Changing Leader Mechanic in Civ 7

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Because that's a standard that grossly favor overrepresentation of European colonial powers (and their offshots) at the expanse of the rest of the world, and erase much of the diversity of human civilization.

More than that, this is the (nonsensical) idea that being a civilization is a "reward" ford historical success. It should not be (and never was, considering the Zulu for all they won a few battle ended up by most every relevant metric worse off than Haiti), because at its heart civilization is a What If game, and taking the losers of history and making them win is part and parcel of what makes the game. Which you can't do if you only include the historical winners in the game.

If we are going off of the revolutionary period only, I'd even consider Haiti a winner in that regard.

I think the big issue is, you didn't even ask why me, or @Alexander's Hetaroi, supported Byzantine inclusion, but assumed it must be the same as, "the fanboys." But, that being said, I accept your apology.

I wouldn't even necessarily call myself a Byzantine fanboy either. Before the NFP I considered the idea of Justinian/Theodora as a potential Roman alternative leader, only because I didn't reasonably see 9 more civs getting in the game in a hypothetical 3rd expansion. I do agree though that by the time Basil II became emperor the Byzantines are way more different and wouldn't fit under a Roman civ.
I'm a Dromon fanboy though, so anyway to get them in the game is a plus. I would want it to be a LUU if Justinian/Theodora happened to just be a Roman alt leader.

Other thing very cool about Haiti is it own religion, the Voodoo (who in Haitian Creyole it's Vodóu)
Who can be used to design a cool unique unit as a voodoo priest or their own heroe can be a Voodoo Lwá, as Baron Samedi.
Also, the Haitian have their own language, the Creyole. I know the Haitian revolutionary speak more often French then Creyole, but, for a game purpose, should be nice if they speak Creyole.
And nowadays have Haitian Creyole even in Duolingo, I also made some lections.

Haitian Creole is still a French-derived language. And while Voodoo isn't necessarily unique to Haiti either, I'd still give some voodoo elements into their design considering Voodoo was a component of the revolution.

 

[BuchiTaton]

There is a lot more to Byzantium being different from Rome than just religion. France becoming a majority Muslim does not mean we need a separate civ from Christian France.

I mean it's become precedent for a separate Byzantium faction from Rome in a lot of historical games, not just Civ.

The "Byzantine" civ will not leave CIV, we can be sure about of this. That is the case precisely by pure popularity, but first that popularity was possible because modern western historical academy have the tradition of see Rome and "Byzantium" as different things, a tradition that is more and more questioned by recent specialists because is pretty evident that the vision of Byzantium as "not-Romans" is deeply biased by western interest in the title of Rome, despise the point of view of other cultures about it, and is inconsistent about how we see the history of others cultures.

The Western audience was educated to see Byzantium that way, but they never were educated to see the difference between Persian Empires the same way. China example is also explained by Chinese education, we should not forget that both PRC and Taiwan claim to be the true China, the "One China" policy would not change when it allows you to claim all that territory and resources. After all is easy to see all Han based dynasties as China (I agree with this) but what about things like Tibet? Should we expect nationalist Chinese to ask for a Tibetan civ or Firaxis to add it? Civs like Hmong are as valid as any American native and Jurchen are as impresive as Goths.

The whole point I did is that there is not historical consistency in the reasons why Persia is one civ and Rome have two versions, but I dont expect Firaxis to change to neither have 2 Persias or combine Rome+Byzantium, we already know their decisions are sales based before history based.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Haitian Creole is still a French-derived language

You are right, Creole is derived from French, but is different enought to don't be mutual inteligible.
And the reason to be a different language is because African influences on Haitian Creole.
So, if we made a Haitian civ, we must choice between French or Creole to be Haitian language, maybe French should be more historical accurate, but I would vote to Creole be the main language of Haitian leaders.

And while Voodoo isn't necessarily unique to Haiti either

And you are right on that too, the Voodoo is also founded on Lousiana - USA and Dahomey (nowadays Benin).
I don't think make sense to US have Voodoo elements on the game. But, we could have Dahomey with Voodoo elements together with Haiti.
If I were a Fireaxis developer I should put Haiti and Dahomey in the same expansion pack because both are very similar.

 

[Patine]

Should we expect nationalist Chinese to ask for a Tibetan civ or Firaxis to add it?

