Firaxis stereotyping Orientals

[Charles 22]

gettingfat: Maybe you should temper your complaints a little bit more, when you consider that Poland for example hasn't been in a single civ game EVER and doesn't seem like it ever will. There's a great many other nations with a very long and even powerful history who have never been in Civ. Actually it's just my theory, without confirmation, that Poland has never been, but I cannot recall the lineup of the original civ. If we had Poland instead of an "asian" civ then you would have ratio-wise less grounds for the protective complaint. I'd be more than happy to see Poland get stuck with ANY traits.

 

[Dearmad]

Poland has never been. Neither has Mexico or any Latin American "civ", so the OP should get off his high horse and shut up. Asia is OVER represented with Korea in the game. Japan and China were and are the earthshakers in Asia, that hasn't changed for a thousand years.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Poland has never been. Neither has Mexico or any Latin American "civ", so the OP should get off his high horse and shut up. Asia is OVER represented with Korea in the game. Japan and China were and are the earthshakers in Asia, that hasn't changed for a thousand years.

Actually the only Earth shakers in Asia have been the Mongols and the Turks... (politically/militarily) or the Semites and the Indians...(philosophically)

China was never an earthshaker in Asia, it never projected any power outside its own region until the last 20 years or so... and the Japanese only did so for a few years in WWII

This is when PC gets bad when it is inaccurate.. Israelis are just as Asian as Japanese...if not moreso, because Israel is actual on the mainland of Asia

 

[StarWorms]

Actually the only Earth shakers in Asia have been the Mongols and the Turks... (politically/militarily) or the Semites and the Indians...(philosophically)

China was never an earthshaker in Asia, it never projected any power outside its own region until the last 20 years or so... and the Japanese only did so for a few years in WWII

This is when PC gets bad when it is inaccurate.. Israelis are just as Asian as Japanese...if not moreso, because Israel is actual on the mainland of Asia

Isn't Israel made up of jews who fled from the holocaust though? Therefore european?

 

[Flakdragon]

Oh my goodness, where did you hear that? Sure Jews fled there, BUT IT ISN'T ENTIRELY MADE UP OF THEM!! Sorry, jewishness rising...

 

[brianshapiro]

The reason that 'oriental' is looked down on as a term isn't precisely because its used to refer to items from the East---before the 20th century it didn't exclusively refer to Eastern goods. But the West had an understanding of culture, both global and historical, where things where different cultures were neatly divided into different coherent systems--the 'oriental' way was meant to be opposite to the 'occidental' as west was opposite to east. Race was also thought of as highly similar to culture (often tied together), so people of the oriental culture could be thought of as orientals. In 19th century art this was present in what was termed 'orientalism'. During the 20th century scholars studied orientalism (Edward Said) concluding it to be not realistic and based on stereotypes, while other theorists argued about there not being any coherent nature to culture (or race). This is why oriental began to refer only to certain fashions of goods instead of people, and why it is looked at a sign of European imperialism.

However, the idea of east-west hasn't completely vanished. And in fact, nowadays its used in an opposite manner to diminish western culture instead of the east. For instance the whole idea of 'Eastern philosophy' suggests that eastern thought is essentially the same thing as western philosophy--which begs one to abandon the basis of western philosophy, which is the idea of representing truth through logic (logos). This is very similar to the way in which attacking Western racist views often ends up being very bigoted against Western culture--portraying the West as the source of all war and conflict---ie there have been thinkers in ethnic studies who have said that 'whites' (or the construct whites make of themselves) are evil, and ethnic studies depts are mainly venues in which to air anti-Western viewpoints.

I think most people in the US just find oriental odd because its not used and so is old fashioned like Negro, and growing up have learned to associate that with theories that relates it to racist attitudes, as I'm sure many people would confuse 'Negro' or 'colored' as being bigoted terms.

 

[brianshapiro]

Folks seem to be slinging terms about in this thread with very little idea of what they actually mean.

racism : noun:

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.​

prejudice : noun:

1. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
2. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.​

oriental: adjective:

1. Of or relating to the countries of the East or their peoples or cultures; Eastern.
2. Of or designating the biogeographic region that includes Asia south of the Himalaya Mountains and the islands of the Malay Archipelago.
3. Lustrous and valuable: oriental pearls.
Usage Note: Asian is now strongly preferred in place of Oriental for persons native to Asia or descended from an Asian people. The usual objection to Oriental meaning “eastern” is that it identifies Asian countries and peoples in terms of their location relative to Europe. However, this objection is not generally made of other Eurocentric terms such as Near and Middle Eastern. The real problem with Oriental is more likely its connotations stemming from an earlier era when Europeans viewed the regions east of the Mediterranean as exotic lands full of romance and intrigue, the home of despotic empires and inscrutable customs. At the least these associations can give Oriental a dated feel, and as a noun in contemporary contexts (as in the first Oriental to be elected from the district) it is now widely taken to be offensive. However, Oriental should not be thought of as an ethnic slur to be avoided in all situations. As with Asiatic, its use other than as an ethnonym, in phrases such as Oriental cuisine or Oriental medicine, is not usually considered objectionable.​

Referring to Asians as "Orientals," that is, as "Eastern", is currently out of fashion and arguably reflects one's Western-oriented point of view, but that can hardly be accurately called racism. To have a localized point of view is not to be equated with irrational suspicion or hatred, or causing detriment or injury to a person. Anyone here who claims that they do not have a localized point of view based on their own origins is a liar.

