Changing Leader Mechanic in Civ 7

[Caesar of Bread]

Yellow is used by Brazilian governement to indicate people who have origin in far east.I also don't like that too much, but it is as it is.
I think it is as US categorization of races, in US they have the term Latin, what is worst then Yellow, because a person can be White or Black and Latin at the same time.

As you pointed out, there is a lot of diversity among Black people, some races you said as Khoisians and Nilotes are more distant in genetics then Europeans to Japanese. But that don't change we can understand all they as Blacks.
We can find reason to agroup they in one big race, but we can also find reasons to separete they in multiple races.
The point is, the race is a social construction, people in different corners of the world will have different opnion what is a race and what is not.
And most of times we don't have control what society will say about our race.
It's very commum, for example, a Latin American rise to an European country and discover he isn't white (because he isn't treated as white... because there is a way to treaty whites). That's happens with me too, I tought I was a white dude before living in Germany, after suffer a lot of Xenophobies I just realize I'm not white enouth to be accepted by Germans.
Once I read a Black philosofers saying the Black people have two birth dates, the first when it's born and second when he discover he is Black. Because society is racist and don't will allow a Black person to live it's life without knowing he is black.
The same don't happens with White man, who can live a entire life without caring about races. That is just another white privilege.


But in the end you named thousand of races to make your point, is that your solution?
3 or 5 is to few to represent all human race, but if we divided that in 200 sub groups it will be less racist?
I don't think so.
As I said before, every number different from 1 will be equally racist.

Race is a social construct, dude.

 

[Patine]

In Brazil, governement separete Brazilians in 5 main groups, Whites, Blacks, Yellows (Chinese/Japanese/Korean), Pardo (kind of Mix race) and Indigenous.
When the IBGE (Brazilian statistical center) knock your door, they will propably ask your race and the Brazilians should choice one of this 5 races.

In the Canadian and U.S. Censuses of the past, well several, "race," is an optional category to fill in (like, "religion," and a couple of others, are, now). And, even so, if you do choose to fill it in, there are significantly more than five choices, including an, "other," choice. It sounds like Brazilian statistics are quite behind the curve.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Ah, yes the Zulu who have been added for the exact same reason that Haiti would be- their opposition to whites. Just like the first Native American above Mexico who were added to Civ, the Sioux, who beat white people a couple of times.

Since white man invaded all world, all nations will have some opposition to whites.
But Shaka, despite wasn't the best choice to be the 1st civ, is a good choice to still at the game.
As far I know, who defeat the British in Isandlwana was Cetshwayo, not Shaka Zulu.
Shaka make his name without any conflict against white people.

Haiti suffers from the exact same issue, they would be only added for their opposition to white people instead of their own successful Civilization.

Okay, Haiti had their conflict against white people. But they have way more then that to be a civ.
First their revolution (what was the conflict against white people)
But also have uniques religion and language, what can used by game purpose.

The word is that they PROCLAIMED. Not that they were. And you are taking away Russia, France, Germany, and the Ottomans.
The Byzantines are a continuation after the main empire fell, as quoted by historian Chris Harman "a living fossil". Since the MAIN Roman Empire had fell, the Byzantines were kind of successors, trying to keep their culture alive as well as blending Greek culture with it after Heraclitus. Justinian may be considered Roman though.

If the mechanic I suggested become real, will make way more sense to have Byzantium!
First we should start with Rome, maybe Romulus, the first king.
And then we need to choice between the Charle Magne of the Frankish kingdom or Justinian of Byzantine empire.
If you choice the Frankish kingdom, it can lead you to become Austria (!) (Because they were the sucessor of the Holly Roman Empire)
If you choice the Byzantine, it can lead you to become the Ottomans (Because they conquer the Constantinopla)
On the end, should be nice if we can finish as an Italian republic lead by Garibaldi, or even Russia (who proclaime be Rome because follow the Constantinopla branch of the religion).
Rome is so full of option on this mechanic, I rly think it should be very fun to play with.

race is a social construct

On that we can agree.
A Black man on the age of discoveries didn't know he is black.
That is the why don't make any sense when someone says, at the slavery times, "Blacks capture other blacks to slavery"
Because they, at the time, didn't know they are black.

 

[Patine]

Since white man invaded all world, all nations will have some opposition to whites.
But Shaka, despite wasn't the best choice to be the 1st civ, is a good choice to still at the game.
As far I know, who defeat the British in Isandlwana was Cetshwayo, not Shaka Zulu.
Shaka make his name without any conflict against white people.

Okay, Haiti had their conflict against white people. But they have way more then that to be a civ.
First their revolution (what was the conflict against white people)
But also have uniques religion and language, what can used by game purpose.

On that we can agree.
A Black man on the age of discoveries didn't know he is black.
That is the why don't make any sense when someone says, at the slavery times, "Blacks capture other blacks to slavery"
Because they, at the time, didn't know they are black.

Can we please stop describing people in artificial, plastic, non-existant, unified, "race blocks," as though these were actually reality - or at all a healthy way to think?

 

[Henri Christophe]

Can we please stop describing people in artificial, plastic, non-existant, unified, "race blocks," as though these were actually reality - or at all a healthy way to think?

