Is anyone else appalled by the Eurocentrism in Civ?

[craig123]

That is basically the idea. The only reason I posted here is to say the model appears Eurocentric because it looks as a the writers lack knowledge of most of the history of the world and choose based on what limit knowledge they know to place civilizations. It is like they know very little of ones they do make and know of only a few major significant ones outside of Europe.

So it gives the appearance that they really believe the groups in present day Europe have been just superior in some way like genetic, culture, or something for 6000 years. Sounds like a stupid model that started WW2 to me. Some group thought it had a great heritage spanning 1000's of years and it was based on genetics. Which is a big turn off to buy the game to anyone that has a little more knowledge of the world.

You may be correct about the designers' having limited knowledge of history, or maybe it's just that they produce what people (i.e. a Western audience) want to buy. As stated plenty of times, Civilization is not a history game, is not a simulation of reality, and has never pretended to be. The fact you can be America, lead by Washington, in 4000 BC demonstrates this.

I don't believe it's anything remotely to do with racial or cultural superiority (why bring WW2 into the debate?). They have chosen 18 civs, based on criteria such as historical significance, their legacy on the modern world, notable achievements, etc. while at the same time ensuring a spread of unique cultures. Of course it's skewed towards more recent civs. A game made in 500 years' time would no doubt have civs that were important in the preceding centuries, at the expense of 16th-20th Century European powers.

The age of discovery triggered the wave of European dominance. That was kicked off somewhere in 1400's. But Rome fell Europe turned into of bunch feuding city states for a little while. Some empires formed but they were nothing compared to Arabs or China between 400 AD to 1400 AD. I mean as in complete control of the world. No power in Europe was in control of China till when? Rome was not in control of the entire world just the Mediterranean. Hellenistic Greece the same case as Rome. China probably was better off with population and invention then either Rome or Greece. The Crusades were lost because they Arabs were better off technology wise(I wish Damascus Steel was included as a tech).

Again, you go to great lengths to snub and asperse Euopean achievements. Everyone knows that Asian and Middle-Eastern civilizations were technologically superior to European ones for several centuries, and that many European achievements were based on the discoveries of these civs. But it's not as if they've excluded China, claiming it achieved nothing. China, India, Japan, Persia, Siam, Ottomans and Arabia are in the game because, at one time or another, they were important. And the same applies to England, France, Germany, Russia, Rome and America. (If the game was really Eurocentric they could have replaced Siam with Spain, Persia with Holland, etc.)

Nobody is claiming that any nation has existed in its present form for the past 6000 years. Of course there have been dramatic changes to all people and cultures in this time. But when you start the game in 4000 BC you are not supposed to be playing a 6000-year-old civ. It's an abstraction.

 

[evarofzentral]

Civ V is certainly not eurocentric. As many have already pointed out there are just as many Asian civs as there are European. In addition to that it is hard to argue that Europe has had little impact on the world. Europe has made some sort of impact everywhere. I can't believe the first post said that Greece should be "purged" on top of Spain. Much of civilization as we know it is based on many Greek ideas which were vital to much of the Rome's success. Spain should be in the game due to their huge impact on America.

 

[Depravo]

I am probably too way out for most of the CivFanatics to understand still.

It's possible to understand and not agree, ya know.

 

[Rowain deWolf]

Is CiV eurocentric? Maybe so but even if it where it would be fully justified.

Look at the world today. European countries and culture conquered and colonized: both Americas, Africa, the fifth continent, huge parts of southeast-asia, and northern Asia.

With the exception of Africa and parts of SE-Asia all this past belongings are still basicly european cultured.

I do agree that China, Egypt , India and various others built great civilizations and yes at their hightime they were (far) more advanced than any europeans but they never made such a lasting impact worldwide as the europeans did.

 

[MrBanana]

The fact is that a civ lasting 100 years in the 17th century matters more then a 1000 year old civ in 2000-1000 BC if their achievments overall (wonders built, technology, size and population) are near the same, because there was less competition. I'm not saying discredit the Incas, for they conquered many people who hadn't developed a society at the state level, it just that fr a European civ to stand out it has to be quite strong. Germany has existed as a rival to Rome (as tribes, so maybe not an actual civ), a medieval super power, and a powerful inudtrial empire. Saying it only started in 1870 is like saying Italy wasn't a culture and had no inhabitants or language what so ever before 1870 also.

