[NFP] Is Civ 6 "Too White"?

[anonxanemone]

It's also incredibly arbitrary when you look at fringe cases. A dark skinned Sicilian is "white." A light skinned Lebanese is not "white."

Race is indeed an arbitrary social construct.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

The devs always have to make a shortlist of civs and so without modding the number of civs is limited. We can't have every civ represented. Everyone has specific interests and ideas of who they have to have in and when it's perceived that rather than Portugal we might get Vietnam, or rather than Assyria we will get yet another European civ, it gets taken personally and the level of harm is often overstated. Everyone's idea of 'world' history is generally going to be from a specific view point and politics background. It's clear that regional and gender representation has been one factor in Civ 6 civ and leader choices as it becomes expected of companies. Race is a contentious issue, and one where the terms we have change who they apply to fairly arbitrarily in the grey areas such a some leader depictions like Tamar and Hammurabi where they seem to have been darkened in comparison to other depictions. I hope as a community we can respond in a way that is nuanced rather than arguing against one reactionary statement with another. There have been plenty of new civs and leaders in Europe and new colonial nations alongside non-Europeans precisely because there are people who want both here and outside.

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

 

[Kjimmet]

Historically? White = desirable, black = not.
Apparently the Irish weren't considered white at one point. Wtf.

I've heard (though I'm not sure whether this is a true story or not) that at one point some Finns after our independence went to America and bought a recognition for Finns to be considered "white." Prior that we were apparently "mongoloids".

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Irish people are not the same as Polish people.

Hmm, I can see some similarities
But I get your point and I agree. Poland before World War II was 100% white but definietly was a multiethnic society with a big Jewish, Ukrainian, Belorussian minorities, so racism was not an issue here. It doesn't mean we haven't our own issues. America has just a different perspective because of its history. People will always find a reason to hate each other. Skin color is just one of the excuses. Today some people think they are fighting with white supremacists and put all white people in one bag blaming them all. It just makes them racists but a rebours. And this is madness because the main problem which is hate remains...

 

[Lord Lakely]

It's also incredibly arbitrary when you look at fringe cases. A dark skinned Sicilian is "white." A light skinned Lebanese is not "white."

Race is indeed an arbitrary social construct.

The only bad thing about these comments is that I could only like them once. Well spoken.

 

[Myomoto]

It's also incredibly arbitrary when you look at fringe cases. A dark skinned Sicilian is "white." A light skinned Lebanese is not "white."

Just read some of these entries: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_whiteness_in_the_United_States

Finns, Irish, Italians, EVEN GERMANS have been considered "unwhite", it's all nonsense.

 

[iammaxhailme]

As a 75% Ashkenazi Jew, sometimes I'm insulted for being white and for NOT being white in the same day...

 

[djvandyke]

Can we not keep racist topics like this off the forum? It very depressing to read the crap.

 

[MooFreaky]

Does the game over represent European and "white cultures"? Sure. In fact, this is indisputable. The argument that there are differences between various white cultures is completely true, but that is also the same for other places and they do not have the same level of representation. Even within places we consider "mono-cultured" in the west, such as China or the Middle East there are vast differences.
However, it isn't evil, or far-right actions by the developers, instead it is because European history is, without a doubt, the most widespread in the world.
I HATE colonialism and participate in getting recognition to those peoples who suffered from it, but it happened and that means Europeans touched almost the entire world, bringing their history with them which means also bringing the history of other Europeans.
This is a game and it is being sold to people who almost exclusively have a high school knowledge of history, so they will recognise the big names, which means an over representation of European histories. People want to play as, or against, the names that they know and sadly relatively minor European nations are widely known, while equivalently regional powers elsewhere aren't. That doesn't even touch on the fact that our knowledge of history in certain places (Europe, China, Japan, USA, etc) is greater due to the types of culture and regard for keeping historical records, as well as being in a position to dig it all up, study it, etc. Our knowledge of First Nations, much of Pre-Colonial South America, so much of Africa and wide expanses of Asia, is far more limited on the whole.

I think absolutely everyone would benefit from learning more about other cultures (my goodness it is interesting), but there are limits and I think Firaxis are actually doing a pretty good job of going further afield to bring in more Civs that aren't part of our common knowledge, while still appealing to large amounts of their playerbase (who, I assume, are largely Westerners) with things like Scotland and Australia

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Does the game over represent European and "white cultures"? Sure. In fact, this is indisputable. The argument that there are differences between various white cultures is completely true, but that is also the same for other places and they do not have the same level of representation. Even within places we consider "mono-cultured" in the west, such as China or the Middle East there are vast differences.
However, it isn't evil, or far-right actions by the developers, instead it is because European history is, without a doubt, the most widespread in the world.
I HATE colonialism and participate in getting recognition to those peoples who suffered from it, but it happened and that means Europeans touched almost the entire world, bringing their history with them which means also bringing the history of other Europeans.
This is a game and it is being sold to people who almost exclusively have a high school knowledge of history, so they will recognise the big names, which means an over representation of European histories. People want to play as, or against, the names that they know and sadly relatively minor European nations are widely known, while equivalently regional powers elsewhere aren't. That doesn't even touch on the fact that our knowledge of history in certain places (Europe, China, Japan, USA, etc) is greater due to the types of culture and regard for keeping historical records, as well as being in a position to dig it all up, study it, etc. Our knowledge of First Nations, much of Pre-Colonial South America, so much of Africa and wide expanses of Asia, is far more limited on the whole.

I think absolutely everyone would benefit from learning more about other cultures (my goodness it is interesting), but there are limits and I think Firaxis are actually doing a pretty good job of going further afield to bring in more Civs that aren't part of our common knowledge, while still appealing to large amounts of their playerbase (who, I assume, are largely Westerners) with things like Scotland and Australia

But what the Irish, Finns, Poles, Swedes, Hungarians, Croats, Latvians, or Austrians have to do with colonialism, and why do you generalize in such manner "all whites" "all Europeans"?