The RoC (Taiwan) official maps of claim of jurisdiction (effectively irrendentist prestense, at this point, and not loudly touted right now) have Tibet, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia. It also as has Mongolia, the, "50 villages," on the border regions of the Primorsky Krai of Russia with Manchuria, the Tuva and Altai Republics among Russia's Federal Subjects (first-tier administrative subdivisions), and border areas of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan that the PRC formally gave up claim to. And, the political and constitutional ideals of the Republic of China's system of governance made no allowances for regional and ethnic autonomy and self-determination, not even the farce of the PRC's, "Autonomous Areas, Counties, and Prefectures." Fun fact.

 

[Evie]

I honestly was talking about the broad demand and resulting economic pressure, not the two of you. For what it's worth.

The Basil II argument could be made of Safavid leaders compared to Achaemenid ones, or Ming leaders compared to Han ones. Pretty much every argument that could apply to one of Persia/Rome/China apply to all of them. Ultimately the only difference is that Western historiography for most of its existence insisted (for...mostly dubious reasons founded in anti-greek sentiment, religious tension and various western interests wanting to claim the Roman legacy for themselves) on Byzantium not being the continuation of Rome, though the Byzantine themselves claimed otherwise (and had the historical continuity to show for it). Whereas it never had any interest in challenging the Persian or Chinese claim to continuity.

The other, and more significant, diffetence is, of course, the fact that there's a massive demand for Byzantium that does not exist for splitting the other two.

 

[Henri Christophe]

The RoC (Taiwan) official maps of claim of jurisdiction (effectively irrendentist prestense, at this point, and not loudly touted right now) have Tibet, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia. It also as has Mongolia, the, "50 villages," on the border regions of the Primorsky Krai of Russia with Manchuria, the Tuva and Altai Republics among Russia's Federal Subjects (first-tier administrative subdivisions), and border areas of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan that the PRC formally gave up claim to. And, the political and constitutional ideals of the Republic of China's system of governance made no allowances for regional and ethnic autonomy and self-determination, not even the farce of the PRC's, "Autonomous Areas, Counties, and Prefectures." Fun fact.

And about China, I don't think is a good idea make a separate civ to Tibet, Xinjiang or Inner Mongolia because it can make this game unmarktable on China.
If we want to make China more then one civ, what isn't a good idea, we could take some kingdoms of the 3 kingdoms period.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The "Byzantine" civ will not leave CIV, we can be sure about of this. That is the case precisely by pure popularity, but first that popularity was possible because modern western historical academy have the tradition of see Rome and "Byzantium" as different things, a tradition that is more and more questioned by recent specialists because is pretty evident that the vision of Byzantium as "not-Romans" is deeply biased by western interest in the title of Rome, despise the point of view of other cultures about it, and is inconsistent about how we see the history of others cultures.

The Western audience was educated to see Byzantium that way, but they never were educated to see the difference between Persian Empires the same way. China example is also explained by Chinese education, we should not forget that both PRC and Taiwan claim to be the true China, the "One China" policy would not change when it allows you to claim all that territory and resources. After all is easy to see all Han based dynasties as China (I agree with this) but what about things like Tibet? Should we expect nationalist Chinese to ask for a Tibetan civ or Firaxis to add it? Civs like Hmong are as valid as any American native and Jurchen are as impresive as Goths.

The whole point I did is that there is not historical consistency in the reasons why Persia is one civ and Rome have two versions, but I dont expect Firaxis to change to neither have 2 Persias or combine Rome+Byzantium, we already know their decisions are sales based before history based.

As far as I can tell Byzantium at least started to separate from traditional "Roman" elements and ended up adopting more "Greek" elements, in addition to becoming Christian. Persia on the other hand, really didn't stop being Persian even after converting to Islam. I don't know if that's enough justification to consider them the same, but in terms of the people of Iran, or of Iranian descent today would they like that? I feel like they take pride in their history and especially Cyrus the Great as basically the "father of their country" so it might make things worse if there was a split between Achaemenid Persia, and another Islamic one.

I can agree with you about the Tibet Empire, and others like the Jurchen (as long as it's not under someone like Kangxi who was an actual Chinese emperor) because they don't fit under the proper idea of being a Chinese dynasty.

 

[Patine]

I honestly was talking about the broad demand and resulting economic pressure, not the two of you. For what it's worth.

