The least deserving civilization?

[SharpMango]

Wow, okay, staying away from the controversial aspects of this thread...
about the mughals, some very interesting points raised, when i suggest them i have in mind that they represent the 'indian muslim' variant of thought within india (a massive subcontinent)..in the same way that the current india civ to me represents the hindu/buddhist. Asoka was buddhist and gandhi was hindu with heavy jain influences, so that strand of thought and is represented very well, including them 'representing' such empires as the Gupta's etc.
To me, the greatest muslim empire in india was the mughals, but there were others over many hundreds of years,
here is a mini-list i can think of:
Nizamate of Hyderabad
Kingdom Of Mysore
Tughlaq Dynasty (apex of the longer lasting Delhi Sultanate)
Bahmani Sultanate
..
i am sure there were others which were smaller (india was but a collection of princely states after all, like historical germany, but on a much larger scale)

And of course, the modern day variant of indian muslim civilization is represented by pakistan/bangladesh and the 100million plus indian muslims within india itself (the world's largest minority group)...the muslims combined represented perhaps 40percent of the subcontinents total population.

i am just speaking about what i have knowledge on, that india is too large and too valuable a part of the world's heritage to have just 'one' civ..

by the way, if you get anyone really well versed in chinese history, i am sure they will know a worthy inclusion or two from their side....
india and china form one third of the world's population and have a combined number of 2 civs lol.

 

[Dvalin]

I don't understand why you would think the size of populations in modern times or otherwise should influence the number of civs representing a region or ethnic group...that's just not the right criteria. Siamese Empire should be added because it's considerably distinguishable from it's neighbors. The best justification I have heard yet though for the Mughal Empire comes from you, to represent Afghanistan/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Kashmir but I don't know if Mughal Empire is the best name, what do you think?

 

[Turquoiside]

@SharpMango

I liked the teacher of the class, but 2 days before the test, she'd give us a list with all of the questions from the test, and then the answer(they were always multiple choice). The day before the test, we review the questions/answers in class. the day of the test, we get 5-10min to "review" the answers before the test.
Just in case you were wondering, this was in a 6th grade world history class
All this to say,IMHO, the educational system is "slightly" scewed

I agree with adding a lot of the civs Dvalin said.

Wow, if my teacher had done that when I was in 6th grade, I would have gotten 105s instead of 98

 

[SharpMango]

I don't understand why you would think the size of populations in modern times or otherwise should influence the number of civs representing a region or ethnic group...that's just not the right criteria. Siamese Empire should be added because it's considerably distinguishable from it's neighbors. The best justification I have heard yet though for the Mughal Empire comes from you, to represent Afghanistan/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Kashmir but I don't know if Mughal Empire is the best name, what do you think?

well, the size issue is relevant when based on the fact that as far as i know, there hasnt been a mughal civ in this game yet. I think the key issue i am trying to convey is that India, as a subcontinent, is a lot more complex than many outsiders know, or can even fathom. I believe there are at least 14 languages with speakers in excess of 20 million to begin with. And yes, they do all have their seperate distinguishable cultures. even within an area such as gujrat, who have spread traders all over the country, they have their own generational traits, it really is quite incredible. to compare someone from say tamil nadu with someone from punjab who come from the same country is like comparing someone from say the UK and Bosnia.
And then of course there are the amount of regional nationalist parties ranging from shiv sena (pro-marathi) in somewhere like maharashtra to Telegu Desum(?) (pro-telenaga) in Andhra Pradesh...if some of these states were to become countries, they'd be larger than the UK.
but all this isnt enough to say...THIS is a civilization...however it IS enough to say that the subcontinent is a very complex place. there have been very few times when it has been truly unified, there were a couple of hindu dynasties i believe in the distant past, the mughals, and then the british. modern india isnt 'unified' right now. and it never will be, i'm not that confident the union will last that long in any case (less than 200 years, thats like 3 unit moves for a civ player )
anyway, backkkk to my point, the Indian civilization, lets call it the 'hindu' civilization, with offshoots such as buddhism, sikhism and so forth, has a long and glorious history. When the muslims came to india, they used elements of indigenous culture to form a unique civilization of its own, something that is uniquely syncretic, and not like 'arab' islam or for that matter, persian..(though they certainly admired the persians)..
so that is why the mughals deserve to be in the game.they were to me, the peak of the syncretization. when the first indian war of independence happened in 1857, hindus and muslim alike looked to the mughals as their symbolic figurehead for unity, that is an indicator of the fact that they werent divisive either...
i dont know what this forums rules are regarding images,
but follow these links to see some amazing architecture..