Saying France, Germany and England are the same civ becuase they are in Christendom is stupid. You might as well say Korea and Japan are simply extensions of China; while they are different cultures, Chinese culture very heavily influenced Japan and Korea, as well as SE Asia. China's cultural grasp is similar to Rome's, so Japan is just as diverse a civ as England an Germany are.

And another thing, civs in Civlization have a limitation: it is a complex game, so for each civ to have its own tech tree, units, and to transform through the game would be very complex and take forever to code. Civ has to balance historical dynamics with pratical consistent gameplay.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Saying France, Germany and England are the same civ becuase they are in Christendom is stupid. You might as well say Korea and Japan are simply extensions of China; while they are different cultures, Chinese culture very heavily influenced Japan and Korea, as well as SE Asia. China's cultural grasp is similar to Rome's, so Japan is just as diverse a civ as England an Germany are.

You DO know how many various lands are shoehorned into the "Arab" civ, right?

 

[MrBanana]

You DO know how many various lands are shoehorned into the "Arab" civ, right?

Arabian culture was and still is very overwhelming, and Arabia repsresents MUslims caliphates from 632 until the Ottomans conquering. Pre Islam, Babylonians and/or Sumerians represnt the kingdoms of Mesopatmia. Only other civs that really stick out in the MIddle East's history are the Assyrians.

 

[brianshapiro]

Saying France, Germany and England are the same civ becuase they are in Christendom is stupid. You might as well say Korea and Japan are simply extensions of China; while they are different cultures, Chinese culture very heavily influenced Japan and Korea, as well as SE Asia. China's cultural grasp is similar to Rome's, so Japan is just as diverse a civ as England an Germany are.

No, I'm saying theyre the same civ because they considered themselves the same civ, believed they shared a common culture (Christian culture), and the way Europe was organized, all of them gave some deference to Papal power. Its simply an awkward use of language to refer to a 'Dutch civilization' and a 'French civilization' and a 'Spanish civilization' in the same sense that there was a 'Roman civilization', and they would have rejected it. Which is why we don't talk about those nations in those terms except for things like this game.

Japan had a lot of influence from China but it was still more an independent culture than were European nations from each other and both cultures existed much longer. It would be more like comparing Greece and Lydia, which influenced each other.

Though, the independent tribes that existed before modern Europe by themselves could be considered civilizations, like the Franks, Celts, etc. They don't have direct correlation to modern day European powers

 

[Semmel]

The difference between European civilizations and Asian, African and American is, Europe discovered all these lands, but Europe it self never got discovered by any other civilization. Despite the fact that all of these Civs had the technology to do it. Even American civs were able to do it the same way the Vikings went to America. So its not the lack of technology, its the lack of trying, the lack of interest in going far away, "looking over the plates border", getting out of the rabbit hole. European civilizations are basically curious. And thats the big difference to almost all the other civilizations in the world.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

The difference between European civilizations and Asian, African and American is, Europe discovered all these lands, but Europe it self never got discovered by any other civilization. Despite the fact that all of these Civs had the technology to do it. Even American civs were able to do it the same way the Vikings went to America. So its not the lack of technology, its the lack of trying, the lack of interest in going far away, "looking over the plates border", getting out of the rabbit hole. European civilizations are basically curious. And thats the big difference to almost all the other civilizations in the world.

You can't be serious.

 

[brianshapiro]

The difference between European civilizations and Asian, African and American is, Europe discovered all these lands, but Europe it self never got discovered by any other civilization. Despite the fact that all of these Civs had the technology to do it. Even American civs were able to do it the same way the Vikings went to America. So its not the lack of technology, its the lack of trying, the lack of interest in going far away, "looking over the plates border", getting out of the rabbit hole. European civilizations are basically curious. And thats the big difference to almost all the other civilizations in the world.

The Romans had trade routes with China, India and Africa. Except for the Americas, it wasn't a matter of discovery. By the Age of Exploration, European powers had developed a mercantilist system which allowed the creation of modern corporations like the Dutch East India Company, which created a means of financing for these types of ventures.

