Is anyone else appalled by the Eurocentrism in Civ?
- Thread starter Reginleif
- Start date
- Status
I think civs should be included based on their historical significance, and simply put, European cultures have had the largest impact on the world (positive AND negative) of any other continent.
The Mali are mostly included for PC reasons and to give Africa a civ besides Egypt. When you look at them historically, they were not a long-lasting empire, and they were mostly a regional power that grew rich due to Islamic gold trading routes. Compare this to Spain, which conquered much of the world and has left a lasting cultural legacy on two continents.
The Mali are mostly included for PC reasons and to give Africa a civ besides Egypt. When you look at them historically, they were not a long-lasting empire, and they were mostly a regional power that grew rich due to Islamic gold trading routes. Compare this to Spain, which conquered much of the world and has left a lasting cultural legacy on two continents.
KMRblue1027
Deity
Germany could well have been left out, but lets not start this once more
Wow you really don't know anything do you.
1: Germany was arguably the most influential nation of the 20th Century.
2: Germany to an extent has existed since the fall of Charlemagne. Over 1000 years!
3: They are extremely important for so many maps and would be really hard to mod in, especially if someone wanted to actually try to get the German right and not having the leader speak nonsense.
4: Germany is one of the biggest markets for video games. Why would a company alienate their fans. (This is likely the same reason for America to be in the game and I wouldn't by it if either Germany or America was missing.)
Ahriman
Tyrant
"Pakistan" and "Bangladesh" and their boundaries are modern creations.
Indian civilization (meaning that of the whole subcontinent, not just the modern nation of India) is crucial to include, but splitting up among the modern national lines would not be a good solution.
Part of the problem is that the subcontinent was never really ruled centrally except under the British, so much like Greece we're faced with trying to shoe-horn an important but decentralized "cultural world" (like the Hellenic world) somehow into a game about particular nations.
Its hard to do, and easy to see why just a single India was the solution; any other combination of subpowers is likely to overlap and/or fail to be inclusive enough.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Of course it's about re-creating history. That's why we can play an ancient USA or a modern Roman Empire.
But it's done through the notable civilizations, as they precisely illustrate the concept. Including the most influencial and relevant players seems a rather logical course of action.
Actually, the Greeks considered themselves to be part of the same civilization. They shared a language and a culture, even if they had local particularism. "barbarians" is a word we have precisely because of this, you know. And the history of Greece shows very much they thought themselves as one people, even if politically very fragmented.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Athenians and Spartans certainly had at least as much in common as, say, Uighurs and Cantonese (China), or Bengalis and Punjabis (India), or Yemenis, Iraqis, Coptic Egyptians and Libyans (Arabs), or Anatolians and Cyrenacians (Ottomans).
brianshapiro
King
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2003
- Messages
- 775
I think we're forgetting Hellenistic Greece anyway, united under Alexander.
johny smith
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2007
- Messages
- 2,273
I don't know how you know that. Tell the Mitochondrial DNA that please then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali_Empire
Go tell people that in West Africa today. Do you really believe that other non-Europeans did not spread influence. The Empire dates from 1230AD to 1600 AD is not bad at all. 370 years maybe not the same as others. I would argue that they are more important than many Europeans. But to say they are the best selection from West Africa I do not know. I do know if you make a group to represent the timespan of Ghana to Songhai then yes they are much more important than most European states. Most of them center around the Niger River Valley which is similar to what you see in Mesopotamia. It is natural that people would be near river there.
1.Germany as of 1871 was pretty influential in the 20th Century, yes just the 20th century.
2.You could argue then the Dutch are more important? Since they developed a Germanic language first. I don't mean this to dismiss Germany. But you could argue that for many nations.
3.Oh yes language on the game is very important what are the Egyptians speaking or the Babylonians.
4.Dido. Do you think they would not buy the game if not? Well poor nationalist would not be able to play their civs
Yes. Rinse and repeat twice a day. Do you people enjoy eating the same food everyday? I guess you need bling to sell a European audience. Maybe that is why they are not selling outside of Europe and America that well. Can we get past playing the same civilizations with nothing related to culture. Either they actually make something that represents the civilization like mentioned before Greeks starting with Demokracy or either I would rather play some other nation outside of Europe versus a crappy cookie cut European civilization. So relevant in my case is something new or more detailed.
Unrelated to comments above:Look you guys have bought the bait. You are just waiting to buy another edition of a rather flat game. It is not like the model really allows you play in the eyes of any of these civilizations. If you are so excited about doing it again and again. Fine whatever.
I just hope you can mod into it something better otherwise I am not interested in just a bunch of Europeans with one unit-building, and then some leader that they spent quite some time making versus making other civilizations with one unit-building. I guess if a unit was a pretzel they add a few dots to and call it a unique unit, and people would love it. I just flat out don't see the value in game.
