How about CIV stop being RACIST!!!

[DonStamos]

What's with the argument over whether Britain had a larger empire than the Mongols?

Sure Britain had a larger empire....

But the Mongols controlled the largest continuous land empire in the history of the world

Hopefully that stops the argument

 

[Legionary37]

Yes, that is true.

I think this thread has pretty much run it's course. I'd say the original topic is dead.

 

[Nyvin]

Spain are in the game though, so what's the damn problem?

http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/aencmed/targets/maps/mhi/T012876A.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5b/Spain_empire.gif

Enough said really...

Those two maps are very biased. They show canada being 'completely' controled by the brittish, while it wasn't...just the same as the 'whole' amazon rainforest wasn't controlled by the spainish. They also show austrailia as being 'totally' controlled, while it wasn't. But for spain, florida 'isn't' shown being 'completely' controlled. Either do it one way, or do it the other, don't try to skew it all in britain's favor.

Also at times Spain did have african possessions. Also Portugal and spain were once one country. And the maps don't show spain's holdings west of the mississippi river, which they got after the seven years war.

 

[K.F. Huszár]

Hannibal was not black and Carthagians were also not. They were "brown" or "brown-white": mediterranian people. The original inhabitants of North Africa were ancient berbers who are rather belonging to the Aryan (Indo-European) anthropoligical group.

Not including "black" civs is not rascism.
But black civs were surely less important to the ENTIRE history than Asian and European civs.
Might be painful, BUT mainstream history happened in Europe, Asia, North Africa (and some coasts of Africa) and later in America.
That's it, bye.

 

[K.F. Huszár]

anyaway, some one or two more African civs should be included.

 

[Robi D]

Civ is not racist, this is a simple case of a thing called marketing. The civs they choose to include in the game are there for two main reasons.
1) They have a big market in that country/region (english people like to play as the english ect.)
2) The civs are well known in these markets ( like the zulus mongols ect)

As an example in the other game i love to play, champoinship manager, they included leagues that you can play from india, singapore, hong kong, but in sth. america, a strong football (soccer) continent they have only 2, brazil and argentina. Where's the logic in that, what have india, singapore or hong kong accomplished in football that warrants their inclusion above colombia, uruguay (who have 2 WC), chile ect. The answer is nothing, but they sell a hell of a lot more games in s.e asia then they do in south america.

Civ, cm and other games don't operate in a vacuum, its a very competative market, so they have to look for every edge they can find over other games so people will buy their game and not another one, and if it means including the dutch or koreans before an african civ, then so be it, because at the end of the day they have to make money on their investment. If you want to blame something for the lack of african civs, then blame the education system in western countries (i'm speaking generaly since i don't know for sure but from what i know the uk, us ect. are similar to aust. in this respect) in that they don't teach much about african history or africa generally, most of the teaching is around western history in europe and nth. america. Have you noticed apart from the russians there are no civs from eastern europe, why? same thing as with africa, its not a big market, and the people in the big markets don't know much about the history of the countries there, so there isn't the appeal to buy the game to play those civs. The only way you will get more civs from africa in the game is if africa becomes a big market for computer games or you change the way history is taught in the countries that have a big computer games market.

 

[Ghafhi]

The fact of the matter is that "civilization" as we know it generally started in the middle east (as well as China and India) and moved northwest from there. The absence of African and Southeast Asian civilizations is mostly due to the fact that the great civilizations simply didn't originate there. There are some notable exceptions, many of which have been previously named here, but for the most part, the lack of their representation in Civ can be attributed to the same reasons we're writing in English and not a Bantu dialect- lack of resources in subsaharan Africa coupled with a glut of resources in Europe.

Certainly, however, I think we can acknowledge that there is little need for the copycat Euro tribes running around in Civ3. I, for one, almost never play Earth-based maps, and part of my interest is seeing tribes that might have been, perhaps on an alternate world with a better starting location. There's quite a bit of tension in this thread, but I think most people agree that Civ needs to include tribes like the Malinese. I don't really understand what the squabling is about, other than over some historical details.

If it makes you feel any better, the Egyptians can be considered both an African and Mediterraean tribe, their in-game representation as the Ptolmaeic version of themselves is poorly founded. They're golden era was long before the reign of Cleo, and I expect to see an earlier figure as their second leader.

