How diverse is civ6?

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

if we look for native americans and black africans, I would argue civ 6 isn't better than civ 5 in diversity.

Along with what @Duke William of Normandy said above, we also have gotten more Asian representation with arguably our first Central Asian civ, Scythia, and a third SEA civ in Vietnam as well, and debatably Georgia.

I do I agree with you that we are lacking in the area of Native Americans, specifically another in North America considering they added one to South America, and North Africa, specifically the Maghreb region, but that's about it.

 

[Evie]

Oh. My. God. Henri...that chart is nonsense.

You seem to be operating under the ludicrous idea that any leader and any civilization from anywhere that was ever under control of germanic people is germanic, regardless of actual cultural or biological considerations. That's nonsense. In most cases, those invaders were vastly ounumbered by the local populations and intermarried with the original population so genetically those countries are not very germanic at all. Even England - one of the most germanized nation of Europe - only shows around 30% german DNA in its white local population, per studies. Same elsewhere - the Franks were a Germanic people, the French are not.

If we look at it culturally or linguistically (which are by far the better ways of tackling the notion of "germanic"), then we find as often as not that germanic invaders largely got assimilated into a broader culture with stronger non-germanic influences. France, Spain and Brazil definitely belong to the Latin/Romance world, not the Germanic one. Scotland is a bit more mixed due to English influence, but they're clearly in he game for their Celtic side, not their Germanic one. Canada has multiple cultural roots (even on the English side: much of "English" Canada is actually Scottish or Irish, thus Celtic), but Laurier represents the French (Romance) side of Canada. And Eleanor lead one Germanic and one Romance civ, so hard to say she's "Germanic".

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Oh. My. God. Henri...that chart is nonsense.

You seem to be operating under the ludicrous idea that any leader and any civilization from anywhere that was ever under control of germanic people is germanic, regardless of actual cultural or biological considerations. That's nonsense. In most cases, those invaders were vastly ounumbered by the local populations and intermarried with the original population so genetically those countries are not very germanic at all. Even England - one of the most germanized nation of Europe - only shows around 30% german DNA in its white local population, per studies. Same elsewhere - the Franks were a Germanic people, the French are not.

If we look at it culturally or linguistically (which are by far the better ways of tackling the notion of "germanic"), then we find as often as not that germanic invaders largely got assimilated into a broader culture with stronger non-germanic influences. France, Spain and Brazil definitely belong to the Latin/Romance world, not the Germanic one. Scotland is a bit more mixed due to English influence, but they're clearly in he game for their Celtic side, not their Germanic one. Canada has multiple cultural roots (even on the English side: much of "English" Canada is actually Scottish or Irish, thus Celtic), but Laurier represents the French (Romance) side of Canada. And Eleanor lead one Germanic and one Romance civ, so hard to say she's "Germanic".

Don't forget that he called Indians caucasian...

I will state this: If a game is made by Western developers, it will most likely feature mostly Western Civilizations. If a game is made by Asian developers, most likely they will feature more Asian Civilizations, and etc.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Oh. My. God. Henri...that chart is nonsense.

You seem to be operating under the ludicrous idea that any leader and any civilization from anywhere that was ever under control of germanic people is germanic, regardless of actual cultural or biological considerations. That's nonsense. In most cases, those invaders were vastly ounumbered by the local populations and intermarried with the original population so genetically those countries are not very germanic at all. Even England - one of the most germanized nation of Europe - only shows around 30% german DNA in its white local population, per studies. Same elsewhere - the Franks were a Germanic people, the French are not.

If we look at it culturally or linguistically (which are by far the better ways of tackling the notion of "germanic"), then we find as often as not that germanic invaders largely got assimilated into a broader culture with stronger non-germanic influences. France, Spain, Brazil (Romance) and arguably Scotland (Celtic) have no place on the Germanic list. Canada is a two-or-more-headed monster so hard to classify, but Laurier belongs to the French (Romance) side of Canada (and large parts of the English speaking roots of Canada are actually Scottish or Irish). Eleanor is not really relevant since she's an alt to two civs we're already counting (one germanic, one not).

