The KOREAN Civilization: Things Every Civ Player Should Know - Page 22

eric789 · July 20, 2002, 23:55

HazieDaVampire

Quote:

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

I don't know and nothing is proved yet. I know once Europe called Korea, as Coree and Corea is still used by countries of Latin origin but there is no evidence that the Japanese actually changed the spelling but pure speculation. The origianl spelling was "Coree" but no one knows why it became "Korea".

Ribannah · July 21, 2002, 05:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Q Cubed
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.

Funny. The League came into being in 1451 AD, built a large empire and stayed in good shape until they were divided over Handsome Lake's teachings and the American war of independence. They had a fully functioning democratic confederacy which lasted a whole lot longer than the Aztecs' cruel rule.

When it comes to political networks, I'd also rate the Sioux, Apache, Cherokee, Kiowa and several other tribes higher than the Aztecs and their offspring the Comanche.

Other than being in power for a short while, until it succumbed to the well-justified uprising, the Aztec rule produced nothing remarkable. I don't see how that can be compared to either Korea or the Iroquois.

King of Rasslin · July 21, 2002, 06:34

"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.. "

That isn't true. Aztecs and Mexicans are the same, except a few Mexicans might have a small amount of Spanish blood in them. I consider myself white even though I might have an American Indian great-great-great-great grandmother.

However, the culture of the Aztecs (human sacrifice, cannibalism, gross stuff like that) is very different from the Spanish (bull fighting, nude beaches, and other pleasant things). The race is the same, but they have been civilized by the Spanish influence.

eric789 · July 21, 2002, 06:59

King of Rasslin

Quote:

That isn't true. Aztecs and Mexicans are the same, except a few Mexicans might have a small amount of Spanish blood in them. I consider myself white even though I might have an American Indian great-great-great-great grandmother.

60% of Mestizos, mixed blood of the Spanish and the native,10% of Caucasians and 30% of the native descents form the Mexcian population. 70% of the Mexicans carry the Spanish and other European blood.

King of Rasslin · July 21, 2002, 07:56

No way! I can't imagine a few hundred conquistadors taking on 70% of the Aztec women. Those guys must have been freaks or on steroids or something!!!

yellfromhell · July 21, 2002, 12:25

Q-Cubed,

I admit my little knowledge about Korea took me to think the Aztecs deserve better than Korea to have representation in civ3. That problem is solved, you and Eric won, I lost.

I accept we can continue discussing in a new thread were if Korea or Mexico deserve better to have representation in civ3.

I congratulate you for understanding that the method you employed to argue about economic power is similar to the one I wrongly used to argue about militaristic power and I accept you didnt use hypoteticals (but, I still think you could be suggesting one); eventhough you still say the mexican economic growth is a direct effect of the NAFTA suscription (and, for me, that is doubtfull; we cant know that).

I believe I`ve never attacked Korea. Perhaps I did, but please know for sure that I had no intention to do so.

Hugs,
Yellfromhell.

-------------------------------------------

Eric,

Except for the last paragraph, everything I said to Q-Cubed goes for you. I accept you were right in appointing my dangerous assumptions.

I still do not accept errors in this things:
a) You jumped in the discussion after I introduced Mexico in it, so "Mexico vs. Korea" was also being discussed then.
b) in the specific topic "Aztec vs. Korea" I did bring many facts to support my point of view. The problem was not the lack of facts, but that Q-Cubed brought Koreas more impressive facts to the table. Therefore, my only error was my lack of knowledge about Korea.
c) there are lots of more facts to bring about the Aztec civilization, but from know on I´ll show them sure that they havent enough weight to be opposed to Koreas ones.
d) I would have mentioned spanish influence in Mexico anyway, no matter if you entered in the discussion or not, because I dont feel humiliation when recognizing the other part has the reason. As a counterattack, I would have probably argued about USAs support to South Korea, a kind of support that Mexico does not recibe (because Mexico is not involved in any issue related to USAs war against communism)

I congratulate you for recognizing you were wrong when you ironically asked "Does Mexico carries a single tradition of the Aztec?".

I hope this make clear my actual position.

Hugs
Yellfromhell

Lord Merciless · July 21, 2002, 12:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Ribannah

Funny. The League came into being in 1451 AD, built a large empire and stayed in good shape until they were divided over Handsome Lake's teachings and the American war of independence. They had a fully functioning democratic confederacy which lasted a whole lot longer than the Aztecs' cruel rule.

When it comes to political networks, I'd also rate the Sioux, Apache, Cherokee, Kiowa and several other tribes higher than the Aztecs and their offspring the Comanche.

Other than being in power for a short while, until it succumbed to the well-justified uprising, the Aztec rule produced nothing remarkable. I don't see how that can be compared to either Korea or the Iroquois.

The Aztec capital Tenochtitlan alone would put all achievements made by Iroquois, Sioux, and other North American tribes to shame. The city itself even put Spaniards in astonishment.

yellfromhell · July 21, 2002, 12:54

Ribannah,

[quote]:
"Other than being in power for a short while, until it succumbed to the well-justified uprising, the Aztec rule produced nothing remarkable. I don't see how that can be compared to either Korea or the Iroquois".

