How about CIV stop being RACIST!!!

[DrMadd]

But those Mongol Yurt cities gave the world a far longer lasting and wider spread impact than a bunch of desert-dwellers whose claim to fame was holding east-west trade hostage for several centuries.

 

[Crayton]

The Mongols lived in the Gobi desert and controlled the East-West trade (Silk Road) for less than a century. The Ghana/Songhai/Mali civ controlled North-South trade for more than a millennium.
I have nothing against a Mongolian civ, of course. I only referenced their tent of a capital city, Karakorum.

Mansa Musa, the arguably greatest Mali leader, while on his pilgrimage to Mecca, tossed gold to gathered crowds in Egypt. Consequently, this ruined (ok, maybe, debased) Egypt's economy and allowed the Mamelukes to gain a foothold against their masters.

In a round-about way: Mali defeated the Mongols!

Civilization 4 warrants two Sub-Saharan civs out of 31; so far we have only been allowed 18.

EDIT: I'll concede: The Mongols had a wider impact on the world.

 

[DrMadd]

Ah, but the Mamelukes were only round-about Mongols. And I heard Mali made the list.

 

[evirus]

why is it that when ever somebody sees any form of entertainment, being it a cartoon, movie, game that dosnt have any black people or afracan nations the makers are called racist, theres a fine line between rejecting something because you dont like it( the idea of having african nations for example) and simpely not thinking about it in the first place.... if i see a cartoon with out black people in it i dont see it or its author as being racist... we shouldnt punish people for not having some % minority in what they make

 

[DrMadd]

We live in an age of Minority rule, I'm afraid. If you're african-american, and you're proud of your race, that's fine- but let an Irishman, or my case an English-American say he's proud of his, and he's a racist. I dislike double standards. I believe that all people have the right to be proud of what they are.

 

[Carver]

We live in an age of Minority rule, I'm afraid. If you're african-american, and you're proud of your race, that's fine- but let an Irishman, or my case an English-American say he's proud of his, and he's a racist. I dislike double standards. I believe that all people have the right to be proud of what they are.

What minority rule?

White people show their proudness all over the place. The largest monuments in all of the southeast US are to proud white men who died or fought for the antebellum southern "way of life" (which happened to include the enslavement of Africans). The south is dotted with monuments that literally praise people for the "whiteness."

Both popular culture and the formal education system in America glorify the European-American heritage; even when they lie to do so, such as with the common portrayals of knights in shining armor protecting the weak and doing what is "right." Never mind that most knights were brutal warriors, in fact we could call most of them terrorists, as much of their violence was directed at civilians not other knights.

 

[DrMadd]

Slavery: Most Slaves, sad to say, were sold into bond-servitude by other Africans.
It's ridiculous to say that all these white dudes went into the bush and dragged them out. I'm not saying that didn't occur, but it was in fact primarily, as the fellow who pointed out the Mali said, They sold People. They Pimped, in fact, their own people.
European Knights were not Terrorists. They were the legitimate army of most of Europe. And yes, in fact, there is a racial double-standard when dealing with ethnic Pride.

 

[Carver]

Slavery: Most Slaves, sad to say, were sold into bond-servitude by other Africans.
It's ridiculous to say that all these white dudes went into the bush and dragged them out. I'm not saying that didn't occur, but it was in fact primarily, as the fellow who pointed out the Mali said, They sold People. They Pimped, in fact, their own people.

How exactly does this relate to your claim that minorities rule the US?

Yes, we know that Africans traded slaves. But for the record, very little chattel slavery existed in Africa. There was forced labor but not the notion that people owned people. Further, most slavery was temporary, not for life. Further, since you're talking about "pride" slaves in Africa weren't forced to drop their names, language, and customs - those in America were.

American slavery was far more destructive any way you slice it. Only a blind southern nationalist could disagree.

European Knights were not Terrorists. They were the legitimate army of most of Europe.

R.W. Southern, one of the greatest historians of Western Civ, disagrees with you. Remember, medeivel Europe is a time when the line between public and private is not very clear. We're not dealing with modern nation-states so to speak of "legitimate armies" is dubious. What a legitimate government was itself debated at this time.