Brazil and Spain I put as Germanic because their king have Habsburgo-heritage. And Habsurbgo are pure germanic.
The name France come from tha Franks, a germanic grupe who invade the Roman State of Galia *The Gaul*, after the Franks learn a kind of vulgar-latin today's called French you can may kind of call they ROmance. But, Franks are germanic too.
And Canadians have their roots in ANglo Saxan germans, who are germanic too.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Brazil and Spain I put as Germanic because their king have Habsburgo-heritage. And Habsurbgo are pure germanic.

...The fact that you consider an entire people's culture/race to depend solely on their Leader's culture/race is just, why? That's like saying France under Napoleon isn't French, it's Corsican.

Edit: I just read it again, and I see he didn't mean that. Oops...

 

[The Civs 6]

Don't forget that he called Indians caucasian...

I will state this: If a game is made by Western developers, it will most likely feature mostly Western Civilizations. If a game is made by Asian developers, most likely they will feature more Asian Civilizations, and etc.

I wouldn't even go that far. The game includes interesting civilizations (that are likely to sell games). A civ game without Mongolia, the Aztecs, or Japan wouldn't feel complete because those civs are interesting and well known.

 

[SMcM]

Yes, it does, in terms of "Black African" Civilizations. In Civ 5, we had: the Songhai, the Zulu, Ethiopia, and Morocco. In Civ 6, we had Mali, Kongo, Nubia, Ethiopia, and Zulu.

I mostly agree, but one problem- Morocco is not, and was not, 'black'. Some people think that because the Moors have often been referred to as black, but I'm fairly sure the main explanation for this is historical lumping together all non-European groups. Generally the distinction I would make for categorising Africa would be North-Africa versus Sub-Saharan Africa. Of course within Sub-Saharan Africa there is also a lot more diversity than some realise.

Anyway yes, Civ 6 having 5 Sub-Saharan African leaders is an improvement on 3. I think more Africans still would have been cool, purely from a perspective of it being nice to explore different regions of the world, but I'm not interested in this as some kind of political race quota for leaders or whatever.

You seem to be operating under the ludicrous idea that any leader and any civilization from anywhere that was ever under control of germanic people is germanic, regardless of actual cultural or biological considerations.

Germanic could be viewed as a loose a cultural group I suppose (ignoring DNA ofc), which would include Scandinavia, Germany, England, USA, etc. But the categorisation on that map is nonsense, I agree- for one, why is Brazil in a different class to Portugal is, if we are classing countries solely on the culture of their elites? Was Pedro ethnic German, or something else I'm missing?

Edit: oh wow, I didn't notice Gandhi was 'caucasian' on there- every Indo-European language country being classed as ethnically or culturally caucasian makes no sense whatsoever...

 

[Henri Christophe]

Pedro ethnic German, or something else I'm missing?

Pedro II's mother is Austriac, from Habsbugo family.

Along with what @Duke William of Normandy said above, we also have gotten more Asian representation with arguably our first Central Asian civ, Scythia, and a third SEA civ in Vietnam as well, and debatably Georgia.

I do I agree with you that we are lacking in the area of Native Americans, specifically another in North America considering they added one to South America, and North Africa, specifically the Maghreb region, but that's about it.

Another place to have none representation is Afro-Americans, not only Civ 5 and Civ 6 but all series forget to put Haiti, Palmares, Seminoles.

Afro AMericans are a huge amount of population of Americas and we should also look to this community in order to do at least one afro-american civ.

 

[Ryansinbela]

Seminoles weren't Afro-American (those were a small part of a larger group)

 

[Evie]

Did you just tell someone with a *visible Quebec flag* in their profile picture - thus a French Canadian - that the roots of Canadians are Anglo-Saxons, Henri?

Let me spell it out for you. Telling the French-Canadians, who were the original Canadias (First Nations people lived within the borders of what we call Canada, but they were not Canadians as the concept of Canada didn't yet exist), who were Canadians two centuries before any British people were, and who were the first to be called Canadians, who are still Canadians, and who still make up a very sizeable chunk of Canada, that Canadian roots are Anglo-Saxon is a very terrible idea, Henri. It's like calling the Irish, English: a great way to get into a fight, and not much else (and Wilfrid Laurier, again, was French Canadian, so the question of French Canadians NOT having Anglo-Saxon root is kind of relevant to him as a leader)

Beyond that bout of foolishness, Anglo-Saxon is also deeply questionable about the English-speaking parts of Canada. Canada was a British (not English) colony, and much of the British immigration to Canada came from the non-Anglo-Saxon parts of Great Britain: Ireland and Scotland notably. Canada is certainly majority English-speaking, with significant British roots, but calling it Anglo-Saxon is a massive overreach.

