Is anyone else appalled by the Eurocentrism in Civ?

[StStutter]

Wow, now we're going in circles. Note my first post and how I describe what more influential means with the analogy to musical influences. I don't mean SUPERIOR! I mean influential, as in had an impact on how our planet and race developed.

Also, you must surely admit that when Europe began its world conquest, it surely had more goods than did every other culture they conquered. Guns, steel, horses, complex political systems, clothing, ocean faring ships, the list goes on. Why Europe?

Secondly, why did Europe develop these technologies? What caused them to be the ones? They discovered so many that it cannot simply be chance. There is a disproportionate amount of technology which originates from Eurasia, when Africa in fact had a head start in time since the first humans originated there.

 

[EdCase]

Love the original post. With all the problems in the world you pick THIS to be appalled at ?

 

[johny smith]

Now, I'm pretty sure Civ doesn't ever depict Germans as a blonde haired, blue eyed people, or Mediterraneans as light skinned.

And actually, many, many censuses ask for race so that they can identify cultural minorities in their country. I know as a fact that Brazil, South Africa, Guam, Bulgaria and Canada all do as well.

Once again, what is your point here? If it is that the game Civilization follows racial stereotypes, please give some specific examples to illustrate this.



Believing that Europeans were the only ones to utilize slavery is an incredibly naive view of the world. Slavery has existed in a large majority of civilizations on every continent. Stronger peoples always displace and impose their will on the weaker ones. This is human nature and the reason for the development of our planet today.

Please provide specific examples of what is illogical in the tech tree. Why do you think these things are illogical. Please expand.




Ohhh, that what anthropology is.

To deny that Europeans and to a lesser degree Eurasians have shaped what our world has become today is insane. I'm sure we agree on this. So what caused that to be the way it is?

So let me try to explain the agricultural reason for this. The only major mammals domesticated outside of Eurasia in the history of mankind, and I mean domesticated, not tamed have been the dog in North America, possibly the cow in North Africa, and the llama/alpaca in the Andes. There was also the turkey with the Aztecs. Thats it. Period. This is a fact. Everything else spread from Eurasia.

In terms of domesticable plants, let me give a brief overview of what each region developed, and you tell me which sound like sufficiently nutritious to create a shift from hunter-gatherers to sedentary civilizations:

Mesoamerica: corn, common bean, squashes. Without any truly efficient animals.

Andes: corn, lima bean, peanut, squashes. Llamas

Eastern United States: Maygrass, goosefoot, squash

New Guineea: Sugar Cane

Mind you, these are simply in ancient times, a couple more have been added since then. Everything else was slowly imported to these places from their original location, giving them a later start.

And Africa was the first place for anything to be domesticated? I don't think so. It is well known that it was the Fertile Crescent, the Cradle of Civilization that gave birth to agriculture.



Examples? How is it like this. Examples, examples, examples. Give me EXAMPLES.



Irrelevant. I don't know what point you're trying to make here. You don't like the idea of DLC? Fair enough.

Yes modding is a lot of work. So is programming. How else would you like them to make it?



This game doesn't spread any knowledge. Its a game loosely based on history. If you want something else, you will have to find a different game.





What views does it utilize and what other views would you like included. You are throwing accusations around willy-nilly without backing any of them up. Please be less vague.

I'm sorry I couldn't respond better to some of these points you tried to make. But without specific examples I can't actually comment on what you mean because I don't know exactly.

Ok nonsense ramble. You just said European foods you eat everyday are more important. Do you not realize that is not the common food everywhere around the world. Oh your plants are important not the rest because you eat them everyday purchased in manufactured chemical added environment.

Um the tech tree starts you off with a warrior with a wooden club? Am I playing Stone Age the movie? Paper is tied to theocracy? Civil Service spreads irrigation? If I took the time to go through each it would take a while.

The game does not spread knowledge it repeats as you clearly stated what you have obituary decided based on book and what you see around you as important. You would not know what the hell to do if today you went to Africa. Would you inform the masses there how superior your culture is because they do not believe in the same things?

