-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Who would've thought that discussing genocide mechanics would bring out them
Edit: Seems that them are angry
Last edited:
- 2
- 2
- 2
Expulsion and persecution on the basis of religion or culture was common throughout the game's timeframe. State sanctioned or permitted violence against religious groups happened in enough cases to have significant effects (the Spanish Inquisition, for instance), but may not be permissible to represent. Resettlement by select ethnic groups into specific regions also happened. On the other hand, extermination on the basis of ethnicity or culture was not practiced on a large enough scale to be represented in the game until the last century or so, more along the lines of local reprisals as a result of rebellions or other acts against the ruling culture, religion, or ethnicity.
In my opinion, there should be actions available to some or most governments to pressure rebellious minority religious or cultural groups to either emigrate or assimilate, but not to the level of expulsion except under very specific circumstances. I feel strongly that there should be actions possible to entice settlers from specific areas to resettle in targeted locations to dilute the concentration of minorities there. There's a compromise that needs to be drawn between making genocide a clearly visible and voluntary part of the game and completely ignoring the impact that persecution and ethnic cleansing had on history. I hope Paradox is able to walk that thin line, rather than play it overly safe or else makes the game politically and socially unacceptable in too many places.
In my opinion, there should be actions available to some or most governments to pressure rebellious minority religious or cultural groups to either emigrate or assimilate, but not to the level of expulsion except under very specific circumstances. I feel strongly that there should be actions possible to entice settlers from specific areas to resettle in targeted locations to dilute the concentration of minorities there. There's a compromise that needs to be drawn between making genocide a clearly visible and voluntary part of the game and completely ignoring the impact that persecution and ethnic cleansing had on history. I hope Paradox is able to walk that thin line, rather than play it overly safe or else makes the game politically and socially unacceptable in too many places.
- 5
Well, Moriscos, Huguenots, stand out as religious expulsions and there are more cases.
I cannot think of genocide (Bartholomew night nonwithstanding, it's not really genocide) even due to religion.
Culture was not as hot topic for the time period. This is before the age of nationalism. Was there even an expulsion, much less genocide, based on culture?
- 1
- 1
You cant really differentiate religion and culture from each other. Pre and post nationalism. All muslims were labelled "turks" prior to the Balkan wars (as an example). European sources in medieval times and later are also referring to muslims as if they are a group of people with one culture and identity rather than underlining different ethnic identities. E.g. people were aware of the "Empire of Turks", but it didnt really matter if it was turkish or arabic or persian. The issue were the islamic culture and values they are supposedly representing.
Sure they intermingle but sometimes the motivation is clear (Moriscos) or you actually can, very well (afaik Huguenots we're just French).
Your example is just a weird name for religion and for good reason. Like a homonym. The later part is basically the point - religion is a category that was defining, one people noticed so why differentiate between Egyptian or Anatolian when it's not relevant? Are the writers concerned they speak different language, have other customs? No they are all Muslims and that determines who they are from Euro perspective but that'd be different if looked from lesser distance.
I mean I doubt Europeans differentiated Bengalis from Tamils either. But did Sinhalese?
After listening to a podcast about Justinian's ridiculous persecutions I think it'd be nice if there were mechanics in the game allowing various persecutions of minorities and AI leaders with certain traits/stats were trying to enact it.
- 1
Because the world doesnt revolve around how the Europeans understand the world. The culture debate is a discussion of its own. My point was only that persecution/genocide/ethnic cleansing was done on the bases of religion, which was the bases of ethnic differentiation. Obviously people knew that spanish and italians were not the same, but what mattered was their religion. Consequently iberian jews could be persecuted, but not italians (or christian iberians for that matter). Not because they were italians, but because they were christians.
My point: For the most part, your religion was your identity and the persecution of jews/muslims from iberia (as an example) can most definetly be identified as "ethnically motivated".
- 1
You made a point how Europeans described Muslims. I am pretty sure European world did revolve around European perspectives. And elsewhere, similarly.
All categories are constructed. Religion was one but ethnicity/culture did exist and was used. The fact Euros did use it less when referring far away groups where these differences didn't matter doesn't mean they wouldn't if they lived closer and I can assure you Poles did differentiate between Turks and Tartars.
Hm, that sounds self contradictory?
Should we construct the game based on how Europeans viewed the world or on how it was actually the case?
