This was very similar to an idea I had, although I think scripting these things to specific regions and nations affected, as well as time periods, rather than tendencies and trends, would not work. It must be a general and somewhat generic application of affairs in a Civ iteration.
And explicit addressing of slavery in game should be avoided.
Why isn't it politically correct? Look at slavery in the United States the economy that produced and then ended after the civil war, the racial problems in Haiti or in Boer South Africa are products of the importation of slaves and the economy they created.
I'm not sinking into a quagmire debate. I'm stating a point of view that I - and a fair number of others - think would serve the Civ franchise. Lack of explicit mention doesn't mean it isn't implied in numerous forms of historical labour together. It's explicit mention that should be avoided.
Why
Because there is no need or benefit to dwell on it, mechanically, and, one can't just mention the Transatlantic Triangle alone, as though it were the only usage of slave labour - an institution that was ubiquitous and pernicious across all of human history and most regions and epochs of the world - and, by that point, you might as just fold it in with other forms of old labour.
Physical slavery is as important to the population as it is to minority ethnic groups in a nation. The Boers and the Zulus for example the Africans in Brazil or Jamaica
In those days and times, there is no need to distinguish it, and no mechanical difference required, from tenant farmers, temporary corvee workers, dockyard labourers, and Industrial Revolution factory workers - it was all about the quality of unskilled work for minimal compensation (by modern, First World labour standards) in the broad scope of a global and grand historical Civ iteration.
The use of the term, "REAL slavery," and marking an arbitrary start date to the 1500's, is quite insulting and uninformed, scholastically, morally, and humanistically, when the institution of declared, "ownership," of other human beings, and forcing them into unskilled labour or other endeavours (including unsavoury ones) for the benefit of their, "owner and master," predates recorded history and has plagued every corner of the globe in numerous guises, forms, institutions, justifications, and names throughout human history. And it is ALL REAL slavery. And it is sill happening TODAY, in seedy pockets of the world.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery. The great slavery began with the conquest of the Aztec empire and then the African deportation to Mexico and the Antilles began. The rest is politically correct: I would have also put Hitler as the leader of Germany because he existed
The slavery of the large plantations of the modern era
Estimates say that there is a strong possibility that more slaves were transported throughout the history of the Islamic world, than they were to the Americas, as that was going on from about roughly the "7th century to the 20th century".
No, I mean, why are you defining it as 'great'? As compared to other 'slaveries'?
How is bringing up slavery around the world and throughout history outside Transatlantic plantation slavery even remote or appropriately, in any way, shape, or form, dismissible as just being, "politically correct?"
And, how does Hitler EXISTING mean he should automatically be a guaranteed Civ leader of Germany, and how that tie into this discussion, or is a counter to anything I've said?
