How about CIV stop being RACIST!!!

[DrMadd]

Cannibalism, like Slavery has near universal connotations. But that's a debate for another time. I think what should constitute a workable civ should be:

1. How much impact on history, global history did they have?
2. What is their legacy?

Sadly, this probably- And I say this with some reservation, that perhaps Mali belongs and the Zulu do not.



I have just re-read your post, as when I first read it, I stopped at the first paragraph, as I had much to say on the matter. Now that I've read it again, I have that much more to say.

>>Why is it that the the the vast and diverse regions of sub-saharan Africa are characterized entirely by the Zulu.<<

If these Empires were as ground-shattering as you claim, why have not most people heard of them? Where are their monuments? Where is their literature? What legacy have they left?


>>In fact the game only acknowledges one Negro civilization. ONE! (Although I would pose the argument that Hannibal of Carthage was negro, with just cause, the game does not portray him as such, Cleopatra can be called an Arab).<<

Carthage was founded in North Africa by Phoenicians, which need I remind you, were not African themselves. They were more closely related to Jews and Arabs than to the indigenious peoples of Africa. Cleopatra was the descendant of General Ptolemy, one of Alexander's commanders. Therefore, she was Greek.

>>The Zulu!? Come on, they were only a minor factor for less a couple of scores.<<

The Zulu's claim to fame was fighting the Boers, the British.

>>If the creators of the game want to label the Celts (who have been called by traditional historians as "uncultured savages")<<

Whoa, there, pally. Call the Celts Savages, and you'll have millions of ticked off Scots, Welshmen and Irishmen ready to throttle you. The Celts were in fact an advanced society, with literature, Sciences, Cities, legends, myths, and Religion. The Celts and their ancestors built and used Stonehenge- ( A marvelous feat of engineering, and beautiful in its own way.)
Who called the Celts Savages? Rome, who had a habit of telling lies about its enemies.
In your own experience, has not your own race been subjected to unfair aspersions?

>>and the Mongols (of which no historian would call and actual civilization) as civilizations then why not some Civilization.<<

Well, let's see here. Mongols built the Forbidden City, conquered and ruled China, Russia and part of Eastern Europe, Built Beijing, Have their own language, their own writing, their own literature -(The Secret History of the Mongols) No civilization? Who have you been jabbering with?

>>If we can have the Mesopotamian, the Sumerian, and the Hittites, who are culturally and ethnically almost the same civilization then why not some african civilizatons.<<

I'm surprised at you. I would have thought you would have gotten beyond the "They all look alike" Argument. The Hittites, if Homer is to be believed, aided in the founding of Rome. They lived in Turkey, and were more closely related to the Kurdish. As anyone in Iraq will tell you, Kurds are not Iraqis by blood. The Babylonians are, however. Saddam's ancestors were Babylonians. There is definitely a difference, culturally, and racially, between the two. The Sumerians were Syrians, more closely related to the Kurds, but not the same. There's three races there. Do more research in the future.



>>If the Netherlands a region where region less then half the size of the state of Maine, then why not some African Civilizations.<<

That little country founded New York, ruled Indonesia, invented the Microscope, sent a king to rule England, and helped Spearhead the reformation. Not to mention popularized the Windmill.


>>If the barbarian hordes from Scandavaia are a civilization then why not some African Civs.<<

The Vikings had Writing, leaders, city states, Religion, and while they were not builders per se, they were excellent shipbuilders and seafarers. They found America before Columbus, were the birthplace of the Normans-(My ancestors). The Name Russia means -"Land of the Rus" The Rus were a slavish name for the Vikings. Barbaric Hordes-Hordes, by the way, is a Mongol word- A widespread use of a "non-existant" civilization? - The Vikings, Celts, and Mongols were not.

>>How about teh Glorious empires, of Ghana, Mali and Songhai where the great Universities of Timbuktu flourished?<<

I have two masks made in Ghana. Nice workmanship. Doesn't make them a civ, though. Mali? Aside from an archaeology buff, no one's heard of them. Most people don't know where Timbuktu is. Songhai did appear in one of the civ games.

>>How about Hausaland where democracy first began?<<

Cut with the revisionist history, already. Democracy began in Greece.

>>How about Ethiopia the oldest continuous nation in the entire world, from Solomon to Haile Selassie to Today?<<

Solomon was a Jew, and never lived in Ethiopia. He had a son by the Queen of Sheba and she was there, but Ethiopia never did anything important, other than being the only Christian country outside Europe for a while. And the oldest continuous nation in the World would be Japan, I'd think. An Unbroken Monarchial line, self-rule that entire time. Ethiopia loses because for a while it was ruled by Britain and Italy.

