Let's Discuss Poland

[Nay]

And so, if an objective outsider ruled your nation to be unworthy of being in a game depicting civilization, you'd just accept it?

I don't think you can objectively state any negatives for those questions - perhaps the objective outsider is lacking in facts having been indoctrinated into a different educational clique.

That is the point.
The outsider is the one that can judge, because he is not biased by exactly those indoctrinations.

And it is the outsider who will, or will not, talk about these people in a thousand years. That the people themselves will remember their nation is quite obvious, but you are meassured by others about how famous you are. Of course your country will teach and tell you how great it is, which accounts for nothing more than partriotism. But the view, or in this case, knowledge the rest of the world has of you is what counts for being a "CIV".
Therefor, the outsider is the one to declare them "worthy" to be in CIV.

 

[Spearthrower]

That is the point.
The outsider is the one that can judge, because he is not biased by exactly those indoctrinations.

And it is the outsider who will, or will not, talk about these people in a thousand years. That the people themselves will remember their nation is quite obvious, but you are meassured by others about how famous you are. Of course your country will teach and tell you how great it is, which accounts for nothing more than partriotism. But the view, or in this case, knowledge the rest of the world has of you is what counts for being a "CIV".
Therefor, the outsider is the one to declare them "worthy" to be in CIV.

But you are enthroning the outsider with omniscience - he is simply biased with other indoctrinations. What does it matter if he is objective if he doesn't know the facts?

It's like taking someone from Europe to judge Asia's accomplishments.... unfortunately, European schooling tends to ignore much of the wealth of history and culture here. The same could be said vice-versa.

The solution ends up being equally imbalanced as the initial problem.

Why does the outsider have any right to pronounce judgements on things he is lacking the knowledge of? Do we gather a representative from every nation to be the objective outsider of everyone else's nation? It all seems a bit sticky to me!

 

[sabo]

So, have we finally come to the point that people are done argueing about Poland, or at least tired of it? Or in a couple days are you all going to start it back up in some other thread? I'll be honest, these Poland arguments are becoming extremely annoying and I'm to the point of treating them the same way as Hitler threads, as in instant lock. The same arguments have been made a hundred times on both sides and I'm sure we can all agree that neither side is going to budge. Yeah, occaisionally one person will sway across the line, but like yin and yang, another sways the opposite way.

Yeah this is sort of like an OT thread anyway with a bunch of spam.. come to think of it that's how the OTHER polish threads were consisted of too . My vote is if you need to talk about Poland put it in OT or history threads where they'll probably die a slow death anyway, but as far as these threads go, Poland is not a Civ in the game and if you absolutely need to have it, then mod it. If you don't know how to do that there are plenty of threads here with instructions. -GAME OVER

 

[LuKo]

If you don't know how to do that there are plenty of threads here with instructions. -GAME OVER

If you're so smart mod RFC to include Poland. If you (or anyone) do I won't say any word about Poland in cIV until it will be included (new expansion? ciV? CiVIlization? Civilzation 3000? I don't care).

 

[Ahimsadharma]

Everyone knows the Greeks, for inventing philosophy and buttsecks.

Err, the Greeks were accomplished in philosophy, not inventors of philosophy.
Greek civilization was one of the oldest ones in the world but it started off as an offshoot of near-eastern civilizations, particularly Hittite and Egyptian.
Plato for example, is on record stating that everything the Greeks knew till 100/200 yrs before Plato (ie, till 500/600 BCE) was 'taught at the lap of great Egyptian philosophers & scholars).

This is no surprise, given that socially sophisticated civilizations arose first in places like Egypt, Mesopotamia, Iran, Subcontinent & China and spread to everywhere else from these focal points.
Irrigation, agriculture and the nature of agriculture is the reason why civilization first arose at these locales.
Hence while civilization and its traces exist in these places that go to 10,000 years, if not longer, Greece's earliest trace goes to 5000/6000 years ago.
The reason for this and the relative recentness in Greek's rise to power on historical timelines is simple ( for a history of civilization of the world, if 10,000 yrs is taken as a benchmark, Greece awakens midway point and while being extremely influential, still doesnt quite stack up to Egypt/Mesopotamia/Persia/China historically) :
Civilzation is all about real estate. Not about people, race or anything of that sort.
I would recommend the book 'Guns, Germs & Steel' as a read for all here, for it is a very enlightening piece on the nature of mankind's civilization and its development, along with the essay 'Tragedy of the Commons' by Garett Hardings.That will clear up a lot of misconceptions and tell us once and for all why civilization started the way it did (from the evidence at hand).

 

[RedRalph]

I would recommend the book 'Guns, Germs & Steel' as a read for all here, for it is a very enlightening piece on the nature of mankind's civilization and its development, That will clear up a lot of misconceptions and tell us once and for all why civilization started the way it did (from the evidence at hand).

