Is anyone else appalled by the Eurocentrism in Civ?

[johny smith]

I don't see this as eurocentrism but rather Americancentrism.

Agreed but I think that means partially Eurocentric.

 

[Caeserportugal]

Agreed but I think that means partially Eurocentric.

or rather Westerncentric

 

[johny smith]

or rather Westerncentric

Something like that I mean. But you are more correct in saying Americacentric. Since the game is created in America.

Not related:
Instead of me preaching to people that believe that somehow the Europeans rule the world now. I will just give this link for arguments against this ridiculous theory of some Eurasian race more or less predetermined by geography.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel#Criticism

I could find more. But I can not change people believing that the world looks like Europe everywhere in the Americas. So fight on with the stupid idea that everyone has turned into Eurasians or something now.

Based on his theory then the Arabs should win right? I mean they are obviously holding the best geography. And obvious that is why Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. All you heathens convert because resistance is futile.

 

[SalmonSoil]

Something like that I mean. But you are more correct in saying Americacentric. Since the game is created in America.

Not related:
Instead of me preaching to people that believe that somehow the Europeans rule the world now. I will just give this link for arguments against this ridiculous theory of some Eurasian race more or less predetermined by geography.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel#Criticism

I could find more. But I can not change people believing that the world looks like Europe everywhere in the Americas. So fight on with the stupid idea that everyone has turned into Eurasians or something now.

Based on his theory then the Arabs should win right? I mean they are obviously holding the best geography. And obvious that is why Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. All you heathens convert because resistance is futile.

I am beginning to think you have not read the book. Here are some quotes from the wikipedia page you linked.

"[Psychologists, social historians, and physicians] do not seek to justify murder, rape, genocide, and illness."
I will not convert to Islam because the Middle East has the best geography, that does not make middle eastern cultures superior. Also the burst in population was unsustainable and their enviroment is pretty much ruined now. That's why they did not become all conquering.

Diamond also goes to great lengths pointing out the flaws of 'civilization'. Epidemic diseases, large scale war, kleptocracy.

And also, the world is largely dominated by Eurasians. Both American continents are ruled by Eurasians (With mixed blood from native americans, but with heavily european cultures). All over the world people wear jeans and tuxedos. You can not escape this. Jared Diamond merely tries to explain it as something completely unrelated to the superiority of Eurasian cultures or Eurasian genetics.
Also when I refer to Eurasians and Mesoamericans I am using terms to refer to large groups of nationalities and cultures.
I did not argue that Humans had not eaten grains before, I just pointed out that teh Fertile Crescent was the first place to domesticate them and why Crescent grains are better for domestication. I meant that the grains themselves yeild more calories than other foods, particularly wild ones. I also pointed out that the Fertile Crescent is the LARGEST mediteraenean climate and has highely varied altitudes.
(Northern) Europe has varying altitudes but no meditteraenean climate. You'll notice that the first European cities appeared near the meditteraenean.
Why do you need domesticated animals????? If domesticated animals were inefficient food sources they would never have been domesticated. They provide milk, clothing and meat. Many can also be used to provide power (oxes, horses), creating much more efficient farming. Horses also allow for fast travel and only stopped being one of the most powerful military machines in the world with the advent of tanks.
Not only this but large mammals provide us with epidemic diseases, which as it has been stated allowed for the elimination of 90-95% of Native Americans before Europeans even encountered them.
Read about the domestication of corn. See how long it took.
Also when you argue that Mesoamerica failed because it had no iron you argue teh the enviroment effects civilizations as much as we do.
(And they did have some iron)

 

[Tarkhan]

I think it has a lot to do with target audiences...guess who buys Civ games? North Americans and Europeans, primarily.

 

[StStutter]

I'd like to clarify something in this thread. I do not believe that the whole world is Eurasian to any degree. I don't argue that Eurasians are superior at anything. I argue that Eurasian countries (to be precise, western Europe, Middle East, Russia, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, etc.) are the most influential countries in the old world.

