Wang Kon: What a bizarre leader choice!

[Randolph]

On the topic of strange leader choices, I find Mao and Stalin to be rather surprising choices. I tend to think that leaders should be based on who is revered as a great leader by nationals, rather then pure objective fact (e.g. Washington is a good choice for the US, he really wasn’t that great a leader, his major accomplishment was his willingness to relinquish power for the good of the nation rather then his ability to wield it, but he is revered as a great hero in the US, making him a good choice).

I know there’s disagreement among Chinese about Mao, but I’m pretty sure the vast majority of Russians despise Stalin. Perhaps in some objective fashion Stalin was “great,” but why use a leader that the people of the nation find shameful? At least they haven’t added Hitler.

 

[Shaihulud]

It was mentioned previously, that Wan Kon featured in a Tv serial? That should go very much in why he was selected as a leader in Civ4. Apperently, a Firaxis employee watched it and his opinion was biased in the selection process. So most Koreans are xenophobes and not racist? Its a different name for the same thing. In Asia, Koreans do have a reputation as racist and sexist, more so than the rest . Stalin was used because he was an iconic figure in WW2, some Russians I know still admire him, so he isn't universally despised by Russians.

 

[MisterBarca]

It was mentioned previously, that Wan Kon featured in a Tv serial? That should go very much in why he was selected as a leader in Civ4. Apperently, a Firaxis employee watched it and his opinion was biased in the selection process. So most Koreans are xenophobes and not racist? Its a different name for the same thing. In Asia, Koreans do have a reputation as racist and sexist, more so than the rest . Stalin was used because he was an iconic figure in WW2, some Russians I know still admire him, so he isn't universally despised by Russians.

Yes, Wang Kon was. And ironically, while Wang Kon was supposed to be the protagonist, most viewers came away with the impression that his rivals Goong Ae and Gyun Hwyun were more impressive figures, and Wang's reputation was even further tarnished.

Regarding the moron who said Koreans are xenophobes and not racists, he is obviously a Korean nationalist troll--cut from the same cloth as those idiots who flooded the FIFA web site and deliberately took it down as a form of protest v. the supposedly bad calls in the recent World Cup v. the Swiss.

I think I am going to ignore him from now on, unless he proffers a new argument or evidence. I'd rather not waste time arguing the obvious.

 

[MisterBarca]

It was mentioned previously, that Wan Kon featured in a Tv serial? That should go very much in why he was selected as a leader in Civ4. Apperently, a Firaxis employee watched it and his opinion was biased in the selection process. So most Koreans are xenophobes and not racist? Its a different name for the same thing. In Asia, Koreans do have a reputation as racist and sexist, more so than the rest . Stalin was used because he was an iconic figure in WW2, some Russians I know still admire him, so he isn't universally despised by Russians.

By the way, I think you are misrepresenting the troll's new argument regarding Korean racism.

His old line was "Koreans are not racists but xenophobes."

His new line, after I told him that "nationality" is often interchangeable with "race" in the English language, is that "Koreans are not racists because they feel they are inferior to other races."

So I suppose "abhorring" (his words) other races does not constitute racism?

I don't know what he needs more: An ESL class or a reality mugging.

 

[zx1111]

By the way, I think you are misrepresenting the troll's new argument regarding Korean racism.

His old line was "Koreans are not racists but xenophobes."

His new line, after I told him that "nationality" is often interchangeable with "race" in the English language, is that "Koreans are not racists because they feel they are inferior to other races."

So I suppose "abhorring" (his words) other races does not constitute racism?

I don't know what he needs more: An ESL class or a reality mugging.

So American Indian were Racist? or not? Answer!
Don't avoid point by diluting discussion. Or you are loser of this discussion.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

On the topic of strange leader choices, I find Mao and Stalin to be rather surprising choices. I tend to think that leaders should be based on who is revered as a great leader by nationals, rather then pure objective fact (e.g. Washington is a good choice for the US, he really wasn’t that great a leader, his major accomplishment was his willingness to relinquish power for the good of the nation rather then his ability to wield it, but he is revered as a great hero in the US, making him a good choice).

I know there’s disagreement among Chinese about Mao, but I’m pretty sure the vast majority of Russians despise Stalin. Perhaps in some objective fashion Stalin was “great,” but why use a leader that the people of the nation find shameful? At least they haven’t added Hitler.

Well supposedly among the older group there is some reverence for Stalin (I'm pretty sure all Russians consider him as a cruel leader, but a strong and in many ways successful one.)

