How about CIV stop being RACIST!!!

[Colonel]

Though this post will evitably either be ignored or piss off some, I think its necessary. This games main market is for people living in either Europe or America so you will see a Euro-centric base, focusing mostly on how the devolpement of Europe went. Think about most of the civs in the game are European and the Civs that arent for the most part were a major factor in European affairs at some point in history. One must face the fact that if there was a major gaming industry in Southern Africa that made a civ like game, practically every tribe would get a civ in the game and only England, France, and maybe two other European civs, mostly the ones that colinized Africa. Same goes for the rest of the world. It is simple enough, the devolpers will include such things(ie. Techs, Civs, Units, etc) based on what their consumer base is familar with. So complaining about it will not change it really, a company does what ever is in its best intrest.

 

[MonRiverMonarch]

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.

I forgot to mention, there are three civs from Africa: Zulu, Egypt & Tunisia (Carthage). Plus you can pick Mali in the new version.

 

[warpstorm]

I, too, thought the Hittites were an odd choice.

The Hittites were added because they were needed for the Mseopotamia Conquest. Since we already created the artwork, it wasn't hard to add them to the epic game.

 

[Xen]

As a general tiff, I hate it when people portray Carthage as a "black" power; the berbers, that is to say the natives of North africa are caucasian in ethnicty 9and for that matter, so are the arabs) and the Carthaginains were descended from Middle eastern colonists besides.

but what really gets on my nerves is when Afro-centrist revisionists begin spuoting pure crap about a "Black Carthage" when in reality, the Carthagians oppressed the native people of North Africa to the point where they readilly accepted the Romans as Rulers and allys, because Rome treated you on basis of "if you treat us good, we'll treat you good" princicple; where as Carthage oppressed the native populace of Lybia and Numidia.

 

[Himalia]

I dont think there was any racisem intended by the lack of African countries in the game. I would certainly like to see more added tho, but that also goes for the rest of the world. Australia seems to be lacking abit dont you think ? Im hoping that they add a truely enormoues map of Earth on Civ 4 which would allow for alot more player (more than the current 32) and would be large enough to support for example all of Europe without the countries being so near to each other it would be unbearably crowded.

 

[LouLong]

@ Crazy Eskimo : very nice post. And very articulate ! Feel like he is not worth the answer but anybody with a sound mind should understand after reading your post.

 

[Dudedudeyo]

They could add Shonail but if they did that i would want Moroco in too. Down
with Shonail.

 

[madviking]

Not Morraco, Bedouins or Berbers

 

[Vilati Timmadar]

Allright guys, we'd all like to see our like corner of the world as a great Empire in Civ4...

But let's get focused:

The choices for the civ's in Civ1-3 are simple: (1) Dominating impact on other civs and (2) presence in an era.

(1) Meaning: A civ is not included when it didn't have any effect on other civs. Just pick a few: America, Rome, Germany, China.
America: American Power since the early 19th century, dominating power since 1945. Nobody can deny its dominating effect on the world, if you like it or not.

Rome: Dominating power in Europe during the ancient age. Influence in Africa and Asia.

Germany: Germanic tribes destroyed Rome. Pre-German nations had average influence in Europe during the middle ages. Prussia became a major power in 1763 (after the 7-year-war) and Germany became a major industrial power between 1871 and 1945. Germany started two world wars...

China: A continued history of 5000 years. Dominating power in Asia for most of that time. Explorer reached out to East Africa, India, Middle East. Great scientific achievements that spread throughout the world (like gunpowder).

(2) Presence in an era: Meaning that this particular civ had an impact in an era. Take four others: Mongols, Sumerians, Celts, Netherlands.

Mongols: Conquered nearly everything between Hungary and Vietnam during the middle ages. Greatest empire in world history. Presence: Middle ages. Pre-mongols were the huns who attacked China during 200 BC and 20 AD and Rome in 450 AD.

Sumerians: First people to develop writing, monarchy, administration, cities combined. Great impact on middle east-nations which were the first civilizations on this world (Ubaid-culture being pre-sumerian, 6000 BC).

Celts: Dominated western and southern Europe in the ancient age, pre-roman time. Fought them (Rome) more than 500 years, Scotland and Ireland were never conquered.

