Minor thing about Chinese civ

[ShadowWarrior]

This is really a minor thing, but nevertheless, as a Chinese, I feel I must point it out. The Chinese is described as being militaristic and industrious in Civ 3. I have no disagreement with the industrious description, but that Chinese is militaristic is surprising to me.

Chinese has traditionally being a very unmilitaristic civilization. Yes, the Chinese produced Sun Tzu art of war, and built the Great Wall, but that doesn't mean Chinese is militaristic. Militaristic means someone who is prone to act aggressively. And no where in the history of China did it show that Chinese people are militaristic. The Mongolians might have been militaristic, but Mongolians are different from Chinese.

Instead, Chinese should have been scientific. Just look at the many important inventions that came from China, without which the European Rennaissance would never have occured.

I really like to hear the designer's reasons for characterizing the Chinese as militaristic.

P.S: One more thing. Its interesting that the designers chosed Mao Ze Dong as the leader of Chinese civ in all Civ games, including Civ 3. Yes, Mao Ze Dong was China's leader. But why pick him out of the many hundred of emperors in Chinese history? Why not pick Emperor Kangxi of the Quing dynasty, or Lee Shi Ming of Tang dynasty? Why does it have to be Mao Ze Dong?

If each civilization's leader as selected by the designers are suppose to reflect somtehing about that civilization, then Mao Ze Dong is a very bad choice for China. This seems to say that in five thousands years of Chinese history, China was a communist state. Indeed, this was not true. This game, I feel, is reinforcing many negative stereotype of Chinese as a culture and people.

Of course, this is just a game, and I know I should not take it seriously. Yet, I sincerely hope that the designers will do something about this.

 

[KnightOfNi]

What about the invasion of Tibet,..?

 

[CornMaster]

Originally posted by KnightOfNi:<br /><strong>What about the invasion of Tibet,..?</strong><hr></blockquote>

You don't take one action and generalize an entire people over thousands of years!

Canadians invaded the US in the war of 1812 and burned the WhiteHouse....but would Canada be considered Militaristic?? I don't think so. Our 2 Desiel subs and 3 destroyers and 8000 military personel wouldn't do much damage. <img src="icon12.gif" border="0"> Although we did build the Arrow, the greatest fighter jet of it's time!

But I think the reason the Chinese are because of their million man standing army, and Nuclear potental. But that's just my opinion.

 

[duke o' york]

I agree with you that the Chinese were not a particularly militaristic civ - you cite the Great Wall as an example fo their being militaristic though! It was clearly built for defence rather than as a staging point from which to conquer chunks of Mongolia and Russia. The trouble is that people in the west have an impression of the Chinese based upon the last century, when they can be considered as militaristic. The Communist regime would not dare to have anything less than a massive army, and given the wealth of resources that China boasts, was able to build one. I think that if you were looking to classify modern countries as militaristic, it would have to be based upon the position in which the armed forces stand as a fraction of their GNP spend. I feel sure that America, Russia and China today all prioritise their "defence" budget while Switzerland for example will spend a greater percentage on public health care.

The main reason that the Chinese are considered as militaristic is that they wanted to have the option of as many combinations of civ specific attributes as possible (I know that one is duplicated, but most of the others are covered) and the ones that they gave the Chinese correspond with the techs required to (a) build the Great Wall (Masonry), and (b) start to research feudalism for Sun Tzu's (Warrior Code) in Civ 2, and I'd have thought that these major wonders will both survive into Civ 3 with similar prerequisites.<br />

 

[The Last Conformist]

China 's had two quite expansionist periods - during the Tang, when they conquered much of Central Asia, and during the Qing, when they conquered East Turkistan, Tibet, Mongolia, Taiwan, parts of modern Russia and various smaller places. After the revolution and civil wars, the communists managed to reclaim most of this (the losses basically amount to Outer Mongolia, the Maritime Province and Taiwan).

There's also been several periods of internal warfare and rebellions - some lasting for centuries.

If China's history has been less war-torn than Europe's, that says alot more about the warlikeness of the Europeans than about the peacefulness of the Chinese.

So, I don't think having the Chinese as Militaristic is particularly odd in itself, tho' it may be a bit weird to have 'em as militaristic while not assigning most of the European civs as militaristic too.

 

[ShadowWarrior]

Originally posted by The Last Conformist:<br /><strong>China 's had two quite expansionist periods - during the Tang, when they conquered much of Central Asia, and during the Qing, when they conquered East Turkistan, Tibet, Mongolia, Taiwan, parts of modern Russia and various smaller places. After the revolution and civil wars, the communists managed to reclaim most of this (the losses basically amount to Outer Mongolia, the Maritime Province and Taiwan).