I accept thay cant be compared to Korea. I`ll learn more about the Iroquois and talk later about your affirmation.
But I can surely say the Aztecs did a lot of remarkable thing, and therefore I think you are wrong. The cruelty of the Aztec empire can also be discussed: their cannibalism and sacrifices where not done with any feeling of cruelty, but with fear of the gods. Many times common people offered themselves to be sacrificed as a gift to the gods, and that was seens as an honour. I understand that, for us, It looks cruel.

Hugs,
Yellfromhell

yellfromhell · July 21, 2002, 13:04

About me, a latinamerican, feeling somehow represented by the Aztecs:

1) They are the only civ in Civ3 that directly comes from latinamerican territories.
2) All latinamerican nations had tribes in their territory in the beggining of the spanish conquest.
3) Todays Spain look more to Europe than to its past american colonies. Therefore, it can be seen as a second option of representation for latinamericans, after any local tribe (that would be chosen in first place). Eventhough, there`s not even a Spanish civ in Civ3, so only the Aztecs remain.
4) All latinamerican countries feel extremelly sorry for the massacre the spaniards did with our indians.

All of those are some reasons to feel represented by the Aztecs while playing Civ3.

Hugs.
Yell

Ribannah · July 21, 2002, 19:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
The Aztec capital Tenochtitlan alone would put all achievements made by Iroquois, Sioux, and other North American tribes to shame. The city itself even put Spaniards in astonishment.

You have to distinguish between the city Tenochtitlan and the Aztecs. The city is much older and has indeed a rich history.

Q Classic · July 22, 2002, 08:46

Ribannah:

Quote:

Funny. The League came into being in 1451 AD, built a large empire and stayed in good shape until they were divided over Handsome Lake's teachings and the American war of independence. They had a fully functioning democratic confederacy which lasted a whole lot longer than the Aztecs' cruel rule.

When it comes to political networks, I'd also rate the Sioux, Apache, Cherokee, Kiowa and several other tribes higher than the Aztecs and their offspring the Comanche.

*nods*
i had not been aware of the fact that the iroquois had set up their political system as far back as the 16th century; so i modify my statement in the conversation with yell. the iroquois didn't fail. i haven't done enough research on the others, save the cherokee, but i wouldn't rate the cherokee as high, because much of their more advanced developments came during the colonization of america, and thus i'm hesitant to say that they are on par with the iroquois.

King of Rasslin · July 22, 2002, 12:04

"4) All latinamerican countries feel extremelly sorry for the massacre the spaniards did with our indians."

They aren't really sorry if they give the land back or a lot of money. Black people are still waiting for their 40 acres and a mule.

yellfromhell · July 22, 2002, 12:48

King of Rasslin,
In the case of my country, Uruguay, we are very sorry. Eventhough, it looks easy to be sorry: we have no tribes anymore

Yesterday came from Paris (Museum of Man) the rests of Vaimaca Pirú, the last Charrúa leader, and were burried together with those of Artigas, our procer.
Hugs.
Yellfromhell

King of Rasslin · July 22, 2002, 12:56

We just allow the Indians to make casinos and take the money from stupid people anyway. It still won't repay the damage we did, though. But you do have to consider that we are the greatest country ever, and they are lucky to be living here. We really don't owe them as much as they want, but Uruguay is another story. I have only heard about poverty in South American countries, but you must be very wealthy if you own a computer.

yellfromhell · July 22, 2002, 14:25

King of Rasslin,
Be sure Im not wealthy. I have a wife and a kid and my salary is 100 dollars. Im not poor either... I would say Im from the medium class. But from now on I`ll discuss this things in another thread because if not Q-Cubed will get angry

(its just a joke Q-Cubed).
Hugs
Yellfromhell

Aro · July 22, 2002, 14:45

Yellfromhell:
In Brazil, we feel the same. And we have some tribes.
King of Rasslin:
I can't wait to know what you have to say about jewish people. Or palestinians, arabs in general, refugees from Central Europe, afghans, indians (from India!) Did I forgot someone? You seems to have that little nice words about everybody: latino-americans, asians, afro-americans, native americans, african people... (including "stupid people")!
I can't wait.

Oh, si... Yellfromhell owns a computer, and is from medium class. Me too.
IMNSHO, you realy need to learn a little more about Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile... We are very interesting! Some of our richest people could buy a lot of computers, you know

BTW, you could learn more about YOUR country, too. Read the newspapers, especially the economic news. Or, if you don't read newspapers, too... Try the CNN!

Q Classic · July 22, 2002, 15:16

if not CNN, FoxNews. Fox News breaks down world events with nice little graphics so everybody can understand them, and spins it conservatively.

CNN doesn't do that, but has a liberal bias. so.

Aro · July 22, 2002, 15:33

Q Cubed,
You are right, Fox News IS better.

Edited: For the purpose, of course.

