Rise of a Leader (WIP)

@UnicornJesus
Not trying to rekindle any old fires, but Fascism is right-wing according to the traditional political scales. Not to say @Drazen doesn’t have a point indicating there is more to it, merely that your understanding is not false.

1 Like

@UnicornJesus just wondering from your initial post, will the game start with you already in power? Or, like Choice of Rebels, will you have to rise to power through an election, rebellion, etc.?

@R3dSt1ng

As somebody whose family has actually had history of being squashed under a Fascist (Italian, in this case) jackboot, I think that’s at best dubious. Fascism was basically meant as a third way between the Left and Right like it was meant to be one between Capitalism and Marxism, which makes it a bit of an oddie to place.

I think it’s probably safe to classify at least a few Fascist organizations (the Ustasha, the Iron Guard, etc) as Right Wing. I also agree that at the very least, Hitler was towards the right wing of his own party (and thus helped bleed in and shift our entire perception of it all) and that the big name Fascist regimes (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, etc) certainly palled around with non-Fascist right wing thugs like Franco, the old Imperial German regime, etc.

However, if that in and of itself makes Fascism right wing altogether, how do we explain massive movements like Roehm’s SA? Amongst others.

Sorry I can’t talk more. But I have to head out in real life right now.

@Turtler

As I specified. Fascism is right-wing as its classically defined and taught in the public school system. I’m not arguing that there aren’t a myriad of flaws with that, nor that the ‘Wing’ system isn’t contentious to begin with. I am merely stating that associating Fascism with right-wing is correct and the answer that would win you money on a double jeopardy.

@R3dSt1ng

Oops. Sorry. And I understand.

Thanks for the clarification. Now, excuse me while I go beat my head against a cat in shame…

@Turtler dont hit poor cats lol, or i would poison you X(

@MaraJade

You will try to poison me, at worst. I have survived worse.

And those “poor cats” have not only been spoiled brats, but they have also hit and cut me plenty of times. What’s worse is that they are now derailing the topic.

So back to it.

@UnicornJesus

Out of curiosity, any ideas what the tech and society level will be? Early Medieval? Renaissance? High Medieval? Etc? I imagine that would be rather important for how things would play out.

@Turtler I believe he said somewhere that he wants to keep it “fairly modern”, with the use of modern weaponry involved.

@FortunesFaded

I remember seeing that, but I was pondering more about social organization and how the tech fits into that, and what have you.

If that makes any sense.

Hmm, true true. I’d actually like to know this too now :stuck_out_tongue:

@turtler, when drazen comes back he’ll push back on the Ottoman genocide(s) if nothing else… They’re on both your lists, and the Young Turk modernising movement is like fascism ambiguously “winged”.

And not sure “genocide” is an accurate description of eg the brutal Jordanian crackdown in the refugee camps. Indiscriminate violence against people of a given ethnic group is always horrific, but I think there’s value in reserving the word genocide for the systematic effort to kill them all, or at least make sure that none are left in your country. What do you think?

As someone who majored in political science, there is very little ‘science’ to politics. At least as far as classification is concerned (such as the wing system). And there are many situations which you are only partially destroying a group that can still be considered genocide. In fact, @havenstone, if we review the definition: ‘the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.’ So the thousands that were killed in concentration camps could arguably be termed as genocide.

On a tangent, what do we think of the American Genocide of its native cultures? This isn’t wing related, but its an interesting topic none-the-less.

@Havenstone

“when drazen comes back he’ll push back on the Ottoman genocide(s) if nothing else… They’re on both your lists, and the Young Turk modernising movement is like fascism ambiguously “winged”.”

Well, I agree the Young Turks themselves were, and Drazen can push back about that.

But unlike what many people think, the genocides didn’t start with the Young Turks, and it was in fact a bi-partisan affair between them and their ideological rivals the old Imperial autocrats. Who also largely carried on the same policies and even used the same infrastructure (and people) to carry out the genocides that had been going on by the time of Sultan Hamid. And which even carried on after under Kemal Mufasta and the Nationalists that were opposed to both.

At the very least, I don’t see how the old Ottoman Sultans can be seen as ambiguously winged like the Young Turks are/were.

@R3dSt1ng

I agree that the “wing system” is at best crudely scientific, and that political science as a whole is far from exact. That said, I’m not sure I’d say there’s “very little science to politics.” It’s full of partisan bullschiesten and what have you, but I do think something as subjective and imperfect as the Wings system isn’t the end all to be all of it.

