Is anyone else appalled by the Eurocentrism in Civ?

johny smith said:

It is not that your reasoning does not make sense. But arguing that Germany is so important versus Prussia and Austria-Hungary is what I am saying is what Civilization should address. Instead of playing the Germans from 4000 BC. I would rather have something in the game demonstrating the change in aka "civilizations". Not just a flat Germany that is some how suppose to represent the history of the entire region.

It is just stupid. I guess Canada is represented by America then. I would rather the game progress not become stagnate with better eye candy with each series. Sorry I did mean to say anything that sound bad directed towards you.

Click to expand...

I think it would be really interesting if states would have to form from smaller powers, like Germany from Prussia, bohemia, etc,.. where maybe at first you only controlled a single city state, and population expansion happened and its own, and you had to form diplomatic coalitions. It would be a completely different game than what we have now, though.

Ikael said:

Civ V do not reeks of Eurocentrism but rather of an utterly lack of historic knowdegle. I am sorry to tell, but everything, from the civilization selection to the Unique Units / buildings / special skills screams to me "history channel aficionado". The lack of more special units on non European civs steams from the lack of military history knowdegle outside of the western civs, while picking up the Iroquois over, say, any freaking civilization that developed any social structure beyond tribalism denotes north american-centrism rather than Euro centrism, unless you are illiterate enough to believe that the Mongols, Incas, Malinese, Spanish or Kjmer were somehow minor civs. The utter lack of understanding of what makes a civilization influential is baffling, and even if there are some nice choices here and there (shongai over the zulus, ottomans being a "vainilla civ", etc), generally talking there are still zones that are hugely underrerpesented (South America, East Asia, etc). Then again, as people have pointed out, this kind of thing has more to do with commercial interests rather than an ill will towards other cultures.

Click to expand...

I can not agree more. That is all I am trying to say. Nothing really is done correct. If don't right I would care much less if more aka "civilizations" were European, but would I prefer more outside of Europe.

brianshapiro said:

I think it would be really interesting if states would have to form from smaller powers, like Germany from Prussia, bohemia, etc,.. where maybe at first you only controlled a single city state, and population expansion happened and its own, and you had to form diplomatic coalitions. It would be a completely different game than what we have now, though.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Isn't that is what games are suppose to do get better with each edition? Get better with more detail of the civilizations you are playing with more things than just a unit and a building. And you see understand me know. Sorry I did not want to sound like you are not sound in reasoning with the current system.

Europe is pretty.

I just want to thank everyone for their opinions on my statement, but I just want to clarify, that I do not think Civ is Eurocentric because there are too many Western states, but mainly due to the art styles so far released. All the buttons for the generic units are white (or implied to be, see Longswordsman) in a game where most of the people in these states are not, even the Euro-Med civs like Greece or Rome. This is beyond Eurocentrism, and treads on racial favoritism. I am not saying there should not be any white buttons, but there should at least be black, tanned, and oriental skin ethnicities as well.


Also about my quip against the Greeks, that was a personal vendetta as I find their philosophy a ripe-off of Egyptian and Babylonians, or nothing more than religion+ (except Epicurus), their art was soulless, the people who study them as working in the context of the 19th century, their literary works are inflated, and in general, everything about them has been overtly fictionalized.

Also, I was really offended by a comment made about Mali a few pages ago, which only confirms my that people in the Western context no nothing about Africa and her histories much to their own shame.

Well the whole world is Eurocentrist nothing we can really do about that, but can we atleast have skin color for all the units, not too much to ask

johny smith said:

2.You could argue then the Dutch are more important? Since they developed a Germanic language first. I don't mean this to dismiss Germany. But you could argue that for many nations.

Click to expand...

The Dutch didn't develop a Germanic language first...what are you talking about?

Reginleif said:

​

​

Also about my quip against the Greeks, that was a personal vendetta as I find their philosophy a ripe-off of Egyptian and Babylonians, or nothing more than religion+ (except Epicurus), their art was soulless, the people who study them as working in the context of the 19th century, their literary works are inflated, and in general, everything about them has been overtly fictionalized.

Click to expand...

Your opinion may change once you actually study history or philosophy, since real historians and philosophers generally reject this afrocentrist claim which is advanced to make Africans feel better about themselves, and has no real basis.

Also, I was really offended by a comment made about Mali a few pages ago, which only confirms my that people in the Western context no nothing about Africa and her histories much to their own shame.

Click to expand...

And if you think that Mali is anywhere near as important as even, say, the Netherlands in world history, well, you are sorely mistaken.

