Why are the Zulu always in Civilization

Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course not, Protestants weren't even around at that time. Catholics don't hold a monopoly on fanaticism, Protestants can be just as over-zealous. Just look at all the problems that occured in Northern Ireland for so many years, and someone already mentioned the KKK. Protestants just happened to show up when society was much more structured, and religious intolerance wasn't as easy to get away with on as large of a scale as the Crusades were.

Both of the those examples are actually red-herrings. Their true cause is not religion, again both of those situations are simply politics utlizling religion to galvanize the common populace into acts that support the political agenda of the ruling elite.

The problems in N. Ireland began with England's partitioning it off from the rest of Ireland when they granted Ireland home rule. Subsequently, Ireland and England played upon religious themes to exacerbate the political disunity. Ireland doing so bcz they wanted to make it become so inconvenient for England to maintain N. Ireland that they'd simply surrender it to the Irish. England bcz they wanted to demonstrate the necessity of keeping N. Ireland, that is, bcz they need to protect those poor protestants living there. In truth, if N. Ireland had been awarded to Ireland back when Michael Collins negotiated for Irish home rule, then nobody would be fighting, and neither the catholics nor the protestants would even think about each other.

As to the KKK, well, this should be obvious. This resulted from an economic necessity of maintaining slavery. Politically, slavery had become unpopular in the enlightened world (largely, it should be noted, bcz of Christian activists arguing against the immorality of such a practice), hence the ruling elite of the south needed to create a system of justification for slavery that would inspire the poor white southerners into fighting for its continued existence. The easiest tool for achieving this goal was to bastardize religion into something that might look like it could justify slavery. If anyone has seriously examined White Supremacy websites, one must be struck by the entire lack of any cogent thought in regards to its use of religion. In fact, the irony of these streams of thought is that the entirety of their scriptural references derive from the Jewish Old Covenant; nothing from the Christian New Covenant. In effect then, they are using Judaism to advocate anti-semitism. It's like they converted to a new sect of Judaism, and then decided to hate other Jews who aren't part of their sect. BUT, they have, to some degree, become Jews themselves. At any rate, I digress, the point is that the fundamental reason for the KKK's existence has nothing to do with religion, religion is simply a tool which it employs to stir the emotions of the masses. The true reason for the KKK's existence is centered around its politcal attempts to maintain the economic system of slavery.
 
I think we should talk about the average air velocity of an unladen swallow.
 
I think we should talk about the average air velocity of an unladen swallow.

Well, when it got tired, it would start to fall, accelerating at a rate of 32 ft/sec/sec. We'd have to account for feather resistence, however. How much does a swallow weigh?
 
Their true cause is not religion, again both of those situations are simply politics utlizling religion to galvanize the common populace into acts that support the political agenda of the ruling elite.

It's no different than what happened during the Crusades.
 
List of civs in Civ 1:

America
Azteca
Babylon
China
Egypt
England
France
Germany
Greece
India
Mongolia
Rome
Russia
Zululand

Uh... :lol:

Okay, maybe not that many, but these were the ones I had not heard of:

Aztecs, Babylon, Greece, Mongolia, Zululand. If you can't tell, I went to an American public school. :P Anyways, my point stands. Just because a civ isn't popular or well known isn't a reason to disclude them. Perhaps it's a reason to choose another civ before that one, but not a reason to completely eliminate them. I would like to see 75+ civilizations in future Civ games. :crazyeye:

I think we should talk about the average air velocity of an unladen swallow.

African or European?
 
Both of the those examples are actually red-herrings. Their true cause is not religion, again both of those situations are simply politics utlizling religion to galvanize the common populace into acts that support [a] political agenda...
I challenge you to produce one example of a major historical movement, conquest, independence, whatever, whose chief cause and instigation was Religiously based, and doesn't fit your statement. In all my reading of history I have come to the conclusion that Religion functions as a catalyst for world events, not an instigator.
 
Name recognition, especially in the context that there really aren't any other Sub Saharan cultures with anywhere near the name recognition that the Zulus have.

With regard to Israel, that may be correct, but given the fact they seem hellbent to emulate their former oppressors and force the occupied Palestinian people into atrocious ghettos, illegally and immorally annexing their territory with settlements and opressing them with structural legislation, the fact they are denied admission into Civ is apropriate.

Since when Is morality a factor when it comes to being a leader in Civ. Look at Genghis Khan and Stalin.

Shesh :rolleyes:

Look bottom line is both sides are wrong. It's not just Israel. I watched some really disturbing cultural Palestinian music videos promoting suicide bombings. There was one where this woman goes to blow herself up and her 6 year old daughter wants to do nothing more than follow in her footsteps.

That is some seriously messed up . .. .. .. .!
 
I challenge you to produce one example of a major historical movement, conquest, independence, whatever, whose chief cause and instigation was Religiously based, and doesn't fit your statement. In all my reading of history I have come to the conclusion that Religion functions as a catalyst for world events, not an instigator.

