Sid and Mao - what's up with that?

[tatterdemalion]

What's the deal with Mao's smilimg mug on every other image at the Civ3 site? Including a knowing nod and grin from Mao in the E3 video when 'enlightened' civilizations are mentioned.

Mao was a tyranical mass murderer, plain and simple.

[Sabre2th]

I think there's more to the story than that, but I won't argue about Mao. I think Firaxis puts him on there because he's well known. I wouldn't read into it too much.

[Provost Harrison]

He's a well known face from the previous civs, and it is this that means he is placed prominently. Same with Abraham Lincoln...

[Dida]

**** Mao, he is the most hateful dirtbag in the entire universe.
Put Dr. Sun Yat Sen as leader of China instead.

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by Dida
**** Mao, he is the most hateful dirtbag in the entire universe.
Put Dr. Sun Yat Sen as leader of China instead.

Enlightening post. I don't see why Mao can't be a leader. Just because he wasn't the nicest person ever doesn't mean he didn't influence the world.

[Lorizael]

There have already been posts like this before.

But here we go. They don't choose leaders based on who was "good". They pick the leaders that are the most famous and most well known.

When you think of Rome, you think of Caesar.

When you think of the Babylonians, you think of Hammurabi.

When you think of Greece, you think of greasy men jumping over... I mean Alexander.

And for China, Mao.

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by Lorizael
There have already been posts like this before.

But here we go. They don't choose leaders based on who was "good". They pick the leaders that are the most famous and most well known.

When you think of Rome, you think of Caesar.

When you think of the Babylonians, you think of Hammurabi.

When you think of Greece, you think of greasy men jumping over... I mean Alexander.

And for China, Mao.

Right. Some can be argued, but Mao is one of the most well known in my mind. I remember at least 1 other thread a while ago trying to 'overthrow' Mao. We don't need another.

[Inverse Icarus]

greasy men jumping over?

i guess im not up opn my greek ethnic slurs.

[Jason Beaudoin]

Well said Lorizael!

Personally, I'm sick and tired of the politically-correct culture that the we've developed in the Western world. It's like we try to ignore that history hasn't always been a rosy.

I couldn't name one other Chinese leader. They should keep Mao, because I can guarantee that many of the other leaders that they've included have killed innocent people too.

To be a leader is to forget that you had a moral code.

[Cyclotron]

And Chiang Kai-Shek (spelling error?) just isn't as majestic a name. You can't put it into poetry easily...

Just live with it. For better or for worse, the guy's famous.

[TVA22]

I agree, this is a stupid discussion to get into anyway, but if you want to get into it about Mao, just remember, Mao Zedong may have been a mass murderer, from a certain point of view, and yes, the red guard under his orders destroyed thousands of Chinese cultural relics, but lets face it, the Chinese today are a lot better off than they have been in a long time. They have political stability, and more freedom than Americans give them credit for (I've been to China). Mao, for better or worse, gave China what it needed--modernization, and stability, so that European powers or Japan can no longer take advantage of China, as they all were up to 1945.

[Lorizael]

You all agree with me?????

Something is terribly... terribly wrong...

[Jaybe]

And Mao was certainly an idealist! Someone who believed in the THEORY of "communism". It is my belief that that is what the "Cultural Revolution" was all about -- he was trying to promote that next stage of communism: the 'revolution of the proletariat.'
In this manner, of course, he definitely was not a humanist, though he might well have been intentionally sacrificing life (AND CULTURE) in the short term hoping for enhancing it in the long term.

Life was 'cheap' in China at that time;
Mao was somewhat ("snicker") isolated from his people during the latter part of his reign (further 'cheapening' his perspective of the individual).

[Akron]

Originally posted by Lorizael
When you think of Greece, you think of greasy men jumping over... I mean Alexander.

When I think of Greece, I think more of Pericles than Alexander. But thats because I don't really feel that miltaristic dominance over a short period of time is sign of greatness. But Alexander is probably more well-known by the public.

Chosen leaders really do not affect gameplay that much, so it really doesn't matter.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Akron


When I think of Greece, I think more of Pericles than Alexander. But thats because I don't really feel that miltaristic dominance over a short period of time is sign of greatness. But Alexander is probably more well-known by the public.

Chosen leaders really do not affect gameplay that much, so it really doesn't matter.

