[LH] Hugo Chavez
- Thread starter NikNaks
- Start date
Can we end this NOW. I do not want this to turn into another OT thread. If it does, I'll report the posts, get it moved to OT and start a new thread for the LH itself. Keep political discussions out of my thread. You have been warned.
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
JeffIllinois
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2008
- Messages
- 389
Sorry NikNaks, but I had to say this, I won't do it again. Dom Pedro, you're right, my comment was flippant, but I knew what connotations it carried. I know the CIA has caused a lot of suffering in Latin America, most of what they've done has been misguided. I'm pretty liberal most of the time, and I'm often ashamed of what the U.S. government does. However, in the case of Chavez, I do wish the CIA could get him. He just purchased some two hundred million dollars worth of weapons from Russia, he supports the FARC in Colombia, and he is becoming more of a dictator. So yeah, maybe if the CIA would just stay out of choosing his successor, getting rid of him might not be a bad thing for Venezuelan's, or the region. Unfortunately, though a power vacuum would probably lead to more bloodshed, especially with all those new Russian weapons floating around. I've never understood why this coup-dictator-coupe-dictator pattern keeps repeating itself down there. I'm sure the CIA hasn't helped, by stirring the pot. Maybe they should just stay out of Latin America. I hope Obama win's, he'll more than likely change how the U.S. deals with people like Chavez, he has at least pledged to talk to Chavez.
This kind of wishful thinking has gotten the US involved in the billion dollar ongoing war in Iraq (declared "won" be Bush), CIA "relocations" and the Guantanamo detention camp (very creative way arround the Constitution, if you look a it cynically). Democracy isn't a one way street: if the people don't like their leader, they should get rid of him; the rest is up to the diplomats.
Dom Pedro II
Modder For Life
Alright, well, I'm glad we got that cleared up.
For my $0.02, I say Protective and Charismatic would best represent Chavez of the available set of Traits.
For my $0.02, I say Protective and Charismatic would best represent Chavez of the available set of Traits.
CivWarlord
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2006
- Messages
- 29
Well, I think the Creative trait fits him much more than Charismatic.
I mean, first he launched a well orchestrated verbal offensive against President Bush for liberating a country from a dictator similar to himself. Now he's congratulating and supporting Russia (or USSR?) for invading the small peaceful democratic country of Georgia - after all Russia isn't interested in the Caucasian oil there
On top of that, he considers himself much more democratic than the United States, but soon after attempts to remove presidential term limits and refuses to renew the broadcasting license to a station on the grounds that it opposed him during the electoral process. Well he sure is creative - isn't he?
I mean, first he launched a well orchestrated verbal offensive against President Bush for liberating a country from a dictator similar to himself. Now he's congratulating and supporting Russia (or USSR?) for invading the small peaceful democratic country of Georgia - after all Russia isn't interested in the Caucasian oil there
On top of that, he considers himself much more democratic than the United States, but soon after attempts to remove presidential term limits and refuses to renew the broadcasting license to a station on the grounds that it opposed him during the electoral process. Well he sure is creative - isn't he?
CivWarlord
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2006
- Messages
- 29
Well, Winston Churchill, John F.Kennedy, Ghandi and Blair are Charismatic people. Generally charismatic individuals tend to be great orators, capable of inspiring the masses with their verbal wisdom and their actions which mirrored what they uttered.
Chavez isn't an orator, and his actions are usually totally opposed to what he says - this makes him unpredictable and inconsistent. He won the elections, because he jumped upon the anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-West bus, which seems to be the fashion these days. His are not charismatic speeches but partisan ideological rhetoric, which blames the US and ultimately the West for all of Venezuela's/Latin America's problems - the simple uneducated masses usually buy this rhetoric quite rapidly due to Chavez taking advantage of the problems financially poor people face.
The fact that one has won an election doesn't automatically make him Charismatic - it takes much more than that to be remembered as a "Great Person" in History.
Btw you're right - 'Officially' he still isn't a Dictator yet.
You forgot Alexander (killed himself), Caesar (got murdered, as did Gandhi and JFK) and Napoleon (exiled). Charisma always has a negative side and it differs per person. I don't think Alexander was a great orator (unless adressing his troops), nor was Napoleon (dito, but great personal charm). Hitler is a good example, as he had charisma and was hated by a lot of people (for good reason), as was Stalin. Well, you get my drift. Anyway, charisma implies creativity (without it, nobody'll notice). Chavez might be Creative (hasn't shone through yet, IMO), but so far he's been Protective/Charismatic. And I don't consider him to be in the same league as the Great Persons everyone knows. Anyway, that's my opinion on the current Leader of Venezuela...
Dom Pedro II
Modder For Life
Jeelen: I don't think Stalin was particularly charismatic... he didn't come to power through popular momentum. Trotsky was charismatic and well-liked (and he lost that power struggle). I mean, he had to airbrush himself (and the more popular guys) out of the really good pictures from the Revolution. I mean, this sounds like the kind of guy who would have to take his cousin to the prom...