http://www.hyderabadplanet.com/qutb-shahi-tombs-photos.html
http://www.orientalarchitecture.com/hyderabad/charminarindex.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Fort
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/108/308135563_907c1af4ac.jpg?v=0
http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/199106/images/central.south/0423_064_sm.jpg

and so forth

 

[fish6]

Mongolia was just a bunch of herdsmen who united and killed 30 million people. They themselves contributed nothing in terms of art, culture, or technology (and don't go all "ooh but Kublai Khan..." on me because all his works were built by enslaved artists and thinkers from other cultures), and their empire lasted less than two centuries. Sounds more like barbarians than a civilization. Zulus are pretty much the same way: a massive warband whose only claim to fame was how many innocent people they killed or enslaved. Their empire lasted what, two generations?

Monols did nothing? They allowed trade between massive areas to be conducted peacefully with the silk road under their protection, technology from all across Eurasia spread from one area to another, and there was freedom of relgion! In fact, they Mongols even invited members of different relgions to debate theolgically.

I have to agree with Zulu. A small, technolically backward state. There are so many better African civilizations that could have added.

 

[Saim]

Someone was arguing against the Celts being in, I was trying to justify them

Oh, I understand then.

Great point, but all countries are supposed to be potentially Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or otherwise. I am 50% in agreement with you I guess Mughal Empire would be a nice addition but India can be Islamic and then you essentially have the Mughals anyway.

When I say "Islamic world" or "Christian Europe" I really mean the cultural group - not anything about religion. The "Islamic world" is a cultural as well as religious category.

I guess the insinuation is that the view I am presenting is biased by religion, but I wasn't even considering religion in any of my determinations other than with the Mughals--and that was because the Mughal Empire was essentially India with foreign Turkic rulers from further west with Islam as it's basis. HRE is the Christian focused Civ, Arabic the Islamic imo (Caliphate). I don't see any other European civs as being explicitly Christian so i think adding Mughals for more Islamic representation isn't the way to go. I think India with Islam as it's religion to me works out well in representing the Mughal Empire.

The Mughals would also be the best representation of Indo-Islamic culture, which is a mix of Hindu and Islamo-Persian culture (which itself is a mix of Arabic and Zoroastrian culture).

It would represent the south slavs (Serbs/Croats/Bosniaks)

I guess the Serbian kingdom under Stefan Dusan was quite big... and Yugoslavia had an important place in the cold war.... but it wouldn't be one of my top choices.

I thought Bosniaks where a recently created ethnic group? They where just Serbs and Croats in Bosnia that converted to Islam, weren't they?

Yes Poles are Slavic but Poland as a political/historical entity is greater than that, my justifications are not all religious or all ethnic, it's a mix, it's identity in relation to other civs. Kingdom of Yugoslavia I think is significant enough to be a minor, like Denmark. I'm in favor of more minors and civs in general provided they have distinguished identities. I am however not in favor adding many new ancient empires as in those times culture was often shared between them. Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites, Phoencians were all similar in that culture and religion was much more simple and universal, there wasn't the same diversity we see in more modern times with major monotheistic religion, revolutions, and nationalist divisions. If Phoenicians survive to 2050 AD, who would they represent? Or would you be okay with the ahistory of it?

The whole point of the civ series is that level of ahistory - for example:

-Gandhi starting in the ancient area and waging war with everyone
-Isabella converting to Islam (or for that matter, Confucianism)
-The Ottoman empire conquering China
-etc...

That's what makes it fun!