To suggest that the assignation of the "Protective" trait -- which is a very powerful and respectable game trait -- to all the Asian civilizations in the Warlords expansion represents hatred of and injury to the Asian cultures is utter freaking lunacy.

AriochIV,

I'm going to go back to the thread topic soon.. but as long as these discussions over fashion in language are taking place, I wanted to say I think how most people understand the word racism when it is used doesnt necessarily fit the definition they would give it, as the definition above.

For instance, that definition of racism would characterize most Europeans over a century ago. In academic terms, the argument that people from Europe had superiority was popular. However at the same time the idea of liberalism and political and judicial equality was also popular. So you had people like Jefferson and Lincoln, who would agree to the proposition that blacks were probably inferior. However, Jefferson wanted to have slavery abolished in the constitution, treated his family's slaves as if they were part of his family, and defended the dignity of all people. By most dictionary definitions he would be deemed a racist, but this is not the type of person that people think of when they hear the term racist---because people associate 'racism' as being inseperable from some type of emotional or irrational bigotry. Then again, someone may say it may be fine on one hand to argue that Jefferson himself wasn't particularly racist but his culture was. But even though I wouldn't argue about a superior race, I think a lot of the ideas Jefferson would be drawing on are valid--that races constitute differences, races are often tied to culture, that certain qualities in persons are more valued than others, that reason is a valued quality in human existence. Its less that these aren't legitimate ideas, and more that if a certain combination of these ideas by someone who is ignorant leads to a kind of mentality that we find vile. Its hard to say any articulated philosophy or institutions of Western culture was racist---doing so would stereotype Westerners in the same way other cultures hve objected the West as stereotyping them--just that racism was a persistent product in Western culture. Then again, racism also occured in other cultures, Western racists were just more scientifically articulate about it [a reflection of the West]

 

[Charles 22]

Poland has never been. Neither has Mexico or any Latin American "civ", so the OP should get off his high horse and shut up. Asia is OVER represented with Korea in the game. Japan and China were and are the earthshakers in Asia, that hasn't changed for a thousand years.

I understand the notion of not wanting to get too euro, but, afterall, would the game be at a great loss if Spain for example were replaced by Poland? I think Spain has been in every version. I don't think you should ever take France, Germany, or England out, because they had very many times where they were major players; Spain less so.

 

[dh_epic]

Ask the 392 million people who speak Spanish how much influence Spain had over the world. I don't think the 508 million English speakers should be quick to say the Spanish weren't a major player. But if you don't believe me, ask the millions of people in South America who had the biggest influence on their history. (Hint: it's probably not France, Germany, or England. And certainly not Poland. I say this as someone who is 1/4 Polish.)

 

[Charles 22]

Ask the 392 million people who speak Spanish how much influence Spain had over the world. I don't think the 508 million English speakers should be quick to say the Spanish weren't a major player. But if you don't believe me, ask the millions of people in South America who had the biggest influence on their history. (Hint: it's probably not France, Germany, or England. And certainly not Poland. I say this as someone who is 1/4 Polish.)

So what's happened since 1870? See, most every nation has their down time to some degree. Myself, I couldn't care less how well somebody spread their language and so on. The major factors for me was their military, ecomomic, and land power. For example, Mexico wouldn't be a reflection of Spanish power, because Mexico became a seperate country (a Spanish failure basically) and won independence (same with USA and England). Spain definitely had an era of power, but so did most nations including Poland, but there's really no excuse for continually ignoring Poland and just having the same ol' nations in all the time. The problem with Poland is because she isn't terribly large these days and succumbed over both the nazi and soviet tyrannies, so they haven't done anything since at least WWI. Much of the same can be said for Spain, but going further back even, it's just they never got conquered because they didn't get into it.

I'm 50% Polish BTW, so I might care more about whether she's in .

 

[brianshapiro]

So what's happened since 1870? See, most every nation has their down time to some degree. Myself, I couldn't care less how well somebody spread their language and so on. The major factors for me was their military, ecomomic, and land power. For example, Mexico wouldn't be a reflection of Spanish power, because Mexico became a seperate country (a Spanish failure basically) and won independence (same with USA and England). Spain definitely had an era of power, but so did most nations including Poland, but there's really no excuse for continually ignoring Poland and just having the same ol' nations in all the time. The problem with Poland is because she isn't terribly large these days and succumbed over both the nazi and soviet tyrannies, so they haven't done anything since at least WWI. Much of the same can be said for Spain, but going further back even, it's just they never got conquered because they didn't get into it.