CHEESE!
On a long nostalgia trip
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2007
- Messages
- 2,222
They considered themselves Greek. That's why Spartans were never called Barbarians- they were Greek too.
KMRblue1027
Deity
1.Germany as of 1871 was pretty influential in the 20th Century, yes just the 20th century.
2.You could argue then the Dutch are more important? Since they developed a Germanic language first. I don't mean this to dismiss Germany. But you could argue that for many nations.
3.Oh yes language on the game is very important what are the Egyptians speaking or the Babylonians.
4.Dido. Do you think they would not buy the game if not? Well poor nationalist would not be able to play their civs
1: I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me here or you got your dates wrong because the 20th Century was 1900-1999.
2: I know you can I'm just saying it's a descent reason and I would love to have both the Dutch and Spanish but sadly we have Ottomans and Siam. (I would rather have Byzantium then the Ottomans)
3: Well not to some people but I'm sure some native Germans would be rather pissed to hear Bismarck spitting out nonsense rather then IMO the most badass language ever. I really don't care what the ancient cultures and speaking because it will sound like gibberish to me (And most people.)
4: This really confused me first you agree then you seem against it. And mabie native Germans will buy it. If a Civ game didn't contain either America or Germany I wouldn't buy it because they are my 2 main civs.
johny smith
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2007
- Messages
- 2,273
Sorry but that's quite a weak argument: Europe didn't invent everything on its own so it's not really that impressive? Mesoamerica gave us chocolate and corn, and Ethiopia discovered coffee; are these really noteworthy contributions?
The question 'Where would we be without the Arabs/China?' is an interesting one but it doesn't prove that Europe's achievements are somehow less impressive. Why not ask 'Where would the rest of the world be without Europe?'
IMO the choice of civs is about right, striking a balance between having the most important civilizations, while at the same time having a geographical spread and a mix of interesting and unique cultures. I think you'd be pushing things a bit far trying to include another non-European civ at the expense of a European one, given that Spain didn't make the cut and Siam did. For me, the Mongols are the only other notable exclusion.
Well regardless Europe would not be modern Europe without contributions from other areas. Domestication takes a very long time. The cow came from India for example. Wheat from the Middle East. The list could go on, but the point is there is no modern Europe without the contributions. What do you think it would look like without the other contributions, and they did not still learn a lot from them. There are plenty of things that never left the regions that could be considered unique technologies. Most probably playing this game would think of the things as unimportant, but may in the future be advancements ignored by Europeans.
You could even go as far to say if you play the game back further that the present Europeans are outsiders invading into Europe. The Indo-Europeans came to Europe after the invention of the horse. The cultures were significantly different before them. So really you could call this. Indo-Europeancentrism.
Edit: Sorry did not have much time for this post. But you are completely correct in saying it is a 2way street as well. It should go both ways. That is why I suggest regional tech trees. With a equal number of civs using each tech tree, and you change a civ each era based on the region you are in. So to have uniqueness. But that means not enough time to make all of those leaders.
Thanks. It is a great name is it not.Love the title!
johny smith
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2007
- Messages
- 2,273
I am going to try to make it clearer what I am saying. Germany (lol bad ass language yes it made me constipated trying to learn while I was living in Germany) would not be able to have the large scale industrialization without the Potato. Pork could be produce at a much larger volume because of the potato because small plots land could be used to feed animals. The potato was the miracle plant that could give enough to pig to grow without having to use a larger amount of area to produce food needed. Now today there are still many strands in Bolivia that were never brought over.
Italy's national food symbol Napoli(Naples) pizza. As in the colors of the flag would not be possible until finally accepting the Tomato as good plant that originated in Mesoamerica. I mean how you can base a country on a food that is from the other side of the globe and not wonder what would happen if the tomato had never came about.
Industrialization in Europe was not possible without pass knowledge of what the Arab Caliphate had did. For the example the Arabs had actually had hydo power in a simple form and various other engineer feats not matched in Europe till much later.
But the Arabs previously relied on info from past cultures for the ideas. The Arab Caliphate actually paid anyone for any written text they could bring to Baghdad that he did not already have in the library.
Later on now countries outside of Europe are learning the Industrialization processes from Europe. The reasons Europe was successful at making colonies was because of Industrialization. The Americas before had nowhere near the weapon technology of the Europeans but that was before the Industrialization. Later though after Industrialization they were strong enough to spread all over the place. Imperialism was a racist policy in the beginning. It was basically the same way the Greeks looked at people outside of Greece. The Europeans looked at the nonEuropeans as barbarians.
The same lack of understanding go both ways. The Chinese Emperor thought he was the emperor of the world. That justified why China could claim any area as their own.