Second, using royal houses to determine a person's origins is utter nonsense since Royal houses only track who a person's father (and their father, and their father, and their father) was - and mothers are kind of important in determining who a person is, too. Philip II may have been a Habsburg, but looking just as his great-grandparents he was one-eight French (Mary of Burgundy), one-eight German (Maximilian of Habsburg), one-quarter Portuguese (Beatrice of Portugal and Ferdinand of Viseu), one-quarter Castillian (Isabella of Castille, twice) and one-quarter Aragonese (Ferdinand of Aragon, twice). That's 50% Spanish and 75% Iberian - far more Spanish and Iberian than Germanic. Yet because his father's father's father's was German, you count him as Germanic.

Plus, you know, if we count the Habsburgs leaders as Germanic, then we should be counting all royal and noble houses according to their origins. Sooo...what's the house of Medici (Italian, Catherine) doing on the Germanic list, again? Either leaders get classified according to their royal houses, or they don't. At this point, what you're doing is applying the racist one-drop rule: if anyone has any sort of Germanic ancestry, they're germanic. That's disgusting.

The origin of a country's NAME tells us nothing about their culture and roots, and what they are. Yes, France is named for the Franks. No, the Franks do not make up much of French culture and roots - most of that comes from the people the Franks conquered. They formed a military elite that ruled over France, but that largely absorbed into the local culture and civilization.

Essentially, at this point, it seems that you're just looking for excuses to lump as many people as possible under the "germanic" label because you're obsessed with proving Germanic people are overrepresented in Civilization. So any civilization or leader that has in any way a tie with Germanic people, you consider germanic, no matter how nonsensical that is.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Did you just tell someone with a *visible Quebec flag* in their profile picture - thus a French Canadian - that Canadians have Anglo-Saxons roots, Henri?

Ooh... Yeah, that's never a good thing to say to a French Canadian. The Acadians' ancestors would also like a word with you, @Henri Christophe.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Did you just tell someone with a *visible Quebec flag* in their profile picture - thus a French Canadian - that Canadians have Anglo-Saxons roots, Henri?

Let me spell it out for you. Telling the French-Canadians, who were the original Canadias (First Nations people lived within the borders of what we call Canada, but they were not Canadians as the concept of Canada didn't yet exist), who were Canadians two centuries before any British people were, and who were the first to be called Canadians, who are still Canadians, and who still make up a very sizeable chunk of Canada, that Canadian roots are Anglo-Saxon is a very terrible idea, Henri. It's like calling the Irish, English: a great way to get into a fight, and not much else (and Wilfrid Laurier, again, was French Canadian, so the question of French Canadians NOT having Anglo-Saxon root is kind of relevant to him as a leader)

Beyond that bout of foolishness, Anglo-Saxon is also deeply questionable about the English-speaking parts of Canada. Canada was a British (not English) colony, and much of the British immigration to Canada came from the non-Anglo-Saxon parts of Great Britain: Ireland and Scotland notably. Canada is certainly majority English-speaking, with significant British roots, but calling it Anglo-Saxon is a massive overreach.

Second, using royal houses to determine a person's origins is utter nonsense since Royal houses only track who a person's father (and their father, and their father, and their father) was - and mothers are kind of important in determining who a person is, too. Philip II may have been a Habsburg, but looking just as his great-grandparents he was one-eight French (Mary of Burgundy), one-eight German (Maximilian of Habsburg), one-quarter Portuguese (Beatrice of Portugal and Ferdinand of Viseu), one-quarter Castillian (Isabella of Castille, twice) and one-quarter Aragonese (Ferdinand of Aragon, twice). That's 50% Spanish and 75% Iberian - far more Spanish and Iberian than Germanic. Yet because his father's father's father's was German, you count him as Germanic.

