Sid and Mao - what's up with that?

[KrazyHorse]

"pre-medi[t]ated murder of tens of millions"

Please provide documentary evidence. Most of the deaths were due to starvation, and it is questionable whether a Nationalist government wouldn't have had the same problem after a decade of war.

[Mankind]

Why Mao is so happy...

perhaps Mao is such satisfied and happy that he will be in civ3 so he smiles all the time?

If I would have to step out in civ3 also I would be satisfied and happy and...

[sorry spelling errors i have to quick ... uh never mind...]

[tatterdemalion]

Originally posted by 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.

Agreed. I dare say all the leaders chosen are guilty of abuses in one form or another. Even Lincoln squashed dissent during the Civil War. That's not the point.

The point is: I think it is nasty to set up the website choreography to favor one of the bloodiest leaders in history. Also, all of Sid's games give nice treatment to Mao and the Chinese communists. Why not choose Winston Churchill? Machiavelli? Lady Jane? Anyone else once for a change.

[KrazyHorse]

Has anybody else noticed that Sid looks sort of like Mao? In a European way, of course.

[tatterdemalion]

"Please provide documentary evidence."

Hmmm, I have a strong feeling that anyone who demands proof of communist atrocities in that tone of voice would not be satisfied by any proof offered.

[KrazyHorse]

Not at all. But pre-meditated murder in the tens of millions is ridiculous. In toto, it's estimated that 30 million Chinese died in the circumstances surrounding the civil war and Mao's leadership. Almost all of these were from starvation and many were from the actual war. Neither of these factors can be likened to "pre-meditated murder".

By the way, I agree that Mao was certainly a crazy-ass ****er who is in no way a hero, but unfactual claims like the one you made annoy me.

[Earthling7]

Mao was a scumbag. Wether he killed them for fun like Adolf, or starved them to death because he couldn't be arsed, like the Taliban, is irrelevant. He was an idiot and that's that.

[Alex]

I think Firaxis has chosen the most famous leaders that are easily related to the civs or nations they represent. To us, modern westerners, Mao is easily related to China, but of course he is probably not the best choice, from a politically correct point of view.

Take the greeks, for instance. Most people identify them with Alexander the Great, but he was Macedonian. Despite Demosthenes´ warnings, Philip from Macedonia conquered what we think today as being Greece (at that time, there were just a bunch of city-states that would unite in times of dangerous crisis; take the Persian wars, for instance).

In terms of political leaders, maybe Pericles would be the most accurate choice, but how many people really know him? For me, I would think of Socrates, Plato or Aristotle, but that´s because of my philosophical background, so I don´t think it counts (I know they were not political leaders, but, hey, Plato always wanted to make his "republic" dream real - and failed -, while Aristotle was Alexander´s teacher)...

[mactbone]

AAAARGH! Anyone feel like they're arguing with Bob Dornan here?

OK, you have a game. You want to sell it. You have animated leaders in the game that can look happy or sad. Which do you pick for advertisements. The happy "I'm playing Civ3" look, or the "Oh crap, I just got blown up" look?

Now, they pick Lincoln and Mao because, I'm assuming here. They were the first ones done. Say it again, they were the first leaders they got animated. So, do you wait a month or two to get the word out about Civ3? Or do you use the first two available rulers?

BTW, Machiavelli was probably as bad as Mao if you want to look at it that way.

Why aren't you arguing against the Iroquis leader, or the Japanese leader? It's because you have a bone to pick and aren't intelligent to realize none of these leaders are perfect. Sid is not AFAIK a communist, and I'm sure from an emotional perspective he dislikes Mao. But from an historical perspective he makes a lot of sense.

BTW, who's Lady Jane? Do you mean from G.I. Joe?

[KrazyHorse]

8 day Queen of England.

[Jason Beaudoin]

You must feel it convenient to peg me as Anti-American. I can assure you that I am not. That, my friend, is pathetic to even suggest. I never said anything against the Americans.

I'll tell you what we should do tatterdemalion, you make a list of leaders for each CIV, making sure that none of them have been ruthless or none have been murdurers (directly or indirectly), and we'll send the list to Firaxis. Is that better?

This way, we can all feel better about having a politically correct game, which is devoid of any negative historical event.

Maybe, tatterdemalion, we should take slavery out as well, because slavery is politically incorrect.

Wait... but that's not all, we can't have war in our game either because that would only foster more animated and simulated killing. That wouldn't be nice. We would be adopting a Mao way of doing things, and that would be politically incorrect.

