 |
|
BSH
|
|
Since there have been discussions over leaders of other civs - Germans, Russians - how about China? Mao is no better a choice than Hitler for Germany. I changed my leader's name to Yao (sometimes other things). When a leader is just a name, it's no big deal, but I really don't want to see an animation of one of the 20th Century's most evil monsters. So, who do you suggest should be the leader of Civ III's China?
Note to Firaxis - DITCH MAO!!
B
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ancient
|
 |
Life Goes On
May 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
Mao Zedong is the only suitable leader for the chinese, he had helped china so much, with out Mao china would be in much more trouble then it is now. He had greatly improved the life of the average chinese, and made a less corrupt china government, comparing hitler and mao is insane, they are exact opposites. Hittler Killed millions of jews, because they are jews, mao never did any such thing, or even a comparitable deed. Before mao foreigners had immunity in china, the country was lawless and constintly violent, the people were little more than slaves, and foreigners could controll the nation to their every whim..
you chould see the movie cseries once apon a time in china (very accurate (except for some kung fu)) and then compare now to then...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Inverse Icarus
|
 |
flying too low to the ground
May 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
...
Last edited by Inverse Icarus on 11-08-2001 at 08:57
|
|
| |
|
|
|
S. Kroeze
|
 |
the Hague, the Netherlands, Old Europe
Dec 1999
time: 05:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ancient
Mao Zedong is the only suitable leader for the chinese, he had helped china so much, with out Mao china would be in much more trouble then it is now. He had greatly improved the life of the average chinese, and made a less corrupt china government, comparing hitler and mao is insane, they are exact opposites. Hittler Killed millions of jews, because they are jews, mao never did any such thing, or even a comparitable deed. Before mao foreigners had immunity in china, the country was lawless and constintly violent, the people were little more than slaves, and foreigners could controll the nation to their every whim..
|
'To Mao, the killing of opponents -or simply of those who disagreed with his political aims- was an unavoidable, indeed a necessary, ingredient of broader political campaigns.
He rarely gave direct instruction for their physical elimination. But his rule brought about the deaths of more of his own people than any other leader in history.'
(source: P.Short: 'Mao; A Life',1999)
This is a rather favourable biography.(!)
Estimates of amount of his victims vary from 40 to 60 million people.
You truly must hate humanity, the Chinese in particular.....
quote:
Mao was a sick ****, but who are you going o put in his place? Sun Yat Sen? Mao's the only great Chinese leader whose name most Occidentals are going to recognise. |
I agree most Occidentals are ignorant barbarians. Yet I do not think this can be used as an excuse ever. This game is called: CIVILIZATION (not 'Killer').
In about 50 years most people will have forgotten what Hitler did too! Nor are the crimes of Lenin sufficiently known.
What about Confucius? Or Liu Bang?
Or Qin Shi-huangdi, another monster, less evil than Mao? After all, he did truly accomplish something lasting: the unification of China!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dngfei
|
|
Wow, Shi Huangdi killed tons in his day and spent a lifetime bringing suffering to many peole to build a tremendous underground city that is his tomb. Many of the things Mao did were horrific, but he came to power with a lot of support from the Chinese people. Destroying historic wonders was a shame, but it was done in protest of corrupt Chinese feudalism. How ever evil Mao was, he did a lot to bring China to where it is today.
The only logical argument against Mao is that he doesn't represent a time when the Chinese civilization was at its peak with respect to the rest of the world. If Mao was taken out of Civ because he was cruel, why not take out Caesar and Alexander too?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alinestra Covelia
|
 |
I sense the dodgy presence of Bing - a presence I've not felt since...
Feb 2000
time: 00:15
|
|
Good points on both sides raised here, I think. The way I see it, Mao Zedong was an excellent revolutionary, who wholeheartedly deserved the following he initially got, but in later years (and under increasing responsibility) discovered the hard way that rule is not the same as revolution.
Mao's service to the Chinese people is best illustrated by the early years of his political actions. Whereas the KMT (Kuomintang - the Nationalist party) was stagnant and lived off the land with disdain, Mao actually managed to compel all those who followed him to pay for everything they got from the peasants. So from the word go, the Communists began as a considerably more humane party than the corrupt KMT.
During the Japanese occupation, Mao and Jiang Jieshi (Chiang Kai Shek) allied briefly in order to repel the invaders, but at the close of the Sino Japanese War, Jiang Jieshi ordered the massacre of several thousand Communist allies in Shanghai. In the ensuing war between Communist and Nationalist parties, Mao was driven to the Kunming mountains to the southwest after losses, and finally began the famous 1,300-mile Long March to his base in the north.