The DLC's cost more money if you did not get it. So you are no longer paying your $60 in order to get features normally there. And if you did not realize modding is not only programming it is art. Art will be really hard to do when you can not alter any of the DLC's when you have such a hurdle to climb to get anything in the game because of all of the jazz. Do you know any other language? How is a modder going to add a language of dead civs?

Africa was the first place for domestication. Einkorn Wheat? Not familiar with it? There have been soil samples found in Africa. It was later modified in the Middle East. But we are talking way way back for Africa. You seem to miss his main point. With a larger East-West continent being better suited for spread versus North-South because wind and similar climate zones usually being dictated by latitude.

Oh ya Anthropology knows nothing. Talk about the peak of ignorance. You would know nothing about cultures without a written history without it. How do you think history is determined without written history. How you think this guys theory ever came about?

There are a lot of theories on everything. Even why we tie are shoes I bet. Taking one guy because his bling bling and mass popularity is just like asking me what is wrong with the tech tree that Sid or whoever in the franchise made.

All I would say quit reading the same book and actually listen to other views. Or how about go somewhere else in the world and ask what they think? You definitely probably do not want to know more. Consider corn is insignificant in your eyes.

Race does not exist. Point blank. There is no such thing. I understand why America works as it does. People have always been doing "you know" with any other looking person though in the world. America they intentionally were against that because of a slave issue. Other places did as well.

 

[johny smith]

Wow, now we're going in circles. Note my first post and how I describe what more influential means with the analogy to musical influences. I don't mean SUPERIOR! I mean influential, as in had an impact on how our planet and race developed.

Also, you must surely admit that when Europe began its world conquest, it surely had more goods than did every other culture they conquered. Guns, steel, horses, complex political systems, clothing, ocean faring ships, the list goes on. Why Europe?

Secondly, why did Europe develop these technologies? What caused them to be the ones? They discovered so many that it cannot simply be chance. There is a disproportionate amount of technology which originates from Eurasia, when Africa in fact had a head start in time since the first humans originated there.

Now it was mainly because of Iron to make better tools to farm or war or whatever. But there is so many that who knows. And plenty of theories. Do not use just one please. And at the same time there are plenty of techs never in Europe. I am suggesting you would have an alternate timeline when original Americans discover Iron for example.

And what is complex? Are the Mayans not as complex as say Rome? You are again making an guess because here. Guns, Germs, Steel, Horse do not equal complex society. Everything you could possibly list does not equate to better in everything for a particular group.

 

[j51]

Ok nonsense ramble.

Really!!? Seriously clean up your grammar and spelling if you want to issue such put downs. At least he bothered.

 

[johny smith]

Really!!? Seriously clean up your grammar and spelling if you want to issue such put downs. At least he bothered.

You are right about my grammer. But the point about the nonsense about Eurasian plants being somehow the most important for everyone in the world is just that. I really should not bother either. What is going to be attained by me posting? A lot of pissed off people who don't know a thing about anything then what is presented to them in a TV format. While others who study the field have not bothered to mention their views because again like stated. This is meant to play the world through the eyes of American, and closer you get culturally to being American the more you will agree with the games take on history.

It is a touchy subject just to say your are not better if you live America or Europe, and because you live there you will not normally understand the worldview from another perspective. Instead there will be fight for which civs should be represented because they do not know of others of any significance that are not listed. So since someone is ignorant they should look no more Civ has the right package for their limited knowledge. Have fun.

 

[j51]

So since someone is ignorant they should look no more Civ has the right package for their limited knowledge. Have fun.

I and several other people on this forum have agreed with your view of history, but we just feel it's very near irrelevant with regards to a GAME. I used to actually feel the same way about civ myself, but I got over it by appreciating its mechanics and not sweating its pseudo-historical trappings.

