Is anyone else appalled by the Eurocentrism in Civ?

[phungus420]

In this thread we have people wanting a game built around history to ignore the effects of the enlightenment and the effects of European imperialsm just for the sake of some sort of PC belief that Europe as a continent was not as influential as it was. I call this bafoonery, but that's just how some people will be.

 

[phungus420]

are pretty hilarious when you consider how small an area England, Ireland and northern France are in the grand scheme of things. Even civs like Rome are not so earth-shaking when you realize that the Roman empire only ever really encompassed European lands and bits of the Middle East. Germany has been put into Civ almost entirely by dint of its effect on Continental history, since its history outside Europe is quite limited. I welcome the inclusion of more neglected civs like Siam, Iroquois, Songhai and the Ottomans (it really shocked me that the Ottomans weren't in Civ4 Vanilla) and hope they add more of them in the future. Of course, I wouldn't mind at the same time more interesting European civs like Spain and Portugal. With any luck there will be "ethnically diverse" units in Civ 5 as well.

People overemphasize Rome, yes. Rome is about as historically important as ancient China. However we live in the 21st century,; global culture has been deeply influenced by the enlightenment and it's derivatives (the scientific method, representative democracy, etc), which was spawned in Europe. Further most of the globe was controlled politically and economically by European powers for a couple centuries. Trying to ignore these effects on the modern world just doesn't make sense.

 

[Auncien]

I don't believe the game is eurocentric. No Spain at launch and the inclusion of many civilizations from every geographic region indicates at least respect for other traditions / histories.

 

[Tusked]

People overemphasize Rome, yes. Rome is about as historically important as ancient China. However we live in the 21st century,; global culture has been deeply influenced by the enlightenment and it's derivatives (the scientific method, representative democracy, etc), which was spawned in Europe. Further most of the globe was controlled politically and economically by European powers for a couple centuries. Trying to ignore these effects on the modern world just doesn't make sense.

I don't believe people overemphasize Rome. When you consider the impacts they've had on world history, it's pretty amazing. From one city-state built up a few centuries before Christ, you get Christianity (which might be slightly important in the scheme of things) and successor states in the Byzantine Empire until 1453 and the Holy Roman Empire until 1806. From those states you get successors in the Ottoman Empire until 1919, who move their capital to Constantinople, the Russian Empire until 1917, who declared Moscow the third Rome after Constantinople's fall, modern Germany, which formed from the various member states of the HRE after its dissolution, and the Austrian Empire until 1919, which was declared by the Holy Roman Emperor in 1804. Not to mention the fact that pretty much the only modern european power that DOESN'T take its name from a roman name for a province is France, everything else is from what the Romans called stuff. Spain from Hispania, Germany from Germania, Brittain from Brittania. Also, the romans controlled pretty much the whole of western Europe, which is something that has not been done by any power since. Latin remained the language of the educated in Europe until at least ~1600. The enlightenment, which you mentioned, was influenced by European attempts to reclaim Greek and Roman thought. I don't believe the importance of Rome can be overstated.

I agree with you on your other point, though. Civilization is Eurocentric because the world is Eurocentric. We're living in a western european dominated time, and Civ reflects the history that brought us here.

 

[grant2004]

Appalled and enraged? Don't you think you're getting a little too worked up about this? It is a game for a western audience so you'd expect that there would be a bit of a bias towards western civs and units that people will be at least partially familiar with.

That said Civ V has clearly done a lot to take a more diverse look at history, as others have mentioned with flavored music, art, and leaders. In fact I think they've gone too far. In trying to include obscure civilizations they've ended up ignoring some of the most influencial civs in history. Spain is a great example of this. At one point they controlled most of South America, large portions of North America, and varrious other colonial possesions throughout the world. That's not the sort of legacy you shake a stick at. I don't want to turn this into a discussion about which civs should be in, but it's clear that Spain in particular, and the Mongols as well, were highly significant empires that have missed the cut in Civ V in the interests of including less significant empires from other corners of the earth.