“On a tangent, what do we think of the American Genocide of its native cultures? This isn’t wing related, but its an interesting topic none-the-less.”

The best way I can put it is that it’s a misnomer; several episodes in it certainly can be called genocide (CoughJacksonCough), but there wasn’t really any grandiose single “Final Solution to the Amerindian Question” design that was carried on by every US government (much less all wings of said governments) against every single native culture.

That isn’t meant to minimize the bloodshed or the tragedy of what happened. Frontier warfare was absolutely cutthroat, and what happened to the Amerindians under American government oversight was usually not a happy story. I can even point to at least a couple of people in the various US governments that probably were genocidal or at least open to it (Jackson and Custer come to mind, for one).

But putting this as one Monolithic “American Genocide of its’ native cultures” strikes me as something of a modern construct that even the contemporaries that wanted it couldn’t actually do. For three big reasons:

  1. It implies that this was a continuous, conscious plan by the US Government. That wasn’t really the case and I could write a dissertation about it.

  2. It implies that it went all one way. That wasn’t the case at aaaallllll…

  3. And most damningly, it implies the “Americans” and the “native cultures” were both monolithic factions.

The problem is that it’s damn easy to disprove. The US was more or less wrangling over how to deal with the “native cultures” from day one if not before (Bacon’s Rebellion and how in the 19th century the East Coast newspapers had balls writing about every report of mistreatment or atrocities out West), and the “native cultures” tended to consist of tons of different peoples that fought amongst each other on top of suffering those internal schisms and disagreements. Many times, the “Americans” were allied with one of those “native cultures” against another “native culture” or cultures.

Let me give you an example (it’s pre-independence, but it was carried out by the local civilian government and militias that would form the basis of America’s government and military without real input from England proper):

The American Ranger and Ranging has a very bloody tradition and history to answer for. Most of the obvious emphasis is on their frontier skills, their ability to meld Western (European) and Native (Amerindian) technology and doctrines, their initiative, yadda yadda yadda. Basically some of the proud traditions that the US Army Rangers and related special forces can call their own.

What tends to get glossed over is that one of the premier strategies for early American Rangers as well as for the natives. A strategy that amounted to “Go to the enemy’s settlements and kill every man, woman, and child that you can.” Given that this was a cornerstone of strategy by all factions up until maybe the French-Indian War and all but officially condoned or supported by the governments, it’s hard for me to not call Genocide.

But it worked, and one of the most devastating successes it had was at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Norridgewock which basically put an end to a major (and mutually ghastly) war that a French priest and a major local tribe called the Wabanaki had been waging against the British colonies in Northeastern America, which was accompanied by what I can only call genocidal intent on both sides.

But if you’ll look closely, you’ll see that while the main English force was colonial militia from what’d now be Maine, they were accompanied by several pro-Anglo anti-French/Wabanaki Indians, including the Mohawk who actually snuck back in and burned the entire place to the ground. On top of that, since the Wabanaki lacked the ability to continue the fight and basically returned to mourn their dead and lick their wounds the Anglo-Americans and their Indian enemies didn’t try to exterminate them altogether.

And that’s before I get into things like the fact that the American Revolution saw not only a civil war between the British Colonials of America, but also within the Iroquois, and the centuries of history before and after, including countless squabbles. It’s a lot of long, ugly, complicated history that’s very different from the simplistic “White Settlers push to the coast right over the natives” version a lot of people talk about.

That’s one of the big reasons why I see problems summing it up as “American genocide of its’ native cultures”, and why I didn’t include it on my list (which was meant to be cases of fairly concise, fairly unambiguous, and short-term genocides by governments, rather than prolonged bloodbaths like the pre/Early Independence frontier wars were). That doesn’t take away the fact that several cases inside that overall category of conflicts were genocidal, or that even the ones that weren’t were ugly and deserving of our understanding. That’s just the way things were.

Actually disease is what committed genocide on the Amerindians, it’s estimated there was anywhere from 20 million to 100 million of them, and that disease wiped out at least 90% of them.

If not for that, just as Africa is still full of those of African descent, and Asia is still full of those of Asian descent despite Europeans going there and shooting people, I suspect the Americas would still be full of those of Amerindian descent.

@stsword

“Actually disease is what committed genocide on the Amerindians, it’s estimated there was anywhere from 20 million to 100 million of them, and that disease wiped out at least 90% of them.”