 

[johny smith]

I and several other people on this forum have agreed with your view of history, but we just feel it's very near irrelevant with regards to a GAME. I used to actually feel the same way about civ myself, but I got over it by appreciating its mechanics and not sweating its pseudo-historical trappings.

I can not spend real money on this one sorry, and then if I wanted to create something be mobbed by ignorant public that wants to focus on ruling the world with some pseudo character. I am just going the other way. This game shows no signs of improving on what I would like to do to play an alternative timeline. I care nothing about reliving the history as presented to where we achieve the view commonly held in American TV. I want to spend my money on something different, and I would really be willing to pay much more for game if it did, or maybe even if the fan base was wanting it alone. I spent plenty in the past in the hope of getting something better than a game for casual player that does not want to know anything new.

 

[j51]

I can not spend real money on this one sorry... I spent plenty in the past in the hope of getting something better than a game for casual player that does not want to know anything new.

Ok, but there's no reason to disparage everyone.

 

[johny smith]

Ok, but there's no reason to disparage everyone.

Agreed. I did rant too much. But the topic was in relation to Eurocentrism. It has to be considered at the very least Eurocentric. And again it was not some evil conspiracy. The game is an attempt to simplify everything in the world from the view of the creators. The creators are in America. I will shut up now.

 

[craig123]

Race does not exist. Point blank. There is no such thing. I understand why America works as it does. People have always been doing "you know" with any other looking person though in the world. America they intentionally were against that because of a slave issue. Other places did as well.

From (the always-reliable) Wikipedia:

As a biological term, race describes genetically divergent populations of humans that can be marked by common phenotypic and genotypic traits.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] This sense of race is often used in forensic anthropology analyzing skeletal remains, biomedical research, and race-based medicine.[13][14][15][16].

Johny, care to explain how race doesn't exist - particularly after talking about American racial views?

 

[StStutter]

Okay… let’s leave the “Guns, Germs and Steel” discussion for another day. I don’t agree with your opinion on the book, but that’s irrelevant. I only used his theory as an example to depict why a game accurately simulating history would not be fun.

I started by arguing that Civ simply chooses some of the most “influential” civilizations throughout history to depict in their game. It is from the game creator’s point of view, true, but this point of view can be justified with many different arguments. These arguments vary from ‘they were the nations that conquered/colonized a large part of the world in the 18th century’ to ‘they were the ones with the most ‘cargo’ (aka goods, weapons, people…)’.

You then seem to reply that the game depicts these civs in a manner that you believe to be extremely narrow-minded. However, you haven’t expanded and discussed in what manner you think the game does this.

I agree with you on this. Civilization represents only a very narrow slice of history.

I could however reply to this point by saying that Civilization’s first goal is to be an accessible, fun game to play. It bases itself in history only to be able to achieve this goal. It does this only loosely because doing so in any more depth would detract from the amount of time able to work on the gameplay because this would also require massive balancing efforts, and would create endless other complications.

Now I’m going to reply to some non-sensical points you have made:

Ok nonsense ramble. You just said European foods you eat everyday are more important.

Nope, didn’t say that, not even close. I said the foods originally domesticated in Eurasia and which are now eaten universally across the globe are far more nutritious and provide a much more enticing package to hunter-gatherers, causing them to shift their lifestyle to a sedentary one.

Um the tech tree starts you off with a warrior with a wooden club? Am I playing Stone Age the movie?
The first man made weapons were surely wooden clubs, or wooden sticks with stones attached.

You would not know what the hell to do if today you went to Africa. Would you inform the masses there how superior your culture is because they do not believe in the same things?

I’ve traveled extensively and have lived on multiple continents, but let’s not make this personal. I wouldn’t say that. And if I did, there would be much more than civilization to blame. I may though discuss with a Nigerian professor, why the Europeans influenced the world to such a great degree while other peoples did not. It is not wrong to acknowledge history.

And if you did not realize modding is not only programming it is art. Art will be really hard to do when you can not alter any of the DLC's when you have such a hurdle to climb to get anything in the game because of all of the jazz. Do you know any other language? How is a modder going to add a language of dead civs?

