The KOREAN Civilization: Things Every Civ Player Should Know

[yellfromhell]

Eric,

Just one last thing about this:

[quote]:
"And the rest of your account all makes the Aztec legacy some form of sub culture not the dominant one. Not the sub culture with dynamic force which will bring Mexico someday close to the Aztec legacy but the sub culture which is going to be disintergrated sooner or later".

There are no 100% aztecs and no 100% spanish culturally influenced mexican. All mexicans have been influenced by the 2 civilizations in some way. The Aztec culture is mainly tought at school, therefore I doubt i`ll dissapear, because Mexico feels different from other people because of its roots. There`s interest in manteining that 'subculture' you call. But, you see, a subculture must be part of a bigger culture, and that one is not the spanish culture but the MEXICAN CULTURE.

[quote]:
"Did the USA derive from the Iroquis or Sioux? Did Mexico derive from the Aztec?"

The problem you didnt read what I said: 1/3 of the Mexicans derive from indians. ¿Do the Sioux or the Iroquis represent the 1/3 part of the United Statians?
Even if you keep thinking 1/3 of the population does not make the entire country representant of anything, you cant avoid the fact that the Mexicans, as an hypotetical civ3 civ, would be able to use the Aztec legacy: because, representant or not of the Aztecs, remaining Aztecs are now Mexicans.

Hugs
Yell

[yellfromhell]

Sorry,
In the 2nd paragraph, where it says:
"therefore I doubt i`ll dissapear"
It should say:
"therefore I doubt it`ll dissapear"
Thanks

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
Korea has a ton of people playing in cyber cafes. I heard that one MMORPG in Korea had 2 million players. I think the concept of cyber cafes is great, but they really haven't caught on here very well.

In some cases Korea doesn't have the variety of entertainment options we do. One thing that I feel has affected their entertainment development is the large amount of US soldiers stationed there. The soldiers are typically there for a 1 or 2 year duty and then go back to the states. They tend to look for something to do after work or on the weekend and the cyber cafe gave them someplace they could go and play games.

Nowadays, the cafes have far more Koreans in them than Americans, but I wouldn't be suprised if they started up because of the soldiers.

Also, Korea is a lot more focused on Anime/Manga, electronic and video game entertainment because its mostly produced there. Movies and the like are predominantly produced in the US and are more expensive in Korea.

I seriously believe that a society tends to embrace and 'abuse' local resources. For example, the US has an overabundance of food production, so much that the US government is the only government I know of that has to pay its farmers NOT to grow food simply because there is nobody to eat it all (and the world's markets don't seem to want it, the US has tried to GIVE food to Ethiopia and their government turned around and sold it on the Black Market).

My family has a 980 acre farm and the government pays us more to not use it than we'd make growing anything. Funny thing is since we don't use it the wildlife has grown to rampant levels, causing us to double the length of deer season and double the number of deer you can harvest which really didn't decrease our food supply. Consequently, with food so dirt cheap Americans tend to consume a lot.

I lost a lot of weight when I was in Korea, that bag of Oreo cookies that cost $2.99 in the US would've cost me over $10 on the local economy.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by yellfromhell
The problem you didnt read what I said: 1/3 of the Mexicans derive from indians. ¿Do the Sioux or the Iroquis represent the 1/3 part of the United Statians?

Actually, I don't think there are that there are many Americans who are 100% pure anything. I know I'm part German, Irish, English, African, Navajo, and Cherokee.

Course I'm from Oklahoma and virtually everyone here has some Native American blood, predominantly Cherokee as they were one of the largest of the Native American tribes to inhabit the US.

Honestly, I wish American History in our schools would start with the Native tribes BEFORE the European settlers came. Then work its way up as the colonies began and so forth. Most Americans never come in contact with Native American history and consequently don't know it existed. I was fortunate to work my way through college in a Native American museum and was exposed to its impressive existence.

[yellfromhell]

Q Cubed,

[quote]:
"you cannot use hypotheticals and say what if we put these two countries next to each other and see whcih one exterminates the other?
however, economics is also primarily influenced by location. this is why most of the middle east still relies on oil for their economic growth. this is why once one part of europe became industrialized, the rest of europe pretty much followed".

