Oppositions to Arabs

[roalan]

Joking

Originally posted by sabrewolf
really? even though he supports the settlers?
i thought you said a few pages back that you dislike them (or was that in another thread? hmm...)

Are you kidding you have the wrong person. I never said I do not support the settlers. I f you look on another thread I clearly stated my position on Israel several times. I do not want to get into another argument on the same subject. So let us pass on this one. I do remember you on that other thread,actually it was this thread a couple of days ago. We went through this before.

[Ozymandias]

Re: Re: The Rare Virtue Of A Wandering Thread

Originally posted by Olaf HÃ¥rfagre


I think the thread topic was which tribes should belong in CIV3 and not, with the cultural links between Arabs-Babylonians and Americans-English as initial examples. Now that the game is out there, the discussion is of less value for the vanilla game, but it might inspire people to some interesting mods.

I do not understand how the 9/11 or other very recent events should have any connection to which tribes should be in a computer game stretching over 6000 years of human history, neither why US foreign aid, Noam Chomsky or the political compass should belong to this discussion.

The term "civilisations" is very vaguely defined as you point out. I prefer to call them "tribes" instead, as that is a term that in my opinion better fits the actual game feature. The definition of a tribe is a group of people who share the same or at least the similar language, religion and race. Over history, there has been a great mix and regional movement of the original tribes, which in some cases have merged into completely new tribes. The English is a good example, made up of mostly Celts, Vikings, Anglons, Saxons and Normands, which over 1000 years has unified and become a quite uniform and unique tribe of its own.

The Americans are an exception to the "tribe" definition, as they have no common language, religion or race. It obviously takes longer than 200 years to unify all etnic groups, especially those who resist assimilation. I still think they belong in game though, for numerous reasons.

People following a certain religion is normally not a tribe, except in a few cases. Islam or Christianity are not tribes but Arabs and Germans are. One exception might be the Jews, who are more or less the Hebrew tribe. Correct me if I'm wrong.

See -- my point precisely!

The "civs" in all three civ games tend to be an irregular admixture of "nations" and "cultures". The problem of defining a Civ, within game terms, is that we are actually wrestling with an undefined (and possibly undefinable) concept which, depending upon context, might encompass any combination of the following:

Ethnicity

Culture (both as "commonly" used by anthropologists, e.g., defining a particular bronze age "culture" based upon similar methods and artifacts -- and as a critical set of shared assumptions)

Religion

Nationality

Fervent and historically irrational desire ("Americans" in 4000 BCE!)

You are, of course, quite right that "tribes" come together -- and thereby change ANY OF THE ABOVE in the merging -- as well as diverge, and likewise change in the divergence.

Classic example: the "Russian Civ" begins as Varangians (Vikings who headed east) eastablishing towns and intermarrying with indigenous Slavs; merged, the two pagan groups adopt Orthodox Christianity from the Byzantines and have a very religious/monarch setup; expand into an empire (i.e., forcibly ruling peoples who don't want their rule) adapt Leninism and pretend that the Soviet Union is quite different from the Russian Empire -- which it was and wasn't -- and now devolve, erratically, into different nations and adapt an authoritarian capitalism.

This is why my ubiquitous question "What is a Civ?" is usually asked in the context of "What are we talking about in a certain timeframe and/or geopolitical context?" -- for example, I set my planned mod ca. 1000 CE because all the familiar players are roughly in place (well, yeah, America -- not much you can do about that.)

-- Now (Drum roll, Maestro!) tying into the on-topic bits:
Arabic Islam, although fractured into many different nation-states, overall share a common ethnicity, culture, language, legal structure, history, and geography -- and have for ~1300 years. If that's not a CIVILIZATION, what is?

Any thoughts I have about this re: 9/11 can really be summed up as follows -- that the actions of an extra-national group, Al Qaeda -- having left the US without a reasonable NATIONAL enemy to focus on (again, re: 9/11!) leaves the US suddenly focusing on the "Arab World", noticing the paucity of democratic Arab states; issues regarding equality of women; etc. -- In short, "we" need to perceive an enemy (it seems to be part of our national character ) and, for the first time in our nation's history, we perceive (however dimly) an Islamic-Arab Civilization, as opposed to a lot of "artificial" -- i.e., post-European colonial -- nations, lock-stepped into the miserable confluence of the Arab-Israeli mess with the Cold War.

-- And "we" seem shocked -- Shocked! -- that our EUROPEAN (subtext: Christian) allies are balking at a crusade! ... Which is particularly ironic after having heard an intellectual Arab friend -- and by no means a fire-brand -- describe Israel as "the last Crusader state" -- by which he meant a corner of forcibly acquired land for a "European" Civ.

So, thanks to this thread, I am viewing the question of "why / why not Arabs" as "why / why not Anybody" -- and DISCOVERING, as I think along with this post, that it might be one of the best choices of all --

-- Of course, depending upon what aspect of history you wish to elucidate, you MIGHT, in response, reasonably model European "Christendom" as a Civ.