>>How about the Shona empire and its archectural and mettulurgic wonders in the Ancient World?<<

How come no one's heard of them, then?

 

[Atrebates]

DrMadd

Generally I agree with your post, Just have to say that the reason no-one has heard of various African feats is that 'us lot' on the forums don't have much expertise in African history and African civilisations have not survived and so [African] children do not learn the history of their empires
Secondly the Zulus are meant to have had an empire with infrastructure which dissolved for no apparent reason, I don't profess to know much of this but this was aired earlier in this thread

 

[DrMadd]

It's just that the guy gets on my nerves. He's exactly the kind of person I railed about later on in this self-same thread.

Israel would be cool. Being of British Descent, I'm already Represented.

i am jewish and wud love to have the Israelites in the game.

The Trouble with them wanting a civ from West Africa is that West Africa had little in the way of lasting civilizations that were not, more or less Arabic in origin. That would be more absurd than you claim having two countries in Iberia is.

I agree that 50 civs is a good idea.

It is ridicoulous to have the Portugese as well as the Spanish, unless you happen to be Portuguese. Havng the Koreans in addition to the Japanese is also silly, unless you happen to be Korean.


Moderator Action: DrMadd, keep your ideas in one post when posting. This is the second time I am saying this to you. Double posts deleted and merged.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[frekk]

Cannibalism, like Slavery has near universal connotations.

I don't know about near universal, as there are many groups which never practiced either, but certainly both have global connotations since there is no region where somebody wasn't practicing them.

I think what should constitute a workable civ should be:

1. How much impact on history, global history did they have?
2. What is their legacy?

Sadly, this probably- And I say this with some reservation, that perhaps Mali belongs and the Zulu do not.

Hmmm .... I'm not sure if I agree entirely. To me it's the effect a civilization had on their region during their time period. There are many, many insignifigant civilizations which have had a major impact on global history and a definite legacy (eg, Moorish Spain) but were themselves too short-lived and too fragmented and not enough of a long-term presence in their region to qualify. Likewise there are several civilizations with no lasting impact on global history and no legacy to speak of which had a tremendous impact on their region in their time period (the Aztecs come to mind, for instance).

I think it comes down to relative factors: how widespread and powerful, or culturally advanced, was this group at this time period in their own particular region? Generally speaking this catches most of the groups which had a lasting impact because generally they were powerful or widespread or advanced in some way in their time period. Eg, the British Empire, Rome, Egypt, or Russia are all going to qualify here, but so will the Aztecs or other civilizations which achieved a high level of importance in their region up until the point they were erased. One of the attractions of civ is to play the civs that "didn't make it" and imagine a different course of history.

 

[DrMadd]

You cannot name a culture that has not enslaved others. But I agree about "What could have been" As an appeal of Civ.

 

[rhialto]

It is ridicoulous to have the Portugese as well as the Spanish, unless you happen to be Portuguese. Havng the Koreans in addition to the Japanese is also silly, unless you happen to be Korean.

You underestimate the size of the Korean market.

 

[evirus]

You underestimate the size of the Korean market.

quantity over quality (yah i know cheap shot... i had too)

the bottem line is, im sure if the civ games included nothing but these sub african nations people will come in here and say the exact same thing

 

[frekk]

You cannot name a culture that has not enslaved others.

Oh really? Tell me then, during what time period did the Beothuk or the Micmac keep slaves? Who was ever kept as a slave by Australian aboriginals? What was slavery like in the Indus civilization? There are *many* cultures for which there is no good evidence to assert that they ever had any institutions of slavery. You're guessing, because the simple fact is there is no documentation or evidence of slavery whatsoever among numerous cultures.

 

[Atrebates]

I assume the reference was to dominant civilisations the like of which are seen in civ. Although, to be fair, slavery was not seen in its true form (generally) in Europe after the Romans until the Africans started selling the their slaves to europeans.

 

[Carver]

I could respond to more but this really stands out:

>>How about Hausaland where democracy first began?<<

Cut with the revisionist history, already. Democracy began in Greece.

What is your definition of democracy and how can you be sure that it existed in Greece before anywhere else? The problem is that many people blindly adhere to the old Western line that there was no African world - no philosophical or cultural world. Democracy is a complex idea with different incarnations - institutionally and psychologicaly.

