Discussion in 'Civ4 - Creation & Customization' started by Sagitario, Feb 26, 2010.
Okay, I decided I'm going to just have to teach myself how to Mod!
That sounds good to me, that's how I learned. This mod sounds interesting, I wish you luck with it.
Interesting view on apartheid, though not quite accurate:
- during apartheid only 'pure' whites (not even people of Indian descent!) could vote; that does not qualify as democracy by a long shot
- the apartheid idea of just rule included putting the indigenous population in poor, isolated reservates and granting these 'independence' (like the landlocked Lesotho); that's not the same as partitioning South Africa
- the apartheid regime had the support of enterprises and governments abroad for many years; how does that compare with the post-apartheid situation? (I reckon South Africa does much better than Zimbabwe, for instance.)
- "During Apartheid everybody had better jobs and security (including Black South Africans)" is just pure apartheid propaganda: Black (and Indian) South Africans had virtually no rights as South Africa was 'a white nation' (another lie; whites owned the majority of all land, while being a small minority); if you 'behaved' you might not suffer police brutality, but this was not guaranteed. If you supported a regime change - in whatever way - the only security you had was of being arrested and generally mistreated (Gandhi served in South Africa as a lawyer, but being of Indian descent he was a second class citizen and was treated as such - and he believed in the law). So, ask yourself if the majority was better off before or after apartheid?
Otherwise I find this an interesting mod/scenario idea.
FACT: South Africa's white population peeked at 21-25% of the total population. So being 1/5 or 1/4 of the population is considered small?
FACT: The average Black South African is MORE likely to get murdered in post-apartheid South Africa. 30,000 Black South Africans per year.
FACT: The average Black South African is MORE likely to get raped in post-apartheid South Africa.
FACT: The average Black South African has LESS access to electricity in post-apartheid South Africa.
So, yes the MAJORITY OF SOUTH AFRICANS WERE BETTER OFF UNDER APARTHEID. All the end of apartheid did was put a corrupt terrorist group (the ANC) in power whose ONLY goal is to enrich the upper echilons of its party.
Come back when you can admit the truth. THANX, BYE!
Sorry I could not help! Try using Modding Wiki!
Video: (I used this one 1st!)
Not quite what I said - and it still doesn't make the apartheid regime a 'democracy', as you claimed - and most whites are still living in South Africa, aren't they?
And, once again, how does this compare to the situation in Zimbabwe? No reply?
That's not a fact, that's two lies in a row. You wouldnt be a white supremacist now, would you?
The fact you refuse to admit that Nelson Mandela and his corrupt ANC is a terrorist organization proves you have an agenda and I won't interact with such a pathetic person as you.
HILARIOUS! When a leftist can't win a debate they call the person a racist. Racist is the new "witch"
Are you one of those people that claims DNA doesn't exist because it proves Ancient Israelites were the same as modern Jews?
The funny thing about Mandela is that he received funds from a quite brutal dictator, Suharto of Indonesia.
Also funny is that Mandela can't be called a "terrorist" except by someone with no knowledge of the term. By S's apparent definition the American Revolutionaries should also be called terrorists.
I wouldn't call this a "debate", mate. Qll you do is post stuff in CAPITALS and then somehow think that makes assertions valid. Well, it doesn't. Now, if you want to debate, use proper citations, otherwise simply state they're your personal opinions.
(And I'm not "one of those people', nor am I "leftist". I was asking for sources, offered comparisons, and you haven't replied to any of those. Sir.)
Calling someone a terrorist is just a matter of mere semantics. Sure the ANC and Nelson Mandela could be considered terrorists, but so could George Washington and the Sons of Liberty. All somebody has to do to be deemed a terrorist is use violence, or the threat of violence against civilians, to effect the decisions and behavior of a group of people to achieve political goals or political change.
In America the term is becoming ridiculously confused with either an anti-American, an extremist, or religious fundamentalist view (specifically Islam). When that American soldier shot up his base in Texas everyone started calling it terrorism, but it wasn't because he attacked military personnel on a military base.
Anyway, to your "discussion" here; Sagitario, if you are seriously suggesting that Black Africans were better off under apartheid you are an idiot. Plain and simple. You should try living as a second-class citizen and having your rights taken away from you. Even if there is more poverty and unemployment in South Africa now than there was in the hey-day of apartheid that is really skewing the facts of the matter. There is more unemployment and disease in the United States now than there was during the internment of Japanese-Americans, Jim Crow Laws/segregation or the Communist witch hunts, but does that mean America was better back then? I'd say no, and if you would disagree why don't you come up to DC and tell some of the people in Anacostia what you think about that one.
EDIT: Not to mention the fact that any statistics from an oppressive, anti-democratic, and racist regime are questionable at best.
He also blew up grocery stores and turned the economic power of Africa into the number one country in the world for murders.