The Basil II argument could be made of Safavid leaders compared to Achaemenid ones, or Ming leaders compared to Han ones. Pretty much every argument that could apply to one of Persia/Rome/China apply to all of them. Ultimately the only difference is that Western historiography for most of its existence insisted (for...mostly dubious reasons founded in anti-greek sentiment, religious tension and various western interests wanting to claim the Roman legacy for themselves) on Byzantium not being the continuation of Rome, though the Byzantine themselves claimed otherwise (and had the historical continuity to show for it). Whereas it never had any interest in challenging the Persian or Chinese claim to continuity.

The other, and more significant, diffetence is, of course, the fact that there's a massive demand for Byzantium that does not exist for splitting the other two.

Though it's Chinese historiography that's more resistant to them being separate civ's by Dynasty than any Western viewpoint, conversely.

As far as I can tell Byzantium at least started to separate from traditional "Roman" elements and ended up adopting more "Greek" elements, in addition to becoming Christian. Persia on the other hand, really didn't stop being Persian even after converting to Islam. I don't know if that's enough justification to consider them the same, but in terms of the people of Iran, or of Iranian descent today would they like that? I feel like they take pride in their history and especially Cyrus the Great as basically the "father of their country" so it might make things worse if there was a split between Achaemenid Persia, and another Islamic one.

I can agree with you about the Tibet Empire, and others like the Jurchen (as long as it's not under someone like Kangxi who was an actual Chinese emperor) because they don't fit under the proper idea of being a Chinese dynasty.

The fact that the Islamic Republic of Iran made a complaint in the 2000's about the portrayal of Xerxes and the Achaemenids in the movie, "300," does indeed say something...

 

[BuchiTaton]

Do you rly think Haiti isn't needed?
Haiti is the nation who ended a milenar system of Slavery. Just try to realize if the Haitian revolution didn't happen even you could be a slave.
And despite the Haitian revolution are the most important revolution of West Hemisphere, the white historian try to hide it. On beginning they try to hide to that don't happens in other countries, but now a days, on XXI century, there is no reason to don't celebrate that history what shape our society today.
And the fact Fireaxis couldn't see that is just show how racist it is.
And is not the lacking of Haiti who demonstrate the structural racism at the game, but the Blacks and Native Americans are a very small percentagem of total civs of the game. Meanwhile Europe is overrepresented.

And about the other options of the Black Outside Africa Thread, they aren't terrible.
If Haiti was the biggest slave revolt on Human History, Palmares was the second, who survive almost 100 years and it's well know, at least, in Brazil.
I think the game have the power to empodering the Palmares history making it's more famous in a global scenario then just in Brazil.
And I also know Lousiana and Mexico had slave revolts too, but I don't put on the thread because a lack of knowledge of leaders and etc.

Other good names on the Blacks Outside Africa Thread is Ahmednagar Sultanate, to help us to see the Black Slavery was also on Asia, and there also a Black Slave can achieve high positions of power. The only counter argue about Ahmednagar Sultanate is about it's being small and short lived. But some of you forget the Ahmegnagar Sultanate under Malik Ambar leadership stop the expansion of the Mughal empire, other very wanted civ who was forgoted by Fireaxis.

Other names, as Seminole, are controversial because they are a mix nation between black and natives who could have leaders of the both background. For they my ultimate suggestion is to have 2 leaders, as made before and can make everyone happy if we have Osceola and John Horse as leaders of Seminole.

The only option isn't so good is about Olmec Xicalanca, and is don't good because we have almost any knowledge about them, when I search for 3 Deer on Google I back to civ fanatic forum where I'm speaking about him. I hope future archeologist can work on Cacaxtla sites and grow our knowledge about they.

Haiti is the most likely option to be in CIV as an "Afro" civ outside of Africa, in part also because can use the French-Colonial slot of Canada. About others points:
- Palmares is an interesting option (I am all for it to be in EU4) but seem unlikely specialy if it compite as the "slave revolution nation" role with Haiti in CIV.
- The slave revolts in Mexico were way lesser events, basicaly reduced to one town in Veracruz with special favors and a small area in Guerrero basically ignored by the spanish government. By the way these are similar to the "Mulatos de Esmeraldas" in current Ecuador, you should look about them.
- Neither the broader Olmecs and Mayas or the specific Xicallancas had any "black"/"afro element, the use of black paint is not related to any African element in their cultures. There is absolute no need to keep talking about them as African related since they are not.
- If the idea is to have a native american+african slave civ I think Caribs is a way more useful option. From Joseph Chatoyer to the Garifuna we can see a strong mixing of native and afro elements, the whole Kalinago people evidently are a perfect option for this mixed civ idea.

