elrond - Lord of the Elves. (Lord of the Rings)
3. King Arthur of Camelot.

We really need to focus on those leaders who made a great impact on us. ;)
 
I for one am totally incensed about this threads lack of understanding of the greatist leaders! They Are:

1. Galron of the Klingon Empire. (Star Trek)
2. Elrond - Lord of the Elves. (Lord of the Rings)
3. King Arthur of Camelot.

We really need to focus on those leaders who made a great impact on us. ;)


One, it's Gowron. Two, Kahless would is the natural choice for leader.

My geek > your geek :nya:

;)
 
1) Iraq was a menace to no other country
That ignores the possibility of state-sponsored or -encouraged (if nothing else, in a de-facto "look the other way" fashion) terrorism. It also ignores whether a government is a menace to its own people.

so intervention was little grounded (and a wide majority of the world thought like that).
Personally, I think intervention was actually because of the Al Qaeda situation, with the response of, "mess with us and we'll invade your country and the country next to you!" This policy would be to have the intent of getting the region to police itself by having the various nations police each other.

(I'm kidding.)

True, Saddam was hardly a loving father to his people, but the principle that a recognized regime can be attacked merely to enforce a change because it does not suit another is liable to justify a possible future misuse.
This is an excellent point.

...now the country is in anarchy and fertile ground for terrorism - this after the intervention hardly improved the West's image in the Muslim world. Who could say with a straight face that Iraq and its surroundings are now safer and more stable than they were?
This is 20-20 hindsignt thinking. It's not quite fair to look at the results of a situation and say the original decision was unfounded or not wise.

It is totally fair to look at the results and apply them to the decision-making process, and to use them to improve future decisions of like kind. It is totally fair to expect and demand that the US do this.

In other words, if the "world" is in fact looking at the crappy situation in Iraq and using that as justification for negative attitudes towards the US, that's a fault of the people doing this (not a fault of the US). They are worsening international diplomacy here.

3) Final point: this kind of intervention is made very close to us. And indeed, should things get heated, we're much closer to the line of fire than the USA: unless, say, Iran has missiles capable of reaching your shores and I haven't heard about it. Even accepting that it was done in good meaning (I accept that regarding the American public opinion, much less regarding the government), it's playing gambles on our doorstep. Can you see why we're somewhat apprehensive about it?
Sure. Apprehension is one thing (and is perfectly justified), negative attitudes and recriminations are another.

(Personal question on the political engineering. Could it be that the USA is still under the idea that what they did in Japan is appliable anywhere: that exporting a democracy is possible everywhere, and that it will be gratefuly accepted both by the laymen and the powermongers?)
I don't think we can attribute those kind of attitudes to "the USA". We could talk about the average person, or we could talk about the people in the decision-making process.

Personally, I don't feel that all kinds of government suit all people, and that one nation should "ape" another simply because they're told "hey, it worked for us". On the other hand, certain forms of government lack feedback and self-control mechanisms, and are easy for a ruthless or unprincipled person to inflict abuses of various kinds (human rights, economic, or other abuses). Good examples are abuses against the Kurds or using positions of power to create personal financial fortunes.

Wodan
 
my two cents on the issue of America is this - there could be completely non-ideological reasons why some hold bitter feelings towards 'US' after you liberate them, and that is, whatever good intention US may have had, there are people whose familes/friends/relatives/home towns get heavily affected/ruined by US army presence/intervention/operation. You could obviously argue that it was unavoidable and/or it had to be done for the bigger good, which is infinitely debatable but I can at least understand the thoughts behind it.

However, the problem arises when you're talking about innocent civilians whose family/friends/relatives/home town got destroyed/bombed or whatever. Obviously US wouldn't do this on purpose, but it does happen, and when it does, no amount of explanation/excuses/apologies afterwards are gonna change what these people think/say. All they can think of at such scenario is the question of 'who pulled the trigger/who pushed the button' - it doesn't matter under what circumstances. That's why you see even Japanese people demonstrating on hiroshima a-bomb days despite the plain & obvious fact that they were the aggressor to start with, because for a lot people who did die there & suffered for generations for afterwards, any ideology/historical circumstances pretty much goes out of window when they're grieving about their personal unfair loss.

I think it is a bit unfair to resort to some kind of 'self-pride/ego' psychology speculation for these people. Note that I'm not criticising US army involvements/what they've achieved in general - many people were indeed liberated because of US whether it was their real intention or not, those people will always be grateful. But by same token, many people did get their lives ruined because of US, and those people will always be resentful. It's futile to explain to kids who grew up without mother or whose hometown got carpet bombed into nothingness that it was for the greater good/necessary, and to say that these kids grow up to resent US because of some kind of ego issues is just a mean insult in my opinion.

I know there are many in US who's really serious about doing whatever they can to put US military operations overseas in scrutinity so that there would be as little number of such unintended victims as possible, but one mistake here and one mistake there, and a couple of rogue soldiers can basically ruin the entire effort of the nation in this respect. War is war no matter how nicely you dress it ideologically, and this means that there will always be innocent victims and to some people's eyes US will always be the killers instead of saviours, and to these people, it will never matter what US managed to achieve for their country in grand scheme of things, because the fact remains that their personal lives got ruined by US military actions.

It's just tragic really.
 
Top Bottom