I try to take that approach as well but it also comes down to identifiability and the limits of the game industry. For example, would the Berbers be called the Berber Empire or something else? That may work, but then you have so many people with no clue at all as to who they were...it stands out too much. Of course hardcore folks who look into such things are likely to be pleasantly surprised, but then the majority playerbase is confused or unsure about it.

What about Mali? Actually, I think that the civ series is rather good at introducing people to some level of history. I just think its better with more obscure empires and cultures.

It could be called the Libyan or Moorish empire, the only problem is there that Libyan only refers to the ancient Maghreb and the Moors only to the Medieval Maghreb. Perhaps have only the Moors, or both the Moors and Libyans? The Moors could the Islamic Maghreb (Arabic Berber, Berber and Arab).

 

[SharpMango]

Yes, the bosniaks are only 'recently' created. they are basically serbo-croat. having said that, in the 19th century they were known as 'turks', that is when turks=islam during the ottoman empire..eg muslim greeks were known as turks too (of which there were many 125 years ago)..
in any case, bosniaks are pretty attached to their new found identity, they'd react pretty badly to being labelled anything else..(thats what having a war of 'ethnic' cleansing waged upon you does i guess).

 

[AfterShafter]

Okay. Now I see why in your last post against me you just claimed that obtaining the Natives' land involved atrocities worse than the holocaust. At least that's what you'd lead me to believe, right? With all that literature you dug up on it.. Which one is it AfterShafter? Or, are you just saying that up in Canada you were kind to the "Indians" you were stealing the land from? There's no way to completely justify the Indians' removal and I'm not trying to do so. If it never happened though, then there would have been a much smaller and less powerful United States in the future. The same US that played a major role in the victory of WWII. So the Axis would have won the war had this land not been swallowed up by the US.



So glad Dvalin decided to continue this "argument/debate" now that the odds are further in his favor. Nice show of backbone.

Ok, first thing... I get a strong feeling of "These jerks are just badmouthing my country - I'm right, they're wrong, and I'll back up the red white and blue any way possible!"... Your country is a great one. It has accomplished more than any other this century, and stands to be at least a major power in the next, and may well retain its status as such. I am NOT, by any stretch, trying to badmouth your country. I'm trying to look at this objectively, and not let nationalism push me into saying it's either good or bad. I'd strongly ask you do the same, because I really don't think you are.

Now why do I think that? Ok, consider this... You were pretty upset at the prospect of a German even, just maybe, smirking at the idea of the Holocaust, and have gone so far as to say you it'd be tough to be proud of a country with something like that in it's history. But take a careful look at how you're arguing your case...

You told me that :

"We, Americans and Native Americans coexisted with skirmishes here and there. Yes they are skirmishes compared to what's in comparison. Some skirmishes could even be considered battles, fine."

Your reasoning for giving the US a free pass for the whole Natives VS what the Germans did to the Jews thing was this quote - and that you gave them reservations when all was said and done. Now it's been shown that A) these were not skirmishes, and the article I provide shows that their population was cut down ever more than the Jews were from the Holocaust, that B) many of the actions committed by your ancestors were planned - that plan being the wholesale slaughter, forced relocation, kidnapping and putting into "schools" that resemble concentration camps, and C) the systematic destruction of the things required for their way of life, resulting in their deaths, so you could take their land. Your premise on the whole "Well, we weren't so nasty to the Indians - we coexisted!" is manifestly false, and has been shown to be so.

Then, there is your "I won't tolerate it if Germans even smirk about the Holocaust"... Did you get a chance to read that www.stormfront.org forum? Because if you did, you'd see gads of Americans smirking about the Holocaust. Not just Americans, true, but they compose a majority of those forums. You'll see arguments about why Hitler was right, you'll see people interpreting the red, white and blue in ways that SHOULD make you want to upchuck based on what you've said. The movement behind the KKK is still alive and well in your country, just waiting for a period of economic depression to start burning crosses again. YOUR country, not Silenthunter's. So far, you've offered no evidence whatsoever that his country is the one that would be smirking over the Holocaust - and even if you did, it doesn't erase what you see at stormfront.

