Blacks outside Africa

[Henri Christophe]

I have nothing against black civilizations, indeed, slavery can be an excellent mechanic, but you have to create trade, of slaves between Africa and the Americas, the CIA called golden triangle : slaves, for gold, colonial products, gold, slaves, the birth of colonial leaders, even non-black in the independence of South American and post-colonial African and colonial nations, in general . You could put for minority populations forms of discrimination

In order to create trade between Africans and Europeans in the triangular slave trade it could be add civs as Ashante, Dahomey, Oyo, Benin, Kongo and Ndongo.
But I can't see how to introduce discrimination in a game as Civilization. But it could be distinct a slavery mechanic in a lot of ways, without add ethnics to the static of the game, but a enslaved pops of a city could retain their faith, that's should force the player to spawn missionaries in it's own cities if they decided to enslave people of different religion.
Other way to do a playable discrimination is to have some policies as Apartheid, who the AI of the game should try to vote to abolish this policy when ONU is made.

 

[Patine]

In order to create trade between Africans and Europeans in the triangular slave trade it could be add civs as Ashante, Dahomey, Oyo, Benin, Kongo and Ndongo.

It would be a bad and racist assumption that any initial trade in a game between European and African civ's would have to, mandatorily, involve the slave trade. And, Apartheid/Segregation would not add anything meaningful to the game, but only detract from it.

 

[Henri Christophe]

It would be a bad and racist assumption that any initial trade in a game between European and African civ's would have to, mandatorily, involve the slave trade. And, Apartheid/Segregation would not add anything meaningful to the game, but only detract from it.

The way how occurs the slave trade in real life was because Europeans demands slaves since the first contact with Africans.
But Africans also had more to offer then just slaves as Ivory, Gold and Oil.

And you might be right about Apartheid policy should add nothing of good, but I think isn't fair don't talk about that.
Why hide this shame? This need to be touched in a some way;
On Civ5 had the Boers in an African scenarion (of the scramble of Africa) and the Boers had the same policy of native africans, what was very wrong in my opnion.

 

[Patine]

The way how occurs the slave trade in real life was because Europeans demands slaves since the first contact with Africans.
But Africans also had more to offer then just slaves as Ivory, Gold and Oil.

And you might be right about Apartheid policy should add nothing of good, but I think isn't fair don't talk about that.
Why hide this shame? This need to be touched in a some way;
On Civ5 had the Boers in an African scenarion (of the scramble of Africa) and the Boers had the same policy of native africans, what was very wrong in my opnion.

Should we also touch upon the injustice among many African ethnicties of female circumcision while we're at it?

My point is, that a lot of the nastiness and horrors that humans have wreaked upon each does not all need to be seen in some roler or another in a Civ game.

 

[Henri Christophe]

My point is, that a lot of the nastiness and horrors that humans have wreaked upon each does not all need to be seen in some roler of another in a Civ game.

Fascismus was a game mechanic at least in civ5, if we want to remove nastiness of the game, I think fascismus should be the first thing to be vanished.

 

[Patine]

Fascismus was a game mechanic at least in civ5, if we want to remove nastiness of the game, I think fascismus should be the first thing to be vanished.

I haven't played Civ5, as I said, or Civ 4. I've played Civ1, 2, 3, and 6. Civ3 has a Fascism form of Government as I recall, and Civ2 has a Fundamenatalist form of Government that more resembles Modern Islamism in portrayal, than any other type. Though both are much older games, annd had leaders now considered very contentious. But I can't speak for Civ5.

 

[luca 83]

I haven't played Civ5, as I said, or Civ 4. I've played Civ1, 2, 3, and 6. Civ3 has a Fascism form of Government as I recall, and Civ2 has a Fundamenatalist form of Government that more resembles Modern Islamism in portrayal, than any other type. Though both are much older games, annd had leaders now considered very contentious. But I can't speak for Civ5.

can happen that the black slaves are the Chinese the slavers the Babylonians! , in a similar game everything should be simulated even the Holocaust because and human history even if it does not have to be Jews, It could also be Christians to be a persecuted minority , in the past I have accsata you to have an woke and the Your attitude confirms it on fixed leaders, how to simulate. Napoleon, Lenin, Washington or Loverture, children of the revolution?