KIEJ.MANIK said:

Well the whole world is Eurocentrist nothing we can really do about that, but can we atleast have skin color for all the units, not too much to ask

Click to expand...

different unit sets and music has already been confirmed for each region of the world

PeterWimsey said:

The Dutch didn't develop a Germanic language first...what are you talking about?

Click to expand...

I meant an official language(Dutch) before Germany(the country) found in 1871(but the official High German language in what the 1860's?)(German). Anyway it is a pointless statement to point out the pointlessness of the civilizations in Civ 5. Who is really German is like asking who is really civilized.

The Leviathan said:

different unit sets and music has already been confirmed for each region of the world

Click to expand...

That is what it is all about!!!

No offense meant to you. But that is pretty much is the statement that can conclude Civilization (the game) details on culture.

PeterWimsey said:

Your opinion may change once you actually study history or philosophy, since real historians and philosophers generally reject this afrocentrist claim which is advanced to make Africans feel better about themselves, and has no real basis.

And if you think that Mali is anywhere near as important as even, say, the Netherlands in world history, well, you are sorely mistaken.

Click to expand...

I disagree with him about diminishing the Greeks, but Mali was at least important on a large scale for the gold-salt trade.

Eurocentrism is not the problem, the problem is that many of the civilizations are not even civilizations.




America... it fits more as a civilization than most of the European civs do, since it repopularized democracy (well, France did, but they probably wouldn't have if the United States never existed). But it's still not a civilization.

Arabia... is a civilization, but should probably should be called 'Islamic Peoples', 'The Arabs', or 'The Caliphate'.

Aztecs... they were a small empire out of many in Mesoamerica. Not even that special. Mayans, Olmece, and/or Incas deserve to be a civilization more than they do. The selection of the Aztecs over the Tarascans or Zapotec is arbitrary.

China... that's a civilization. No problem there.

Egypt... it's the very definition of a civilization.

England... not really a civilization. However it was the most influential European nation, so it fits the most out of the European ones.

France... not really a civilization.

Germany... not a civilization. It didn't even exist until 1871. However, the Germanic peoples have existed for a long time. They would fit better as a civilization... although they were barbarians until influenced by the Romans.

Greece... founder of western civilization. Definitely a civilization.

India... The people of India are so different that they should not be considered a single civilization. It should be split into several.

Iroquois... not really a civilization.

Japan... iffy, but could be considered a civilization. But then you need to include Korea and Khmer too.

Ottomans... Really? They were one dynasty out of many. They should add the Habsburg civilization too. Not a civilization.

Persia... Definitely a civilization.

Rome... Definitely a civilization.

Russia... A civilization, but barely.

Siam... Khmer fits better, although Siam does pass as a civlization.

Songhai... Why not Mali?

And if you think that Mali is anywhere near as important as even, say, the Netherlands in world history, well, you are sorely mistaken.

Click to expand...

Mali is more of a civilization than the Netherlands. Though the Netherlands was a more important country.

PeterWimsey said:

And if you think that Mali is anywhere near as important as even, say, the Netherlands in world history, well, you are sorely mistaken.

Click to expand...

This argument is ridiculous for a number of reasons. The first is that when you refer to the Netherlands as "more important" as the Mali Empire, your delegitimizing the history of West Africans. Effectively your saying that, "an empire that influenced my culture is more important than one that influenced a different culture. It's more important if you influenced my culture, because it's a relatively wealthy culture right now and West Africans are relatively poor right now."

The second problem with the argument is that its almost impossible to measure impactfulness. The idea of picking the "most important civs" is simply a reflection of modern pop-culture's obsession with list making. Obviously some states in history are more powerful simply in terms of landmass and population numbers than others, and the game reflects this. Aside from the lack of Spanish and Mongols (which I assume will be promptly corrected), the developers mostly selected for those empires that were the largest, with a few regional powers thrown in for variety and maybe map-balance. (Although, the inclusion of the Iroquois seems to belie the latter).

That said, I'm not completely agreeing with Johny Smith and the OP, either. I do think that cultural artwork would be nice, but the developers do make an effort to correct for their Western bias, if over-zealously. (By all means include Siam and Songhai, but don't take Spain and the Mongols out to do it!) Also, it IS a game, and there is really no reason to be appalled if they didn't bother to correct for their bias. (Although I do have a peeve with their city state choices, not because they're overly Western, but because many were never real city states! )

Xwarq said:

Eurocentrism is not the problem, the problem is that many of the civilizations are not even civilizations.

Click to expand...

What is your definition of a civilization exactly? You seem to be simply passing judgment as you see fit without any discernible criteria.

j51 said:

What is your definition of a civilization exactly? You seem to be simply passing judgment as you see fit without any discernible criteria.