These points were revealed, but here's the thing... You didn't skip a beat and say "Gee, you know, you might be right. My country has some *ugly* things in its past that might even fit into the same ball park as the holocaust. Also, maybe I shouldn't treat the Germans like villains and suspect them of secretly being Holocaust supporters for simply being proud of their country." No. You completely skipped the points raised, and went on to say "Well, my country did positive things. Are you saying your country is blameless?" I also get a pretty strong feeling of "We've done good, so it's OK." Next to no acknowledgment that your previous claims had been thrown strongly into question, you just launch on the offensive again trying to pass blame on to other countries (mine, this time) and say "Well the good it causes justifies it!" That latter point concerning the good your country has caused justifying all this is another debate entirely, so start it in the OT forum if you want to argue... But here's the thrust of my case. If you have such unconditional pride in your country no-matter what it did in the past, all I'd ask of you is try and take a few steps back and see why a German could be quite proud of his country even with the Holocaust, and recognize that your own country is far from the exclusively positive force that you're painting it as? It's been shown that your previous conceptions of its blamelessness over the Natives are way off base, and that the "Holocaust smirking" you're so willing to criticize Germany for happens readily in YOUR country. Just don't ignore these facts while waving your flag and glaring at Germany for the Holocaust.

And for the record, no, I don't think Canada is anywhere near historically blameless in the Native American affair or any number of other human rights issues you can name. I'm QUITE clear that my red and white flag has a few black marks on it - but that doesn't make it an evil entity which I have to hang my head over. Also, I NEVER "claimed that obtaining the Natives' land involved atrocities worse than the holocaust." I'm just pointing out that, hey, it was pretty bad too.

This is too OT. I'm going to let this drop... If our friend here doesn't make any small concessions that he was a bit off base, he likely never will, so I dont' see any overwheling reason to continue arguing. So, I repeat, mods, I'm done arguing this and will not continue to hijack this thread. Don't lock it on my account.

 

[Gath]

Monols did nothing? They allowed trade between massive areas to be conducted peacefully with the silk road under their protection, technology from all across Eurasia spread from one area to another, and there was freedom of relgion! In fact, they Mongols even invited members of different relgions to debate theolgically.

I have to agree with Zulu. A small, technolically backward state. There are so many better African civilizations that could have added.

To be fair, the Mongols are best represented by a barbarian invasion which overwhelms the Chinese, Indian, and Arab civilizations, and puts a severe dent in the Russian and Hungarian civilizations, and then fades away. They weren't even in power for a 100 years. They didn't build the silk road, they didn't create any culture or discover any technology. They just spammed horse archers and temporarily overwhelmed several nations before fading into obscurity for past 800 years.

But since this isn't Civ 1 and we aren't technologically limited to 7 civs, I think the more the merrier, as it adds diversity and gives more "what if" scenarios. There's nothing I enjoy more than a game where I get the Carthaginians, ally with the Mongolians, and go lay down the law on the French and their Aztec vassals.

 

[m4gill4]

I would point out to the author that Mali was actually a very enlightened and prosperous empire in its time. It was a center of learning and commerce for hundreds of years until it's final decay and collapse at the hands of Moroccan raiders armed with gunpowder weaponry around 1600.

From Wikipedia:

The Mali Empire or Manding Empire or Manden Kurufa was a medieval West African civilization of the Mandinka from c. 1235 to c. 1600. The empire was founded by Sundiata Keita and became renowned for the wealth of its rulers, especially Mansa Musa I. The Mali Empire had many profound cultural influences on West Africa allowing the spread of its language, laws and customs along the Niger River. At the height of Mali's power, its ruler was regarded by contemporary scholars, the "richest and noblest king in all lands".[2] The Mali empire extended over an area larger than western Europe and consisted of numerous vassal kingdoms and provinces.

 

[EweezE]

Ok, first thing... I get a strong feeling of "These jerks are just badmouthing my country - I'm right, they're wrong, and I'll back up the red white and blue any way possible!"... Your country is a great one. It has accomplished more than any other this century, and stands to be at least a major power in the next, and may well retain its status as such. I am NOT, by any stretch, trying to badmouth your country. I'm trying to look at this objectively, and not let nationalism push me into saying it's either good or bad. I'd strongly ask you do the same, because I really don't think you are.

