@Sir Schwick - Are you sure you're not apportioning the blame too thickly on Americans? After all, it was the U.N. that decided not to classify what's going on in Sudan as actual "genocide". Surely other countries, especially Europeans, bear just as much blame for ignoring it as the U.S. does.
Don't get me wrong. I definitely think the U.S. should be paying more attention to Sudan. I just think the U.S. is a pot in a sea of kettles.
@ Marla: What, and Greece hasn't changed or done anything since Alexander the Great? It's been a heck of a lot longer than two centuries since he passed on. Germany is certainly a thriving democracy today, yet they're been represented by Bismarck, England has changed a lot since Elizabethan days, Russia no longer has a czar, and Japan has gone through tremendous change since the Meji Restoration. Heck, it's been more than a century since slavery was an issue in the US, yet Lincoln is our figurehead.
The reason why these leaders were chosen is because they were in power when these countries were at an important point in their history or often the pinnacle of their power, not because they accurately represent the nations as they are today. And let's face it, France exerted far more influence over the world when it was a monarchy or during the Napoleonic era than it does today. Does this mean the French monarchy typifies the average French person or France today? Of course not, but neither was that ever the aim. If it were, do you think we would have the Aztecs, the Iriquois, Mali or Babylon?
As for DeGaulle, my feeling is he's still too modern to include. He certainly was quite influencial, but he's just on the cusp of being a historical figure. He straddles the line between being too modern that we don't have proper perspective on his impact on the word versus being historical enough that we can distance ourselves from our own feelings about his reign enough to objectively look at his legacy. In ten, twenty years from now, this might not be the case, but right now, he's still too close to our modern time to include.
@mastertguy - I don't agree with not including Hitler because he's "bad" (though I won't fault Sid for not including him) because a lot of leaders were bad. I do agree that there are other better leaders for Germany whose accomplishments merit their being chosen in their own right, not as a Hitler substitute.
@ those who said Napoleon shouldn't be included because he was a warmonger - if you make that your criteria, you'll cut out at least 2/3s of the leaders we have in civ. What do you think Alexander the Great did? Or Tokugawa? Or Ghengis Khan? Or the Vikings (sorry can't remember their leaders name)? War was a part of history. You don't have to like it, but it's there.