And the fact remains that many knights directed most of their violence at infrastructure and civilians, not armies, that makes them terrorists.

 

[DrMadd]

I didn't say Minorities ruled the US. My point is a Caveat that states simply, that in fighting racial injustice, caution should be taken not to inflict it upon others. In short, do not become what you are fighting against. "Most" Slavery might have been, but the fact it existed proves that people are truly no better or worse than anyone else.
Furthermore, if every group that was ever enslaved were to get Justice, Rome would no longer exists, nor would Mexico, And probably most of the known world. Every group, every culture has known the chains and bondage of the Slavemasters.
The Feudal system relied upon fealty of the Lords to their King. In practice, this meant that the Lords were in fact responsible for furnishing the King with an army with which to defend his realm. Knights were expensive to hire and equip; Thus, they were almost exclusively in Royal Service of one kind or another. And the fact remains that if you want to go the road about their tactics, need I remind you that most of the world employed those self-same tactics. Man in war has attacked civilians since the beginning of time when man first took a rock to his fellow man. The Knights were no better or worse than say, the Mongols who used civilian human shields, the Vikings who pillaged monasteries, the Saracens, or the Red Army who gang-raped Berlin in 1945.

 

[troytheface]

Well this thread has been float'n about for quite some time- slowly rising on the page like the secret phantom of racism raising it's ......
Reading some of the original poster's comments i will admit many sounded just plain absurd but as this thing progresses i can see his point a bit more clearly....after all,
the success of "1984" and its immediate understanding thereof came from....An Englishman....Facism....Italian/German ect ...in other words who knows what kind of information we are being fed- if spiritualism is a more accurate guide -factual "content"
via western cognitive processes may be so much nothing (in so far as story telling- ie hiStory)

 

[Himalia]

I agree but i think the best solution for this is having more civilizations in the game . By that i mean more to choose from to have in your games. Yes great if you can have 30 40 50 100 or however many civs in one game but just having the choice would be enough for me. I have about 300 in mine to choose from, ok it means lots of tinkering if you want to switch things about so i pretty much stick to the same ones as its easier but they are there if i want them.

Thats a nice picture you paint there and i would indeed love to see it completed.

 

[frekk]

Furthermore, if every group that was ever enslaved were to get Justice, Rome would no longer exists, nor would Mexico, And probably most of the known world. Every group, every culture has known the chains and bondage of the Slavemasters.

Perhaps ... but, the slavery practiced in the southern US was on a truly massive scale not seen since the latter days of the Roman empire. Not since then had an entire economy been based around slave labour. And Roman slavery was a different thing altogether from American slavery; a Roman slave was not a slave by race, so that there were free citizens of barbarian origin, owning Roman debtors as slaves. Slaves were not distinguishable from citizens except by clothing, demeanor, etc.

The Feudal system relied upon fealty of the Lords to their King. In practice, this meant that the Lords were in fact responsible for furnishing the King with an army with which to defend his realm. Knights were expensive to hire and equip; Thus, they were almost exclusively in Royal Service of one kind or another.

Err, no. They were in the service of their Liege, who might have been anything from a Baron to a Duke to a King - or even something else entirely. When the King needed support, he summoned his vassals (the nobles who had pledged fealty to him ... which not all did ... there were entire nations of nobles without kings, as in Germany, and entire orders of knights who swore fealty to things other than nobles or kings, such as the Templars, Hospittalers, Teutons, etc) and if the King was lucky, they would all show up - hopefully on his side! - and bring their retinues of knights with them. So, occasionally ... actually not very often, in terms of the average life of a knight perhaps (quite probably) never ... were they were in Royal service.

 

[frekk]

Yes, we know that Africans traded slaves. But for the record, very little chattel slavery existed in Africa. There was forced labor but not the notion that people owned people.

Errr ... they ate their slaves in Africa. You're painting much too rosy a picture here. They didn't keep slaves for servants long, that's true ... they captured them in battle, killed them then or killed or sold them later. Lots of Africa still works this way. You're painting much too rosy a picture here.