Johny Smith, does not believe that there is any way to quantify influence, and shows that every culture is in fact a mosaic of aspects taken from thousands of other cultures.

I agree with you on some aspects.

I will try to define influence, and to do so, I must define culture. Culture is a people's heritage, it involves ways of thinking, dressing, eating, speaking, and political and social structures.

Influence is the amount that one nation's culture has spread to other cultures. There is, of course, no precise way to measure a nation's influence. I define nation as a group of people culturally similar, not necessarily as a state. One cannot create a precise list of which nation has been more accurate. However, I believe that one can have an objective idea of how influential certain nations are.

If we look at western European culture, we see they are all fairly similar in the grand view of things (compared to the how different distant cultures are). The same applies to Middle Eastern/Arab culture and East Asian culture.

Now, I would argue that when looking at African nations, we see the influence that European colonization has had on them. Europeans forced arbitrary borders, imposed a political system and many (obviously not all) Africans wear some form of Western style clothing.

When we look at European nations, however, I see hardly any African influence. I cannot think of any wide-spread or important cultural aspects off the top of my head that were derived from Africa that have not been transformed to be strongly European. Europeans do not listen to traditional African music or wear traditonal African clothes in most cases.

If we look at North America, we see a culture that is very strongly rooted in their European past. America adopted many political (democracy), social (large metropolitan cities) and economical (corporate capitalism) aspects from their ancestors, which now define their nation. They have of course diverged since then (but in my opinion, not enough to ignore this past) and have become the most influential nation in the modern world (not that I condone all the aspects of their influence, I simply state that they are influential). McDonalds have spread everywhere, American popular music, Hollywood, the list could go on.

When looking at Central and South America, I believe we see a culture that is much more a mix of the original natives from those locations and their European conquerors. They speak strictly European languages, but eat a diet that leans towards the side of the natives from those areas.

So to answer your question "Is Mexico a Native American culture or a European one?", I would answer it is a mix of both.

But my point is, there are myriad countries which despite not being a European culture per say, could claim that they have incorporated strictly European cultural characteristics. Much more than any other non-Eurasian society.

The countries that could say they have cultural aspects strongly linked to Native Americans, Africans, Native Australian or Native Indonesian cultures are much more limited, and are confined to certain geographical locations.

 

[bernie14]

they tried but they lost.....

the picture actually brings up several interesting povs....did the native americans (in general) really have this opinion?.....

did that make them "ignorant"?

otherwise, if the native americans were/should have been "accepting" of these europrean "illegal immigrants", will history repeat?

so, is the picture really inciting the "ignorant americans" that they r right, they should stop the mexicans before their lands and culture is overrun?

 

[johny smith]

I'd like to clarify something in this thread. I do not believe that the whole world is Eurasian to any degree. I don't argue that Eurasians are superior at anything. I argue that Eurasian countries (to be precise, western Europe, Middle East, Russia, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, etc.) are the most influential countries in the old world.

Johny Smith, does not believe that there is any way to quantify influence, and shows that every culture is in fact a mosaic of aspects taken from thousands of other cultures.

I agree with you on some aspects.

I will try to define influence, and to do so, I must define culture. Culture is a people's heritage, it involves ways of thinking, dressing, eating, speaking, and political and social structures.

Influence is the amount that one nation's culture has spread to other cultures. There is, of course, no precise way to measure a nation's influence. I define nation as a group of people culturally similar, not necessarily as a state. One cannot create a precise list of which nation has been more accurate. However, I believe that one can have an objective idea of how influential certain nations are.

If we look at western European culture, we see they are all fairly similar in the grand view of things (compared to the how different distant cultures are). The same applies to Middle Eastern/Arab culture and East Asian culture.

Now, I would argue that when looking at African nations, we see the influence that European colonization has had on them. Europeans forced arbitrary borders, imposed a political system and many (obviously not all) Africans wear some form of Western style clothing.

When we look at European nations, however, I see hardly any African influence. I cannot think of any wide-spread or important cultural aspects off the top of my head that were derived from Africa that have not been transformed to be strongly European. Europeans do not listen to traditional African music or wear traditonal African clothes in most cases.