[Earthling7]

Sid a commie? How many versions of CivII were released? He is the pinnacle of capitalisam

[mactbone]

So why is Lady Jane special? In G.I. Joe she was one of about three female Joes. I think she was kind of important in the show too...

[Jason Beaudoin]

Why aren't you arguing against the Iroquis leader, or the Japanese leader? It's because you have a bone to pick and aren't intelligent to realize none of these leaders are perfect. Sid is not AFAIK a communist, and I'm sure from an emotional perspective he dislikes Mao. But from an historical perspective he makes a lot of sense.

Well said MacTBone. That's exactly my point.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by tatterdemalion

Somehow, I doubt you will agree with that proposition, because to the Left, Hitler is always worse than the Communists.

Reality check: It has been the Left that has been one of the most enduringly vocal opponents of China's dictatorship. Amnesty International has consistently opposed continued extension of Most Favored Nation trading status to China. The Left has been vociferous in decrying China's human rights record and do the most to keep the Tiannamen Square massacre in the forefront of people's minds when it comes to dealings with China.

It has been the capitalist business interests, spearheaded by Right-leaning Republicans and fueled by lobbyists, that have been cozying up to the Chinese regime and ignoring the atrocities there. They have had consistent help from "New Left" groups that in no way or shape represent the ideology or ideals of the Left (ask either).

Was Mao bloody? Yes. Does he represent what is probably the most singularly important period of Chinese history in relation to the rest of the world, for good or bad? Yes. I therefore think he is a good choice.

Cheers.

[eNo]

Many, especially in China, think Mao was a good leader and hero.

The same can't really be said for Hitler.

Btw was Dr. Sun Yat Sen ever a head of state/government? I thought he was just the loudest, most successful advocate against the emperor.

[zoom200]

FYI, 30 million dead in the civil war was mainly due to the Nationalist ( KuoMingTang --- the govt in taiwan now )( also US backed ) neglect of the peasant population and infact their own soldiers. Due to the incompetence of the KMT, millions of chinese died of hunger ,and their own soldiers defected over to the Commies.

When Mao took over leadership in 1949, he lead to the industrialization of China ( despite the Soviets pretending to help then screwed China over when their relationship soured by withdrawing all Soviet engineers, scientist , etc and taking with them the blueprints of many projects ) China was left with half built bridges, factories ,etc which they had to tear down and start over. Without Mao, China would have been able to recover from such a shock . It took a charismatic leader to continue on , despite having to start from scratch again. ( they made incredible advances...and even built the A-bomb ).

However, when Mao got older, he became a little senile and decided to launch the cultural revolution.

So...
Mao won popular support and kicked the KMT's asses out of china, thus bringing china out of its worst ever time ... good!

Mao industrialized China...Good!

Mao was an idealist...not a psycho path.

W/o Mao, Deng Xiao ping would have never been able to "open-up" china to capitalism so successfully.

[Asesino_Virtual]

If u think that Mao was a bastard who doesnt deserve the privilege of being in such exquisit game, get rid of Stalin too, i didnt see someone complaining about Stalin.
Turu ru tuuuuuuu turu ru tuuuuuuuuu turu tu-tuuuuuuuuu (Russian song in CIVI, do ya remember? ohhh, good times)

[zoom200]

Off Topic: will there be preset rivalries btwn civ
like Russian vs American

Germans vs French

Chinese Vs Japanese??

[Asesino_Virtual]

No. The history of ur civilization is written by your self. If u are the Americans, depending ur course of action, u could be actually an ally of the Russians. And between the other civs, could be rivality, i dont doubt that, but not "historical" antagonism.

[Executor]

Originally posted by tatterdemalion
Mao was a tyranical mass murderer, plain and simple.

And that's why we love him!

Anyone know what happened to that concentration camp idea? I wanted to roleplay Stalin.

[Blaupanzer]

Mao was not the leader of China during her most influential period. Kublai Khan was. (I know he's the grandson of the Mongol leader, so what?) KrazyHorse, the cultural revolution under Mao resulted in millions of deaths during a planned refresher revolution designed for Mao and carried out under his orders. Similarly Russia's greatest period is under Peter the Great, not Stalin. Napoleon is the first leader most of us think of for France, and he was a Corsican, started out speaking Italian.

With that vented, I have a question. In Civs I and II, all civs had two leaders, one female, the other male. Will this be true of Civ III? In the earlier Civs, the only thing that changed when you changed leaders was the name itself. Will this be true of Civ III? Does anyone know?

[Jason Beaudoin]

You're right about Napoleon. I think Firaxis put Joan of Arc in there because they wanted to include female leaders, and Joan of Arc is an excellent choice.