Again:
My point: For the most part, your religion was your identity and the persecution of jews/muslims from iberia (as an example) can most definetly be identified as "ethnically motivated".
This entire debate about european view and cultural identity is completly off-topic and unrelated to the post or my point.
What does it have to do with anything? You brought up Europe description of Muslims, I said I disagree with it relevance because reasons, now you ask some question that doesn't seem related to anything here?
Yes, religion was identity that was usually more relevant. No, it doesn't mean it subsumed ethnicity or culture. No, Iberian expulsions were not about culture but religion, neither were Huguenots or Polish Brothers.
If that's your point, that religion included culture, well that's very old debate in this forum. I don't think it was the case.
Bro. Can you please try to understand me for a second and not spiral the thread to some unrelated topic.
I gave you examples. Spaniard doesnt see jews as different ethnic beings, but a society with homogenous values and views. So being a jew is not a matter of religious views, but ethnic identity. You convert as a christian, you are not one of "us", but "them". Hence persecution of jews can be viewed as "ethnically motivated". Cause people didnt give a shit about the languages you spoke. They gave a shit about what you believed in and unrelated people to your ethnicitiy or culture can be made responsible for why you deserve to get killed. Hence Moors determined how turks should be viewed as. Because in the heads of medieval people: muslim is muslim. They are all the same. All the same people with the same views + culture.
For the love of god, I hope you understand what I am trying to say.
Sorry, okay. I understand. I am aware of the story that included post conversion prosecution. But you're positing that they were dog whistling ethnic motivation while outwardly claiming these Jews or Muslims didn't truly convert. I simply disagree, I think it was religious motivation that coincided with ethnic boundaries.
Frankly we would have better case claiming Huguenots we're political conflict truly with religion serving as a distraction.
I'm not opposed to the idea sometimes the true reason is not the one that lies on the surface. I just don't think it was the case there.
But I'm really confused here. On one hand you say Muslim is Muslim full stop. On the other you say ostensibly religious persecution is actually ethnic on nature? Okay different cases, so that's not necessarily impossible but indeed we have trouble understanding each other.
Maybe I should eat something first
No. Your religion = your culture, identity and ethnicitiy. Christians were deported out of Anatolia regarardless of their ethnicity, based on this particular view in the treaty of Lausanne. This is barely a 100 years ago. The idea that a person can belong to ethnic group x with culture y, while having an "alien religion" is relatively new. You converted? Then you swapped culture, identity and loyalty. This obviously wasnt the case, but that is how people viewed you. To ask wether any attrocities were conducted based on culture is impossible to answer, because people automatically viewed your change in religion as also a change of culture. Now were muslims solely problematic to chatolics because they believe in god in a different way or because of the preceived alien and alleged hostile culture? Imo both, hence any attrocity based on religious diifferences can also be viewed as "ethnically motivated".
Let me give you a very apparent example.But I'm really confused here. On one hand you say Muslim is Muslim full stop. On the other you say ostensibly religious persecution is actually ethnic on nature? Okay different cases, so that's not necessarily impossible but indeed we have trouble understanding each other.
Maybe I should eat something first
You are a greek. You can prove that for the past 40 generations your ancestors lived in Greece. However it is the 1920th and you are a muslim. Now sucks to be you my friend, because you are a turk now. You dont speak a word of turkish? You are still one. Altneratively you are a traitor to your people and betrayed their values in which case you deserve to be treated as a turk. Off you go to Anatolia. You are fully responsible about what Ahmed did over there to greeks. Regardless of how much you condemn it. Sounds unbelievable? This is what happened to cretan muslims.
This is early 20th century mindset. It was much more apparent in the 20th century, but it wasnt less the case in earlier socities. Your religion was your ethnicity and culture. At least from the perspective of an "alien viewer". E.g.:
A spaniard would view all muslims the same. However A spaniard wouldnt view all catholics the same and might feel a sense of extra kinship towards a fellow spaniard. Afterall you understand him. And a turk might view all catholics as latins and treat them as such. However a turk would know that he is not the same to an arab. So interreligious views were one-dimensional. Intrareligious views were multi-dimensional.
This concept sounds stupid from our modern perspective, because we understand that a turk/spaniard can be christian, atheist, muslim or god knows what, but earlier societies didnt make this differeniation. Even post-Napleon, where societies massively secularized.