Is anyone else appalled by the Eurocentrism in Civ?

[bernie14]

So yes race exists short and simple but it is society that determines the race not DNA.

johny, why do u insist that it has to be one or another.....it is both and imo, has to do with perspective, a researcher looking for a novel cure to a disease is going to view it thru DNA, however, a politician or sociologist may take a diiffent pov.....if your argument is that throughout history, humans have socially catagorized "races" to the benefit of some and the detrement of others, welcome to reality, we do it with race, religion, political orientation, height, weight and which is your favorite sports team (yes people have killed over this).....possibily, when we r all made to carry around our genetic code (for health purposes of course ), we will discriminate on that basis (seen Gattaca? proly scarier future than mad max imo) u r taking it out on a GAME look, buy the game and i will mod minerets onto norte dame and rename broadway "pana njia" to comemorate the great congonese liberation of the western continent over the mongols! then, we will not miss your presence and we may continue to disagree on varied other issues!

 

[GoodGame]

I'm pretty much appalled by how un-Eurocentric this iteration of Civ is. Comon, there are too much Civs from Asia and North America. The Iroquois were pretty much stuck in prehistoric times, having only the knowledge of agriculture and not anything close to metal casting or the knowledge of writing. I also don't really like the inclusion of Siam.

It should have been more Eurocentric, with the Spaniards and the Dutch taking place of these two.

The Civ series classically leaves some appropriate civs out as motivation to buy the expansions. Just look at Civ3 and Civ4.

 

[Mercade]

Holy cow, is this spam thread still around? Amazing.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Well I had come up with a series of clever arguments, but y'all seem to have addressed them.

I'm suspicious of Jsmith's claim that he's from the US, His english is poor. Of course he might not care about how his grammar is on the internet.

 

[Pagal]

Do people in South East Asia and Africa consider the two world wars, world wars? If so, they would accept that for a war to be a world war, it can pretty much take place in Europe. My point is, even to non-European people, the world is very eurocentric. And that's why they are pissed.

Because Africa and the Ottoman Empire weren't involved in WWI, and Rommel didn't go to North Africa and Japan didn't invade China and conquer most of South East Asia in WWII, right?

 

[johny smith]

Ok then what is a fairly typical African American that was never born with wisdom teeth, that has the B blood type, completely lactose tolerant and is Malaria resistant? Just African American?

No wisdom teeth is more often found in East Asia and in original populations in the Americas. B blood is most likely from Europe. Lactose Tolerant formed from pastoral societies but the most common mutation found in America comes from the Low Countries area(present day Netherlands,Belgium,Luxembourg). Malaria resistant found tropical marshlands from the Old World(Southeast Asia and Africa).

But since they have a much darker skin color there are just considered African? Look people have been aka "mixing" for that long. Yes there are genetic clusters but you can not say a cluster is found in only one aka "race". Usually they are found all spread out. You could possible make a million different races that would be true, but that is not the simplification society looks for.

I am sure China had a name for East Asia before the Greeks were using names for it. What is the etymology of the word for Asia today in China? I do not know. I do not know Mandarin. Just like anywhere languages evolve. So you do not know for sure in many cases where a word originated.

And as Bernie said this is a pointless debate. Bernie I am going to take you up on that building. I want "pana njia". The greatest wonder of all time. And that is a great example of the lunacy of this thread. And come on the thread is better spam than just fighting about what civilization should be included. I have posted much more than others though, and I am getting tired of the topic. And yes I am American, a veteran, and someone who was raised in the Southeast that formed an allergic reaction to racism(from both sides of the "races") because of stress levels. I will make a new race of people in the process from my children. Definitely need to stop posting now.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Thats okay, 'cause your obviously not willing to listen, therefore I have no more to say to you.

 

[EdCase]

. Which is a big turn off to buy the game to anyone that has a little more knowledge of the world.

Someone HAS to say this, so I will. If your truly this offended by a videogame then do not buy it. But please allow those that can put aside their knowledge for a little harmless "what if ?" fun to do so and suspend the nerd-rage.

Civilization is not, nor has it ever been, a real world simulator nor is it meant to be one. It is a gaming system with a historical flavor. Lighten up my friend and enjoy being the eternal ruler of a historically named empire of an imaginary world.