[Earthling7]

Originally posted by eNo
Many, especially in China, think Mao was a good leader and hero.

The same can't really be said for Hitler.

What if the Nazis had won the war, or even better, had there been no war, or just a German-Soviet war? History condemns Hitler because he lost. That has always been the case and always will be. History is written by the victors. Before you start calling me extreme right wing, I am not. I'm just saying Hitler would be perceived differently had he not lost the war.

Had Stalin started a war as Hitler did (and he probably would have), he would be the bad boy of history. And for Mao, he is acceptable because China has not been a friendly nation and it's far away.

[Lorizael]

Earthling, your statement is not entirely true. Stalin is looked down upon and his atrocities do not go unnoticed. He was almost as bad as Hitler. And Hitler is also condemmed because he murdered 6 million jews.

I agree that if Hitler had won the war (not attacked the Soviets) things would be different. But what do you mean by won the war. For him to win World War II would have been to conquer the world. I'm not sure he could have done that. Also, six million missing people cannot be kept silent. It would be known what he did. I'm sure in the end Hitler would have even publisized the fact because he would have been "proud" of his accomplishment. Mao was also an extremely bad person.

But none of that matters.

I think that some of you are thinking to much into Sid's decision to include Mao. The leader is simply a nice little graphical head to represent a country. They mean nothing more than that. And as always with Civ 3, if you don't like it, either don't buy it, or... change it.

But Sid does have Freedom of Speech. Even if he is a commmunist, it doesn't matter. What matters most is that the game is enjoyable. If you can't enjoy it because you are either too paranoid or don't think Mao is appropriate, that's your problem. Not the game designers.

In the end, no matter how far people's obsessions may go, its is...

Just a game.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Asesino_Virtual
If u think that Mao was a bastard who doesnt deserve the privilege of being in such exquisit game, get rid of Stalin too, i didnt see someone complaining about Stalin.
Turu ru tuuuuuuu turu ru tuuuuuuuuu turu tu-tuuuuuuuuu (Russian song in CIVI, do ya remember? ohhh, good times)

Stalin isn't in the game, was only in Civ I. Lenin was the Russian leader in Civ II.

The song is "The Song of the Volga Boatman," Russia's most famous folk melody.

Cheers.

[axi]

About 1/3 of the US student movement in 1968 was of maoist tendency. And the cultural revolution has inspired quite alot of people, since, in theory, it is one of the most revolutionary and progressive things the world has ever seen. Exactly because it was so idealistic, it failed superbly. If it in some miraculous way had not failed, the world would be a very different place now.

Imagine... the end of the discrimination between manual and mental labor...

Perhaps Sid was in the Movement too... But isn't he too young for that?

[TVA22]

First of all, Napoleon would not have been the best choice for France, Louis XIV would have been. Under Louis XIV, France was at the pinnacle of her power, and After Louis XIV (and yes, indeed, perhaps partially because of him) France began her eventual decline.

China did not achieve it's most influential period under K. Khan, nor was it Mao, the pinnacle of Chinese civilization is generally recognized as the high Ming Dynasty. Once the Europeans arrived, and began carving China up into spheres of influence, China's decline had begun. China was exploited, and humiliated as a nation for a century and a half, culminating with the Japanese aggression in Chinese land, and the Chinese civil war. Mao Zedong was not an evil man who purposefully meant to kill millions of his own people (by starvation, yes, not "premeditated murder"). That role can be reserved for Hitler, who hated people of Jewish ancestry, Pol Pot (anybody ever heard of him? Probably not, but he was an atrocious leader of Cambodia) and Stalin, who did kill his people because of his own fear that there were traitors in his midst.

No one think I'm an anti-American or anything, because I'm not, just an objective historian--but if you want to talk about premeditated murder look at the atomic bombings, and no one make the argument that it was to "shorten the war," thats just what history teachers tell you. Also look at the war for Philippine independence, following the Spanish American War. History teachers don't tell you about that one.

Its easy to place the blame on someone like Mao, who sought to empower China to be free from foreign control (a theme common in Chinese history), when you see none of the horrible things the pinnacle of freedom and tolerance (America) has done for what they really are. You all blame Mao for being a horrible mass-killer, but you won't stop to look at what he was trying to do from a historical, Chinese point of view, instead, you call him an evil communist, subhuman even, because he personifies a different economic theory from capitalism, and he's associated with the death of 30 million Chinese citizens (yes, a disaster, not murder) ---Because that's what you learned in 7th grade history class.