Rorke's Drift. [QUENCHED]

[joriki]

It's probably not meant that way, but the text at the lower right about the Victoria Crosses could easily be understood as a positive reference to what was essentially a colonialist crime. I'd suggest rephrasing it to avoid that impression.

[koontz1973]

It's probably not meant that way, but the text at the lower right about the Victoria Crosses could easily be understood as a positive reference to what was essentially a colonialist crime. I'd suggest rephrasing it to avoid that impression.

It is meant to be a positive reference.

[joriki]

The legend on the new beta map "Rorke's Drift" currently says: "January 1879, around 4000 Zulus attacked the tiny British outpost at Rorke's Drift. The 11 soldiers named were all awarded the Victoria Cross, Britain's highest military honour."

I left this comment on what I thought was just a careless formulation: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=146413&p=3389701#p3389701, and was rather taken aback by the response that this was in fact intended to be a positive reference to military honours for colonial soldiers. Now I'm wondering whether there's a policy on such things at CC. I see from this thread: viewtopic.php?f=127&t=143250 that there's a policy on not having any swastikas at all on the maps. Given that noone is likely to misunderstand historical swastikas as a positive reference, that policy seems even stricter than one only against positive references.

Quite apart from my own views on this (I think colonialism was a crime and it makes no sense to "honour" people involved in perpetrating it) I would like everyone in the world to feel welcome on this site, and my guess would be that a positive reference to "honourable" soldiers in the Anglo-Zulu War is not going to help with that. (An excerpt from the Wikipedia article on the war to illustrate the point: "The war is notable [...] for being a landmark in the timeline of colonialism and imperialism in the region. The war eventually resulted in the end of the Zulu nation's independence.")

I'd like to hear from others what they think about this. I'm hoping that we could form a community consensus that we don't want positive references to colonialism and imperialism on CC maps. I don't want to restrict anyone's artistic liberty; I wouldn't be bringing this up if it was just a matter of the Victorian Crosses being used to embellish the map or for historical accuracy; but I feel that with this text, particularly with the author's explicit statement that this is intended as a positive reference, it's not me but the author who's bringing politics into it where it doesn't belong.

What do you think?

[joriki]

It's probably not meant that way, but the text at the lower right about the Victoria Crosses could easily be understood as a positive reference to what was essentially a colonialist crime. I'd suggest rephrasing it to avoid that impression.

It is meant to be a positive reference.

I created a discussion thread on this: viewtopic.php?f=127&t=154883. Perhaps you'd like to weigh in?

[DiM]

What do you think?

i think pink ponies are nice and fuzzy.



anyway as i understand from another thread about a similar subject (which i'm too lazy to search), if the bad stuff happened a long time ago it is ok to talk about it, make maps about it, celebrate it, or whatever. if you want swastikas and nazis you can't, if you want obama and 9/11 you can't either. but if you want crusades, colonization and aztec human sacrifice then it's just fine cause it's old news and nobody cares

[lostatlimbo]

Given that noone is likely to misunderstand historical swastikas as a positive reference, that policy seems even stricter than one only against positive references.

Uh... historically the positive representation of the swastika far outweighs the negative. The latter was just the most forcefully put upon the world most recently. I'm not arguing for or against your position (though I do personally reflect on colonialism in a negative light), but I felt compelled to point out the inaccuracy of the example used.

[joriki]

Given that noone is likely to misunderstand historical swastikas as a positive reference, that policy seems even stricter than one only against positive references.

Uh... historically the positive representation of the swastika far outweighs the negative. The latter was just the most forcefully put upon the world most recently. I'm not arguing for or against your position (though I do personally reflect on colonialism in a negative light), but I felt compelled to point out the inaccuracy of the example used.

I think that was a misunderstanding. I'm aware that the swastika symbol was used with positive meaning for a long time. What I meant was that its historical use on CC maps to indicate or decorate German troops is not going to be mistaken for a positive reference to the crimes carried out under that symbol. By contrast, the author of the text apparently intended the text to be a positive reference to the actions and the honouring of the colonial soldiers.

[joriki]

anyway as i understand from another thread about a similar subject (which i'm too lazy to search), if the bad stuff happened a long time ago it is ok to talk about it, make maps about it, celebrate it, or whatever. if you want swastikas and nazis you can't, if you want obama and 9/11 you can't either. but if you want crusades, colonization and aztec human sacrifice then it's just fine cause it's old news and nobody cares

That's simply wrong. I know people who care. I care. Also, I would argue (but of course opinions could differ on this) that the effects of colonialism are with us today. Read about the background of the Rwandan genocide for a particularly striking example.

[lostatlimbo]

Belated congrats!

[sundance123]

I dont see a problem with this. If you look at the first line of the wikipedia article it says:

"The Victoria Cross (VC) is the highest military decoration awarded for valour . . . . . "

this is a fact.

Another fact is that the 11 people named in the map were awarded the VC.

I dont think anybody could be confused by the statement of two facts in the one sentence.

Could they?


On a side note I suggested that the zulu commanders should be the starting positions in the map, but i think it is too late for that

[DiM]

anyway as i understand from another thread about a similar subject (which i'm too lazy to search), if the bad stuff happened a long time ago it is ok to talk about it, make maps about it, celebrate it, or whatever. if you want swastikas and nazis you can't, if you want obama and 9/11 you can't either. but if you want crusades, colonization and aztec human sacrifice then it's just fine cause it's old news and nobody cares

That's simply wrong. I know people who care. I care. Also, I would argue (but of course opinions could differ on this) that the effects of colonialism are with us today. Read about the background of the Rwandan genocide for a particularly striking example.

i didn't say it's right or wrong i just told you what the others told me.
you can read for yourself in this topic: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=127&t=154122&start=0

[joriki]

anyway as i understand from another thread about a similar subject (which i'm too lazy to search), if the bad stuff happened a long time ago it is ok to talk about it, make maps about it, celebrate it, or whatever. if you want swastikas and nazis you can't, if you want obama and 9/11 you can't either. but if you want crusades, colonization and aztec human sacrifice then it's just fine cause it's old news and nobody cares

That's simply wrong. I know people who care. I care. Also, I would argue (but of course opinions could differ on this) that the effects of colonialism are with us today. Read about the background of the Rwandan genocide for a particularly striking example.

i didn't say it's right or wrong i just told you what the others told me.
you can read for yourself in this topic: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=127&t=154122&start=0

That thread is about quite a different issue, namely what sorts of *topics* are OK; some people are arguing that very recent events shouldn't be used. (By the way, I disagree.)

The problem here is not that the memory is fresh, but a positive reference to what I and many others regard as a crime. Noone would even think of making a map with a positive reference to Nazi troops -- that doesn't prevent us (and rightly so) from having lots of maps with WW II themes and Nazi troops. We also already have at least one map with a colonial theme, New World, and I've played it several times and have no problem with the colonial setting. I strongly disapprove of war and yet I play war games, so it would be inconsistent if I suddenly objected just because the war happened to be a colonial war. What I'm objecting to is not a certain topic, but a certain politically charged statement being inserted into a map with which I disagree very strongly.

[isaiah40]

Okay I am going to take off my blue suede shoes here. While I can understand where you are coming from, I can also see the other side of the coin. These 11 men defended a fort against all odds and won when they should have lost. This is why they were awarded the Victoria Cross. Were the British - or for that matter any nation colonizing a foreign land - right in what they did? Maybe or maybe not. If it wasn't for Britain, France and Spain colonizing the America's, we wouldn't be here today. Like US troops in the middle east (which I don't agree with but i still support them), and one getting the medal of honor (our highest award/medal) for disobeying a direct order to save some of his men. Should that be squashed because some people disagree with it, I say no. They were awarded the medal fro bravery under fire, and I think that is how we should look at it, even if we disagree with what happened.

Now, that being said, if we go down that road, were will it stop? If we say the mapmaker can't put anything like that on any map, then what kind of maps will we have? A lot of mapmakers like to make historical maps, are we going to tell them that you can't have such and such on your map? If we do then we potentially lose a good mapmaker, which means you lose a good map to play on, which means people leave the site, so on and so on. Yes some maps should not be made, while others should.

So if you want to censor stories, quotes on maps etc, where do you want to stop? I am of the - remember I'm saying this not as a CA, but as someone who comes here to play for fun - opinion that if we start then we should go all the way, no middle ground. In this way we cover everything. At the same time, I wouldn't want lack to do that and neither would you or any other players here!

[joriki]

Okay I am going to take off my blue suede shoes here. While I can understand where you are coming from, I can also see the other side of the coin. These 11 men defended a fort against all odds and won when they should have lost. This is why they were awarded the Victoria Cross. Were the British - or for that matter any nation colonizing a foreign land - right in what they did? Maybe or maybe not. If it wasn't for Britain, France and Spain colonizing the America's, we wouldn't be here today. Like US troops in the middle east (which I don't agree with but i still support them), and one getting the medal of honor (our highest award/medal) for disobeying a direct order to save some of his men. Should that be squashed because some people disagree with it, I say no. They were awarded the medal fro bravery under fire, and I think that is how we should look at it, even if we disagree with what happened.

You can look at it that way if you like; that doesn't mean "we should" look at it that way. I certainly don't.

Now, that being said, if we go down that road, were will it stop? If we say the mapmaker can't put anything like that on any map, then what kind of maps will we have? A lot of mapmakers like to make historical maps, are we going to tell them that you can't have such and such on your map? If we do then we potentially lose a good mapmaker, which means you lose a good map to play on, which means people leave the site, so on and so on. Yes some maps should not be made, while others should.

So if you want to censor stories, quotes on maps etc, where do you want to stop? I am of the - remember I'm saying this not as a CA, but as someone who comes here to play for fun - opinion that if we start then we should go all the way, no middle ground. In this way we cover everything. At the same time, I wouldn't want lack to do that and neither would you or any other players here!

That's a fallacious slippery slope argument (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#The_slippery_slope_as_fallacy). I've been playing on this site for three years now, and this is the very first time I've written something like this. The question "where will it stop" doesn't arise, because this is not "starting" something, it's a specific reaction to a map which in my view glorifies a crime. It is in no way an argument against "historical maps", of which we have a good many. I've played on many, probably more than half of all maps, and I've never seen anything on them that I would have taken as a positive judgement of any violent actions, let alone actions that nowadays would constitute serious war crimes. You're painting a thought police on the wall that doesn't exist and that noone would want to have. Please argue on the merits of this specific case and not on the basis of unrealistic hypotheticals. Your argument from general principles can't be valid, since there are obviously things that a majority here wouldn't tolerate, such as maps glorifying the Nazi crimes. That shows that a line must be drawn somewhere, even if it might not always be easy to draw around gray areas, and an argument that drawing such a line is "censorship" merely indicates that you would want the line to be drawn somewhere else.

[koontz1973]

January 1879, around 4000 Zulus attacked the tiny British outpost at Rorke's Drift. The 11 soldiers named were all awarded the Victoria Cross, Britain's highest military honour.

It's probably not meant that way, but the text at the lower right about the Victoria Crosses could easily be understood as a positive reference to what was essentially a colonialist crime. I'd suggest rephrasing it to avoid that impression.

Over this we will have to disagree. I see nothing wrong with the text and considering it was a very long time ago, no one can be offended.
Now I could of put it this way, and yes, you could get offended by it...

January 1879, after the slaughter of 1500 British at Isandlwana, the Zulu commander Cetshwayo decided to go against the tiny outpost of Rorke's Drift. Having no hope of being treated fairly by the savage natives, the British fought like gods, beating back attack after attack. 2 days later, hundreds of zulus lay dead or dying. The 11 named won the VC for bravery.

The reference to the VC is a positive reference to the bravery of the soldiers who fought that day. Nothing else. No matter what is put there, someone will make it out to be offensive.

What about it do you find offensive?

[joriki]

I see nothing wrong with the text and considering it was a very long time ago, no one can be offended.

I assure you I know several people who would be offended. I'm one of them. Whether colonialism is a thing of the distant past or a recent crime with ongoing terrible effects is a deeply political question that should not be decided offhand in a text on a CC map.

The reference to the VC is a positive reference to the bravery of the soldiers who fought that day. Nothing else. No matter what is put there, someone will make it out to be offensive.

That's a similar sort of fallacious slippery slope argument as the one by isaiah40 above. That is simply not the case. Nearly 200 maps have been made, with few if any complaints about this sort of thing. Nearly 200 stories have been told without someone "making out" something as offensive. These include two maps with a colonial theme, several maps including Nazi troops, a crusade, a drug war -- crimes left, right and centre. Somehow, it was possible to make all those maps without seriously offending anyone. Why is your map so special? And if it's true that this very special story for some reason cannot be told without offending someone, why not pick a less offensive story?

What about it do you find offensive?

I thought I'd made that clear. In my view, those soldiers were criminals. One might argue that they were only following orders, but you're making a positive reference to the British Empire honouring them, and that certainly wasn't just following orders; it was honouring someone for a crime after ordering them to commit it. I can't imagine that a map would even get to the beta stage that contained a positive reference to Nazi soldiers "honourably" slaughtering Jugoslavian partisans. If you disagree, please say so. If you don't disagree, that shows that our disagreement doesn't lie in a principle of "someone will always be found to find something offensive", but in that you don't view colonial crimes as crimes, or at least not in the same sense. If so, you're obviously entitled to that personal opinion, but I find it offensive to bring that sort of opinion into a CC map. Why would people who have strong feelings about these crimes have to deal with you glorifying them just so you can tell a story the way you see it? And why should I have to be associated with a site that glorifies crimes when I'm just here to have fun? In my view this sort of divisive political opinion should be kept out of the maps on this site.

[Jinks]

Hey, this may have been brought up already, apologies if so.

In game Game 9854687, I beleive I have the territories to fulfill - 2 Cetshwayo Territories and Cetshwayo +2 bonus

Its not showing a bonus due in the stats or on BoB, am I missing something?

Thanks

Jinx

[joriki]

I dont see a problem with this. If you look at the first line of the wikipedia article it says:

"The Victoria Cross (VC) is the highest military decoration awarded for valour . . . . . "

this is a fact.

Another fact is that the 11 people named in the map were awarded the VC.

I dont think anybody could be confused by the statement of two facts in the one sentence.

Could they?

This argument would have been relevant if we were discussing whether the text is open to misunderstandings. We're past that point, because the author has clarified that it is in fact intended as a positive reference. So it's no longer about people being "confused" by the statement if they misunderstand it, but about whether the actually intended meaning is offensive.

[kaikeva]

Those 11 men were heroes for Britain, and you can say they were great soldiers to fight and win against odds. But the fact they were there to defend colonial empire means they were not defending their homeland, in fact Zulus were there trying to kick out oppressors.

I think we can glorify them for being great soldiers but we cant glorify them as being representatives of oppressing colonization empire.
Them being awarded VC for "highest military honors" does not mean they were supposed to be there.

[isaiah40]

As you have stated "...that is slippery slope", and I asked "Where do we stop?" So where would you like us to draw the line? As you yourself has said, some may not find it offensive, but I do. How can a line be drawn if the people looking at don't find something offensive? And if the majority don't find it offensive, should we remove it for the sake of the few? Things are subjective to everyone, and everyone has an opinion on whether it is right or wrong. This is why a map goes through a rigorous process as to weed out these sort of things, and we need people like you to take part in the whole foundry process, not just the Final Forge portion. This could have been taken care of a long time ago, if it was brought up. I'm sure koontz would have been willing to change it back then, and it is still up to him to change it if he so desires, but I'm not going to have him reword it for one person, unless a majority says it is offensive, or that it is wrong. I could be overruled by the higher powers, if so , then so be it.

So please, I encourage you to take part in the entire foundry process. Make comments on maps from the draft stage through to the Final Forge and Beta. In this way we all can have better maps, and you will be able to say "I had a hand in the development of 'X' map".

[Leehar]

I concur with kai, praise the valour if thats what you want, but definitely not the cause. I understand if you want to indicate the battle is noteworthy for having the most VC ever, but it'd be infinitely preferable if you'd have a more neutral phrasing of the description to depict what happened in the battle. Specially with how often history is re-written by the victors to present such things in a favourable light.
The war wouldn't have even started if the Imperialists didn't use some pretext or other for their own colonialist agenda, so they remained the aggressors in the conflict which really shouldn't be hailed.

[kaikeva]

Were the British - or for that matter any nation colonizing a foreign land - right in what they did? Maybe or maybe not. If it wasn't for Britain, France and Spain colonizing the America's, we wouldn't be here today.

I think US was born in fight against colonization empires. If Britain won that war most of US would be still colony of Britain.

Thanks Leehar, i just want to add that there is no map in CC(at least not one im aware of) where we can read one side was awarded a medal. Even most famous sniper in Stalingrad map Zaitsev, fighting on side that won the war defending their soil, wasnt noted in that map. Im sure there were many units that were glorious and brave and wasnt given luxury to see them noted as medal owners in map description.

Also, those Zulu that were killed attacking those brave men were probably heroes of their people and i dont see them noted for bravely giving their lives to liberate from oppressors.

Basically idea for map is good, i just want to note that i think idea about mentioning one side being awarded a medal from country they serve is not good policy for map description.

[Sniper08]

Hey, this may have been brought up already, apologies if so.

In game Game 9854687, I beleive I have the territories to fulfill - 2 Cetshwayo Territories and Cetshwayo +2 bonus

Its not showing a bonus due in the stats or on BoB, am I missing something?

Thanks

Jinx

might be xml problem as koonitz recently changed it.it should be fixed soon if it is xml problem

[koontz1973]

New xml is not up yet. Will check it right now.

EDIT: Just checked the xml, the 3 territs and Chets that you have should show as a bonus. The xml is correct. The only thing I can think of is as it is an override type of bonus it might not show, that is my only guess. Will get the xml mod to check it and find out why.

Second EDIT:Found the problem. The Cetshwayo2 part of the bonus is missing the required tags. Will get it fixed right now and post.

EDIT 3: New xml fixing the bonus problem.
http://h1.ripway.com/koontz/RorkesDriftv21.xml

[Seamus76]

Having had the most recently "censored" map I thought I would comment, and I do usually side with the philosophy that if it offends one person it should be changed, but in this case I'm not sure I agree. There are a lot of points, too many to quote, but mainly my problem is that the issue now seems to be more with koontz's comment rather than the actual comment on the map, which in and of itself is a fact, for right or wrong. The 11 guys were awarded the medal by their country, and that is what the map states. If you want to make a map from the Zulu point of view then the entire thing would be different, and that is your right as a map maker, and what the foundry process is designed to work through. If koontz's comment had not been made I'm not sure how you can argue with the fact that the medals were given, which is what the map states. The map I made, which I took down, had a clear notation that bin Laden was a terrorist, which can be argued based on personal/religious beliefs and is thus a reason for opposition. The comment in the legend is a case of fact, and from what I read is a praise of their valor, not the cause. No war is equal, that is just a fact, and war is bloody, and harsh. Unfortunately all of these maps, in one way or another glorify war, and thus the killing of soldiers and innocent people, but in the end it is for entertainment purposes and as such everyone is entitled to play or not play maps which they like or don't like.

I just don't like that the argument is now about koontz's comment in a post, and not about whether or not the map is historically accurate, which has been clearly stated by everyone to be fact. When people go to the map they will not see koontz's comment, they will see the legend. If they choose to play the map that it is their choice, if they choose to be offended then that is their opinion and they should protest by not playing it.