What Civ Would you Cut?

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

But Kamehameha is a strong name to be a leader in civ7. He remembers me Dragon Ball Z, the Japanese anime.

Did Akira Toriyama really aware that the term he created for a famous finishing move is a name of Hawaiian King?

Actually 'Kamehameha' attacks appeared in the first 'Dragon Ball'. this is Goku's first successful try... he could wreck a car with it.
But the composition of 'Kamehameha'.. in the original Japanese material this term was written mostly with Kana. 'かめはめ波' https://dragonball.fandom.com/wiki/Kamehameha

the actual composition origin is Japanese actually. with 'Kame' a Japanese native pronounciation of the character 'turtle' 亀 (The inventor-Master Roshi, is tortoise themed, he even has a speaking sea turtle as a companion pet) and on'yomi speakings of 'wave' 波

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I’ve seen a few people claim this and I can neither agree with nor particularly understand the sentiment. Outside of the choice of Laurier, who speaks in both official languages, the music choice, and the backsplash of chateau Frontenac, that’s all the French bits, and they are all aesthetic. None of the components or gameplay deals with French Canada at all. This means the gameplay is entirely anglophone Canada, and the leaderscene is maybe 66% French Canada.

That being said, this is one of the reasons why I think Canada could take that slot from America if they came up with a great design. Out of the big settler-colonial commonwealth nations, it’s the only one that is officially multilingual. More than America, Canada can portray a hybrid, emergent culture that is both strongly rooted in its parent nations, but is also something new. Based on what we got in civ 6, I don’t have high hopes for that. To the surprise if no one, the devs understand America better, so they should stick to that.

An undeniable fact is that the US of A is now global superpower. Actually a gamechanger in the first two Great European Wars

 

[Patine]

Actually a gamechanger in the first two Great European Wars

Out of curiosity, what wars are who referring to here? The Napoleonic Wars and World War I? If so, the United States' role in the former was tying up some colonial militia and naval assets (and in their least competent and organized performance in their military history, as a nation - almost an embarrassment) the British couldn't levy against L'Empereur, even though the Sixth Coalition won in the end.

 

[pineappledan]

I would see Hawaii as a cultural civ. For that, I think Kalakaua is a better fit than Kamehameha I, who was a military leader.

 

[Patine]

I would see Hawaii as a cultural civ. For that, I think Kalakaua is a better fit than Kamehameha I, who was a military leader.

I still stand that the Tui Tonga would be more interesting, and could fill a more prominent role in that niche.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I’ve seen a few people claim this and I can neither agree with nor particularly understand the sentiment. Outside of the choice of Laurier, who speaks in both official languages, the music choice, and the backsplash of chateau Frontenac, that’s all the French bits, and they are all aesthetic. None of the components or gameplay deals with French Canada at all. This means the gameplay is entirely anglophone Canada, and the leaderscene is maybe 66% French Canada.

I mean because they chose Laurier, and have the other things you mentioned, is why I make that distinction between Canada and America/Australia. I think it comes as no surprise that they wanted to distinguish Canada that way by giving them French elements.

That being said, this is one of the reasons why I think Canada could take that slot from America if they came up with a great design. Out of the big settler-colonial commonwealth nations, it’s the only one that is officially multilingual. More than America, Canada can portray a hybrid, emergent culture that is both strongly rooted in its parent nations, but is also something new. Based on what we got in civ 6, I don’t have high hopes for that. To the surprise if no one, the devs understand America better, so they should stick to that.

Well America isn't going anywhere, so if we get Canada again then we get both.

 

[Patine]

I mean because they chose Laurier, and have the other things you mentioned, is why I make that distinction between Canada and America/Australia. I think it comes as no surprise that they wanted to distinguish Canada that way by giving them French elements.

Well, in truth, this argument that, "Laurier as leader makes Canada a French colonial nation," is actually about as accurate as the option in the, "Black Civ's in the America," thread that making Obama the U.S. leader makes the civ, "Black." Plus, Laurier, while French Canadian, was not all a real advocate of any sort of French colonial heritage or institutions (except language), and his relationship with France was often quite rocky (especially, when, in WW1, Laurier, as the Opposition Leader to Borden, tried to end conscription, which Poincare viewed as an utter betrayal, even though the attempt failed). And, much Pierre-Elliott Trudeau or Jean Chretien, Laurier was one of the worst political opponents a Quebec Nationalist could have - especially, in his day, Henri Bourassa.

