Napolean?

[Crazy Eskimo]

I agree there are a lot of parties looking the other way, but the US is the party with the power and authority to intervene. China certainly is not going to engage in the hypocrisy of punishing blatant human rights violations. Also, the UN has classified the situation in Darfar as 'genocide' for about a year now. Mostly, I do not really know how people are reacting in other nations than the one I live in. Yes, everyone is looking the other way, but the US is the one who can try and fix it.

Argh. Now you're going to make me go out and actually find INFORMATION! The nerve!

I remember hearing recently that the UN had avoided a harsher classification of the Sudanese troubles. I'll go look for an actual news article backing this up.

Even so, I don't know that the US is THE ONLY one who can try to fix it. Many European nations have intervened in African crisis before. But I agree with you that the US IS one of the ones who should try to fix it. Just because other people aren't shouldering their responsibilities is not an excuse to do the same.

not sure i agree there eskimo- ever hear the phrase -"the only good indian is a dead indian" such attitude points out to genocide not merely war-

I've heard Englishmen say the same about Frenchmen. Hardly means that England is trying to wipe out the French.

and while there may not be any such quote from the conquistidors there was mass death because of small pox-

Some Americans did this too, giving small pox infected blankets to native americans. Again, deplorable, despicable, but not genocidal. It was their equivalent of using mustard gas (which happened in WWI) or other bio-chemical warfare. If they had kept doing it to try to wipe all Indians out, then it'd be genocidal, but they didn't. They just wanted the Indians gone so they could get their stuff.

so while there may not have been an overt genocidal "war" there was the idea that non converts to christianity could be killed - a form of genocide if race can be linked to religion-there was a war that birthed genocide-

The conversion by the sword is certainly a blackmark on this era of history no doubt about that. Still, though, not genocidal. If I remember my history, a number of native americans DID convert and DID adopt the European ways and thus weren't killed (Ever see the Mission? Great movie.). Was this a good thing? Certainly not. However, I would characterize it as a "holy" war (ironic, since there's little that's holy about it) rather than a genocidal one. Again, this was something a number of the leaders/conquerors did.

..the race vs nation is a valid distinction but one that seems to fade during a war - we wanted to kill "krauts" (race) and "nips" (race) "gooks" (race again)

You're right, it is a fine distinction, that most conquerors don't take the time to make. I think the distinction comes from what the winner does once they've won. If the enemy fights to the last man, then there is no distinguishing between conquest/genocide. But that rarely happens. Often, the victor has the opportunity to get the plunder/occupy the land/take slaves or prisoners while a portion of the enemy population still lives. If they choose to simply occupy/dominate the local people, then it's not genocide. If they choose to exterminate the people, no matter what the enemy people do, then it's genocide.

 

[garric]

not sure i agree there eskimo- ever hear the phrase -"the only good indian is a dead indian" such attitude points out to genocide not merely war- and while there may not be any such quote from the conquistidors there was mass death because of small pox- so while there may not have been an overt genocidal "war" there was the idea that non converts to christianity could be killed - a form of genocide if race can be linked to religion-there was a war that birthed genocide-
..the race vs nation is a valid distinction but one that seems to fade during a war - we wanted to kill "krauts" (race) and "nips" (race) "gooks" (race again)
in so far as wiping out the aztecs- i must say that all that sacrificing did not endear them to many- personally i applaud the wiping out of such a "race" which brings about an interesting question- can genocide be a positive thing?
Sounds absurd on the surface - but like i said-i would have no problem wiping out a race of human sacrificers.....

You are probably one of the most ignorant people I have met. And judging by your lack of any posting skills (ever heard of the "shift" key? yeah, it's out there), I'm probably right. Do me a favor and leave.

 

[Crazy Eskimo]

Found it:

In January, the UN ruled that what was happening in Sudan fell short of qualifying as "genocide"
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/01/31/sudan.report/index.html

However, the US did recommend sending 10,000 UN peacekeepers there
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/02/14/sudan.peacekeepers/index.html

Here is the political cartoon that I had remember that helped me find these articles.
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20050209

 

[sir_schwick]

Argh. Now you're going to make me go out and actually find INFORMATION! The nerve!

I remember hearing recently that the UN had avoided a harsher classification of the Sudanese troubles. I'll go look for an actual news article backing this up.

Even so, I don't know that the US is THE ONLY one who can try to fix it. Many European nations have intervened in African crisis before. But I agree with you that the US IS one of the ones who should try to fix it. Just because other people aren't shouldering their responsibilities is not an excuse to do the same.

