How about CIV stop being RACIST!!!

[mastertyguy]

Well, Ottomans fought in WW1.

 

[antonio]

WW1 I think you mean. WE have had the debate about african civs before and also they aren't not raccist for puting fewer African civs in.There not European (well they sort of are but you know what I mean) and they still put plenty of them in and middle eastern civs are also plentiful so calling them racist dosen't make much sense to me but hey.people have already pointed out the reasons for the inclusion of european civs so i wont go on about it again.

 

[antonio]

WW1 I think you mean. WE have had the debate about african civs before and also they aren't not raccist for puting fewer African civs in.There not European (well they sort of are but you know what I mean) and they still put plenty of them in and middle eastern civs are also plentiful so calling them racist dosen't make much sense to me but hey.people have already pointed out the reasons for the inclusion of european civs so i wont go on about it again.

 

[Crazy Eskimo]

Well, I'm all for more civs, so by all means, I would love to have more African civs in the game. I'm not really qualified to say which, but the more the merrier.

As for the Euro-centricity of the game, there's a reason for that (IMPORTANT NOTE: I am not saying that this is a good thing, but rather am pointing out why it likely happened the way it did). The reason is simple - which continent reached out to the others? Did the Incans send out explorers and colonize Ireland? Did the Ethopians conquer and subjugate the New World? Did the Chinese, vast as they were, have an empire on which the sun did not set?

Granted, the Europeans undertook this exploration with imperialistic ambitions that are hardly admirable. But, because of their imperialism, they reached out and made contact and had extended relations with nearly every region of the world. You can't say that for any other major region of the world. Were these relations amicable? Should we desire to emulate what they did? Hardly. But, because of them, we have global politics rather than several vaguely-connected spheres of regional politics. Thus, all understanding of world politics begins with Europoeans, since it is their exploration that began to knit the world together. Because any understanding of world politics begins with them, the civilization that affected them are going to be analyzed/included more than those that didn't.

Does this mean that non-Europeans didn't build tremendous civilizations that deserve to be included in Civ? Not at all. They obviously did. But, their civilizations didn't have as far reaching an impact as the Europeans did. The diplomatic manuevering between England, France, Portugal, Spain, etc. directly started wars and conflict on the other side of the world. As impressive as the culture of the Sub-Saharan empires were, can you say the same for them? For the Asian ones? For the American ones? That is why, when you think of empires that dominated the globe, you tend to think of European ones, and those that affected the Europeans.

Of course, all that said, do I want more non-European civs in the game? Of course! The more the merrier, and the European continent is tapped out, while other continents offer a wealth of possibilities. I'm not arguing the Euro-centricity is a good thing, merely that it is understandable how it came to be.

 

[Philips beard]

Are you kidding me? Of course the Zulus had to go, they where still living in the stone age in 1875!!!! I never played them, much because of that! Mali, Egypt, and Cartago, and perhaps Ethiopia are the greatest choices from Africa!

 

[Iovah]

The game is called "Civillization", and not "Imperialism." Just because European nations "reached out to others" first doesn't mean they are the premier civillizations. It just means they had the will and the means to travel further away. To me, it doesn't justify a Euro-centric game. These civillizations existed and dominated their region of the world. It just seems unbalanced that all the Civs are concentrated in one part of the map. While others inhabited and civillized (my definition of civillized being civic culture and life) other parts of the globe are ignored. It implies that their definition of "civillized" is "the ones who managed to expand the most and subjugate the most", but what about economics, technology, science, mathamatics, architecture, government, philosiphy, don't these things define civillization as well, and not just military expansion and exploration? Also, shouldn't the game more represent the spectrum of human experience and population in civillization, not representing the 15% of human civillization with 41% of the civillizations (and in ancient - medeival times more like 5 - 10%).

This is a game losely based upon history. History is the study of human experience, so why do we concentrate on one pocket of human experience more? Doesn't it imply that the experience of this region is more important than others because it managed to be the first to explore, expand, and subjugate other parts of the world? Does that define civillization and the success of a civillization?