If we look at North America, we see a culture that is very strongly rooted in their European past. America adopted many political (democracy), social (large metropolitan cities) and economical (corporate capitalism) aspects from their ancestors, which now define their nation. They have of course diverged since then (but in my opinion, not enough to ignore this past) and have become the most influential nation in the modern world (not that I condone all the aspects of their influence, I simply state that they are influential). McDonalds have spread everywhere, American popular music, Hollywood, the list could go on.

When looking at Central and South America, I believe we see a culture that is much more a mix of the original natives from those locations and their European conquerors. They speak strictly European languages, but eat a diet that leans towards the side of the natives from those areas.

So to answer your question "Is Mexico a Native American culture or a European one?", I would answer it is a mix of both.

But my point is, there are myriad countries which despite not being a European culture per say, could claim that they have incorporated strictly European cultural characteristics. Much more than any other non-Eurasian society.

The countries that could say they have cultural aspects strongly linked to Native Americans, Africans, Native Australian or Native Indonesian cultures are much more limited, and are confined to certain geographical locations.

It is silly still for an Eurasian group. If I would just for the sake of argument accept Europe being in control now that does not equal Eurasia. You can not see some effect from all of Eurasia culturally. Europe does not have the entire culture of Eurasia. I am saying it is so vague that it is dumb.

Not related:
Everyone does not drink milk. And you could say for example that is inevitable that North America will be filled with a mix of cultures. The image was there to really ask what legal right can anyone claim to the land because based on these world domination theories there is some grand war going on. Again some people need to get out of the clouds and look what are cultures today.

 

[StStutter]

It is silly still for an Eurasian group. If I would just for the sake of argument accept Europe being in control now that does not equal Eurasia. You can not see some effect from all of Eurasia culturally. Europe does not have the entire culture of Eurasia. I am saying it is so vague that it is dumb.

Of course not. What I mean when I say it is Eurasia that is influential, I mean that most of the more influential nations in the world are situated in that area.

There are very influential nations in Eurasia accompanied of course by less influential ones.

Sorry for being unclear.

 

[StStutter]

To be more clear. I am not saying that we can rank cultures as most influential, second most, etc. But I think it's clear when we look at say the influence of Native Australians, that is pretty much non-existent other than boomerangs (no offense, I say influence not culture).

When we look at central African culture, we can see that it does not really extend outside of its own geographical location, whereas England's does. France's does, Spain's does, Japan's does, Russia's does, China's does.

I stated many effects European cultures have had on other parts of the world. If you want to prove other cultures are just as influential, could you site several examples of their influences?

 

[johny smith]

To be more clear. I am not saying that we can rank cultures as most influential, second most, etc. But I think it's clear when we look at say the influence of Native Australians, that is pretty much non-existent other than boomerangs (no offense, I say influence not culture).

When we look at central African culture, we can see that it does not really extend outside of its own geographical location, whereas England's does. France's does, Spain's does, Japan's does, Russia's does, China's does.

I stated many effects European cultures have had on other parts of the world. If you want to prove other cultures are just as influential, could you site several examples of their influences?

Again you are talking about Europe not Eurasia. So Europe was the only destined area from Eurasia to dominate the world? Why not China or India or the Sumerians? It is a pointless argument. And is the world over? Will not China, India, USA, or Brazil dominate the world? Will Australia (nonaboriginal) dominate the world? The geography is pointless to present as the one single important feature to distinguish for dominance.

 

[StStutter]

Again you are talking about Europe not Eurasia. So Europe was the only destined area from Eurasia to dominate the world? Why not China or India or the Sumerians? It is a pointless argument. And is the world over? Will not China, India, USA, or Brazil dominate the world? Will Australia (nonaboriginal) dominate the world? The geography is pointless to present as the one single important feature to distinguish for dominance.

Up until the 15th century, China and India were equally if not more progressive than the Europeans. What caused them to stagnate was strictly social and political.

I agree though that it is a pointless argument. There are many theories that could explain the rise of civilizations. None can yet be proven to be 100% correct though.