I guess alot of this all depends on what you consider a great civilization to be and how we want to measure them. None the less there seems to be no clear balance or method on selecting civs. I'd also disagree on where you believe civlizations started. It appears that the good civilzations are all just outside the mid-east for most of history. Persia to the north, egypt and ethiopians to the south, greeks to the west and the chinese in the east. I don't think there is any mid-east civlizations other than arabs spreading Islam that were really all that significant. I'm sure some one will try to tell me that people from persia/iran are mid-easterns and I will laugh at your ignorance because persians mostly don't speak arabic the binding amoung all mid-easterns.

 

[Belcarius]

Thats the stupidest thing posted in this entire forum. Ask any Siclian or maltese person what race hannibal was.

No, this is the stupidest thing ever posted in this entire forum:

"The monkeys have taken over the briefcase. Luckily my phone cord is attached to a laser cannon so I will be able to reach Timbuktu in time for the football game. Unless there is a freak storm of salmon puffs."

 

[frekk]

The Carthaginians were ethnically Phoenician, a Semitic people. Hannibal was not black - I don't care what the Sicilians think, they weren't there. We have dozens of primary source descriptions of Hannibal, which indicate he was a typical Carthaginian, with perhaps some Berber blood (as many Carthaginians had by that time due to interbreeding with the inhabitants of North Africa).

Not every historical figure to come out of Africa was black, whatever revisionists might try to manufacture. The northern part of Africa fell within the Meditteranean sphere, and the navally inclined peoples - such as the Phoenicians - had profound influence along the north African coast. Blacks in ancient times were typically found in the sub-Saharan regions, with the exception of parts of East Africa but never populated much further north than Nubia until the Egyptians annexed that territory. We have vivid descriptions of the early Egyptians describing people of black skin in their far southern periphery as if it were something remarkable to them.

As for including more African civs, thats what mods are for. Nobody is ever happy with the picks that they make, I'd like to see Toltecs, Moundbuilders and a bunch of others in the game, but there are finite limits and they go with what civilizations are most well-known. It seems a reasonable approach to me. Just out of Mexico and Central America alone one could come up with 30 or 40 reasonable inclusions (eg, Aztecs, Toltecs, Mayapan, Olmec, Mixtec, Zapotec, Chichimec, Teotihuacan, Huastec, Tarascan, Totonac, Puuc, Kiche, etc etc etc as well as literally hundreds of small kingdoms) in the game, so obviously things have to be left out.

 

[warpstorm]

Considering the faces on Carthaginian coins from the era, we do know more or less what a typical Carthiginian of the era looks like (some of them even supposedly show him).

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/047.jpg

I hear rumors that they are going to have Vin Diesel play Hannibal in a movie next year.

 

[Ghafhi]

The Carthaginians were ethnically Phoenician, a Semitic people. Hannibal was not black - I don't care what the Sicilians think, they weren't there. We have dozens of primary source descriptions of Hannibal, which indicate he was a typical Carthaginian, with perhaps some Berber blood (as many Carthaginians had by that time due to interbreeding with the inhabitants of North Africa).

Not every historical figure to come out of Africa was black, whatever revisionists might try to manufacture. The northern part of Africa fell within the Meditteranean sphere, and the navally inclined peoples - such as the Phoenicians - had profound influence along the north African coast. Blacks in ancient times were typically found in the sub-Saharan regions, with the exception of parts of East Africa but never populated much further north than Nubia until the Egyptians annexed that territory. We have vivid descriptions of the early Egyptians describing people of black skin in their far southern periphery as if it were something remarkable to them.

As for including more African civs, thats what mods are for. Nobody is ever happy with the picks that they make, I'd like to see Toltecs, Moundbuilders and a bunch of others in the game, but there are finite limits and they go with what civilizations are most well-known. It seems a reasonable approach to me. Just out of Mexico and Central America alone one could come up with 30 or 40 reasonable inclusions (eg, Aztecs, Toltecs, Mayapan, Olmec, Mixtec, Zapotec, Chichimec, Teotihuacan, Huastec, Tarascan, Totonac, Puuc, Kiche, etc etc etc as well as literally hundreds of small kingdoms) in the game, so obviously things have to be left out.