 

[BuchiTaton]

If I choose only which civs I would like to have in CIV7 the game would not be very popular. So a more marketable and likely list would be like this:

- Celtic slot: Ireland, this is very likely, just wonder if it would take the place of Galia or just Scotland.
- Hispanic slot: Argentina instead of Colombia could be a nice flip.
- South American native slot: In the same way Muisca instead of Mapuche for a exchange in the continent.
- Southeast Asia slots: Likely Siam would come again instead of Khmer, but the real new face could be Burma instead of Vietnam.
- French colonial slot: Maybe Haiti make it as the first afroamerican and caribean civ.
- Mesopotamia slots: These are difficult, Babylon is the big name, but Assyria is still a great option and Sumer have their "first civilization" attractive. Still Akkad under Sargon could be a great reinterpretation.
- Central/East Europe slot: Poland seems to be a new regular, but Bohemia instead of Hungary is possible.
- Central Asia slot: I think Gurkani are a great option to cover the region this time, even with two leaders one for Timurid and one for Mughal eras.
- Polynesian slot: Tonga, I hope here Firaxis show a real historical compromise instead of go again with the popular Hawaii.
- North Africa slot: Is Nubia supposed to be their representative in CIV6? I mean even Carthage was Phoenicia this time. Anyway Dihya for Berber civ would be great.
- Subsaharan slot: I mean the second slot replacing Kongo, could be for so many options, Yoruba is one of the best. For me is a shame that Zulu hoard one slot just because being one of civs originals.
- North American native slot: Also many possible options but my favorite would be the the Choctaw.
- Anglo colonial slot: I guess Firaxis want to keep Australia if Canada is supposed to be french, still I think both in the same game were redundant. There are not many really new options after these two unless that they want to add New Zealand.(would not be surprised if they do it)

From the regions that I think deserve and could gain more slots the most likely is Africa, if it happen I would love to have Somalia. Beyond that I would like to gain more slot if we replace the second Scandinavian, the second Celtic (if Scotland count as it), the Anglo colonials (that are not USA obviously) and fuse the many Greeks but these seem very unlikely.

 

[Patine]

If I choose only which civs I would like to have in CIV7 the game would not be very popular. So a more marketable and likely list would be like this:

- Celtic slot: Ireland, this is very likely, just wonder if it would take the place of Galia or just Scotland.
- Hispanic slot: Argentina instead of Colombia could be a nice flip.
- South American native slot: In the same way Muisca instead of Mapuche for a exchange in the continent.
- Southeast Asia slots: Likely Siam would come again instead of Khmer, but the real new face could be Burma instead of Vietnam.
- French colonial slot: Maybe Haiti make it as the first afroamerican and caribean civ.
- Mesopotamia slots: These are difficult, Babylon is the big name, but Assyria is still a great option and Sumer have their "first civilization" attractive. Still Akkad under Sargon could be a great reinterpretation.
- Central/East Europe slot: Poland seems to be a new regular, but Bohemia instead of Hungary is possible.
- Central Asia slot: I think Gurkani are a great option to cover the region this time, even with two leaders one for Timurid and one for Mughal eras.
- Polynesian slot: Tonga, I hope here Firaxis show a real historical compromise instead of go again with the popular Hawaii.
- North Africa slot: Is Nubia supposed to be their representative in CIV6? I mean even Carthage was Phoenicia this time. Anyway Dihya for Berber civ would be great.
- Subsaharan slot: I mean the second slot replacing Kongo, could be for so many options, Yoruba is one of the best. For me is a shame that Zulu hoard one slot just because being one of civs originals.
- North American native slot: Also many possible options but my favorite would be the the Choctaw.
- Anglo colonial slot: I guess Firaxis want to keep Australia if Canada is supposed to be french, still I think both in the same game were redundant. There are not many really new options after these two unless that they want to add New Zealand.(would not be surprised if they do it)

From the regions that I think deserve and could gain more slots the most likely is Africa, if it happen I would love to have Somalia. Beyond that I would like to gain more slot if we replace the second Scandinavian, the second Celtic (if Scotland count as it), the Anglo colonials (that are not USA obviously) and fuse the many Greeks but these seem very unlikely.