 

[Helmling]

Wow, this is a long thread.

Bottom line, I don't think it's a big surprise that Civ is Eurocentric--and not because it's designed by white people of European descent, either.

Civ conceptualizes history as a linear progression. THAT is a very Western idea. Naturally, the civilizations that have prospered by that metric are going to tend to be European.

Which is all part of one of my problems with the game--it is so linear.

 

[pi-r8]

Wow, this is a long thread.

Bottom line, I don't think it's a big surprise that Civ is Eurocentric--and not because it's designed by white people of European descent, either.

Civ conceptualizes history as a linear progression. THAT is a very Western idea. Naturally, the civilizations that have prospered by that metric are going to tend to be European.

Which is all part of one of my problems with the game--it is so linear.

...you prefer a game where after teching to the modern era you start over again in the ancient era? Or one where you can jump directly from ancient to modern?

That's not a western idea, pretty much everyone has believed in a linear history.

 

[MrBanana]

It's because, with the exception of the Dark ages 500-1100ish, EUrope has developed in a straight lineaer fashion. 1700s were more advanced then 1400s, and so on. BUt because of the political strucutre of Inda and China, they often stopped advancing or even forgot and put aside new technologies.

And you really don't need to do the tech tree in a European/balanced way. You can rush to math and get all the techs up there, and neglect religion.

The new tech tree is even more like this. You can to DYnam,ite, for example, and skip a lot of techs. Like the Incas: very advanced civilisation for a people who do not have writing.

Johnny Boy needs to learn that having civs "change" would require a lot fo work, and really not pay off in the end, never mind that some people wouldn't eve want it.

 

[j51]

Holy cow, is this spam thread still around? Amazing.

Niiiiiiiiiicccccccccccce... I concur!

Someone HAS to say this, so I will. If your truly this offended by a videogame then do not buy it. But please allow those that can put aside their knowledge for a little harmless "what if ?" fun to do so and suspend the nerd-rage.

Civilization is not, nor has it ever been, a real world simulator nor is it meant to be one. It is a gaming system with a historical flavor. Lighten up my friend and enjoy being the eternal ruler of a historically named empire of an imaginary world.

This has been said on this thread over a dozen times - but it doesn't stop jsmith

 

[johny smith]

Then it can be agreed it is just a video game like CivRev So no one should not take things too serious nor consider the game worth anything particular other than a simple game.

Now where is my Nintendo? I still have not stopped Donkey Kong. Darn it.

I understand it is very important to state the obvious. I mean it is very important restating that someone has another view on things that does not correspond with the majority. I mean something like that is very important to show how rational you are. And continually say how silly it is. (I would not want to be with the crazies)

Silly people thinking that history really matters. What they do know? Why should we bore ourselves with such trifles in a game that is trying to have fun with history? Nothing we do in this world has a cause and effect. That idea is total nonsense. Let us eat cake with some French dude or dudette in Civilization 5.

I am sorry if I offended anyone here. It was not meant to offend anyone. I clumsy worded things but my intent was not to offend. And the argument it is just a game is correct so no one is wrong when they say that. Again I am sorry for posting.

 

[StStutter]

Then it can be agreed it is just a video game like CivRev So no one should not take things too serious nor consider the game worth anything particular other than a simple game.

Now where is my Nintendo? I still have not stopped Donkey Kong. Darn it.

I understand it is very important to state the obvious. I mean it is very important restating that someone has another view on things that does not correspond with the majority. I mean something like that is very important to show how rational you are. And continually say how silly it is. (I would not want to be with the crazies)

Silly people thinking that history really matters. What they do know? Why should we bore ourselves with such trifles in a game that is trying to have fun with history? Nothing we do in this world has a cause and effect. That idea is total nonsense. Let us eat cake with some French dude or dudette in Civilization 5.

I am sorry if I offended anyone here. It was not meant to offend anyone. I clumsy worded things but my intent was not to offend. And the argument it is just a game is correct so no one is wrong when they say that. Again I am sorry for posting.

Second bold: the only thing in this post that anyone has actually stated. This does not by any means imply we believe in the other ludacris statements.

First bold: everyone is providing reasons as to why what you propose is silly. You have not done this. Every fact you've stated (including the Einkhorn Wheet btw) appears to be false.