American slavery was far more destructive any way you slice it. Only a blind southern nationalist could disagree.

It wasn't. The problem was that the American demand for slaves was so huge and so profitable that it spurred wars between African groups, for the sole reason that the chiefs would acquire slaves to sell in return for steel, guns, etc. Being a slave in America was probably better than being a slave in Africa, but, without the American market for slaves, there wouldn't have been nearly so many Africans enslaved in the first place. Without those markets most of the slaves would have been free men in their homelands, not to mention God knows how many intertribal wars would have been avoided.

And the fact remains that many knights directed most of their violence at infrastructure and civilians, not armies, that makes them terrorists.

This is probably true. Most of them were just glorified tax-collectors, and more than a few were just plain robbers.

 

[Carver]

@frekk:

I read primary and secondary sources on Africa almost everyday and I find no support for your claim that cannibalism is conducted in "lots of Africa." Even in conflict zones there are no credible reports of widespear cannibalism.

Furthermore, saying that they ate their slaves in Africa is a gross misrepresentation. Sure cannibalism happened but the extent of it has been grossly exaggerated by popular culture's exotic treatment of sub-Saharan Africa.

 

[Carver]

...but the fact it existed proves that people are truly no better or worse than anyone else.

I agree with you here.

 

[evirus]

wait a minute.... egypt is a part of aferica if im not mistaken...... its not a matter of racisim its a matter of interest... frankly.... its more interesting to see egypt then to see some country you would have to look up to figure out what its about

 

[Chieftess]

wait a minute.... egypt is a part of aferica if im not mistaken...... its not a matter of racisim its a matter of interest... frankly.... its more interesting to see egypt then to see some country you would have to look up to figure out what its about

I actually had to look up Mali. (Up until then, I thought Timbuktu was either some made-up word, or some Carribean/Indonesian island area....).

 

[DrMadd]

First off, I'm Southern, but I'm not blind, and I'm hardly a Southern Nationalist. I'm an American Nationalist, and The main reason I would have fought for the North was because I don't consider Slavery a states' rights issue. And for the record, there were freed slaves in the South who owned Slaves, too. You don't hear much about it, but it happened. Usually It occured in places like Virginia before the American Revolution, but it happened.
Knights in royal service: Yes, they fought amongst themselves, but let a foreign nation interfere, and in most cases, if not all, they would put aside their problems and deal with the interloper.

 

[frekk]

@frekk:

I read primary and secondary sources on Africa almost everyday and I find no support for your claim that cannibalism is conducted in "lots of Africa." Even in conflict zones there are no credible reports of widespear cannibalism.

You are much mistaken ... it is very well documented in Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and several other conflicts (eg Biafra). Usually it is not "whole cannibalism" but the ingestion of a single body part (arms, vaginal lips, etc) and cannibalism is rarely the goal of the violence, rather more of a propaganda weapon used in conjunction with it. It is sometimes strongly tied to magical beliefs. There is also "whole cannibalism" still practiced in some areas, such as the Congo, but it is not associated with war or murder but rather with something more like a burial rite or wake, there is no "victim" per se. There may also be the mutilatory form of war-cannibalism in the Congo but it would be an entirely different thing practiced by entirely different groups, if claims are true.

Now, as for "widespread" that's pretty subjective. I'd suggest that geographically speaking, it is, but in terms of rarity I'd also suggest it's far from commonplace.

 

[frekk]

wait a minute.... egypt is a part of aferica if im not mistaken...... its not a matter of racisim its a matter of interest... frankly.... its more interesting to see egypt then to see some country you would have to look up to figure out what its about

People learning, oh my! How terrible! I don't see any merit to the idea that civs should be ones people are already familiar with other than the fact that it will increase sales. I think it's great if someone learns something about real history from the game, if it inspires them to go and expand their knowledge. If sales were not an issue, I would have the game include civs based on factors entirely different from popular familiarity. I don't see anything unreasonable about including the Shona or Mali Empire, despite the numerous bizarre beliefs about history that the original poster had (Scandinavians were not barbarians, Celts were not uncultured savages, Cleopatra was not an Arab and Hannibal was not a Negro).