I agree with much of this, except:
-Celts should be under Boadicea.
-Babylon should be the Mesopotamian civ.
-I'd like to see the Sikh Confederacy as an Indian civ if they're broken up.
-I'd like to see Buganda in Subsaharan Africa, which is not mutually exclusive with the Yoruba, who are a good one, too, definitely, appearing.
-Both Canada and Australia should have to go, but portraying Canada as a French colonial nation by any reckoning is ridiculous.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Well, in truth, this argument that, "Laurier as leader makes Canada a French colonial nation," is actually about as accurate as the option in the, "Black Civ's in the America," thread that making Obama the U.S. leader makes the civ, "Black." Plus, Laurier, while French Canadian, was not all a real advocate of any sort of French colonial heritage or institutions (except language), and his relationship with France was often quite rocky (especially, when, in WW1, Laurier, as the Opposition Leader to Borden, tried to end conscription, which Poincare viewed as an utter betrayal, even though the attempt failed). And, much Pierre-Elliott Trudeau or Jean Chretien, Laurier was one of the worst political opponents a Quebec Nationalist could have - especially, in his day, Henri Bourassa.

I believe the problem is that many English-speaking Canadians don't identify to two founding elements of the Canadian nation: Samuel Champlain founding Quebec in 1608 and the Quebec Act of 1774 guaranteeing Quebeckers cultural rights, which is really what triggered the split of Canada from the rest of the British colonies that will later become the US. Both aren't really part of English-speaking Canada's History, which only started later with loyalist Americans moving to Upper Canada (Ontario), once Canada was already formed as a distinct entity.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Out of curiosity, what wars are who referring to here? The Napoleonic Wars and World War I? If so, the United States' role in the former was tying up some colonial militia and naval assets (and in their least competent and organized performance in their military history, as a nation - almost an embarrassment) the British couldn't levy against L'Empereur, even though the Sixth Coalition won in the end.

Two World Wars of the first half of 20th Century

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

- Southeast Asia slots: Likely Siam would come again instead of Khmer, but the real new face could be Burma instead of Vietnam.

Depending on who's leading what.
History of Mekhong Subcontinent since 13th-14th Century until mid 19th Century had always been bloody contests between all Three Gunpowder Empires. By the mid Ming to Early Qing mostly featured contentions between Siam (of Ayutthaya) against various Burmese Kingdoms wests of Tenasserin Range.
The fall of Ayutthaya around the time of Seven Years War in Europe, as well as the 'Siamese Restoration Wars' that later gave rise to Bangkok also coincides with Tay Son Rebellion where Qinq puppet in VN (The Le Dynasty) faced off against ambitious rebellion of Nguyen. This is when Siam got a new rivals in place of Burma, the Nguyen's Dai Viet. with their ambitions to become equal to China from my perspective (and thus they became serious taking either Laotian Kingdoms and Cambodia under their definite Imperial Rule which resulted in the mutual war between the two by 1820s or 1830s.
In conclusion. All Three Civs must met. and must be led by the greatest leaders of the same timeframe.
City State Choices could be either
1. One of Laotian Great Cities,
2. Chiangmai OR Chiangrai representing Lanna Kingdom (they never was a real superpower beyond taking smaller citystates nearby, nor definite parts of Siam until King Chulalongkorn's era)

 

[Patine]

Two World Wars of the first half of 20th Century

The Second World is not referred to as a, "Great European War," because of the immense part of it fought in Asia and the Pacific that was well beyond conflicts over European colonies that diverged from the Continent in the Napoleonic Wars and World War I. The label is not, in other words, meaningfully applicable as a term for World War II.

I believe the problem is that many English-speaking Canadians don't identify to two founding elements of the Canadian nation: Samuel Champlain founding Quebec in 1608 and the Quebec Act of 1774 guaranteeing Quebeckers cultural rights, which is really what triggered the split of Canada from the rest of the British colonies that will later become the US. Both aren't really part of English-speaking Canada's History, which only started later with loyalist Americans moving to Upper Canada (Ontario), once Canada was already formed as a distinct entity.