That is interesting. The article I read a long time ago(i.e. I cannot produce it) did not say anything about the distinction. Of course it was not as complete, explaining the discrepancy.

When I complain about Americans not caring, it is more out of national shame that the US is not the leader against such blatant atrocities.

I've heard Englishmen say the same about Frenchmen. Hardly means that England is trying to wipe out the French.

If only they could. Actually not the French, just the Parisians.

 

[Urederra]

I do not think that the conquerors extended small-pox on purpose. Did they mean to catch sifilis and taking it back to Europe on purpose as well?

 

[troytheface]

well, some interesting points there - i hear what ur saying there ol eskimo -but under that definition has anyone committed genocide? I read one of those links about what the U.N considers genocide and it included ..race AND nationality, ethnic and religious.........
And to Garric-thanks there appreciate the stimulating ideas and grand intellectual work
you have put forth- however- i do not take orders from strangers over the net. .

 

[Urederra]

in so far as wiping out the aztecs- i must say that all that sacrificing did not endear them to many- personally i applaud the wiping out of such a "race" which brings about an interesting question- can genocide be a positive thing?
Sounds absurd on the surface - but like i said-i would have no problem wiping out a race of human sacrificers.....

I do not agree with that. The people is not responsible for what their rulers did. They don't deserve the same punishment. I think that overthrowing the government (and supporters) and banning human sacrifices is enough, but, wait... Is that what the conquerors did? Well, the conquerors also wanted their oil, ups, wait, their gold, what I was thinking? Maybe about iraq and Saddam?

 

[Crazy Eskimo]

well, some interesting points there - i hear what ur saying there ol eskimo -but under that definition has anyone committed genocide? I read one of those links about what the U.N considers genocide and it included ..race AND nationality, ethnic and religious.........
And to Garric-thanks there appreciate the stimulating ideas and grand intellectual work
you have put forth- however- i do not take orders from strangers over the net. .

Some yes (not that my definition will square with the UN's necessarily... I haven't read their's). But not a great many. Genocide isn't a frequent occurence.

Some examples:
Hitler - He went after his own citizens. He already ruled over them and had everything he wanted from them. He still wanted to kill them.

Pol Pot - His goal wasn't simply to control Cambodia, it was to eliminate all those who had been in the 'ruling class'.

Sudan - What's going on now is not a battle for control of the country. These elements HAVE control of the country, but they still want to kill off the racial elements they don't like.

 

[Mad Hab]

Lenin was also a mass murderer (...)

What's the issue with all this mass murdering? George W. Bush is one heck of a mass murderer and yet half of America asked him to continue doing his deeds.

If that happens on real life, I don't see why can't we have Mao, Hitler, Stalin or George W. Bush on a fictional computer game.

Good and evil are concepts that depend highly on your own point of view. For lots of Iraqis, the worst criminal ever was nor Lenin nor Hitler...

Cheers,

Mad Hab

PS: At least they recognized there were slavery on the world History! I was tired of having captured workers not being called by what they really were...

 

[mitsho]

What does this have to do with Napoleon?

Besides the thing I'm interested in is what death they will attribute to Napoleon in the civiliopedia of civIV. I mean, this is a big discussion at the moment...

To the genocide topic, interesting read... I cannot say more on it

mfG mitsho

 

[CurtSibling]

How many people did Khan or Caesar's troops slaughter?

Quite a few!

But since it was centuries ago, no one cares, really.

Why the events of the the early 1800s should offend is beyond me.

The potential inclusion of Napolean does not faze me at all.

.

 

[Kyriakos]

nice signature Curt, but it appears that the concept of 'common people' has become outdated. Not only does no one envy another person's brain (that always was so) but now everyone considers himself to be intelligent. Personally i have often wondered if really there is such a thing as 'common' people, in relation to 'intelligent' people, it is more difficult to measure that than what one would think if they are inclined to see theirselves as geniuses (and young people sometimes do, moreso if they have problems and are reasonably literate).

I think that i am slowly walserising myself (becomming something like robert walser)

 

[Crazy Eskimo]

What's the issue with all this mass murdering? George W. Bush is one heck of a mass murderer and yet half of America asked him to continue doing his deeds.

If that happens on real life, I don't see why can't we have Mao, Hitler, Stalin or George W. Bush on a fictional computer game.

Good and evil are concepts that depend highly on your own point of view. For lots of Iraqis, the worst criminal ever was nor Lenin nor Hitler...

Cheers,

Mad Hab

PS: At least they recognized there were slavery on the world History! I was tired of having captured workers not being called by what they really were...