Oh, make no mistake: the disease is absolutely what did most of the killing that was done to the natives of the Americas (particularly in the immediate aftermath of Columbus’s expedition), but that didn’t stop there being genocides by humans. Without the constant pressure of European populations pouring in, the Amerindian population would have rebounded like Europe after the Black Death.

Because we know it did to some limited degree, along with increased disease resistance in the people who lived and their descendants, even in areas that weren’t like Mexico with tons of interbreeding.

The Columbian plagues devastated the Amerindian population, but they didn’t break its’ back (except in a few cases). They just set the stage for war between the diminished native populations and the initially weak European colonies.

@Turtler

‘1. It implies that this was a continuous, conscious plan by the US Government. That wasn’t really the case and I could write a dissertation about it.’

That is debatable. While it was sporadic, it was intentional and deliberate. And to classify it as genocide only requires there to be a subgroup targeted and deliberately killed.

(you can find the definition online)

Secondly, I did not imply any monolithic faction, obviously (as with any culture) there are a myriad of motivations subgroups that disagree with each other.

@stsword

While disease did wipe out a great deal of the Native American culture, that is not what I was referencing. Consider the trail of tears, custard, and so on. Still you raise several excellent points @Turtler.

P.S In regards to the science of politics, I emphatically disagree. Science is systematic AND testable. While Politics is certainly systematic, the testable aspect is what I question. Many of the polls give dubious results at best.

@R3dSt1ng

“That is debatable. While it was sporadic, it was intentional and deliberate.”

Debatable yes. Intentional and deliberate even if sporadic? For *some* of these problems, but not all

This strikes me as being amaaaaziiingly simplistic, if not naïve. The truth is that- thanks to the wonders of Federalism, poor communications, and ethical disputes going way back to before the foundation of the freaking country- the US Federal Government had times finding its’ own rear end with a map and directions.

Again, there were several administrations, governments and what have you that I can safely apply genocidal intent and actions to. But there are several others (probably even more) that I can’t really, and to slap down everything done by Colonial Americans to the US government requires ignoring a large part of the dynamics in this.

The very examples you give cut against your point.

“The Trail of Tears” was done by the Executive branch of the Federal Government, the Military, and the State governments contrary to previously established Federal policy (set down by the “Destroyer of Towns” himself, Washington) and over the abject screaming of the Judicial Branch. It was and still is recognized as a hugely illegal usurpation of the judicial system and one of the things that shows Jackson had genocidal intent.

And even then, he didn’t particularly care about killing off most of the peoples on the Trial of Tears strictly speaking (those he wanted to he just killed, like the Floridian Indian wars), he mainly cared about moving them out as quickly as humanly possible. Humane considerations, the law, and logistics be damned.

Custer was a US Military officer with a history of glory hounding recklessness, disobedience to superior authorities, and taking an inhumane approach on Indian Policy. At the time he died he was operating soooo far out of what he was supposed to be doing it’s amazing he was shot by the Amerindians rather than by the government. They certainly did not approve of his plan of attack (especially against non-combatants) and probably would have called him to heel if they could have.

A lot of the massacres tended to be done by settlers that the US government could never control until it was far too late, and which even butted heads with the Federal government at several times, or military authorities going off and doing their own thing. On top of that, much of the more modern mistreatment on the reservations was largely because (again) a lot of the very things the Federal government set up and set out to do (many of which were actually to try and *improve* the lives of the Indians) tended to get away from them, backfire horribly, or both.

The activities of the various Indian Agents, the fact that it lacked a basic competence requirement (largely because it was just another place to stick political appointees) are just one example.

“And to classify it as genocide only requires there to be a subgroup targeted and deliberately killed.”

Which was why I was saying that there are several cases where I can apply that, but saying that the US Government had a deliberate, intentional, consistent (if “sporadic”) policy of it is hogwash. *Some* (even many) US Governments did, but many more did not. And not even all of the genocides committed by Whites can be laid at the feet of this or that government given how slipshod control and communication was (again, Bacon’s Rebellion might be pre-independence but it serves a good illustrating point).

“Secondly, I did not imply any monolithic faction”

Perhaps, but your wording does.

To quote:

"On a tangent, what do we think of the American Genocide of its native cultures? "

And

“While it was sporadic, it was intentional and deliberate.”

The former implies that there was one single Great Project/Process by which the genocide took place, much like the Armenian Genocide. When in reality it was- if anything- broken up into several dozen ones that might loosely fit under that umbrella.