To simply state that democracy began at location x at time t is to completely underappreciate the concept. Since we know from Arrow's Theorem (for which he won the Nobel Prize) that stritly majoritarian democratic rule is mathematically impossible, what does "rule by the people" mean?

Unfortunately, most people in the US at least learned that democracy began in Greece and to suggest that some African barbarians were democratic is plain nonsense. Of course, most of these people can't give you a thoughtful exposition of the nature of democracy to begin with.

 

[frekk]

I assume the reference was to dominant civilisations the like of which are seen in civ. Although, to be fair, slavery was not seen in its true form (generally) in Europe after the Romans until the Africans started selling the their slaves to europeans.

Absolutely untrue ... slavery was practiced in Europe continuously until latter-day emancipation movements arose. However, there was a short period in which Europeans developed a strong prohibition against the enslavement of Christians, in reaction to Viking raids on Christian populations. So, good Christians took pagan Slavs as slaves instead. This happened towards the end of the Dark Ages and the dawn of the medieval period. Earlier, the fall of Rome actually greatly increased the number of slaves in Europe as a consequence of the barbarian migrations and the social collapse. Most of these were Christians with Christian slaves. In its waning days, Rome had been acting to reduce the numbers of slaves for a variety of reasons (primarily because the free citizen-farmer was a much better soldier than the conscripted slave, and the growth of slavery had greatly weakened Rome's power in the field). But the gradual collapse of the central authority in Rome created a situation in which there was no security in an increasingly hostile and disorderly environment, and the small freeholder sold himself out as a tenant-slave to the local dux or similar individual - the owner of a large slave-estate and a man with some powers of office in the local area even if the authority of Rome which granted them was largely notional. The dux, of course, had a body of guards, and could offer protection to the slave-tenant. Out of this evolved the manorial system of fiefs and serfs and later the feudal system of vassals, but in essence serfs derived from slaves, who derived from the free coloni farmers which could only flourish under the Pax Romana, until the time of the freeholder and Yeoman-type classes.

 

[frekk]

I could respond to more but this really stands out:



What is your definition of democracy and how can you be sure that it existed in Greece before anywhere else? The problem is that many people blindly adhere to the old Western line that there was no African world - no philosophical or cultural world. Democracy is a complex idea with different incarnations - institutionally and psychologicaly.

To simply state that democracy began at location x at time t is to completely underappreciate the concept. Since we know from Arrow's Theorem (for which he won the Nobel Prize) that stritly majoritarian democratic rule is mathematically impossible, what does "rule by the people" mean?

Unfortunately, most people in the US at least learned that democracy began in Greece and to suggest that some African barbarians were democratic is plain nonsense. Of course, most of these people can't give you a thoughtful exposition of the nature of democracy to begin with.

I pretty much agree here. Democratic types of organization were actually quite common in tribal civilizations of all kinds. The kind of democracy being practiced by "barbaric" Germanic and Celtic groups on the same continent as Greece was actually much more consistent with modern notions of democracy. Greek democracy was only for a small class of Athenian aristocrats, merchants, and landowners; the majority of the population were slaves. Whereas the "barbarians" simply gathered in a "moot" or a "thing" to discuss matters between all the tribal members, with any tribesman able to express himself and votes shown by display of arms (the Roman salute is said to much resemble a Germanic "vote").

Similarly, the absolutist monarchies, kings and queens ordained by hereditary Divine Right, who invaded and colonized the Americas and Africas encountered and destroyed numerous representative governments. In the American Northeast, natives were organized into great tribal confederacies such as the Iroquois, the Huron, and the Cherokee who were extremely democratic, although admittedly none of these were destroyed by a monarch. In Mexico, the Aztec (!) employed an Athenian style of democracy, with the "Revered Speaker" elected by the Aztec aristocrats, with strong input from the religious and merchant classes. Cortes and Diaz both specifically refer to their Tlaxcala allies as a "republic" and we know that the Tlaxcalan and Aztec political organization was more or less identical. Popular notions of historic "democracy" are Western-centric to a degree that is superlatively inane. I don't know as much about Africa but judging by tribal political culture elsewhere throughout history, including Europe, I would imagine many African groups were far more democratic than the states with advanced hierarchical institutions which conquered them.