The games need some system that makes logical sense of how aka "civilizations" rise and fall. Meaning for example the fall of Rome lead to rise of Europeans states speaking Latin still. Or the fall Babylonian lead to rise of other states in Mesopotamia. Or the fall of various dynasties in China lead to rise of various effects in China. Or the fall of the Mayans lead to rise of various Mesoamerican cultures. There needs to be something showing what impact the culture of the previous "civilization" had on the next. Not try to play a civilization (America for example) that makes no sense in 4000 BC.
I do not mean it has to be deciding exactly that America splits from England. But America is more or less a whole hodge-podge of European culture and a little of north american indian culture. Any civilization schisms from Europe in right time period could be America for example. You can apply this to various groups around the world. There is no culture that has stayed the same(even though many Chinese think they are the same I heard). I would like players to be able to choose how they want to make their civilization not have a pick ones that really do not represent anything but a unit and a building.
Anyway what I am trying to say is that no one region is more influential through the whole course of history. Now you can argue Europe is so important because of the current situation. And civilization the game will not be so important in the future when Europe/North Americans are no longer in control. Who knows what the game will be. I know most of you will not be buying a Chinese game similar to civilization where East Asia is overemphasized. So I am saying if people would get their head out their rear it might be possible to make a game that stands the test of time. Where people who are outside of Europe/North America might feel as they are represented better. I personally would prefer hearing a history from many different prospectives. For example playing China and having gunpowder early(and choosing to make weapons instead doing nothing because no use of gunpowder weapons) and choosing possibly a different route than destroying the entire Chinese naval fleet after sailing half the world at least in the 1100's.
I could go on and on but I want to find something else to do. I just hope I am understood on what I am saying. These trivial things like I wish Greece, Germany, or perhaps Luxembourg are in are just that trivial. The only thing that is the work most of time to add one is good graphics for leaders. The ones you are familiar with will be added eventually. So I would not be concerned about it.
Italy's national food symbol Napoli(Naples) pizza. As in the colors of the flag would not be possible until finally accepting the Tomato as good plant that originated in Mesoamerica. I mean how you can base a country on a food that is from the other side of the globe and not wonder what would happen if the tomato had never came about.
Industrialization in Europe was not possible without pass knowledge of what the Arab Caliphate had did. For the example the Arabs had actually had hydo power in a simple form and various other engineer feats not matched in Europe till much later.
But the Arabs previously relied on info from past cultures for the ideas. The Arab Caliphate actually paid anyone for any written text they could bring to Baghdad that he did not already have in the library.
Later on now countries outside of Europe are learning the Industrialization processes from Europe. The reasons Europe was successful at making colonies was because of Industrialization. The Americas before had nowhere near the weapon technology of the Europeans but that was before the Industrialization. Later though after Industrialization they were strong enough to spread all over the place. Imperialism was a racist policy in the beginning. It was basically the same way the Greeks looked at people outside of Greece. The Europeans looked at the nonEuropeans as barbarians.
The same lack of understanding go both ways. The Chinese Emperor thought he was the emperor of the world. That justified why China could claim any area as their own.
The games need some system that makes logical sense of how aka "civilizations" rise and fall. Meaning for example the fall of Rome lead to rise of Europeans states speaking Latin still. Or the fall Babylonian lead to rise of other states in Mesopotamia. Or the fall of various dynasties in China lead to rise of various effects in China. Or the fall of the Mayans lead to rise of various Mesoamerican cultures. There needs to be something showing what impact the culture of the previous "civilization" had on the next. Not try to play a civilization (America for example) that makes no sense in 4000 BC.
I do not mean it has to be deciding exactly that America splits from England. But America is more or less a whole hodge-podge of European culture and a little of north american indian culture. Any civilization schisms from Europe in right time period could be America for example. You can apply this to various groups around the world. There is no culture that has stayed the same(even though many Chinese think they are the same I heard). I would like players to be able to choose how they want to make their civilization not have a pick ones that really do not represent anything but a unit and a building.
Anyway what I am trying to say is that no one region is more influential through the whole course of history. Now you can argue Europe is so important because of the current situation. And civilization the game will not be so important in the future when Europe/North Americans are no longer in control. Who knows what the game will be. I know most of you will not be buying a Chinese game similar to civilization where East Asia is overemphasized. So I am saying if people would get their head out their rear it might be possible to make a game that stands the test of time. Where people who are outside of Europe/North America might feel as they are represented better. I personally would prefer hearing a history from many different prospectives. For example playing China and having gunpowder early(and choosing to make weapons instead doing nothing because no use of gunpowder weapons) and choosing possibly a different route than destroying the entire Chinese naval fleet after sailing half the world at least in the 1100's.