When Mao's final victory was eventually secured, and Jiang fled to Taiwan (which the Americans continued to support, mostly because they preferred even a Nationalist neighbor to a Communist one), the country was racked by famine and medievally low standard of living - all problems that the KMT had been unable or unwilling to solve. The ramifications of Mao's party's achievements are lengthy and detailed, but suffice it to say that they generally achieved a great improvement, although of course this was done often at great cost to humanity.
Mao was the leader to force China's economy into modernity through industry alone (and not economy, which was ideologically forbidden) and this resulted in the successful Five Year Plans, as well as the disastrous Great Leap Forward. However, he also instituted possibly the world's first population limitation policy, which was ultimately an important factor in raising overall standard of life. (This policy also only applied to the ethnic Han Chinese majority - the ethnic minorities were immediately exempt from this from the beginning, since they were after all minorities.) His Cultural Revolution resulted in the defacement of countless cultural relics and the loss of untold lives - and the pity of it is that the Revolution was intended to weed out those whom Mao suspected of undermining Communism. The possibility that his own plan may have been at fault never occurred to him, but the ultimate aim behind the Revolution was certainly altruistic in nature, even if destructive.
In military terms, Mao was responsible for the final development that forced all the western powers to abandon further hopes of colonization (often with claims of racial superiority) over the Chinese - it was under his rule that the Chinese developed their first atomic bomb. Although distressing to all nations (as a newcomer to the Nuclear Club always is) it marked a further signal that China was developing quickly enough to remain independent in a 20th Century world.
Even though today's Chinese government is now a very different creature from the Maoist party of 1949 (for instance, the abandonment of Maoist economic thought by Deng Xiaoping allowed a dramatic increase of trade), it cannot be denied that Mao was instrumental for its present day form. It was not a perfect entity under his rule, and is by no means a perfect entity today, but there is no disputing its growing importance to the world, and the growing responsibilities that its leaders have shouldered. If nothing else, the excesses of the Cultural Revolution are a reminder (within living memory) of what could go wrong in a rapidly developing nation - but Mao has also left many legacies that indicate successes quite contrary to this.
[/lesson]
My own two cents: I hope they spell his name Mao Zedong. Call me pedantic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
Chiang Kai Shek) allied briefly in order to repel the invaders. In the ensuing war between Communist and Nationalist parties,
Mao's final victory was eventually secured, and Jiang fled to Taiwan (which the Americans continued to support, mostly because they preferred even a Nationalist neighbor to a Communist |
In fact Chiang invaded Taiwan and kill several thousand Taiwanese to take control of the Island. I was in Taiwan in 1963 and when I called a young lady "Chinese", she told me, she was not Chinese but Taiwanese and if Chiang was to leave, he would not be missed. The Taiwanese hated Chiang.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph1944
In fact Chiang invaded Taiwan and kill several thousand Taiwanese to take control of the Island. I was in Taiwan in 1963 and when I called a young lady "Chinese", she told me, she was not Chinese but Taiwanese and if Chiang was to leave, he would not be missed. The Taiwanese hated Chiang. |
A footnote for History.
I did mention the Polynesian, or at lease talked about them around 3 to 4 months ago. No one really know how long they have been on the Pacific Islands. They did not keep any type of record. Europe found them in the 15 & 1600. Get this Taiwan is not Chinese. Yes they claim it but when the Dutch landed there in the 1600, the only people that lived there was the Polynesian. They told the Dutch that one in a while a Chinese Pirate would hide there but always left. It was the Dutch that brought the Chinese to the Island. (Slaves) If anyone doe's not believe go to the Taiwan site on the Internet and read their history.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BSH
|
|
One thing I think of in regards to what character should represent China in the game is the list of historical figures in China's long history. The communist regime, in a long-term view, is just another dynasty (only not hereditary). And Mao's only great achievement was the killing of more sheer numbers of Chinese people than any other leader. Others before him brought greater cultural achievement, economic wealth, trade, unification and expansion in their eras. It really shows the Eurocentric bias, that Mao is the only Chinese strongman recognizable to the typical computer gameplayer.
As far as the relative economic and/or industrial success of the PRC, consider that ROC Taiwan's economy was historically much larger than PRC's, in spite of the population differential. PRC only joined the modern industrial nations after Mao's death, after Deng's reforms. I'll give the PRC credit for not reinventing any wheels; virtually all their industrial and technological advances of the last 50 years were bought, borrowed, or stolen from industrialized nations in the west (including Russia).