Similarly, in a Cold War context, "The West" could have been modelled as a Civ; etc.



As Always,

Oz

[Ozymandias]

Oh, and by the way ...

On- or Off-Topic, we must be doing SOMETHING right -- at current count, this thread has

571 POSTS

&

5,463 READS!


Delighted,

Oz.

[Chemical Ollie]

The Rare Virtue Of A Wandering Thread

Originally posted by Ozymandias


See -- my point precisely!

The "civs" in all three civ games tend to be an irregular admixture of "nations" and "cultures"...

...

-- Of course, depending upon what aspect of history you wish to elucidate, you MIGHT, in response, reasonably model European "Christendom" as a Civ.

Similarly, in a Cold War context, "The West" could have been modelled as a Civ; etc.
As Always,

Oz

I bow my head in respect for a well-educated reply.

However, I still think Arabs should be a tribe in the game for historical merits, regardless of what some Americans think of them after 9/11.

A game with civilisations based on religion only would not contain enough tribes to be fully enjoyable - Christian, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Confusians, Jews, Vodunists, Ateists etc. To get enough choises , you would have to add peculiar sects that most people never heard of. The same goes for civs based on vaguely culturally linked groups - Westeners, East-Asians, Middle- Easterns, Africans, Hispanics or Sovjets etc. I like the tribe definition as it is now - it makes more sense.

And as I pointed out earlier - Arabs are not the Islamic civilisation - there are many more Islamic tribes: Persians, Pashtuns, Malays etc. There are also religious minorities within the Arabic tribe - mostly Jews and Christians.

This discussion could go on forever. However, my time is limited due to real life events. I might reply again but don't hope for too much. Have a wonderful life!

Edited typos...

[Ozymandias]

Re: The Rare Virtue Of A Wandering Thread

Originally posted by Olaf HÃ¥rfagre


I bow my head in respect for a well-educated reply.

...

I might reply again but don't hope for too much. Have a wonderful life!

Edited typos...

You, Sir, are a Gentleman and a Scholar

I, myself, prefer a surreal life I know how fortunate I am to be able to indulge my love of history and theory so much.

I look forward to when/however you next participate!

All The Best,

Oz

[gsmoove23]

Perhaps the biggest drawback of civ the game(not many I can think of) is the idea that your civ arrives in a vaccuum. In the beginning you spread your cities over empty land with a couple of huts and annoying gnats in white loinclothes. Later you conquer other cities and annoyingly their citizens stay behind yet they are eventually bred out of existence as if they were never there or their cities are razed.

Perhaps a better representation would be that populations always exist from the beginning. Your civ and the other players are anomalous tribes that gain some ascendancy within greater populations and your sphere of influence extends over other populations, whether through military power, religion, culture... Eventually a common will or culture emerges as your civ spreads among your subjects, changing your civ as it happens.

Well this is how I view a civ, more in the realm of ideas then in bloodlines or even tribal affinity. Certainly european christiandom would be a civ, and modern europe as well still holds that cohesiveness of thought, perhaps separate from north american or the US civ(sorry canadiens, I know you don't like to be lumped with us )

PS all I want to do is christen the thirtieth page. Perhaps we should start talking about Sharon or Netanyahu.

[sabrewolf]

gsmoove,
you're right. no civ expanded just through internal growth (to use the economical term). mostly they were a group of tribes, clans, settlements, villages or whatever that grouped together or got grouped together.

e.g. the roman empire hardly consisted of real romans. the majority of inhabitants of the empire had foreign blood but over time got integrated.

usually the bigger swallows the smaller and grows with it, gradually integrating the smaller one into it's own culture/identity. (note: bigger doesn't have to be size of army or population). and often after just a few generations the integration has taken place. especially in places where the minority is very small.

you could try and simulate this in a scenario: neutral civs with no science, no strong defence, no offence, no money (e.g. through not giving the workers) and a governement which converts easily to any other civ. so early conquest is a simplified REX and cultural integration.... ?!?

[gsmoove23]

In many civs however this doesn't work or works significantly slower. How many long lasting empires have broken up ending up in a complete fragmentation of the populace? The Roman empire had a very clear idea of who was Roman and who was not. Most of Rome's subjects were not Roman. Same goes for many civs who had a selective view of who was and wasn't a citizen. So in effect you might have very cohesive empires that are not efficient in spreading a common will among its people while they do spread a culture so the "tribe" doesn't expand but the "civilization" does.

In this way I think America is a significant anomaly being one of the first all inclusive civs(with a few obvious kinks), its tribe expanding quickly absorbing a number of disparate populations(mainly white and christian,given). The Arab civ is similar though, its only requirement for "tribal" membership being Islam, regardles of race, culture or whatever.