CivWarlord: Oratory skill doesn't necessarily define charisma. Gandhi was certainly no great orator even if his words and ideas were moving and inspiring... neither was Abraham Lincoln really. He's usually perceived as one, but the contemporary accounts of his speaking voice described it as being squeaky and unpleasant. His charisma was generated mostly in one-one-one conversations where even people who were his political rivals and who belittled him publically, were charmed by him.
You said: "his are not charismatic speeches but partisan ideological rhetoric"? Well... why are partisan rhetoric and charisma mutually exclusive? The best definition of charisma I can find is: "the ability to influence others"... well... rhetoric is "language intended to pursuade"... I just think that you're sort of implying a sort of positive energy or nobility in charisma that is not an inherent quality of charisma. I would say that Fidel Castro or Che Guevara were/are charismatic figures (Che perhaps moreso posthumously than he ever was alive!), but I don't stand behind anything they did or believed in. Hitler, as JEELEN said, would be widely considered charismatic. Charles Manson was charismatic too! Charisma is not by definition a good thing. Charisma is a power, and like any power, it can be used for great good and great evil.
To all: Creative is a crap trait (or at least has a crap name). Any other trait has an implied creative in its particular field. A military leader exercises creativity on the battlefield. A business leader exercises creativity in the boardroom.
To me, Creative really implies one who is interested in cultural affairs (I mean, look at what it does! It gives +2 culture per city and faster build speeds for Theater/Coliseum). Perhaps a word like Artistic or Cultural might have been better. Neither of those really satisfy either, but I'm sure that there's some term that would better describe such a support of culture.
CivWarlord: Oratory skill doesn't necessarily define charisma. Gandhi was certainly no great orator even if his words and ideas were moving and inspiring... neither was Abraham Lincoln really. He's usually perceived as one, but the contemporary accounts of his speaking voice described it as being squeaky and unpleasant. His charisma was generated mostly in one-one-one conversations where even people who were his political rivals and who belittled him publically, were charmed by him.
You said: "his are not charismatic speeches but partisan ideological rhetoric"? Well... why are partisan rhetoric and charisma mutually exclusive? The best definition of charisma I can find is: "the ability to influence others"... well... rhetoric is "language intended to pursuade"... I just think that you're sort of implying a sort of positive energy or nobility in charisma that is not an inherent quality of charisma. I would say that Fidel Castro or Che Guevara were/are charismatic figures (Che perhaps moreso posthumously than he ever was alive!), but I don't stand behind anything they did or believed in. Hitler, as JEELEN said, would be widely considered charismatic. Charles Manson was charismatic too! Charisma is not by definition a good thing. Charisma is a power, and like any power, it can be used for great good and great evil.
To all: Creative is a crap trait (or at least has a crap name). Any other trait has an implied creative in its particular field. A military leader exercises creativity on the battlefield. A business leader exercises creativity in the boardroom.
To me, Creative really implies one who is interested in cultural affairs (I mean, look at what it does! It gives +2 culture per city and faster build speeds for Theater/Coliseum). Perhaps a word like Artistic or Cultural might have been better. Neither of those really satisfy either, but I'm sure that there's some term that would better describe such a support of culture.
Except for Stalin: Lenin had more charisma than Trotsky (who got an icepick), but Stalin's charisma only came into its own after he usurped supreme power. Even after 1956 (when he died a natural death) he was still hugely popular and hardline Communists still revere him, despite the millions of victims of his regime. Terror can be a powerful component to charisma.
This being said, I don't see Mr Chavez in the same league as Bolivar or Che Guevara (more popular after his death than in life).
Remember this? This is your last warning. You won't like me when I'm
asioasioasio
Fallout Scrubber
It's because USA wants to control all oil resources in the world
And Chavez is next on the list because he throw away american corporations and gave money to the poor rather than to fat fishes from texas 
Very nice LH - i will use him in personal mod. And new south american civilization will appear
Edit:
Sorry NikNaks I just red your two last posts
asioasioasio
Fallout Scrubber
I would give protective trait and perhaps expansive
JeffIllinois
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2008
- Messages
- 389
I agree with asioasioasio. Protective for sure, and he is increasingly expansive.
Dom Pedro II
Modder For Life
Remember this? This is your last warning. You won't like me when I'm
I don't understand how discussing what the most appropriate leader traits for this LH are is off topic... and I'm not trying to be coy here. The other stuff prior to your first warning was definitely outside the scope of applying this to future mods, but it seems to me that a discussion of leader traits is totally appropriate for a leaderhead thread. But.. if you really have a problem with it, I will shut up.
Expansive? Only in his vocabulary...maybe. (Aggressive also doesn't apply, except to his oratory... maybe.) As said, Protective/Charismatic is the closest approximation of Mr Chavez's attitude in Civ terms.
Sorry, Niknaks, couldn't resist (but I'll desist if you wish it).
Similar threads