You clearly know nothing about carthgians or phoencians or African history. Carthgians weren't phoencians also phoencians is not a race or an ethnic group it was simply a culture. There were mediterrainin phoencians and black phoencians. If you knew anything about phoencian history you would know that most of the strong phoencian cities were in ancient africa with the exception of Sidon (Ancient africa includes modern israel,lebanon, Iraq, parts of jordan and some other countries i'm to lazy to name right now). The point is phoencians trace their orgins to no one race. You would also know that north africa was a colony of phoencia not a part of the empire. I really don't care what race you want to call the phoencians because they were like the romans and had many people of different races living in their empire. 'don't care what the Sicilians think, they weren't there"
This shows your ignorance http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0849868.html
Yes they were.
If hannibal was a typical carthgian then he was black.
"Not every historical figure to come out of Africa was black"
Not every historical figure to come out of Europe was white and Not every historical figure to come out of Asia was asian. Whats your point. Yet I don't know any historically signifcant non-black africans. Maybe you would like to give an example.
"The northern part of Africa fell within the Meditteranean sphere"
The southerm part of Europe fell within the Meditteranean sphere doesn't make them black or mid-eastern.
"the navally inclined peoples - such as the Phoenicians"
The ethiopians were more navally inclined than any other civlization until the age of discovery. I'm sure there is probably a civlization in the americas that had better boats or whatever but I have yet to find a nation that had the seafaring abilities of the ethiopians until europeans started to go around the world in the 1400 and there after.
"Blacks in ancient times were typically found in the sub-Saharan regions, with the exception of parts of East Africa but never populated much further north than Nubia until the Egyptians annexed that territory"
Then you know little of african history and olmec history. You also know little of ancient africa and libyan civlizations.
"We have vivid descriptions of the early Egyptians describing people of black skin in their far southern periphery as if it were something remarkable to them"
Whose we. I find nothing to suggest that the early egyptians were not black. It appears to me that the early egyptians were black and later on mixed with non-black peoples who beat them war or were in the area like greeks, romans, turks and persians. Most egyptians i ask tell me they are a mixture of black and turk but that what they tell me. Also the earlier statues have african figures that is why napolean blew the nose of the sphinx. Well maybe you think all egyptians are mid-eastern but Nas(black egyptian rapper) doesn't think he is white or whatever race you are claiming he is. The point is egyptians are a mixture of race. I still don't see what the big deal is of having one more african civ.

 

[warpstorm]

Sorry, Ghafhi, but the "fact" that Nappy had anything to do witht he SPhinx's nose is just urban legend.

Frederick Lewis Norden, an artist and marine architect, sketched the Sphinx in 1737. His detailed drawings, published in 1755, were more realistic and showed the Sphinx with no nose. It is very unlikely that Norden would omit the nose if it was present. We can conclude that the nose was gone by 1737 at the latest; thus its removal can not be blamed on Napoleon's troops, who visited more than 50 years later.

 

[Kyriakos]

You clearly know nothing about carthgians or phoencians or African history. Carthgians weren't phoencians also phoencians is not a race or an ethnic group it was simply a culture. There were mediterrainin phoencians and black phoencians. If you knew anything about phoencian history you would know that most of the strong phoencian cities were in ancient africa with the exception of Sidon (Ancient africa includes modern israel,lebanon, Iraq, parts of jordan and some other countries i'm to lazy to name right now). The point is phoencians trace their orgins to no one race. You would also know that north africa was a colony of phoencia not a part of the empire. I really don't care what race you want to call the phoencians because they were like the romans and had many people of different races living in their empire. 'don't care what the Sicilians think, they weren't there"
This shows your ignorance http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0849868.html
Yes they were.
If hannibal was a typical carthgian then he was black.
"Not every historical figure to come out of Africa was black"
Not every historical figure to come out of Europe was white and Not every historical figure to come out of Asia was asian. Whats your point. Yet I don't know any historically signifcant non-black africans. Maybe you would like to give an example.
"The northern part of Africa fell within the Meditteranean sphere"
The southerm part of Europe fell within the Meditteranean sphere doesn't make them black or mid-eastern.
"the navally inclined peoples - such as the Phoenicians"
The ethiopians were more navally inclined than any other civlization until the age of discovery. I'm sure there is probably a civlization in the americas that had better boats or whatever but I have yet to find a nation that had the seafaring abilities of the ethiopians until europeans started to go around the world in the 1400 and there after.
"Blacks in ancient times were typically found in the sub-Saharan regions, with the exception of parts of East Africa but never populated much further north than Nubia until the Egyptians annexed that territory"
Then you know little of african history and olmec history. You also know little of ancient africa and libyan civlizations.
"We have vivid descriptions of the early Egyptians describing people of black skin in their far southern periphery as if it were something remarkable to them"
Whose we. I find nothing to suggest that the early egyptians were not black. It appears to me that the early egyptians were black and later on mixed with non-black peoples who beat them war or were in the area like greeks, romans, turks and persians. Most egyptians i ask tell me they are a mixture of black and turk but that what they tell me. Also the earlier statues have african figures that is why napolean blew the nose of the sphinx. Well maybe you think all egyptians are mid-eastern but Nas(black egyptian rapper) doesn't think he is white or whatever race you are claiming he is. The point is egyptians are a mixture of race. I still don't see what the big deal is of having one more african civ.

how old are you?
you say some things which would seem clearly wrong to most people.