I`ll give you the reason about that I am wrong in using hypoteticals in this discussion, and even worse if they are concerning geography.
But realize you are also somehow using this tecnique in the discussion. When you say the Mexican economy growth is because of NAFTA, you are also meaning that if no NAFTA had existed, Mexicos growth wouldnt be so big. You cant know that too, or can you? Do you have a crystal ball? What if NAFTA is only a paper and bilateral commerce would have grown anyway -with or without the paper-? Dont tell me that would also be because Mexico has big neighbours. In the same line of thought you critize me, you cant think Mexico in another geographical location. By the way, Korea has Rusia, Japan, China, all very near. Those are also big neighbours. Dont you commerce with them? Even the USA is not so far (Alaska or Hawai are a couple of thousand miles away).

[quote]:
"i can't make the same claim for the aztecs, why? because the aztecs WERE a cohesive political group, while the native americans were NOT".

You are simply wrong. The fact that the Aztecs had a visible head - a common leader - those not mean they were united. ¿Where the united statians united when Lincoln was president and their civil war was on?
The Aztec empire had lots of cultures and people in it, all under Aztec rulership. When Cortez arrived, he made just a little effort to convice some towns to join him and bring down Moctezuma. Thats essentialy what the English did in India: they found indian men that helped them to fight against other indian men. ¿Dont you think?

Hugs.
Yellfromhell

Hugs.
Yellfromhell.

[yellfromhell]

Q Cubed.
Sorry for my english. In some parts of the message, where it should say 'were' it says 'where', and where it says 'those' it should say 'does'.
Thanks
Yell

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by yellfromhell
Q Cubed.
Sorry for my english. In some parts of the message, where it should say 'were' it says 'where', and where it says 'those' it should say 'does'.
Thanks
Yell

Hey, yell.

Do you realize you can click the 'edit' button on the top of each of your posts and make corrections there. That way you don't have to make these editorial posts afterwards and it will look like you never make mistakes.

Heck, I usually have to edit my posts once or twice after I post them for all the mistakes.

[eric789]

yellfromhell

The Aztec culture is mainly tought at school, therefore I doubt i`ll dissapear, because Mexico feels different from other people because of its roots. There`s interest in manteining that 'subculture' you call

Anyone can teach something about old civilisations. Just like the Assyrian civilisation are taught at the Syrian schools and Babylon/Sumer are taught to the Iraqui kids. However that kind of eduaction or interest doesn't promise revival or revitalisation of the old cultures.

But, you see, a subculture must be part of a bigger culture, and that one is not the spanish culture but the MEXICAN CULTURE.

You are now admitting the fact that there is a unique Mexcian culture which is not really the Spanish nor the Aztec one. I never denied that Mexican civ exists but I really wanted say that "Neither the Mexican culture is the Spanish, even if it had the dominant role forming the Mexican culture nor is it the Aztec one. See the dilema we all have to face?

You can't just deny the fact the heavy influence from the Spanish when the Mexican culture was formed. Do you think it is fair to say the Mexican culture is just Spanish culture? You certainly don't think so. Do I think it is fair to say the Mexican culture is just the Aztec culture? I certainly don't think so. Do we all think there is a Mexican culture which belongs to neither the Spanish nor the Aztec completely. Yes we do, I guess.

Mexico is just a brand new civilisation which was formed by both the Spanish and the Aztec culture. That's why Aztec=Mexican or Spanish=Mexican kind of mentality doesn't really help here. I still remember you were saying things based on Aztec=Mexican kind of mentality.

The problem you didnt read what I said: 1/3 of the Mexicans derive from indians.

So what? 60% of mixed origin and 10% of the direct European descent also form the state of Mexico. The real majority, the Mestizo, the mixed blood of the Spanish and the native, is the true picture of today's Mexican society.

Can the Aztec civ represent the whole Mexican civ and culture? No.

Can the Mexican civ represent the Aztec one? Yes. only partially

Nevertheless the game chose the Aztec instead of the Mexico. If Firaxis wanted represent both the Aztecs and the Mexicans, Mexico would and should have made into the game.

Also, you should know why Civ3 uses names like "Tenochtitlan" rather than "Mexico city". If you think old names are preferred by Firaxis, you are mistaken. Londonium is the old name of London. If you think well known names are used by Firaxis, you are also mistaken. Mexico city is far well known than Tenochtitlan. Tenochtitlan was used instead of Mexico city, because the city belongs to the Aztecs not the Mexicans.

So it is pointless to bring Mexico to defend the Aztec since you were talking about the Aztecs not the Mexicans.