The Old (Pre-American Revolution) Province of Quebec is a predecessor polity to part of what is now Canada, but was not the beginning of Canada as the nation or polity it is now - that was 1867, and the United Empire Loyalists' descendants, and many others, mostly from the British Isles, were a very large part of it (bigger, in number, than the French Canadians), and the Maritimes and Western Canada, are important additions to, as are later non-British Isles and non-Francophone immigrants, and though often suffering from a difficult short end of the stick, the First Nations and Inuit. Plus, the political institutions are based on British Commonwealth models, with no meaningful influence left from Royal France, and never having a touch of Republican France, and Common Law is, by far, the dominant legal system, and, even though Quebec had a separate civil law based on the Civic Code, many changes to these laws - often around property, inheritance, and law - were reformed, and largely adhere to Common Law, now. Freedom of Religion completely annuls the old separate Oath of Allegiance for French Canadian Catholics. The Old Province of Quebec of 1774 is no more an imminent or present aspect of Canada as a nation, politically, legally, culturally, or socially, than the Pre-Norman Anglo-Saxon Kingdom, the Petty Kingships of Cymru, the Gaelic Kingdom of Ulster, and the Kingdom of Alba are in the UK, or the Elective Kingdom of West Francia is in France - and there wasn't much of it left when Laurier was PM. It was history was the British North America Act came into force. It's not even a foundational basis or argument that Quebec Nationalists or Separatists harp on.

 

[Marla_Singer]

The Old (Pre-American Revolution) Province of Quebec is a predecessor polity to part of what is now Canada, but was not the beginning of Canada as the nation or polity it is now - that was 1867, and the United Empire Loyalists' descendants, and many others, mostly from the British Isles, were a very large part of it (bigger, in number, than the French Canadians), and the Maritimes and Western Canada, are important additions to, as are later non-British Isles and non-Francophone immigrants, and though often suffering from a difficult short end of the stick, the First Nations and Inuit. Plus, the political institutions are based on British Commonwealth models, with no meaningful influence left from Royal France, and never having a touch of Republican France, and Common Law is, by far, the dominant legal system, and, even though Quebec had a separate civil law based on the Civic Code, many changes to these laws - often around property, inheritance, and law - were reformed, and largely adhere to Common Law, now. Freedom of Religion completely annuls the old separate Oath of Allegiance for French Canadian Catholics. The Old Province of Quebec of 1774 is no more an imminent or present aspect of Canada as a nation, politically, legally, culturally, or socially, than the Pre-Norman Anglo-Saxon Kingdom, the Petty Kingships of Cymru, the Gaelic Kingdom of Ulster, and the Kingdom of Alba are in the UK, or the Elective Kingdom of West Francia is in France - and there wasn't much of it left when Laurier was PM. It was history was the British North America Act came into force. It's not even a foundational basis or argument that Quebec Nationalists or Separatists harp on.

I haven't denied any of those points. I've only mentioned that the 1774 Quebec Act was key to establish Canada as an entity separate from the other British colonies which will form the US. Had Westminster not voted that law, motivating French Canadians to remain loyal to the British crown, they would probably have not been any Canadian entity in the first place, as it would have most likely been integrated to the birthing United States.

 

[pineappledan]

Two World Wars of the first half of 20th Century

America's involvement in WWI is severely overstated.

WWI was from 1914 until 1918, and America only declared war in April 1917. They did not mobilize until the summer of 1918, by which time the war was basically over. Having never fought a modern war, the Americans didn't have a clue what they were doing. They were referred to as "doughboys" by their allies because they were undercooked and poorly trained for the type of war they were being sent to. The single largest impact that America joining had was the psychological effect of a large, fresh nation with all of their industries and morale still intact entering the war on the side of the Entente. This forced the Germans to reckon with a prolonged war against a foe that just doubled in size. German industrial and demographics were mostly exhausted by that point anyways, so it didn't have a realistic material effect on the conclusion of the war, but it was just one more thing that affirmed they were never going to win this.

Meanwhile, Canada and Newfoundland were there from the beginning of the war. They sacrificed much more in terms of men and materiel, especially relative to their size. Canada: 61,000 combat deaths vs America: 53,000 deaths, for a country 10x the size. The Canadian Corp in particular emerged as the single most effective unit on the western front. Despite also coming in late for WWII, America contributed a lot more to that war. WWI, however, was decided before their deployment, and America had a rather embarrassing showing in it.