-"Ancient africa includes modern israel,lebanon, Iraq, parts of jordan and some other countries i'm to lazy to name right now". Africa doesnt include anything outside the continent known as Africa. There is no difference as far the borders of the continent are the matter, between ancient, modern or future Africa, or any other of the continents, and, ofcourse, isreal, lebanon, iraq, jordan were never part of the african continent. It would be like saying that canada was once part of the british islands, since it was under british control And moreover- not that ti matters- ancient egypt (perhaps you are confusing egypt with africa) once did control some parts of the middle east, but under the ptolemaic dynasty it also controlled Crete, would that make Crete part of africa as well? Or would ptolemaic egypt stop being in africa since at the time it was run by non-africans? As you see yourself such arguments are simply irrational.

-"It appears to me that the early egyptians were black and later on mixed with non-black peoples who beat them war or were in the area like greeks, romans, turks and persians". What do you mean "it appears to me"? This isnt an argument. The noses of the egyptians in the drawings dont look nubian at any rate, if that was what you were getting at; as you know nubians have very fat and pressed towards the rest of the face, short noses.

- "Well maybe you think all egyptians are mid-eastern but Nas(black egyptian rapper) doesn't think he is white or whatever race you are claiming he is"
I dont know Nas, but why do you regard him as an authority on anything? It would be equally wrong for a white person to regard a white popular musician as an authority on history, clearly such a view would be wrong and nothing less than that.

In my view it doesnt matter much how cultured or not subsaharan africa was. Clearly not all civilizations were of the same global importance, but you, I, or anyone else, is NOT their civilization, but a person, and it is a very bad idea to try to compete with others using your cultural background, since in that way you will not fail to diminish yourself froma a human being to a mere flag-bearer of a culture. Besides cultures arent limited to any one person's understanding of them, so you arent a representative of "african" culture, but simply of your own notion of it.

 

[Invisible Rhino]

Civ isn't racist, racit would be if the civs of a certain "race" were superior to the civs of another "race." That isn't the case (well, it was in Civ3 but that I think we can all agree the Zulus getting lousy traits was independent of their skin color) Civ DOES need to be less euro-centric it is true. However, as the majority of responses on this forum show, most of Civs fans are very eurocentric and historically ignorant people.

The Mongols weren't a civilization? That's one of the most pathetic and oft-repeated pieces of garbage I've heard on this forum. And its an example of too many people considering their high school history texts or the internet (which are on about the same level when it comes to historical fact) too seriously. I've heard people say the Mongols "gave up their culutre" and then when I ask them too give me an example of a Mongol who gave up their culture they become logical merry-go-rounds ("well I've never heard of it so it must have not existed" and "I read it on a webstie once" and "I never met a Mongolian person" and other such garbage).

As sad as it is, there are a lot of children who play games like civilization and take it as a legitimate historical authority, mostly because they don't ever read anything else about history. In that light I think the game does have a certain responsibilty to attempt accuracy, especailly as they are using the names of peoples who are still around for the most part. On the other hand, I've never understood the human obsession with putting people into groups and trying to argue that one person was one race or not. This whole tiff about Cleopatra being Greek or Hannibal being black, Semitic vs. Caucasian....honestly who cares? Their significance in history has nothing to do with the color of their skin, and biologically race theory was disproved decades ago, I don't understand why the humanities can't catch up. I'm not talking about the role ethnicity plays in social interactions, I'm talking about the attempt to decide whether or not a certain historical figure was a certain category that meant nothing to them at the time.

Furthermore, history itself is incredibly euro-centric at this point in time. This is mostly due to most "intellectuals" only knowing one langauge. Vast histories have been written of many parts of the world that will probaly never be published in English simply becasue nobody considers translating the texts to be worthwhile. Until that changes I don't think that games that reflect history will either. I mean I think they put every single European civilization they could think of in Civ 3, and only had on sub-Saharan African civilization.

I would be thrilled to see a hundred civilizations in the game. Anyone who has studied history knows that attempting to put the groups of people who have made a difference on a short list is ludicrous.