The Greeks and the Romans both essentially developed from tribal backgrounds too, and the only reason we associate them with the development of democracy is because they meticulously recorded their histories and we have a very good understanding and many primary sources regarding their method of governing themselves, whereas the picture is much less clear for other groups who either didn't write or didn't have the same tradition of recording such things. A major difference between these literate democracies and tribal democracies, however, was that tribal democracies had no rule of law to govern their decisions, so the outcome of a decision was not bound by any sorts of rules. There was nothing to prevent a meeting from deciding to go rob Joe's house or set fire to Jim's crops.

 

[troytheface]

glad this thing still continues....it is clarifying me thoughts...
I suggest all this cannibilism talk-(it has reached the point where taboo and primitive fears come in) is pointing to something here.....
All this "information" The Celts were this and the Spanish did that ect" is probably not coming from any prime source. (No one here i suspect is translating ancient celtic texts eg) But even if they did it would go back further- ie. to the first oral "story". This being the case all the other "information" just procedes forward geared at a specific group-with its specific thinking style/method/delivery.
(and i will digress here and say that i bet each group's first story was something to the effect of "and our people in the center of the great whatever....")
A long way of coming to my answer to the question ...."Is Civ Racist?"
Yes.(even if there is a universal human truth its probably that humans are racist-a circular No)

 

[frekk]

All this "information" The Celts were this and the Spanish did that ect" is probably not coming from any prime source. (No one here i suspect is translating ancient celtic texts eg)

Actually, it is coming from primary sources. Roman (and to a lesser degree, Greek) accounts of the Celts are quite numerous and detailed. They are written about by everyone from Aristotle to Pliny to Julius Caesar. Not to mention that the Romans of northern Italy, in the Po River Valley, were themselves assimilated Cisalpine Gauls (Pliny was quite probably one, along with several other famous Roman figures).

 

[troytheface]

and then i am to believe that posters on here are reading ancient greek and latin?-and even if so writings by one cultural group about a different cultural group? and nothing is lost in these translations (and revisions of these-time's touches) or perceptions? Think your missing my point.
The primary story would be a vehicle for each Cultural group's preservation- all later information is simply geared to support that.

 

[Kyriakos]

there is no primary source about the celts if you mean a celtic text about them, for the simple reason that the celts didnt record their history. The ancient greek and roman sources are translated in many languages anyway. I suspect that the greek view of the celts would be that they were barbaric tribesmen though. At any rate the celt way of life would have seemed severely barbaric in relation to the greek and roman, since it appears that they didnt have any real social institutions, of the complexity of those other civs. In ancient Athens for example there were many different judicial bodies, a popular and a more senate-like one, apart from the political assembly. Also there was a tradition of law, organisation of trade, theatre, literature, philosophy, military theorism etc. The celts appear to have been backward and not to be going anywhere in terms of evolution.

 

[frekk]

there is no primary source about the celts if you mean a celtic text about them, for the simple reason that the celts didnt record their history.

There is an abundance of primary sources about the Celts. It doesn't have to be written by a Celt to be a primary source, it only needs to be written by a contemporary of the Celts. And there is plenty of that. Aside from that, you are factually incorrect. Celts in Gaul, the Alps, along the Danube and elsewhere, who became Hellenized, did, in fact, relate details about Celtic life which were recorded. People often forget that Rome was an assimilatory culture, which typically Hellenized inhabitants of the areas they came to rule rather than drive them out - such occasions were exceptions. At least a few of the Hellenized Celts became Roman historians or writers ... Tacitus may well have been a Gaul, and Ausonius was a Gaul without doubt. Some primary sources that you can find and read about Celts for yourself, include Cicero's Pro Fonteio (mostly an attack on the Druids I think), Caesar's de BalloGallico, the Bibliotheke of Diodorus, and Strabo's Geography.

I think you may be a bit confused about what a primary source is. Here is a good explanation.

http://www.library.auckland.ac.nz/subjects/hist/primsources.htm

I suspect that the greek view of the celts would be that they were barbaric tribesmen though.

Well, everyone who wasn't Greek was a barbaric tribesman (including the Etruscans, who were the precursors to Rome), with possibly the exception of a few groups like the Egyptians . But Greeks themselves were barbaric tribesman not too long before that. The Greeks of the Iliad and the Odyssey were likely less advanced than the Celts of the same time in several respects (particularly metallurgy).

At any rate the celt way of life would have seemed severely barbaric in relation to the greek and roman, since it appears that they didnt have any real social institutions, of the complexity of those other civs. In ancient Athens for example there were many different judicial bodies, a popular and a more senate-like one, apart from the political assembly.

