Historical Argument That Was In the Wrong Forum

[Thenewwwguy]

There is Mali, Zulu, Nubia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kongo and arguably phoenicians (since Catherge covered much of nothern Africa.) How many more do you want? There are other places to cover and this civ can cover so much.

Personally I’d like to see the Shona and/or Swahili before Benin or Ashanti

 

[Henri Christophe]

Personally I’d like to see the Shona and/or Swahili before Benin or Ashanti

Why Shona or Swahilli?
I don't think they give proud to a Black player.

The only Bantu civs there is is Kongo and Zulu, and both look like barbarians in this game...
Why cannot have a Bantu Civ who a Black player can be proud with?

 

[Thenewwwguy]

both look like barbarians? they were modeled after pictures, as literally all of the leaders were except for gilgamesh, tomyris, kupe and the other semimythical leaders

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Why Shona or Swahilli?

I for one want Swahilli civ if only for Baba yetu.

Why cannot have a Bantu Civ who a Black player can be proud with

Why are you ashamed of traditional african clothing? Should I be ashamed of how Kupe is drawn?

 

[Kupe Navigator]

both look like barbarians? they were modeled after pictures, as literally all of the leaders were except for gilgamesh, tomyris, kupe and the other semimythical leaders

Apparently he thinks traditional African clothes are Babaric.
...
...
...
And he calls civ team racist.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I put a list here of ALL kongo kingdoms picture I find it https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/mvemba-a-nzinga-afonso-i-of-kongo.660554/
No one look like a weird guy from a Lousiana's Swamp

 

[Kupe Navigator]

I put a list here of ALL kongo kingdoms picture I find it https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/mvemba-a-nzinga-afonso-i-of-kongo.660554/
No one look like a weird guy from a Lousiana's Swamp

So? Most of your picture shows African kings dressed in European clothing. So you claming European clothing civilised and African clothing Babaric? Just because it exposes parts of their body?
What are you puritan?

 

[Henri Christophe]

I said exaclty the opposite, Mvemba isn't wearing a traditional african cloth, he is dressed as weird guy from a Lousiana's Swamp.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

I said exaclty the opposite, Mvemba isn't wearing a traditional african cloth, he is dressed as weird guy from a Lousiana's Swamp.

He isn't that weird. He is dressed in a clothes that is suitable for swampy area like Kongo. What about Shaka Zulu?
What makes alfonso's outfit makes him babaric?

Anyway the outfit and character models are not THAT important anyway. Pedro II is horribly drawn and no one seriously says civ team needs to fix him ASAP.
Look at this old thread https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/afonso-i-of-kongo.570724/
That was when Kongo was first announced. People are paying attention on how good Kongo will be and weather Alfonso is good representation for Kongo. No one complains about character model.

 

[Aurelesk]

The only Bantu civs there is is Kongo and Zulu, and both look like barbarians in this game...

Well, they look barbarians because you think they are. The Chinese saw the world as barbarians and their country as the empire in the center. The Roman saw everyone (except the Greek) as barbarians. You are from south america, you appreciate a lot the carribean culture and identify to it. But I can imagine for someone not accustomed to it, it will feel barbaric as well.

I really struggle to understand your point on race. For a long time, people used color as a way to categorise population. It even happens to show on some flags (looking at you Suriname) where there is a black, brown, red, white and yellow stars for Afro-Surinamese, Indians/Javanese, Amerindians, European and East Asians. Now, even if black and white are still in use for sub-saharian african and european origin, it is clear that nobody use brown for indians, red for amerindians, and yellow for asian.

From this, if you use "white" or "black" to describe lightness or darkness of skin, you are going to either face misunderstanding or face opposition. If you just want to talk about the lightness/darkness of skin, just use lightness/darknkess, not white/black.

I read all your messages and something standing out is that you believe the old pseudoscience of the 4 racial groups with the Negroid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid and "Australoid", (it seems the Polynesian do not exist?). The thing is... this pseudoscience is debunked a long time ago. I now understand why you say south asian are caucasian, but I do not agree with it. This classification is garbage.
Even today, there is some try to do a some sort of phylogenetic tree of human population about genetic distance between each group, with mixed result so far. For example, Asian are split into 2 groups with the North (Chinese, Korean, Japanese) being more close to Eskimo / Amerindians, and the South Asian being more close to Pacific Islander and New Guinean.

I am also struggling why you call Civilization as racist. You say this because the black and people with darker skin are underepresented. Alright. But, is it really it? If we look on a map, we clearly see that Europe has a lot of it and Africa very little. So, if you look a ratio civilization per area, yeah that sound racist. But, in this area there is a lot on unhospitable area like the Sahara desert or the tropical forest; The fact is... Europe was far more populated than Africa, and this change around 2000, only 20 years ago! Europe was around 6 times more densely populated than Africa! Furthermore, we know a lot more about European people than African one because they recorded history way better (or destroyed them way less). From this point of view, seeing around 2 times more European countries than African one does not sound racist to me. Last point: the whole Africa isn't entirely populated by black people, only the sub-saharian area is.

In the end, a huge chunk of America is represented, even if I would like to see some sort of Carribean culture to appear, like Cuba (but unlikely: Fidel Castro isn't going to make it) or Haiti, but I guess Caguana/Puerto Rico count? Also, there is no real black american civilization because most nation didn't enforce a "purity" so most people in America are mixed (except one: looking at you USA, Canada being quite different (they forbid non-white to enter territory in the first place but there is a lot to talk about amerindian "acceptation").