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Referring to someone as "woke" is not acceptable as it may be interpreted as a personal attack. Please stick to game mechanics. [.mod4]

 

[GeneralZIft]

I wouldn't mind Slavery as a generic mechanic in a more grounded Civ7. But why do people want all this segregation stuff? It's a game at the end of the day. If it's going to portray something like this, it won't be to an extent that would make people upset. And for that particular reason, it would be practically impossible to have Slavery in the game by any means.

In the past you could get away with stuff like this. I think it was in Civ4 or something. But nowadays, nobody wants to be a bummer and have something so negative in real life portrayed in this game - And nobody wants it to be gameified and portrayed as a joke.

So basically, there's a tight rope to walk for the devs. And moreover, tying this mechanic to (solely?) blacks or Africans is just inherently racist.

 

[reddishrecue]

I wouldn't mind Slavery as a generic mechanic in a more grounded Civ7. But why do people want all this segregation stuff? It's a game at the end of the day. If it's going to portray something like this, it won't be to an extent that would make people upset. And for that particular reason, it would be practically impossible to have Slavery in the game by any means.

In the past you could get away with stuff like this. I think it was in Civ4 or something. But nowadays, nobody wants to be a bummer and have something so negative in real life portrayed in this game - And nobody wants it to be gameified and portrayed as a joke.

So basically, there's a tight rope to walk for the devs. And moreover, tying this mechanic to (solely?) blacks or Africans is just inherently racist.

It depends on whether this is an open source development forum where the developers get their ideas from or whether it is just a for fun forum.

 

[Henri Christophe]

But why do people want all this segregation stuff?

Because this game teachs history as well, and it's important to remeber the bad things who happens through human history to the population be ashamed and not make it again, for example the word Fascismus and Nazismus can't be forgoten and need to be used as synonimus as something very evil.
And this game don't do this part, I for example played a lot of times Civ 5 with Fascismus ideology because I like to play as warmonger and Fascismus give it more bonus through domination victory. And I don't think is that cool fascismus be something good in a game mechanic, this game need some how to teach us how bad fascismus was.

Another example was the Boers in the Scramble of Africa scenario, there is no mechanic to speak about Apartheid as how is it evil.
I'm 32 years old and when I born still having Apartheid in South Africa, and it's important to a historical game teachs how evil the Apartheid was to this never happens agains as it is again happen in the Holy Land.

Slavery as a generic mechanic

Despite I think it's important to touch about slavery in this game, I'm not sure what is the best approach.
After think a lot about this issue, I think it could be an unique ability of a specific civ (propably Dahomey).
I don't think slavery should be wide spread with all civs because not all relly on slavery (as Egypt).
But of course if slavery is touched in the game, is important some how to show how it is evil and the participation of Europenas to do it even more evil then all slavery mechanics who happens before.

 

[luca 83]

Because this game teachs history as well, and it's important to remeber the bad things who happens through human history to the population be ashamed and not make it again, for example the word Fascismus and Nazismus can't be forgoten and need to be used as synonimus as something very evil.
And this game don't do this part, I for example played a lot of times Civ 5 with Fascismus ideology because I like to play as warmonger and Fascismus give it more bonus through domination victory. And I don't think is that cool fascismus be something good in a game mechanic, this game need some how to teach us how bad fascismus was.

Another example was the Boers in the Scramble of Africa scenario, there is no mechanic to speak about Apartheid as how is it evil.
I'm 32 years old and when I born still having Apartheid in South Africa, and it's important to a historical game teachs how evil the Apartheid was to this never happens agains as it is again happen in the Holy Land.


Despite I think it's important to touch about slavery in this game, I'm not sure what is the best approach.
After think a lot about this issue, I think it could be an unique ability of a specific civ (propably Dahomey).
I don't think slavery should be wide spread with all civs because not all relly on slavery (as Egypt).
But of course if slavery is touched in the game, is important some how to show how it is evil and the participation of Europenas to do it even more evil then all slavery mechanics who happens before.

Why do you judge history and forms of government? For me a one game can win communism or fascism or a monarchy I do not judge, or democracy, the politically correct and the ruin of North America and the West, hypocritical for the guilt of the past, my grandfather fights in Ethiopia in 1936. And I'm not ashamed or judgmental

 

[pokiehl]

Why do you judge history and forms of government? For me a one game can win communism or fascism or a monarchy I do not judge, or democracy, the politically correct and the ruin of North America and the West, hypocritical for the guilt of the past, my grandfather fights in Ethiopia in 1936. And I'm not ashamed or judgmental

There is plenty for humanity to be judged by and ashamed of. Being judgmental is a foundational aspect of being human; we must decide what is right and then discern right from wrong to have functioning civilization.