Just shooting the breeze really, any criticisms welcome and hoped for even.

[gsmoove23]

Oh sorry sabrewolf, didn't see your post, think I repeated some stuff of yours.

[twilight]

Hi,

I hope I can post another thing. I won't disturb any of you in some political/philosophical/historical discussion. ;-)

Here are my two cents. Different nations MUST be in the game. But what nations? Perhaps I surprise someone, when I say that this is not very important. WHy? BEcause ALL have to be in there.

Take a map of the world. Begin at any point and go from the east to the west again. Think about every nation or culture you know. There are almost every nation in the world that had a golden age. Polen was a great Power, the Zulus too, what about the Hungary? Bulgaria? Every f***ing people in the world had it chance to make trouble to the biggest empires but their problem is: nobody knows it.

I say: lets make them all. What is the problem for Firaxis to paint leaderheads for nearly all nations? Okay, would be pretty much. And the special units, hard work in the mass. But it's okay, we have the editor and can make our own. Can we really?

Take a look on our friends in the game. There is Gandhi. Can you imagine this is Basileos Heirakleios of Byzanz and not Gandhi the Indian? Or think about the dutch King Abe Lincoln.

There are several kings that are fixed to their nations and I think this is CRAP! Of course it's cool a see a famous face and play with or against them, but it's a horror to make new civs with such stuff of that. Okay, I am not the geek collecting hundreds of leaderheads in the fori and I like the style of CivIII and I want Firaxis to do that.

More neutral heads! Everyone of us have his own mind and opinion on that. I read for Germans is Bismarck okay or Hitler could it be, what about the Holy Roman Empire of the Germans?? What about Otto I.? That is only one example, I want to change them into my own Civs. But is this possible? Looks Bismark really like Otto I? No. Not really, Caesar would be more like him, when you know the famous pic of him sitting on his throne.

I always have trouble with such things. How often I used Aleander, because he is one of the rare leaders, that could be really everone of the ancient graco-roman empires.

That would be a nice chrismas present. A couple of new graphics in a new patch, or a new game.

But there is another problem: I had ever the problem to feel disturbed to meet Lincoln or Washington, when I am playing the Romans. Then I want perhaps an ancient world. And playing the Russians it would be cool to meet only modern leaders. What about the choice of leaders? Every nation could offer two or three of them. Would it be so much work to draw them? Hey, we spend much money on that!

And be honest. We are able to play with 31 other nations in on game, but only 26 (?) are offered. I think this is the wrong way! There must be MORE nations than possible to play with not LESS. We should have the possibility to avoid nations we don't like or can't use. Nothing against China or Korea, but plaing in the Europe-Map with both for example means a very insteresting version of earths history.

No, Firais have to give much much much more of that to choose.

Oh, yes, my personal wishes:

Assur, Aborigines (or if we use the USA please the Australians and the Canadians), modern Mexico, some eastern Europe nations, Byzanz, Hungary!, Italy, some arabic nations as the Seldschuks, Maures (sorry, don't know the english terms), some more tribes or cultures in Africa, N- and S-America and Asia. Give us the choices! Even if they all use the same units!

[gsmoove23]

I just don't understand the whole need for 3d leaderheads. Cut them out of the game and I'm sure you could put any number of civs in.

[gsmoove23]

YES!!! I was the one to christen the thirtieth page!!






Sorry for that.

[Traelin]

I still say the Incas, Dutch, and Israelis should be included before any other Civs in the next XP. One of the reasons I was on the fence about the Arabs is because the 3 Civs mentioned above weren't included before them. At least ONE of the above Civs should have been put in before the Arabs.

I still say the main reason Firaxis included the Arabs is at least in part due to the U.S. market for the game and its general sentiment toward Mideastern culture ATM. To me that's not a good enough reason to include them over the Dutch.

[gsmoove23]

Ugh, in a game like civ the Arabs should have been in it from the first. Incas I can understand, although I don't see how you could say they deserve to be in BEFORE the Arabs, Dutch should be in the game but way down the list and Israel, you've argued and I kinda agree but you never said they deserve to be in BEFORE the Arabs. This I just can't fathom. The Arab civ has been shaping and influencing the world in a major way from 600 to the present day. It has been in direct opposition to many of the european, christian civs for a good portion of that time. How could you possibly argue this. If you argued they deserve to be put in together, I could see it although I certainly wouldn't agree but this, man... Dutch before Arab?!?!!?!?

[gsmoove23]

For cryin' out loud, a guy who argues Israel should be in cause of their contribution to the Bible won't even credit the Arabs for the creation of the Koran. Nah that didn't influence much. Plus Arabs weren't only known for their military exploits, during their golden ages they contributed much to the scences, the arguement that they served as a gigantic library simply preserving ancient texts is ridiculous. Those texts were preserved because there was a great amount of thought going on and a reason to make copies of them.