What I am mostly trying to show is that attributing the Eurasians with having the greatest impact over how our world turned out today is not wrong, it is, in my opinion, factual.

The world is not over, there probably will be shifts of power and influence. I believe it is quite likely. But I would not attribute this to geography as due to new methods of transportation and other scientific advances, the world has become much 'smaller'. Geography has pretty much become a null factor in today's world (excluding resources such as oil, etc. but this is not geography).

 

[johny smith]

Up until the 15th century, China and India were equally if not more progressive than the Europeans. What caused them to stagnate was strictly social and political.

I agree though that it is a pointless argument. There are many theories that could explain the rise of civilizations. None can yet be proven to be 100% correct though.

What I am mostly trying to show is that attributing the Eurasians with having the greatest impact over how our world turned out today is not wrong, it is, in my opinion, factual.

The world is not over, there probably will be shifts of power and influence. I believe it is quite likely. But I would not attribute this to geography as due to new methods of transportation and other scientific advances, the world has become much 'smaller'. Geography has pretty much become a null factor in today's world (excluding resources such as oil, etc. but this is not geography).

Then we agree. That is all I was trying to say at the beginning. There is no predestined idea that the world will turn out in any particular way as in the future or now really from one group(meaning not an Eurasian group existing).

 

[StStutter]

Then we agree. That is all I was trying to say at the beginning. There is no predestined idea that the world will turn out in any particular way as in the future or now really from one group(meaning not an Eurasian group existing).

Hmmm... We're we arguing on the same side?

There is no predestined world per say. But I believe there are factors which we can go back and look at in history and use to explain why our world was shaped the way it was.

The thing that's interesting is the concentration of 'progress' and 'power' on one land mass through the very large majority of human history, which in my opinion should be linked to some aspects of that land mass rather than its people.

This is in my opinion a very interesting question which the book Guns, Germs and Steel attempts to answer:

In Guns, Germs and Steel, Diamond frequently anticipates some of the criticism received. In the third sentence of the prologue, he notes that "the literate societies with metal tools have conquered or exterminated the other societies." But he almost immediately says that most accounts of world history focus too much on Eurasia, too much on western Eurasia and too much on the tiny fraction of human history that follows the invention of writing. In particular, he says, "a history focused on Western Eurasian societies completely bypasses the obvious big question. Why were those societies the first that became disproportionately powerful and innovative? ... Why did those ingredients of conquest arise in western Eurasia, and arise elsewhere only to a lesser degree or not at all? ... Why didn't capitalism flourish in Native Mexico, mercantilism in Sub-Saharan Africa, scientific enquiry in China, ... and nasty germs in Aboriginal Australia?"

This is taken from your link to the wikipedia page btw.

 

[johny smith]

Hmmm... We're we arguing on the same side?

There is no predestined world per say. But I believe there are factors which we can go back and look at in history and use to explain why our world was shaped the way it was.

The thing that's interesting is the concentration of 'progress' and 'power' on one land mass through the very large majority of human history, which in my opinion should be linked to some aspects of that land mass rather than its people.

This is in my opinion a very interesting question which the book Guns, Germs and Steel attempts to answer:

In Guns, Germs and Steel, Diamond frequently anticipates some of the criticism received. In the third sentence of the prologue, he notes that "the literate societies with metal tools have conquered or exterminated the other societies." But he almost immediately says that most accounts of world history focus too much on Eurasia, too much on western Eurasia and too much on the tiny fraction of human history that follows the invention of writing. In particular, he says, "a history focused on Western Eurasian societies completely bypasses the obvious big question. Why were those societies the first that became disproportionately powerful and innovative? ... Why did those ingredients of conquest arise in western Eurasia, and arise elsewhere only to a lesser degree or not at all? ... Why didn't capitalism flourish in Native Mexico, mercantilism in Sub-Saharan Africa, scientific enquiry in China, ... and nasty germs in Aboriginal Australia?"

This is taken from your link to the wikipedia page btw.

