Is anyone else appalled by the Eurocentrism in Civ?

[brianshapiro]

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.

The argument about Mongols I think would be that what we call civilizations establish themselves and take root because of the spread and influence of their culture. The Romans may have conquered but they only held onto the lands they did because they tried to incorporate the people they conquered into Roman culture. I think Xwarq views the Mongols as simply conquerors, who stole the culture of everyone they conquered, and kept power by force alone.

 

[brianshapiro]

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

Im affirming what you said.

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).

Except like I was saying, Germany, France, etc all saw themselves as part of a larger culture, part of Christendom.

'Civilization' in one sense means what you're talking about, but doesn't refer to a peoples in particular. Like if I go into the woods I'm out of 'civilization'. But going from the US into France isn't something I would see as moving from 'American civilization' to 'French civilization' because its really the same thing in the modern world.

 

[Xwarq]

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 what I was trying to say.



Also, the reason I said the Mongols were arguably barbarians, is because I thought, if I left that part out, then someone would point out that they destroyed everything in their path.

Not all barbarians were destructive.

 

[Reginleif]

I think there was some confusion over my last post, so I think I should explain, it is not the units themselves that are my problem as I know they will be ethnically different, but the unit button art (also tech, social policies, etc) that show white, almost albino skin colours entirely or are put in the European context (see longswordsman).

Secondly, I did not say Mali was more important than all or most European civilizations, I only suggested their is a mass ignorance in the public about Africa (I thought civ players were suppose to be better...), I also do no adhere to Afrocentrism. I think every history and every peoples have contributed to the world in ways we tend to gloss over (95% of culture is burrowed). The posts I was responding to about Mali argued that they lived in huts eating their own squalor, who were nothing more than a "regional" (most of Africa and Europe, by the way) which is none sense

Thirdly, I often here this mantra that non-Euro civs simply were not as "important." I find it odd that many of you who are clearly ignorant of other histories are making this claim. I too am ignorant of things and I just prefer to withhold judgment than make a claim (You Greek-lovers should remember Socrates motto). Civilizations should be chosen based on gameplay reasons, and if Civilization wishes to be a game where you play on the world and not just a pseudo-continent, it should include a vareity of ethnically different civs (I am okay with current roaster), art, wonders, city-states, etc. "Importance," should not be a factor.

If civilization simply was a game focused on Europe or colonization, I would have no complaints, but for a game that claims to have no focus but the earth, and to have a time span from the dawn of agriculture to giant death robots I do. Is it simply too much to ask that this game actually includes the world in it?

 

[Xwarq]

I think there was some confusion over my last post, so I think I should explain, it is not the units themselves that are my problem as I know they will be ethnically different, but the unit button art (also tech, social policies, etc) that show white, almost albino skin colours entirely or are put in the European context (see longswordsman).

Secondly, I did not say Mali was more important than all or most European civilizations, I only suggested their is a mass ignorance in the public about Africa (I thought civ players were suppose to be better...), I also do no adhere to Afrocentrism. I think every history and every peoples have contributed to the world in ways we tend to gloss over (95% of culture is burrowed). The posts I was responding to about Mali argued that they lived in huts eating their own squalor, who were nothing more than a "regional" (most of Africa and Europe, by the way) which is none sense

Thirdly, I often here this mantra that non-Euro civs simply were not as "important." I find it odd that many of you who are clearly ignorant of other histories are making this claim. I too am ignorant of things and I just prefer to withhold judgment than make a claim (You Greek-lovers should remember Socrates motto). Civilizations should be chosen based on gameplay reasons, and if Civilization wishes to be a game where you play on the world and not just a pseudo-continent, it should include a vareity of ethnically different civs (I am okay with current roaster), art, wonders, city-states, etc. "Importance," should not be a factor.

If civilization simply was a game focused on Europe or colonization, I would have no complaints, but for a game that claims to have no focus but the earth, and to have a time span from the dawn of agriculture to giant death robots I do. Is it simply too much to ask that this game actually includes the world in it?

Having button art be ethnically different for each civ would be illogical. Diverse buttons are a waste of time when they could be working on the rest of the game. Plus, many of the civilizations had multiple races within them... There were Greeks and Nubians in Egypt. There were and are many different races in the USA. There were Europeans, Turks, and Persians in the Ottoman Empire...

 

[j51]

'Civilization' in one sense means what you're talking about, but doesn't refer to a peoples in particular. Like if I go into the woods I'm out of 'civilization'. But going from the US into France isn't something I would see as moving from 'American civilization' to 'French civilization' because its really the same thing in the modern world.

I'm not arguing that there are distinct American or French civilizations. I'm saying that there is civilization and then there isn't. What the game defines as unique civilizations are simply various state, or cultural actors within civilization.

 

[Reginleif]

Yes, I agree with your statement Xwarq, all the states in the game were multi-ethnic, in fact Arab, Ottoman, and most colonial empires, the majority were not the corresponding ethnicity. I don't want all the buttons to be different though, maybe the bowman art, the person would be Aboriginal, while in the Swordsman picture it would be an African.

Having a single cast of buttons with vast ethnic differences is more than fine, but an all white line-up is simply problematic.

P.S. I am not a wounded minority or anything, I'm white, I just feel different ethnicities are getting the back-end by Firaxis.

 

[AriochIV]

P.S. I am not a wounded minority or anything, I'm white, I just feel different ethnicities are getting the back-end by Firaxis.

