Illuminatiscott
Chieftain
pimpmastabola said:
How about CIV stop being RACIST!!!
- Thread starter pimpmastabola
- Start date
- Status
Sark6354201
Warlord
The main problem is that with a limited number of total civilizations you have to whittle down to the more important ones.
Which leaves you with European nations.
You could argue that in some cases this is not true, but when the commercial argument is thrown in, it becomes clear that having nations that are well known and historically more important than a lot of of the African and Asian nations, it's pretty easy to pick what civilizations should be included.
Ethiopia most certainly is not as important in world history as say France, Spain, England, Rome, Greece are.
Which leaves you with European nations.
You could argue that in some cases this is not true, but when the commercial argument is thrown in, it becomes clear that having nations that are well known and historically more important than a lot of of the African and Asian nations, it's pretty easy to pick what civilizations should be included.
Ethiopia most certainly is not as important in world history as say France, Spain, England, Rome, Greece are.
Novaya Havoc
Hollerback for Catherine
Fer de Lance said:
Well, considering Civ operates on a historical continuum -- and not in a fixed time period -- it's gonna be REAL difficult to ground a game during the Agricultural Revolution. Not only is it going to be hard enough to dig up enough historical information on civilizations to make an impact, but to project these civs into our modern world is going to be just plain unmarketable.
What are the 4 Indian civs referred to in the poll option? There's just one India in the game. I'd happily accept the Mauryan Empire, the Mughals, and the Kushans if offered, though.
Xen, Arabs aren't Caucasian; they're Semitic.
Please specify in greater detail what your criteria for important are. Such a viewpoint may be inherently flawed as all empires have built on the accomplishments of those who came before. Furthermore, our view of history has been colored by who wrote the histories. In many cases, there weren't many histories to draw on. Chinese and Greek history is much better recorded than, say, Indian or Persian history, so it's harder to see how their accomplishments fed into the global mix.
Xen, Arabs aren't Caucasian; they're Semitic.
Sark6354201 said:
Please specify in greater detail what your criteria for important are. Such a viewpoint may be inherently flawed as all empires have built on the accomplishments of those who came before. Furthermore, our view of history has been colored by who wrote the histories. In many cases, there weren't many histories to draw on. Chinese and Greek history is much better recorded than, say, Indian or Persian history, so it's harder to see how their accomplishments fed into the global mix.
troytheface
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,262
odd thread-the contention is that the creators of this game are racist because there are not more black civs- i was playing multi player one day and i was in the chat room and wrote something like "i wonder why people do not play the Zulu more - they are a great civ on this" and 2 people replied that its because "no one wants to play a black civ"......
I have noticed that there are no black players (at least admitted) on multi player- i have played germans and poles and austrailians and dutch and french and canadians and even south americans.....but in 2 and a half years not one black player......
This of course touches upon the marketing issue-in other words -are Black defrizzing gel makers racist because they only have black people on pictured
on their products and do not reach out to other groups?
Personally i think they have more black civs in this game becuase white people wanted them- the reverse of racism
I have noticed that there are no black players (at least admitted) on multi player- i have played germans and poles and austrailians and dutch and french and canadians and even south americans.....but in 2 and a half years not one black player......
This of course touches upon the marketing issue-in other words -are Black defrizzing gel makers racist because they only have black people on pictured
on their products and do not reach out to other groups?
Personally i think they have more black civs in this game becuase white people wanted them- the reverse of racism
doronron
King
pimpmastabola: You do realize in Civ3 in a straight up AI vs AI fight on a world map with 31 civs that the Zulu build a super empire that's only rivaled by a native american superstate across the atlantic, and the Europeans, Asians, and Middle Easterns end up incredibly weak and unbelievably balkanized by the end of the game, right? Guess what? In the current setup, the blacks win! Good for you!
Seriously, though this is a game made for a modern audience that has to use a simplified system to model _all_ of known history. Why shouldn't one expect a number of the playable factions be recent powers? Why shouldn't one expect a "greatest hits" style selection of those factions that shaped the world as we know it? We're talking those factions that shaped the political landscape and developed and refined the luxuries we now take for granted.
