Thoughts on the replacement of Fundamentalism with Nationalism

[monkspider]

I have come to an understanding from my time here in these forums that the great militaristic government Fundamentalism has been replaced with Nationalism. I have no choice but to disagree with this move on the part of Firaxis. First of all, i have never really heard anyone consider Nationalism to be an actual type of GOVERNMENT anyway. When I think nationalism, i think of the political atmosphere that existed in Europe around the time of World War I or the Napoleonic era. It is not a type of government, but a general political feeling that exists in a country. I have never encountered anyone who likened nationalism to types of government like Democracy, Monarchy, etc.
I feel Facism or Fundamentalism would have made much better choices for the highly military-esque type of government in Civ 3. Is nationalism intended to be a "PC" name for facism perhaps?
I think the replacement of fundamentalism with nationalism is a bad move on Firaxis' part, actually taking the game a step backward in a sense. I am just curious what they're thinking was. Did they offend american theologians by making a purely religious state the most barabaric form of government perhaps?

[Ralf]

If Civ-game nationalism fits in well gameplay-wise, and is well-balanced compared with the other choices, then Im all 100% positive.

[Gatekeeper]

Monkspider, et al.:

I, too, wish they had left fundamentalism in as a form of government. If not that, then some sort of government that would be conducive to being a badass on the battlefield. I suppose communism and nationalism are meant to fulfill that void ... but it's going to be strange without fundamentalism.

The way I understand it, we have the following governments to select from:

1. Despotism.
2. Monarchy.
3. Communism.
4. Republic.
5. Democracy.
6. Nationalism.

I want more governments, like CtP had!

CYBERAmazon

[monkspider]

Classic quotes on Fundamentalism

"The diplomatic penalties for "terrorist acts" (such as bombing improvements, poisoning wells, and so forth) committed by diplomats and spies is reduced, since the world comes to expect no better"
Civ 2 MPG Manual, page 58

LOL, that quote always amuses me. Especially since the government is supposed to be based purely on uncompromising interpretation of religous dogma that would no doubt condemn such violent actions.

*sniff sniff* We are going to miss you Fundy , if you are still out there Firaxis, please reconsider this decision!

[M. le Comte]

That's not a good idea from Firaxis

Civ wants to be quiet realistic.

If you add such a form of govt, which has nothing to do with reality, you kill a bit the atmosphere of the game.

Firaxis should have created more govts as in CTP, but without making the mistake to create unrealistic govts.

Sticking at History could reveal the existence of more than fifteen types of govt.

There has yet been a discuss on that topic, but it's a bit long, so just check it on the original thread.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24843

[red_jon]

Isn't 'Nationalism' just Fascism? I get the feeling the just don't want to use the word 'Fascism' - like in Civ2...

[General Ludd]

Nationalism is more of a style of goverment then a goverment in itself, any kind of goverment can be nationalistic. Basically, any country who considers itself to be culturaly (or in otherways) superior is nationalistic. It often leads to ethnic cleansing and the such.

I think it can be interperated as nearly the same as fundementalism, only the leader would have to rely on his followers patriotism as opposed to religous faith.

[Ribannah]

Nationalism, Fascism nor Fundamentalism is really type of government, they are all social movements (like Liberalism, Conservatism and Socialism). Theocracy and Military Junta are.
Personally, I would place Nationalism in the tech tree before Democracy rather than after, with Enlightenment and Printing Press as prerequisites.

"Nationalism was the most successful political force of the 19th century. It emerged from two main sources: the Romantic exaltation of "feeling" and "identity" and the Liberal requirement that a legitimate state be based on a "people" rather than, for example, a dynasty, God, or imperial domination. Both Romantic "identity nationalism" and Liberal "civic nationalism" were essentially middle class movements.
There were two main ways of exemplification: the French method of "inclusion" - essentially that anyone who accepted loyalty to the civil French state was a "citizen". In practice this meant the enforcement of a considerable degree of uniformity, for instance the destruction of regional languages. The US can be seen to have, eventually, adopted this ideal of civic inclusive nationalism.
The German method, required by political circumstances, was to define the "nation" in ethnic terms. Ethnicity in practice came down to speaking German and (perhaps) having a German name. For the largely German-speaking Slavic middle classes of Prague, Agram etc. who took up the nationalist ideal, the ethnic aspect became even more important than it had been for the Germans. It is debateable whether, in practice, all nationalisms ended up as Chauvinistic and aggressive, but the very nature of nationalism requires that boundaries be drawn. Unless these boundaries are purely civic, successful nationalism, in many cases
produced a situation in which substantial groups of outsiders were left within "nation-states"."

[JellyDonut]

When I think of a Fundamentalist government, I think of something like the Taliban. Fascist rings up Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy. But Nationalist? Not really a government. The first time I heard of it, I thought it was a euphemism for Fascism, and I still think that. I would prefer that Firaxis not worry so much about saying "Fascism" and get in touch with reality. Maybe it was a move to get people to choose that government without feeling semi-guilty . In either case, I'm going to be editing some text files.

[Imran Siddiqui]

My belief is that Nationalism is all encompasing Fascism-like. What I mean is that it means Germany, Spain, and Italy under Fascism and Right-Wing military juntas in Central America.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
My belief is that Nationalism is all encompasing Fascism-like. What I mean is that it means Germany, Spain, and Italy under Fascism and Right-Wing military juntas in Central America.

I believe so also, although Im not sure. Democracy/Republic is the"good guy" alternatives, counterbalanced with Communism/Nationalism as the "bad guy" alternatives.

[Ribannah]

* Repeats her last post and mumbles something like: "read dictionary ..." *

Originally posted by Ralf
Democracy/Republic is the"good guy" alternatives, counterbalanced with Communism/Nationalism as the "bad guy" alternatives.

Why are you calling the first two good and the last two bad?

[N35t0r]

because he thinks that communism is Stalinism, and Nationalism is what the Nazis have...

or because they would be more 'war prone' than rep-demo, and war is bad...

[ancient]

i think nationalism is good, because it almost definately requires high culture to keep it together, making it and adequate replacement of fundementalism, yet it needs more skill and is less power full.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why are Communism and Nationalism 'bad'?

Because in Civ games, Communism is the USSR/China. Those are the only types of Communist government to exist on Earth. Nationalism seems like Fascism. So both seem 'bad'. But does it really matter?