Another good point

[freemen]

Hey boys, you should go back to your history books. Mao,was between 1936-1949 a leader of the chinesse revolution. I was famous for what they call "The Long March". When he took power he suppress anything that came between his Power. Mostly intellectual. he even order to kill anybody with money. If anybody with money is dead, kill anyone who know him. He commit attrocities. And the "cultural revolution" was a total disaster. He ruin is country, create a famine for many years. Reduce life experancy by half. Why do you think why China today is a "capitalist" communisim is you let me the expression. They realise that the revolution was a disaster.

For ruler, how many people know Jiang Zemin, Xian Yu Ping ( thing write like that) or Shiang Ky Shek. Even if the first two, had led the Chinesse in his modern glory, nobody knew thier name. But when you talk about Mao, now that ring a bell. Even if he order one million murder, dance naked in the Forbidden Palace, or smoke drug, he gain the "respect"of history because everybody knew his name. Same as Stalin. Even if he was the greatest bastard who ever live on this planet ( Exept,of course Cousin Adolf, who was the god of bastard ) he claim his place in history.

For that Mao his a figure of China, like Abe for the US, Ceasar for the roman. (Anybody want Nero for Roman Leaders ??? ) or Hamurabi for the Babylonians.

So firaxis made a good choice to choose their leader, even if they were the biggest trash can of this planet.

[Falconius]

Originally posted by Lorizael
They don't choose leaders based on who was "good". They pick the leaders that are the most famous and most well known.

When you think of Rome, you think of Caesar.

When you think of the Babylonians, you think of Hammurabi.

When you think of Greece, you think of... Alexander.

And for China, Mao.

And when you think of German leaders, you think of Hitler. So where is he? Just a little too evil, eh?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Falconius


And when you think of German leaders, you think of Hitler. So where is he? Just a little too evil, eh?

Yah that does bother me a little. Maybe it's just a little too recent for some people.

There are still people alive from Hitler's time.
None from Mao's, or Caesar's, or Hammurabi's.

[down th' pub]

Lorizael - re your sig...

The dude's (or was that old woman?) name was Dennis.

But he didn't ask.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by down th' pub
Lorizael - re your sig...

The dude's (or was that old woman?) name was Dennis.

But he didn't ask.

Thanks. Been awhile since I've seen the movie. Gonna see it again tomorrow. Re-released and digitally re-mastered.

[Shadowstrike]

Originally posted by Lorizael


Yah that does bother me a little. Maybe it's just a little too recent for some people.

There are still people alive from Hitler's time.
None from Mao's, or Caesar's, or Hammurabi's.

Several hundred million people would disagree with you about the "Mao" comment.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Shadowstrike


Several hundred million people would disagree with you about the "Mao" comment.

Oh yah sorry. Getting dates messed up

[tatterdemalion]

of that, there is no doubt.

Are there no others worth considering? Sun Tzu might disagree.

Sorry if this is retreading exhausted territory, I have not spent much time on these boards since the Test of Time was introduced a couple of years ago.

Websites are designed. Carefully laid out and planned. In my opinion, the smiling, knowing nods of Mao, are implicit endorsements of Mao's "Idealism" by Sid Meiers. The pasting of his portrait next to Lincoln's is a subtle statement of moral equivalancy. Are these interpretations extreme, paranoid or useful? Yes, yes, and not necessarily. It is just my opinion.

My opinion is further reinforced by Sid's somewhat dismissive treatment of religion in his games. In the Civ games religion is purely an "opiate of the masses" phenonema. In AC, religion is treated with open contempt. These attitudes are entirely consistent with humanist theology. Is all this circumstantial evidence? Yep, but again, it is my gut feeling.

I also find it interesting that my criticism of Mao is labeled as being politically correct. If that means that it is politically correct in today's American culture to regard communist dictators such as Mao, Stalin, and Castro as bloody butchers, then maybe there's more hope for this country than I thought.

As for Mao bringing improvements to his country and advancing their state and culture? I can only assume that someone would make that arguement because they do not know about the 10's of millions of people he killed. That is the kindest thing I can think to say about that sentiment.

[Jason Beaudoin]

I also find it interesting that my criticism of Mao is labeled as being politically correct. If that means that it is politically correct in today's American culture to regard communist dictators such as Mao, Stalin, and Castro as bloody butchers, then maybe there's more hope for this country than I thought.

How very politically correct of you tatterdemalion... you are a tribute to the cause.

Really tatterdemalion, quit trying to feed us that emotional crap. The day the Western world stops ignoring atrocities like what happened in Rwuanda, we'll talk about the atrocities of communists. OK? ...because it's very politically correct to trash the communists, while ignoring the blood being spilled in many African countries.

