Mali Delenda Est

[ArchdukeNewell]

Originally posted by Spiffor
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.

Yeah, that reassures me very much on Africa's greatness and cultural superiority to the rest of the world, as you seem to be claiming.

Originally posted by Spiffor
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 (If you didn't spout provocative ignorance, people might take your point more seriously).

It's called hyperbole, not provocative ignorance. And in any case, they may have existed for centuries, but they were only a reasonable facsimile of a power for decades. Before they were destroyed by Morocco! That was my point.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by ArchdukeNewell


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!

It's an anti-civilization. It has commodities in place of culture, and there is nothing civilized about brute force.

And how often in African civilization (okay, I'll give you Mali once, for a few decades) was this not true?

For the entirety of history up untill a few hundred years ago.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by ArchdukeNewell
Yeah, that reassures me very much on Africa's greatness and cultural superiority to the rest of the world, as you seem to be claiming.

I never claimed such a thing.
I corrected you on your gross and false generalization. You seem to believe that all of Africa is a starving hellhole full of war, disease and despair. Reality is quite a bit more complex.

It's called hyperbole, not provocative ignorance. And in any case, they may have existed for centuries, but they were only a reasonable facsimile of a power for decades. Before they were destroyed by Morocco! That was my point.

Well, a few Spaniards destroyed the Aztecs and the Incas and you call them a worthy Civ. The Spaniards never managed the same feat against Morocco, but when the Moroccans destroy the Songhay, you claim that it proves the African inferiority.

I fail to see any logic in that.

If you treated the Aztecs and the Incas as pseudo-Civs not worthy of inclusion in the game, you'd have at least the benefit of being consistent.

[ArchdukeNewell]

Originally posted by General Ludd
It's an anti-civilization. It has commodities in place of culture, and there is nothing civilized about brute force.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not culture. The rest of the world disagrees with you. American culture pervades every culture of this earth.

What are we talking on at this instant? The Internet, an America wonder.

The Manhattan Project, the Apollo Program, the United Nations! Sound familiar?

Originally posted by General Ludd
For the entirety of history up untill a few hundred years ago.

Okay. Give some specifics. Show us a time when they were on par with Classical Rome, or Tang Dynasty China or post-Napoleonic Europe. Can't do that? I could go on but it would embarrass you.

Were there times when Africa wasn't as pathatic as they are now? Probably. But there was never a time when they were a scientific, military, cultural, religious, economic, social, diplomatic anything powerhouse.

You point to one corner of a vast continent for a small time period and use it for an excuse as to why Africa is as good as the rest of the world. Not going to cut it.

[ArchdukeNewell]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I never claimed such a thing.
I corrected you on your gross and false generalization. You seem to believe that all of Africa is a starving hellhole full of war, disease and despair. Reality is quite a bit more complex.

How so? Give me real proof that any part of Africa isn't either disease-ridden, war-torn, impoverished, currently committing genocide on its own people or neighbors or has some other horrific problem.

Originally posted by Spiffor
Well, a few Spaniards destroyed the Aztecs and the Incas and you call them a worthy Civ. The Spaniards never managed the same feat against Morocco, but when the Moroccans destroy the Songhay, you claim that it proves the African inferiority. I fail to see any logic in that. If you treated the Aztecs and the Incas as pseudo-Civs not worthy of inclusion in the game, you'd have at least the benefit of being consistent.

The Spanish destroyed a decadent and declining Aztec empire, who, if you want to include predecessors, had been dominating their continent for hundreds and hundreds of years. Or would you call the Pyramid of the Sun inferior to an Ivory Mask? The Pyramid of the Sun is larger in volume than the Great Pyramid at Giza.

The Visigoths destroyed Rome, does that mean Rome shouldn't be included? The point is, they were past their prime. Mali was destroyed at the height of its power, which as far as I can determine, included trading in gold and being a Muslim puppet in west Africa.

In any case, why are we having this discussion when my point about the Ottomans still hasn't been addressed!

[Aro]

The internet, an American Wonder???