 

[johny smith]

johny smith: I agree with your view of history and cultural change (I myself made a very similar argument earlier this week in a conversation completely unrelated to Civ.), but disagree with your view of Civ. When you play Civ, you're engaging in a gaming process. One of the more intricate and engrossing, IMO. Keep in mind that the historical factors are merely window dressing. They do little to affect the actual game-play. Civ is as much a fantasy as Warcraft. If this bothers you so much (And don't argue that it doesn't; look at the length of your posts.), you shouldn't even bother to play it. This is why your presence here puzzles me. Why would someone who has such a beef with the game even bother to read this forum? Maybe you're playing a very effective form of devil's advocate. Maybe you're trolling. Either way, I'd love to see the game you're proposing, but to agree with the above comments, it would in no way be Civ! It would probably be an enjoyable, if terribly dry, experience akin to Europa Universalis.

Also, please edit your posts before posting. Your rushed writing makes your well though out arguments very difficult to follow.

I actually am asking myself why I am here. I started with Civ 2 then 3 and 4. The big thing I missed from Civ 2 is you are not in total control. You had a senate that could overrule you if playing a Democracy. You had advisers who talk as if they people not some toon. I am not saying your civilization must fall. I simple mean your civilization could always get better but every area select a new civilization to get better with. I do not think the game would be dry. Probably confusing for people to realize that there is not one group of people that stay the same through the entire game.

Europa Universalis was dry and it was focused on Europe and a completely different idea. The concepts in civilization of technologies and playing the whole world is the only reason I looked at civilization the game in the first place. The series has never improved the tech tree which sucks more than even the civilizations to me or one civilization beginning as complete in 4000 BC. Basically I complaining to wall. It will continue to get simpler and dumber.

Basically if I would be asked whether or not children should play this game I would say no. This game tries to say it is history. It does not say it is fantasy. If it say fantasy then I would not feel so bad. But no it gives you a short summary of a civilization. It goes through and pretends the technologies actually relate to reality which they do not. As people posted above it makes it seem as cows just fell from the sky and people had them from beginning time. It happens to use beginning date of some of the first creationist theories.

All question marks to me why they use many things in game. It seems more liking trying so hard not offend anyone but misses a blatant offense with the civilizations. It is like the discussion of religions in Civ 4. Well you know many people are less offended about religion as how civilization presents there culture. Americans(or really more Anglocentrism) are really that concerned with religion. So many things in this game are just made from the American perspective that it is just not funny anymore.

In the meanwhile people really are believing this for their basic history knowledge. When you post here people have never actually thought about the history of technology other than ways to balance out Sid's tech tree. It is sad. But I guess people who play this game never cared until playing this game. Like the argument of the Germanic peoples from Germany that is BS made up there is some nation today (just like most others) that tries to say we are the same type that is why we have a nation. Prussia and Austria-Hungary I would still prefer if civ is trying to show empires not Nationalism.

I am here only till the release of the game if it is that bad like it sounds and can not be modded to my liking. If I can change and throw out all of this garbage in the game and I have time I will be modding to more of a changing model. I totally disagree with everyone here saying it would not be civ. There were people saying civ 4 was not civ because of the combat. We have people saying it is not with a hex map. It would be hard I guess to imagine culture is not that simple to people.

I would prefer the game to educational at least at a low level. And not to focus on Western Civilization (as in the subject) only. Where at least people will not learn complete BS from Sid Meier's Civilization and believe they know history now as they triumphantly crush a tank with a spearman. At least when I post I might make some zombie think about this is total BS. (But the game just copies what is seen on TV. Sexy action history with great nationalism themes of America or whatever nation you live in)

I would even narrow down with all of the other factors besides the civilization to more of an Anglocentric view of the world not really Eurocentric. Anyway you are right I should not bother posting. I will hush now. Let the pointless argument continue just like the fight to get Poland in Civ4. Let us fight for years about what an one unit/one building combo with a pretty dressing name on it as looking as a real group people while do not care about their real culture. Then lets some have an animated guy or gal do a jiggy with a voice that sounds nothing alike the original speak to us some jibberesh most of us do not understand. I am sure glad they spent all of their time and money creating this versus to making a more through game.