Yes, but having lots of institutions doesn't make you more democratic than somebody else. The issue isn't whether Celts were less developed or not, we know that, the issue is whether Athens was the world's first democracy. Democracy isn't necessarily synonymous with having lots of social institutions, England had many more social institutions than the US just after the Revolution and yet was somewhat less democratic. Likewise, Rome certainly had far more social institutions than Greece, and again, was far less democratic. In any case, several Celtic nations outlasted the Romans to become far more advanced than Rome ever was. Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and - possibly - France, are all Celtic nations. Discounting France, Scotland has been enormously influential on world history - providing the elite foot soldiers of the British Empire and producing some of the greatest minds of that period, such as Adam Smith.

Also, you are factually incorrect. We know the ancient Celts had social institutions of varied kinds, though less developed than Classical institutions (but then again populations were smaller - there was no need for a village Senate or complex institutionalized hierarchies of social authority when you could operate a direct democracy of sorts). They seemed barbaric to the Greeks less because of their method of governing themselves and more because of their lifestyle, behaviour, and lack of urban communities.

Also there was a tradition of law, organisation of trade, theatre, literature, philosophy, military theorism etc. The celts appear to have been backward and not to be going anywhere in terms of evolution.

This is too generalized. Again, I remind you that the Greeks and Romans also evolved from simple tribal backgrounds with none of these features either. As did our own Western, technological societies which have far surpassed Classical achievements. The Germanic tribes were not exactly literary philosopher-geniuses, and yet they, along with the Norse and Hellenized Gauls, are the founders of modern Western civilization. That they were inspired by Roman achievements is irrelevant; Romans themselves were inspired by Greeks who were inspired by Egyptians and Phoenicians.

And again, you are not entirely factually correct. Celts did have some of these features. Trade was in fact highly organized, particularly across the English Channel. The Celtic capitol of the expansionist Catuvellani kingdom in Britain, at Camulodunum, had a mint which has been discovered (the coins, however, have been known for some time). This implies all sorts of things about social structures with respect to trade, law, and government in Celtic society which are not nearly so simple as you put it.

 

[frekk]

and then i am to believe that posters on here are reading ancient greek and latin?-and even if so writings by one cultural group about a different cultural group? and nothing is lost in these translations (and revisions of these-time's touches) or perceptions? Think your missing my point.

I see that you are entirely unfamiliar with the peer-review process that goes into modern translations. If translated Latin and Greek sources are not acceptable primary sources to you, then you have no basis to claim that the Romans or Greeks had any of the institutions or organizations which you've assigned to them unless you yourself are reading from the untranslated originals, since our knowledge of these comes directly from many of the same authors who recorded details about the Celts.

The primary story would be a vehicle for each Cultural group's preservation- all later information is simply geared to support that.

Primary story? Latin and Greek histories were not "stories" since Thucydides introduced the clinical and objective style of historical recording which supplanted Herodotus' mythologized style. I think you have the annalists and historians confused with modern journalists!

Not all history is based on written primary sources, either. Forensic archaeology has made some huge technological leaps and bounds in the last decade or so, particularly with the advent of genetic technologies.

 

[troytheface]

"Introduced Objective/ Clinical "- -ie ideas specific to that cultural group
I am not sure you understand what i am saying here-
Forensic and Archeological artifacts are indeed more concrete- but in no way definitive of much other than specific methods/ causes ect.

- in so far as "truth" of "story" - just can't buy it in its context and conclusions- not to say they are not right about certain things-
Those historians mentioned amped up enemy numbers in war ect. In other words -
Objectivity is impossible-but like truth a nice idea to target
The primary story-Genesis of the Tribe/Culture as told by that tribe/culture
which i suggest centers that group in the world.

 

[Kyriakos]

My goal was not to sound dismissive, although perhaps i sounded a bit like that. You are right about the primary resources, although it was pretty obvious what i meant with them, and therefore although being techinacally right this didnt in any way further your argument in essence, althogh i wasnt aware of books written by romanised celts one has to be at least sceptical about how a person who just had left a culture would tend to react towards it. At any rate thought no one can be entirely partial so i would think that you were partly correct.

I do not see however why after that you tried to claim that the celtic heritage had much to do with france, england etc, the "west" in general in becomming civilised/prosperous. It is indisputable that france england and germany in a way became the (ancient) Greece of the industrial era, as can be understood by reading any literary work of the 18th century-pre ww1 period. That they surpassed the ancient people is little surprise; their societies came almost 2000 years after them.