That's what I'm kind of against, but from the way I'm talking, it might sound like I'm asking for the overhaul of the basis of the game; however, I'm merely asking for a more representational spread of the globe. Of course not all civillizations will be able to be represented, but perhaps even it out by getting rid of some European civillizations based on modern states and add in some others. I beleive Sub Saharan Africa, Austro-Asia, and South Asia are the the least represented. I also just think units should reflect the base civillization they are from instead of looking like Knights, Men-at-arms, and English Bowmen. Also, that the tech tree be designed to not necisarily follow the European model of development. I'm happy at the widder approach they have begun to take with the creation of Civ 4, but I just want them to widden it a little more in this aspect.

PS. Mali, Ghana, or Ehtiopians/Nubians should definately be put in there! Also, many I suggest the Mhunhumutapa Empire (aka Great Zimbabwe after their capital city. They were not the Zulu as the game suggest, they had an entirely different ethnicity (the Shona) and language and had several large advanced cities with lithic architecture since the 4th century A.D. They were not Bush warriors and tribal people of common conception of Africans. They were also not ever conquered by the Zulu, so I don't understand why in the Civs they listed Zimbabwe as one their cities.)

 

[Avayaman]

i voted a yes, but i don't think they're racist at all.

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

I don't think it is racism, just marketing. Most people buy the game have heard of the Western European civs, and Egypt, China, Japan, etc. However, the Zulu as the lone representative of sub-Saharan Africa...:thumbdown

I am glad that they got rid of the Zulu(altough I will miss Shaka and his constant threats), and replaced them with the Mali. It is a start, and a much better African civ. However, Africa is still underrepresented. They should at least add Ethiopia/Abyssinia in an expansion.

 

[GoodGame]

Part of the thing to realize about Europe is:

1. Thru waves of immigrants separated by 100's and 100's of years there, there really are different peoples---hence Celts and Franks. Thankfully there isn't Italians and Romans, Picts and England.

2. Europe is one of the wealthier and fertile places on the planet. Naturally that'll generate more nameable civ's to include in CIV.

Other than that I'd love 52 civs in the game as long as it ran fast on my system.

 

[pimpmastabola]

I want to respond to any dissent to my original post.
Racism by definition is the belief that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a of a particualr race (Websters 9th). With that being said the creators of the game presents that all civilized nations exsist outside sub-saharan African Nation that was not the "Zulu." If that does not present an inherent superiority of the European powers then i dont know what does. It is like saying "white man can't jump," in Civ's terms its, "Black man is inherently barbaric and foolish."

We all want more Civ's in the game, but my dissapointment is not in teh lack of Civ's but in the lack of representation of the Second Largest Continent. The most fertile and resource rich continent in the world, the continent in which humanity first began. Who cares Mughels, Tolmecs, and Finno-Ugarians they are all land running and civilized peoples but their constituancies are already well represented.
It has nothing to do with simply putting civilizations people know about in the game because the Empires of Ghana, Mali, Shona and Ethipia are all a lot more well known then the Hittites. And it has nothing to do with the amount of games their trying to sell, how many Arabs are buying the game, but there are tons of Arab civs. I'm sure people of African descent are buying the game.

To say that African civilizations did not influence the world to a great extent is just plain wrong. CULTURAL Almost every major modern music form stems from West African Music, Salsa, Jazz, Blues, R&B etc. Who did the teh imperealist powers bring along with them to teh new world when the colonized tens of millions of Africans bringing their cultures with them. What civilization was the first to cross the Atlantic and greet teh Olmec's the mother civilization of Mezo-America. Where was Iron first manufactured in the history of the world? It was the Africans who were able to faciliate the great gold trades throughout the sahara. While the celts were still living in caves and eating raw meat there were nations the likes of Ethiopia and Shona. The African influence on the world in undeniable.

I enjoy the game, but am disgusted that they will not give credence to any unmistakibly Negro civilizations.

It is no excuse that just because Westerners made the game, that they can justly ignore the rest of the world.


(Ethiopia is the longest continuous it had a govn't in exile during the brief Nazi invasion)
(Only a handful "Greek" scholars will deduce that Cleopatra is Macedonian, she was born in Alexandria)

 

[warpstorm]

Firaxis is including the Mali....read before ranting please.