And you could say the other way as well. Why have the "Eurasians" not understood how to prevent too much population growth? Why could Natives effectively limit population to still be able to forage and not to destroy environment as Europeans do today? Why did Europeans abandon family structures that help rear there young as in every member of the tribe helping? There are hundred million screwed up things anywhere in the world as much as there is good ideas. No idea is really better. Just one controls people today.

 

[ilikepies]

I do agree that Eurocentrism in the Civ games is vexing. But the argument that Civs that will appeal to target demographics will be included out of necessity are pretty valid. And the fact is, Europeans had a large impact on the world for the past ~200 years, but before that they weren't extraordinary, despite what some CFCers will tell you. The vast majority of human history has not revolved around Europe.

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.

Only the most influential or powerful nations should be added in to start with. I don't care where they come from, they just better be important.

Rome is incredibly earth-shaking. Rome was the creator of Western culture (even though they did steal from the Greeks a lot). Germany was put in for being possibly the first great industrial and military superpower, and for the two world wars which shaped the modern world.

I do think skipping Spain for Siam was a mistake. Spain was one of the largest empires in land size and population. Based on size and military power alone I think it deserves to be in. Not as much as Ottomans though, as they were also huge, powerful, and influenced the Middle East a huge amount.

The new civs added in to be less Eurocentric (supposedly), Songhai and Siam, both seem undeserving of being called great empires to me. At their height, neither of these nations were larger than many of the other nations at their lowest point. They also don't seem to have contributed much to technology or culture. (if someone can argue against me on this, please do as I'm not an expert on Songhai/Thai history).

 

[Zhahz]

The new civs added in to be less Eurocentric (supposedly), Songhai and Siam, both seem undeserving of being called great empires to me. At their height, neither of these nations were larger than many of the other nations at their lowest point. They also don't seem to have contributed much to technology or culture. (if someone can argue against me on this, please do as I'm not an expert on Songhai/Thai history).

If there's anything remarkable about either it's being kept secret. I don't consider them anywhere near on par with past choices. However, to me it's not that big a deal. I'm not one to have a seizure over which civs, leaders, and units are included. These 2 newer civs add some variety and alternative spice to the mix.

 

[Sonereal]

I do think skipping Spain for Siam was a mistake. Spain was one of the largest empires in land size and population. Based on size and military power alone I think it deserves to be in. Not as much as Ottomans though, as they were also huge, powerful, and influenced the Middle East a huge amount.

Skipping out on Spain was definitely a mistake. I kinda going to miss Carthage (which wasn't in vanilla CivIV I think either).

To be fair, I like how they didn't put "Holy Rome" and "Native America" in this round. I will miss Byzantine.

In the end, if it was up to me, I would switch Siam for Spain and Songhai for....I want to say Brazil or Incans. Something to represent South America to a degree and something else to cover sub-Sahara Africa. Sadly, the Pacific is left out.

Choosing just 18 civilizations is hard so I hope that a future expansion pack grabs the ones I've mentioned that aren't included.

 

[Xen]

Dont know to much about Thai history, but in terms of the Songhai, they are more or less the culmination of the previous two great empires of the region, Ghana and Mali, and then some; which isnt totally different from seeing the Romans conquering the Etruscans, Greeks and Carthaginians, and forging an Empire great (in longevity or size - if not both) then all the others combined

Timbuktu was essentially the Alexandria of the Islamic world, and Songhai rule was seen as a golden age (to quote the wiki, at least)-and west African gold mines supply the western half of the world with their fix on the shiny material for several centuries. The Songhai Empire was certainly the dominant regional power of West Africa militarily and territorially; in terms of economics it was one of the THE most important areas in the old world at the time, and its contributions to scholarship (not only for the Islamic world, but words written down in Timbuktu would find their way to Europe, and would help form European thoughts themselves in time) were invaluable.

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

 

[Xen]

I will miss Byzantine.

When referring to it as a singular noun, it is 'Byzantium'. - 'Byzantine' is a possessive noun (I think thats the proper terminology for it), as in 'Byzantine Empire'.