 

[BuchiTaton]

As far as I can tell Byzantium at least started to separate from traditional "Roman" elements and ended up adopting more "Greek" elements, in addition to becoming Christian. Persia on the other hand, really didn't stop being Persian even after converting to Islam. I don't know if that's enough justification to consider them the same, but in terms of the people of Iran, or of Iranian descent today would they like that? I feel like they take pride in their history and especially Cyrus the Great as basically the "father of their country" so it might make things worse if there was a split between Achaemenid Persia, and another Islamic one.

We must not forget that the whole Christianization was done by Romans, the traditional wiew of "Byzantium" was already the product of this Roman conversion done by what we traditionaly still see as Romans. Also of course I am not saying that Roman culture is exactly the same as Greek, but is not kind of ironic to think about changes between these two when the Roman culture was since classical time already heavely hellenistic? Anyway the change was gradual and again in a way that is not consistent with others events used by X or Y author to put apart Rome from Byzantium. There is not a decisive event of change like the arrival of a foreign power taking over the empire or a separatist revolution, the change was centuries long done by people that called themselves ROMANS from start to end. So is also interesing to bring how Iranians think about their legacy when "Byzantine" people thought about themselves as Romans.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

There is not a decisive event of change like the arrival of a foreign power taking over the empire or a separatist revolution, the change was centuries long done by people that called themselves ROMANS from start to end. So is also interesing to bring how Iranians think about their legacy when "Byzantine" people thought about themselves as Romans.

Well considering the Byzantine and the Roman Empire doesn't exist today it's hard to ask about how they feel, unlike Iran and China.
We could ask Italians and Greeks and I'm sure the consensus is they would want them to be separate. If anything, Byzantium could just as well be seen as a continuation of a Greek civilization too, but good luck getting rid of Classical Greece, which I wouldn't want either.

 

[Henri Christophe]

"Mulatos de Esmeraldas" in current Ecuador, you should look about them.

When I googles about Mulatos de Esmeraldas I found information about this painting:

Was that what I should find?
I need to admit my knowledge about Blacks on Equador is too smal, from the national soccer team of Equador I can see they have a lot of Black man, but demographycally speaking, they still a minority on Equador.

- Neither the broader Olmecs and Mayas or the specific Xicallancas had any "black"/"afro element, the use of black paint is not related to any African element in their cultures. There is absolute no need to keep talking about them as African related since they are not.

About the Olmec Xicalanca I never said they have Afro ancestry, but instead they were Black.
As Australian Aboriginal are black but aren't Africans.
On Cacaxtla site is possible to see this painting:

In the left corner there is a white dude and in the right corner there is a black dude. This black dude is going in direction to the royal room where all kings or gods are decapited as black:

Indeed we don't have enouth knowledge about Olmec Xicalnca to say if this painting is about Kings or Gods, but call my attention a lot they were Black, propably they painted they self with Black die, what is not so incommun on Americas.
But, since Olmec Xicalnca is very poorly know by us, I need to admit they aren't a good option to be a civ.

. From Joseph Chatoyer to the Garifuna

I like this name, thanks to share with me

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

About the Olmec Xicalanca I never said they have Afro ancestry, but instead they were Black.
As Australian Aboriginal are black but aren't Africans.
On Cacaxtla site is possible to see this painting:

In the left corner there is a white dude and in the right corner there is a black dude. This black dude is going in direction to the royal room where all kings or gods are decapited as black:

Indeed we don't have enouth knowledge about Olmec Xicalnca to say if this painting is about Kings or Gods, but call my attention a lot they were Black, propably they painted they self with Black die, what is not so incommun on Americas.
But, since Olmec Xicalnca is very poorly know by us, I need to admit they aren't a good option to be a civ.

When people talk about being "black" they usually refer to the people who originate from Sub-Sahara Africa. Your the only one that I know of that shares this viewpoint that Aboriginals or Mesoamericans are black, just because of their darker skin color.

 

[Henri Christophe]

When people talk about being "black" they usually refer to the people who originate from Sub-Sahara Africa. Your the only one that I know of that shares this viewpoint that Aboriginals or Mesoamericans are black, just because of their darker skin color.

I also see the Dravidians, of South India, as Black.
And the Vedic people, who invade and conquer the India with horses, they were propably white. (The Indo-European nation).
And this myth of a White civilization ruling a Black nation on India was used to legitimize the British Raj. Since at the time was the British the white invaders.
Also, was because of this legend of a White invaders on India sub-continent that make the Nazis use the Swastica symbol as they, since the Swastica is a Vedic symbol.
So, wasn't just me who have this different understanding of Black being more embracing then just Sub-Saharan Africans.

