Firaxis and the Gross Misrepresentation of Non-Western History?

[pooshka]

maybe a bit off post at this stage, but I once read a very interesting article (forgot where it was from though unfortunately...) which was trying to make the distinction between 'technology' and 'science', and the guy's argument was that China was technologically very advanced from early age, but they were slow to formalise/open up to 'scientific methods' that served as underlying theoretical basis of such technologies (whether they knew it or not), largely due to their valuing/perception of craftmanship as some kind of humane effort striving for 'zen' kinda state. I don't know how much weight this argument actuall holds because frankly my knowledge on these things are very limited, but it certainly seemed to be an interesting observation.

One thing I do know though is that Max Weber of "Protestant Ethics and Spirit of Capitalism" fame wrote a book called "The Religion of China: Confucianism and Taoism" as his follow up effort into sociology of religion. There he basically dissects & tries to answer the question why China has always been such a great trade/commerce nation but never developed full scale capitalism, and he tries to find the answers in the impact of confucianism/culture/tradition on these matters. For a change, Wiki has a decent enough summary of that book, so if anybody's interested it's certainly worth a look.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber#The_Religion_of_China:_Confucianism_and_Taoism

 

[cybrxkhan]

maybe a bit off post at this stage, but I once read a very interesting article (forgot where it was from though unfortunately...) which was trying to make the distinction between 'technology' and 'science', and the guy's argument was that China was technologically very advanced from early age, but they were slow to formalise/open up to 'scientific methods' that served as underlying theoretical basis of such technologies (whether they knew it or not), largely due to their valuing/perception of craftmanship as some kind of humane effort striving for 'zen' kinda state. I don't know how much weight this argument actuall holds because frankly my knowledge on these things are very limited, but it certainly seemed to be an interesting observation.

One thing I do know though is that Max Weber of "Protestant Ethics and Spirit of Capitalism" fame wrote a book called "The Religion of China: Confucianism and Taoism" as his follow up effort into sociology of religion. There he basically dissects & tries to answer the question why China has always been such a great trade/commerce nation but never developed full scale capitalism, and he tries to find the answers in the impact of confucianism/culture/tradition on these matters. For a change, Wiki has a decent enough summary of that book, so if anybody's interested it's certainly worth a look.

interesting. well, lets hear it from an Easterner's point of view.

technology and "science" are related, but not the same. there was always spiritual and religious beliefs in technology and science, but this applies to Westerners as well, like referencing to God in certain activities and such.

the reason China fell behind the West was because it was "one". it was unified, unlike the European states. so, if the government of China one day decided to go isolated, all of it would. but, in Europe, if one state went isolated, the others could still do their thing.

if, on the other hand, the Chinese wanted to expand their economics and political influence and sail 'round the world, then all of "it" would follow suit.

thats why i think China fell behind the west. not all necessarily because they were incapable, stupid, or conservative.

 

[The Flame]

I've come to the conclusion that (from everything I've read) the world is screwed and we're all going to die. Soon.


No, not really, but it seems that way.

 

[cybrxkhan]

^good job. lets prepare for the Apocalypse. (and me no joking either... who knows what could happen, realy)

 

[JBConquests]

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

My geek > your geek

I humbly stand corrected.

 

[Huxley Hobbes]

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 must comment on this. I accept what you are saying as entirely true - no amount of "greater good" arguments will appease someone who has lost a home, family member, and so forth. (Seems like a flaw in utilitarian theory to me.) However! There are a vast number of people in the rich, industrialized west who haven't seen any American aggression, certainly not in living memory, and who do in fact owe a debt of gratitude to the US, who act as if America is exactly as Chavez portrays it. I'm neither surprised nor concerned that people who are actually in a warzone might get rather upset at the ones they hold accountable. I am quite concerned when people outside those warzones can't look at a situation with more clarity and understand the greater nuances and far longer-term causes and consequences of things.