 

[Superkrest]

wow..very well stated. hats off to you

 

[doronron]

Ghahfi, Hannibal was never black, no matter how many revisionists try to claim he was.

I refer to this website:

http://www.livius.org/ha-hd/hannibal/hannibal.html

Notice the coin. This is clearly not a black profile.

As for Carthage not being Phoenician:

http://www.livius.org/cao-caz/carthage/carthage.html

This helps clearly show the origins of Carthage.

And Phoenicia itself:

http://www.cedarland.org/phoenicia.html

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/P/Phoenici.asp

http://ancientneareast.tripod.com/Phoenicia.html

They clearly show the Phoenician empire began in Lebanon, and that the ancient people were Canaanite, or Syrian. These also show that the Phoenicians were Middle Eastern, not Black African.

As for Hannibal being of possible Berber decent, well let's look at a famous modern Berber, the former president of Algieria, Liamine Zeroual, is of Berber decent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Liamine_zeroual.jpg

As one will readily see, this man is not black.

Additional primary source proof that Hannibal is not of Subsaharan African decent:

http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/carthage-coin-hannibal.htm

Not black.

Other coins from Carthage:

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/015.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/018.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/023.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/024.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/028.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/030.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/031.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/032.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/038.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/039.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/050.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/051.jpg

Still not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/058.jpg

She's not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/059.jpg

She isn't black either.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/060.jpg

Also not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/061.jpg

Nope.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/062.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/063.jpg

Not here either.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/064.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/065.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/071.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/072.jpg

Also not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/073.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/074.jpg

Not black.

http://ancient-coins.com/articles/carthage/075.jpg

Not black.

If Carthage was a great black empire, surely their coinage would reflect that, right?

Additional primary source proof that Hannibal is not of Subsaharan African decent.

A coin:

http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/carthage-coin-hannibal.htm

A bust:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/2100/images/gallery/hannibal02.jpg

Another bust:

http://i-cias.com/e.o/hannibal.htm

Hannibal was not black. The Carthagenians were Phoenician. The Phoenicians came from the Middle East.

 

[Ghafhi]

how old are you?
you say some things which would seem clearly wrong to most people.


-"Ancient africa includes modern israel,lebanon, Iraq, parts of jordan and some other countries i'm to lazy to name right now". Africa doesnt include anything outside the continent known as Africa. There is no difference as far the borders of the continent are the matter, between ancient, modern or future Africa, or any other of the continents, and, ofcourse, isreal, lebanon, iraq, jordan were never part of the african continent. It would be like saying that canada was once part of the british islands, since it was under british control And moreover- not that ti matters- ancient egypt (perhaps you are confusing egypt with africa) once did control some parts of the middle east, but under the ptolemaic dynasty it also controlled Crete, would that make Crete part of africa as well? Or would ptolemaic egypt stop being in africa since at the time it was run by non-africans? As you see yourself such arguments are simply irrational.

-"It appears to me that the early egyptians were black and later on mixed with non-black peoples who beat them war or were in the area like greeks, romans, turks and persians". What do you mean "it appears to me"? This isnt an argument. The noses of the egyptians in the drawings dont look nubian at any rate, if that was what you were getting at; as you know nubians have very fat and pressed towards the rest of the face, short noses.

- "Well maybe you think all egyptians are mid-eastern but Nas(black egyptian rapper) doesn't think he is white or whatever race you are claiming he is"
I dont know Nas, but why do you regard him as an authority on anything? It would be equally wrong for a white person to regard a white popular musician as an authority on history, clearly such a view would be wrong and nothing less than that.

In my view it doesnt matter much how cultured or not subsaharan africa was. Clearly not all civilizations were of the same global importance, but you, I, or anyone else, is NOT their civilization, but a person, and it is a very bad idea to try to compete with others using your cultural background, since in that way you will not fail to diminish yourself froma a human being to a mere flag-bearer of a culture. Besides cultures arent limited to any one person's understanding of them, so you arent a representative of "african" culture, but simply of your own notion of it.