Thinking you're right and knowing you're right are two different things. I think you want to be told you're right in order to believe you are. I don't require such a post. I will add a few things though. SilentHunter seems to be an alright guy. He showed no signs here after I was harsh on him, that he'd "smirk" at the Nazi past. Your morals are intact SH. You thought I was an Indian, I thought you were a Nazi.. I'm over it. Living in France must have cleansed you (j/k). AfterShafter, I thank you for the compliments you gave America in your posts. You have done my side of the argument justice with them. I will never agree that removing the Indians = the Holocaust though. There are no words for the Holocaust. No one, or I guess to please you I should say, not many people consider the Indians removal a genocide attempt.

Then, there is your "I won't tolerate it if Germans even smirk about the Holocaust"... Did you get a chance to read that www.stormfront.org forum? Because if you did, you'd see gads of Americans smirking about the Holocaust. Not just Americans, true, but they compose a majority of those forums. You'll see arguments about why Hitler was right, you'll see people interpreting the red, white and blue in ways that SHOULD make you want to upchuck based on what you've said. The movement behind the KKK is still alive and well in your country, just waiting for a period of economic depression to start burning crosses again. YOUR country, not Silenthunter's. So far, you've offered no evidence whatsoever that his country is the one that would be smirking over the Holocaust - and even if you did, it doesn't erase what you see at stormfront.

No, I didn't go to that stormfront site. I don't care what the KKK believes in. They are a gang in prison. What mass effects on society can they cause from there? The ones that are free haven't organized any major moves since the olden days. Gathering at an internet site is not the same as gathering in person. If they were forming in person then they might rev each other up enough to actually be a menace to society. Don't forget about the Black Panthers while your naming notorious gangs in the US. How about Murder Inc? M16?

This is too OT. I'm going to let this drop... If our friend here doesn't make any small concessions that he was a bit off base, he likely never will, so I dont' see any overwheling reason to continue arguing. So, I repeat, mods, I'm done arguing this and will not continue to hijack this thread. Don't lock it on my account.

A lot of people seem to think that America should have been in the poll, and claim it doesn't deserve to be in the game. The whole argument/debate, I hope has lead those people to see America as includable in the great game of Civ. I wouldn't say thris thread has gone too OT.. It hasn't been the norm, but I've seen worse in an open thread. If it were locked however, don't try to exonerate yourself with that last post of yours. You, as well as any of us who carried on the argument/debate would be to blame then.. Threads can have more than one type of discussion going on in them at once, so long as it isn't OT. And by you saying "too OT", means that we are slightly "on topic" as well. Doesn't it? Otherwise, I'd guess you wouldn't of posted as much as you did, since it seems you don't want to offend any of the mods. And ruin that fabulous rep of yours, with the 1,000 some odd posts. I understand your obligation to defend your rep, as you have been a member here for much longer than I. I'm simply defending America in its right to be included in civ. Which btw, is on topic .

Note: I could have bolded and underlined my last comment, but it wouldn't make it truer.

 

[Saim]

To be fair, the Mongols are best represented by a barbarian invasion which overwhelms the Chinese, Indian, and Arab civilizations, and puts a severe dent in the Russian and Hungarian civilizations, and then fades away. They weren't even in power for a 100 years. They didn't build the silk road, they didn't create any culture or discover any technology. They just spammed horse archers and temporarily overwhelmed several nations before fading into obscurity for past 800 years.

But since this isn't Civ 1 and we aren't technologically limited to 7 civs, I think the more the merrier, as it adds diversity and gives more "what if" scenarios. There's nothing I enjoy more than a game where I get the Carthaginians, ally with the Mongolians, and go lay down the law on the French and their Aztec vassals.

Weren't even in power for a hundred years? What about the Ilkhanate, Golden Horde, Yuan dynasty and Chagatai Khanate?

 

[Zhahz]

I think there's a lot of anti American sentiment here...

Here? Never!