Europe's selection of powers stay. Why? Because they had the most impact on the modern world. The Middle East stays. Why? Because they laid the foundation for civilization as we know it, not a black Hannibal. Asia stays. Why? Because their cultures are some of the most stable in history, and many social and scientific advances can be credited to them. Native American nations stay. Why? Because had it not been for European intervention, their highly developed architectural and mathematic skills would have lead them down the same path as the legendary nations of Greece, Egypt, and Rome. The bulk of the subsaharan cultures still lived a stone age existance when the rest of the world was finishing the industrial revolution.
Seriously, though this is a game made for a modern audience that has to use a simplified system to model _all_ of known history. Why shouldn't one expect a number of the playable factions be recent powers? Why shouldn't one expect a "greatest hits" style selection of those factions that shaped the world as we know it? We're talking those factions that shaped the political landscape and developed and refined the luxuries we now take for granted.
Europe's selection of powers stay. Why? Because they had the most impact on the modern world. The Middle East stays. Why? Because they laid the foundation for civilization as we know it, not a black Hannibal. Asia stays. Why? Because their cultures are some of the most stable in history, and many social and scientific advances can be credited to them. Native American nations stay. Why? Because had it not been for European intervention, their highly developed architectural and mathematic skills would have lead them down the same path as the legendary nations of Greece, Egypt, and Rome. The bulk of the subsaharan cultures still lived a stone age existance when the rest of the world was finishing the industrial revolution.
Novaya Havoc
Hollerback for Catherine
apatheist said:
Amerindian. Iroquois, Aztec, Maya, Inca. Don't worry -- I was confused at first, too.
Sark6354201
Warlord
apatheist said:
You bring up a good point. What I meant by important however was their impact on the world as a whole. Whether it be good or bad, it is hard to argue in the grand scheme of things that Ethiopia contributed as much to the world culturally, militarilly or even in colonization as did a nation such as France.
Legionary37
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2005
- Messages
- 169
No, she can't. Cleopatra, with the exception of a grandmother, was completely Macedonian (Greek). She was descended from the Macedonian rulers of Egypt, which was setup at the death of Alexander the Great. Ptolmey, one of Alexander's generals, took Egypt, and thereafter, the Macedonian rulers of Egypt were known as the "Ptolmies".
We already have several African civs. Egypt, Carthage, Mali etc. That seems like enough to me, considering Africa has had very little impact on the world at large compared to Asia or Europe.
Hector of Troy
Chieftain
while a few more subsaharan civilizations (such as the east african city states of the 1400's and the shonghai ) would be nice. racisim is weilded unfairly in this argument. the lack of african civilizations is something that should be imporved on as there should be more than one african civ ( carthage does not count becuase it was historicaly founded as a colony by the pheonicians from what is now lebanon) the lack of African civilizations is not a cause of rasisim it is just a lack of evidence of african civilization. this is primarily because the majority of african tribes and civilizations passed down their history oraly and when their civilizations and tribes were wiped out by each other. thier history was lost( a prime example being the enigmatic civilization of zimbabway) and at the time that civilizations with recorded history arived in sub saharan africa (the arabs, chinese, and european colonists) the zulu were a dominant empire and power while the rest of african orginized society at the time were small tribes unfortunatly with little significance to thier contacts who wrote thier history down compared to the zulu, songhai an the east african city states.
Novaya Havoc said:Amerindian. Iroquois, Aztec, Maya, Inca. Don't worry -- I was confused at first, too.
Ah. That doesn't seem excessive to me. I mean, that's two whole continents, both of them pretty large.
Sark6354201 said:
It is hard to argue anything reasonably without establishing the criteria that matter beforehand. I believe that is part of why many discussions devolve into yelling and name-calling. What types of contributions matter? How are they measured? Over what time line? How long ago?
Look at it this way... would you want every single civilization known (and unknown) to man in the game? The poor artists would be working overtime for the next decade just making those leaderheads! There's probably several reasons they only choose a few this game:
1 - Use civs that people know. (Mali's an exception in this one -- atleast I never heard of them) If you have a half-dozen civs that people haven't even heard of, (much less decipher how to pronounce those city names), it makes the experience unfamilar.
2 - Impact on the world. There's only so many civiliztions that have had an impact. Civs like Egypt, China, Aztecs, etc. have had much more influence than some unknown woodlands tribe who maybe traded some chickens to a passing Roman legion.
