Mali Delenda Est

[ArchdukeNewell]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Well, when your statements show you are biased, then I figure, if the shoe fits...

Yes, justify insulting people based exclusively on your own opinon. That makes you a competent debater. "You're stupid because I say so!" Get some real evidence and come back.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think both of you need a lesson in what 'PC' is. It isn't including something because of diversity makes a game more fun. Political Correctness is to temper statements or actions so a group won't get offended. Who is going to be offended if Civ doesn't include a 'black' Civ? African-Americans haven't gotten offended in past Civs were African civs were not included. When a black guy is included in a, for example, university for diversity, that isn't PC! That's to enhance the experience.

The inclusion is to make the game feel different when you play a different civ. It's for FUN's sake, not to make no one offended.

Please... "PC" is thrown around like it has no meaning anymore.

"Enhance experience" to one person = "politically correct garbage" to another. Expanding the argument to specific definitions of PC is not going to change anything. It's not a good thing.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And does the University of Sankore in Timbuktu count?

No.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Dis
cool info. Shows I know nothing about African history (at least not any history below the sahara). I know very little of the zulu. But it seems to me the Mali are more significant than the zulu? What are your thought on that?

The Zulu are famous in the west (especially in the Anglophone west) because they put up a fight against the colonial Britons despite an iron-age weaponry. But the Zulu, as an empire, were mostly the accomplishment of one brilliant tribal leader, Shaka, who conquered many tribes and established a central authority. Once Shaka was dead, the Zulu empire didn't stay long however.

The Mali are less well known in the west, because their only contribution to a romanticized history is Mansa Musa's golden pilgrimage to Mecca. Clearly, the Zulu win the "romanticized history" contest But the Mali (along with the two other western African Civs that preceeded and succeeded them) were much more of a builder civilization, lasted much longer, and had a far deeper indirect impact on the foreign economies.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Alexander01
How about the Reformation? That changed the entire history of the world. Far reaching consequences.

Lets also not forget the Gutenberg Bible.

[AeonOfTime]

@Alexander01: The point is not that Mali had no military, rather that they lost!

Hmmm, I guess if you want to use that as a criteria, you will have to define what winning and losing means on the scale of a civilization. Pure survival? Prowess in battle?

» The Aztecs did not do much better than the Mali, actually Hernan Cortez precipitated their downfall with only 600 men and about 20 horses...

» The germans tried to conquer the world twice, but they only tried (they survived, however)...

» The Roman empire was great, but it did collapse in a puff of corruption...

» etc...

It takes more than winning an losing to define a civilization, it is more than just a military entity. Some civilizations have come and gone, but they are remembered because they left something behind - they have built foundations that live on through time.

One side of the Mali problem is also that being european, our main focus in school and in general is rather focused on our immediate sourroundings and the other really big nations like america.

I have been in history lessons both in france and germany, and I can tell you that in my whole scholarship the only things I learned about africa is that it's the cradle of civilization, that there are a lot of people there, and that AIDs is the biggest cause of death.

You have to have lived there to actually feel the effects of civilizations like the mali. Of course you won't find as much historical data on them if you search on the net - they don't have the same infrastructure there, there are bound to be less people writing about them. And as I already mentioned, people tend to care more about their immediate surroundings.

[sophist]

Originally posted by AeonOfTime

» The Roman empire was great, but it did collapse in a puff of corruption...

Pet peeve. The Roman Empire didn't dramatically collapse, nor did it decline and fall because of decadence or corruption. That's a myth, no doubt perpetrated by the Catholic Church in order to justify the vast temporal power they acquired in the Middle Ages. The Roman Empire fell over a long period of time for many complicated reasons.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by ArchdukeNewell

No.

A convincing and well thought out argument. Clearly, you are a master debator.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by AeonOfTime
» The Aztecs did not do much better than the Mali, actually Hernan Cortez precipitated their downfall with only 600 men and about 20 horses...

The Aztecs conquered everyone else around them. The only reasons they lost to Spain = horses, guns, smallpox, allies turned against them.

Originally posted by AeonOfTime
» The germans tried to conquer the world twice, but they only tried (they survived, however)...

They would have too, if it weren't for the interference of the USA. In fact, the First World War wasn't an attempt at conquest at all, and they still held off everyone else until America tipped the balance. Then they signed an armistice rather than lose more people. In WWII, they did conquer all of Europe, North Africa, and a good deal of Russia. They came dangerously close to world domination.

Originally posted by AeonOfTime
» The Roman empire was great, but it did collapse in a puff of corruption...