Also, India is a racist society even before the arrival of Europeans because their own history.
Almost all societies on Earth see the White as better then the Black, Even in China, where the South Chinese is just a little bit more darker then North Chinese, still a kind of preconceit against this darker skin people.
For example, if you want to say someone is very perfect in Chinese you can say:白富美，where 白 means white, 富 rich and 美 beautiful. So, in this word is inplicit a perfect Chinese should be white.

Even in Haiti, where the constitution says "Don't matter the color of skin, all Haitians are black", we can see through Haitian history the Mulatos had social advantages over the Blacks just because were more close of the Whites.

The only society I found untill today the Black was better then Whites was the Olmec-Xicalanca, that's the why they call me so much the attention. Unfortunelly we know so little about they.

 

[Patine]

I also see the Dravidians, of South India, as Black.
And the Vedic people, who invade and conquer the India with horses, they were propably white. (The Indo-European nation).
And this myth of a White civilization ruling a Black nation on India was used to legitimize the British Raj. Since at the time was the British the white invaders.
Also, was because of this legend of a White invaders on India sub-continent that make the Nazis use the Swastica symbol as they, since the Swastica is a Vedic symbol.
So, wasn't just me who have this different understanding of Black being more embracing then just Sub-Saharan Africans.

Also, India is a racist society even before the arrival of Europeans because their own history.
Almost all societies on Earth see the White as better then the Black, Even in China, where the South Chinese is just a little bit more darker then North Chinese, still a kind of preconceit against this darker skin people.
For example, if you want to say someone is very perfect in Chinese you can say:白富美，where 白 means white, 富 rich and 美 beautiful. So, in this word is inplicit a perfect Chinese should be white.

Even in Haiti, where the constitution says "Don't matter the color of skin, all Haitians are black", we can see through Haitian history the Mulatos had social advantages over the Blacks just because were more close of the Whites.

The only society I found untill today the Black was better then Whites was the Olmec-Xicalanca, that's the why they call me so much the attention. Unfortunelly we know so little about they.

As I've pointed out, the, "Three Race Theory," is outmoded, proven incorrect, and considered offensive. Even back in the World Book Encyclopedia's of my school years back in the '80's, they had already changed their, "Races of Humanity," article to reflect for modern variances from the article as it was in an old '60's World Book a retired couple across the street had, which had the backward Three Race Theory. The Three Race Theory was come up with by a German natural scientist in the 19th Century who, himself, was HIGHLY racist, and the theory is considered highly racist today. However, like many other bad ideas and incorrect notions you cherish, you are corrected, chastised, and strongly advised against them, then fall silent on the issue for a while, then brng it up again, freah and reset, with your original perspective and insistance on it's, "validity," as if the previous discussiion never happened. You often do this, "rinse and repeat," thing several times with each issue. But, as for the Three Race Theory, because it's viewed as a racist ideal, you, do, sound RACIST when you push and advocate it, and you should be aware of that.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I also see the Dravidians, of South India, as Black.
And the Vedic people, who invade and conquer the India with horses, they were propably white. (The Indo-European nation).

And yet the Vedic people didn't conquer the Dravidians, who aren't black.

Also, was because of this legend of a White invaders on India sub-continent that make the Nazis use the Swastica symbol as they, since the Swastica is a Vedic symbol.
So, wasn't just me who have this different understanding of Black being more embracing then just Sub-Saharan Africans.

Saying that you share the same opinions as certain early 20th century Germans isn't the best endorsement.

 

[Evie]

Well considering the Byzantine and the Roman Empire doesn't exist today it's hard to ask about how they feel, unlike Iran and China.
We could ask Italians and Greeks and I'm sure the consensus is they would want them to be separate. If anything, Byzantium could just as well be seen as a continuation of a Greek civilization too, but good luck getting rid of Classical Greece, which I wouldn't want either.

I'm not sure how the fact that we can't ask them how they feel now (when Byzantium no longer exists) is relevant, when we know the answer to the far better question - what did they feel when they existed.

And uniformly, throughout their entire existence, they called themselves Romans. Not Byzantine, not anything else. So did pretty much every neighbor (Slavic, Muslim) of the Empire except the Western European, who instead from around the time of Charlemagne (you know, the guy who was trying to set himself up as the *real* successor of Rome) tried to argue that it was really the Greek Empire, later the Byzantine one.