I think it's also quite bizarre for you to juxtapose "the politically correct ruin (sic)" of the West (???) with the Second Italo-Ethiopian War in the same list, the latter being considered tantamount to genocide, with horrific war crimes. That should indeed be judged harshly.

 

[Henri Christophe]

my grandfather fights in Ethiopia in 1936. And I'm not ashamed or judgmental

I believe you should at least to admit the Mussoline invasion of Ethiopia was wrong, and also should agree fascismus is an evil who souldn't return.

 

[luca 83]

I believe you should at least to admit the Mussoline invasion of Ethiopia was wrong, and also should agree fascismus is an evil who souldn't return.

No it's history and I as a historian do not judge in Ethiopia slavery was abolished and the regime was better than mengistu and Sid barre in Somalia and the famine of the 80s and political correctness which is a ruin

 

[Patine]

Because this game teachs history as well, and it's important to remeber the bad things who happens through human history to the population be ashamed and not make it again, for example the word Fascismus and Nazismus can't be forgoten and need to be used as synonimus as something very evil.
And this game don't do this part, I for example played a lot of times Civ 5 with Fascismus ideology because I like to play as warmonger and Fascismus give it more bonus through domination victory. And I don't think is that cool fascismus be something good in a game mechanic, this game need some how to teach us how bad fascismus was.

Another example was the Boers in the Scramble of Africa scenario, there is no mechanic to speak about Apartheid as how is it evil.
I'm 32 years old and when I born still having Apartheid in South Africa, and it's important to a historical game teachs how evil the Apartheid was to this never happens agains as it is again happen in the Holy Land.

I just don't see how an Apartheid or Segregation mechanic could be applied productively to a Civ game, or what benefit it would have in that light. As I said, would you also be willing to force and contrive in the evil of female circumcism among many African ethnicities?

Despite I think it's important to touch about slavery in this game, I'm not sure what is the best approach.
After think a lot about this issue, I think it could be an unique ability of a specific civ (propably Dahomey).
I don't think slavery should be wide spread with all civs because not all relly on slavery (as Egypt).
But of course if slavery is touched in the game, is important some how to show how it is evil and the participation of Europenas to do it even more evil then all slavery mechanics who happens before.

Slavery is a horrid and monstrous thing, but if it must be forced into the game, we cannot pretend the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade was the ONLY relevant instance of it, and that it wasn't rampant and widespread through most of the world in most of hiistory (or, for that matter, that the Monarchs and Merchants in the early West and Congo Coast African nations, who sold their own people and those captured from neighbours, into slavery to the Europeans, viewing as commodities no different than ivory, peppers, and gold, having practiced institutional slavery for centuries, prior, should not be called out for also having a hand in the evils of, specifically, the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, itself).

 

[pokiehl]

No it's history and I as a historian do not judge

History has been necessarily judgmental since Herodotus picked up his first stylus. It's disingenuous to think of impartiality as some precondition to historical analysis.

There's no such thing as impartiality in history at any rate. Not having the courage to take a stand is in fact picking the side that one refuses to condemn.

 

[Boublouc]

Despite I think it's important to touch about slavery in this game, I'm not sure what is the best approach.
After think a lot about this issue, I think it could be an unique ability of a specific civ (propably Dahomey).
I don't think slavery should be wide spread with all civs because not all relly on slavery (as Egypt).
But of course if slavery is touched in the game, is important some how to show how it is evil and the participation of Europenas to do it even more evil then all slavery mechanics who happens before.

Which criteria are you using to say that European slavery is worse than the others?
The Arab slave trade had horrible practices like the generalized castration of African male slaves, a process done during the childhood of the slave and it was done with such brutality thanmany died of bloodloss.
Women were used as sex slaves, it was basically the instituionalized rape of women.
The real difference is that it's a much less known slave trade but in terms of brutality, it was at least one the same level than the transatlantic slave trade. For me it's worse, as it's hard to do something worse in slavery than systemic mutilation and rape.

