Does Mali Deserve To Be In Civ IV?

[Commy]

It seems their is big debate on the prejudice of the "Western civilizations" vs. "Eastern civilizations"...

It appears that some here think there are too many Western civs, and not enough Eastern civs...I'm sorry, but let's look at the original civ....7 of the 16 civs were in the Eastern part of the world, and that doesn't include Mediterranean...as far as I'm concerned, that's about half...with the Conquests expansion, 15 of the 31 civs are from either Africa, Asia, or the Mid-East...again, about half...

Look at all the powerful countries today...China, Japan, and India are about the only Eastern nations that have large influence on the world...on the other hand, the West includes nations like the US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, not to mention other European nations' influence through colonies, especially by the Spanish, Portugese, and Dutch...

I'm not saying the Eastern part of the world is weak, but the West is by far more advanced and industrialized. Half the worlds economy is solely in the hands of the US and the EU. The most influential languages in the world are mostly European...Most of the business world uses English, many nations, including African ones, use French, a good amount of South and Central Americans use Spanish and Portugese...more people in the world would like to learn English than Chinese, or Japanese, or Indian...

In addition, a good number of these European languages are based of Latin, which by the way, was created and reformed by Mediterranean civilizations...

Let's look at warfare as well...there are many instances of conflicts between "Western" and "Eastern" civilizations...there were a few small triumphs for the East in battles, particularly in gaining independence from colonial empires...but in the end, in almost every major conflict, Western civilizations won...Spain drove off the Moors, the Austrians halted the Ottomans...examples can even be seen in the last century...the US crushed Japan, Korea, and Iraq...the US crushed Vietnam as well, but unfortunately, American press prevented the US from fully erradicating the communists...

I am no history buff, but I'm having a hard time of thinking of any war (other than colonial revolutions) where in the end, an Eastern civilization actually won against a Western civilization...the Japanese probably came closest, and even managed to defeat a Russian navy, but all the same, the West eventually won...

So maybe some Western civs don't deserve to be in the limited seats of playable civs...the celts and vikings, while notable, were never that influential on a large scale...on the contrary, neither was the Zulu or the Hittites, both Eastern civs...for every Western civ you name that doesn't deserve a slot in civ, there is another Eastern civ that doesn't deserve a slot either...

[Commy]

To be on topic, though, I don't think the Mali deserve a spot in the game...you want a "black African civ", you got Egypt, so be happy...on the other hand, I don't think any Indian tribes on the Americas deserve a spot either, nor do I think every single European nation deserves a spot...

If I had to make a list of civs, it'd be this...

1. Rome
2. Greece
3. Egypt
4. Persia
5. Arabia
6. Babylonia
7. Russia
8. England
9. Germany
10. France
11. China
12. Japan
13. India
14. Korea
15. America
16. Aztec
17. Ottomans
18. Spain

It probably isn't perfect, but doesn't have puny civs like the celts or the Hittites...by the way, this list has 2 mediterranean, 5 mid-eastern, 5 european, 4 Asian, and 2 American, so don't complain about not enough Eastern civs...

[Imran Siddiqui]

you want a "black African civ", you got Egypt, so be happy

Aroo? Even if that was the criteria, something tells me that you've never been to Egypt.

Anyway, it isn't a Western Civ vs. Eastern Civ. It was about the prejudices of Westerners towards Eastern Civs. That's why molly brought up the point about Japan being in Civ for God knows how long. And why really? The Japanese were powerful in the 20th Century, were integral in WW2, and became economically powerful in the late 70s to present. The Japanese, like the Americans, were a powerful 20th Century civ. Otherwise, their history is largely overshadowed by what happened on the Asian mainland.

However, Japan has been in it since the beginning because we Westerners think samurai are cool and have short attention spans in history. Frankly, IMO, the Mongolians are a far more influential civ than the Japanese, at least on their effects on the world (even though the Mongolians aren't what we'd call a 'builder civ').

It is this view that has clouded our eyes as to what civilizations in Africa achieved, because a few centuries later, they were taken by Europeans with guns.

The most interesting part of this discussion, however, IMO is the fact that many think the Malinese are undeserving, but Aztecs are. Why do the Aztecs make your list? How are they more deserving then Mali? Because they made a ziggurat pyramid?

[Xorbon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That's why molly brought up the point about Japan being in Civ for God knows how long.

I must be God, because I know. The Japanese were added to the game in Civ 2. The original 14 civs were: Aztecs, America, England, France, Germany, Russia, Rome, Greece, Egypt, Babylon, Zulus, Mongols, India, and China.