Edit: As to the actual topic and hand, my answer now is the same as my answer has been since I can remember: The game needs to have more leaders. Top to bottom, left to right, male and female, historical and modern, doesn't matter if traits are duplicated, the game needs more leaders.

 

[Roxlimn]

Wodan:

You don't think people from other countries leave radioactive and toxic wastes in America? Big business can do pretty much whatever it wants.

Technically, only industrialized nations with very friendly relationships with America's elite can usually do that, and that tends to be allied European or Western nations or corporations. I'm pretty sure that America hasn't had Chinese industrial waste shipped to its shores secretly.

And it isn't those Western nations that are sending REALLY bad vibes that way, either.

Or base secret weapons? If a handful of terrorists can pull it off, I have absolutely no doubt that many foreign nations have weapons here: actual weapons, not just jumbo jets.

Quite honestly, its a little pointless to base weapons off of the US unless you're talking about ICBMs. And in that case, who knows? That's classified information.

Or, interfere with politics in America? Read the news.

They usually try to bribe and lobby and like things. They don't assassinate American leaders and forment insurrection.

America doesn't force values. Just look at Iraq. The religious and political opposition are allowed to think and feel whatever they like.

You can't see it because you're part of the problem. America is forcing Iraq to adopt its political system - its political values. No other form of governance is acceptable or even hinted at. The tacit assumption that everyone loves American-style "freedom and liberty" is behind the notion.

The thing is, not everyone is like that, and things Americans value aren't the same things everyone values. It's a little offensive to some Iraqis that Americans are dictating to them the system by which they will govern themselves, although the former system (which America ALSO helped to establish, ironically enough) might not have been all that good.

America supported Saddam once, and that was pretty horrible for a lot of Iraqis. Then it removed him through invasion and occupation and now hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead. And Americans have the temerity to belittle these same Iraqis, saying that it's all their fault and that they ought to fix this problem, which Iraqis are causing.

If your mother and father are dead from a botched American air strike, even though you supported America, you can see how that kind of situation can look like.

One thing we should point out, however. This stuff isn't being swept under the rug. Not many nations could say that. Heck, even America in past generations probably couldn't say that.

If you think that the incidents that happened are ALL that happened, then CNN et all are doing their jobs well.

While the US isn't special in this regard (see Japan and the rape of Nanking), you're being naive if you think that every horrible rape, abuse, and atrocity is being covered and reported.

Occupation is hard on the occupied population.

Does America feel that way? That's a complex question. If you ask if I feel "superior" to a goat herder living in a shack somewhere in Asia, I'd say no. I feel more fortunate. But, honestly that goatherder may be perfectly content, and may have a deeper and more fulfilling life than I have. On the other hand, I have better health benefits. Go figure.

Personal preferences don't factor much into it. For instance, is America interested in seeing how a police state might be a better way to run some nations? Nope. Is America interested in respecting the rule of law, even of its staunchest allies? No again. In Singapore, an American was caught for vandalism and sentenced to the usual punishment for a Singaporean. Instead of applauding the even-handedness of Singaporean law, Americans lambasted Singapore for not being of the same mind as they.

Where is this open-mindedness I keep hearing about?

If anything, Southeast Asian city-states like Hong Kong with their cosmopolitan history and trading traditions are much more hands-off and accepting. You don't see the Singaporean government loudly and roundly criticizing Bush, regardless of how they might feel.

Live and let live.

Makes you wonder what would have happened to world history if China didn't turn isolationist.

Not much different. Even in its heyday, China has never been interested with anything beyond India and the Himalayas. Even its interest in surrounding states like Java and the Philippine kingdoms is remarkably small, even when it named such territories nominal vassals.

Meanwhile, European nations of the late Renaissance were poor, AND they've seen convincing proof of the wealth and riches they didn't have. If nothing else, the spices, the porcelain, and the tea would have had them coming busting out sooner or later. Their access to advanced weaponry adapted from and improved from all over the world insured that they would lead the spree of bloody conquest this time around.

