hidden racist agenda

[Carver]

Originally posted by LaRusso
is this PC thread a joke or was it meant to be serious? how come you do not object to e.g. 'razing cities' and other mass slaughters? starving population to death? sneak attacks? nuclear attacks? communism?

What's wrong with communism? Most of the atrocities you list: slaughters, starvation, sneak attacks, razing cities, were the result of the capitalist, colonialist, racist ideology that pervades in the West.

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by Carver


What's wrong with communism? Most of the atrocities you list: slaughters, starvation, sneak attacks, razing cities, were the result of the capitalist, colonialist, racist ideology that pervades in the West.

I think you mean "imperialist" instead of "colonialist", and it is not limmited to capitalism. The problem with comunism is that it always results in tyranny; either the tyranny of the politburo, or the tyranny of the mob.

I'll admit problems with capitalism, but the ones you mention are not intrinsic to capitalism. Indeed, capitalism tends to frown on the things you mention as they are not cost effective enough...

[klesh]

Dude, Civ has always been this way. My frend's call the game (CivII that is) Genocide II. Because you are killing and taking peoples over all the time. Don't like it? Get away from it all in your spaceship.

-FMK.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Field Marshal Klesh
Dude, Civ has always been this way. My frend's call the game (CivII that is) Genocide II. Because you are killing and taking peoples over all the time. Don't like it? Get away from it all in your spaceship.

-FMK.

Yes, then you have the oppurtunity to wipe out whole species from planetary bombardment.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Field Marshal Klesh
Dude, Civ has always been this way. My frend's call the game (CivII that is) Genocide II. Because you are killing and taking peoples over all the time. Don't like it? Get away from it all in your spaceship.

-FMK.

Don't you mean Civ 3?? With all that Culture Flipping crap and razing cities of millions (with laughable ease) it seems bent on genocide.

[Trevman]

Captain,
Gosh- Is anything not "rascist" anymore
Seriously, if you find rascism in Civ3, then your're a little bit out of touch with reality. Why don't you find some actual issues to comment on instead of making mountains out of molehills.
Also, although this post isn't an attack, it still reminds me of how almost everythin is labeled "rascist" these days.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Coracle


Don't you mean Civ 3?? With all that Culture Flipping crap and razing cities of millions (with laughable ease) it seems bent on genocide.

How is culture flipping genocide?

[Trevman]

Originally posted by Carver


What's wrong with communism? Most of the atrocities you list: slaughters, starvation, sneak attacks, razing cities, were the result of the capitalist, colonialist, racist ideology that pervades in the West.

Yes I see,
capitalism= bad; communism= good
two legs= bad; four legs=good

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Andrew Cory

Actualy, I assumed you were from an English speaking country, of which all but one use the letter "zed". I am from America, where we use the more propper "zee"...

OK! I´ll take that as proof that my english is better than average then

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Andrew Cory

I think you mean "imperialist" instead of "colonialist", and it is not limmited to capitalism.

Yes it is, as Lenin wrote in 1916´s "Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism". He demonstrates that imperialism is a product of monopoly finance capitalism. At the close of 19th century, a small number of banks had become dominant in the advanced European countries. Controlling vast quantities of "surplus" capital, these banks sought superprofits on investments in colonies and semi-colonies, and this intensified the race for empire among the great powers. By 1914, the race led to war. World War I was therefore imperialist in its origins and aims and deserved the condemnation of genuine socialists. Future wars were inevitable so long as imperialism existed; imperialism was inevitable so long as capitalism existed; therefore only the overthrow of capitalism can ensure world peace.

Lenin writes:

(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this "finance capital", of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.

[bigvic]

I guess everyone's got a right to their opinion. I find it a bit tediously nitpicking. I remember the old All Madden football. Way back when all the players were white, which was kind of funny, watching a white Walter Payton scamper down the sideline for another TD. Then, in a later incarnation of the same game, they were all black, which I must say was a bit more realistic. I thought the whole thing was hilarious, wondered if someone somewhere had laboriously argued over it for hours. One thing's for sure - someone can always get offended. With all due respect to the starter of this thread and to all it means something to, I think its a superflous non-issue. I couldn't care less, except for the fact that innacurate perception of racism by highly sensitive people is unfortunate and wearisome to those who either a) are simply doing their thing oblivious or semi-oblivious to the possibility of accidentily offending someone in terms of ethnicity or b) have perhaps risen so far above these things that they may have assumed (wrongfully, it always happens) that most other people share their own genuine desire to ignore/rise above divisive attitudes based on ethnicity.

[cyberhunne]

Hi all, first post on the board for me here. Been around for a few months but never saw the need to post something, until now .

I would very much like to see more weight on the nationality/cultural heritage aspect in Civ3.

1. It starts with citizens in just-occupied cities retaining their nationality/cultural heritage for much longer, as well as resisting longer. Also, there should be the possibility that foreign nationals start uprisings (as in resistance) even years after the occupation of the city.

As an idea you could have a probability that unhappy foreign nationals become resisting foreign nationals. Also, you could reduce the effect of luxuries/happiness on foreign nationals. Perhaps even making foreign nationals less "efficient"?

It all would be due to the fact that foreign nationals are assumed to be less loyal and to identify themselves less with the "country" than those who are the "majority". Generally speaking, foreign nationals should be more difficult to treat with.