 

[AriochIV]

I would also point out that the inclusion of a civilization in the game is not a comment on how important it was; it's a game, not a "top 18 civilizations in history" awards show. The Iroquois are in to offer a unique playstyle, not because they were an important civilization. You can play the Americans from 6000 BC not because it's historical but because it's fun (and because a large percentage of people playing the game will be Americans). So I don't get the point of groaning about this or that "important" civilization not being represented.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Germany from Germania

Just lurking around, when I picked up this opportunity to micro-correct someone.
The German word for Germany "Deutschland" bears no connection to Germania.

However I agree that the Roman Empire is rightfully emphasized. I think it is save to say that no other civilization had such a great impact on history. The history of Europe and hence the history of the world was determined by this civilization after all.

 

[nerd]

my own feeling, from civ (no number) to now, is that the available default civs should be those that existed anywhere at some specific date.
Say 3000BCE.
To me, it matters not what any civ did since then, as that is what we do in the game.
Even unique units or buildings should (imho) be based on the particular route taken thru the tech tree and the particular use of resources by a civ during the game.
I see no reason that "longbowmen" should be English, rather, research archery, and have a particular civic (England only had longbowmen historically because of feudalism), and have a resource for wood. Then, and only then, "longbowmen".
Similar connections existed for most "special" techs. Scotland birthed the industrial revolution, party because of having both coal and iron, it would be hard otherwise.

I am proudly Canadian, but why would I reasonably want to play that civ, as its start date should be (year very debatable) in the 1700s. Similarly ALL modern countries.

 

[johny smith]

Is anyone else appalled by the Eurocentrism in Civ?

Appalled no, but very disappointed. It is not that the game is any worse than others. That is why I say not appalled. It is a game tradition in each area of the world to be ignorant of other significant history outside of their area.

Most of the world is "western or were at one point" if you include colonial entities.

I have no clue what you mean here. Just because Mesopotamia is in a western civ book does mean it is strictly western. Just because India was a British colony does not mean it is Western.

What I really dislike is that tech tree is kinda Europocentric. You develop technologies in order European civilizations did. Chinese developed gunpowder and paper while most of European land was still untoutched by agriculture. They had huge almost unsinkabale ships and developed ways to measure latitude and longitude, circumnavigated the globe and charted all major lands decades before Portugese copied Arabic ships in order to create caravel. There is no way you can achieve that in civ series :/. I would love several alternative tech routes.

This is exactly my opinion.

In this thread we have people wanting a game built around history to ignore the effects of the enlightenment and the effects of European imperialsm just for the sake of some sort of PC belief that Europe as a continent was not as influential as it was. I call this bafoonery, but that's just how some people will be.

Basically look at my response above to dra. There were enlightments in every culture outside of Europe. The Arabs or Chinese enlightments are not covered for sure. European Imperialism came later. It will be shrinking away to China shortly most likely.

 

[Ahriman]

I have no clue what you mean here. Just because Mesopotamia is in a western civ book does mean it is strictly western.

I have no idea what you mean here.
The poster was complaining that every city state in the game was either European or was once ruled by Europe.

I argued that this is a uselessly broad critique, since almost the entire world has at one point or another been ruled by Europe (and the major exclusions are already in the game).

Mesopotamia; ruled by Alexander, Rome, Ottomans.
Africa and Americas; European colonization. South Asia: British India. SE Asia, colonized. Australia/NZ, colonized. Pacific islands, colonized. Central Asia: Soviet dominated.

Basically the only places on earth never controlled by Europe are Thailand, Mongolia (though; Soviet client state), China (though brief control of a few ports and HK), Korea and Japan (occupied by US briefly).
[And maybe some bits of the highlands in New Guinea.]

If you take a more reasonable definition, then there are city states already announced in the game that are not very European (eg Singapore and Buenos Aires) and will probably be more.

 

[johny smith]

I have no idea what you mean here.
The poster was complaining that every city state in the game was either European or was once ruled by Europe.