I guess the bottom line is that I really want the option of NOT having Mao be the face of China for Civ III. One can't deny his importance, although it is not positive in the way that PRC apologists portray it. To be honest, I don't even care who they include, as long as there's an option to get rid of Mao.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alexander01
|
|
"Mao is an easily recognisable face, which makes it ideal when trying to negotiate and empathise with a real life situation. He is well known which makes him the ideal leader. This is not a war of political correctness, this is a game!" - Provost Harrison
I disagree! If all current civs had the most recognizable faces, then Germany would have Hitler and Russia would have Lenin or Stalin, which is not the case! Again, Hitler's atrocities were very publicized (not to mention that the programmers' nation fought a war against him) so he cannot be included. Stalin is almost as bad, but he only had the cold war against him in the public eye. He's still not in. But Mao, well, the U.S. has an exclusive trade agreement with China every since Nixon went over there and made a deal with Mao. Mao did things much worse than Hitler or Stalin but is in because not as many people in the west know about them.
Plus, CivIII is played by Americans, Germans, and Russians alike. The Germans would be made if Hitler was in, the same with the Russians and Stalin. But China is still under a Maoist regime and reading the little red book, so it's just fine for Mao!
I don't like it either, but it's how it is.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Alinestra Covelia
|
|
I sense the dodgy presence of Bing - a presence I've not felt since...
Feb 2000
time: 00:15
|
|
Democratically speaking, if you tally up the number of Europeans, Americans, and Canadians who claim they hate Mao, you will probably come up with a number roughly equal to the many Chinese who claim they love Mao.
For each person who says Mao was directly responsible for the deaths of millions, there will be somebody somewhere who says Mao was directly responsible for the deliverance of millions.
Who's right and who's wrong? I don't know. I don't care. Mao is dead and his guilt or his glory is dead with him. I'm not going to kick up a fuss if the game puts him in - I believe that whatever depredations outsiders may level against him, his nation has definitely survived, and whatever good he has initiated has been carried on by later leaders. Just look around you when you're in China - standard of life is rising everywhere, although at variable rates. (Or if you're one of those people who has no intention of going there, I suppose you could read up on the subject, both from pro- and anti- Mao writers if possible.)
I sometimes think Zhou Enlai might make a good Chinese figurehead for Civ, but then again there's the problem that he's nowhere near as recognizable as Mao. But I would say that China under Mao really was finally modernized and brought back from being a weak disorganized colonial state. You're right that it would not do to romanticize this - Mao's initiatives may have been utterly ruthless or movingly patriotic, but in the long run the end result lives on much longer than he ever could.
Thanks UR for the clarification - Long March occurred before the Japanese war and not after. Silly me.
Does the Pinyin say "Ze Dong" or "Zedong" or even "ZeDong"? I can't remember and it's causing me to lose sleep.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
S. Kroeze
|
|
the Hague, the Netherlands, Old Europe
Dec 1999
time: 05:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Before somebody evaluates Mao that person should go do some studying. I'd recommend John King Fairbank for beginners, esp Cambridge History of China (something like that can't remember the exact name now  ).
Now before you point a finger at anybody all the leaders used in the Civ series are bada*sses with the possible exception of Ghandi. So why single out Mao?
|
Dear Urban Ranger,
I would like to point out that the 15 volumes of The Cambridge history of China were written by a dozen historians, edited by D.Twitchett and J.K.Fairbank.
Could you please recommend another -even more favourable- biography of Mao than the one I cited by P.Short?
What would you recommend for the advanced, studying Chinese history?
I hope you have discovered by now that the Shiji is most unreliable about the pre-Shang period. Confucius never mentions Huangdi (2674-2575), who was (probably by Sima Qian) invented because one needed five wu-di, since the world was composed of five elements too, according to the dominant philosophy. Likewise the old sungod Xiho was replaced by two ministers, Xi and Ho, teaching the fundamentals of astronomy to humanity, in the Shujing.
People who care about human life generally will admit there is a difference between genocide, casualties in war and the elimination of political adversaries.
Unfortunately, organized genocide is a modern phenomenon. The massacre of the Indians was mainly the result of germs.
Could you please list the crimes of Jeanne d'Arc?
And the crimes of Gandhi? And of Knut?
And the proven crimes of Livia? (not the alleged inventions of R.Graves)
What about Amaterasu? Or Ishtar(i)? And Dido? And king Friedrich, whoever CivII meant?
What about Abraham Lincoln, who abolished slavery in the US, or the 'wicked' Eleanor Roosevelt?
Rulers like Louis XIV, Elizabeth I, Napoleon I or Philip II killed some political enemies indeed, though as a rule they were put into prison or banished. The 'Huguenots' and 'Moriscos' were driven away, not transported to extermination camps.