I agree, it will be harder for modders to get their products to equal the games quality. So you’re criticizing the game for adding too much detail despite acknowledging that it leads to a better game? Adding the language of dead civs is an effort to make the game less Euro- or Western-centric, by acknowledging various cultures.

Africa was the first place for domestication. Einkorn Wheat? Not familiar with it? There have been soil samples found in Africa. It was later modified in the Middle East. But we are talking way way back for Africa. You seem to miss his main point. With a larger East-West continent being better suited for spread versus North-South because wind and similar climate zones usually being dictated by latitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einkorn_wheat

Einkorn wheat was first domesticated in the Middle East and thus Eurasia, not Africa. And so you have read this book? So you know that he provides hundreds of sources from various scientific journals illustrating that Eurasia had more domesticable flaura and fauna than other continents? The spread also played a factor, about equal to this other one.

Oh ya Anthropology knows nothing. Talk about the peak of ignorance. You would know nothing about cultures without a written history without it. How do you think history is determined without written history. How you think this guys theory ever came about?

Putting words in my mouth. Please quote where I said this.

All I would say quit reading the same book and actually listen to other views. Or how about go somewhere else in the world and ask what they think? You definitely probably do not want to know more. Consider corn is insignificant in your eyes.

I don’t think corn is insignificant. It’s just that corn alone isn’t enough to abandon a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Also, corn only reached eastern North America in 900 AD.

Race does not exist. Point blank. There is no such thing. I understand why America works as it does. People have always been doing "you know" with any other looking person though in the world. America they intentionally were against that because of a slave issue. Other places did as well.

Acknowledging that people are different isn’t racist. We’ve shown that races do exist, even in sociological studies. It’s when one starts to treat people based on these differences that racism exists.

 

[johny smith]

Okay… let’s leave the “Guns, Germs and Steel” discussion for another day. I don’t agree with your opinion on the book, but that’s irrelevant. I only used his theory as an example to depict why a game accurately simulating history would not be fun.

That is why I am discussing not simulating how Americans perceived History instead alternate history. There is no equation to alternate history.

I started by arguing that Civ simply chooses some of the most “influential” civilizations throughout history to depict in their game. It is from the game creator’s point of view, true, but this point of view can be justified with many different arguments. These arguments vary from ‘they were the nations that conquered/colonized a large part of the world in the 18th century’ to ‘they were the ones with the most ‘cargo’ (aka goods, weapons, people…)’.

You are talking influential in your eyes not from other cultures. Quite a few would not be able to tell any difference between any of aka "Europeans"(that are not one group).

You then seem to reply that the game depicts these civs in a manner that you believe to be extremely narrow-minded. However, you haven’t expanded and discussed in what manner you think the game does this.

It focuses on the world turning into a giant America at the end of the modern period. That is comes from an American view point. There is no reason that if things went different that everything would be some unkown future Mesoamerican artstyle.

I agree with you on this. Civilization represents only a very narrow slice of history.

I could however reply to this point by saying that Civilization’s first goal is to be an accessible, fun game to play. It bases itself in history only to be able to achieve this goal. It does this only loosely because doing so in any more depth would detract from the amount of time able to work on the gameplay because this would also require massive balancing efforts, and would create endless other complications.

Yes it would take more work to make a more complex game. It would not detract from gameplay if done well. It would be more interesting to end up playing something that is not a repeat of history for example in my opinion. But the base would not be interested apparently. So yes the game is making money by slicing history into pieces.

Now I’m going to reply to some non-sensical points you have made:

Ok nonsense ramble. You just said European foods you eat everyday are more important.

Nope, didn’t say that, not even close. I said the foods originally domesticated in Eurasia and which are now eaten universally across the globe are far more nutritious and provide a much more enticing package to hunter-gatherers, causing them to shift their lifestyle to a sedentary one.