I'm 50% Polish BTW, so I might care more about whether she's in .

i think poles if looked at historically would be seen as part of a slavic civilization or at best a representative of slavic civilization which is why russia, even though different, displaces them in the game. and what about the magyars? ...there was a great confluence of germans, slavs, and magyars in austria in the 19th century which created one of the worlds cultural centers. theres no austrian civilization either :/ but its understandable why. i dont think in these cases a uniquely distinct culture matched up with a national politics which spoke for it. i mean for instance austria did have an important and strong culture in the 19th century but its hard to link it to an unbroken 'austrian civilization' [similar for a prussian civilization ,etc]

Apotheosis of the Slavs

 

[meatwad4289]

China and America have never been friends. China didn't support Vietnam not because it was America's friend but just because that no one supports his non-friend.

As I said, China was "better" Friends with America. It didn't support Vietnam, and Nixon went to China to ensure they didn't and guess what they welcomed him with open arms, as they wouldnt South Vietnam.. So even though we weren't friends, China would of been Better friends to the US than South Vietnam at the time...

ALSO China and America have history of friendship before hte Communist Rise to power.. I mean Open Door Policy...World War 2...We aided them in removing the Japanese from their homeland.

Another guy who knows about neither Korean nor its leaders. I'm wondering if Firaxis doesnt know anything about Korea as well and Korea was just picked as default

Korea was picked for its not only high sales figures, but great effect on World Politics in the past 50 Years. But mostly Sales...

Unfortunately, they were not always successful when facing real warlords. One of them, located not too far away, was Vietnam. They, the Vietnamese, defeated Mongols troops total 3 times. And here is the Warlord:



Another Warlord Vo Nguyen Giap, who doesnt know him and the Siege of Dien Bien Phu that practically ended the Colonial Era - one important feature of the next expansion?

Vietnam... Not China... The Vietnamese are feirce fighters, which won their independence from France. And why, they put fear in the hearts and minds of Americans thru the American Media, who basically said they were winning.. Ofcourse if you look on paper it looks like America was winning as the majority never faced combat.. but thats diffrent story.. Its Vietnam, not China...

And everyone knows Ho Chi Minh and his traits:
- Protective: Vietnam has been almost continiuosly at war for more than thousand year and still survives. its Longbowmen and Crossbowmen made life difficult for the mighty Chinese and Mongols for periods and you American know than anyone else about the Uncle Ho's gunpowder units aka Vietcong, don't you?
- Philisophical: Alphabet was already in use in Vietnam around the 3rd century BC when Korea and Japan were still being barbarians. Vietnamese own alphabet - Chu Nom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chu_Nom - was founded later in the 10 century AD but still 500 years earlier than the equivalent korean version. Modern day Japan is still using a modified Chinese alphabet. More about see http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=chinese_letters or my attachment. Vietnamese Van Mieu aka Temple of Literature was founded in 1070 in Hanoi and the first ever national university was established within it in 1076 - one of the oldest universities in the world if i'm not competely wrong. The university functioned for more than 700 years, from 1076 to 1779. During that time, 2,313(!) doctors graduated. Crazy number! It's a kind of Oxford University and the likes and Korean Sewon is a joke compared to ithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Literature

Ithink you mean HAD been at war for thousands of years, because they, havent been in a war since well, our police action ended... and they took over South Vietnam. VietCong was created when North Vietnam turned Communist... As amatter of fact it was the People Liberation Armed Forces, before the formation of North Vietnam, which then coined the term Vietcong(Vietnamese Communist) by the South Vietnam. So the "VietCong", had nothing to do with Mongolians or China. Once Again, The VC was kicking our buts mentally, but the fact that the majority of our Troops, and by MAJORITY I MEAN A LARGE MAJORITY(believe it was 80+%) Never seen combat, and most the ones that did only seen Ambushes or the chilbombs...
The Media made it look like we were losing, HOWEVER, the United States won every major battle. The Vietnamese didn't give America too much trouble, The American News brought the trouble. Lets face it, The American People suck when it coems to supporting their troops.

Now... is there any telling how good this university was??Because any idiot can order the Doctor title of the internet loljpjp

Also..wasn't there some kind of University in Warlords, that was built in Mali that predates that?(like it was really built in mali, i was reading the description) I'm not sure about the dates, but I know it last 600 to 800 years, and basically said any scholar could make a college, and the university consisted of a bunch of colleges. It wasnt tel the scholars left because of a war, that the University's glory was lost.

 

[Koelle]

As I said, China was "better" Friends with America. It didn't support Vietnam, and Nixon went to China to ensure they didn't and guess what they welcomed him with open arms, as they wouldnt South Vietnam.. So even though we weren't friends, China would of been Better friends to the US than South Vietnam at the time...