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by ArchdukeNewell
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not culture. The rest of the world disagrees with you. American culture pervades every culture of this earth.

It's 'only' been a power for less then a century, and seems to be in decline already.

Originally posted by ArchdukeNewell
What are we talking on at this instant? The Internet, an America wonder.

The Manhattan Project, the Apollo Program, the United Nations! Sound familiar?

How about the UN's predecessor? It might have been replaced by it but sure as hell was no american project. The US didn't even enter it.

[Aro]

Originally posted by GeoModder


It's 'only' been a power for less then a century, and seems to be in decline already.

[GeoModder]

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by ArchdukeNewell
How so? Give me real proof that any part of Africa isn't either disease-ridden, war-torn, impoverished, currently committing genocide on its own people or neighbors or has some other horrific problem.

Look for example at Dakar. Sure it's poor, and it has the problem linked to big and poor cities, but it's nothing near genocide-worthy "horrible". Unless you consider the caribbean countries, and most of south American metropolises to be "horrible" as well.
You'll get a similar picture in most African capitals, except for the southern part of Africa (AIDS ridden), and the countries experiencing a civil war.

The Spanish destroyed a decadent and declining Aztec empire, who, if you want to include predecessors, had been dominating their continent for hundreds and hundreds of years. Or would you call the Pyramid of the Sun inferior to an Ivory Mask? The Pyramid of the Sun is larger in volume than the Great Pyramid at Giza.

Mali was destroyed at the height of its power, which as far as I can determine, included trading in gold and being a Muslim puppet in west Africa.

What makes you sure that Songhay was destroed at the height of its power? Please explain me.

In any case, why are we having this discussion when my point about the Ottomans still hasn't been addressed!

1. This thread is about Mali, not about the pet peeves of individual posters (a much stronger case could be made about the Babylonians, and I'm surprised that no Babs-supporter came in already)
2. If you weren't so adamantly bigoted towards Mali, maybe your other points wouldn't fall under the radar. As it is, your position about the Mali is too big a blip on the radar, and your other positions are made invisible by it.

[Aro]

I'm a Babs-supporter.
But I'm a Mali supporter too!


About the Babylonians, I'll be expecting for the first expansion pack.

[Imran Siddiqui]

We already have plenty of civs like that. The point is not that Mali had no military, rather that they lost!

I wasn't aware that Rome still existed as a country. Could it be because they... oh, I dunno... lost?

Didn't you just say you DIDN'T like to see militaristic civs? Then why are you so adamant that the rape/loot/plunder Spanish civ should go in? Probably because I said they shouldn't.

Because they had an influence on the world! When did I say I didn't like miltaristic Civs? Are you trying to put words in my mouth because you can't defend your arguments?

I said it would nice to have a builder civ and not ALL the civs be militaristic.

[qThe Incas put gold on their world market, trading with civilizations all over the Pre-Columbian world. I don't doubt that Mali had gold or traded, only that I don't think it made as much difference as you are trying to say that it did.[/q]

'Their' world market. It was no where near as sophisticated as the world market in EurAsia/Africa. The "New World" didn't share the same value of gold. Therefore they didn't have as much influence. OTOH, Europe, Asia, Africa valued gold and Mali at one point held half of the world's gold out on the market. That made it a center of trade.

And here I was thinking that a bias was some personal and unreasoned judgment and prejudice, and I thought prejudice was pre-judging.

Yep, it is. And you are guilty of it . Just because you can make an argument out of it after you've judged doesn't make you any less biased.

The meaning of PC has been watered down. What it currently means is trying to include everybody to make them happy. In case you hadn't noticed, every previous Civ game HAS had at least one sub-Saharan African civ. Why? To be PC!

Diversity ISN'T PC! Jeez, Louise! PC is and has always been saying or doing things not to offend people. Only people with no concept of PC, or who wish to use it to shout people down (like people used "COMMUNIST" in the 50s) define it as promoting diversity. This leads to idiotic assertions like Affirmative Action is merely PC.