It also implies that there was one side on the other pushing on the loosely affiliated groups of the latter, which ignores a lot of the reality. Including the fact that a lot of the times. the US actually formed alliances with or inducted tribes into the US military in order to fight (and at times commit intentional or unintentional genocide against) other tribes, which tended to be traditional enemies of the new recruits. One fort I went to during the summer featured a section of one unit, the “Paiute Scouts.”

Both imply that it was several orders of magnitude more deliberate and intentional on the part of the US government than it actually was (again, Jackson? Yes. Lincoln? No).

Hence my issue. The Trail of Tears under Jackson and his successors was something I’d classify as a genocide, since “while it was sporadic, it was intentional and deliberate” and consistent. But the same can’t be said about US Indian policy over the whole course of its’ history, because it doesn’t add up.

@Turtler
'The very examples you give cut against your point.

“The Trail of Tears” was done by the Executive branch of the Federal Government, the Military, and the State governments contrary to previously established Federal policy (set down by the “Destroyer of Towns” himself, Washington) and over the abject screaming of the Judicial Branch. It was and still is recognized as a hugely illegal usurpation of the judicial system and one of the things that shows Jackson had genocidal intent.’

And yet undeniable done by ‘Americans.’ Which was precisely my initial point.

'“Secondly, I did not imply any monolithic faction”

Perhaps, but your wording does.’

Not so. You put designs on my words to pick apart its meaning. America did in fact commit several genocides on the native culture. This is fact - hence my declarative statement introducing the topic.

As far as the deliberate nature: One cannot attribute the culling of natives as accident, it was done in intentionally and on several instances. Whether it was done by different factions or otherwise not something I touched on, though is something that I am glad was brought up in debate.

What you are arguing is actually a quibble over wording. Did the US government conspire to eliminate all the native culture? No. To this day the US government isn’t even consistent within itself. How could they possibly have one uniform policy regarding what would be an extremely polarizing topic?

“On a tangent, what do we think of the American Genocide of its native cultures? This isn’t wing related, but its an interesting topic none-the-less.”

American does not = US government. Arguably anyone who lives on American soil is American, that includes all of north and south America. While I was referencing the United States, I was referring to its people, and not its government. That said, yes, I was very general when I made the reference. Then again, how in depth was one sentence introducing the topic supposed to be?

@R3dSt1ng

To cut to the heart of the matter (and try to minimize having this slide off topic any further), I think the main area we’ve been butting up against from opposite sides is what “American Genocide” would mean.

We both agree that the US government and Americans (by any reasonable level) committed genocides against the various native cultures, and event hat in turn these native cultures committed some against them and each other, so the essence is there.

But for you the connotations of “American Genocide” as fitting for “any genocide committed by Americans”, whereas I would differ. To clarify what you said earlier:

“Not so. You put designs on my words to pick apart its meaning. America did in fact commit several genocides on the native culture. This is fact - hence my declarative statement introducing the topic.”

I was (or at least I believed I was) going off of the common definition of it, that of an “American genocide” and that “America…committed several genocides.” That implies to me a far higher degree of national responsibility and participation than-say- Custer’s independent policies against the planes tribes. Much less things like Wounded Knee (which were heinous and tragic, but weren’t intentional at all but mainly a few panicked people on both sides starting to fire and things snowballing from there).

America undoubtably has several crimes to its’ name that deserve that level of condemnation, make no mistake about that. However, I don’t agree that it necessarily follows from any genocide or atrocities committed by American people.

To give you an extreme example; during the Yugoslav Wars tons of foreign fighters flocked to the war areas and enlisted amongst the various factions, and who usually got involved in all kinds of nastiness. One of the most important of those was Greek volunteers for the Serbian side.

Because of that, many Greeks fighting for the Serbs did or partially did all kinds of crimes and atrocities, from Sarajevo to Srebrenica and others.

So we know that many Greek people committed these atrocities and took part in a genocide. But does that mean it’s a “Greek Genocide?” Greece was not a belligerent fighting in support of the Serbs, the men who did it were volunteers, and they usually took orders and instructions from Serbian and Montenegrin soldiers, officers, and leaders. So would the Greek nation as a whole be responsible for their crimes? And if so, to what degree?

That’s an extreme example, but I think it helps illustrate what I’m getting at in cases like the settler rampages and what have you.

so its a game were you raise taxes super high
rob the poor to give to your self and break every law known to man and laugh about it ^_- should be fun lol