Since they were not friends, they were neither better friends nor worse friends. Why China didn't support Vietnam, it is because Vietnam refused to join Mao and Co. in his campaigns of killing his own people. Btw, China and America are still foes today

Korea was picked for its not only high sales figures, but great effect on World Politics in the past 50 Years. But mostly Sales...

Do you mean World Politics had a great effect on Korea? In the Cold War, Vietnam was always considered an independent entity, launching own millitary campaigns capturing this, razing that, not a dependent idle figure like Korea. If Korea is in, then Vietnam definitely must be in. And the primary reason is money, money and money. I don't know how much has Firaxis really cashed from Korea but, as we all know, Korean only play RTS games, those require rather keyboard typing skill

Ithink you mean HAD been at war for thousands of years, because they, havent been in a war since well, our police action ended... and they took over South Vietnam. VietCong was created when North Vietnam turned Communist... As amatter of fact it was the People Liberation Armed Forces, before the formation of North Vietnam, which then coined the term Vietcong(Vietnamese Communist) by the South Vietnam. So the "VietCong", had nothing to do with Mongolians or China. Once Again, The VC was kicking our buts mentally, but the fact that the majority of our Troops, and by MAJORITY I MEAN A LARGE MAJORITY(believe it was 80+%) Never seen combat, and most the ones that did only seen Ambushes or the chilbombs...
The Media made it look like we were losing, HOWEVER, the United States won every major battle. The Vietnamese didn't give America too much trouble, The American News brought the trouble. Lets face it, The American People suck when it coems to supporting their troops.

America DIDN'T win every major battle. You won some, you lost some http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ap_Bac or the biggest battle of the the war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Khe_Sahn, but most battles were draw. And that's America'S sources and you know how accurate American sources are. Some battles won by the Vietnamese can only found in Vietnamese sources like battle of Highway 9 to Laos. Given that not only the American but also their dogs (Korea, Australia, New Zealand, .... with significant number) fought against Vietnamese, it's more like Vietnam against the world than Vietnam against America. And the equipment. Let's see alone the list of American aircrafts that lost in Nam:

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

United States Air Force
A-1 Skyraider-- 191 total, 150 in combat
the 1st USAF loss was A-1E 52-132465 / 1 ACS / 34 TG shot-down during the night of 28/9 Aug'64 near Bien Hoa, SVN the final USAF loss was A-1H 52-139738 / 1 SOS / 56 SOW which was shot-down 28 Sep'72, the pilot was rescued by an Air America helicopter.

A-7 Corsair II-- 6 total, the 354th TFW 1st deployed USAF A-7D's to Korat RTAFB 10 Oct'72.
The 1st loss was A-7D 71-0310 / 353 TFS on 02 Dec'72 whilst acting as escort for a CSAR mission in Laos (Pilot Capt Anthony Shine KIA), also lost were 71-0312 / 353 TFS in a mid-air collision with an FAC Birddog in Laos on Xmas Eve'72(Capt Charles Riess PoW) ; 71-0316 / 355 TFS in a non-combat crash in Thailand on 11 Jan'73 (Pilot Rescued) ; 70-0949 / 354 TFS shot-down near the Thai-Lao border on 17 Feb'73 (Maj J J Gallagher Rescued) ; 71-0305 / 388 TFW / 3 TFS shot-down in Cambodia on 04 May'73 (1/Lt T L Dickens Rescued) & 70-0945 / 354 TFW shot-down in Cambodia on 25 May'73 (Capt Jeremiah Costello KIA)

A-26 Invader-- (22)
the 1st loss was B-26B 44-35530 / Det 2A / 1 ACG shot-down in IV Corps SVN on the night of 04/5 Nov'62 killing the 3 crew. The final loss was A-26A 64-17646 / 609 SOS / 56 SOW lost over Laos on the night of 07/8 July'69 killing both crew.

A-37 Dragonfly-- (22)
1st 1967 final 1972

AC-47 Spooky-- 19 total, 17 in combat
1st 1965 final 1969

AC-119 Shadow/Stinger-- --6 total, 2 in combat
the 1st loss was AC-119G 52-5907 / Det.1 / 17 SOS / 14 SOW which crashed on take-off from Tan Son Nhut, SVN on 11 Oct'69 killing 6 of the 10 crew. final 1971

AC-130 Spectre-- --6 total, all combat. The 1st loss was AC-130A 54-1629 / 16 SOS / 8 TFW hit by 37mm AAA over Laos and crash-landed back at Ubon 2 crewmen died (one died of injuries before reaching Ubon) but 11 others survived.
final 4x 1972

B-52 Stratofortress-- 30 total, 18 in combat
1st 1965 final 1973

B-57 Canberra-- --56 total, 38 in combat
1st 1964 final 1970

C-7 Caribou-- (20)
the first USAF Caribou lost was C-7B 62-4161 / 459 TAS / 483 TAW which was hit by a US 155mm shell on 03 Aug'67 in SVN killing the 3 crew. The final loss was C-7B 62-12584 / 483 TAW which crashed in SVN, furtunately all 4 crew survived.