I could go on and on but I want to find something else to do. I just hope I am understood on what I am saying. These trivial things like I wish Greece, Germany, or perhaps Luxembourg are in are just that trivial. The only thing that is the work most of time to add one is good graphics for leaders. The ones you are familiar with will be added eventually. So I would not be concerned about it.
johny smith
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2007
- Messages
- 2,273
1. Prussia lasted longer as a state than Modern Day Germany has for example. Prussia did many things. Sharpshooters at Waterloo was not a German idea it was Prussian. Nationalism lead to the idea of unified Germany. There are many steps in between that are skipped I mean that could be more significant.
2. Same more or less above. Holy Roman Empire did not form with Charlemagne really. It was after the splitting of the Frankish Empire, and then a later HRE was formed in area but bigger than modern day Germany.
3. Hochdeutsch came in as a language official for Germany. There are plenty of various dialects that could be used. I mean Bismark would be better with maybe a smart as. Prussian dialect. The language very often is so bad when done by Americans people do not want to hear it in their native countries(This applies to most translations not just Civilization).
4. Many people buy games and do not want to hear or see a poor job done on something they learned from being raised there. There is a large population of people who have an aversion to nationalism. I live in America and I am an American citizen. The one civilization I hate to play is America. I would rather play something more exotic but hard to play with any lack of depth to the civilizations.
I am staying out of this thread now. It is just consuming too much of my time.
brianshapiro
King
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2003
- Messages
- 775
Why distinguish Prussian from German? The people of Prussia were identified as Germanic.
johny smith
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2007
- Messages
- 2,273
Germanic is Scandavia, England, Netherlands, Belguim, Luxembourg, Germany, Austria, Switzerland. I hope did not forget someone. The Franks were Germanic. The list could go on. Germans call Germany Deustchland. Germania (the name) I thought came from Rome. Anyway Prussia and Austria were around much longer than modern Germany. And I guess you know basically Prussia won the ideology battle for modern Germany against Austria. And we could go on about how important Austria-Hungary was which civ really never addressed.
I will just let you guys argue about your 1 unit and 1 building configurations though.
brianshapiro
King
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2003
- Messages
- 775
Yea, the term Germany comes from an area that was referred to as Germania by the Romans, and the area didn't apply to England, Scandinavia, the Netherlands, and Belgium. Before there was a united Germany, the various states there were collectively had called the "Germanies", and the goal was to create a "greater Germany". The Congress of Vienna established an organization of those states called the "German Confederation"
So in a different sense of the term germanic you can call the people of the Germanies as Germanic.
johny smith
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2007
- Messages
- 2,273
But Germanic languages are not Germania. Germania and Germanic are not the same areas. German Confederation was established by who?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Confederation
There were many states arguing over the area after Napoleon fell. Austria and Prussia the main 2. But then you had Great Britain(not england because of the unified Britain finally), Denmark, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.
Anyway it is was not clear cut that everything Prussian equates to just calling them Germany. Would you do the same for Scotland?
I am outta of here really. I need to do something else.
brianshapiro
King
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2003
- Messages
- 775
I just thought that we were discussing Germany for the purposes of a Civ in the game. What were called 'the German states' or the 'germanies' had enough of a tie to each other that its not so strange in the game that they're represented together. Earlier in the thread there was some discussion about Athenians and Spartans being both considered Greek, and its similar I think
johny smith
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2007
- Messages
- 2,273
It is not that your reasoning does not make sense. But arguing that Germany is so important versus Prussia and Austria-Hungary is what I am saying is what Civilization should address. Instead of playing the Germans from 4000 BC. I would rather have something in the game demonstrating the change in aka "civilizations". Not just a flat Germany that is some how suppose to represent the history of the entire region.
It is just stupid. I guess Canada is represented by America then. I would rather the game progress not become stagnate with better eye candy with each series. Sorry I did mean to say anything that sounds bad directed towards you.
Ikael
King
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 873
Civ V do not reeks of Eurocentrism but rather of an utterly lack of historic knowdegle. I am sorry to tell, but everything, from the civilization selection to the Unique Units / buildings / special skills screams to me "history channel aficionado". The lack of more special units on non European civs steams from the lack of military history knowdegle outside of the western civs, while picking up the Iroquois over, say, any freaking civilization that developed any social structure beyond tribalism denotes north american-centrism rather than Euro centrism, unless you are illiterate enough to believe that the Mongols, Incas, Malinese, Spanish or Kjmer were somehow minor civs. The utter lack of understanding of what makes a civilization influential is baffling, and even if there are some nice choices here and there (shongai over the zulus, ottomans being a "vainilla civ", etc), generally talking there are still zones that are hugely underrerpesented (South America, East Asia, etc). Then again, as people have pointed out, this kind of thing has more to do with commercial interests rather than an ill will towards other cultures.
- Status