If you believe that modern africa has the same borders as current africa then you need to seriously research anceint african and mid-eastern history. Plotemica Egypt would still be considered african because the people all share african descent. Although most egyptians are mixed they all have african ancestry where as not all of them have greek or roman anccestry. Also Egypt is considered to be a part of the mid-east alot of times because they are mixed with turks. So you can see that the land is irrevalent it is the people that determine the race of the people who live there not the land. My argument is that countries that I stated had a overwhelming black majority for population they are considered to be part of ancient africa because they are of african ancestry, black (some mixed with persian and other tribes), and had african culture. They might not have the same culture as Shaka Zulu but neither do most africans.
-Not all africans have flat noses. Go to mauretania or other sene-gambian west african nations and you will see africans far darker than any nubians with straight long noses. My argument is that the earliest egyptians were black and later on mixed with surrounding races and cultures.
-My argument about Nas was to use a famous black egyptian so that that guy couldn't say that black egyptians don't exist

 

[troytheface]

lol- i like the "i can't understand why people are obsessed with grouping then he groups together "intellectuals that know only one language."
(people group things in order to generalize and navigate- don't think it's wrong - more part of the human condition- )
Video games have a responsibility to be accurate about history? Which one?
I thought games were for fun. Not sure many kids take Civ as a history lesson- "Many kids take this as history cause they don't read (another grouping - attached with an unproven statement-doubtful he did a poll on children and thier game perceptions ) think that is pure fiction - know a few kids and not one takes Civ as factual history-
Debate on race as an issue is still about (Bell Curve) Shockley- (tho i disagree with the premise) - it was not resolved "decades ago".
In so far as "eurocentric" - and "vast amounts of history written in other parts of the world"- well duh- tell them to make a game in those countries and they can do whatever they want....(doesn't mean they are any more correct)
And by the way- many of those coins depicted are stylized- in other words perhaps artists stylized likeness so hannible looking like a greek is no big surprise- (not that i think he was black - hell if i know)
also- saw a movie called "mediterraneo" and when the italians met a greek or a turk ect they would say- "same face- same race" - meaning of course that mediterrranean peoples have similiar features-
and thanks warp- i believed that story about napoleon's troops shooting the nose off the sphinx - even saw it on the history channel- course i notice on the history channel they sometimes cram an image that depicts a different event than that about which they speak

 

[Ghafhi]

Civ isn't racist, racit would be if the civs of a certain "race" were superior to the civs of another "race." That isn't the case (well, it was in Civ3 but that I think we can all agree the Zulus getting lousy traits was independent of their skin color) Civ DOES need to be less euro-centric it is true. However, as the majority of responses on this forum show, most of Civs fans are very eurocentric and historically ignorant people.

The Mongols weren't a civilization? That's one of the most pathetic and oft-repeated pieces of garbage I've heard on this forum. And its an example of too many people considering their high school history texts or the internet (which are on about the same level when it comes to historical fact) too seriously. I've heard people say the Mongols "gave up their culutre" and then when I ask them too give me an example of a Mongol who gave up their culture they become logical merry-go-rounds ("well I've never heard of it so it must have not existed" and "I read it on a webstie once" and "I never met a Mongolian person" and other such garbage).

As sad as it is, there are a lot of children who play games like civilization and take it as a legitimate historical authority, mostly because they don't ever read anything else about history. In that light I think the game does have a certain responsibilty to attempt accuracy, especailly as they are using the names of peoples who are still around for the most part. On the other hand, I've never understood the human obsession with putting people into groups and trying to argue that one person was one race or not. This whole tiff about Cleopatra being Greek or Hannibal being black, Semitic vs. Caucasian....honestly who cares? Their significance in history has nothing to do with the color of their skin, and biologically race theory was disproved decades ago, I don't understand why the humanities can't catch up. I'm not talking about the role ethnicity plays in social interactions, I'm talking about the attempt to decide whether or not a certain historical figure was a certain category that meant nothing to them at the time.

Furthermore, history itself is incredibly euro-centric at this point in time. This is mostly due to most "intellectuals" only knowing one langauge. Vast histories have been written of many parts of the world that will probaly never be published in English simply becasue nobody considers translating the texts to be worthwhile. Until that changes I don't think that games that reflect history will either. I mean I think they put every single European civilization they could think of in Civ 3, and only had on sub-Saharan African civilization.

I would be thrilled to see a hundred civilizations in the game. Anyone who has studied history knows that attempting to put the groups of people who have made a difference on a short list is ludicrous.

I don't care about cleo patra. She was probably mixed with greek who cares. The point is there aren't many multinational hero's in North Africa and to have some ignorant fool come and try to tell me that my ancestors are white is ridiculous. How would you like if I told you Napolean and all the great white guys were black. Maybe you wouldn't care. But if you were from a country where there were few heroes you would

 

[Kyriakos]

as it is clear in my post i was talking about africa the continent, and modern egypt is part of the african continent for sure. culturally it can be called middle eastern i guess, ok.