C-47 Skytrain-- (21)
the very first USAF a/cft. lost in the SEA conflict was C-47B 44-76330 of the 315 AD on TDY at Vientiane, Laos which was shot-down by the Pathet Lao on 23 March 1961 killing 7 of the 8 crew. The sole survivor, US Army Maj. Lawrence Bailey was captured and held until Aug'62. Fittingly, one of the final a/cft. lost in SEA was EC-47Q 43-48636 / 361 TEWS / 56 SOW which was shot-down in Laos on the night of 04/5 Feb'73 killing all 8 crew.

C-123 Provider-- --53 total, 21 in combat
the first loss was C-123B 56-4370 attached to the 464 TCW which came down on a Ranch Hand (defoliation) training flight between Bien Hoa and Vung Tau, SVN on 02-February 1962 final 1971

C-130 Hercules-- --55 total, 34 in combat
1st 1965 final 1972

C-141 Starlifter-- (2)
C-141A 65-9407 / 62 MAW was destroyed in a night-time runway collision with a USMC A-6 at Danang, SVN on 23 Mar'67 killing 5 of the 6 crew and C-141A 66-0127 / 4 MAS / 62 MAW crashed soon after take-off from Cam Ranh Bay, SVN on 13 Apr'67 killing 6 of the 8 crew.

E/RB-66 Destroyer (14)
the 1st loss was RB-66B 53-0452 / Det 1, 41 TRS / 6250 CSG which went down on the night of 22/3 Oct'65 West of Peiku, SVN killing the crew crew. The final loss of the conflict was EB-66C 54-0466 / 42 TEWS / 388 TFW shot-down in I Corps, SVN on 02 Apr'72 during the Spring Offensive 5 of the 6 crew were KIA, the sole survivor was LtC. Iceal Hambleton "Bat*21" eventually reached safety after 10 days after numerous rescue attempts which had resulted in the loss of a number of US Army & USAF a/cft. & crews.

EC-121 Bat Cat-- (2) the only to EC-121 losses both occured in 1969
EC-121R 67-24193 / 554 RS / 553 RW crashed 25 Apr'69 soon after daytime take-off in a thunderstorm from Korat RTAFB killing all 18 crew. Whilst, EC-121R 67-21495 / 554 RS / 553 RW crashed in heavy rain on approach to Korat RTAFB (4 of the 16 were Killed)

F-4 Phantom II-- --445 total, 382 in combat
the first non-combat loss was F-4C 64-0674 of the 15 TFW / 45 TFS which ran out of fuel after strike in SVN on 09 June 1965 ; the first combat loss was F-4C 64-0685 of the 15 TFW / 45 TFS was shot-down by a NVAF MiG-17 near Ta Chan, NW NVN on 20 June 1965. final 1973

F-5 Freedom Fighter-- (9)
1st 1965 final 1967

F-100 Super Sabre-- --243 total, 198 in combat
1st 1964 final 1971

F-102 Delta Dagger-- (14)
1st 1964 final 1967

F-104 Starfighter-- (14)
1st 1965 final 1967

F-105 Thunderchief-- --397 total, 334 in combat
1st 1964 final 1972

General Dynamics F-111A "Aardvark"-- --10 total, 6 in combat
1968 (3) 1972 - 1973

HU-16 Albatross-- (2)
1966 x2

KB-50 Superfortress-- (1)
the only Superfortress lost in the SEA conflict was KB-50J 48-0065 of the 421 ARS Detachment at RTAFB Takhli which crashed in Thailand on 14 October 1964. Fortunately all 6 crew survived.

KC-135 Stratotanker-- (3)
1968 (2) 1969

O-1 Bird Dog-- --172 total, 122 in combat
1st 1963 final 1972

O-2 Skymaster-- --104 total, 82 in combat
1st 1967 final 1972

OV-10 Bronco-- --63 total, 47 in combat
1st 1968 final 1973

QU-22-- (9)
the 1st loss was YQU-22A 68-10531 / 553 RW which crashed due to engine failure on 11 June'69 final 1972

RF-4C Phantom II-- --83 total, 76 in combat
1st 1966 final 1972

RF-101 Voodoo-- --39 total, 33 in combat
1st 1964 final 1968

SR-71 Blackbird-- --2, 0 combat
SR-71A 64-17969 / Det OL-8 / 9 SRW suffered engine failure over Thailand on 10 May'70, both crew ejected safely. SR-71A 64-17978 / Det OL-KA / 9 SRW crashed n landing at Kadena, Okinawa on 20 July'72m both crewmen survived.

T-28 Trojan-- (23)
1st 1962 final 1968

U-2 "Dragon Lady"-- (1)
the only loss in the SEA conflict was U-2C 56-6690 of the 100 SRW / 349 SRS which crashed on 08 Oct'66 near Bien Hoa, SVN after a recon. flight over NVN Maj. Leo J Stewart ejected and was rescued.