The initial Islamic conquest of the near east certainly fits. Yes, the arabs were at a demographic high point, but it wasn't the first time. Yes, the Romans and Persians had beaten each other senseless, but the war was over, and they still had plenty enough troops to crush a normal arab raid.

Without Islam, we would have had nothing more than raids and Arab infighting, followed by one of the big boys stamping down, so yes, Religion definitely was an instigator in that case.
 
The initial Islamic conquest of the near east certainly fits. Yes, the arabs were at a demographic high point, but it wasn't the first time. Yes, the Romans and Persians had beaten each other senseless, but the war was over, and they still had plenty enough troops to crush a normal arab raid.

Without Islam, we would have had nothing more than raids and Arab infighting, followed by one of the big boys stamping down, so yes, Religion definitely was an instigator in that case.

At the risk of turning this into a religious arguement (unless it already has), Islam was resonsible for some of the biggest genocides and mass-murders ever. Sure, it united the Arabs for a while, and it contributed to Medivial science greatly, but it also introduced hatred and intolerance for other religions to the Middle East and other despicable crimes against humanity, such as the burqa. Islam united the Arabs for a while, but then they turned on each other, like Christianity, and fought each other. Not that I blame you for not knowing any of that, seeing as how true Islam is completely whitewashed and censored.
 
omg, i just had this idea. what if the israelies and palestines decided to share the land and be friends. everything would work out. why don't they do that?
 
At the risk of turning this into a religious arguement (unless it already has), Islam was resonsible for some of the biggest genocides and mass-murders ever. Sure, it united the Arabs for a while, and it contributed to Medivial science greatly, but it also introduced hatred and intolerance for other religions to the Middle East and other despicable crimes against humanity, such as the burqa. Islam united the Arabs for a while, but then they turned on each other, like Christianity, and fought each other. Not that I blame you for not knowing any of that, seeing as how true Islam is completely whitewashed and censored.

Oh for the love of God... And I thought I was an Islamophobe. You do realize that near everything in your post is flat out wrong right? Introduced hatred and intolerance? The Muslim expansion came right after a holy war between Christianity and Zoroastrianism that utterly devastated both sides. And a good deal of its success had to do with the Byzantine government's ruthless enforcement of Orthodoxy that led to Heterodox Christians prefering the second class citizenship under the Muslims rather than death under Constantinople. For that matter, pograms against Jews were damn common.

And by the way, the Burqa is not actually a muslim garment. You won't find any mention of it in the Koran, and there are plenty of nonmuslims that use it. Women are simply commanded to dress modestly, with interpretations of this differing from the Wahabbis with Burqas to muslims in Southeast Asia who dress exactly the same as everybody else.
 
Islam caused violence, yes but the religion overall helped their race and the region as someone said. However, who is to say that they are right. Put yourself into their mind. If you do not follow their faith, your going to hell. That is a great disaster then dying in a religious persons mind so conquering a land to save your faith is more humanitarian then allowing them to all go to hell.

I also have to point out some stuff about the KKK (yes I said I would stop talking about religion but here we go). The KKK used burning crossings which is more of a sign of the devil then Christianity. Also a lot of their bombings where churches (black Baptist churches for example). So they hardly represented Christianity and they really didn't profess to do their acts in the name of Christianity but more just a hatred of outsiders and a sense of racial patriotism. So to me, my religion was under attack in that situation and was the victims not the aggressors.

I watched Gandhi the other day and there was a great deal of violence between Hindus and Muslims after the British left but he preached peace and his version of both religions IMO fits better then the violence.

People want to remember the violence but they forget Islam with Gandhi being a peace-loving force or Christianity with the Abolistionists, Continental Congress, or Martin Luther King Jr helping led the human race to new levels of tolerance and freedom.

BTW, I do love how religion is implemented in the game. The only thing I wish they would add would be ways to get rid of religion through ethnic cleansing or something. I know it was evil but civilizations did it in the past. (Also make it unpopular in the modern eras).

This has been a good discussion.
 
Oh for the love of God... And I thought I was an Islamophobe. You do realize that near everything in your post is flat out wrong right? Introduced hatred and intolerance? The Muslim expansion came right after a holy war between Christianity and Zoroastrianism that utterly devastated both sides. And a good deal of its success had to do with the Byzantine government's ruthless enforcement of Orthodoxy that led to Heterodox Christians prefering the second class citizenship under the Muslims rather than death under Constantinople. For that matter, pograms against Jews were damn common.

And by the way, the Burqa is not actually a muslim garment. You won't find any mention of it in the Koran, and there are plenty of nonmuslims that use it. Women are simply commanded to dress modestly, with interpretations of this differing from the Wahabbis with Burqas to muslims in Southeast Asia who dress exactly the same as everybody else.