 

[johny smith]

You may be correct about the designers' having limited knowledge of history, or maybe it's just that they produce what people (i.e. a Western audience) want to buy. As stated plenty of times, Civilization is not a history game, is not a simulation of reality, and has never pretended to be. The fact you can be America, lead by Washington, in 4000 BC demonstrates this.

I don't believe it's anything remotely to do with racial or cultural superiority (why bring WW2 into the debate?). They have chosen 18 civs, based on criteria such as historical significance, their legacy on the modern world, notable achievements, etc. while at the same time ensuring a spread of unique cultures. Of course it's skewed towards more recent civs. A game made in 500 years' time would no doubt have civs that were important in the preceding centuries, at the expense of 16th-20th Century European powers.



Again, you go to great lengths to snub and asperse Euopean achievements. Everyone knows that Asian and Middle-Eastern civilizations were technologically superior to European ones for several centuries, and that many European achievements were based on the discoveries of these civs. But it's not as if they've excluded China, claiming it achieved nothing. China, India, Japan, Persia, Siam, Ottomans and Arabia are in the game because, at one time or another, they were important. And the same applies to England, France, Germany, Russia, Rome and America. (If the game was really Eurocentric they could have replaced Siam with Spain, Persia with Holland, etc.)

Nobody is claiming that any nation has existed in its present form for the past 6000 years. Of course there have been dramatic changes to all people and cultures in this time. But when you start the game in 4000 BC you are not supposed to be playing a 6000-year-old civ. It's an abstraction.

Forget it you flat out don't get it. I said appearance. You guys want to know why it appears that way. I did not say that the author intended to be one way or another. I said what it looks like is a bunch Nationalistic BS. With 4000 BC date and tech tree not making any sense. It was made to appease to a group that need to know nothing the history around them and same time not offend they so they will buy game. The game certainly manages to do that for most Americans. I am wasting my time here. I won't post here again. I guess the game is just meant to be dumb.

 

[YoHo]

I'm intrigued by the concept of a game that dealt a little more realistically with the rise and fall of Civilizations, but I agree, that is not what Civilization V or any version of it should be.

Civilization is a game, a 4x game specifically. The gameplay dictates some of these decisions.

However, a game that did more realistically deal with civilization would have to be even more than just described. If nothing else, there would need to be more natural influence. Almost all of Civilization is in fact a reaction to environmental changes. Natural mini Ice ages, and warming trends that physically changed areas that were inhabited and forced our ancestors to adapt, civilize and even move. It has as profound, in fact a more profound influence than any technology.

Temperature trends affecting food growth in cities, Landbridges existing, going away, existing again.

etc etc etc. It's an interesting idea, but it is not anything like Civilization.


As for some of the other concepts. I would argue that the notion of founding a city is an abstraction that, in particular in the early game, represents that subjugation either militarily or culturally of neighboring tribes of the same broad culture. So, to me Civ already has that albeit abstracted. Civ4 of course allowed you to conquer Barbarian cities which is also and abstraction of this.
Civ5 has City-states which is yet another abstraction.

 

[Semmel]

You can't be serious.

Why?

The Romans had trade routes with China, India and Africa. Except for the Americas, it wasn't a matter of discovery. By the Age of Exploration, European powers had developed a mercantilist system which allowed the creation of modern corporations like the Dutch East India Company, which created a means of financing for these types of ventures.

Arabia was a huge trading civilization. And I admit, it can be kind of argued if they are European or Asian since the difference defined by continental plates split them somehow into half. However, from a cultural point of view, due to Islam is closer to Judaism and Christianity than to Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and Shintoism, I would count them to the European Civilizations.

And with discovered, I think trading connections count as well as "discovery runs" by Hook or Columbus. Where are the African traders coming to Europe to sell their goods and to buy European ones? Where are the Indian or Chinese Traders, going all the way to Europe? It were there Arabs who went to them to bring them European goods and to get spices and other stuff in return.

 

[brianshapiro]

And with discovered, I think trading connections count as well as "discovery runs" by Hook or Columbus. Where are the African traders coming to Europe to sell their goods and to buy European ones? Where are the Indian or Chinese Traders, going all the way to Europe? It were there Arabs who went to them to bring them European goods and to get spices and other stuff in return.