U-3 Blue Canoe-- (1) the only loss in the SEA conflict was U-3B 60-6058 which was destroyed on the ground during a VC attack on Tan Son Nhut, SVN on 14 June 1968.
U-6 Beaver-- (1) the only loss in the SEA conflict was U-6A 51-15565 attached to the 432 TRW which crashed in Thailand on 28 December 1966, fortunately both crewmembers survived.
U-10 Courier-- (1) U-10D 63-13102 / 5 SOS / 14 SOW hit by ground-fire crashed 14 Aug'69 near Bien Hoa killing 1/Lt Roger Brown.
CH/HH-3 -- (14)
CH/HH-53 -- (10)
Source: Air Force Magazine, Vol.87, No. 9, September 2004, P.58, "The Vietnam War Almanac," with attribution to USAF Operations Report, Nov. 30, 1973 Individual loss a/c report details come from "Vietnam Air Losses" CHristopher Michael Hobson, Midland Publishing 2001

[edit]
United States Navy
A-1 Skyraider --65 total, 48 in combat
A-3 Skywarrior --7 total, 2 in combat
A-4 Skyhawk --282 total, 195 in combat
A-5 Vigilante (7) --0 in combat
A-6 Intruder --62 total, 51 in combat
A-7 Corsair --100 total, 55 in combat
C-1 Trader --4 total, 0 in combat
C-2 Greyhound --1 total, 0 in combat
C-47 Skytrain (1)
E-1 Tracer --3 total, 0 in combat
E-2 Hawkeye --2 total, 0 in combat
EA-1 Skyraider --4 total, 1 in combat
EC-121 Warning Star (1?)
F-4 Phantom --138 total, 75 in combat
F-8 Crusader --118 total, 57 in combat
OV-10 Bronco (7)
P-2 Neptune (4)
P-3 Orion (2)
RA-5 Vigilante --26 total, 18 in combat
RF-8 Crusader --29 total, 19 in combat
S-2 Tracker --4 total, 2 in combat
Source: hand tabulation of individual loss entries by date and aircraft carrier, June 7, 1964-August 15, 1973, carrier air wings only, recorded in Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club, René J. Francillon (1988)

[edit]
United States Marine Corps
A-4 Skyhawk 81
A-6 Intruder 25
C-117 Skytrain 2
EA-6 Prowler 2
EF-10 Skynight 5
F-4 Phantom 98
F-8 Crusader 21
KC-130 Hercules 4
O-1 Bird Dog 7
OV-10 Bronco 10
RF-4 Phantom 4
RF-8 Crusader 1
TA-4 Skyhawk 10
TF-9 Cougar 1

Vietnam didn't even have 1/10 the number of American aircrafts shot down there and that says alot

Now... is there any telling how good this university was??Because any idiot can order the Doctor title of the internet loljpjp

Also..wasn't there some kind of University in Warlords, that was built in Mali that predates that?(like it was really built in mali, i was reading the description) I'm not sure about the dates, but I know it last 600 to 800 years, and basically said any scholar could make a college, and the university consisted of a bunch of colleges. It wasnt tel the scholars left because of a war, that the University's glory was lost.

I'm not going to debate how good this university was. What i want to say is the university was built in the 11 century BC and was one of the oldest universities around the world. It's about the same as the University in Mali and the Mali University is a World Wonder in Civ IV Warlords(!). It's ignorant from Firaxis to exclude such a great civ and such a great wonder. And you cant just compare ancient universities and mordern day universities as well as you can't say The Pyramid and The Great Wall are low-quality constructions according to modern criterions.

 

[Flakdragon]

Since they were not friends, they were neither better friends nor worse friends. Why China didn't support Vietnam, it is because Vietnam refused to join Mao and Co. in his campaigns of killing his own people. Btw, China and America are still foes today

Oh my goodness, forgetting a little thing call World War Two? The democratic Chiang Kai Shek was the leader of China, and although he had some corruption as all democracy does, he was still a great friend of America. He was not very aggressive though, and Mao would take his men in his own hands against the Japanese. America sent China soldiers to protect it from Japan.

Your only focusing on Vietnam, a small ten year period in all of history, yet forget all else. How are China and America foes?! You forgetting that we both support eachother's governments in trade?! Oh, I don't like you so here is our huge support, China! Likewise to you, America!

 

[Koelle]

I'm not focussing on anything. He said China and America were friends during the Vietnam War and that means China and America were friends during the Cold War. That's absolutely worng. Chiang Kai Shek was Taiwanese and was America's friend, China not. Btw, foes may still trade with each other but friends never prepare to invade each other http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-8-5/30974.html or send spy plane to each other's territories http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/apr2001/chin-a15.shtml
I feel sorry for the brave Chinese pilot shot down by his "friends"

 

[Brighteye]

You're assuming that the offended person has a choice in being offended. At least on the level of individual incidents I don't think that's the case. Somehow I have a feeling that you're not an adult proffessional. Your philosophy may change after you see the reaction of your black boss when you start throwing around "colored person," or using "orientials" in front of an Asian judge.