It is totally wrong the foods he recommends are not that way. He is promoting and you are buying it. Corn did cause a shift. Most people in the world are lactose intolerant. I am sure he probably has milk listed as important. It is all nonsense about well a round package. If we would be eating a diet like first Homo Sapiens..the largest single thing eaten for a healthy diet would be fruit. In order to have animals you need to share sources of food. It just goes both ways yes you can get the germs to be immune to animals like he states and at the same time it causes more factors that could hurt food supply. Short simple it no longer makes any sense what he is purposing.

You are eating more or less the same package correct? Do you think today people in the world eat his recommended package? That is what I am referring to. No they do not. This package is not particular any more important than anywhere else in the world local varieties that were adapted to make different package . His ideas are promoting that somehow the foods that Eurasians eat are better so therefore in a sense "Eurasians" are just stronger healthier thugs that ravage war on the lands of the world.

Um the tech tree starts you off with a warrior with a wooden club? Am I playing Stone Age the movie?
The first man made weapons were surely wooden clubs, or wooden sticks with stones attached.

You start with building a city. The first man made weapons in 4000 BC? No "microliths" had been around for quite some time. At this point they had archery for quite some time. When would they ever have used a big wooden club? It is meant obviously for humor. Which is a laugh for maybe at best a few days. The tech tree skips over things very quickly in attempt to get to an optimal war strategy for classical iron age units. It could(and maybe should)as well start in the classical period so they could get straight to the action that dominates most of the game.

You would not know what the hell to do if today you went to Africa. Would you inform the masses there how superior your culture is because they do not believe in the same things?

I’ve traveled extensively and have lived on multiple continents, but let’s not make this personal. I wouldn’t say that. And if I did, there would be much more than civilization to blame. I may though discuss with a Nigerian professor, why the Europeans influenced the world to such a great degree while other peoples did not. It is not wrong to acknowledge history.

You are saying in your previous statements that they do not have the right package of food. That the foods eaten there do not fit the package. Again do you think your Eurasian package is superior? Do you think they have no other ideas of what his healthy?

Influence? What are you meaning with influence? As in they cultured change over it to match the other conquering culture? Everyone has influenced everyone else. But again I said more of an alternate history with this. Influence does not mean by conquering alone. But really is irrelevant in my point. You are making a case to leave the game how it seems because it does not matter the current areas of world would be more dominate in any case. That sounds rather boring to me. I still disagree to measure influence by who used the biggest stick. But I don't care to discuss it with you anymore.

I am more concerned with showing the various differences in what Africans in region feel is important in their history. I would rather Mali, Songhai, or whatever flat African character they try to add have more context. As in why don't we have all of the important historical civilizations and technology differences(versus the aka Eurocentric view now) of the Niger River Valley. I want to play the possible cultures as if they might of one point decided to invade Europe when it was weak, or as I have read attempted to sail to the New World.

And if you did not realize modding is not only programming it is art. Art will be really hard to do when you can not alter any of the DLC's when you have such a hurdle to climb to get anything in the game because of all of the jazz. Do you know any other language? How is a modder going to add a language of dead civs?

I agree, it will be harder for modders to get their products to equal the games quality. So you’re criticizing the game for adding too much detail despite acknowledging that it leads to a better game? Adding the language of dead civs is an effort to make the game less Euro- or Western-centric, by acknowledging various cultures.

Again this not very logical what you said. Making more eye candy sells better. No doubt. Modding the game is harder because of it. They don't have all the languages for sure in a speakable form. So I am saying it will lead to a worse game because instead of focusing their budget on these to improve the gameplay they chose to spend quite a lot of time to make this art. They spent a lot of time to probably inaccurately try to translate languages. Do you see how this cost money? Why? So they can get the wow effect from the eye candy to attract new people. Is it wrong? No. But the eye candy looks as it is the main point of the game anymore.