There's also been several periods of internal warfare and rebellions - some lasting for centuries.

If China's history has been less war-torn than Europe's, that says alot more about the warlikeness of the Europeans than about the peacefulness of the Chinese.

So, I don't think having the Chinese as Militaristic is particularly odd in itself, tho' it may be a bit weird to have 'em as militaristic while not assigning most of the European civs as militaristic too.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Good point. But the Quing dynasty was not even a Chinese dynasty. And the emperor of Tang dynasty was not fully Chinese. In fact, Tang dynasty's emperors had Turkish origin. And although I do not wish to sound biased, many of the Turks tribes living around China proper led a nomadic way of life and tend to be more aggressive, thus explaining the expansionist regime that characterized the Tang period.

And as for Communist invasion of Tibet, we must realize that Communism is a foreign ideology. It is therefore a very bad representation of China as a country, people and culture. This is the one reason that I disliked the desigern's selecting Mao Ze Dong as the leader of Chinese civ in the game.

Again, although it is too late at this point in time to do anything about this, I hope designerrs will take all the above into consideration when they design Civ IIII.

 

[KnightOfNi]

Originally posted by CornMaster:<br /><strong>

You don't take one action and generalize an entire people over thousands of years!

Canadians invaded the US in the war of 1812 and burned the WhiteHouse....but would Canada be considered Militaristic?? I don't think so. just my opinion.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You can't compare Tibet with the USA. USA was built on the destruction of a native population, tibet never had any expansionist ideas. They are a peaceful nation.

And Shadow Warrior, are you saying the people of China aren't communists ? That only the leaders are ? (just a question) Why don't they revolt against a government that doesn't represent them ?<br />Not criticizing, trying to understand !lol!

 

[CornMaster]

Originally posted by KnightOfNi:<br /><strong>You can't compare Tibet with the USA.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I just did. <img src="icon12.gif" border="0"> <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

But I wasn't saying that they were for similar reasons, just 2 "military actions" and shouldn't catagorize an entire civ based on one or two events in 5000 years of history. (Or 400 for Canada)

I actually agree that China is a militaristic civ so....be quite!! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

 

[The Last Conformist]

I'm perfectly aware that the Qing Emperors weren't ethnically Han Chinese (there's a reason they're also known as the Manchu/Manzhou Dynasty), and I guess it's perfectly possible that the Tang had Turkic blood (tho' certainly not Turkish - Turkey wasn't to be founded until centuries after the fall of the Tang!). But both were culturally Chinese, and they were both generally supported by the Chinese élite.

And communism is certainly foreign to China, but invading Tibet hardly is. Official China never acknowledged Tibet's independence in 1912 (altho' there were various negotiations about it), and when the communists launched their invasion in 1950, they claimed with some justification to be merely bringing back a separatist province.

As for why the Chinese don't revelt against an "unrepresentative regime", well, China's got the world's largest army, which have amply demonstrated the cost of open opposition - Tiananmen Square, anyone? It might be added that in some provinces, notably Xinjiang, separatists wage a low-key guerilla war against the authorities.

 

[ShadowWarrior]

Originally posted by KnightOfNi:<br /><strong>

You can't compare Tibet with the USA. USA was built on the destruction of a native population, tibet never had any expansionist ideas. They are a peaceful nation.

And Shadow Warrior, are you saying the people of China aren't communists ? That only the leaders are ? (just a question) Why don't they revolt against a government that doesn't represent them ?<br />Not criticizing, trying to understand !lol!</strong><hr></blockquote>

No. My entire point is this. I simply think that Mao Ze Dong as the leader of Chinese civ in the game is a very bad representation of Chinese culture, Chinese people, and Chinese history.

Of the five thousands years of Chinese history, the time length of Communism's domination over this country is just a neglgible fraction. To, therefore, justapose China and communism, as represented by Mao Ze Dong, in this game sent the wrong message to players of this game regarding China. For some of us Chinese, it is also somewhat offensive.

And I agree that it is absurd to take one example and generalize it into a whole. Yes, China invaded Tibet. But did not Tibet also invaded China? Did not Mongolia invaded China? Did not the British invaded China? Did not the France invaded China? Yes they did. And should we just characterize those country as militaristic as well? Would the designers really do so?

Again, I maintain my position that to represent China as militarisitic is very inaccurate. China, as I've said, had traditionally been unaggressive. The two periods in Chinese history when China had been aggressive was ruled by non-ethnic Chinese emperor.

I again would suggest that in the sequel of Civ III, the designers should take Mao Ze Dong off and have other Chinese emperor to represent Chinese civ.