I argued that this is a uselessly broad critique, since almost the entire world has at one point or another been ruled by Europe (and the major exclusions are already in the game).

Mesopotamia; ruled by Alexander, Rome, Ottomans.
Africa and Americas; European colonization. South Asia: British India. SE Asia, colonized. Australia/NZ, colonized. Pacific islands, colonized. Central Asia: Soviet dominated.

Basically the only places on earth never controlled by Europe are Thailand, Mongolia (though; Soviet client state), China (though brief control of a few ports and HK), Korea and Japan (occupied by US briefly).

If you take a more reasonable definition, then there are city states already announced in the game that are not very European (eg Singapore and Buenos Aires) and will probably be more.

I am sorry I edited my original post after you posted.

But just because it is a colony does mean it is Western. The Soviet Union is not the same as America in culture either. In the broad range of Civ European Imperialism should be not so big, but since the time scales get smaller later is the really only why it gets noticed. I mean how long was Moors dominating Europe? As much as Europe is spinned they were villages in 1000 AD compared to the Middle East. China probably was much more important than Rome in 400 BC even. It is not like Civ made up the idea of history focused on Europe. You are just bombarded with lack of info on the history of other regions in America everyday.

Civs I care little about because the Civilization game will never get them right. There have beeb millions. No Rome is not the same as Italy. Or HRE as Germany. Nothing ever stays the same. The tech tree does bother me though. While Europe was having a war everyday in the Middle Ages Arabia was booming. The Medieval tree for example only reflects Europe meanwhile the rest of world was may more advanced.

 

[YoHo]

I could see a valid complaint about Babylon not being in the game undercuting the relevance of Mesopotamia. but really, its zeroday DLC, so its not a big complaint.

 

[YoHo]

I am sorry I edited my original post after you posted.

But just because it is a colony does mean it is Western. The Soviet Union is not the same as America in culture either. In the broad range of Civ European Imperialism should be not so big, but since the time scales get smaller later is the really only why it gets noticed. I mean how long was Moors dominating Europe? As much as Europe is spinned they were villages in 1000 AD compared to the Middle East. China probably was much more important than Rome in 400 BC even. It is not like Civ made up the idea of history focused on Europe. You are just bombarded with lack of info on the history of other regions in America everyday.

Mongols are out of the game at the point right? Unless they are one of the bonus civs.

I'd argue that the Mongols rightfully should lay claim to Empiredom. Certainly they as much as any China.

 

[trezno]

Comments like

are pretty hilarious when you consider how small an area England, Ireland and northern France are in the grand scheme of things. Even civs like Rome are not so earth-shaking when you realize that the Roman empire only ever really encompassed European lands and bits of the Middle East. Germany has been put into Civ almost entirely by dint of its effect on Continental history, since its history outside Europe is quite limited. I welcome the inclusion of more neglected civs like Siam, Iroquois, Songhai and the Ottomans (it really shocked me that the Ottomans weren't in Civ4 Vanilla) and hope they add more of them in the future. Of course, I wouldn't mind at the same time more interesting European civs like Spain and Portugal. With any luck there will be "ethnically diverse" units in Civ 5 as well.

At the same time when Rome was at its peak, what else were going on in the world? You do not agree that Rome was the greatest civ regarding culture, trade, military strength etc.?

Yeah, the Roman empire was smaller (landmass) than the USA today and would get their Legionnaires-asses kicked by the navy seal, but those two aren't really comparable, are they?

A lot of different nations has been a super power during the last 6,000 years. I think the civ genre is pretty good at selecting these combined with smaller impact nations.

 

[johny smith]

Mongols are out of the game at the point right? Unless they are one of the bonus civs.

I'd argue that the Mongols rightfully should lay claim to Empiredom. Certainly they as much as any China.