Brilliant book. Sometimes its almost like some aspects of the game are based on it. In Civ terms, its "first to gunpowder, cows, fish and pigs, and bronze"

Really fasciniating and couldnt reccomend it highly enough to anyone, but its a must read for Civ players with interests in history

 

[sabo]

If you're so smart mod RFC to include Poland. If you (or anyone) do I won't say any word about Poland in cIV until it will be included (new expansion? ciV? CiVIlization? Civilzation 3000? I don't care).

All I have to say to that is..... huh?

ps.. I can't wait until they put Minnesota in as a civ

 

[Nay]

@Spearthrower and Ahim:

this is what i meant exactly.
It doesnt even matter if it is correct for what they are remembered.
they just ARE.
and that is important.
that ALONE.

Weve been taught alot about asia in school (austrian here) and those who did remarkable things were remembered.
Those who did nice things but not truly exrtaordinary were perhaps not, save for themselves.

History is not kind or correct.
It is selective and harsh.

Whether you are remembered through the ages or not is not up to YOU, but those who you want to remember you. The others.

I am fairly sure theres lots of nice and good cultures/tribes who are lost in the dust of ages because there was no one to remember them.
Or there was nothing special to remember of.
"Remember the Xiahuticans? They never did anything great. no? me neither!"

I fully believe you when you say the Egyptians invented philosophy.
Tell you what: the Greeks somehow managed to take credit for it.
Ask 1000 people on the streets who they associate with philosophy, i bet you any amount of cash that more than 95% will say "uhm... the greek? along with buttsecks i think...".
Maybe they had better promoters, or better relations, i dont know.
Fact is, no one thinks of egypt when it comes to philosophy.

And to fuel the discussion anew:
when i think of Poland, there is only one thing comming to my mind, we steamrolled them with tanks.
More is not to be remembered for people outside polish borders, simple as that.
you can read up, you can quote history books, all that will not change the fact that people abroad do not know this country for anything especially great. hell, i know next to nothing about the Aztecs, but i do remember a pyramid with bloodsoaked stairs and a priest with a still beating heart in his hands. THATS what makes a culture a CIV.
Awe-inspiring images from hearing their name.

 

[Ethric]

Nay speaks the truth (IMO)

I'm sure some joke playing on the word naysayer could be made here, but I can't think of anything specific

 

[Defiance]

Could it be because those people are part of and taught by "Western Civilization", a civilization that basically originated with the Greeks?

God Forbid people find out it was created on the back of a black civilization

 

[Tortilla Boy]

When considering a new Civ to be added, ask yourself:

[conventional yadda yadda]

If you cannot answer at least ONE question with yes, then theyre plain unfit to be a Civ (tm).

Seriously, you want me to make myself a bore answering to those questionnaire? OK. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. Chopin. Yes. Yes.

God, that was a long one, phew...

 

[Julian Delphiki]

God Forbid people find out it was created on the back of a black civilization

Are you referring to Egypt as a black civilization ?

 

[Ahimsadharma]

It doesnt even matter if it is correct for what they are remembered.
they just ARE.
and that is important.
that ALONE.

Disagree. That is saying that misinformation should remain misinformation in case ABCD simply because it is the case so far.

Maybe they had better promoters, or better relations, i dont know.
Fact is, no one thinks of egypt when it comes to philosophy.

Irony of it all is, Greece had nothing to do with it.
This is due to crusader era Europe ( 1000 ADs-1400 ADs) clinically edited out Egypt/mid-east from the historical references, simply because it suited their purpose at that time ( the fundamentalist christian nutters versus Islam- sort of the reverse case of the world today). But due to the fact that printing wasn't available in the west back then, this information control was not very effective.
Then in late 1600s to early 1900s period ( ie, just over 200-225 yrs), Europe saw the rise of ultra-racism which were now being fitted into quasi-scientific parameters and gaining mass popularity. Now, Greece is the only civilization of Europe that goes beyond the last 3000 years and it was not a civilization of 'brown/black' people to the Europeans, so it was pretty much 'tailor maide' to reflect white-superiority concepts in them.
This is the 'Greece' we mostly know by conventional sources, since conventional sources did not even start talking about non-Eurocentric perspective till 1980s in the western world.

And the process is far from complete- for eg, you see western superiorism in its contemporary potrayal of ancient Greece too- Look at movies like Alexander, Troy, The 300, Spartacus, etc- almost ALL greek heroes ( except for the spartans) are potrayed as blondes, the queen or chick is some bleached blonde haired blue-eyed lady. The inaccuracy in this is that ancient Greeks/Romans pretty much looked like Greeks and Italians today do- European features, but almost all of them are brunettes, darker eyed, olive skinned. It may surprise you to know that 'dumb blonde' jokes are not just a new American novellism, but infact rooted from ancient Greek culture ( where they used to make fun of the uncivilized tribes to Greece's north and much of Europe at that time derogatively, with most of non-mediterranean Europe being much more 'blonde' in looks.