I only wrote about 6 civs because I was TRYING to be brief. If you really want me to write out why ALL 18 civs are diverse, then I will be pleased to humor you. For now, in the interests of brevity, I hope this suffices.

America - current global hegemon, Sid is American
Arabs - Islam, great military and cultural strength
Aztecs - token Mesoamerican Civ, big pyramids (better than Mali), large empire
Babylon - birthplace of civilization, science, religion, etc.
China - longest semi-continuous world civ
Egypt - Pyramids, very long-lived civ, culture
England - former hegemon, dominated the globe, English language, sun never set on it
France - cultural hegemon, Napoleon, Escargot
Germany - almost took over the world twice
Greece - influenced all of western culture, democracy, Alexander
India - great longevity, Hinduism, great culture
Japan - another almost took over the world civ., Shinto
Mali - token Sub-Saharan African civ
Mongolia - largest world empire
Persia - influenced proto-Judeo-Christian culture, big empire
Rome - influence still felt today, technology, culture, etc.
Russia - really big, massive continent spanning
Spain - kinda iffy but they needed an 18th civ

Yeah, no bias there! You dig yourself a bigger and bigger hole.

And Spain is kinda iffy?! They deserve to be in over Germany and Japan at least.

As for 'distinct' civs. America and Britain have a similar culture. As do Greece & Rome. Babylon & Arabs are basically the same peoples just in different periods of history. China, Japan & Mongolia have a similar culture. (Note, 'similar' doesn't mean the same.. before people yell and scream)

Sorry, Mali shows it belongs.

How about the Reformation? That changed the entire history of the world. Far reaching consequences.

Yes, and the German state built that? I thought that was more about a German (Luther) and a Swiss (Calvin), and resulted in half of Germany fighting the other half.

I mean WW2 changed the history of the world, but Japan isn't in the game because of that (at least I hope not! )!

----

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.

When your statements show you are biased... when the shoe fits..

"Enhance experience" to one person = "politically correct garbage" to another.

Yes, and you've amply demonstrated your lack of ability to bend your mind around what terms actually mean.

See, I can be just as dismissive and pithy. It ain't no big skill.

----

As an aside, if you didn't spout provocative ignorance

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by GeoModder

It's 'only' been a power for less then a century, and seems to be in decline already.

Decline? America is more advanced than they've ever been in the past. Just because your only osource of historicl information is Newsweek doesn't make your argument have any more weight. Declined compared to what?

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by GeoModder [/SIZ
How about the UN's predecessor? It might have been replaced by it but sure as hell was no american project. The US didn't even enter it.

The League of Nations was Woodrow Wilson's brainchild. It failed because the USA wasn't in it. Thanks for proving my point for me!

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by ArchdukeNewell


Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not culture. The rest of the world disagrees with you. American culture pervades every culture of this earth.

American commodities pervade every culture on earth.

American culture is hard enough to find in the USA itself, let alone anywhere else.

But there was never a time when they were a scientific, military, cultural, religious, economic, social, diplomatic anything powerhouse.

People have given you numerous examples, but you've ignored them all.

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by Alexander01
Decline? America is more advanced than they've ever been in the past. Just because your only osource of historicl information is Newsweek doesn't make your argument have any more weight. Declined compared to what?

Yes, but so is about every other nation on this planet too at this moment.

And since you have no idea where and how I get my information and conclusions, kindly stop pretending you know. Newsweek!

But to answer your question, there is sure a 'decline' in american power due to the fact that new worldpowers are coming up, so proportionally seen the US has to 'share' power with more players to say the least. Power been defined then more then military advanced hardware, mind you.

Originally posted by Alexander01
The League of Nations was Woodrow Wilson's brainchild. It failed because the USA wasn't in it. Thanks for proving my point for me!

Check your own historic sources. What has the US decision of not joining the League to do with it's failure? The country went more and more in isolation in regard to the outside world during the time between world wars, and had no interest in the petty issues of the European colonial powers at that time. The League sure became powerless over time, but I fail to see the reason in America's absence for the simple fact that European failures to halt illegimate expansion in Africa was one of the core reasons.