 

[Henri Christophe]

As I've pointed out, the, "Three Race Theory," is outmoded, proven incorrect, and considered offensive. Even back in the World Book Encyclopedia's of my school years back in the '80's, they had already changed their, "Races of Humanity," article to reflect for modern variances from the article as it was in an old '60's World Book a retired couple across the street had, which had the backward Three Race Theory. The Three Race Theory was come up with by a German natural scientist in the 19th Century who, himself, was HIGHLY racist, and the theory is considered highly racist today. However, like many other bad ideas and incorrect notions you cherish, you are corrected, chastised, and strongly advised against them, then fall silent on the issue for a while, then brng it up again, freah and reset, with your original perspective and insistance on it's, "validity," as if the previous discussiion never happened. You often do this, "rinse and repeat," thing several times with each issue. But, as for the Three Race Theory, because it's viewed as a racist ideal, you, do, sound RACIST when you push and advocate it, and you should be aware of that.

You are right when say 3 race theory is outmoded, because to be one race a life being need to be able to reproduce and generate fertil descendent.
Since Black and White can reproduce and generate fertil descendent they are of the same race.
So there is only one race of humankind. What should be from other race of humans was the Neanderthal, for example.
But, even we can agree just have one race on humankind, there is diference enouth between humans to some, as the Black, for example, suffer racism.
If the racism still existing today, we need to analyze that via racist structure of castas.
The 3 races theory is the most simple of all castas made by humans, but if we look to Spanish American system of castas of age colonial, just in Americas we can easily found circa 200 castas, some as remeber is: Mestizo (white + native), Castizo (Mestizo + White) <As far my research goes, Castizo + White is White again>
And that get more weird when we misture with the Black: Black + Native = Cafuzo, Black + White = Mulato.
I don't want to be racist, or even sound racist, but how can I analyze racist issues without have a deep knowledge of the racist castas? Because when a racism occurs, the racist propably have some casta concept on mind, it can be this more simplist of 3 races theory of German thinkers, or can be something more elaborated as Spanish Castas.
If you show me any study who say there is more then 1 human race, that will be racist too.
So, explain how to analyze the racism without using these theories.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If the racism still existing today, we need to analyze that via racist structure of castas.
The 3 races theory is the most simple of all castas made by humans, but if we look to Spanish American system of castas of age colonial, just in Americas we can easily found circa 200 castas, some as remeber is: Mestizo (white + native), Castizo (Mestizo + White) <As far my research goes, Castizo + White is White again>
And that get more weird when we misture with the Black: Black + Native = Cafuzo, Black + White = Mulato.

Spanish colonial America also never really took into account the people of Asian descent, except maybe the Filipinos that came over?

I don't want to be racist, or even sound racist, but how can I analyze racist issues without have a deep knowledge of the racist castas? Because when a racism occurs, the racist propably have some casta concept on mind, it can be this more simplist of 3 races theory of German thinkers, or can be something more elaborated as Spanish Castas.
If you show me any study who say there is more then 1 human race, that will be racist too.
So, explain how to analyze the racism without using these theories.

You can start by not calling the Firaxis devs racist and realize there is more than just "white," "black," and mixed.

 

[Henri Christophe]

You can start by not calling the Firaxis devs racist

For that I must apologize, I don't want to say the Devs are racist.
But the fact there is no black among the Devs show some consequence at the game.
I rly believe if they have at least one black historian on the team they could do a game way more decolonial.
This game have around it's 30 years old and never portraited a black pharaoh, the Haiti.
I think they fell not racist because includes Shaka Zulu since the first game, what I think is the minimum have at least one black civ.
And of all African civs they could choice for the first civ they choice just the Zulu, a small "uncivilized" tribe of the end of the world. Why not choice Ethiopians or Mali for the first civ?
Maybe it was a lack of knowledge (what I suspect someone who made the history of all word don't know nothing about Africa) or maybe was a structural racism. Maybe isn't their fault, maybe the devs was also victim of a Racist Systemic who don't allow they to have knowledge of African history.
But now, after 30 years of the game, they still don't change that much.
How many Blacks had in the last game? Still a small percentage...Meanwhile Europe is overrepresented.

And as solution to the distribuition of civs, I rly believe the best way is the Continental Quota. In that way we should have the same numbers of Americans, Africans, Europeans and Asians. That don't will solve all the problem, because all continents have white man and will still have more white then blacks, but it will make it a bit better.