 

[nzcamel]

And how does colonialism differ from other forms of conquest practiced by all of humanity throughout history? Imho, in short colonialism is window dressing only; both portrayed by European powers at the time as better than conquest, and by progressives today as worse than conquest.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

And how does colonialism differ from other forms of conquest practiced by all of humanity throughout history? Imho, in short colonialism is window dressing only; both portrayed by European powers at the time as better than conquest, and by progressives today as worse than conquest.

Atrocities and hate are not white-only traits. It is common for all humans yellow, white, red, brown, black, or whatever color you put on this scale. The only thing that makes a difference is the technological advantages that make this hate more efficient. All empires were forged on violence and colonization is not the only example of cruel part of our history. I will tell you even more. European feudalism was an example that we as humans are able to establish a semi-slavery society even within one white nation In medieval Poland nobles had for example "prawo pierwszej nocy" in English "first night right" Young not married polish nobleman had right to have sex with peasant woman of his choice (also polish) one night before her wedding. How do you like that? Our history is fudged up. Everywhere.

 

[Francel]

I can’t say how many members of my demographic feel the same, but as an American with no substantial post high school instruction in history, I welcome the “lesser knowns” such as Vietnam. (Lesser known from the stereotypical parochial American perspective.)

I would rather explore unknown culture and history than restrict myself to what feels familiar. Honestly, a lot of my favorites aren’t Eurocentric at all (Ethiopia, Khmer, Egypt). I hope they’ll continue adding more variety of civs, as long as they come up with interesting and coherent designs to accompany them.

 

[onepurpose]

I can't get that obsession with race , gender , etc .. in XXI century , specially in the Western World where these issues had been overcame in the past century

Civilización VI is a videogame. Basically , it's 4x with some "historical flavor" (it could be Sci-FI... or Fantasy.. but it's history .. Sid's credit) .. and in terms in gameplay need "factions" .. which have to be (1) recognizable ; (2) distinctive ; (3) fun to play... is not a region-ethnicity-gender-quotas SUDOKU..

The truth -general consense , at least- is that CIV VI is far worse than CIV V (which is far worse than CIV IV) and people do discuss if the game is "too white" or "not enough white" ...

 

[Pietato]

Irish people are not the same as Polish people

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The Cosmic Irony of it all is that every Human today has the same DNA - because if you didn't, you wouldn't BE Human.
How it comes out on the physical or behavioral surface is simply adaptation by you or your ancestors to the environment.

And although he is decried as an "Imperialist" today, Kipling nailed the entire Cultural Differences argument:

"There are nine and twenty ways
of constructing Tribal Lays
And each and every one of them is Right!

 

[MooFreaky]

But what the Irish, Finns, Poles, Swedes, Hungarians, Croats, Latvians, or Austrians have to do with colonialism, and why do you generalize in such manner "all whites" "all Europeans"?

Nothing at all. I never said all white, nor all Europeans. All I said was European history is the most wide spread, because it was spread by Europeans when they went out a colonising. Does that mean all Europeans went colonising? No. But those who did were... European.

And I never even suggested the groups you talk about as being responsible, instead their history was spread by the nations who did. For example, the Brits took their histories of Europe with them wherever they went (generally with a hilariously British twist to them) and so other nations learned of European histories that way.

And how does colonialism differ from other forms of conquest practiced by all of humanity throughout history? Imho, in short colonialism is window dressing only; both portrayed by European powers at the time as better than conquest, and by progressives today as worse than conquest.

I'm not going to even get into a discussion about this beyond that they are basically the same thing, it is just the scale and period we are talking about. None of it is good, but there is a scale to colonialism that surpasses anything anyone has ever done. The reason it is still discussed so much is that we are still feeling its effects in terms of the displaced peoples still being around today and how they are integrating with society. It's nothing to do with saying "OMG YOU ARE WORSE THAN ANYONE!! ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!" It's merely a recognition that we have done horrible things to get where we are today and understanding how that has affected others. That isn't exclusive to white people, but I can't speak for people of other nationalities All I can say (and did say), personally, is that I am against it as a whole. Then further that by saying and I am particularly disappointed with how Australia has dealt with it because I can speak as an Australian.

 

[The Civs 6]

I just find it odd that one would harp on colonialism in a game where the best victory condition involves global conquest, on a scale a certain moustached fellow could only have dreamed of, with the slaughter of millions of people. Cognitive dissonance much? Or have we become jaded to even that essential human feeling?

 

[Caprikel]

The Cosmic Irony of it all is that every Human today has the same DNA - because if you didn't, you wouldn't BE Human.
How it comes out on the physical or behavioral surface is simply adaptation by you or your ancestors to the environment.

And although he is decried as an "Imperialist" today, Kipling nailed the entire Cultural Differences argument:

"There are nine and twenty ways
of constructing Tribal Lays
And each and every one of them is Right!

To be fair, what we define as "human" is technically arbitrary, as we don't have an objective way to distinguish at what point we evolved to become "human". Since it's a gradual process, there was no point at which our ancestors suddenly became human, and so any definition of "human" depends on how lenient we want to be with our definition.

 

[nzcamel]

None of it is good, but there is a scale to colonialism that surpasses anything anyone has ever done. The reason it is still discussed so much is that we are still feeling its effects in terms of the displaced peoples still being around today and how they are integrating with society.

I agree and disagree. Per capita conquest was, on average, far worse in the past before the colonial period. What the most excellent Genghis Khan did made colonialism look like childs play. I do however agree that it's easier to focus on the colonial period, not only because it was more recent, but also because far more of it was well documented compared to older conquests.