As for Australia, the majority of their troops were sent to Gallipoli, a front that was doomed to failure. So while the Diggers don't have many battlefield victories to show for it, they have a sort of "Charge of the Light Brigade" mystique to their grit and sacrifice on a ill-conceived battlefield.

Did Akira Toriyama really aware that the term he created for a famous finishing move is a name of Hawaiian King?

Literally from your own link you posted:

• The name "Kamehameha" which is written as, かめはめ波は, has no meaning in Japanese. It serves as a pun based off of the name of the Hawaiian King Kamehameha I, coupled with the Japanese word for "turtle" kame (亀), due to Master Roshi also being known as the Turtle Hermit, and ha (波), meaning "wave".

 

[Equilin]

the real new face could be Burma

*victor of the ten directions noises*

Back to the topic, I don't think "what civ to cut" is the correct question, since many of the slots (except for the core civs) are rotating in and out anyways.

 

[pineappledan]

- Celtic slot: Ireland, this is very likely, just wonder if it would take the place of Galia or just Scotland.
- Hispanic slot: Argentina instead of Colombia could be a nice flip.
- South American native slot: In the same way Muisca instead of Mapuche for a exchange in the continent.
- Southeast Asia slots: Likely Siam would come again instead of Khmer, but the real new face could be Burma instead of Vietnam.
- French colonial slot: Maybe Haiti make it as the first afroamerican and caribean civ.
- Mesopotamia slots: These are difficult, Babylon is the big name, but Assyria is still a great option and Sumer have their "first civilization" attractive. Still Akkad under Sargon could be a great reinterpretation.
- Central/East Europe slot: Poland seems to be a new regular, but Bohemia instead of Hungary is possible.
- Central Asia slot: I think Gurkani are a great option to cover the region this time, even with two leaders one for Timurid and one for Mughal eras.
- Polynesian slot: Tonga, I hope here Firaxis show a real historical compromise instead of go again with the popular Hawaii.
- North Africa slot: Is Nubia supposed to be their representative in CIV6? I mean even Carthage was Phoenicia this time. Anyway Dihya for Berber civ would be great.
- Subsaharan slot: I mean the second slot replacing Kongo, could be for so many options, Yoruba is one of the best. For me is a shame that Zulu hoard one slot just because being one of civs originals.
- North American native slot: Also many possible options but my favorite would be the the Choctaw.
- Anglo colonial slot: I guess Firaxis want to keep Australia if Canada is supposed to be french, still I think both in the same game were redundant. There are not many really new options after these two unless that they want to add New Zealand.

Eww... I really don't like this idea of assigning slots for English colonial/french colonial/Dutch colonial/ etc as a specific condition for their inclusion. This implies that not only should every Euro that did a Colonialism get to stay in the game, they should get to be in it Twice, and that inclusion of other cultures is at the leave of whoever colonized them. I guess if you're going to play match-the-colonizer as the deciding point for who gets to be a civ, then Our Polynesian pick should be Samoa, since that fills the German slot.

I really like the Mapuche; I could see them becoming a staple civ. They fill a good geographical slot, and IMO they are much more unique than Argentina. I would sooner give the slot to Paraguay than Argentina, a country that has more ethnic and cultural continuity with the original Guarani indigenous people, and we've never had a Platine Basin civ before. This is probably coloured by my uncharitable view of Argentinian history though; it's the single settler-colonial culture that most desperately wants to just be European, and not have a distinct culture of their own, while not having much in the way of good leaders or triumphant historical moments.

If you wanted a Spanish colonial civ, what about the Philippines? An Austronesian island civ that could replace Indonesia with a bit of Spanish colonial flavor too. That pushes a Southeast Asian civ further from the mainland, so the Khmer or the Thai have more room in their own TSL, and frees up a southeast Asian slot for Burma

Oh, I would also definitely cut the Dutch. Between the Germans, the French, and a Scandinavian civ (especially if Denmark returns), they are sandwiched into a very bad TSL. Between the other surrounding options, they are a weaker nation. Their financial and colonial acumen can be gamified just as well by a British civ. Their culture and language is very similar to German. It's another step towards slimming Europe down so we can have more different civs from other continents.