It's happened before. The pattern is inevitable, in both large and small trends. The Vikings came raiding for similar reasons. In some ways, so did the Mongols. And the Manchus. And the Hittites.

On one hand you have a poor impoverished hungry people. On the other, lands of wealth with a contented inward-looking populace. You give big bright shiny weapons to both of them and the result is almost preordained.

 

[Wodan]

Technically, only industrialized nations with very friendly relationships with America's elite can usually do that, and that tends to be allied European or Western nations or corporations.

It's any big business. When you made your original point, I believe it wasn't your intent to be talking about the US government, or individual citizens, doing this in 3rd world countries. If that is mistaken, feel free to say so. I believe what you meant is that US gov't interference allowed big corporations to go in and do these things. It's a valid point, because without the US gov't involvement, then who's to say whether the citizens of that country would have allowed the big business in?

Regardless, my counterpoint is that big business already does these things in the US. This, too, is a valid point. It doesn't refute yours, but it does say that the US gov't isn't being two-faced.

I'm pretty sure that America hasn't had Chinese industrial waste shipped to its shores secretly.

And I'm pretty sure the converse isn't true, either.

Quite honestly, its a little pointless to base weapons off of the US unless you're talking about ICBMs. And in that case, who knows? That's classified information.

The point of an ICBM is to deliver a payload across international distances. If you simply smuggle the payload to the target, who needs an ICBM?

If I were a semi-allied third power (say, France) during the Cold War 20 or 30 years ago, the last thing I would want to do is build a bunch of ICBMs and draw attention my way. And, after the cold war, the same is true... ICBMs would draw US and other attention my way.

Nevertheless, I would want to defend myself if/when it came to war. And/or, to be able to reveal this capability if the US started to flaunt its ICBMs to force me to capitulate short of war.

They usually try to bribe and lobby and like things. They don't assassinate American leaders and forment insurrection.

Really?

You can't see it because you're part of the problem. America is forcing Iraq to adopt its political system - its political values. No other form of governance is acceptable or even hinted at.

I agree.

Where I disagree is when you equate the "form" and the "function". When you talk about a political system and then equate this to the values and laws implemented by the system.

If you think that the incidents that happened are ALL that happened, then CNN et all are doing their jobs well.

While the US isn't special in this regard (see Japan and the rape of Nanking), you're being naive if you think that every horrible rape, abuse, and atrocity is being covered and reported.

Oh come on. You're nitpicking about a difference in degree. The effect of incidents decrease with every additional one. How would I be able to prove that not a single one has been suppressed? Obviously I can't. But, I can say that the Xth incident has much less impact than the X-1th incident.

What's naive is that you don't think foreign powers assassinate US leaders or are in the US right now fomenting rebellion and instability.

Personal preferences don't factor much into it. For instance, is America interested in seeing how a police state might be a better way to run some nations? Nope.

I've already responded to that issue, last week.

Is America interested in respecting the rule of law, even of its staunchest allies? No again. In Singapore, an American was caught for vandalism and sentenced to the usual punishment for a Singaporean. Instead of applauding the even-handedness of Singaporean law, Americans lambasted Singapore for not being of the same mind as they.

Where is this open-mindedness I keep hearing about?

You're pointing to an extreme, and fairly trivial, example, and using that single example to come to a conclusion about an entire nation, it's people, system of govenment, and actions of the that government.

Wodan

 

[LlamaCat]

I think there is a fundamental question not being asked here: where in the manual or game does it explicity state that the leaders for each civ are somehow supposed to be the "greatest" of their civilizations? to carry it further, where does it make clear that the civilizations in the game are supposed to be the greatest in history?

too many assumptions. we can't find the answers until we know the right questions...