EDIT: I just read that you consider slavery to be worse than the planified extermination of a people, from babies to elders.
I don't even know how you can say such thing. Do you realize that there's a massive difference in the intentionality? In slavery, death of the enslaved people wasn't the objective, it was a side effect of the brutality of the system, in the Holocaust, or in the Rwandan genocide of the Tutsi, it was the objective.
Also, those events happened in very short frames of time compared to the slave trade, there's no slavery that will ever reach the level of brutality and hate of those genocides, and others that I haven't mentioned like the Armenian genocide.

 

[pokiehl]

(or, for that matter, that the Monarchs and Merchants in the early West and Congo Coast African nations, who sold their own people and those captured from neighbours, into slavery to the Europeans, viewing as commodities no different than ivory, peppers, and gold, having practiced institutional slavery for centuries, prior, should not be called out for also having a hand in the evils of, specifically, the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, itself).

This tired refrain of "Africans sold other Africans as slaves to the Europeans!" is essentially a racist canard used to diminish the culpability of European slave traders in the proliferation of chattel slavery to the Americas (ie, the Atlantic slave trade). It's an oversimplified distortion of the full picture, and I don't think many people realize they're playing into that when they repeat it.

Yes, like almost everywhere else in the world, slavery had existed in Africa for centuries before Europeans arrived. But leaving it at that is disingenuous.

First of all, slavery in Subsaharan Africa generally did not share many of the traits of chattel slavery in the Americas (chattel slavery being among the most total and brutal forms of enslavement): slavery was generally not heritable (most slaves came from war) and there was actually a kinship component to it. Accordingly, the vast majority of slaves sent to the Americas were in fact not slaves before they were sold to Europeans! Second of all, not all slaves were sold by merchants or whomever to Europeans as your post suggests: European merchants DID conduct their own raids and forcibly kidnapped millions into slavery.

It's not debatable that Europeans caused the Atlantic slave trade. Point blank period. The demand was from Europeans, and it was Europeans who exploited ethnic and tribal rivalries in Africa by kicking off the "slavery arms race" - trading weapons and arms for slaves to tribes, which prompted other tribes to do the same to defend themselves against their rivals, and so on and so on. And you are also ignoring the fact that despite this, many groups in Africa resisted at their own peril.

 

[Patine]

This tired refrain of "Africans sold other Africans as slaves to the Europeans!" is essentially a racist canard used to diminish the culpability of European slave traders in the proliferation of chattel slavery to the Americas (ie, the Atlantic slave trade). It's an oversimplified distortion of the full picture, and I don't think many people realize they're playing into that when they repeat it.

Yes, like almost everywhere else in the world, slavery had existed in Africa for centuries before Europeans arrived. But leaving it at that is disingenuous.

First of all, slavery in Subsaharan Africa generally did not share many of the traits of chattel slavery in the Americas (chattel slavery being among the most total and brutal forms of enslavement): slavery was generally not heritable (most slaves came from war) and there was actually a kinship component to it. Accordingly, the vast majority of slaves sent to the Americas were in fact not slaves before they were sold to Europeans! Second of all, not all slaves were sold by merchants or whomever to Europeans as your post suggests: European merchants DID conduct their own raids and forcibly kidnapped millions into slavery.

It's not debatable that Europeans caused the Atlantic slave trade. Point blank period. The demand was from Europeans, and it was Europeans who exploited ethnic and tribal rivalries in Africa by kicking off the "slavery arms race" - trading weapons and arms for slaves to tribes, which prompted other tribes to do the same to defend themselves against their rivals, and so on and so on. And you are also ignoring the fact that despite this, many groups in Africa resisted at their own peril.

I think my broader point was missed, especially given the cropped quote of mine. Effectively, slavery has been rampant across most of the world for much of history, and even still exists in dark and sordid pockets of the world, today. Slavery IS evil - period, full stop. It doesn't matter who is doing it and on what scale, it must be called out as such, and not in degrees. Calling it out in degrees and scale as who is worse (and, by implication, who is, "acceptable," and, "forgivable," for doing it) tends to be racist and guilt-tripping cards being playing, itself. I made my views on this clear upthread, even if I didn't explicitly re-iterate them, here. So, please don't disingenuously scold me and put motives in my mouth I haven't spoken.