Netherlands: First nation in Europe to have big trade cities. More or less developers of capitalism. Also: Many colonies, including some in America (New York was once known as New Amsterdam).


So - I have no problem with 400 civs in Civ4. But can REALLY say, that a very important civ was just ignored in the civ's before? I'm interested in history, modern and ancient, but I think that the civ-designers made an acceptable compromise in their choices.

 

[Azash]

Mongols, (you could possibly ass the Persians and Ottomans here as they originated here and moved West)

I hope you meant "add".

 

[GoodGame]

On one hand, the Zulu's really piqued the English, simply for not needing fire-arms to be effective.

Shaka Zulu was also a bit of an enigmatic person, not just a typical petty tyrant.

Realistically, they're late 19th C. people at about "Ancient" level technology.

I don't mind them, since West, East, and South Africa should be represented, but most of prominent civ's are from East and West.

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

 

[UNAI]

I am not racist at all but to describe Hannibal as a black guy is false. Carthaginians came from current Libano, they were Phoenicians.

 

[Ahasuerus]

Civilization concentrates on technological advances, big wars, diplomacy and trade. Can we be honest with and say that African civs didn't really break any new ground here? If you want more African civs included, going down that road isn't going to get you anywhere.

I'd focus on more of the "Put them in there just for the sheer historical diversity" factor. ie, Zulus conquering German, and so on.

 

[Fer de Lance]

so the general consensus here is that the last 400 years of history are more important than the last 4500 - 5000 years and because of that, European culture, which rose to the top only recently by standing on the backs of everyone else both literally and figuratively, is the most influential, important and deserves to be overrepresented in the game. And influential I mean influential now, since those 5000 years of history mean absolutely nothing. Yup, racism, ethnocentralism, culturalism or whatever you want to call it is dead. Everyone's equal.

And for anyone saying Africa made no contribution historically, try getting your history from something other than your high school 'World History' book. You might learn something

 

[WilliamOfOrange]

Guys, it's just a game. A game with an editor. I think not enough First Peoples in North America are in the game either. I think playing as the Greeks or Babylonians and running into the Americans is stupid. Sure, there is some politics involved and the question of sales, but I feel Crazy Eskimo summed it up nicely. History does have a tendency to be written by the winners, and some choices for civs in the game although seem dubious to some, for the most part make sense. I consider most Civ players to be above average intelligence and having an appreciation for history and culture and so on, but I can't honestly see people playing as a civ they have not heard of regardless of how impressive their culture is/was.

 

[azzaman333]

On one hand, the Zulu's really piqued the English, simply for not needing fire-arms to be effective.

Shaka Zulu was also a bit of an enigmatic person, not just a typical petty tyrant.

Realistically, they're late 19th C. people at about "Ancient" level technology.

I don't mind them, since West, East, and South Africa should be represented, but most of prominent civ's are from East and West.

Europe was filled with civs that traded secrets with each other. Europe was also filled with civs that competed with each other for better weapons, boats, armor etc. Europe had many more civs in less space than Africa, America and Australia. When Europe ran out off space, civs in Europe started looking for other places to settle. How many more European civs could be added if the people at firaxis tried. Civ isn't racist. European civs are included more because you can find more civs in Europe

 

[HamaticBabylon]

Kush (industrious & Religious)
Abyssinia (Religious & Commercial)
Moors (Expansionist & Religious)
Mali (Scientific & Religious)

Those civ should be included in Civ4, if not i will add them myself the editor!

 

[mastertyguy]

Mali IS included in civ4 #1, hamatic.

 

[Holistic]

The concept of goody huts always seemed a lot more 'racist' than the choice of tribes to me. A technologically superior tribe gifts yours a technology upon encounter with your military units, only to subsequently vanish? Although possibly far-fetched and probably unintentional, it could be interpreted as a genocide of sorts (which of course would be quite historical). Also, there's always seemed to be a lot "virgin soil" to settle in Civ -- which would not have been the case on many places on Earth even by 4000 BCE.

Since it's a game loosely based on a Western perspective on history, and since I'd rather think of the 'culture-groups' as civilizations, I don't really mind the Euro-centric choice of tribes. As long as there's a variety of 'culture-groups', anyway.

 

[mastertyguy]

If you want, don't call them goody huts, call them goodies! They don,t vanish, they just can't give things to anybody. But I agree they should stay, be minor civs.