The most interesting part of this discussion, however, IMO is the fact that many think the Malinese are undeserving, but Aztecs are. Why do the Aztecs make your list? How are they more deserving then Mali? Because they made a ziggurat pyramid?

Finally! Somebody else mentions the double-standard of people saying the Aztecs are worthy, but not Mali! (I mentioned it a while back in the 'Mali Delenda Est' thread, but nobody responded.)

[GeoModder]

Representative all the way!

[Stile4aly]

Mali may not be well known to your average person, but until the mid 15th century, the Malinese were on a technological, educational, and wealth equivalent with their European and Near Eastern contemporaries. I agree that Mali is a better choice than Zululand as a nation for inclusion in the game, but I also agree that it is being included as a balance to the overload of European and Middle Eastern civs.

[Stile4aly]

It appears that some here think there are too many Western civs, and not enough Eastern civs...I'm sorry, but let's look at the original civ....7 of the 16 civs were in the Eastern part of the world, and that doesn't include Mediterranean...as far as I'm concerned, that's about half...with the Conquests expansion, 15 of the 31 civs are from either Africa, Asia, or the Mid-East...again, about half...

Given that about 2/3 the world's population lives outside Europe and North America, I would say that the rest of the world is underrepresented in Civ.

Look at all the powerful countries today...China, Japan, and India are about the only Eastern nations that have large influence on the world...on the other hand, the West includes nations like the US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, not to mention other European nations' influence through colonies, especially by the Spanish, Portugese, and Dutch...

Keep in mind that the only reason that more Eastern nations are not more influential is that they've had their legs cut out from underneath them for centuries. This was self imposed in some cases (the Ottomans plundered the wealth of their empire at the expense of the economic, scientific, and educational development of their people) but in many cases was also imposed from the outside by European nations which plundered the wealth of their colonies. I think classifying India as a powerful country is something of a misnomer. It is a country with a large population and nuclear weapons, but most of the country is in abject poverty. China is in a slightly better situation, but only Japan would really be an Eastern equivalent to a modern western country.

I'm not saying the Eastern part of the world is weak, but the West is by far more advanced and industrialized. Half the worlds economy is solely in the hands of the US and the EU. The most influential languages in the world are mostly European...Most of the business world uses English, many nations, including African ones, use French, a good amount of South and Central Americans use Spanish and Portugese...more people in the world would like to learn English than Chinese, or Japanese, or Indian...

You're assuming that the way things are today are the way things have always been. The most influential language in business for hundreds of years was Arabic, as the Arabs controlled the silk roads to Asia. The most powerful military in the world was Mongolian. The distribution of modern language is a direct result of colonization. How many native languages were wiped out in South and Central America because of the imposition of Spanish and French on the natives?

Let's look at warfare as well...there are many instances of conflicts between "Western" and "Eastern" civilizations...there were a few small triumphs for the East in battles, particularly in gaining independence from colonial empires...but in the end, in almost every major conflict, Western civilizations won...Spain drove off the Moors, the Austrians halted the Ottomans...examples can even be seen in the last century...the US crushed Japan, Korea, and Iraq...the US crushed Vietnam as well, but unfortunately, American press prevented the US from fully erradicating the communists...

You're delusional about Vietnam, and revisionist about Korea and Japan. The US crushed Japan after a war of attrition that took a great toll, and in the end only because of the atomic bomb. If the US had to invade the Japanese home islands, the war would have lasted another 2 years and resulted in millions more dead. The US did succeed against a vastly inferior North Korean army, but when we found the Chinese waiting for us at the Yalu River, we were the ones in full retreat. Vietnam was a nightmare, and was an unwinnable war, and not because of the press.

I am no history buff

Clearly

, but I'm having a hard time of thinking of any war (other than colonial revolutions) where in the end, an Eastern civilization actually won against a Western civilization...the Japanese probably came closest, and even managed to defeat a Russian navy, but all the same, the West eventually won...

The Fall of Constantinople, the Fall of Jerusalem, the conquests of Tariq Ibn Zaid, the expulsion of the British from China, the Carthagian victories over Rome, Hannibal's march, the Mongolian conquests... need I go on?

So maybe some Western civs don't deserve to be in the limited seats of playable civs...the celts and vikings, while notable, were never that influential on a large scale...on the contrary, neither was the Zulu or the Hittites, both Eastern civs...for every Western civ you name that doesn't deserve a slot in civ, there is another Eastern civ that doesn't deserve a slot either...