Plus, you know, if we count the Habsburgs leaders as Germanic, then we should be counting all royal and noble houses according to their origins. Sooo...what's the house of Medici (Italian, Catherine) doing on the Germanic list, again? Either leaders get classified according to their royal houses, or they don't. At this point, what you're doing is applying the racist one-drop rule: if anyone has any sort of Germanic ancestry, they're germanic. That's disgusting.

The origin of a country's NAME tells us nothing about their culture and roots, and what they are. Yes, France is named for the Franks. No, the Franks do not make up much of French culture and roots - most of that comes from the people the Franks conquered. They formed a military elite that ruled over France, but that largely absorbed into the local culture and civilization.

Essentially, at this point, it seems that you're just looking for excuses to lump as many people as possible under the "germanic" label because you're obsessed with proving Germanic people are overrepresented in Civilization. So any civilization or leader that has in any way a tie with Germanic people, you consider germanic, no matter how nonsensical that is.

Yes, I used the one drop rule in order to do this chart, I didn't know Medici family was germanic too, if they become a civ they will pup up in Germanic too.
and by One drup rule, the French descendent are german by Frankish mixnation with civilized Romans in the State of Gaul.

And Yes, I really think Germanic nations are over represented, using the one drop rule we got 25% of leaders with some kind of germanic ancestry, it is to much.

The biggest evidence the French are German is the most important club in France is Paris Saint-German

 

[Evie]

The one-drop rule was a racist rule used to justify racial discrimination and depriving as many people of their basic human rights as possible, Henri.

If that's the sources and methods you're resorting to, you may want to reevalute your priorities. Yesterdsay.

Those who fights monsters should take care that they do not become monsters in the process. Using the one-drop rule for anything is a step in the wrong direction there.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

And Yes, I really think Germanic nations are over represented, using the one drop rule we got 25% of leaders with some kind of germanic ancestry, it is to much.

Henri. Just because a Leader has Germanic blood/origins doesn't mean that the NATION THEY LEAD IS GERMANIC. That's like, from a previous post I made, saying France under Napoleon wasn't French, it was cOrsIcAN.

The biggest evidence the French are German is the most important club in France is Paris Saint-German

The reason it is called Saint-Germain is that there is a French Town near Paris that is called SAINT-GERMAIN.

 

[The Civs 6]

what about the possibility that many empires are non-ethnic? I'd say the Roman, Eastern Roman, Arabian and American polities are/were flat out not ethnic nation-states.

And just to add to that, I think it would be erroneous to apply post-Westphalian ideas of an integrated "nation-state" to pre-modern polities. Arguably feudal Europe, for example, had a bunch of largely transactional relationships that just aren't comparable to modern ideas of race.

 

[Ryansinbela]

Henri, my dude, you need to stop obsessing over the civ's ethnic background. Every civ should get a turn no matter their background

 

[Evie]

I mean, there the problem is - and Henri actually has a point - that civs from some background tend to be far more likely to get their turns than others.

But he's carrying it way beyond anything reasonable and well off a cliff.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Henri, my dude, you need to stop obsessing over the civ's ethnic background. Every civ should get a turn no matter their background

100%. Although, he's obsessing more over the fact that most of the LEaders in Civ 6 are, quote-unquote, "Germanic Caucasian."

I mean, there the problem is - and Henri actually has a point - that civs from some background tend to be far more likely to get their turns than others.

But he's carrying it way beyond anything reasonable and well off a cliff.

Yes.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I'm not Germanphobic, I like the Germanic Civs in the game. I just think they are too much in comparasion to africans civs or native americans civs.
The problem is the limited space in this game to new civiliziations make a clear bias for a kind of Indo-European bias focused in Germanic civs.

Do you think is possible Civ 7 Vanilla come without the big boss as German, French or United Kingdom. They come after expansions... I think is impossible because the bias of the game.

 

[The Civs 6]

It's one of these things... he has identified something but it's the wrong rhetorical position. The problem really is twofold: first the lack of knowledge thing I have brought up before. And second, that Civ has a certain standard for what constitutes a polity that is worth including. And this standard is modeled after the historical experience of the Western designers who made the game.

Instead he's trying to pigeonhole this issue into a very trite and simplistic critique.