Africa was the first place for domestication. Einkorn Wheat? Not familiar with it? There have been soil samples found in Africa. It was later modified in the Middle East. But we are talking way way back for Africa. You seem to miss his main point. With a larger East-West continent being better suited for spread versus North-South because wind and similar climate zones usually being dictated by latitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einkorn_wheat

Einkorn wheat was first domesticated in the Middle East and thus Eurasia, not Africa. And so you have read this book? So you know that he provides hundreds of sources from various scientific journals illustrating that Eurasia had more domesticable flaura and fauna than other continents? The spread also played a factor, about equal to this other one.

It was recently discovered in Egypt and dated to be older. It could as easily be discovered in the Near East to be older tomorrow. The point standing the theory of Eurasia is irrelevant. Recent models focus more on the Sahara desert extending in the Middle East. The Arabian Desert was wetter as well. And there are more similarities in environment if you look at this way between Arabia and the Sahara. Will this view change soon? I don't know.

Oh ya Anthropology knows nothing. Talk about the peak of ignorance. You would know nothing about cultures without a written history without it. How do you think history is determined without written history. How you think this guys theory ever came about?

Putting words in my mouth. Please quote where I said this.

Your rolled your eyes with an emoticon after Anthropology. That is meant as whatever it is BS in my English maybe not your English.

All I would say quit reading the same book and actually listen to other views. Or how about go somewhere else in the world and ask what they think? You definitely probably do not want to know more. Consider corn is insignificant in your eyes.

I don’t think corn is insignificant. It’s just that corn alone isn’t enough to abandon a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Also, corn only reached eastern North America in 900 AD.

So again your are wrong with this. Let me ask just ask. Is Cahokia and Copan hunter-gatherers? There is not one type of corn as well. And they did not just eat corn. I assume you know all of this. Their problems are the same problems found in these cities as in the rest of the world. As population increases comes the increase destruction of resources around the city. This making it harder for average person to forage. Wood being the biggest problem to forage because most was used to cook.

Race does not exist. Point blank. There is no such thing. I understand why America works as it does. People have always been doing "you know" with any other looking person though in the world. America they intentionally were against that because of a slave issue. Other places did as well.

Acknowledging that people are different isn’t racist. We’ve shown that races do exist, even in sociological studies. It’s when one starts to treat people based on these differences that racism exists.

You are correct they exist in a sociological sense. As in this is what people believe makes a race not real. That is it. Skin colors is only a small piece of the DNA. The game is coming from this one societies view of the sociological races. Every society has a different view on sociological races. And as well in America in a legal sense. I am not against showing differences but this is decided from the American Sociological Races.

There are no real physical races. Skin color does not mean you are entirely different it is a very small piece. Quite frankly if you a Black American or White American you are probably closer related to each other than some Europeans. Europeans did not stay in some stagnate state when people left to go to America. Europe has changed just like any other place in the world so to say you are German 100% anywhere is stupid.

Now culture formed inside of the society created categories does exist. So yes you have subcultures in America like Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, and etc. But that is only because of American society going that route of decision a long time ago. These views form the defaults of the values used in the game.

A true example of physical race is dog breeds. No humans have not been breaded.

Influence does not equal culture or dominance military. Influence is a vague term. I am thinking more along the lines if you go to a region of the world today they will have stark differences on what factors were important on history, what food is healthy and proper to eat, what are different sociological races around locally or in the world, and etc. I don't want to play through the game to come to what I see around me in the real world in the modern era every time I play the game.

Just really don't expect another post. It is not that could not post with a response. I am tired of talking about it. And thread will just lead to more mad people or either mobbing of someone who disagrees with the majority of the fanbase.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

A) Show me a law on the books that still discriminates based on race.

B) What do you mean their are no physical races? In case you failed to notice skin color is not the only difference between Caucasians, Asians, Native Americans, Arabs, Africans etc. There are both physical and mental differences, I'll see if I can dig up the graphs, they're very interesting.

 

[johny smith]

From (the always-reliable) Wikipedia:


Johny, care to explain how race doesn't exist - particularly after talking about American racial views?