G.Julius Caesar was remarkably clement, otherwise he wouldn't have been murdered!
One cannot hold Montezuma responsible for living and ruling in a most violent culture. He was not better or worse than his predecessors or adversaries. And while the first Emperor, Qin Shi-huangdi killed thousands (not millions) of people, he at least never provoked mass famine.
In my opinion the only crime of Hannibal was to be a brilliant general in a war he lost. A war probably provoked by the Romans, not the Carthaginians!
Regards,
S.Kroeze
quote:
Democratically speaking, if you tally up the number of Europeans, Americans, and Canadians who claim they hate Mao, you will probably come up with a number roughly equal to the many Chinese who claim they love Mao.
Who's right and who's wrong? I don't know. I don't care. His nation has definitely survived.
|
I suppose the victims will -as usual- have no vote in this matter? So I guess that when you do not kill all your inhabitants, you' re just fine. Hitlier tried to do this, but failed.
Perhaps the admirers of Mao should try living in present-day Iraq? Living conditions are quite comparable....
quote:
[Hitler] did a lot for germany |
In 1945 Germany was a most pleasant place to live. Lots of empty space, unobstructed view, abundant wild life, cheap labour, no industrial disputes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
Mr Kroeze,
"I would like to point out that the 15 volumes of The Cambridge history of China were written by a dozen historians, edited by D.Twitchett and J.K.Fairbank. "
Ah yes, me bad. 
"Could you please recommend another -even more favourable- biography of Mao than the one I cited by P.Short?"
John King Fairbank's The Great Chinese Revolution does a pretty good job of painting Mao in a positive light.
"What would you recommend for the advanced, studying Chinese history?"
Unfortunately I know of few advanced works on modern Chinese history written in English. I mainly use Taiwan and PRC books, with some Japanese works here and there.
"I hope you have discovered by now that the Shiji is most unreliable about the pre-Shang period. Confucius never mentions Huangdi (2674-2575), who was (probably by Sima Qian) invented because one needed five wu-di, since the world was composed of five elements too, according to the dominant philosophy."
I have here with me a fairly recent work on Huangdi, published in 1992, which is a semi-academic work written by a researcher who specialises on the subject. According to him there was such a person as Huangdi, who was a tribal chieftain that led a tribal alliance to a unification war victory, lying the foundation of what would be known as China.
What is "wu-di?"
"Likewise the old sungod Xiho was replaced by two ministers, Xi and Ho, teaching the fundamentals of astronomy to humanity, in the Shujing."
AFAIK the pre-Han period was mainly dominated by a variety of philosophies that displaced the earlier pantheism. The various gods were mainly created during or after the Western Han dynasty.
"Unfortunately, organized genocide is a modern phenomenon."
Maybe not. The Old Testament have records of Israelis destroying entire enemy tribes.
" People who care about human life generally will admit there is a difference between genocide, casualties in war and the elimination of political adversaries."
Yes, there is a difference, though this difference is in degree, not in kind. There are of course exceptions, but I'm not going to go into them here.
"Qin Shi-huangdi killed thousands (not millions) of people, he at least never provoked mass famine."
Who intentionally provoked mass famine?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BSH
|
|
Remember that Mao's popularity in the PRC is due to the suppression of facts by the party. Ignore the bad things, and you can make a hero. It occurred to me that before the Communists seized power, China was already on the road to modernity. They had engineers, professors, and a middle class. Mao killed them all, and made a determined effort to take China back to the 19th century. That's the "progress" that the Communist dynasty has brought to the PRC.
Okay, I'm really done harping on the political now. Really.
Compare the modern struggles of the PRC with this description from Britannica of a much older (and IMHO worthier) leader.
Huang-ti is reputed to have been born about 2704 BC and to have begun his rule as emperor in 2697. His legendary reign is credited with the introduction of wooden houses, carts, boats, the bow and arrow, and writing. Huang-ti himself is credited with defeating “barbarians” in a great battle somewhere in what is now Shansi—the victory winning him the leadership of tribes throughout the Huang Ho (Yellow River) plain. Some traditions also credit him with the introduction of governmental institutions and the use of coined money. Huang-ti's wife was reputed to have discovered sericulture (silk production) and to have taught women how to breed silkworms and weave fabrics of silk.
Unlike the Communists, he actually invented things, and improved technology in China.
Okay, now I'm done. I mean it.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-08-2001 02:33
The rule seems to have the family name in one block and the given name in another. Therefore Zhuge Liang and Mao Zedong.
|
|