You may bring the Aztecs when you talk about Mexico but you can't bring Mexico when you talk about the Aztecs.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

I think the civs Firaxis chose were chosen because of their historic involvement in eras of change.

Namely that these civs played a role in either the Ancient age of empires when great conquerers were assaulting one another, the Middle Ages/Renaissance when they once again began to clash as new innovations and exploration made conflict and warfare more sustainable, the Colonial Age when civs began settling newly discovered lands and enslaving other civs to do their labor, or the Industrial Age when once again innovations in mechanical technology made it more feasible to mass produce the tools to wage colossal warfare. (Wow, I think that is the longest sentence I've ever written. My English teachers are all having heart attacks about now)

With that in mind, I also think that the more involvement or importance a civ had in those specific eras, the more likely it was to get included.

"But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong."
-borrowed from Dennis Miller

[eric789]

GhengisFarb

I think the civs Firaxis chose were chosen because of their historic involvement in eras of change.

I wasn't talking about the reason why some civs were included. I was talking about the complex dilema we have to face when we talk about the Mexican,Spainish and Aztec cultures.

[eric789]

yellfromhell

one last question to you.

The Italian economic success makes the Roman civilisation greater?
The Italian military failure during WWII makes the Roman civilisation less greater?
Does Italy's success or failure has any effect on the reputation of the ancient Roman civilisation?

The Mexican ecomonic success makes the Aztec civilisation greater?
Does Mexico's success or failure has any effect on the reputation of the Aztec civilisation?

[yellfromhell]

Eric,

On July 15 I was writing this:

"(...) I believe it would have been better if instead of the Aztecs, they put Mexico as a Civ"

And on July 16 you jumped saying this:

"Why bring up Mexico when we talk about the Aztecs? Simply because Mexico is there where the Aztecs have previously lived? What are the relationship between those two? Does Mexico carries a single tradition of the Aztec? or even Mexican mentality has any similarity with the old Aztec one? their religion? their way of life? Art?
Anything?"

As you see, I wasnt bringing up Mexico when talking about the Aztecs to pretend they are the same, but I brought Mexico to say it would have been better to include it as a Civ rather than the Aztecs.
This is said because you established that "You may bring the Aztecs when you talk about Mexico but you can't bring Mexico when you talk about the Aztecs".

After that message you wrote on July 16, our discussion turned its course (at least for me) to a topic I´ll mention repeating your words:

"What are the relationship between those two? Does Mexico carries a single tradition of the Aztec? or even Mexican mentality has any similarity with the old Aztec one? their religion? their way of life? Art?
Anything?"

Thats why I tried to show you all this time, the multiple relations between those civs, and I think you should recognize you ignored that relations when you asked. The discussion with you began when you suggested that there is no cultural link between Mexico and the Aztecs, and so I tried to prove that you were wrong. I was simply answering your July 16 questions. But if you cant understand that and want to keep closed in your ideas, well, thats your problem.

The discussion about if the Aztecs or Korea deserve being in Civ3 is going on with Q Cubed, and if you want to take part I´ll be glad you do. But please dont mix discussions, and dont blame me for things I didnt say or for errors I repeatedly recognized. Just once I brought the Mexicans talking about the Aztecs: the first time I talked about Mexico city. Since I said that Mexico deserves better to be in Civ4 than the Aztecs, all the other times I refered to Mexico were because I was trying to show that Mexico deserves better to have a representant civ in Civ4 than Korea and the Aztecs.

Hugs

Yell

[HazieDaVampire]

is the Fact that its actualy spelt Corea, but invaded Japanese made them change it to a K?

[Q Classic]

kor:

What are you talking about? The Tet Offensive was the death blow to the US involvement in the war. We pulled out because we didn't know who to shoot. It was unfair because the north and south Vietnamese ALL LOOK THE SAME! It's not racist, it's the truth! That is why we lost Vietnam.

well, hot dog... don't them brits and them americans all look the same?
and, by the way, let me tell you a little secret... war isn't fair. the poles still used cavalry against german tanks in ww2; the persian gulf war arrayed at least eighty nations against iraq; ethiopia was the victim of poison gas and bombing runs by italy in the second world war; the japanese had a sneak attack on the us at pearl harbor; civilians on the lusitania died; we used nuclear warheads on two japanese cities. fair? hardly. part of war? yes.