Before asking me to stop to use "race blocks", give me solutions how to approach the race issue.
Because, even if we can agree there is only one human race, as said by science.
Is evident there is difference between Blacks and Whites, and this difference is not just fenotipic, but also on social condition, on Policeman abordation and etc.
And, if have difference between Black and White, I need to call they as their proply names.
We already agree the races is a social construction, so we can construct our concepts.
So, what you suggested? How to approach theses races issue?

 

[FishFishFish]

The Zulu became culturally prominent mainly because of their initial success against the British, and that Michael Caine movie. Otherwise they would have been overlooked.

 

[Patine]

Before asking me to stop to use "race blocks", give me solutions how to approach the race issue.
Because, even if we can agree there is only one human race, as said by science.
Is evident there is difference between Blacks and Whites, and this difference is not just fenotipic, but also on social condition, on Policeman abordation and etc.
And, if have difference between Black and White, I need to call they as their proply names.
We already agree the races is a social construction, so we can construct our concepts.
So, what you suggested? How to approach theses races issue?

You seem to believe I share this obsession with this issue. I am concerned with culture, civilization, history, socio-political and economic framworks, diversity in a wholistic, global spread, and the very human endeavours. I am not interested in bogging down everything into arbitrary racial divisions, and, to boot, pretending, for some inexplicable reason, only two such divisions should even exist. The latter form of thinking inevtiably leads to toxic viewpoints. Am I clear?

 

[Henri Christophe]

The Zulu became culturally prominent mainly because of their initial success against the British, and that Michael Caine movie. Otherwise they would have been overlooked.

I watch that movie, they start after the Isandlwana battle and focus on British victory on Rorke's Drift.
I don't like that much the movie, to understand better Shaka Zulu there is a serie on Netflix way better then that movie.
But I need to admit I just discover about Shaka Zulu because of this game, African history isn't teatched in Brazilians schools, and when is teatched, never cover more then slavery.

You seem to believe I share this obsession with this issue. I am concerned with culture, civilization, history, socio-political and economic framworks, diversity in a wholistic, global spread, and the very human endeavours. I am not interested in bogging down everything into arbitrary racial divisions, and, to boot, pretending, for some inexplicable reason, only two such divisions should even exist. The latter form of thinking inevtiably leads to toxic viewpoints. Am I clear?

Isn't an obsession, each civ have their culture, history and it's race. Race is part of the wholistic diversity of human being.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

to approach the race issue.

What race issue?

 

[Henri Christophe]

What race issue?

Often when I say about how this game is unballanced, I use a racial metric as saying: Look how few Blacks there are.
But @Patine dosn't like that, he still acusing me when I use words as "Black" or "White" to be racist.
He invoques the 3 race theory, accusing me to follow this limited theory.
But, going from the priciple there are difference between Black and Whites, how can I approach that without using the right words?

 

[Patine]

Often when I say about how this game is unballanced, I use a racial metric as saying: Look how few Blacks there are.
But @Patine dosn't like that, he still acusing me when I use words as "Black" or "White" to be racist.
He invoques the 3 race theory, accusing me to follow this limited theory.
But, going from the priciple there are difference between Black and Whites, how can I approach that without using the right words?

The right words are to abandon - - black and white thinking. Bringing anything in the sphere of the social sciences and human endeavour - or realy outisde mathematics, chemistry, and physics - to binary absolutes is ALWAYS a toxic, degenerative, diminished, and only-possible-of-being negative state of affairs.

Isn't an obsession, each civ have their culture, history and it's race. Race is part of the wholistic diversity of human being.

Not as big or intrinsic, all-in-all, as it's made out to be, and when it's insisted to be front and centre, things get a lot more toxic than they need to be, as can be empirically observed in history.

 

[Henri Christophe]

or realy outisde mathematics, chemistry, and physics

Speaking about mathematics, the most ancient instrument used to make calculus finded untill today was in Africa:
It is the Ishango bone:

Also, almost all basic mathematics as geometry was developed on Egypt. We know that about Greek philosophers, but these Greeks travel to Egypt to learn with Egyptians.
Also, most of fundamental advancements of Math happens on India, as the creation the arabic number (we call it arabic number because arrive it to Europe throw Arabia), the concept of Zero. Who only Maias and Indians developed (as far I know) and the famous Bhaskhara theoreme:

 

[Patine]

Speaking about mathematics, the most ancient instrument used to make calculus finded untill today was in Africa:
It is the Ishango bone:

Also, almost all basic mathematics as geometry was developed on Egypt. We know that about Greek philosophers, but these Greeks travel to Egypt to learn with Egyptians.
Also, most of fundamental advancements of Math happens on India, as the creation the arabic number (we call it arabic number because arrive it to Europe throw Arabia), the concept of Zero. Who only Maias and Indians developed (as far I know) and the famous Bhaskhara theoreme:
View attachment 661159

This is an interesting factoid, and quite fascinating, but other than trivia, that it serve a role in this discussion?

 

[Henri Christophe]

This is an interesting factoid, and quite fascinating, but other than trivia, that it serve a role in this discussion?