The end result is that realistically, you can't make a game large enough to incorporate every civilization that ever existed, so you have to consider influence. We are biased when it comes to influence because we are looking at things from a western perspective, and if you take high school history you will hear nothing about Africa except for the slave trade, and nothing about the near east except for the silk road. But you can't just put a sign on the map saying "here there be dragons" because you don't know what effects the Malinese civilization had on Africa as a whole prior to its colonization by western powers. I'd rather have a diverse game, than a game with 15 European civs and 3 eastern civs.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Xorbon
Finally! Somebody else mentions the double-standard of people saying the Aztecs are worthy, but not Mali! (I mentioned it a while back in the 'Mali Delenda Est' thread, but nobody responded.)

My apologies your holyness . It's a quite right argument and would have been good to hammer those others on, but I guess I overlooked it.

I must be God, because I know. The Japanese were added to the game in Civ 2. The original 14 civs were: Aztecs, America, England, France, Germany, Russia, Rome, Greece, Egypt, Babylon, Zulus, Mongols, India, and China.

Anyway, so the non-Western civs were Aztecs, Egypt, Babylon, Zulus, Mongols, India, and China. Egypt, India, and China are huge civilizations. Babylon is perhaps the earliest civ (so ok). Mongols conqured an amazing swath of territory. But the Aztecs and Zulus? Can we not see a Western bias here (and I'm not pointing at you, Xorbon, you are on the side of good )? The Zulus are in because they defeated the Brits once and the Aztecs? Because Cortez's eyes shined with gold fever. Mali is far more deserving than both. The Incas are better than the Aztecs because the Incas probably were more advanced and on a world map, 'tis better to place a civ in South America than right abutting the starting location of the Americans.

[Commy]

Originally posted by Stile4aly
The Fall of Constantinople, the Fall of Jerusalem, the conquests of Tariq Ibn Zaid, the expulsion of the British from China, the Carthagian victories over Rome, Hannibal's march, the Mongolian conquests... need I go on?

Constantinople was on Asia Minor...key word being Asia...considering that the byrzantines were more of a mid-eastern culture as they progressed from the Roman culture, I really don't think they qualify as "an Eastern beating a Western"...

The same would go for Jerusalem...Israel is not a Western country...

British were expelled from China for the same reason they got kicked out of India and South Africa...I thought I made it clear I wasn't talking about colonies and such...

As for Carthage, it lost...it had won battles, but it lost the war...if you read my post, I never say the east never had a victory, I said they never won a WAR...Hannibals march onto Rome was not a war, it was a battle (or series of)...in the end, Rome defeated Carthage...

As for the Mongols, how many times do I have to say that the East never beat the WEST...mongols didn't attack Europe, they didn't know Europe existed...they may have onced owned the largest empire, but it was all on Asia...

All these battles (except Carthage and Rome and Britain vs. China) don't contain actual wars with Western civilizations and cultures...the ones that due were either colonial or were victories for the west...

[Commy]

Stile4aly,

Given that about 2/3 the world's population lives outside Europe and North America, I would say that the rest of the world is underrepresented in Civ.

Given that about 2/3 the world's land mass exists outside of Europe and North America, I would hope so...

Its actually about 5/6 of the world's population, and 3/4 the land...but all the same, just because a civilization has more people or land, doesn't necessarilly mean that it is a better culture or more deserving civilization...the early mongols had the largest empire, but they weren't exactly known for having lots of culture or contributing to science and the arts...the United States is not at all the largest country, and yet its culture is felt in many parts of the world...I'm not saying it has the most culture, but amount of people is not the qualifying factor for civilizations, because if it were, then Mongolia and the Inca would never be in a game...

Keep in mind that the only reason that more Eastern nations are not more influential is that they've had their legs cut out from underneath them for centuries. This was self imposed in some cases (the Ottomans plundered the wealth of their empire at the expense of the economic, scientific, and educational development of their people) but in many cases was also imposed from the outside by European nations which plundered the wealth of their colonies. I think classifying India as a powerful country is something of a misnomer. It is a country with a large population and nuclear weapons, but most of the country is in abject poverty. China is in a slightly better situation, but only Japan would really be an Eastern equivalent to a modern western country.