I didn't have much doubt that you're white. A person of a minority ethinicity that had felt truly slighted by the game's choices or depictions would have had much more concrete complaints to make.

 

[SalmonSoil]

I think that what should be done, and what they have aimed for, is a combination of historical importance and cultural spread. For instance Spain is more historically important than Songhai or the iroqious but they wanted a black African nation and a totem poles and teepees indian civ.

 

[Churchdown Yank]

Hang on a minute here people.

Firstly I don't see how you can say that Civ V is overly Eurocentric in terms of the Civs in the game

Euro Civs: (7 at best)
England, France, Germany, Greece (I suppose - but we could argue that), Rome (see Greece), Ottomans? American (European colony)

Definitely NOT Euro Civs: (12)
Arabia, Aztec, China, Egypt, India, Iroquois (Native American), Japan, Persia, Russia (although both those last two have had Europe as part of their empires I wouldn't call them "European") Siam, Songhai, Babylon

I would say that's a pretty representative view of the whole globe and scope of history. Which major non-European Civ is not included? The Mongols in my opinion. Which major European Civ got the snub? Tough call but I think it's a draw between the Vikings and the Portuguese.

As far as the icons. I think there probably is an argument that they are somewhat "Eurocentric". These guys are probably not Asian or (sub Saharan) African:





But they're fairly generic for about half the world's population. What do you really see when you look at them? Is it what you want to see? or what you think you should be seeing? If I told you they were Libyan... or Scandanavian?

 

[Wezqu]

Its funny to read this thread. I don't know how much person knows about history when he calls Rome a civilization and then claims that germanic people were just barbarians or that the french are too only because they took power after Rome fell. Its easy to make this assumption when you read about history that is heavily influenced by Roman propaganda. Roman Empire called all other civilizations as barbarians who were savages to make themselves feel mightier and more civilized. It was a total ego game. There has been a lot new findings that make many people Roman Empire called barbarians as civilized or close as they were. Almost all ancient Roman history researchers agree that the claims of Roman Empires enemies of being barbarians or uncivilized scum is just propaganda. Vandals for example were very civilized but if we read Roman history they were brutal savages.

 

[Art Grin]

Hang on a minute here people.

Firstly I don't see how you can say that Civ V is overly Eurocentric in terms of the Civs in the game

Euro Civs: (7 at best)
England, France, Germany, Greece (I suppose - but we could argue that), Rome (see Greece), Ottomans? American (European colony)

Definitely NOT Euro Civs: (12)
Arabia, Aztec, China, Egypt, India, Iroquois (Native American), Japan, Persia, Russia (although both those last two have had Europe as part of their empires I wouldn't call them "European") Siam, Songhai, Babylon

I would move Russia up to the Euro Civs, since they are Christians and most of the Russian industry, population and cultural sites are in Europe. The Russian are definitely a Euro Civ.

 

[Wezqu]

I would move Russia up to the Euro Civs, since they are Christians and most of the Russian industry, population and cultural sites are in Europe. The Russian are definitely a Euro Civ.

Yeah Russia is euro civ as most of important parts of Russia are those that belong to europe.

 

[Xzylvador]

Maybe OP should make a mod with 5 Civs: Asian, African, Western, Ancient American and Middle-Eastern.
Those are "civilizations", the rest is pretty much nations.

To the point: no, I don't think European is overrated in the game... the opposite might be true, but I don't really care all that much... sometimes it's just fun to conquer the Romans with the Celts.

 

[Ronojoy1917]

The current list does not seem Eurocentric at all. I would definitely not count America or the Ottomans as European, but Russia instead. It seems pretty fair except I'd have liked to see the Inca in there, and instead of Siam it should be the Khmer. No doubt other important civs will be added in expansions.

 

[brianshapiro]

Almost all ancient Roman history researchers agree that the claims of Roman Empires enemies of being barbarians or uncivilized scum is just propaganda. Vandals for example were very civilized but if we read Roman history they were brutal savages.

What does that mean exactly? Did the vandals have aqueducts, coliseums, ventilated buildings, republican government, a road system, etc? I can believe that the Romans were being patronizing, but I doubt they had as progressed a civil society as did the Romans.

 

[Wezqu]

What does that mean exactly? Did the vandals have aqueducts, coliseums, ventilated buildings, republican government, a road system, etc? I can believe that the Romans were being patronizing, but I doubt they had as progressed a civil society as did the Romans.

They had all of those except republican goverment that even Roman Empire didn't seem to think as a good thing when they had emperor after emperor so I would not see them as republic either. Also why does republic make romans anymore advanced as republic is no way perfect goverment. So in your opinion Romans were civil society when they for example systematicly hunted "heretics" and what comes for Vandals they didn't treat people anyway differently than Romans did. It usually depended on who was in power.

 

[Tusked]

They had all of those except republican goverment that even Roman Empire didn't seem to think as a good thing when they had emperor after emperor so I would not see them as republic either. Also why does republic make romans anymore advanced as republic is no way perfect goverment. So in your opinion Romans were civil society when they for example systematicly hunted "heretics" and what comes for Vandals they didn't treat people anyway differently than Romans did. It usually depended on who was in power.

Wait, so you're telling me the Vandals had aqueducts? 'cause I seem to remember that being a Roman invention.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

What have the Romans ever done for us? Well there's the roads. Besides the roads really have they improved our lives? Well there's the aquaducts, and police, oh and medicine...


The vandals stole all of that from the Romans.

 

[cardgame]

not to mention plumbing