Islam as an ideology espouses the extermination of all Non-Muslims and dont' try and white wash it I'm 1/2 Moroccan Jewish and there is no interpretation.
Black South Africans WERE better off under apartheid and you can even look up the statistics yourself. Its NOT my problem your some leftist anti-white afrocentrists.
Black Rhodesians were also better off because at least they weren't starving...Oh wait, they have the right to vote now but NOT to eat! Ya Zimbabwe is a great country!
If anybody are reading there nut jobs posts, Please watch this video first.
I don't think anybody argued that, statistically, South Africa is "better off" now or was "worse off" then, in fact I have even said that the United States was statistically better off in the forties and fifites than it is now (which is true in all cases except crime statistics). Obviously nothing occurs in a vacuum, but disregarding all of that I think the main issue you had was when you said that there should be the "opposite" of apartheid for the post-apartheid civic (which I think is poorly named anyway). What you basically said was that there should be unhappiness as a result of apartheid, but there should be a production bonus. I think JEELEN and I disagreed with this assumption. First of all, how can you possibly extrapolate increased production from apartheid occuring? Where is your rationale for saying there would be more production? Apartheid SHOULD NOT be a labor civic, but a legal civic first of all. Next, rather than specifically say the ANC's faulty politics resulted in the decline of South Africa, you say it was the end of apartheid. Since I am American I can use America as an example, the prevailing political party at the outset of the United States were the Anti-federalists, which resulted in huge debts, and a terrible economic system. In fact there were a plethora of impromptu rebellions and even wars between states in the early years of the United States. So by your logic you would say that they should have kept the British as their leaders?
I do take offense to the fact that you assume I am saying that whites are bad, I am obviously white (that is my pic over there on the left) so that statement is just ridiculous. I am certainly not "afrocentrist." But I'll have you know that the same argument was made, and could be made statistically, after the abolition of slavery in the United States that blacks here were "better off" too. My point was simply that somebody saying "We don't have electricity regularly, and I am making less money" is simply NOT the same as saying "I really wish we had apartheid back."
But of course this argument is stupid and irrelevent, because obviously you have pretty clear views on the subject, and I'd say from your responses it is in such a degree that your mod will probably reflect that and simply be unbalanced or at least set in a certain direction (as opposed to giving the player the ability to control history himself), but all that aside my suggestion to you would be to make apartheid a legal civic rather than a labor civic. I think rather than a smiple emancipation civic for slavery there should be degress of emancipation. You could have tribalism I suppose, then slavery, then degrees of forced labor (indentured servitude could be an example, or share-cropping or something), then emancipation. Apartheid should be somehow tied to the level of non-national population you have. That might be difficult to emulate, specifically if you don't have a tribe like, for instance the Xhosa, originally starting out in a South African city. I suppose what you could do is tie the unhappiness to a percentage of the population that is of a different civ/culture. For instance if you have 40% Whites and 60% Blacks or Xhosa or what have you in a city of 10 then you should take a hit of 6 unhappiness in that city. The trade-off could be increased culture, or decreased maintenance or something of that nature.
For legal I would really think tribalism should be better. Then you can do things like common law, legal charter, etc. and have apartheid in that category because really it is a legal system and not a system of labor.
BTW, I did watch your video and that's great but without context and statistics it was kind of meaningless. Not to mention it is a short news story on CNN. For the record I never said I supported all of the actions of the ANC, but I am definitely against discrimination on the basis of race alone, and certainly against any system of government that applies different law to different people. I don't care who you are, that is wrong and isn't in the spirit of true democratic law. I also never said anything about islamic fundamentalists being mistreated or misunderstood, I simply said the term terrorism in the United States is not applied appropriately to any case. The fact of the matter is, the Ft. Hood shooter was technically not a terrorist by the legal definition of the word. If you start throwing around the word terrorist for any situation you not only denigrate the term and the practice, but in a real way you are falling into the terrorists trap.
Apartheid was NOT discrimination. It was a process to divide South Africa into multiple nations based on ethnic groups including two white nations one afrikaner and one english. EVERYTHING that the apartheid government of South Africa said would happen to South Africa if apartheid ended yet was called racist by westerners HAS HAPPENED!
Why don't you look up the murder rate for Black South Africans before and after apartheid ended, YOU WILL BE VERY SURPRISED!
Anyway, I was thinking of changing the religions to ethnic groups.
Are you joking?
And by the way, the apartheid government was made up of "westerners."
Apartheid was the separation ethnic groups for the ultimate partition of South Africa. Whites were moved out of areas given to non-white groups, and coloureds out of non-coloured areas, etc. The Afrikaners were the first humans to live in the southern cape area so they are indigenous to that part of South Africa.
I still don't understand how that is NOT discrimination? That sounds precisely like discrimination to me. Not to mention apartheid is basically a textbook example of discrimination.
If you know a group is NEVER going to live at peace with you or that group will leach off of you, what do you do? You separate yourself from that group, no?
Separate names with a comma.