 

[johny smith]

Second bold: the only thing in this post that anyone has actually stated. This does not by any means imply we believe in the other ludacris statements.

First bold: everyone is providing reasons as to why what you propose is silly. You have not done this. Every fact you've stated (including the Einkhorn Wheet btw) appears to be false.

So what are you saying the game is historical? But at the same time since someone has opinion that does not correspond with what you have read is wrong? So therefore the game is correct? I am lost now.

And I did not mean to sound like I was attacking you personally. I disagree with "Guns, Germs, and Steel". And nobody has proven anything in this thread expect they disagree in a sounding majority with certain individuals (like me). Nor that they completely believe in your theory.

Well again I did not ask for agreement. But stating the obvious that someone has a different view that is not shared shows nothing other than a number count. I think I clearly stated I know I am in the minority here. Just read on my friend. I will say a thank you for reading something on the matter whether or not I agree.

 

[Carver]

I knew there was a reason I didn't click on this thread until now - people going round and round in circles, going no where.

 

[Mustakrakish]

Seriously? I didn't bother reading 17 pages so I'm sorry if this have been said already.

To OP. Too much European? What do you want exactly? I mean there is a standard 18 civs in vanilla. So what would you want instead? Should they remove England? Germany? France? Russia? Greece? Rome for Thor's sake? And replace with what instead? Zulu? Ethiopia? Khmer? Korea?

Maya, Incas, Sumer, Mongolia would be fine candidates no doubt. But on the expense of England, Germany, France, Russia, Greece or Rome? I don't think so.

Instead:

Maya or Incas instead of Iroquois, Sumeria instead of Songhai, Mongolia instead of Siam...

 

[StStutter]

So what are you saying the game is historical? But at the same time since someone has opinion that does not correspond with what you have read is wrong? So therefore the game is correct? I am lost now.

No I mean the only reason the game is even loosely based on history is to add an element of flavour and fun. It succeeds in this.

The game of Civilization does not strive to be an educative program over being a game. Being a fun game is its first priority. Everything else is already extra. This does not bother most people. When we desire history lessons, we research somewhere, or read a b ook, not play civ.

And I did not mean to sound like I was attacking you personally. I disagree with "Guns, Germs, and Steel". And nobody has proven anything in this thread expect they disagree in a sounding majority with certain individuals (like me). Nor that they completely believe in your theory.

I did not feel that way. I do feel though that it's extremely frustrating when providing many examples and references to someone I'm arguing with and be answered simply with generally vague statements. You do not create arguments, you simply state your opinions.

Well again I did not ask for agreement. But stating the obvious that someone has a different view that is not shared shows nothing other than a number count. I think I clearly stated I know I am in the minority here. Just read on my friend. I will say a thank you for reading something on the matter whether or not I agree.

I'm open to agreement, but for this to happen, you must convince me. And to do so requires more than just your opinions.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Let's put it this way, the history of the world is just a backdrop for civ, I could easily make the same game with totally made up civs. But isn't it more fun to play the Romans, reach the modern era, and conquer Russia; Than to play the Martorians, survive till the modern era, and conquer Halitonia? It's sort of like playing a sifi game like MOO without the Humans or real star system names.

 

[johny smith]

I did not feel that way. I do feel though that it's extremely frustrating when providing many examples and references to someone I'm arguing with and be answered simply with generally vague statements. You do not create arguments, you simply state your opinions.

I'm open to agreement, but for this to happen, you must convince me. And to do so requires more than just your opinions.

Ok well maybe this matters. I thought I was not vague about examples. I don't care about the game discussion anymore I know the game is meant to be pseudo-history.

What is complex society? If a city in North America was bigger than any in Europe at the corresponding time is that complex? Read the population estimate from this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia#Ancient_city

Low Estimates are 40,000 at least I learned in a university setting. I can not quickly look for a book and scan the reasoning on population estimates.

Here is a better site though.
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/198

It states 10,000-20,000.
At least it is better than the wikipedia.

Here is the official webpage.
http://cahokiamounds.org/

Here is their diet.

Spoiler :

I actually took the photo from the site.

If you do not think this is complex society then we will disagree. I don't have much time to discuss now though because I am back to a normal schedule.