 

[LouLong]

Why is it that the the the vast and diverse regions of sub-saharan Africa are characterized entirely by the Zulu. 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).
The Zulu!? Come on, they were only a minor factor for less a couple of scores.

If the creators of the game want to label the Celts (who have been called by traditional historians as "uncultured savages") and the Mongols (of which no historian would call and actual civilization) as civilizations then why not some Civilization.

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. If the Netherlands a region where region less then half the size of the state of Maine, then why not some African Civilizations. If the barbarian hordes from Scandavaia are a civilization then why not some African Civs.

How about teh Glorious empires, of Ghana, Mali and Songhai where the great Universities of Timbuktu flourished?
How about Hausaland where democracy first began?
How about Ethiopia the oldest continuous nation in the entire world, from Solomon to Haile Selassie to Today?
How about the Shona empire and its archectural and mettulurgic wonders in the Ancient World?

I hate to be the Angry Black Man, but come on.

You did not need to put in the last sentence. All that preceded showed you were black which is interesting since on the Internet, you usually don't see the person you are talking to.

And your behavior is quite racist IMHO but after all I am only white and educated so I probably won't have much right to speak...

- Zulus as a civ for Africa is actually a bad choice, most people agree about it and they were chosen probably because they are the most known of the black-African groups, in the West, whatever their historical importance and achievements may have been (apart from the military one). After all if such a game had been created in Africa, it would surely include much more African civs and much less in Europe.

- Hannibal black ? It is possible albeit very unlikely as descriptions of him don't make him look like a black and because he was of a important family in a Phoenician civilisation. It is very likely there were blacks in the Carthage empire but the dominant culture was definitely not from black Africa anyway.

- Cleopatra is extremely unlikely to be black as she was not Egyptian, neither was she Arab !!! She was Greek/Macedonian.

- Celts : barbarians ? In a way but they were extremely good in mettalurgy and their culture fertilized a very large part of Europe. They even threatened Rome which in turns shows that some civs were chosen not only for their very importance but because they were needed for scenarios (don't mix the 2 ideas please).

- Mongols : they succeeded in creating the largest empire on earth and made the police inside its borders. Don't get fooled by movie representations, Mongols may have had a small culture but they soon borrowed the ones of existing empires. In a way they even survived till the British conquest of India as the Moghols (and the Moghol art is far from being uncultured). Most people know about the Mongols while not many know about the African civs you mentionned. It is not white-racism as the Mongols are not even European !


- Mesopotamia is not a civ but an area where different groups contributed to to a sort of general culture but Sumerians and Hittites don't have much to do with one another. Sumerians probably originate from India while Hittites were Indo-Europeans. Hittites brought horses while Sumeria invented the phalanx. And I am not even daring to speak about the cultural inventions of Sumeria and of Babylonia (which I admit is close to Sumeria, as close as Mali is to Songhai)).

- The Dutch may be small but they have a quite important population. They have had a strong impact on trade, which explains their presence in a scenario (Age of Discovery). The Barbarian hordes from Scandinavia.... glad I am not from there as I would feel not slightly offended...

If you had just said other African civs would be nice I would have supported you, if only for the reason of spreading the civs. However you are just shouting and criticizing civs that you want to replace with your "own". And if only you were using educated arguments but no.... Reading your post makes me want to drop Mali (ok, just kidding). Everybody has reasons to want one civ to be included (ethnical background, religion, knwoledge of accomplishments of that civ,...). But that's what modding is for. Since Civ2 you can add the civs you want, just do it (I do it and I am a barbarian Celt so you definitely could ). You can give arguments in favor of your civ but criticizing (often wrongly) other civs won't lead you anywhere as most people here are usually quiet and think.

Now I could finish by saying African civs should have left more informations but that could only include Ethiopia and Nubia then some areas after the spread of Islam.
But I would say think less with your skin color and more with your brain (guess this one is neither black nor white).

 

[The_Architect]

The only reason why I would like to have more civs from Africa is that when playing the world map game, I like the nations to be in their places. And Africa being a very big continent with only 2 civs in civ 3, and Europe being a smaller continent, with sooooo many civs, and given the problem of "Big becomes bigger" in civ 3, the whole world history is screwed up with the Zulus eliminating the romans, and scaring the **** out of England andd France.