Of course a person may dislike a word, and always dislike it in any context. My old English teacher (like so many) disliked the word 'got'. He didn't become offended when we used it though.
You can use reason to understand that the person is using a word perfectly innocently, and that he has no intention of causing you grief. You therefore will not take offense. If you choose to take offense (that is, blame the other person for causing you grief) then you are being irrational, because he cannot read your mind to know which words you dislike, and he needs to convey his meaning somehow.
When I become a 'professional' I will spell it correctly, and if someone is good enough to be my boss he will understand that I use words to convey meaning, not insult him. If not he will be demoted very quickly, and I will take his place.
Of course, if a person asks that I refrain from using a word, and there is a perfectly common substitute, I might try to avoid using it. However, the person needs to ask me first, and then it is he who is imposing on me, and I do not have to accept it; if my alternative is a very long-winded way of expressing myself and we're in a business sitiuation I may well tell the person to stop being so wet and get a grip on themselves.

 

[Flakdragon]

I'm not focussing on anything. He said China and America were friends during the Vietnam War and that means China and America were friends during the Cold War. That's absolutely worng. Chiang Kai Shek was Taiwanese and was America's friend, China not. Btw, foes may still trade with each other but friends never prepare to invade each other http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-8-5/30974.html or send spy plane to each other's territories http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/apr2001/chin-a15.shtml
I feel sorry for the brave Chinese pilot shot down by his "friends"

We aren't just trading with eachother, we entirely support eachother's economy with how much we invest into eachother's countries. If one were to collapse, than the other's economy would definitly be worse than before. Thats a deep investment for enemies.

Chiang Kai Shek was born in China, so he was Chinese, then he became leader of the Republic of China in 1928. He moved the central government to Taiwan though (after the communist revolution), that may be where your confusion lies. Taiwan is also a part of China, that is why there are debates on Taiwan trying to become it's own nation apart from China.

And he is incorrect, the Vietnam War was just another unfortunate chapter in the Cold War, not the entirety of the era itself.

 

[boazman]

For instance, that definition of racism would characterize most Europeans over a century ago. In academic terms, the argument that people from Europe had superiority was popular. However at the same time the idea of liberalism and political and judicial equality was also popular. So you had people like Jefferson and Lincoln, who would agree to the proposition that blacks were probably inferior. However, Jefferson wanted to have slavery abolished in the constitution, treated his family's slaves as if they were part of his family, and defended the dignity of all people. By most dictionary definitions he would be deemed a racist, but this is not the type of person that people think of when they hear the term racist---because people associate 'racism' as being inseperable from some type of emotional or irrational bigotry. Then again, someone may say it may be fine on one hand to argue that Jefferson himself wasn't particularly racist but his culture was.

The study of race was considered as a science in the 18th and 19th centuries. It first began with Swedish zoologist Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) who applied biological classifications to human begins (rather reasonably), thus classified human into different ‘races’. The study of race continued throughout 18th and 19th centuries, often involvement various elaborated hierarchical schemes, charting of skull shape and measurement of intelligence. Scientists developed theories to explain the perceived differences between different races, arguing that some races are more evolved than others. It must be noted that study of race was not associated with emotional and irrational feelings at that time; on the contrary it was considered as part of rational science, with the purpose of organizing society better. There was not necessarily hatred involved, some may treated other races in a benign way, but still they were considered biologically different.

The term ‘racism’ didn’t appear until 1930s, when it was gradually accepted that ‘theories of race’ was scientifically invalid; that biological differences between ‘races’ are only superficial, and that treating other race differently is unjustified. It was only by then, that the ‘study of race’ was termed as ‘scientific racism’. That’s why in academic field (at least that’s what I was taught), the use of ‘ethnicity’ is preferred to ‘race’, because the latter is an arbitrary classification and has little use in social sciences.

Were those 19th racial theorists ‘racist’ then? Yes, they were, not because they held the belief that ‘race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others’. I think many people overlooked that point that you don’t have to commit hate crime to be called racist; holding the belief that ‘race explains differences in human’ is already racist. And I think there is no need to deny that the era where Jefferson lived accepted the idea which we call racist now. It doesn’t implies Western civilizations are racist, only that at some point of history they accepted racism; it doesn’t mean the ‘West’ invented racism, or they are the only civilizations capable of being racist.

 

[meatwad4289]

Since they were not friends, they were neither better friends nor worse friends. Why China didn't support Vietnam, it is because Vietnam refused to join Mao and Co. in his campaigns of killing his own people. Btw, China and America are still foes today

Did I say they were friend's today? no. They were friends in the past, and idk if you realize it but your trying to push your point of them not being friends now, to overshadow the past relationship..