Islam was fairly tolerate to Christian and Jews (outside the Battle of Badr where Muhammad murdered Jews in a caravan for not accepting the Koran), however Islam was ruthless to people that were not of the "Abrahamic" faiths. That is why by 1000AD, with the help of the Christians, nearly every religion not called Christianity, Islam, or Judaism had been wiped out in nearly all the lands West of India and North of the Sahara Desert. (this includes all of Europe).

As for Israel, I would imagine you would want their civilization more based on their Ancient Civilization then their modern state. I imagine you would have David or Solomon as a leader. Probable special unit could be the slinger to replace the archer or axemen. Special Building could be Storehouse (Replaces Granery) and gives extra bonus for Sheep (Israelites where known for being great shepherds). I also thought of a building to replace the barracks or walls as well.
 
Islam caused violence, yes but the religion overall helped their race and the region as someone said.

What race, man? There are no races within our species. Unfortunately I don't have the reference at hand, but there's been a study showing that it's perfectly possible for two Danish to be more genetically different between each other than they were compared to a guy in Zimbabwe.
 
Islam caused violence, yes but the religion overall helped their race and the region as someone said. However, who is to say that they are right. Put yourself into their mind. If you do not follow their faith, your going to hell. That is a great disaster then dying in a religious persons mind so conquering a land to save your faith is more humanitarian then allowing them to all go to hell.

I also have to point out some stuff about the KKK (yes I said I would stop talking about religion but here we go). The KKK used burning crossings which is more of a sign of the devil then Christianity. Also a lot of their bombings where churches (black Baptist churches for example). So they hardly represented Christianity and they really didn't profess to do their acts in the name of Christianity but more just a hatred of outsiders and a sense of racial patriotism. So to me, my religion was under attack in that situation and was the victims not the aggressors.
This is flatly absurd. You are very clearly twisting history to your means here, but that aside, it remains true that the KKK targeted ethnic minorities, homosexuals, CATHOLICS, and JEWS. They are and always have been a protestant hate group, and that is impossible to deny. Whatever illogical and unsupportable claims you may make about the implications of cross-burning, it is clear who they were and who they hated. They committed religious persecution.

Let's not forget the long tradition of anti-Catholicism in the United States. "Fearing the end of time, some American Protestants who believed they were God's chosen people, went so far as to claim that the Catholic Church was the Whore of Babylon in the Book of Revelation.[15] The resulting "nativist" movement, which achieved prominence in the 1840s, was whipped into a frenzy of anti-Catholicism that led to mob violence, the burning of Catholic property, and the killing of Catholics.[16]"
 
What race, man? There are no races within our species. Unfortunately I don't have the reference at hand, but there's been a study showing that it's perfectly possible for two Danish to be more genetically different between each other than they were compared to a guy in Zimbabwe.
More to the point, there is definitely no Islamic "race". This guy isn't exactly a scholar, though.
 
What race, man? There are no races within our species. Unfortunately I don't have the reference at hand, but there's been a study showing that it's perfectly possible for two Danish to be more genetically different between each other than they were compared to a guy in Zimbabwe.

This is not true. I think you are confusing sub species and racial catagorization. Humans do not have enough deviation to be considered different subspieces, though this isn't a popular area of research, mostly due to political reasons. And it's certainly possible you could reasonably assert that some very isolated groups like the pygmies have deviated enough from the human norm to be a subspecies, but anyway, races certainly exist in humans. There are distinct anatomical and genetic markers for many races. Where you might be confused is the fact that people very commonly have mixed heritages. What with the Romans, and Empires in general throughout history taking slaves and hauling them around, and breeding, prostitution, and general human promiscuity (especially in urban areas), it's nearly impossible to be a "pure bred" race, in fact I doubt such a thing exists in the modern world outside of isolated tribes.
 
This is not true. I think you are confusing sub species and racial catagorization. Humans do not have enough deviation to be considered different subspieces, though this isn't a popular area of research, mostly due to political reasons. And it's certainly possible you could reasonably assert that some very isolated groups like the pygmies have deviated enough from the human norm to be a subspecies, but anyway, races certainly exist in humans. There are distinct anatomical and genetic markers for many races. Where you might be confused is the fact that people very commonly have mixed heritages. What with the Romans, and Empires in general throughout history taking slaves and hauling them around, and breeding, prostitution, and general human promiscuity (especially in urban areas), it's nearly impossible to be a "pure bred" race, in fact I doubt such a thing exists in the modern world outside of isolated tribes.

That might be true. I don't know biology very much to be able to evaluate that rigorously. AFAIK, race in the biological sense does mean sub species and the study I was refering to (I will look for the reference, if I can't find it now I'll talk to a biologist friend and he'll tell me) points the same thing you said.
Humans do not have enough deviation to be considered different subspieces

There certainly are races if you regard them as social constructs, but that is way far from a biological point of view. For example, the idea of a caucasian (or white) race has little or nothing to do with the origin of someone's genes. In the end of the XIX century, the so called caucasian race was divided into the slavic, baltic, aryan, etc. However, all those definitions are not based on any genetic differences, but rather on social and political contexts.

We are all mutts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom