User talk:关云

Welcome to the Order, 关云!

Welcome to the Assassin's Creed Wiki! We hope you enjoy your stay, and we look forward to working with you!

Have you something to say?

You can always ask our beloved administrators! Our local staff members can always lend a hand! You can also visit the wiki's community portal! We also have the Discord if you're ever in the mood for a chat!

We seek unity, stability and order.

Not sure where to start? You can always help out by sharing what you know on some of our stubs. Got some useful pictures? Share them with us on these articles. Got a useful concept for an article? Why not help out in some articles in need of a revamp? Always remember to sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~) to avoid any confusion between users. You can also refer to the wiki's help pages if you're ever in doubt. Please remember to read our wiki policies to avoid gaining any unnecessary attention.

We wish you safety and peace on your future endeavors. Happy Editing!

Feel free to contact me on my talkpage if you need anything. Sol Pacificus (talk) 14:51, May 2, 2019 (UTC)

Greeting

NIce to meet you, Lucky Kwan!

:) —unsigned comment by 一个赛艇门‎ (talk · contr)

Mao Zedong being a Templar

Hello Guan Yun, I noticed that you removed all references to Mao Zedong being a Templar. I understand that you did this in good faith because you were waiting on citations for those, and we entirely forgot about it. The actual source was an interview that one of our admins, Master Sima Yi, had with Jeffrey Yohalem. It was completely our fault for not providing citations for this, which is a bit difficult because I have to find the exact podcast where this interview was conducted. I've reverted your edits for now, and I would ask you to please wait one more week, and if I don't provide citations then, feel free to remove the references to Mao being a Templar again. I simply forgot all about it, but your edits helped remind us. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 01:56, June 16, 2020 (UTC)

Fine. Settled then.关云 (talk) 02:03, June 16, 2020 (UTC)

So I got in touch with Master Sima Yi regarding this, and he informed me that the interview he had with Jeffrey Yohalem came after Loomer's podcast which can be found on YouTube. Because of this, it isn't in the actual video and cannot be cited. Well, technically speaking, personal interviews off-camera can be cited, but to keep things uncontroversial, it's probably best we don't do that. Given this, he has already removed the reference to Mao being a Templar on the page, and I have followed suit on the pages China and Shanghai Rite of the Templar Order.

On a site-note, think some of the information you added to the Chinese Civil War goes too much detail into things we only know from real-world history, and we try to minimize details like that, so I will have to review that article.

Let me know if you have any other questions or concerns! Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 18:36, June 17, 2020 (UTC)

I explained the detail time and events related to that because I edited original contents about the time of the Second Chinese Civil War. Since I shouldn't add too many details that can only be known from real history, I agree to remove those contents. However, if something related to the real world is mentioned, I think it should be accurate.

As for the issue that Mao Zedong being a Templar, it's really sensitive for Chinese netizens. We remove related contents after we confirmed that there is no citation can be found. The expression "the puppet of Templar" does hurt the feeling of Chinese mainland netizens. I think personal interviews off-camera can be cited, but the content related to that shouldn't appear in the main content, since it is not the public official setting about the celebrity.

Now I have no more questions or concerns. Thank you for helping me.关云 (talk) 01:58, June 18, 2020 (UTC)

Glad to help! If you don't mind me asking, I was wondering what is it about that expression that hurts the feelings of Mainlanders exactly? I would like to understand. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 18:54, June 19, 2020 (UTC)

Usually the expressions and topics hurting Mainlanders' feelings can devided into following types:

• Denying and ignoring the contribution of China (contribution in all historical periods are included).
• Insulting the image of China (especially insulting the national image of PRC) and the revolutionaries of China. From so-called Opium War to the founding of PRC, Chinese people had suffered from invasion and corrupted useless government for total 109 years. It is Sun Yat-sen and his fellow comrades first and then CPC who help Chinese people out. That's why Mainlanders can't accept Mao Zedong being a Templar or Sun Yat-sen being the Grand Master of Chinese Rite, since Templars are always villain in the series.
• Disagreeing the ideal of "One Nation, Two Systems", supporting regions like Hong Kong, Taiwan, Inner Mongol, Tibet and Xinjiang to be independent. These actions or related expressions intolerable for Mainlanders. Fundamentally speaking，region conflicts are the results of invasion wars and civil wars. We can't accept such expressions because we have been hurt in old days.
• Serious mistakes in history narration and the beautify invasion. It's also the result of invasion wars.

Altogether, the offensive expressions and topics will be described as insulting China (辱华) in SNS of mainland. Just like topics and expressions about races in Western world, it's our "political correctness". Hope my explanation can help you understand more about Mainlanders.关云 (talk) 04:01, June 20, 2020 (UTC)

Guan Yun, I figured that Mao Zedong was associated with the villains of this franchise might be the reason, but my confusion lay in the fact that many Mainlanders I've met abhor themes like "freedom", "free will", and "democracy" which are all core principles of the Assassins. These loaded words are associated with Western culture, and I've met many Mainlanders who think that belief in them is the result of being brainwashed by Western society. Hence, my expectation was that Mainland fans of Assassin's Creed would actually agree with the Templars, who preach that world peace can only be achieved if an elite group of men "guide" nations through surveillance and strongman rule—along with the coercive measures that comes with it.

Many Mainlanders I've met greatly admire Mao exactly because he didn't approve of democracy or human rights. For example, a former childhood friend of mine sees Mao as his idol, but it is because he believes that the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, and the massive death toll that resulted from them were great events which were necessary for the industrialization of China.

Obviously today, the party line is to introduce a social credit system, enforce strict censorship, and use heavy-handed methods against all dissent, even entirely peaceful ones. The Templars would support this because they believe that they have the "wisdom" to judge all the people they govern, and if people should just obey and listen to this "wisdom" without questioning, there would be world peace. This is the justification and logic of the CCP today, and it is the same justification and logic of the Templars. The creators of Assassin's Creed didn't always wanted to show that the Templars were pure evil either. Instead, they wanted to show their reasoning and make us ask ourselves, is there some truth to it?

In any case, it is a fact that many of the ways the Templars act in the fiction of Assassin's Creed is the same way that the CCP has treated its people in the past, and in Tibet, Xinjiang, and Hong Kong now. Simply speaking, I expected that Mainlanders who respect Mao will agree with Templar philosophy, see Templars as the real heroes, and believe that Assassins are only portrayed as heroes because Ubisoft is a company coming from a Western perspective. That's why I didn't think that Mao being a Templar would be offensive.

I hope this is not too shocking for you. It is clear that there must be some presumption that I had wrong. For example, maybe you guys do not think that Assassins' idea of free will and democracy is wrong, so actually agree that Assassins are heroes? Maybe you guys think that the Templars are too extreme and that Mao's errors are exaggerated? In any case, thank you for taking the time to share the sensitivities of Mainland people. To clarify, I am actually Hong Konger, and as you probably know, there are a lot of misunderstandings between the Mainland and Hong Kong. If you don't mind, I would also like to take this opportunity to clear up some of those misunderstandings on our end too. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 05:49, June 20, 2020 (UTC)

All of our editors at the Chinese Wiki understand that Templars are not always evil, and we have concluded why English Wiki lists Sun Yat-sen and Mao Zedong as Templars for their behaviors. However, a person who behaves like a Templar may not be a Templar. We editors mean that if we can't prove Mao is a Templar with accessable official information, we won't claim him as a Templar. It's our final decision to remove related contents for no citation is provided. An interview without being recorded or open to public is way too hard for us to accept. (We have an editor majoring in document management. He told me it's unacceptable.)

And the historical events you mentioned involved citizens and the process of the events now seems had gone beyond the intention and handling capacity of Mao, even of the CCP.

Most Mainlanders are against "western freedom" and "western democracy" but not "freedom" "free will" and "democracy". And the concept like "freedom" "democracy" "human rights" are related with western society, that's why Mainlanders seem to give up pursuing freedom. In fact, they just dislike the way that western society has proved to be unreliable. (While elder people are against that for their hatred of Western and Japan Imperialists.)

Many Mainlander fans of Assassin's Creed really in favor of Templars like Haythem and Shay (By the way I and many fellow editors consider Shay as a tool) for they eradicated the gangs in North America. We are in fear of a society where crimes could be carried out in the name of freedom. But the stories about Assassins overthrowing dictatorship and tyranny are welcomed. We Mainlanders may only accept what proved to be praciticable. It may be contradictory to find that we Mainlanders want order and freedom at the same time.

You may not know that many fan-settings at Mainland SNS websites consider Mao as an ally of Assassins. He was really a savior to many people of China Mainland at that time.

In fact, if you have browsed the contents of Mainland SNS and know more about our Internet companies, you might think our government or CCP have lost control of Internet. Take Weibo as an example, the company have deleted the announcement of some government departments for many times, and dissents are everywhere if you have searched for specified contents. You may heard of Fang Fang, the female writer who finished Wuhan Diary and published it in foreign countries. The contents of her book are proved to be total nonsense by those who fought in the front against COVID-19.

The scene that censorship shows is different. The censorship standard according to related laws is ambiguous. The real executive standard depends on the offcial who censors the works. Works once published may not succeed another time. It's an awkward situation, and it's hard to solve. Now, I think maybe the ideal of CCP are contradict to the executive process of government.

On issue about regions like Xinjiang and Tibet, PLA liberated them in 1950s and 1960s from feudal rulers and slave owners. And there is no religious persecution or labor camp there. How we should get along with them will be more proper? Contents about Muslims are forbidden not because of religious persecution but the harassment from Muslims. Or when supporting Tibet Independence some people just mean that Tibet returning to the rule of slave owners better than a Socialism (with China-style Characteristics) government?

As for Hong Kong and Taiwan, issues are more comlicated. Now I haven't figure out why Hong Kong protest broke out. As a mainlanders, the only problem of Fugitive Offenders Ordinance that I know is its incompletence because it was passed too hurried, and I read the law articles last year in Wikipedia. In fact, too many Mainlanders think we tolarate too much improper actions of Hong Kong and Taiwan, yet the government and CCP havn't taken any practical measures though many Mainlanders request. It remained to be discussed.

As a Mainlander I can figure out that misunderstandings among Mainlanders, Hong Kongers, Taiwanese and forign countries' people can fill a whole encyclopedia. We don't know each other for real. Communication is welcomed. At least, I wonder if there is any western journalists in Western China. Thank you for providing a chance to have a discuss about the political issues since many so-called dissents of Mainland main-stream thoughts I know (they are Hong Kongers, too) always stop arguing or debating while consider us as brainwashed fools. It can't be better if you can discuss the issues with me. Hope my poor English won't bother you when you read my replies.关云 (talk) 10:05, June 20, 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we also remove uncited information if too long of a time has passed without a source being provided. Our policy might differ a little in that we follow Wikipedia's standard where information that, by our discretion, is definitely or almost certainly false is immediately removed while information where we expect a source can be provided but has not yet been is labeled [citation needed]. After an extended period of time, users are authorized to remove the information if the citation request has not been fulfilled, but since there are many occurrences of this throughout the wiki, there are many that we miss.

We have established that Mao Zedong's affiliation with the Assassins or Templars in Assassin's Creed has not been proven, but what is my personal opinion? The Assassins stand out from other freedom fighters and revolutionaries in that they have the strictest taboo against harming innocent people. "Stay your blade from the flesh of an innocent". In history, we see time and time again that when oppressed people rise up, it is too tempting to turn to fury and exact vengeance against entire groups of people related to the enemy, even women and children, even if they haven't directly taken part in the oppression. Thus, we become the very monsters we seek to destroy; what starts off as a justified revolution becomes just one evil against another. Assassins are unique in that, while there is a lot of freedom, one of the things that is intolerable is committing actions which hurt innocent people.

This is what sets them apart from Templars, as in Assassin's Creed Altaïr notes that the Templars he meets are like Assassins but "their methods are too brutal and imprecise". Both seek world peace, but their differences are more than just desiring control or desiring free will. Assassins believe, in theory if not always in practice, that conflicts must be fought in a way that minimizes collateral damage, minimizes the disruptive impact on society and everyday human lives, and which are precise. This doesn't mean that Assassins are pacifists because they believe that in political struggles, violence is sometimes necessary to protect innocents. But when Assassins do resort to violence, it is meant only when "there is no other way", as Rebecca told Desmond, it must be swift and meticulously executed, and they must not revel in it. That is why in Assassin's Creed: Syndicate, Evie Frye, described as a studious model Assassin, criticizes her brother for killing Templars recklessly without regard for societal disruption like economic damage. She finds herself having to fix the fallout from every assassination to minimize the ramifications on the common people of London and possibly the world.

Of course, in practice, Assassins in the story aren't perfect. We see often that even the best of Assassins can accidentally kill the wrong person, like when Ezio kills Tarik Barleti in Assassin's Creed: Revelations. In Rogue, Achilles' new recruits for his new branch seem to not understand the tenets of the Creed at all and constantly violate them, but this is partly bad writing.

So let's connect this principle of precision, minimizing collateral damage, and the absolute rule against hurting innocent people to Mao Zedong being an Assassin or Templar.

First, I would like to say that like you, I was really offended when Ubisoft made Sun Yat-sen a Templar Grand Master. I believe that in contrast to Mao, Sun Yat-sen truly believed in creating a society based on the consent of the governed, the rule of law, and humane governance (i.e. human rights), so he could not have been a Templar. I think they should have made him an Assassin. I even made kind of angry forum post about this a long time ago, haha. Yuan Shikai should've been the Templar. But I read that the author's reasoning for Sun being a Templar was just because he wanted a "noble, good person to be a Templar" since the Assassin's Creed: Templars comic series was supposed to make Templars seem like heroes. I don't think that the author really did research on who Sun Yat-sen was.

I see Sun Yat-sen as one of my heroes, but I really don't like Mao. If you would pardon my honesty, with the mayhem and destruction of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution which my grandparents lived through and escaped, I don't believe that Mao was a great ruler. In fact, I believe that he was one of the worst leaders in Chinese history, responsible for the deaths of more of our people than any other Chinese leader in our history. A common estimate of the death toll under his reign is 40 million. That's the figure I read the most. This alone is about the same total death toll of World War II across the entire world. Of course, people may argue that this figure is exaggerated. The lowest estimate I have read is still 20 million; the highest is 80 million.

The science and data doesn't support the idea that he contributed to China's industrialization. Instead, he held it back by decades; industrialization only began under Deng Xiaoping. But even if Mao, like my childhood friend believes, had set the path for China's industrialization, it still cannot justify the bloodshed and devastation of Chinese culture that he was responsible for. There is absolutely no accomplishment of a leader which can vindicate such atrocities. There are many ways to make a country great again without so much senseless loss of life. My belief is that he was comparable to Qin Shi Huang.

But my personal views of Mao aside, the sheer sweeping purges he conducted, the cultural destruction, the attacks on professors and scholars, the shutdown of all higher education violates the Assassin principles of precision, minimizing collateral damage, and especially the taboo against hurting innocent people. The Cultural Revolution was similar to the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution. The Assassins' way is meant to target specific enemies, specific individuals, not wholesale groups indiscriminately. They also promote free thought and education. If Mao believed that traditional and Confucian culture had been responsible for holding China's progress back, Assassins would have believed that the right thing to do was to teach students to learn from it, not to burn it all down. Altaïr was opposed to Jubair's book burning in Assassin's Creed for this reason; Ezio was opposed to Girolamo Savonarola's Bonfire of the Vanities in Assassin's Creed II for this reasoning.

Whenever there is a conflict, people in power will be tempted to use repressive means which target blanket groups of people rather than at the precise perpetrators. This is both easier and Templars like Haytham would argue, more efficient. The risks involved with having to try to identify specific people rather than covering all who have the potential to be a threat are too great in Templars' eyes. Assassins disavow this; every innocent life matters and the desire for "easy", "riskless", "efficient" means of eliminating a threat is no excuse to use methods which may hurt innocent lives.

This is why I don't believe that Mao can be an Assassin. His methodology goes against these sanctified principles, violating all that is forbidden. I have read that he criticized Nikita Khrushchev for resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis peacefully because he believed that nuclear war should be welcomed if it would mean that the communists can ultimately emerge victorious. However, I don't think he would necessarily be a real Templar either. From what I've read of him, I think that Mao truly believed in the communist revolution and driven mad by it. I don't hate communism, but I think Mao was a religious fanatic when it came to communism because any ideology can become like a religion if the proponent is too extreme.

At the same time, writers of Assassin's Creed can come up with any convoluted plot. Stalin is a Templar or at least a Templar puppet. Mao was an ally of Stalin, and he broke ties with Khrushchev over destalinization. Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger worked for Templar interests like many of the United States presidents in the Cold War; they were the ones who opened ties between the United States and the People's Republic of China when Mao was still alive, a process that occurred in secret at first. So, these established affiliations in Assassin's Creed lore do make a connection between Mao and the Templars possible narrative-wise, but at this point, this would be speculation. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 20:53, June 21, 2020 (UTC)

It's CCP... Oh, it's not CCP but Mao should be blamed for all the suffering of China. While if China overcome the difficulties, it's all the achievement gained by people. Things can be concluded according to your view.

Though government were more close to CCP at that time when Mao as the supreme leader was capable to affect everyone in China who were willing to follow him, it doesn't mean that everyone really obeyed the real command from the leadership.

If you have watch the documentaries of Great Leaping Forward, you will find people were willing to cater the unrealistic request of CCP. And the problems of the campaign were caused until people got to work on it. Wrong actions were taken.

And you should know that China is too big to be completely regulated by a single central government, let along CCP is unable to guide the government directly. In fact, the top leadership may not expect the magnification of the campaigns they initiated. CCP and central govenment did make mistakes, yet local governments and CCP local branches made more mistakes. And people who killed time and almost did nothing just to cheat a lobor credit were not blamed, yet Mao was to be blamed for the casualty caused by food shortage.

It's werid to say Mao should be blamed for all these things.

As for industrializaion, if Mao's reign devasted it, how can Deng make great progress on the base of industry and economy of RoC that was just like a piece of shit. In fact, since so-called Golden Decade,

people lived in the territory of CCP enjoyed better life. If people remain on their former pace, they won't starve themselves when they tried to cater the unrealistic request.

I'd like to tell you that the casualty and mistakes were not caused by a single person nor a single Party. I think if everyone practise the ideal of CCP precisely, things would have been better.

As for Cultural Revolution, it was the peak of PRC's political fault. However, we never know if those who persecuted others holding the Quotations from Chairman Mao believed in our socialism cause. But we know that victims who survived the decade tend to blame Mao and CCP for their suffering. The campaign against old culture never succeeded, the worst part from traditions and old culture survived.

And these political campaigns were initiated for the reason that we did have enemies inside our country, our people (we don't name enemy as people in Chinese), and our Party. The magnification is a pity, and it tells us we do have enemy who seems to be loyal to our ideal and cause.

You believe it or not, many people just consider as the savior who brought them freedom in Mainland.

As for Soviet Union, PRC only enlisted help and support from them when we need it. CCP disobeyed the order from Communism Internation under the leadership of Soviet Union since Mao came to power in 1935, and we refused to join Soviet Union from the very beginning. The Sino-USSR relationship especially PRC-USSR relationship broke up since Khrushchev came to power, another Soviet Union leader who encouraged cult of personality and chauvinism. It's hard to describe the relationship between China and Soviet Union, but at least we never share the same ideal as the Soviet Union. And the three years of natural disasters that caused many people starve to die are also a part of result of Soviet Union's blockdown. Mao was not the ally of Stalin. Or, will you put your ally under house arrest when he's visiting your capital?

In conclusion, I mean to explain two points.

• One is Mao shouldn't been blamed for all the casualty and victims, the heavy-hand measures were carried out by people themselves (Deng ordered the army to take restrainted actions with no other choices, the actions were stiil described as the massacre. Let along Mao who organized CCP to plan a unrealistic production plan for the country and mean to eliminate the enemy did exist and does exist. When will you be concerned about the cruel actions carried out by people?) Mao himself order the end of Great Leaping Forward. He was one of the most moderate leaders in the Cultural Revolution. It was under the leadership of Mao that PRC people provided PRC with the resources and fundament for Reform and Opening (and I need remind you that the mistakes CCP made never held back the development and industrialization too much, according to the conclusion of historians, the process was stopped in fact.)
• The other one is Mao may not be a Templar though he had links with some known Templars. Yet he can be a normal person in the history of Human. Templars can make its members rivals against each other. They can create any illution they want you to see. Tokugawa supported by Assassins was less open than Toyotomi supported by Templars, then how can you judge one is more close to Templar or Assassin according to his behaviors without any official setting to prove it? And Sun Yat-sen, well, ignoring his actions about self-centered Revolutionary Party of China and KMT, he can be closer to Assassins according to your views. Never try to judge the revolutionaries of the revolution age of China just from one single aspect.

related issues are too complex. Hope I've made myself clear.

关云 (talk) 04:38, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

Hello again Guan Yun, I had meant to reply back to you weeks ago, but as I was also going into the Hong Kong perspective, I honestly started to feel a bit anxious that it was too much text and that might bother you. I ended up putting it aside for a while wondering how I might shorten it and make it more concise, and I think I will rewrite it from scratch.

In any case, I will still proceed with that later in a separate section if you do not mind because like I said, I think it's important to have that sort of discussion, but here I will respond more immediately to the content I think relates more to Assassin's Creed.

You are right that there are other possibilities as to why Mao might not be a Templar in Assassin's Creed (apart from the fact that it hasn't been conclusively decided by Ubisoft of course). I think I've already mentioned this at first, but ultimately, it is up to the storywriters. No matter how much we think it may or may not make sense, Ubisoft can essentially choose to make any historical figure an Assassin, Templar, or neither, and the issue would lie in whether they can somehow make it make sense or if it might end up feeling forced. We as fans can speculate instead whether we personally think the historical figure would fit Assassins or Templars more, so I would like to make that distinction. I personally think that it would be most fitting for Mao to be a Templar puppet and also that it should be impossible for him to have been an Assassin because he didn't abide by their principles, but obviously, there are many ways where Ubisoft can write the story to make him contrary to my opinion and still justify it, depending on their creativity.

I think my main takeaway is just that you think that Mao wasn't directly responsible or in control of the excesses of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, but you do acknowledge that those calamities happened. The texts I have read about Mao have always said that he was the one who initiated and catalyzed the Cultural Revolution, even partly to preserve his loss of prestige after the Great Leap Forward. I am therefore highly skeptical that his fault can be mitigated. As well when you ask how Deng could have industrialized if Mao had devastated the Mainland, I will use a common quote that "it is not that the Mainland industrialized because of those catastrophes, but that it industrialized despite those catastrophes". Under that argument, it was entirely possible for the Mainland economy to prosper and industrialize if Mao's policies hadn't happened; it simply would've happened twenty years earlier.

I see China "lifting millions out of poverty" as a natural outcome of gradual recovery after a long period of civil war rather than a miraculous achievement. China's vast resources and manpower as well as industrialization being dependant on trade ties with the West made that rebound highly likely from the beginning once one of the first conditions of industrialization, a functional state, was fulfilled with the end of the civil war. Had the KMT or any other of the vying factions won the civil war instead, that condition would have been still been fulfilled.

But when we reach this point, it starts to become a debate, which is not really what I was seeking since I only wanted to hear your perspective. There are intense scholarly studies regarding China's industrialization, arguing for your position and mine, and the only way we would be able to proceed is to consult those and begin citing data, and I don't think we should go that deep as it would be time-consuming and exhausting, so we should probably agree to disagree.

The last thing I wanted to comment on though was your comment regarding how the PLA liberated Tibet from feudal lords and slave owners. I fear that that justification for conquest is the same kind of reasoning that the United States under George Bush used to invade Iraq in 2003, something that I adamantly opposed at the time and still do to this day. It is a hallmark of Templar philosophy, where wholesale assault and conquest can be justified in the name of acting as a savior without the consent of the common people whose homes fall under the attack.

I expect that you might argue that humanitarian intervention is also a belief of the Assassins, and if you were thinking of making this rebuttal, there is some validity to that. There are pacifists in this world, who really don't regard intervention as justifiable in any way, fearing the kind of crimes committed by Bush in Iraq or the PLA in Tibet. And the Assassins are not these kinds of pacifists. There are cases like the rise of Nazi Germany and the Rwandan genocide where the world should have intervened far earlier, and Assassins would have stood by those interventions. Even still, there is a mile of a difference between intervening against genocide and conquering territory out of the pretext of liberation; namely, the former doesn't consist of subjugating the local people. The latter is just a very typical argument for imperialism and colonialism. In international relations, we call the American form of this imperialistic thinking the "democratic peace theory".

I decided to remark on this point about Tibet when I was not going to initially because I was concerned about your understanding of Assassin and Templar philosophies and how they apply to the real-world. You don't have to agree with me here either, but I think you should reflect more on these fine details of their beliefs and where one slides into the other.

You mentioned that you think, in fact, that liberation from tyranny is a good cause. But if those you honor in real-life act like Templars, would you be able to recognize it? If those you respect in real-life were guilty of tyranny, would you be able to acknowledge it, or would you try to excuse them or downplay them? I'm not asking this to be condescending, but it is because it is a question that everyone should ask themselves. I ask myself these questions as well. Often, we are complicit in oppression without realizing it; when our own people become the oppressors, it is then when we turn a blind eye even where we once were oppressed ourselves. We can observe this at the level of global politics, but we can also observe this at the level of the elementary school yard when children bully one another. Bullies very often don't realize that they're bullying because they justify to themselves why their victims deserve it in some way or another.

I think this is one of the greatest lessons of Assassin's Creed and why I love it so much even though its philosophical commentary and quality has severely declined. :) Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 18:25, July 8, 2020 (UTC)