3 - Gameplay. There's gotta be a cutoff point on how many civs are going to be in the game, and for a couple of reasons. One, game balance. What types of units will they use? What traits? What happens when you have diluted the civ-pool and some tribe in ancient Montana happens to use the same traits and such as some tribe in northern Siberia? There's also the artwork and research that goes into it. (means more art, and more text. Those are gonna fill up gamer's harddrives fast if you have thousands upon thousands of every civ known).
Just because a few civs were left out doesn't make a game "racist". Was Civ3 "racist" because it left out all of the minor tribes, or called them "barbarians"? It's only a game...
1 - Use civs that people know. (Mali's an exception in this one -- atleast I never heard of them) If you have a half-dozen civs that people haven't even heard of, (much less decipher how to pronounce those city names), it makes the experience unfamilar.
2 - Impact on the world. There's only so many civiliztions that have had an impact. Civs like Egypt, China, Aztecs, etc. have had much more influence than some unknown woodlands tribe who maybe traded some chickens to a passing Roman legion.
3 - Gameplay. There's gotta be a cutoff point on how many civs are going to be in the game, and for a couple of reasons. One, game balance. What types of units will they use? What traits? What happens when you have diluted the civ-pool and some tribe in ancient Montana happens to use the same traits and such as some tribe in northern Siberia? There's also the artwork and research that goes into it. (means more art, and more text. Those are gonna fill up gamer's harddrives fast if you have thousands upon thousands of every civ known).
Just because a few civs were left out doesn't make a game "racist". Was Civ3 "racist" because it left out all of the minor tribes, or called them "barbarians"? It's only a game...
Sark6354201
Warlord
apatheist said:
I don't really feel like elaborating because I don't believe its important enough...
Based upon my knowledge, that is the conclusion I have drawn. We'll leave it at that
pimpmastabola said:
This is what I agrue to. When whites came to the Americas all native indians were considered to be savages. No all of a sudden they have more civs than Africa. There are far more african civs and african descent players. I also think the Dutch should be replaced by an African civ. I disagree with your focus on sub-sahran Africa because it makes it seem like black people don't exist in North or that they didn't accomplish nothing. I also don't understand why the Carthgians are presented as white-skinned people because I am from Algeria and I am black and 99% of the people in North Africa are black(I consider egypt east because they are different). I don't understand why there are repeat civs like spain and portugal. Portugal is basically spain until the moors left. You are wrong to say that there is only one black civ. Hannibal is black and Cleopatra would either be black but likely mixed with some sort of European or Greek. The Hitties however are afro-asian they are black and orginate from north africa and are presented as black in the game. If rome is in there then why is france? Charlemgne was roman emporer and he was french.
I wouldn't go as far as to call civ creators racist but they are walking the line with it. Native indians don't make up the population of most african countries yet they have twice as many civs as africa. It does seem as if they are avoiding african civs. By now all civ fans now zulu and egypt. If we are from Europe them we know the moors. So is one unknown african civ so scary. I didn't know what an iroqouis was or a mayan but i didn't **** my pants neither
SuperBeaverInc.
Groucho
Ghafhi said:
Charlemagne was a Holy Roman Emperor. Not a Roman Emperor.
Ghafhi said:
They are both in because they have had profound impacts on world history
Ghafhi said:
-Sorry but Cleopatra wasnt black, just a member of the ptolemaic dynasty that ruled egypt after alexander the great's conquest. Greeks arent black, so she wasnt either; also i dont understand your line "some sort of European or Greek", greeks are european, infact "Europe" is a name from a greek myth, so it is an oxymoron to claim that greeks arent european.
-Most europeans see north africa as more mediterrenian than african, which is reasonable since its history was formed by the events of the closed sea, and not really that much due to subsaharan events; even the arab conquest was an event that came from the middle east and not subsaharan africa.
-Although most arabs are black in comparisson to europeans they arent as black as central africans, which i think is what is meant when people say "black" (they mean subsaharan).
-Portugal was very important at a time, and had many colonies, clearly it was a world power so i dont see why it shouldnt be in civ4. (the same applies to the dutch)
-As for the carthaginians: i have to confess that i am not an expert on them by far, but i have often heard that they are of phoenecian descent, so they wouldnt be black either, but at any rate you are arabic and they werent, so it would follow that you dont have to be the same as them; besides no one is the same as the people who lived in their part of the world 2000+ years ago.
- Status
Similar threads
