Why are the Zulu always in Civilization

[Badtz Maru]

I'm interested in hearing about the terrible deeds of Lincoln. Please back up your statements =)

Let's not forget suspending habeas corpus and imprisoning over 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial. Think Guantanamo, but on a much larger scale and it's all US citizens being hidden away.

 

[GrayingGamer]

I hope that's not the best you two have got.

 

[Kesshi]

If lying to the people to start a war which will result in more American casualties than all other American wars combined (not just past, but past and up to the current preset) and locking american citizens up without due process isn't enough, then there will be no way to convince you to change your opinion of Lincoln. Pardon me, as I think I've spoken enough about this off-topic of an off-topic topic, I'm going to let this issue rest here.

 

[thekaje]

Also let's not forget that "unlawful to leave the union" was a flat out lie. Lincoln lied to the country to keep the southern states in the union. Lincoln declared war to keep the southern states in the union, perhaps because he thought it was the right thing. But the road to hell is paved in good intentions. Regardless, his actions were contemptable.

If lying to the people to start a war which will result in more American casualties than all other American wars combined

I don't know if "lie" is the word you want to use here. This isn't a there-are-WMD-in-Iraq kind of "lie". Everybody knows there's no "law" keeping states from leaving the union, but that's really a trivial point, isn't it? The point is that no one was deceived by this, it was obviously a rhetorical flourish, and the "legality" was hardly the motivation behind the war in the first place--or the second place, or the ninety-ninth place.

So he took a philosophical tack with which you disagree: that the abolition of slavery and the maintenance of the supreme authority of the federal government were both important enough to go to war over. Fine. But that isn't a "lie".

 

[xchen08]

For that matter, the question of whether it was legal to leave the Union unilaterally is a complex one that certainly doesn't have a simple answer of "yes." Lincoln clearly believed it was illegal, as did many other people on both sides. It's just that those Southerners believed its illegality didn't matter in the face of their "natural right" to revolution. I won't bother to debate the whole point here since it is an academic question that is still hotly contested, but really, calling it a "lie" by Lincoln is completely unjustified.

 

[GrayingGamer]

So detaining eighteen thousand citizens (many who were likely to disrupt northern troop movements) for under a year is terrible, eh?

What about the multiple hundreds of thousands of slaves that had been far worse than detained for multiple generations?

What about the fact that the constitution allows for Lincoln's actions in the case of rebellion, which is what was occurring?

You say he lied to start the war, but that sounds like a gross simplification of the actual situation. Multiple states had seceded between the time he was elected and the time he was inaugurated, he wasn't even on most of the ballots in the south - the country was already divided, the south was already gone.

All that was left was to either let them go or fight it out. If the north did nothing the U.S. was basically done - the economies of both factions would suffer terribly, and the long term prospects of the federal government would be nil (since anyone who disagreed with federal laws could just leave the union and be done with it). And the south would continue to exist on the blood and sweat of a totally oppressed people.

I haven't met anyone who thinks of Lincoln or other "great" American leaders as all "candy and rainbows," obviously reality is complicated and leadership of a country is even more so. But vilifying them just blows my mind.

When you use words like "horrible atrocities," I expect you to be referring to events like those enacted by the Khmer Rouge (millions of deaths), or Stalin with the Gulags (millions of deaths), or Hitler and his concentration camps (millions of deaths).

What you have described could be "constitutionally questionable," and I wouldn't mind seeing that debated, but you were more interested in spewing propaganda.

 

[phungus420]

It's just your classical good ol' boy or Anarchist propaganda.

Lincoln had every right to hold the Union together, there is no clause for Secession in the US Constitution, and in fact the President has the right to suspend Habeas Corpus durring rebellion. Which he did, and rightfully so.

Of course the good ol' boys are pissed about this because they still want their negro slaves, and the Anarchists hate him because one of the outcomes of the civil war was to increase the power of the Federal Government. But the rhetoric here is outlandish they are using. Still though it's common for these good ol' boys and anarchists to do so, reality and/or ethical fairness are not concepts they find relevant.

 

[mechaerik]

Section 9:......
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

phungus is correct. Although I am personally against this (I am neither an anarchist or a "good ol' boy"), because the writ of Habeas corpus is a right that should not be infringed so easily.

 

[Perfxion]

Big problem with that line of thinking is that for that writ to be upheld, it needs a fully stable and functional government to protect those rights. When said government is now functional, nor stable. It takes away some simple rights that can't be protected when the document it is written on isn't protected.

As for why America is so highly rated, how many other countries currently, or for the last 150 years, can have 2 billion a week in wars and yet be second hand news to hollywood drama flooding the world news. Plus the culture of America is almost a world culture. Our excesses spill over globally. Only England produced any talent to have a global impact to the level of Michael Jackson.

Without staying off topic too much, how is Lincoln worst than W. Bush when Lincoln tried to unite a divided country, and Bush divided a united country? Don't forget to add that 16 is one of the top 3 most loved presidents ever, yet for 43 is currently one of the lowest rated ever.

As for why Zulu is in the game: In the biggest market for this game(The U.S), the name Zulu has a brand and market share to it, plus they have a leader to it. The Vandals, to the western world, are the complete opposite of a civilization. Hence why "vandalism" is a crime.

 

[thekaje]

Bush divided a united country

lol - has the revisionism of the Clinton era begun already?