Click to expand...

It depends on age, influence, and the relation between the entity and its surroundings.

Rome is a civilization, because it conquered the entire Mediterranean world and brought civilization to Europe. They also had huge linguistic impact.

Greece is a civilization because they spread their influence, language, philosophy, culture, etc. across the Middle East and the Mediterranean.

France is not a civilization because it arose from barbarians who took over a part of the Roman civilization; the Franks. The kingdom of France was also quite small until Aquitaine, Bretagne, and Occitaine were directly integrated.

Mali is a civilization, because it was an organized nation with a trading network, in the middle of a stateless, relatively uncivilized (tribal) area (As the Germanic peoples were prior to influence from the civilization to the south).

The Mongols were a civilization because they conquered most of the Old World and had huge influence. Arguably, they were 'barbarians' instead of a 'civilization' due to the destruction they caused, but their influence is unforgettable.

England didn't exist in the form we know it until 1066. The British Empire had a large influence, but then if England is in, then Spain should too. Or if we're going by their former names, Castile.

Egypt... The very first states popped up in Egypt and Mesopotamia. Egypt was part of the crade of civilization.

j51 said:

This argument is ridiculous for a number of reasons. The first is that when you refer to the Netherlands as "more important" as the Mali Empire, your delegitimizing the history of West Africans. Effectively your saying that, "an empire that influenced my culture is more important than one that influenced a different culture. It's more important if you influenced my culture, because it's a relatively wealthy culture right now and West Africans are relatively poor right now."

The second problem with the argument is that its almost impossible to measure impactfulness. The idea of picking the "most important civs" is simply a reflection of modern pop-culture's obsession with list making. Obviously some states in history are more powerful simply in terms of landmass and population numbers than others, and the game reflects this. Aside from the lack of Spanish and Mongols (which I assume will be promptly corrected), the developers mostly selected for those empires that were the largest, with a few regional powers thrown in for variety and maybe map-balance. (Although, the inclusion of the Iroquois seems to belie the latter).

That said, I'm not completely agreeing with Johny Smith and the OP, either. I do think that cultural artwork would be nice, but the developers do make an effort to correct for their Western bias, if over-zealously. (By all means include Siam and Songhai, but don't take Spain and the Mongols out to do it!) Also, it IS a game, and there is really no reason to be appalled if they didn't bother to correct for their bias. (Although I do have a peeve with their city state choices, not because they're overly Western, but because many were never real city states! )

Click to expand...

I have no problem with selecting civilizations that have had a large regional and culture influence, since we do have to unfortunately narrow it down to a list like that.

However, Africa wasn't a big empty area where nothing happened or which had no important contact with the rest of the world. It was an important center for trade, particularly the salt trade over the Sahara. Also, the Nubians had a large influence on the history of Egypt (Nubians conquered egypt at one point), which in turn, was important for Western history.

The Mali were never as earth shaking as were the Romans or the Egyptians or the English, or Chinese, but part of the point of the game is to play history differently in which smaller powers could have become larger empires. And, there was at least some important activity going on in Africa to draw from.

j51 said:

What is your definition of a civilization exactly? You seem to be simply passing judgment as you see fit without any discernible criteria.

Click to expand...

I think a civilization broadly is a a society built around a unique culture and way of life, generally a mythos. I think some of what are represented in the game are nations instead of civilization. France, Germany, Spain, England, all saw themselves as part of a shared 'Christian' civilization that was built from the ruins of the Roman Empire, all of their monarchs giving some deference to the Church and the Pope. America is just a creation of European nations. In a lot of ways the idea of a 'civilization' is becoming anachronistic, and we're becoming one interconnected global culture.

Xwarq, you seem to think that any civ that arose from "barbarism" isn't. But all civs arose from a form of "barbarism," whether its hunter-gathering, or nomadism, or a semi-settled state. Also, your equation of "barbarian=destruction" makes me think you've never heard of the twentieth century.

brianshapiro said:

However, Africa wasn't a big empty area where nothing happened or which had no important contact with the rest of the world.

Click to expand...

Is this directed at me, because I think I was being pretty clear that I agree with such a sentiment?

brianshapiro said:

I think a civilization broadly is a a society built around a unique culture and way of life, generally a mythos.

Click to expand...

This could also define a nation.

Personally, I find it easier to equate a civilization with settled agriculture and urbanism. To define discrete entities that could be put into a game, I would use either a particular historical state (the US, England, the Aztecs), a self-defined cultural realm (Greece, Germany, India), or both (China, Persia, Japan).