As for the designation of China as a militaristic civ in Civ III, I am not offended or anything. But I simply feel that it is a very inaccurate portrayal of China. And more importantly, it will serve to strengthen the negative stereotype of China as a country, a people, and a culture.

 

[Thunderfall]

Moving this topic to the Civ3 General forum...

All discussions about the current development of Civ3 belong in the Civ3 General forum.

--------------<br />Back to topic, I also think it's a bad idea that Firaxis changed the Chinese from a Scientific and Industrious civ to a Militaristic and Industrious civ.

We no longer have any Scientific and Industrious civ after this change. <img src="icon9.gif" border="0">

[ September 15, 2001: Message edited by: Thunderfall ]</p>

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

TF's point is the most important.

There are not many countries of any size and longevity that cannot be associated with periods of militarism and periods of "peaceful development" and certainly China as a country of as much or more continuity through the ages than most parts of the world has its large share in all areas, good and bad, successful and disastrous.

Duke o' york hinted at the explanation for the actual decision made by the developers. It is most likely that characteristics upermost in the American perception of the world will have swayed choices made, despite the diversity of thought in that country.

ShadowWarrior is also correct that it is not very important because what is needed is a nice variety of combinations. The concept of historical accuracy is irrelevant. Once again we see the chrome labels causing confusion.

Oh. And the communism label also causing confusion. You would think that since the West successfully undermined the East Eurpoean structures, and thus detroyed the "Red Peril", people could start looking at the nature of government and how it was practiced with less resort to hollow icons.

 

[Robespierre]

i totally agree that china should not be militaristic. japan, yes, and mongolia, yes - but china? china has always i think been seen as this big peaceful giant by its neighbors. if anything, china has been the victim of militarism in the past. i think the chinese should be scientific and industrious, like they used to be before they changed it.

 

[Xmudder]

I agree with shadow warrior. Mao was a mass murderer who did his utmost during the cultural revolution to destroy 4000 or so years of culture, history, and knowledge. I remember taking a class on Chinese and Japanese history and wondering why none of these other Emporers, particularly the second emporer (First Emporer of the Han) wasn't chosen to represent China. And as a person whose life was saved by a combination of Chinese medicine and Western Chemotherapy, I have a great deal of respect for the combined knowledge of 4000 years of history.<br /> "China" in this game has more in common with the Mongols than is does with China. I intend to change the Chinese to the Mongols - Miliatistic and Expansionist, the leader name to Ghengis Khan, and the name of the special unit to Mongol Cavalry. Yeah, so what, Ghengis Khan will look like Mao.<br /> I think China could be fixed by changing the leader's name, developing new artwork to reflect Han emporers, switching the special to scientific and industious, and switching the chinese special unit to the repeat crossbowman (3-1-1 improved archers, say).<br /> I'd just need someone to provide the artwork for a new leader and that unit (modify the babylonian archer animations?).

 

[redsoxrule85]

let me just say that the core audience for this game are americans like me <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> although not the only. how many AMERICANS would know who the 1st han emporer is? i have heard of the han, but i have NO idea what the name of their first emperer was(and i am not too dumb either) i have studied world history for at least 5 years, and we definitely went over ancient china. BUT, no one here knows anything about that. SURE, theyve heard of mao zedong, because he is in a regime that was somewhat against our own for a while. it is, i think, just a problem of american education, and really, there is no one america knows about other tham him. BELIEVE ME, WERE STUPID <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

 

[Napoleon Hitler]

Yeah, I don't think that the Communist leaders of Russia and China should be the default leaders in Civ3 or Civ2 or Civ1 or any Civgames in the future.

Russia for instance has:<br />Peter the Great<br />Ivan the Terrible<br />Catherine the Great

So why pick Lenin or Stalin?

China has all those dynasties already listed by someone else. I'm sure they have had at least 10 or 15 better leaders than Mao Tse-Tung.

If you're gonna have Mao and Lenin, you might as well throw in Napoleon and Hitler. Not that I would be against that. <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

Napoleon was in Civ1. What ever happened to that? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

 

[redsoxrule85]

i think napoleonic era is pretty interesting: <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

 

[Sevorak]

Well...just one commment.

Scientific and Industrious, just from quick inspection of the abilities, looks to be too powerful. Note that no civilization is Scientific and Industrious.

Game balance might be a reason.

-Sev

 

[Knight-Dragon]

I think Sevorak has it right. Being scientific and industrious will really make the Chinese too powerful. Which we are, throughout history till the 1800s. <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> It's a matter of game balancing I guess.