The patriots couldn't afford uniforms... The communists would have given the Vietcong uniforms, but they didn't because they wanted to win by cheating. They chose not to have uniforms, but the patriots had no choice.

actually, the vietcong did not have much in the way of finances. they too couldn't afford uniforms; say what you think about communists, but in all truth, they run a economy based on money too. vietnam still owes china payment for some of the munitions china gave as "aid"; china still hasn't paid the soviets for the assistance they gave to nkorea during the korean war.

Besides, the British knew that they were the enemy.

funny, i thought the brits thought the americans were the enemy.

We didn't know who was the enemy because our allies looked the same as our enemy. That is why you cannot compare the Vietcong to the patriots.

wrong. we didn't know who was the enemy because that is the nature of guerilla warfare. guerilla tactics are to strike fast, strike hard, and then run. this is why the germans didn't know who exactly was in the french resistance. the american revolution was before the advent of guerilla tactics in earnest; thus, that comparison is irrelevant. what remains, however, is the fact that the american patriots did not have uniforms, which was the point of the argument.

I read an article about a Korean kid getting beat up because he won a Starcraft match using the map hack. That sounds very serious to me.

i also read an article about people being threatened for being a player killer. except, that was in the united states, and regarding everquest. there are also reports of an underground trade for buying and selling character accounts in everquest. something not done in korea...
at least the korean kid was cheating; there is no excuse for the american case. your point ?

======

genghis:

Also, Korea is a lot more focused on Anime/Manga, electronic and video game entertainment because its mostly produced there. Movies and the like are predominantly produced in the US and are more expensive in Korea.

not true. recent trends have shown that korean movies made in korea, such as shiri and jsf, have done far better than their american counterparts--not only in korea, but in the rest of the pacific rim countries as well.

======

yell:

When you say the Mexican economy growth is because of NAFTA, you are also meaning that if no NAFTA had existed, Mexicos growth wouldnt be so big. You cant know that too, or can you? Do you have a crystal ball? What if NAFTA is only a paper and bilateral commerce would have grown anyway -with or without the paper-? Dont tell me that would also be because Mexico has big neighbours. In the same line of thought you critize me, you cant think Mexico in another geographical location.

fine, you're right, i don't know for a fact. but i'm not using hypotheticals; i'm extrapolating from hard data that exists. if you look at the economic growth sheets, you'll find that until nafta occured, mexico's economy had a low growth rate; it was not until after nafta became a reality did mexico's economy grow at an unprecedented rate. and i'm not imagining mexico in a different location; i didn't say that it would have disappeared or what not, had it been closer to x, etc. you're using hypotheticals; i'm just extrapolating.

Korea has Rusia, Japan, China, all very near. Those are also big neighbours. Dont you commerce with them? Even the USA is not so far (Alaska or Hawai are a couple of thousand miles away).

the usa, by and large, remains korea's largest market. followed by japan and china, and the rest of the pacific rim nations. russia is not in the top ten, last i checked. what's your point ?

You are simply wrong. The fact that the Aztecs had a visible head - a common leader - those not mean they were united. ¿Where the united statians united when Lincoln was president and their civil war was on?

see, civil wars are different. it's only called a civil war because the union won; had the union lost, it would have been called a war of independence for the south, fought between two different countries. and besides, the comparison to a civil war makes little sense; a false analogy, mainly because the united states WAS united, fought with each other over internal political differences without outside influences driving the war, and because one side was not exterminated as a civilization after the war.

The Aztec empire had lots of cultures and people in it, all under Aztec rulership. When Cortez arrived, he made just a little effort to convice some towns to join him and bring down Moctezuma. Thats essentialy what the English did in India: they found indian men that helped them to fight against other indian men. ¿Dont you think?

even so, that is a great deal more unified than the north american natives. in north america, no tribe held as much sway as the aztecs did; nor would any have been able to form any sort of political network comparable to the aztecs. the iroquoi tried, but started far too late to truly develop a strong nation.

finally: you seem bent on arguing about the validity of a mexican civ: let's get something straight. i'm not arguing against it, or that it's irrelevant. i'm just defending the merits of a korean civ. your attacks on the korean civ made me defend it; and by giving me an example civ to draw comparisons from, and prove the validity of a korean civ, may make it seem that i'm attacking it. i'm not. i'm merely proving that if the mexican civ is valid and should be included, so should the koreans, because they are comparable, if not more important, to world history.
also: i would be more than willing to continue this debate on another thread; since this thread once spoke of korea, and now seems to be arguing mesoamerican civs, there's a slight problem with the naming of the thread. so: let's return this thread to korea, and continue this debate on another locale.