Hitler is not only reviled in Germany, but he is reviled as a matter of official government policy, and the small minority who Don't revile him are reviled for not reviling him.

Mao is honored as a matter of official government policy, even when his policies were being destroyed/reversed there was always a sense of building on his work. (part of that being a totalitarian "We've Always been at war with Eurasia")



Back the the OP, since there are number of poster here who supposedly know something of Korean history, which Korean leader do you think would best fit the traits Protective and Financial.

 

[MisterBarca]

Well supposedly among the older group there is some reverence for Stalin (I'm pretty sure all Russians consider him as a cruel leader, but a strong and in many ways successful one.)

Hitler is not only reviled in Germany, but he is reviled as a matter of official government policy, and the small minority who Don't revile him are reviled for not reviling him.

Mao is honored as a matter of official government policy, even when his policies were being destroyed/reversed there was always a sense of building on his work. (part of that being a totalitarian "We've Always been at war with Eurasia")



Back the the OP, since there are number of poster here who supposedly know something of Korean history, which Korean leader do you think would best fit the traits Protective and Financial.

The name that comes off my head right away is Jang Bo-go. While Jang was not a king, he was the most powerful man in Unified Silla for a time as a kingmaker before his assassination, and he also did rule over a trade city/ military camp he established, Chong Hae-jin, as a virtual king. Financial/Protective fits him well, because he cleared the Japanese pirates to protect the Silla-China trade routes and that achievement coincided with one of the most vibrant trading regime in pre-modern Korean history.

But why must a Korean leader be Financial/Protective?

 

[MisterBarca]

So American Indian were Racist? or not? Answer!
Don't avoid point by diluting discussion. Or you are loser of this discussion.

LOL. "Diluting discussion [sic]"?

You are the one who keeps switching topics and getting into tangents when you are proven to be the troll you are.

Good day.

 

[zx1111]

LOL. "Diluting discussion [sic]"?

You are the one who keeps switching topics and getting into tangents when you are proven to be the troll you are.

Good day.

Insisting unsupported prejudice and accusation against Korean people and calling discussioner as "moron" and "troll" and hiding your head into the sand is very *good* manner of discussion.
You are proved to be genuine racist and loser.

Good day to you, too.

 

[Randolph]

Well supposedly among the older group there is some reverence for Stalin (I'm pretty sure all Russians consider him as a cruel leader, but a strong and in many ways successful one.)

Hitler is not only reviled in Germany, but he is reviled as a matter of official government policy, and the small minority who Don't revile him are reviled for not reviling him.

Mao is honored as a matter of official government policy, even when his policies were being destroyed/reversed there was always a sense of building on his work. (part of that being a totalitarian "We've Always been at war with Eurasia")

I don't disagree with any of that, but I don't think it undermines my point. I certainly didn't mean to imply that Russians thought that Stalin was weak or unsuccessful; they aren't stupid. How many Russians do you think would vote for Stalin in an election?

Hitler is obviously a more extreme example.

 

[Armorydave]

In no country are women conscripted.

You sure about that? I thought the IDF had mandatory conscription for woman and believe the old USSR did as well. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other, more obscure, examples as well.

 

[zx1111]

You sure about that? I thought the IDF had mandatory conscription for woman and believe the old USSR did as well. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other, more obscure, examples as well.

Isaeli women are conscripted same as men (IDF). But service period are little shorter for women than man.
But law is under revison to make them equal.

Maleisia imposes equal military duty to both men and women. ( 6 month)
Cuba also imposes equal military service duty on both male and female.
Republic of Bening (Africa) has more female soldier than male soldier.
North Korea : Both gender is conscripted but duty period is about half of men for women ( 3 year vs. 7 year).

Other country under preparation/discussion for equal duty for both gender.
: Germany, France, Swiss, Sudan, Sweden

Russia does not conscripts women but woman can apply for voluntary service
(About 10% of all soldier are comprised of female soldier)

 

[KrikkitTwo]

But why must a Korean leader be Financial/Protective?

Well because I'm guessing they balanced everything (UU, UB, other civs) based on that.

 

[ainwood]

Moderator Action: zx1111, MisterBarca, colontos - warned.

Collectively (although primarily the first two of you), you have flamed, trolled and threadjacked this thread into oblivion.

Closed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Louis XXIV]

So American Indian were Racist? or not? Answer!
Don't avoid point by diluting discussion. Or you are loser of this discussion.

If they hated white people simply because they were white, then yes.

And some tribes did this in history. Others did not and initially welcomed white people as friends. Its almost impossible to answer that question because it varried from tribe to tribe. Pick a tribe and I'll try to answer you.