 

[The Flame]

I think there is a fundamental question not being asked here: where in the manual or game does it explicity state that the leaders for each civ are somehow supposed to be the "greatest" of their civilizations? to carry it further, where does it make clear that the civilizations in the game are supposed to be the greatest in history?

too many assumptions. we can't find the answers until we know the right questions...

You're right, it doesn't state that they have to be great, but people want the great leaders. Simple.

 

[vicawoo]

FYI, ASEAN's position is to denounce the government of Myanmar for jailing their democratically elected president, Aung San Suu Kyi, for almost 20 years.

Part of america wants special treatment (such as wanting us troops to be immune to war crimes tribunals). Actually, I think most countries want to protect their citizens abroad, that's the purpose of embassies.

 

[Roxlimn]

Wodan:

Regardless, my counterpoint is that big business already does these things in the US. This, too, is a valid point. It doesn't refute yours, but it does say that the US gov't isn't being two-faced.

I quite sure that your point is verifiably correct, but regardless of that, the point of view of your average American really isn't usually accessible to the people who don't like America itself. To them, America and its government and businesses are not distinct, just as components of Chinese society aren't distinct to a lot of Americans, either.

It's understandable, but not logical.

The point of an ICBM is to deliver a payload across international distances. If you simply smuggle the payload to the target, who needs an ICBM?

Actually, my point was more of the US endangering its allies by basing dangerous weapons in their soil.

Really?

I confess that I'm ignorant of any American president who was was overthrown or assassinated by foreign forces. Please elaborate.

Where I disagree is when you equate the "form" and the "function". When you talk about a political system and then equate this to the values and laws implemented by the system.

The system itself is founded on the truth of these values - the values are an assumed truth so as to arrive at the system. Most basically, such assumption are founded on views of society as old as Greece and Rome, but their age does not mean that they are necessarily true or desireable for all peoples.

If you force a system on another people and believe that you are doing them a favor, then you are essentially forcing them to accept your values.

What's naive is that you don't think foreign powers assassinate US leaders or are in the US right now fomenting rebellion and instability.

Rebellion? American rebelliion? Seriously? Terrorist attacks, yeah, but seriously? Overthrowing the US government? I'm sorry but you'll have to forgive my skepticism. Please provide sourcing for your tacit assertion that foriegn powers are formenting rebellion to any reasonable effect.

You're pointing to an extreme, and fairly trivial, example, and using that single example to come to a conclusion about an entire nation, it's people, system of govenment, and actions of the that government.

Actually, no. I'm fairly conversant with plenty of Americans of my acquaintance and I also browse a good amount of American sites and converse with some few Americans.

I also watch both CNN and Fox News, I read Time and Newsweek. This American tendency to think that everyone is inferior to them is pretty pervasive.

 

[AriochIV]

Of course, the average Westerner knows no idea who Taizong is--nor the clowns at Firaxis. But most know who Mao is (heck, even Mike Tyson has him tattooed to his arm), and many--thanks to Jet Li--know who the Chin emperor is. So a Mao replaces a Taizong. Surely, a "dumbing" down of history at its worst.

No matter how many times we say it, some people are so thick that they can never get it through their skulls. Civilization is a computer game. It's meant to be fun. It's not meant to be a history lesson, nor an evaluation of the historical importance of every single leader and/or culture, nor any of the other things that you twits insist on complaining about.

It's a game. Get the . .. .. .. . over it. If you disagree with the choices that the game designers made, shut the . .. .. .. . up and make your own . .. .. .. .ing game.

Moderator Action: Trolling and language. Lighten up.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[vicawoo]

No matter how many times we say it, some people are so thick that they can never get it through their skulls. Civilization is a computer game. It's meant to be fun. It's not meant to be a history lesson, nor an evaluation of the historical importance of every single leader and/or culture, nor any of the other things that you twits insist on complaining about.

It's a game. Get the . .. .. .. . over it. If you disagree with the choices that the game designers made, shut the . .. .. .. . up and make your own . .. .. .. .ing game.