To me the civs are just a container for stats like UB, UU, starting techs for leaders - and there are only so many things that can be unique and unique combos of traits, so once you hit a certain number of civs the rest are just duplicates with different art, which to me, is pointless.

I pick the leaders I play (or do random) based on their traits, buildings, etc - not due to the loose history or blurbs about the civs in the 'pedia.

 

[Saim]

Thinking you're right and knowing you're right are two different things. I think you want to be told you're right in order to believe you are. I don't require such a post. I will add a few things though. SilentHunter seems to be an alright guy. He showed no signs here after I was harsh on him, that he'd "smirk" at the Nazi past. Your morals are intact SH. You thought I was an Indian, I thought you were a Nazi.. I'm over it. Living in France must have cleansed you (j/k). AfterShafter, I thank you for the compliments you gave America in your posts. You have done my side of the argument justice with them. I will never agree that removing the Indians = the Holocaust though. There are no words for the Holocaust. No one, or I guess to please you I should say, not many people consider the Indians removal a genocide attempt.

Removing the Amerindians was not the Holocaust. But I don't see why "there are no words" for the Holocaust, while there are supposedly words for the destruction of even more, less related peoples?

Not many people consider the Amerindian's removal a genocide attempt? Really? I have never had that impression. Haven't you ever heard the term "Native American genocide"?

No, I didn't go to that stormfront site. I don't care what the KKK believes in. They are a gang in prison. What mass effects on society can they cause from there? The ones that are free haven't organized any major moves since the olden days. Gathering at an internet site is not the same as gathering in person. If they were forming in person then they might rev each other up enough to actually be a menace to society. Don't forget about the Black Panthers while your naming notorious gangs in the US. How about Murder Inc? M16?

Just wondering... when did Stormfront become the KKK? The KKK has its own websites.

A lot of people seem to think that America should have been in the poll, and claim it doesn't deserve to be in the game. The whole argument/debate, I hope has lead those people to see America as includable in the great game of Civ. I wouldn't say thris thread has gone too OT.. It hasn't been the norm, but I've seen worse in an open thread. If it were locked however, don't try to exonerate yourself with that last post of yours. You, as well as any of us who carried on the argument/debate would be to blame then.. Threads can have more than one type of discussion going on in them at once, so long as it isn't OT. And by you saying "too OT", means that we are slightly "on topic" as well. Doesn't it? Otherwise, I'd guess you wouldn't of posted as much as you did, since it seems you don't want to offend any of the mods. And ruin that fabulous rep of yours, with the 1,000 some odd posts. I understand your obligation to defend your rep, as you have been a member here for much longer than I. I'm simply defending America in its right to be included in civ. Which btw, is on topic .

Note: I could have bolded and underlined my last comment, but it wouldn't make it truer.

Well of course America should have been in the poll! Why not? Persia, Turkey, Inca, Germany and Spain are on that list!

IMO, America has been given far too much priority in civ. While it deserves to be in the game, I don't think that it should have been in since Civ II.

Yes, the bosniaks are only 'recently' created. they are basically serbo-croat. having said that, in the 19th century they were known as 'turks', that is when turks=islam during the ottoman empire..eg muslim greeks were known as turks too (of which there were many 125 years ago)..
in any case, bosniaks are pretty attached to their new found identity, they'd react pretty badly to being labelled anything else..(thats what having a war of 'ethnic' cleansing waged upon you does i guess).

Well, at one point "Turkish" meant Muslim, didn't it?

 

[Dvalin]

Eweeze, I think AfterShock's point about the KKK is more relevant when you look at it from a long-term, historical perspective. Like when the government was infiltrated by KKK members and hooded cowards got away with murder. Also I find it suspect that you bring up the Black Panther Party when the comparison to the KKK is simply nonexistent in regards to how much blood is on their hands. Obviously you should read more about your own, American history if you think that the Black Panthers are somehow even remotely as notorious as the KKK...well known but not notorious at all in the same sense.