War does not equal mass-murder just as much as it doesn't equal genocide. If we constantly equate words that are distinguishable from one another and instead use them loosely, we loose the subtle distinctions that make these words useful. By your definition, Lincoln would be a mass-murderer because he didn't just let the South secede. It is perfectly feasible to object to a war without degenerating to the hysterics of calling it mass-murder.

That said, I'll thank you, as I have others, not to bring modern politics into this discussion. It serves to divide us and get in the way of our mutual enjoyment of Civ. If you must discuss it, there at OT threads for that purpose.

As I have stated elsewhere, while I think Mao and Stalin belong in the game, I do not think George W. Bush deserves to be in Civ because he's too contemporary. Civilization is about building a nation that stands the test of time. Any modern leader has not yet had the opportunity for history to objectively evaluate his or her legacy. Maybe in 50-100 years, Bush could be included in the game... but I doubt it because there are other far mroe deserving presidents, imo.

@mitsho - very little, but it's still connected. The reasons some folks wanted to exclude Napoleon were similar to the reasons some wanted to exclude Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Somewhere over the course of the discussion, we left France.

P.S. I consider myself to be quite common, yet my religion makes me anything but silent.

 

[Emp.Napoleon]

FINALLY!

Emperor Napoleon I is in a civ game! This has not happened since civI! I think he is a great person to pick. Sure he was a bit of a warmonger, but still made a very lasting impression on the French. In modern times, people seem to forget those not so nice things (closing presses, wars, assasinations and so on) and just remember his victories.

 

[Crazy Eskimo]

Wow, I never would have thought YOU'D be for Napoleon's inclusion...

 

[yannoche]

I think Napoléon is a fair choice from Firaxis, as is Louis XIV, and as could Charlemagne or Charles De Gaulle be. For its defence, I'd just say that he established the french "Code Civil" (which is pretty much unchanged up to this day):

"The Civil Code was introduced by Napoleon at the beginning of the 19th It introduced the concept of a unified, logical system based on general principles of law, thereby exporting the ideas of the French Revolution beyond French borders, to enemies and allies alike.

Despite some elements of French cultural imperialism within the Code, such as article eight, which states “Every Frenchman shall enjoy civil rights,” most of the tenets of the Code could be easily exported beyond French borders. Under Napoleon’s leadership, the Empire of the French extended its influence over most of continental Europe. Whereas some areas, such as the Low Countries, Switzerland, Dalmatia, northern Italy and western Germany were annexed to France, other countries were made client states or French allies.

Feudalism, the system of financial and judicial privileges under which most of continental Europe had existed for centuries, was near universal at the beginning of Napoleon’s reign, and practically non-existent at the end.

Within France itself, the Code survived virtually unaltered for more than 150 years, and even today has not been fundamentally changed. In many ways, the Code was the most enduring legacy of the French Revolution".

What about that?

Personnaly, I think Napoléon embodies the spirit of Civilization if you pick up France: Waging wars, political sensibility, modernization of your civ, strong army.. Louis XIV is a different approach, but the basics a there too. As for De Gaulle, it is perfect for a modern scenario, just as Churchill for the Brits, or Bismarck: to choice Hitler might prove a bit more difficult for Firaxis than Napoléon, but is it to be explained only by the effects of time? I'm no historian to argue here!

As for myself, I always use a leader called "Abraracourcix" when playing the French...They'd know!!!

 

[mastertyguy]

Welcome to CFC
Je suis d'accord. On voit trop souvent Napoléon comme un guerrier, dont le seul rôle fut la conquête de l'Europe.
It is so rare I see somebody speaking French!

 

[yannoche]

Merci mon ami!
I've been around this forum for a while, but never actually posted..
Can't wait for this Civ4 (and Napoléon) to be around!!!
PAR TOUTATIX!!!

 

[Brain]

It is so rare I see somebody speaking French!

That's because the forum is in English. It doesn't mean that nobody else speaks French.

Mieux vaut ne pas se fier au apparences...

 

[mitsho]

Il y a beaucoup des persons qui parlent français dans ce forum. You just don't get to see them, as this - as already said - is an english forum. Ich meinerseits bin ja auch Deutschschweizer, und spreche hier drin normalerweise Englisch. Normalum est.

, on topic, it is also to state, that Napoleon with his conquest of Europe shaped Europe's history and states to a big extent. Napoleon's washing away of the old system (the time of the Ancien régime didn't stop with 1789 in the Rest of Europe) paved the way for Switzerland into its modern state, with the neutrality, etc. We Swiss believe that our modern state started in 1848, but it would be more historical, if we put the date of 1798 (the conquest of Switzerland through France) instead.

mitsho