African traders crossed the Sahara in caravans all the way to Cairo, Egypt. There was no need for them to go further north into Europe. Later, Moors (Africans under muslim influence) invaded Iberia.

My point, anyway, was just the most significant voyage of discovery was to the Americas.. and the Europeans went there, and further charted Africa and Asia, not simply because they were more curious, but they'd developed a mercantilist system where such voyages could receive sustained financing from investors, and that, combined with cultural reasons (the desire to spread Christianity in the name of their respective nations), is what made the Age of Exploration. By the Age of Exploration, even though European states hadn't been world powers, they'd modernized far more than states in Asia, africa, etc.

 

[johny smith]

I will make some very broad suggestions. First of all change the date completely and have the date correspond to what year it is in the corresponding group(just a text change not the absolute time in game that should stay the same), rework the tech tree completely for each area to show how for example how China views Chinese history, demonstrate how cities really grew(basically showing how they would starve to death without trade routes), show the crappy living conditions and how they improve, show the effects of slavery, do not say here Mesoamericans sacrificed people and ignore completely the issue of Europeans sacrifices(or nearly the entire world that matter did), and etc.

There are lot of little things that look as the present Western world is the only civilized world. Show the backward practices in Europe before not just point at anything that is not Western as silly. Europe had so many backward ideas at the corresponding times while others had things that were much better. For example bathing and cleanliness was not a common Medieval practice while many other cultures were practicing it either as science or rituals. I could go on with basically pointing out things that are never shown as problems in Europe but at the same time is used to distinguish how bad others were/are.

That is why I say appears as such. I did not say there is an evil conspiracy of racism. I said that the authors lack of understanding causes the game to look at Europe as the schissentic and the rest of the world as backwards. I would laugh if there was a game to perform the same feat from the perspective of the Arabs. You would be appalled if they had Europeans eating pork automatically gives minus health, or China thinking you are making bad Qi by having stagnate water.

There are million things that point to it, but that is not saying if the tables were turned it would not be the same. Not that it can all be changed, but it is Eurocentric at the very least because it is designed from that perspective. Today really is Monday 21 SHa`baan 1431 A.H

 

[YoHo]

How can a tech tree be based on a certain civ's view of history?

Technologies are technologies. They don't change based on where in the world you come from.

You could rename the technologies for each region, but man I have no interest in wasting developer time on something like that. Time better spent on mechanics and balancing issues.

 

[johny smith]

How can a tech tree be based on a certain civ's view of history?

Technologies are technologies. They don't change based on where in the world you come from.

You could rename the technologies for each region, but man I have no interest in wasting developer time on something like that. Time better spent on mechanics and balancing issues.

Well that is how the world really is. A lot of cultures really see many backwards thing still in Europe technology wise. Technological advancements currently do not match what happened in other places or how they perceive it. How far you want to go I don't know. But the point is Civ 5 could not possible be non Bias and sell I guess. Everyone in world looks at things differently. So say it is not Eurocentric, Anglocentric, Americancentric, Bubbacentric, and etc is stupid. It will be. Because they can not possibly understand all of the world views. I am not promoting they are evil. I am saying it is impossible to be perfect. Now culture changes can be shown. But every game is going to have some different world view when it is developed in a different country. But I really should not be debating something that pointless. The thread is if it Eurocentric or not that is all.

 

[CHEESE!]

​

Also about my quip against the Greeks, that was a personal vendetta as I find their philosophy a ripe-off of Egyptian and Babylonians, or nothing more than religion+ (except Epicurus), their art was soulless, the people who study them as working in the context of the 19th century, their literary works are inflated, and in general, everything about them has been overtly fictionalized.

Oh.... My.... God. Their philosophy was a rip-off?

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

Read it. They invented philosophy. THE WORD IS GREEK!!!

'Nothing more than religion+'???

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

The first pantheist.

And scholars are stuck in the 19th century?

Really, and this is a fact *all* people need to know. CORRELATION ≠ CAUSATION.

Today there are many young, dynamic ancient scholars who give appropriate weight to other civilizations (including Babylon and Egypt), and still are drawn to Greece as the teacher of Western thought. We don't still give extreme weight towards the Hellenistic cultures any more (in fact, my early experience in American history bypassed Rome completely, and we learnt a lot of Mesopotamian history.)

Please. Research.