I have to laugh race based medicine.

What are they going to give a lactose based product for example to people because skin color and have a reaction from people within in the group because some are tolerant other intolerant. Well what can I say you got me. Wikipedia is a very trusted source in forensic anthropologists circles. Sure there are races. Don't forget about the green people that obviously that a genetic disposition to form liver problems.

 

[johny smith]

A) Show me a law on the books that still discriminates based on race.

B) What do you mean their are no physical races? In case you failed to notice skin color is not the only difference between Caucasians, Asians, Native Americans, Arabs, Africans etc. There are both physical and mental differences, I'll see if I can dig up the graphs, they're very interesting.

A.Lets see....You have state laws to determine race based the one drop rule..? It was just recently overturned in Alabama officially that black and whites could get married.. Obama is black right? Is he not just as much Caucasian? Does it matter what type of African Heritage or European Heritage? Do Kenyans look like every Black person in America? The entire idea is silly.

B. What is Caucasian? The term comes from a mad scientist measuring skulls in the Caucus mountains. Do you think the entire aka Asian group is a homogeneous group with everything being similar or the Caucasian group? There are sociological groupings made on what they classify people into races. What is a person then that is an African, Caucasian, Native American, Arab person. Is there no Slavic? Is there a Mediterranean race? You do know Arabs are considered Caucasian by the US census bureau right?

How do you determine a baby's race for a birth certificate? Color of skin? Is there someway of scientifically determining race? No. It is always been based on whatever the society determines is different. Whatever you read about races differences has to assume features that define a race. No one has ever written anything to determine a race other than society, governmental agencies, or old disregarded scientific theories. If you do not want to go past the garbage about physical races that is your prerogative. I certainly do not care to hear the nonsense though.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

No actually you can determine race scientifically. And you are misinformed about Alabama. Caucasian is the name of the race that makes up the Euro populations.

What country are you from anyway? Your not American are you?

 

[johny smith]

No actually you can determine race scientifically. And you are misinformed about Alabama. Caucasian is the name of the race that makes up the Euro populations.

What country are you from anyway? Your not American are you?

Alabama voted to remove the law that was not in effect in 2000. Loving versus Virginia (1967) was the US Supreme Court Case that overturned it in the United States. Alabama kept it on their state books but could not enforce the law till 2000.

Caucasian was created after I guy measuring skulls made the term. It has been used all over Europe and America for quite some time. Germans do not have race on their birth certificates nor anything now in the legal books. Many European countries do not use race. I am guessing that the Anglo related countries still do.

But I can tell you that WW2 was not a war against the nonCaucasians mainly in Germany. It was a war against the Slavics and Jews for Nazi belief in a difference between them. I am an American who reads old court cases that date back 30 or so years. Anyway yes there are still laws on the books about race.

Although again determining race is impossible. Do you think as well there is a DNA test? You do know the majority of people with A,B,or AB blood would show a sign of European mutation? How many African Americans have A, B, or AB? Whatever theory you can suggest that determines physical race is BS.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Oh I see, we have a misunderstanding, I thought you were telling me that we made it ILEGAL to have interracial marriage.

Please tell me that your arguments are purely for the sake of argument. Because otherwise we have nothing to discuss.

 

[johny smith]

http://www.charlielawing.com/pigmentsfolder/welcome/welcome.html

Their is the couple's children. By American terms they I guess had one black and two whites right? It is a crappy photo but see how people get this confused. And yes it was illegal in the beginning for interracial marriages in the USA. And just in the last 40 years it was overturned.
Oh yes and the mother is aka "Black" while the father is aka "White".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-m...rturned_on_12_June_1967_by_Loving_v._Virginia

What do you mean for the sake of argument? America believes in these races and other places in the world have a belief in different races. The game comes from America so naturally they use what they believe in. Does that mean is it horrible to me on this one issue? No. But it is true that it is some form of Eurocentricism? Yes