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Well, they look barbarians because you think they are. The Chinese saw the world as barbarians and their country as the empire in the center. The Roman saw everyone (except the Greek) as barbarians. You are from south america, you appreciate a lot the carribean culture and identify to it. But I can imagine for someone not accustomed to it, it will feel barbaric as well.

I really struggle to understand your point on race. For a long time, people used color as a way to categorise population. It even happens to show on some flags (looking at you Suriname) where there is a black, brown, red, white and yellow stars for Afro-Surinamese, Indians/Javanese, Amerindians, European and East Asians. Now, even if black and white are still in use for sub-saharian african and european origin, it is clear that nobody use brown for indians, red for amerindians, and yellow for asian.

From this, if you use "white" or "black" to describe lightness or darkness of skin, you are going to either face misunderstanding or face opposition. If you just want to talk about the lightness/darkness of skin, just use lightness/darknkess, not white/black.

I read all your messages and something standing out is that you believe the old pseudoscience of the 4 racial groups with the Negroid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid and "Australoid", (it seems the Polynesian do not exist?). The thing is... this pseudoscience is debunked a long time ago. I now understand why you say south asian are caucasian, but I do not agree with it. This classification is garbage.
Even today, there is some try to do a some sort of phylogenetic tree of human population about genetic distance between each group, with mixed result so far. For example, Asian are split into 2 groups with the North (Chinese, Korean, Japanese) being more close to Eskimo / Amerindians, and the South Asian being more close to Pacific Islander and New Guinean.

I am also struggling why you call Civilization as racist. You say this because the black and people with darker skin are underepresented. Alright. But, is it really it? If we look on a map, we clearly see that Europe has a lot of it and Africa very little. So, if you look a ratio civilization per area, yeah that sound racist. But, in this area there is a lot on unhospitable area like the Sahara desert or the tropical forest; The fact is... Europe was far more populated than Africa, and this change around 2000, only 20 years ago! Europe was around 6 times more densely populated than Africa! Furthermore, we know a lot more about European people than African one because they recorded history way better (or destroyed them way less). From this point of view, seeing around 2 times more European countries than African one does not sound racist to me. Last point: the whole Africa isn't entirely populated by black people, only the sub-saharian area is.

In the end, a huge chunk of America is represented, even if I would like to see some sort of Carribean culture to appear, like Cuba (but unlikely: Fidel Castro isn't going to make it) or Haiti, but I guess Caguana/Puerto Rico count? Also, there is no real black american civilization because most nation didn't enforce a "purity" so most people in America are mixed (except one: looking at you USA, Canada being quite different (they forbid non-white to enter territory in the first place but there is a lot to talk about amerindian "acceptation").

Wow he explained every problem with Henri's argument way bettet than I ever could.

 

[Traitorfish]

Chandra GUpta was white. Just look to him:

Chandra Gupta lived in the fourth century BCE, you must surely realise that this is not a contemporary depiction?

 

[Kyriakos]

I think some of the civ choices by now are very bizarre. For example Norway just isn't a globally important civ (and never was), yet they are in Civ6 and even before the expansions, at the expense of much more logical choices.
At least Poland had an empire for a while - not that it is that great a choice for the non-expansion civ list either...

 

[Kupe Navigator]

For example Norway just isn't a globally important civ (and never was), yet they are in Civ6 and even before the expansions, at the expense of much more logical choices.

Noway is basically Viking civ... and Vikings were VERY important in European history. It is just that after civ V civ team is trying to move away from generic civs like Vikings, and celts and try to apply countries whenever possible.

 

[Kyriakos]

Noway is basically Viking civ... and Vikings were VERY important in European history. It is just that after civ V civ team is trying to move away from generic civs like Vikings, and celts and try to apply countries whenever possible.

Sure, but either Denmark or Sweden would have made more sense as a civ, imo.
At least the game doesn't yet have Finland

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Sure

Denmark was a thing in civ5... and Sweden is already a thing you know in GS. Or do you not have it?
Finland is even more insignificant.

 

[Traitorfish]

Any civ that was in Civilization II pretty much gets an automatic pass on legacy grounds; re-branding the old Viking civ as either "Norway" or "Denmark" just seems to be a way of leaving themselves the option of adding a modern version of the other country in a later expansion.

 

[Kyriakos]

Any civ that was in Civilization II pretty much gets an automatic pass on legacy grounds; re-branding the old Viking civ as either "Norway" or "Denmark" just seems to be a way of leaving themselves the option of adding a modern version of the other country in a later expansion.

"The fall of the German capital has led that civilization to civil war! They are now split to loyal (German) and rebel (Sioux). Fools! Easier for us to destroy them!"

In CivII civs were just names - no difference between them. And they still didn't have Norway

 

[Patine]

"The fall of the German capital has led that civilization to civil war! They are now split to loyal (German) and rebel (Sioux). Fools! Easier for us to destroy them!"

In CivII civs were just names - no difference between them. And they still didn't have Norway

It does, however, make scenario creation far easier (along with bitmap graphic, all rules and scripts - except the hardcoded - editable in text files, and the earliest events editor with a macro language in the Civ series).

 

[Kyriakos]

It does, however, make scenario creation far easier (along with bitmap graphic, all rules and scripts - except the hardcoded - editable in text files, and the earliest events editor with a macro language in the Civ series).

Firaxis never included an event files for Civ3. It was a horrible decision by them, and I think they (or Sid - CivII was Microprose iirc) wanted to keep CivII alive for a while longer.