A puff of corruption that lasted centuries! They were ready to fall until Diocletian revived the corpse in the 3rd Century. Rome itself didn't fall until the 5th Century, and they lingered on after that for a bit too.

Originally posted by AeonOfTime
It takes more than winning an losing to define a civilization, it is more than just a military entity. Some civilizations have come and gone, but they are remembered because they left something behind - they have built foundations that live on through time.

Yes, but if they don't have a proper military entity, they won't survive long. All I'm saying is that the military aspect is important! Why is it that when I say one thing, people assume I mean the opposite?

Originally posted by AeonOfTime
One side of the Mali problem is also that being european, our main focus in school and in general is rather focused on our immediate sourroundings and the other really big nations like america.

Well, in the USA, most history education is limited to American history of the past 200-odd years. If you want to learn about anybody else, you have to personally choose to. German schools are far superior to US schools.

Originally posted by AeonOfTime
I have been in history lessons both in france and germany, and I can tell you that in my whole scholarship the only things I learned about africa is that it's the cradle of civilization, that there are a lot of people there, and that AIDs is the biggest cause of death.

Africa is not the cradle of civilization. Mesopotamia is the cradle of civilization.

Originally posted by AeonOfTime
You have to have lived there to actually feel the effects of civilizations like the mali. Of course you won't find as much historical data on them if you search on the net - they don't have the same infrastructure there, there are bound to be less people writing about them. And as I already mentioned, people tend to care more about their immediate surroundings.

Lived where? Mali? That's probably the only place where you'll feel a Malinese influence today.

[ArchdukeNewell]

Originally posted by General Ludd
A convincing and well thought out argument. Clearly, you are a master debator.

Thank you.

[ArchdukeNewell]

Originally posted by AeonOfTime
I can tell you that in my whole scholarship the only things I learned about africa is that it's the cradle of civilization,

Africa is not the freaking cradle of civilization!!! Neither is it the kindergarten of civilization, or the elementary school, or the junior high, or the high school of civilization. It's the college dropout of civilization.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by ArchdukeNewell
It's the college dropout of civilization.

No, that would be america. Africa didn't "drop out" of civilization, it has always had and still has vibrant cultures. If anything, "kicked out" would be a more apropriate term... assuming that the 'college of civilization' is located in europe and run by european standards, anyways.

[Aro]

Mali...

[Aro]

Of course, Mansa Musa has legionaries...

[ArchdukeNewell]

Originally posted by General Ludd

No, that would be america. Africa didn't "drop out" of civilization, it has always had and still has vibrant cultures. If anything, "kicked out" would be a more apropriate term... assuming that the 'college of civilization' is located in europe and run by european standards, anyways.

America? Your vitriol against the reigning hegemon weakens your credibility. Where do you get off saying that America fell out of civilization? It's currently the most powerful civilization in the world!

Which regions of Africa aren't war-torn... dirt poor... diseased... living in mud huts... and living off the largesse of larger nations who feel sorry for them? And how often in African civilization (okay, I'll give you Mali once, for a few decades) was this not true?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by ArchdukeNewell
Which regions of Africa aren't war-torn... dirt poor... diseased... living in mud huts... and living off the largesse of larger nations who feel sorry for them?

Today's Mali and several surroundings countries. OK, Mali and Burkina Faso are dirt poor, but they've been peaceful for decades, and they have very low AIDS rates for African standards.

I'd have thrown in Senegal as well, which is better off than Mali and Burkina, but part of that country is hazardous because of a rebellion.

Surprisingly, these three countries have been under the influence of the Ghana/Mali/Songhay empires, which lasted centuries, and not decades as you put it (As an aside, if you didn't spout provocative ignorance, people might take your point more seriously).

[Aro]

Ok, I'm just kidding.
Both sides here have solid arguments, but there's a missed point. Can you build a Civilization to stand the test of time? Beggining as Mali? Or the Innuks (did I spelled correctly?)
In other words, Could Mali be a great Civ IF certain conditions were present?
Civ IS about that, too. I'm just finishing a game playing Romans and I have 280 mech infantry.
Well, Roma never had mech infantry, but IF the barbs and the bureaucracy never happened, IF the corruption and the internal fights happened in other degree, IF a lot of things...

Otherwise, we should play only scenarios, more like the real history. The Roman Empire, The Punic Wars, Mesopotamia, American Civil War, China, Japan and Korea (someone will need to mod Vietnam).

Anyway, a goal was acomplished here: I know more about Mali today than yesterday. This is very civish.

My english is very bad, I'm sorry. I hope I've made myself clear.