 

[The_Architect]

the four stars in my earlier post were not the big F word, they were the words starting with 's' and ending in 't' and with 'h' and 'i' in between.

Is that so bad a word?

Moderator Action: Yes.

 

[mastertyguy]

and scaring the **** out of England andd France.

They did in real history.
btw, there are at least 3 civ in Africa.

 

[ByzantineGreek]

More about Cleo

BTW-- Alexandria was a GREEK city. Alexander the Great built it and the largest population in it (at the time) were Greek/Macedonians! So please stop saying we're wrong about this.

 

[MonRiverMonarch]

Anyone with intelligence would acknowledge that Africa has contributed greatly to the culture around the world. I think the Zulu's were a great civ to represent Africa. Emperor Shaka was & still is considered one of the greatest military genius' of the world. He also had to be highly intelligent to create one of the largest empires in south Africa. If he hadn't been murdered, his empire may have continued intact to the present day.
My belief as a Christian tells me that life was created by our maker in that part of the world. Many religious scholars believe the Garden of Eden was in modern day Iraq or Iran. I understand racism, I'm white & my son is bi-racial. I teach him that racism does exist, but not to look for it in every event that happens. I also urge him to read more about all civilizations & cultures. Afterall, racism is based on fear. One thing I would suggest, people may take you more seriously if you didn't use a handle like Pimp Masta. Just a suggestion. Peace

 

[dalek master]

Like everyone else, I don't think its racism.
Like, where's Australia........
They may be quite a young nation, but they are still a large country today.
I made them for the civopedia and editor for Civ III, but there just isn't the proffesnialsim there. hopes for them in Civ4 or expanison!

 

[MonRiverMonarch]

Like, where's Australia........
They may be quite a young nation, but they are still a large country today.

Good Point. Australia is not only a country, but a whole Continent

 

[Crazy Eskimo]

The game is called "Civillization", and not "Imperialism."... more stuff... snip.

I'm not sure that we disagree all that much. Notice that I never said it was good thing, merely that I understand how it came to be and I think it was a natural progression. I certainly would like to see more African civs in the game, along with more victory conditions that emphasize cultural growth and scientific study that's not just for the sake of better military units. I think we would get a richer, deeper game for it.

That said, I'm not going to reply to most of your post, except for...

This is a game losely based upon history. History is the study of human experience, so why do we concentrate on one pocket of human experience more? Doesn't it imply that the experience of this region is more important than others because it managed to be the first to explore, expand, and subjugate other parts of the world? Does that define civillization and the success of a civillization?

If the one pocket was more influential than the other pockets, then yes, yes we do. Whose yolk did the US throw off? Who did the countries of South America declare their independence from? Who did Ghandi oust from India? Who set up colonies in Africa? Who divided the Middle East into it's present national delinations? The Europeans. It's impossible to understand how virtually any modern nation got to where it is today without touching on the Europeans. You can't say that about any other region. The Europeans exerted more control with longer lasting effects of more of the globe than any other region.

Does this mean they have more worth than other, less imperialistic civilizations? Not at all. But so far, military conquest has dominated the Civ series as a means to victory. As other, less-militaristic victory conditions gain more depth and greater predominance in Civ(as it looks like the Civ team is trying to do), it makes more sense to include more culturally/scientifically inclined civilizations. This will lead to a less Euro-centric civilization mix and greater depth of gameplay for us.

I want to respond to any dissent to my original post.
Racism by definition is the belief that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a of a particualr race (Websters 9th).

From dictionary.com:

"ethnocentric adj : centered on a specific ethnic group, usually one's own"

This seems to match your complaint far better than "racism". It's a subtle difference, but subtlety is important.

As the Zulus are a favorite civ of many players and rank higher than a number of European civs on many players' lists, it's hard to argue that Friaxis made them "inferior".

With that being said the creators of the game presents that all civilized nations exsist outside sub-saharan African Nation that was not the "Zulu." If that does not present an inherent superiority of the European powers then i dont know what does. It is like saying "white man can't jump," in Civ's terms its, "Black man is inherently barbaric and foolish."

Ummm... your muddled sentence structure took me a while to unravel. You might want to work on that.