Moderator Action: Trolling and language. Lighten up.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I agree americans can be pretty dense when it comes to the rest of the world, although I wouldn't agree on labeling fireaxis as another cog of america-centrism.

I was once with a group of people from all over the world, and we played a little game about how much people knew about other regions. We gave a Japanese girl who's studying in england the assignment of drawing a map of south america. Profound failure. Europeans trying to draw Africa. Failure. I'm pretty sure every person here is pretty ignorant about some part of the world, even if they might be an expert about some specific region.

In giving an example of bad representation of China, I can't think of any examples of Chinese making games or movies except about, well, China. How many non-western countries teach lessons about Hammurabi or Huayna?

 

[aronnax]

This is 'merica pal. Perhaps you've heard of it, it's the center of the universe. We won both World Wars single handedly, destroyed those Evil Communists, liberated countless countries from bad guys, invented everything, first on the moon, stopped Iraq from using it's WMD, and will kick anyones ass who says otherwise. Take your "history" and shove it.

USA IS #1!

Yeah, Im gonna take your history, and shove it up your hairy, ignoramous ass you yankee imbicial pig! What you just say was so hugely incorrect, so amazing arrogant and dangerously ignorant that I feel damn stupid from just qouting your corrosive acidic sentence that makes any reader blind just because its that stupid. I swear the stupidity was jumping of the screaan and burrowing in my head! You just lost all respect from me.

 

[aronnax]

It felt good to get that off even though it was trolling. Moving on I do think that Firaxis could have found better leaders like Han Wudi?

 

[Wodan]

I quite sure that your point is verifiably correct, but regardless of that, the point of view of your average American really isn't usually accessible to the people who don't like America itself. To them, America and its government and businesses are not distinct, just as components of Chinese society aren't distinct to a lot of Americans, either.

It's understandable, but not logical.

Sure, a good point.

Actually, my point was more of the US endangering its allies by basing dangerous weapons in their soil.

If the government of one of said countries resents this assistance to the defense of their country, they should repeal the treaty. If the citizens of that country disagree with their government's decision to have the treaty, they should ask the government to repeal the treaty. Either way, they'll have to start paying for their own military, which is fine by me. Frankly, my taxes are high enough as it is.

I confess that I'm ignorant of any American president who was was overthrown or assassinated by foreign forces. Please elaborate.

We're talking about any state-sponsored or -supported activity, including terrorism, rebellion, subversion, assassination, political influence, and more. There is plenty of historical data of this sort of thing, from the English 250 years ago, to the Nazis and Soviets with US domestic socialist groups, and up to present-day groups for anything under the sun. All of these groups actively work to increase their influence in communities across the US, as well as actively work in the Washington DC lobbyist scene. I don't care if it's the YMCA, if they're getting support (monetary or otherwise) or leadership from overseas, then this is an example of what we're talking about. The YMCA is fairly innocuous; there are many radical or highly-charged ideological groups in the US.

The system itself is founded on the truth of these values - the values are an assumed truth so as to arrive at the system.

Sorry, I just disagree here.

Rebellion? American rebelliion? Seriously? Terrorist attacks, yeah, but seriously? Overthrowing the US government? I'm sorry but you'll have to forgive my skepticism. Please provide sourcing for your tacit assertion that foriegn powers are formenting rebellion to any reasonable effect.

If your mental image is scruffy guys in mufti running around in the jungle with semi-automatic rifles, then I agree. You won't find much of that in the US.

Aside from Ted Nugent of course.

Actually, no. I'm fairly conversant with plenty of Americans of my acquaintance and I also browse a good amount of American sites and converse with some few Americans.

I also watch both CNN and Fox News, I read Time and Newsweek. This American tendency to think that everyone is inferior to them is pretty pervasive.