 

[cardgame]

Most inventions have complex histories and multiple contributors but just a couple things I recognise(I don't have time to look up the items on that list) as being "invented by america":

Computers - not sure
WWW - yes, the US Military in fact, DEFINITELY AMERICA
Airplanes - yes?
Submarines - yes, but not as we know them today, that credit goes to the Germans.
Electricity - yes
Television - yes
Radio - no not sure
Toilet paper - far too late
Microscope - absolutely not
Elevators - yes
Telegraph - yes
Soda - yes
Traffic light - not sure, I think that one may have been British
Superconductor - not sure

90% of of tech was done by america? You massively overstate the USA's contribution. What you just said is so factually incorrect it defies belief how you could arrive there. There's no arguing the USA contributed hugely, but what you just did was blow off most of those talented individuals who worked to give you those things on your list.

Nationalism is foul.

Bolding is mine.
I'm also not sure on the microscope.

 

[Perfxion]

lol - has the revisionism of the Clinton era begun already?

I am going from 9/12/2009 when Bush had a 98% approval rating and a united country that all was behind the flag. Yet, by the spring of 2003 when half the country did not believe him for justifying a war in Iraq. And openly protested his "W.M.D" stories.

The country was not united nor perfect under Clinton, but they sure as hell didn't openly protest any foreign policy military strikes he ordered.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I also found it offensive that all Civilopedia could talk about Christianity and Islam was violence and sects. In fact the entire Church of Nativity background is wrong. Since when did Protestants or any other Christian sect outside the Catholics invade and conquer Bethlehem/Israel in the name of their religious sect?

The only time the Christians invade Israel was during the Crusades which were just as much politically motivated as religiously (hence seeing marriages between Muslims and Christians and Muslims nations sided with Christians against other Muslims and vice versa).

However, they conveniently left out Buddhist and Taoist murdering Christian and Muslim missionaries in China and Japan or the Boxer Rebellion. Buddhism and Hinduism has its share of violence and sects to but Civilopedia makes it sound like Christianity or Islam are just violent annoying religions.

There have been acts of violence committed for religious reasons by Buddhists, Confucians and Taoists, but compared to the consistent murdering by Christians, Muslims and (when in a position to do so) Jews, that is so insignificant it is irrelevant.

 

[xchen08]

I am going from 9/12/2009 when Bush had a 98% approval rating and a united country that all was behind the flag. Yet, by the spring of 2003 when half the country did not believe him for justifying a war in Iraq. And openly protested his "W.M.D" stories.

The country was not united nor perfect under Clinton, but they sure as hell didn't openly protest any foreign policy military strikes he ordered.

Don't remember Somalia or Kosovo do you? I guess this is exactly the kind of revision of the Clinton era that he was talking about. Don't particularly like defending Bush, but Dear God, some of his enemies are idiotic.

 

[thekaje]

http://www.carolmoore.net/photos/balkans-photos.html

 

[Perfxion]

Dozens to a couple hundred people is hardly anything compared to the 100s of thousands to millions protest me with Iraq. It isn't revisionist history, its facts that MORE people cared and hated Bush for his war.

 

[Badtz Maru]

So detaining eighteen thousand citizens (many who were likely to disrupt northern troop movements) for under a year is terrible, eh?

How many were likely to actually do anything out of the 18,000, and how many were just expressing an opinion that was popular among the majority in some places? And they weren't just "detained" (a lovely euphemism for imprisonment, which was pretty awful in the 19th century) - many were sentenced to hang under martial law without a true trial. You can read several detailed accounts of the legal issues involved in what Lincoln did here - http://www.etymonline.com/cw/habeas.htm. Entire states were put under martial law.

I'm no defender of the Confederacy, and the Union was definitely the lesser of two evils in that conflict, but I believe that Lincoln behaved as a tyrant during the Civil War. Not a proud time in our history, and just because one side was more evil does not make the actions of the other right.

 

[phungus420]

I'm no defender of the Confederacy, and the Union was definitely the lesser of two evils in that conflict, but I believe that Lincoln behaved as a tyrant during the Civil War. Not a proud time in our history, and just because one side was more evil does not make the actions of the other right.

No, but the constitution allowing for the the suspension of Habeus Corpus durring rebellion, and the fact the war was about slavery*, makes "Lincoln's Evils" irrelevant.


*(queue the "The Civil War wasn't about slavery" liars)

 

[Badtz Maru]

No, but the constitution allowing for the the suspension of Habeus Corpus durring rebellion, and the fact the war was about slavery, makes "Lincoln's Evils" irrelevant.

How are they irrelevant? Do you believe that anything is permissible during war if your opponent is eviller than you? Yes, the Constitution said he could do that, but it did not require that he do so. It did not require that he arrest people simply for being politically opposed to the war, or to hang people who were only guilty of talking about disrupting troop movements. Just because something is allowed does not mean it is condoned.

The Constitution is imperfect - it does, in certain circumstance, allow the President almost unlimited power, but the leader should be responsible in how they use it, and Lincoln was abused that power. It could have been worse - the Constitution obviously would have allowed him to hang even more people, at least how it was being interpreted at the time. What if Lincoln had asked that all Confederate sympathizers be hung under martial law? Would that be "irrelevant" since the war was about slavery? If not, where do you draw the line?

 

[phungus420]

It's irrelevant because it doesn't matter.