 

[EweezE]

Eweeze, I think AfterShock's point about the KKK is more relevant when you look at it from a long-term, historical perspective. Like when the government was infiltrated by KKK members and hooded cowards got away with murder. Also I find it suspect that you bring up the Black Panther Party when the comparison to the KKK is simply nonexistent in regards to how much blood is on their hands. Obviously you should read more about your own, American history if you think that the Black Panthers are somehow even remotely as notorious as the KKK...well known but not notorious at all in the same sense.

I only mentioned the Black Panthers in generating a list of gangs. Of course the KKK were worse in their day, never said they weren't. I simply covered multiple ethnic backgrounds with the gangs I mentioned. I know you've been waiting to tell me to read something though since I told you to read about WWII...lol. But that was a failure attempt you just threw at me. Especially when I never said the BP were worse. We agree that the KKK were worse. Just let all that stormfront KKK rest, they really don't deserve to be mentioned.

 

[Dvalin]

I only mentioned the Black Panthers in generating a list of gangs. Of course the KKK were worse in their day, never said they weren't. I simply covered multiple ethnic backgrounds with the gangs I mentioned. I know you've been waiting to tell me to read something though since I told you to read about WWII...lol. But that was a failure attempt you just threw at me. Especially when I never said the BP were worse. We agree that the KKK were worse. Just let all that stormfront KKK rest, they really don't deserve to be mentioned.

It's not a 'failure attempt' it's completely logical...someone brings up KKK, your comparison/counter is Black Panthers? Why would you even need bring up other 'ethnic' gangs when the KKK is American shame not white shame. Obviously you were thinking racially and felt you needed to defend white people or something. 'Generating a list' is no excuse, why didn't you think about the actual contents of the list in relation to the point you were trying to counter, rather than pretend it's some mundane utilitarian action? Again there is/was no point in bringing up the BP in response to AfterShock if there's no comparable significance historically to the KKK. I would even argue that given American history, if your motivation for mentioning the BP was to point out other racist organizations, the BP were justified in their attitudes at the time. All of this seems pretty absent minded of you. It seems to me you are not defending principle or what is right but rather your own set ideology.

 

[EweezE]

It seems to me you are not defending principle or what is right but rather your own set ideology.

And who is right Dvalin? I'm sure you would tell me that you are on the right side of the argument. As would anyone who takes a stand on an issue. They'd believe they were in the right, and justified, or wouldn't stand at all. It sure isn't for you to decide whether I'm right or wrong. Only God can judge me. Am I to believe that you are defending your own set ideology as well? You bring much to the table Dvalin, but nothing to eat.

 

[Dvalin]

And who is right Dvalin? I'm sure you would tell me that you are on the right side of the argument. As would anyone who takes a stand on an issue. They'd believe they were in the right, and justified, or wouldn't stand at all. It sure isn't for you to decide whether I'm right or wrong. Only God can judge me. Am I to believe that you are defending your own set ideology as well? You bring much to the table Dvalin, but nothing to eat.

My point was you don't seem to be reasoning within yourself the facts and justifications of principle but rather throwing out any weak argument so long as it helps in defending your set of beliefs...in other words, you should explain better why you stand where you do instead of reiterating where. Of course it's perfectly reasonable to take up the position that all of this is normal and people are going to make up there minds and stand by their adopted values. However, if you can't support those values rationally by explaining how you came to conclude they are right, then they are weak and more easily subject to criticism.

Edit: By the way kudos on that last quip, very clever, but ironically it really applies more to you...you bring here a lot of rhetoric but no reason...

 

[Arms Longfellow]

You guys saying the Mongolians shouldn't be in the game are nuts. THEY CONTROLLED THE SECOND LARGEST EMPIRE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, what more do you want?! And no disrespect to the great British Empire, but unlike the Brits who largely built their empire by taking guns into backward parts of the world with no technology, the Mongols took on and toppled two MAJOR powers of the era (China and Persia).

You guys seem to have this idea that a civilization doesn't deserve to be in the game unless they had x amount of famous scientists and composed classical music. Sorry, but in Civilization you can have any play style that you want, and that includes conquering the hell out of all your neighbours and taking those cool looking wonders they spent so much effort building.