I don't really understand your logic hear...it appears that you are saying it is the Western nations' fault that Eastern cultures aren't influential...I guess that it partially is, but all the same, that's no excuse for not being powerful...the West cut the legs of the East, and because of it, they are more powerful...and now, you're telling me we should let Eastern civs into the game, because if it weren't for Europe, they could be more influential? Simply put, the more powerful cultures wins. Is it fair? No, but nothing in the world is. The East got wiped. That's there problem. It doesn't mean we feel sorry for them and put them into a computer game because of it. The Mali got wiped. Cleanly. And yet, Europe and China and Japan haven't. Therefore, Europe and China and Japan deserve the spot. Mali simply doesn't...

On another note, India isn't just a country with population and nuclear weapons...since you seem to support the East, I'm surprised you'd say that, considering India has a larger economy than any European nation...if you had to pick the 10 most powerful countries in the world, India would make the list, right after US, China, Japan, Britain, Germany, and France...

You're assuming that the way things are today are the way things have always been. The most influential language in business for hundreds of years was Arabic, as the Arabs controlled the silk roads to Asia. The most powerful military in the world was Mongolian. The distribution of modern language is a direct result of colonization. How many native languages were wiped out in South and Central America because of the imposition of Spanish and French on the natives?

I don't understand you...you are making excuses about why these smaller cultures aren't influential...all your excuses are true, but that still doesn't mean these lesser civs deserve to be in a game...

Mongolia had the most powerful military, yes...at one time, so did Greece, Rome, Assyria, Babylon, the Hittites, Persia, Arabia, France, England, Japan, Germany, Russia, and most recently, the US...your point is what? Hittites and Assyria don't belong in the game, and I'm not so sure about Mongolia, as, after a century or two, it's influence was all good and gone...key word is influence, not population, not military, not how long your civilization lasted (Amazons been around for a long time, don't see them as a civ), but influence...

You're delusional about Vietnam, and revisionist about Korea and Japan. The US crushed Japan after a war of attrition that took a great toll, and in the end only because of the atomic bomb. If the US had to invade the Japanese home islands, the war would have lasted another 2 years and resulted in millions more dead. The US did succeed against a vastly inferior North Korean army, but when we found the Chinese waiting for us at the Yalu River, we were the ones in full retreat. Vietnam was a nightmare, and was an unwinnable war, and not because of the press.

Again, I don't see your logic...the US won, it won, it triumphed, it took victory, it beat an Eastern nation, and an Eastern nation lost...my point was that an Eastern nation never defeated a Western one...Korea, Iraq, Japan, they all lost...did I say it was a fair fight? No, but the point is, Western nations have always prevailed...you are making to many excuses that really aren't arguing against my points, rather, trying to say they don't count, because the East was outnumbered, out-equipped, had worse industry and technology, and had lesser influence...everything you have said supports that Western nations are not only more influential but superior in economics, warfare, and culture...

The end result is that realistically, you can't make a game large enough to incorporate every civilization that ever existed, so you have to consider influence. We are biased when it comes to influence because we are looking at things from a western perspective, and if you take high school history you will hear nothing about Africa except for the slave trade, and nothing about the near east except for the silk road. But you can't just put a sign on the map saying "here there be dragons" because you don't know what effects the Malinese civilization had on Africa as a whole prior to its colonization by western powers. I'd rather have a diverse game, than a game with 15 European civs and 3 eastern civs.

You also don't know the effects that the Dutch have had on the world, or the Mayans, or the Celts, or the Vikings, or the Phoenicians, or the Israelites, or the Austrians...sure, the Mali had some effect, but not nearly as significant as the effects of other nations...I'm not saying Mali is worthless, it just isn't as good as other civs...when there is a limited number of slots, it gets competitive, and Mali simply isn't competitive enough...individuals have had more effect on the world than the whole civilization of Mali...if it wasn't for Mr. Tokugawa, Japan might still be a military threat to the US...if it weren't for hitler, the US might not be in the position of power it is now, and Russia would certainly be higher on the power charts...if it weren't for Albert Einstein, perhaps FDR would never have funded the Manhattan Project, and the Soviets might have bombed us first, without Americans being able to strike back...who knows what effects Mali had, but more than likely, they weren't nearly as Grand as those of other civs...

I perfectly agree with you on that you can't have every civ...which is why the Mali don't deserve a spot...if there were 25 spots, then yes, I'd put them in, but not with 18...I'd put Sumeria in before the Mali, as its influence has lasted even till today in our mathematics and time keeping...Mali, like every civilization has had some effect on us all...however, some civs have had larger effects than others...Mali, in the grand scheme of things, did not have nearly the effect as European civs, Asian civs, America, or Mid-Eastern civs...