 

[Ordnael]

Had to do some digging in the Civ wiki and found out Portugal was never led by D. Afonso Henriques! Our very first king! In here lies the problem of lack of variety in the way Portugal is depicted in civ games, always the trader and explorer. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion, but apparently you guys are getting tired of this. Well Portugal led by Afonso Henriques could be a conquering civ, having powerful crusaders on their side as UU. Trashing moors left and right!

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Well, in truth, this argument that, "Laurier as leader makes Canada a French colonial nation," is actually about as accurate as the option in the, "Black Civ's in the America," thread that making Obama the U.S. leader makes the civ, "Black." Plus, Laurier, while French Canadian, was not all a real advocate of any sort of French colonial heritage or institutions (except language), and his relationship with France was often quite rocky (especially, when, in WW1, Laurier, as the Opposition Leader to Borden, tried to end conscription, which Poincare viewed as an utter betrayal, even though the attempt failed). And, much Pierre-Elliott Trudeau or Jean Chretien, Laurier was one of the worst political opponents a Quebec Nationalist could have - especially, in his day, Henri Bourassa.

Maybe I should clarify what I mean. All I meant to say is it seems like Canada is supposed to sort of portray a "French post-colonial nation" in the game thanks to some of it's attributes. I was merely suggesting that if they want to portray a proper French post-colonial nation in the Americas Haiti would be the best option, as it's already been mentioned.
Sorry for the confusion and if I did offend you.

- Hispanic slot: Argentina instead of Colombia could be a nice flip.
- South American native slot: In the same way Muisca instead of Mapuche for a exchange in the continent.

I agree and would love to see this.

- Southeast Asia slots: Likely Siam would come again instead of Khmer, but the real new face could be Burma instead of Vietnam.

I'd like for Siam to return but only if they portray it more modernized. I just think having too many SEA Medieval civs is redundant and that one can at least be different.

- Central/East Europe slot: Poland seems to be a new regular, but Bohemia instead of Hungary is possible.

I know it's not technically Central Europe, but maybe Italy could fill that spot if not Austria again?

 

[Patine]

Eww... I really don't like this idea of assigning slots for English colonial/french colonial/Dutch colonial/ etc as a specific condition for their inclusion. This implies that not only should every Euro that did a Colonialism get to stay in the game, they should get to be in it Twice, and that inclusion of other cultures is at the leave of whoever colonized them. I guess if you're going to play match-the-colonizer as the deciding point for who gets to be a civ, then Our Polynesian pick should be Samoa, since that fills the German slot.

I really like the Mapuche; I could see them becoming a staple civ. They fill a good geographical slot, and IMO they are much more unique than Argentina. I would sooner give the slot to Paraguay than Argentina, a country that has more ethnic and cultural continuity with the original Guarani indigenous people, and we've never had a Platine Basin civ before. This is probably coloured by my uncharitable view of Argentinian history though; it's the single settler-colonial culture that most desperately wants to just be European, and not have a distinct culture of their own, while not having much in the way of good leaders or triumphant historical moments.

If you wanted a Spanish colonial civ, what about the Philippines? An Austronesian island civ that could replace Indonesia with a bit of Spanish colonial flavor too. That pushes a Southeast Asian civ further from the mainland, so the Khmer or the Thai have more room in their own TSL, and frees up a southeast Asian slot for Burma

Oh, I would also definitely cut the Dutch. Between the Germans, the French, and a Scandinavian civ (especially if Denmark returns), they are sandwiched into a very bad TSL. Between the other surrounding options, they are a weaker nation. Their financial and colonial acumen can be gamified just as well by a British civ. Their culture and language is very similar to German. It's another step towards slimming Europe down so we can have more different civs from other continents.

I think tthe Muisca are far undervalued as a civ than the Mapuche, and should be given serious consideration. Knowling a lot of Philippine-Canadians, they don't self-identify as having a Spanish colonial heritage as a significant part of their national identity in the way most Latin American nations do. Plus (and this is a problem for Paraguay, as well) all leaders of the Philippines as a NATION are significantly less than admirable in leadership traits, but not infamous enough to be, "villainous leaders." Both the Philippines and Paraguay have long histories of petty, venal, corrupt presidents abusing power, but no big stand-outs otherwise. The dismissiveness of the Dutch as easily disposable and redundant seems like an odd point-of-view of history. I might be persuaded to not have them, but only after a lot of bellyaching, going over the broad scope of choices, and agonizing - not just declaring it like an easy given.