[eric789]

yellfromhell

On 15th of July,You made direct comparison between the Korean civ and the Aztec one and claimed the Aztec is better.

Originally posted by yellfromhell
but Korea is not better than the Aztecs

In response to that, Q Cubed asked why.

Originally posted by Q Cubed

yellfromhell: tell me, why isn't korea better than the aztecs

On 16th of July, you made several dangerous claims.

Originally posted by yellfromhell
First of all, I believe the Aztecs are somehow representing the Latin-American Civs.

You said that the Aztecs represent the Latin-American civs, the Hispanic civs, which is different from the Aztec one. That's one very dangerous claim to make..

Originally posted by yellfromhell
Firaxis chose the aztecs probably because their pyramids, but surely not for their combat power. They had an extremelly precise calendar. They mapped the sky. I cant tell you now any book writen by the Aztecs, but I can certainly tell you one the Mayas did (and they were conquered by the Aztecs): the Popol Vuh. Thats a world wide known piece of literature. I think their cultural influence cant be denied. You can say anything you want about their combat weakness, even about their ingenuity, but they had an interesting culture.

The whole reasoning went pretty alright until you brought the Mayan Popol Vuh and Mexico.

Originally posted by yellfromhell
I believe it would have been better if instead of the Aztecs, they put Mexico as a Civ.

This didn't constitute your reasoning at ALL for why Aztec civ is better than the Korean one but pure wish of yours to push Mexico into the game. 2/3 of your reasonings were dedicated to and based on that particular wish which was quite disappointing. How funny it is to support your view by even bringing an accomplishment from the other civilisation and the support fire based on your WISH.

Posts after posts, your reasoning were all what-if scenarios such as "hypotetical extintion of Korea?", "What if Cortez was there?",etc As a person who was eager to witness a debate by genuine and proven facts based on history, I was totally disappointed by that.

Q Cubed had a quite an easy job to counter all the reasonings you provided for the genuine Aztec achievements. He even responded to all of your "What-if" scenarios, which , I thought, were complete NONSENSES.

then I stepped in by saying

Originally posted by eric789

Why bring up Mexico when we talk about the Aztecs?

I admit that one of my comments of "Does Mexico carries a single tradition of the Aztec?" was too much to say but other than that particular comment, my overall statements were based on the fact and you weren't saying anything about the heavy Spanish influence to Mexican civilisation and that's something you never gonna mention during the debate with Q Cubed unless I have stepped in.

18th of July, you admitted your error on the Mayan Popol Vuh and I didn't make a fuss about it anymore.

20th of July, you wrote this

The discussion about if the Aztecs or Korea deserve being in Civ3 is going on with Q Cubed, and if you want to take part I´ll be glad you do. But please dont mix discussions, and dont blame me for things I didnt say or for errors I repeatedly recognized. Just once I brought the Mexicans talking about the Aztecs: the first time I talked about Mexico city. Since I said that Mexico deserves better to be in Civ4 than the Aztecs, all the other times I refered to Mexico were because I was trying to show that Mexico deserves better to have a representant civ in Civ4 than Korea and the Aztecs.

I will be glad to take part in you guys' discussion and want to share my knowledge with you guys, if you guys want to. Also the discussions between you and me are related to the ones between you and Q Cubed because 2/3 of your reasoning to your initial claim will be nullified by the result of our discussion.

Just look at your inital claim and your reasoning towards it. Your initial claim was, as you wrote on 15th July, "Korea is not better than the Aztecs" but now you are saying as you have claimed like "Mexico deserves better to have a representant civ in Civ4 than Korea and the Aztecs." This isn't your initial claim and something you made after some debates.

Until now you were brining Mexico to defend the Aztec and suddenly now you are just promoting Mexico, which is irrelevant to the previous pivotal point you made. Should I take that as a sign you just gave up on the point of the Aztec civ is better than the Korean one?

So do you care to stick to your inital claim and defend it based on some reasonable materials rather than the series of "What-if"?

Or at least determine the fate of your initial claim, "Korea is not better than the Aztecs" then say whatever you want to say to promote Mexico?

Whay do you say, my friend?