Do you mean World Politics had a great effect on Korea? In the Cold War, Vietnam was always considered an independent entity, launching own millitary campaigns capturing this, razing that, not a dependent idle figure like Korea. If Korea is in, then Vietnam definitely must be in. And the primary reason is money, money and money. I don't know how much has Firaxis really cashed from Korea but, as we all know, Korean only play RTS games, those require rather keyboard typing skill

Koreans only play RTS???? WTH? I have alot of Korean Cousins who play Civilization, Counter-Strike, Halo, Day of Defeat, Madden, ECT. My Best Friend plays Civ4 and Counter-Strike 90% as well as MMOs(changes from WOW to Guildwars to EQ all the time lol) and he's half Korean, hell his family goes to Korea like once once every two months. I don't think you know Koreans very well, I mean Nintendo doesn't make very many RTS's but as I understand it Nintendo is huge there, not as huge as Japanese standard(WHO COULD BE?), but fairly large. Korea is big into Games, not RTS, your using a stereotype that no body ever uses on Korea.

America DIDN'T win every major battle. You won some, you lost some http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ap_Bac or the biggest battle of the the war

"The Battle of Ap Bac was a small-scale action early in the Vietnam War that resulted in the first major combat victory by Viet Cong guerrillas against regular South Vietnamese forces. " As I read, They barely had ANY americans at all, American Chopper Support with Crews... America was barly involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Khe_Sahn, but most battles were draw. And that's America'S sources and you know how accurate American sources are. Some battles won by the Vietnamese can only found in Vietnamese sources like battle of Highway 9 to Laos. Given that not only the American but also their dogs (Korea, Australia, New Zealand, .... with significant number) fought against Vietnamese, it's more like Vietnam against the world than Vietnam against America. And the equipment. Let's see alone the list of American aircrafts that lost in Nam:

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

Siege of Khe Sahn was anything but a draw. It was a Tactical Failure.
Also... It's not unreasonable that alot of Planes get blown out of the sky, because theres guys in the jungle shooting at them... Also does it take into account planes that were claimed thru explosions on the ground IE child bombs.

Vietnam didn't even have 1/10 the number of American aircrafts shot down there and that says alot

Maybe because they Didn't have As many deployed as we did???

And you cant just compare ancient universities and mordern day universities as well as you can't say The Pyramid and The Great Wall are low-quality constructions according to modern criterions.

joke much??

And that's America'S sources and you know how accurate American sources are. Some battles won by the Vietnamese can only found in Vietnamese sources like battle of Highway 9 to Laos.

How Accurate American Sources are??? WTH? Half the American Sources point to a Vietnamese Victory and our troops not belonging there, giving Vietnam much more credit than they deserved. The only true source is the Raw Source, the troops. Wikipedia is not an American Source its just an online source. THAT CAN BE EDITED BY ANY ONE. For All we know you could of made those entries about the battles and planes, which you probably didn't but we don;t know.

Wikipedia is not a good source for anything that involves politics, AKA Wars. Hell not even a good source for Info on TV. I'll use Wikipedia to look up things people don't care enough to give a biased opinion on...

 

[dh_epic]

Were those 19th racial theorists ‘racist’ then? Yes, they were, not because they held the belief that ‘race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others’. I think many people overlooked that point that you don’t have to commit hate crime to be called racist; holding the belief that ‘race explains differences in human’ is already racist. And I think there is no need to deny that the era where Jefferson lived accepted the idea which we call racist now. It doesn’t implies Western civilizations are racist, only that at some point of history they accepted racism; it doesn’t mean the ‘West’ invented racism, or they are the only civilizations capable of being racist.

Actually, while there are numerous examples of ethnic tension (I mean, religion is a pretty serious difference, and a language barrier is the first way to ensure that no meaningful diplomacy can take place)... it's arguable that Racism WAS invented in the West. And with good purpose.

In early colonial America, there were both indentured servants and slaves. The indentured servants basically offered themselves as slaves for a means to escape persecution in Europe. Some of these contracts were moderately fair by the standards of the times -- a few years of being a 'slave' in exchange for room and board and safe passage from Europe. But other times, these contracts were either unfair, or came with a level of abuse that couldn't have been predicted. Essentially, there were slaves from Africa, and there were Slaves from Europe.

Before then, there was NO common idea that "there is one big happy European Family", let alone that race was a foundation of conflict. France and England weren't good buddies.

The elites found slave revolts more and more common. Think about it. You're filthy rich, with a family of maybe 6 or 7... while you have a plantation with dozens of slaves. When those slaves organized, it was something fierce. And in actuality, it wasn't hard for Indentured Servants from Europe to find a lot in common with Slaves from Africa: these rich people are exploiting us, and we need to break the hell out.

It was then that racism was born -- maybe not consciously, but born nonetheless. The slaveowners would grant slightly higher priveleges to the indentured servants, and gave them the important duty of being the "slave patrol", to watch out for runaway/renegade slaves. It was then that an Irish or Ukrainian servant could identify with a Dutch or English slaveowner, rather than an African slave.

Racism was born out of the need of wealthy Europeans to divide and conquer their servants. It's a pretty ingenious scam, too.

the more you know...(tm)