Another aspect of Greek 'image-tailoring' here is you never ever hear anything more about Greece save for the fact that it was a democracy & 'free men ruled' there.
Which is a load of bollocks, really - yes, Greece was a democracy. But its idea of democracy translated to today's time would be this : Only millionaires and sons/daughters of Colonels and above can vote, rest of you ALL are either bonded to the land or slaves ( being bonded to the land in Greece, such as Helots, meant that this farm/barn/factory is where you live and if you are *ever* found outside these lands, you better have a good excuse or you'd get killed on the spot).
Suffice to say, there are examples of democracy elsewhere too which were far more democratic and eglatarian than Greek democracies.

Anyways, i disagree with your point that only important thing is that they are remembered, not whether it is false/misinfo or the truth.

 

[Angst]

when i think of Poland, there is only one thing comming to my mind, we steamrolled them with tanks.

That is the problem with most opponents of Polish representation. Modern view. Just because a power state doesn't exist today (As a powerful one, that is, I know Poland still exists), they still were quite marvellous.

Just look at the Netherlands, fx. Who actually thinks they're mighty today? None. 200 years ago? Many. The only real difference is that the Netherlands happened later and was more global, but Poland owned much of the known world once.

 

[Ahimsadharma]

but Poland owned much of the known world once.

When was this ?
the largest political entity Poland has ever been a part of is Atilla's Hunnic empire.
The largest Polish political entity there ever has been is the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth.
Both are pretty far cry from controlling most of the known world.

 

[Spearthrower]

Could it be because those people are part of and taught by "Western Civilization", a civilization that basically originated with the Greeks?

God Forbid people find out it was created on the back of a black civilization

Thank the Gods someone sees the point!! Ahimsadharma is spot on too!!!

(I keep touting this book, but it's clearly worth touting here to open people's eyes - Black Athena, Martin Bernal)


Sorry Nay, I don't think you got what I said at all. I completely disagree with you. Your just placing your own definitions of what constitutes worthiness on a pedestal.

If we all did that, no one would ever agree and therefore we couldn't finalise a list of civs. Either that or the world representatives would have a list of about 5 nations that could truly be known throughout the world as having accomplished things.

Either way, I think that you are assuming that your historical prejudices are ubiquitous, which I can assure you they are not. Just as an example, most Thais know *nothing* about Western history whatsoever (Rome? What's that? ). If the objective observer came from Thailand, you'd see Myanmar, Malaysia, Japan, China, Cambodia figure heavily in the selection....

 

[Unconquered Sun]

And the process is far from complete- for eg, you see western superiorism in its contemporary potrayal of ancient Greece too- Look at movies like Alexander, Troy, The 300, Spartacus, etc- almost ALL greek heroes ( except for the spartans) are potrayed as blondes, the queen or chick is some bleached blonde haired blue-eyed lady. The inaccuracy in this is that ancient Greeks/Romans pretty much looked like Greeks and Italians today do- European features, but almost all of them are brunettes, darker eyed, olive skinned. It may surprise you to know that 'dumb blonde' jokes are not just a new American novellism, but infact rooted from ancient Greek culture ( where they used to make fun of the uncivilized tribes to Greece's north and much of Europe at that time derogatively, with most of non-mediterranean Europe being much more 'blonde' in looks.

I suggest you research more about blondes in Greece before assuming ancient Greeks looked exactly like modern Greeks.

 

[Ahimsadharma]

I suggest you research more about blondes in Greece before assuming ancient Greeks looked exactly like modern Greeks.

I am not going to make an absolutist claim that there were no blondes in Greece- there are blondes in Greece and FYI, there are blondes in India and China too. Just that they are not very common.
This is pretty well reflected in ancient Greek art- you will find that almost all greek paintings depict greeks with black hair, with very few being represented with lighter hair. This is also true about Alexander's potrait, numerous Greek amphora arts, etc.

 

[Spearthrower]

Are you referring to Egypt as a black civilization ?

Whatever the modern controversies, ancient Egyptians were much "blacker" than today.... meaning, they had a lot more in connection racially (morphologically) with other African peoples than with Middle Eastern peoples.

Perhaps it would be best to describe them as the middle ground between the 2 racial groups.

Whichever way, their culture was the epitome of ancient Africa and the Greeks borrowed heavily from both African and Asiatic heritage. The Greeks considered themselves the scions of this knowledge and identified their origins as Phoenician colonies.

It's a politicisation throughout the end of the 19th century that installed in the Western mindset the idea that ancient Greeks were white and the fathers of European culture. This remodelling of European descent was actually the cradle of thought that led to naziism.

Read the book I noted above - Black Athena, Martin Bernal - it really challenges many of the cultural and historical notions we, in the West, take for granted.

 

[Spearthrower]

I am not going to make an absolutist claim that there were no blondes in Greece- there are blondes in Greece and FYI, there are blondes in India and China too. Just that they are not very common.
This is pretty well reflected in ancient Greek art- you will find that almost all greek paintings depict greeks with black hair, with very few being represented with lighter hair. This is also true about Alexander's potrait, numerous Greek amphora arts, etc.

Agreed totally.

Blondeness was not common in Ancient Greece whatsoever. None of the well-known heroes was blonde that I can think of.