I don't believe that Firaxis ever made the claim that ALL civilized nations are included in Civ. Just because those civilizations included are ALL major civilizations doesn't mean there weren't major civilizations that got left out of the game. Again, the subtle differences are important.

Without that premise, the rest of this particular point has nothing to stand on.

We all want more Civ's in the game, but my dissapointment is not in teh lack of Civ's but in the lack of representation of the Second Largest Continent. The most fertile and resource rich continent in the world, the continent in which humanity first began. Who cares Mughels, Tolmecs, and Finno-Ugarians they are all land running and civilized peoples but their constituancies are already well represented.

Then's lets kill two birds with one stone by adding more Civ's AND increasing the representation of African civs. Then everyone can be happy.

It has nothing to do with simply putting civilizations people know about in the game because the Empires of Ghana, Mali, Shona and Ethipia are all a lot more well known then the Hittites. And it has nothing to do with the amount of games their trying to sell, how many Arabs are buying the game, but there are tons of Arab civs. I'm sure people of African descent are buying the game.

I, too, thought the Hittites were an odd choice. But, outside of them, the Arab civilizations that are included (Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Ottomans, Arabs, Persians, etc.) tend to be covered in a Euro-centric curriculum due to their geographic proximity and influence on Europe. Thus, it does come back to putting civilizations that the Western audience is going to recognize.

Now, is this a good thing that we should seek to continue in the future? No. See above advice about killing two birds.

To say that African civilizations did not influence the world to a great extent is just plain wrong. CULTURAL Almost every major modern music form stems from West African Music, Salsa, Jazz, Blues, R&B etc.

First, no one is saying Africa did not have influence. We're just saying that Europe had more.

Second, your list of modern music seems rather short. While I enjoy listening to the genres you mentioned, they don't make up even 10% of my normal listening choices.

Who did the teh imperealist powers bring along with them to teh new world when the colonized tens of millions of Africans bringing their cultures with them.

Perhaps it's not tactful to point out that your claim to fame here is dependent upon the very cultures you're belittling, but I'm going to anyway. Without the imperialist powers, these Africans wouldn't have been brought over, so even here, you can't escape the European influence. Or did an African civilization mastermind this?

Yeah, the Africans brought some of their culture with them, but so did the Europeans and the Europeans were in power. Being a source of slave labor is hardly an argument for an impressive civilization. I found the other ones that have been made (Timbuktu as a thriving intellectual center, etc.) more compelling.

What civilization was the first to cross the Atlantic and greet teh Olmec's the mother civilization of Mezo-America.

What languages are currently spoken in the "New World"? Predominately English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese. All European languages. Even taking your claim at face value and assuming its true, it's not hard to argue that Europeans had a far more longlasting impact on North and South America than African civilizations.

The African influence on the world in undeniable.

I'm not trying to deny. I'm just pointing out that Europe's influence is far more apparent and noticable. Hence their greater inclusion in the game, especially a game that's heavily weighted towards military victory and expansion.

I enjoy the game, but am disgusted that they will not give credence to any unmistakibly Negro civilizations.

It is no excuse that just because Westerners made the game, that they can justly ignore the rest of the world.

Uh... it's their game. They can do what they want with it, just as you can choose not to buy it if it really offends you so deeply. They don't owe anybody anything.

Second, I don't think they consciously set out to exclude African cultures and civilizations. I think they just set out to make the best game they could. Are they perfect? No. Did they include everything that we might want? No. Does it mean there's a big conspiracy designed to keep the black man out? No. They went with what civilizations they were familiar with and they felt their target market would be familiar with. Where's the harm in that? Sure, the game would be deeper and more fun with more African civilizations, but that lack of a positive benefit doesn't make them evil or disgusting.

And please understand what I'm trying to say here. I'm not disagreeing with you that adding more African civilizations would make the game much better. What I'm objecting to is your Chicken-Little mentality that there is something very wrong here. Rather than making a rational appeal on the merits of the civilizations you want to see included in the game (as many others have), you bring in emotionally charged subjects like racism and allege a type of oppression that paints Sid Meier to look like David Duke.

I think what you want to see in the game is a good thing and a positive step for Civ. I don't think your method of arguing for it is beneficial though.