2. Assimilation, integration and resistance maybe should be influenced by "cultural heritage". F.i. Germans are less likely to cooperate with Japanese occupants than with Russian occupants etc.

Also, the form of govt could play a role. Heavily centralized govts could create resentment among foreign nationals, too liberal govts allow more resistance and separatist movements.

3. All that could be countered by "forced settlement" of domestic workers/settlers in formerly foreign cities (we´ve seen that happening in the real world) get some more loyal people into the cities. Also, according to happiness levels after a 30-years cycle (ie one generation) there could be a given probability that foreign nationals become fully "assimiliated", as opposed to mere "integration" which follows occupation.

Other countermeasures could be the obvious military policing, happiness management and, to introduce something new, the concept of regionalism/federalism/decentralization. Even if you hate the ruling nationality, with a certain amount of decentralization you work for the "region" (IOW your "occupied nationality") rather than for those "oppressors" over at the capital city.

That could also make a nice new wonder of the world, "Minority Rights" or something like that, which reduces resentment among formerly foreign nationals.

4. In the end it should be a real pain to manage occupied cities with a foreign majority, who are much more likely to rise up or resist than others. I´m thinking along the lines of "Damn, people are unhappy and as always the minority in the north of my empire are the first to cause civil disorder".

The maximum "minority-caused" unhappinesss leading to civil disorder should be caused by fighting a war against the former "mother country", maybe even causing a risk that several cities culture-flip to the former mother country.

Conversely, you could lead a war of "national unity" against another nationality which both the majority and the minority have not much in common with, i.e. China with a Japanese minority fighting African intruders. We have seen wars of national unity happening in the real world, haven´t we.

5. At the current state of things, I never had to respect minorites in my global decisions once resistance has been crushed. Foreign nationals become assimiliated very quickly, and there is always the "shrink city down to 1"-trick if you occupy a 10+ city late in the game, when surrounding tiles are improved. If I conquer the English homeland with Germany, new-born citizens should not be automatically be German.

I´d prefer it if the offspring would be according to the existing nationality composure in the city (i.e. 4 English, 1 German making a 4:1 chance that the new kid is English). The idea of forced settlement would be useful here (see point 3).

Add to that the 30-years probability-to-assimiliate-rule (see point 3), and minorities become somewhat manageable, but still they should be a pain.

========================
Sorry for the long posting, but I kinda got carried away .

[bigvic]

You know, the more I think about it, the more I wish Firaxis hadn't kind of caved into the "tribal mentality", kind of pandering, it seems, to people's particularist idendification w/ ethnic groups they are descended from and think are cool. Not as shameless as ctp, yet...I would have liked to see much more generic groups, broad culterally/linguistically linked "nations", like, "Scandiavians", "Celts", "Teutons", "Hellenics", "Hamitic" (Egyptians), "Maghrebites" (NW Africa), "Swahili", "Semitic", etc, etc... Also, it would have been cool to have done a more dynamic idea of "nationality", but then we stray into another topic. If there is one way to distance anything that might remotely smack of some kind of racism it is to turn to morally neutral academic Latinate terminolgy.

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by Kamrat X

Yes it is, as Lenin wrote in 1916´s "Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism". He demonstrates that imperialism is a product of monopoly finance capitalism. At the close of 19th century, a small number of banks had become dominant in the advanced European countries. Controlling vast quantities of "surplus" capital, these banks sought superprofits on investments in colonies and semi-colonies, and this intensified the race for empire among the great powers. By 1914, the race led to war. World War I was therefore imperialist in its origins and aims and deserved the condemnation of genuine socialists. Future wars were inevitable so long as imperialism existed; imperialism was inevitable so long as capitalism existed; therefore only the overthrow of capitalism can ensure world peace.

The question is: Do you belive him? Whatever the faults of capitalism, the reverse didn't stop Lenin from committing many worse crimes. Slaughtering political advisaries for political differences. Could you immagine someone with "borgoius sensablities" doing the same thing? I mean, has Al Gore sent a hit man out for Ralph Nadar?

Beyond that, Imperialism is fairly well dead, and capitalism has never been stronger. There are small nations being exploited right now, but the main contention is that they would like to be exploited _more_. Hell, Cuba's main beef with the US is that they would like to be trade parternes with us.

[Akka]

Originally posted by bigvic
I guess everyone's got a right to their opinion. I find it a bit tediously nitpicking. I remember the old All Madden football. Way back when all the players were white, which was kind of funny, watching a white Walter Payton scamper down the sideline for another TD. Then, in a later incarnation of the same game, they were all black, which I must say was a bit more realistic. I thought the whole thing was hilarious, wondered if someone somewhere had laboriously argued over it for hours. One thing's for sure - someone can always get offended. With all due respect to the starter of this thread and to all it means something to, I think its a superflous non-issue. I couldn't care less, except for the fact that innacurate perception of racism by highly sensitive people is unfortunate and wearisome to those who either a) are simply doing their thing oblivious or semi-oblivious to the possibility of accidentily offending someone in terms of ethnicity or b) have perhaps risen so far above these things that they may have assumed (wrongfully, it always happens) that most other people share their own genuine desire to ignore/rise above divisive attitudes based on ethnicity.

Just can say one thing : amen