Besides... did the US or Canada build their nations without killing millions of aboriginals? Does that mean that Abe Lincoln and Queen Victoria should be considered a murder, or should any other president or monarch during the years of US and British expansion?

Food for thought huh?

Really, give us a break.

[mactbone]

Websites are designed. Carefully laid out and planned. In my opinion, the smiling, knowing nods of Mao, are implicit endorsements of Mao's "Idealism" by Sid Meiers. The pasting of his portrait next to Lincoln's is a subtle statement of moral equivalancy. Are these interpretations extreme, paranoid or useful? Yes, yes, and not necessarily. It is just my opinion.

Yes, and how many pictures have you seen of any of the leaders apart from Mao and Lincoln in your life? Mao and Lincoln were the first ones done so they are the ones used in advertisements. And I have news for you, every leader goes into that smirk if they're really happy. Do you think anybody saw Lincoln smile? I know that there aren't any pictures of him smiling out there. So they just decided to use the 'happy' pictures for advertisements.

go here to see the leader animations...
http://icdweb.cc.purdue.edu/~mckibbi...creenshots.htm

[Earthling7]

Oh, how I agree.

Mao was a psychokiller. True.
Mao destroyed the Chinese (and Tibetan) culture. True.
Mao inserted a cruel form of government. True.
Mao is famous. True.
Mao changed the course of history. True.
China is better off due to Mao's actions. Maybe.
Mao is politically correct. False.

so...

German leader:
Hitler was a psychokiller. True.
Hitler destroyed the Germans and Europe. True.
Hitler inserted a cruel form of government. True.
Hitler is famous. True.
Hitler changed the course of history. True.
Germany is better off due to Hitler's actions. Maybe (Marshall plan, economic wealth).
Hitler is politically correct. False.

Now, who should be the leader of the German people?

Don't worry, I hate the bugger, but if Hitler is politically incorrect, then so is Mao.

[mactbone]

The only problem with that, is that most of the buyers of Civ3 are either European or of European descent. I agree that Hitler most probably should be included, but then everyone would jump on Sid and Firaxis for promoting Fascism. They can have Mao in because the American and Euro 'political correctness biotches' don't know enough about him.

Actually, Hitler may not be the best choice for the Germans anyway, just the one most prominent in everyone's mind. Bismark *was* extremely imortant in unifying Germany for the first time, or something. Sorry, I don't know very much German history, but I do know that they have had lots of leaders who would probably win over Hitler, just Hitler gets more attention because of the recentness and all the press he got.

[Earthling7]

Deng XiaoPing (spelling ) - was relatively pacifist. I said relatively, don't scream.

Helmut Kohl (spelling ) - united Germany in 1990. Don't whine about the money scandal, he was a politician, whaddya expect?

Hail our leaders!

[Jason Beaudoin]

There are a lot of leaders in CIV3 that are just as guilty as Mao. Pointing him out of the crowd is rediculous.

BTW, Bismark is an excellent choice for the Germans.

[tatterdemalion]

Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin
The day the Western world stops ignoring atrocities like what happened in Rwuanda, we'll talk about the atrocities of communists. OK? ...because it's very politically correct to trash the communists, while ignoring the blood being spilled in many African countries.

Ah, Jason, thank you for a prime example of anti-American moral equivalence. So, by your measure the United States is just as bad as Communist dictatorships because of what happened in Rwanda? That's amazing.

The Communists actively planned and executed the wholesale slaughter of tens of millions of their own people over the course of decades so that they could consolidate power. Those deaths were supposedly necessary to usher in the glorious era of Communism, but that era never arrived. Just remained a squalid, corrupt, ruthless dictatorships. Imagine that. Maybe next time it will work.

Now, Rwanda was a disaster, admittedly. But it resulted from Africans killing each other. The West (codename for USA) did not attack or kill any of them. You might be able to say that we had moral obligation to try an intercede and prevent the killings or provide assistance to the people in the midst of disaster. One might be able to say that we were neglectful and impotent in the face of a clear problem. But then, if you said that, you would have to point the finger directly at the last President as accuse him on not sufficiently feeling their pain.

You are saying that cold-blooded, pre-mediated murder of tens of millions of people is the same thing as impotence or incompetence in the face of a civil war in another continent. That's crazy.

Of course, Hitler killed tens of millions of people in a premeditated fashion, too. By your formula, the crimes of Communists = crimes of America = crimes of Hitler; therefore the Communists were as bad as Hitler too, right? Right? Somehow, I doubt you will agree with that proposition, because to the Left, Hitler is always worse than the Communists.