Q Classic · July 22, 2002, 15:58

eh... actually, i prefer bbc. i don't like fox, because it can be insulting to intelligence, what with the in-your-face graphics; and i don't like cnn domestic-USA because it just misses the point sometimes, as well as being flat out wrong others.

on the other hand, i like CNN International, which is not saddled with the same problems. BBC World and Deutsche Welle are good, too.

Aro · July 22, 2002, 16:43

I see two channels (CNN International, I don’t have BBC, and a brazilian news network on cable, Globo News), and read four newspapers almost every day, due to my job. It's necessary to find something close to the truth...

I avoid this "smart graphics", too, and I have all your motives and one more to do this: for a long time (long to me: two months) I worked in a newspaper making that damn info graphics. Argh!!!

In my last post, I was trying to be sarcastic, but my english don't help... As a matter of fact, most of the press can be insulting to intelligence. We are in an electoral period here in Brazil, and some days the papers make me really mad. Because I know they are not telling the truth, I'm a journalist too…

Lord Merciless · July 22, 2002, 19:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Ribannah

You have to distinguish between the city Tenochtitlan and the Aztecs. The city is much older and has indeed a rich history.

You mean that Aztecs came in as conquerors and simply inherited what their predecessors had? If that's the case, then who can represent Middle American civilization better than the Aztecs? The Olmecs who died out long time ago, the nameless people who build Teotihuacan and Tula, or the Tlaxcalans who helped Spanish crush the Aztecs?

Jay Bee · July 23, 2002, 02:50

...plus, I think Ribannah is confusing Tenochtitlan with Teotihuacan. Tenochtitlan was founded by the Aztecs ca. 1325, when they settled in the valley of Mexico.

King of Rasslin · July 23, 2002, 04:29

"if not CNN, FoxNews. Fox News breaks down world events with nice little graphics so everybody can understand them, and spins it conservatively.

CNN doesn't do that, but has a liberal bias. so."

I actually got a radio station that had bbc on it! I was just playing around with it but I got a decent news station. It seems to be faster than American news and it doesn't have the obscene number of ads on it. CNN is about as bad as it gets, Fox is a little better. News on the internet is best because you don't have to look at the ads.

Also, I don't have a problem about calling black people what they are. Black people. I saw some idiot on CNN call Nelson Mandela an African American! He isn't even a ****ing American citizen! He is an African civil rights leader that spent most of his life in prison. What do you guys call black people in Uruguay? African Uruguayans?

Sometimes it's best not to be politically correct, in my opinion.

Aro · July 23, 2002, 10:54

King of Rasslin,
Here in Brazil we call them... people! It's very simple, try it! As said by Albert Einstein, we all belong to the human race...
BTW, I'm not politically correct, I can't. I'm a political cartoonist, and my duty is smash everyone who deserves.

And I do this with nothing but my pencil!!! (In fact, I draw with my Wacom Pen). AND "black people" are not black. Is very difficult even to scientists find something really black. Even astronomical black holes have some radiation leaking from it.
So, should I call you Pink? Because you’re not white (did you know that?), unless you are dead, with no blood in your body.
In resume: all of us are "colored" people... You too, pale face!

I don't know if this post can be considered as spam, but discussions about this matter can help and improve everyone. And, maybe, make the world a little better.
Sorry, Yin26 and Q cubed…

Lord Merciless · July 23, 2002, 12:34

I must remind everyone that Indians are "Whites", Arabs also qualify as "Whites. Linguistically speaking, Indian languages are closer to West European ones than either Finnish or Hungarian.

Yeah, I guessed somehow that Ribannah confused Tenochtitlan with Teotihuacan.

King of Rasslin · July 24, 2002, 06:58

Indian Languages closer to West European? I thought Indians came to America from Asia, although I hear now that there is some white blood in them, learned from a DNA test. So maybe this was OUR land all along!

Also, there was a statue in Central America that is supposed to be really old that looks like a black person. I think American Indians are just every race mixed up, since they are very unique compared to the others.

Aro · July 24, 2002, 10:08

If I'm not wrong, Lord Merciless is talking about Indians from India (religious, commercial), not Iroquois (religious, expansionist)

King of Rasslin · July 24, 2002, 10:25

People from America are Indians.

People from India are Hindus.

Q Classic · July 24, 2002, 10:58

...

[beats head against wall]

no, kor...

people from india are indians. a hindu is an indian who follows the particular religion of hinduism; but indians can and are muslim, sikh, christian, and buddhist as well.

people who lived in america were misnamed indians by colombus; besides, most native americans prefer to be called by either:
a) native american
b) native people
c) insert tribe name here.
it's not political correctness. it's accuracy.

Lord Merciless · July 24, 2002, 15:55

Quote:

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
People from America are Indians.

People from India are Hindus.

Indians are always from India. That poor Columbus thought he found India, so he named the people he encountered "Indians". He failed to realize that he had discovered a whole new continent, and refused to do so until his death.

As already pointed out by Q-Qubed, Hindus only represents a religious groups among Indians. There are at least 170 million Indian Muslims, making India the country with second most Muslim population.

I never refer to American "Indians" as Indians. Either I use the tribe names directly, or I call them Native Americans.

Aro, can you show us some of the politcal cartoons you drew?