I really don't care. Mongols did not have permanent cities. They are important after they conquer, but since Civ has everyone start at 4000BC....it is like taking about the Vulcans on Earth in 4000 BC

Now not related the tech tree is just flat out stupid and Eurocentric. The Civs are more European but it is like a bunch of Nationalist tripping over their own feet. It is dumb as well to believe the Americans were same for 6000 years. If wanting to end the debate Civ should have your culture changing to another as you play like Rome possibly to Italy eventually or various other civs that were obviously influenced by Rome, and have new variations appearing when they do. Based on culture not some dumb genetic idea(which is not the case but want to make clear it is not what I am talking about).

Just hire someone with culture anthropology background for a change. Whoever writes the tech trees(which I think of derived from the original board game) needs to study more. It could be so much better versus just a generic Rock,Scissors, and Paper game. It is illogical, simple is good but you can achieve the same effect without a bad tech tree that has nothing to do with the real world.

 

[brianshapiro]

I really don't care. Mongols did not have permanent cities. They are important after they conquer, but since Civ has everyone start at 4000BC....it is like taking about the Vulcans on Earth in 4000 BC

Now not related the tech tree is just flat out stupid and Eurocentric. The Civs are more European but it is like a bunch of Nationalist tripping over their own feet. It is dumb as well to believe the Americans were same for 6000 years. If wanting to end the debate Civ should have your culture changing to another as you play like Rome possibly to Italy eventually or various other civs that were obviously influenced by Rome, and have new variations appearing when they do. Based on culture not some dumb genetic idea(which is not the case but want to make clear it is not what I am talking about).

Just hire someone with culture anthropology background for a change. Whoever writes the tech trees(which I think of derived from the original board game) needs to study more. It could be so much better versus just a generic Rock,Scissors, and Paper game. It is illogical, simple is good but you can achieve the same effect without a bad tech tree that has nothing to do with the real world.

And Americans aren't really a civilization by themselves, they're a product of different European civilizations. Its somewhat anachronistic to refer to "the American civilization".

As for the tech tree being biased I think thats just a result of having a tech tree. Personally I don't like the concept of 'choosing which tech you want to discover'

 

[Myth5]

And Americans aren't really a civilization by themselves, they're a product of different European civilizations. Its somewhat anachronistic to refer to "the American civilization".

As for the tech tree being biased I think thats just a result of having a tech tree. Personally I don't like the concept of 'choosing which tech you want to discover'

How would you have a game that is both balanced and able to be mastered without a solid mechanic for scientific discovery? Obviously it is historically inaccurate and absurd to a point, but a random discovery of tech would make the game near impossible to develop skill in or improve upon. I don't know how a better mechanic would be implemented (not that I know everything, of course )

 

[Halam]

destroy eurocentrism...Make a mod =P

 

[Ergo Sum]

At the same time when Rome was at its peak, what else were going on in the world? You do not agree that Rome was the greatest civ regarding culture, trade, military strength etc.?

Yeah, the Roman empire was smaller (landmass) than the USA today and would get their Legionnaires-asses kicked by the navy seal, but those two aren't really comparable, are they?

A lot of different nations has been a super power during the last 6,000 years. I think the civ genre is pretty good at selecting these combined with smaller impact nations.

You assume that nothing else was happening in the world because you haven't been taught about it, and you have been taught about how great the Romans are. This has been happening for centuries. My beef with the Romans is not that they didn't achieve anything; they did. They're just widely overrated. There were a lot of bad things about the empire, just as there are any place. Moreover, fetishization of Rome has been perpetuated by Western scholars and especially the church since at least the fall of the empire and later since the Renaissance and Enlightenment. It's been the ideal state for nationalistic ideologues who trip over misconceptions surrounding it and use it to justify all sorts of bad causes.

I also think it's a travesty that the Mongols were left out.

My problem with Eurocentrism is that we assume that the blip of world history where Europeans have supposedly dominated affairs is any more important than the blips where China or Arabia were dominant, or that Europeans therefore matter more than nations outside our Western perception.

 

[Xetal]

The people of Europe has shaped the history of this planet more than the people of any other continent.

China would be a close second.

I know that not everyone likes this fact, but it is what it is and the game reflects that to some degree.