If you want to quote these other sources, feel free to do so. If you choose to not quote these sources, then it's fair game to call your conclusion to be unsupported.

Frankly, I think you are confusing pragmatism, independence, and self-assurance with superiority. There's a big difference between one person thinking something about themselves, and looking at another person and telling them they're a lesser person because they have a different opinion.

The main difference between American society and, say, Iraq society, is the concept of personal independence. Due to history as well as religion and societal values, Iraq does not have this tradition to the same extent that the US does. Given the opportunity to experience more history, they may develop it. They certainly don't have to. Having the freedom to do something does not mean they have to do it. Each person can decide for themselves.

Wodan

 

[darkedone02]

I don't know much of togukawa at all, but I've have heard of a different leader for japan and his name is nobunaga oda. Mao Zedong is part of the china history for bring in communism. I don't care much of korea cause both of them never get along.

 

[Roxlimn]

Wodan:

If the government of one of said countries resents this assistance to the defense of their country, they should repeal the treaty. If the citizens of that country disagree with their government's decision to have the treaty, they should ask the government to repeal the treaty. Either way, they'll have to start paying for their own military, which is fine by me. Frankly, my taxes are high enough as it is.

The US doesn't always disclose that it's basing said weapons in said country's soil. Distressing US interests usually carries with it... ...interesting consequences for said country, including but not limited to stopping aid, limited or global trade embargoes, economic attack, diplomatic attack and/or invasion.

The US has a rather patchy history when it comes to honoring its implicit deals.

We're talking about any state-sponsored or -supported activity, including terrorism, rebellion, subversion, assassination, political influence, and more.

You might be. I was fairly specific, though. No, the YMCA's activities aren't equivalent to CIA sponsored insurrections.

Sorry, I just disagree here.

Of course. I expected you to. My values are false. They are inferior. They are not to be taken into consideration.

It's quite predictable at this point.

If you want to quote these other sources, feel free to do so. If you choose to not quote these sources, then it's fair game to call your conclusion to be unsupported.

Much of Newsweek's coverage is VERY pro-American and even that which is not is spun in a very pro-American way. I'm not saying that it's unusual. Most news agencies are biased. But US news agencies are not an exception, even CNN.

Frankly, I think you are confusing pragmatism, independence, and self-assurance with superiority. There's a big difference between one person thinking something about themselves, and looking at another person and telling them they're a lesser person because they have a different opinion.

Nope. The self-superiority is all over the place. I can recognize pragmatism, independence and self-assurance. The Chinese of Hong Kong are like that, but they don't come over to my country and tell me to do what they tell me to do or else.

This is indicative and quite typical:

The main difference between American society and, say, Iraq society, is the concept of personal independence. Due to history as well as religion and societal values, Iraq does not have this tradition to the same extent that the US does. Given the opportunity to experience more history, they may develop it. They certainly don't have to. Having the freedom to do something does not mean they have to do it. Each person can decide for themselves.

So they're underdeveloped because they don't see things the way you do? So they may do so only they weren't given the opportunity, and waging war to the tune of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead is thus in their own interest?

You can spin this howsoever you want, but every spin only betrays more of the self-superiority you yourself cannot see.

It is this trait which leads many Americans to do things for which other peoples come to hate Americans for. Don't get me wrong. I'm just trying to answer a question. If you can't see that you're self-superior and are treading over other people's lives and such, then you will never understand why it is that some people are willing to kill themselves just to kill a few Americans.

Understanding the whys of this will probably be central to convincing other people not to crash vehicles into buildings anymore. I have little hope for that, however. It seems that that the "kill until nobody's left solution," is the more likely solution to succeed. It has before, so it may again.

 

[Newbunkle]

I think its all about catering to the public, taking into account who they know best, but I think they could have done a bit better. They have evil arsemongers like Stalin and Mao in there, but they didn't include Kim Jong-il for Korea. He is probably the most well known Korean leader, even if its just for ridicule.