You said to brings some math to discussion, I bring math from no White world.

 

[Patine]

You said to brings some math to discussion, I bring math from no White world.

I'm gobsmacked by this connection - and that once again tries to force toxic - and arbitrary absolutist binary - race divisions as somehow, "superior," to reason and sense. Plus, what I went by the statement was that absolute binary divides CAN only exist, meaningfully, in mathematics, chemistry, and physics, not in any endeavour of humanity. I do not view peope, or human endeavour, by, "White," and, "Black," races, defined in sweeping and absolutist declarations - and nothing good tends to come of the views of those who do. The post I am quoting was not clever riposte or, "gotcha," to me - it very much hurt your ailing case all the more, and dug you into a bad trope...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Maybe there is some confusion since I used legacy when the correct word would be heritage. So to clarify, we know from medieval sources that the "Byzantine" people saw themselves as Romans, also every other culture around them beside the Western Europeans knew the "Byzantines" as Romans, turning the use of Roman not just a prestige title to their rulers and their state, but a true popular identiy element. That is why there is no equivalence to any others like Ottomans, Holy Roman-Germanic Empire or Tsarist Russia that pretended and flaunted the title of Rome but that title never was accompanied by a popular Roman identity, we can see it as how for example Bavarians did not claimed to be "Romans" under the HRE neither English saw Bohemians as "Romans", also quite evident in how Ottomans named Romans just the conquered "Byzantine" population and not to their own Ottoman(Turkish) population despite the claimed title over Rome.

So there is a clear population identity element as Romans that all the not "Byzantine" pretender to the title of Rome lacks. Add again that the transition from Rome>Constantinople was done gradually by Romans in roman land under roman laws, not by foreign invasors neither an unfortunate realm-less heir escaping to another foreign land.

About the modern Greeks, we must remember that basically four hundred years of Ottoman rule facilited that in the boom of the National State ideals the Greek independentists ended prioritizing to look back to their older ancient Greek heritage, despite in fact the idea of restore the "Byzantine" Empire was seriously considered by some independentists leaders. The appeal of the Greek identity coincided with others factors like their early small controled area and lack of control over Constantinople, the preference to be a republic, the related diplomatic complication of have a heir to validate the title, also to please their western allies and the ideological advantege that classical greeks were the heroic "originals" before any foreign domain (this including Roman rule).

A more exagerated case of the foundation of a new national identity like in the Greek War of Independence was their contemporary Mexican War of Independence. The new Mexican state got its name from the Mexica Empire ("Aztec"), a more difficult claim to back considering the clearly more Hispanic than Mesoamerican elements of the new mixed nation, but that in the frenzy of the National State ideals was seen as valid for the new identity.

I mean you do make good points.
That being said, both from a historical perspective and even a gameplay perspective I believe there is enough difference to warrant separate inclusions. Then again, if they just so happened to design a Roman civ with "Byzantine" elements in Civ 7 it's not like I'd be mad either.
But a game without anything Byzantine related is one I wouldn't want.

Back to main topic, and linked with this discussion about Rome.
Just realize how cool to play with Rome at a mechanic who allow you to change the leader.
You could choice between Charles Magne or the Suleiman or Ivan the terrible or others.
Because all of they proclamed they self as Roman emperors.

Yes, let's lump Europe together as "Rome" and split China up into every single dynasty. That will sell well.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Yes, let's lump Europe together as "Rome" and split China up into every single dynasty. That will sell well.

Lump Europe together as Rome isn't a bad idea.
Even if the idea of multiple leaders don't go foward, I still thinking Rome and maybe more one civ (maybe the Vikings) should more then enouth to represent all Europe in a vanila game.
But China can still being a single civ too.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Lump Europe together as Rome isn't a bad idea.
Even if the idea of multiple leaders don't go foward, I still thinking Rome and maybe more one civ (maybe the Vikings) should more then enouth to represent all Europe in a vanila game.
But China can still being a single civ too.

No it is not. I'd be kinda... actually VERY upset with only Rome and some other civ. That is an overall disgrace to history, and to replace such civilizations like Germany with the Ahmednagar Sultanate or the Toltecs is blasphemous.

 

[Henri Christophe]

replace such civilizations like Germany with the Ahmednagar Sultanate or the Toltecs is blasphemous.

hahahah isn't a blasphemous.
Why should we have this Western powerhouse in every game? As USA, England, France, Germany and Spain.
I believe don't will hurt if these civilizations just appear in late DLC.

And Toltecs should replace the Aztecs at least.
And Ahmednagar Sultanate should come with some others Indian's civs as the Mughals.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

hahahah isn't a blasphemous.
Why should we have this Western powerhouse in every game? As USA, England, France, Germany and Spain.
I believe don't will hurt if these civilizations just appear in late DLC.

You realize that you are talking to an American?
And that he has partial English, French, and German ancestry?

And Toltecs should replace the Aztecs at least.
And Ahmednagar Sultanate should come with some others Indian's civs as the Mughals.

Eh, I'd like the Mayurans, Mughals, Chola, Bengals, Modern India, and then maybe Ahmednagar