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Mongols never attacked Europe? Are you on drugs? The Golden Horde reached to the edge of Vienna, raiding Russia, parts of Poland and Hungary on the way! They would have taken Vienna as well, but the Great Khan of China (Ogedei) had died and Batu and his Horde went back to Mongolia for the sucession dispute.

And Turkey and Israel are both in UEFA, so Western enough for me . And Constanople was on the European side of the Bosphorus straits, mate.

http://perso.modulonet.fr/~earlyblazo/nation/constantinople/constantinople.htm

[Commy]

"Classical meaning

According to the classical definition, the term Western World refers to Western Europe and its genealogical and philosophical descendants, typically also including those countries whose ethnic identity and dominant culture derive from European culture. This mainly includes cultures and countries in Western Europe, North America, South America and Oceania. It refers to countries with catholic, protestant and jewish roots and the abundance of religious, philosophical and legal traditions that has been developed in these countries. The term Western culture is highly related to this meaning of the term Western world.

Those who use this definition is a strict way, do not call countries like Japan, Singapore or South-Korea Western but Westernised. An example is the book Westernizing the Third World (written by Ozay Mehmet) that uses the subtitle The Eurocentricity of Economic Development Theories. According to this definition, Latin-America belongs to the Western world."

Straight from www.wikipedia.com

You might be able to argue Israel as Western by using the above definitions, but it really is not a Western nation, and neither is Turkey...Constitanople is Eastern because of its culture...you are assuming that, because a country is in Europe, it automatically is Western...you are wrong, as the Eastern baltics are not Western countries, and neither is Bulgaria or Ukraine, along with many others...Western civilizations are determined by culture, not solely by geography, so get them straight...

Seeing as you are American, I find you have a strange definition of the "Western" nations...

You are right in that the Mongols attacked Europe, although, they still eventually lost...Europe took its loses, but it prevailed, meanwhile the Mongolian empire is all long and gone...again, my point still stands, Western civs have prevailed over Eastern civs...not in every little battle, but in the long haul, Europe has always come on top...

[AeonOfTime]

A thought just struck me... what would the Aztecs, Mali and Inca think if they could hear us debate about which of them is more worthy as a civ? I guess they would behead us, sacrifice us to their gods, have a good laugh about the whole matter and start a war to decide on their own

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Commy

...the celts and vikings, while notable, were never that influential on a large scale...

Riiiggghhhttt....


First European wide 'civilization', not state: ladeez and jellybeans- the Celts.

Whilst the Muslims were preserving Classical Greek knowledge in Baghdad, Nisibis and Jundishapur, Irish Celtic monks were doing the same in Ireland, and engaging in missionary work across Western and Northern Europe.

The Celts defeated Rome's armies more than once; defeated the Greeks; and were valued as soldiers and mercenaries by the Romans, Carthaginians, and the Ptolemies.

Although they eschewed writing they were greatly fond of oral literature and music, and traded with Etruscans, Romans and Greeks on an equal footing. They conducted long distance salt, amber and slave trades. They were sophisticated metal workers, and left us one of Europe's oldest legal systems, the Brehon Laws.

They also set up hospitals, and have left us the names for many of Europe's great rivers, French agricultural vocabulary, city names across Europe, and even when conquered by the Romans went on to influence the hybrid culture which followed- Martial could boast of his Celtic ancestry.

The history of the Celts was of course mostly written by the victors, who weren't unfortunately the Celts.

I could go on a similar tangent about the Vikings- how Iceland had a quasi-republican structure, how a monk who visited it said they had no ruler but 'the law', how they influenced the legal system of England, how Vikings who became Normans conquered England and Sicily and southern Italy, how Vikings conquered great tracts of European Russia, the legacy of Viking art and literature, the great Viking trade routes, even more extensive than Celtic ones, how they formed the emperor's guard in Byzantium, how they raided and sailed from North Africa to Baku to Ireland, et cetera.

Not bad for people often mistakenly assumed to be little better than robber pirates and rapists.

[AeonOfTime]

@MollyBloom: Not bad for people [Celts & Vikings] often mistakenly assumed to be little better than robber pirates and rapists.

That's a very common mistake, for which I (personally) blame History courses at school - I learned a tiny bit about the greeks there, then they promptly moved on to the first and second world wars

I spent some time a while ago reading up on the Vikings and Celts (really like their culture), and was surprised myself at the far reaches of their influence. If they had been only robber pirates and rapists, how would that image have survived for so long...