Alexander's Hetaroi
Deity
Yeah, it's dirty blonde.
We could have had maybe Pedro and Phillip.
Political Correctness and Civ VI
- Thread starter True_Candyman
- Start date
- Status
We could have had maybe Pedro and Phillip.
Pythakoreas
Chef Tain
Sejong became a funny meme on the South Korean internet even with people who didn't play Civ5 due to his cringey voice acting. But I have to agree that I was also impressed with the leader screen in general.
On Queen Seondeok, The debate on whose face would be on the 50000-won bill took place years ago. S.Korean government picked someone else instead - meaning that it must have been a consensus of professional Korean historians which dropped her in favour of Shin Saimdang. She may have her positives, that is her decision to appoint Kim Yushin to higher office and alliance with Tang China, both of which were big contributions to the unification of Korea in the following years, but Korean historians ruled her out for another woman. Even with the decision to put female historical figures into the spotlight she was ruled out.
If Firaxis really took the decision to include Queen Seondeok based off a Wikipedia entry I am disappointed. They must do more research - the fact that they're going for big names like Mao Zedong and Qin Shi Huang for China further proves my point that they're not doing their research. Anyone who reads a history book on China can tell you that there is an entire roster of Emperors, Generals and Revolutionaries that can represent China better than Wu Zetian. She wasn't incompetent - far from it - but not a leader you will represent China with, there are other women they could have picked, like Dowager Cixi and her efforts to preserve Qing Empire from colonialism. I don't see a push for female leadership, what I see is a misrepresentation of other cultures, an issue that is more brought up with the ongoing Cree controversy.
Even with that being said, Queen Seondeok is not an inherently bad idea, for the positives I mentioned on my post, and the fact that she is the best female leader to represent Korea. I'm happy they stayed away from controversial choices like Empress Myeongseong. There are some other picks I have issues with, like giving us Leonidas' wife rather than Leonidas. What are they trying to do here? Make a caricature out of efforts to put spotlight on female historical figures?
And lastly, sorry about talking about some real "Political Correctness" thing on a thread that was originally meant to make fun of it.
Don't really know where the "ginger" is coming from, Bruce may have been a redhead.. but ginger people tend to be extremely pale and covered in freckles, I don't remember seeing any description of him being pale and freckled. They also have a tendency to burn, extremely in even mild sunlight. Advantagous in Scotland, as it's usually only sunny for 2 days a year. The rest of the time it's usually raining.
Guy living downstairs from me is ginger, his wife a redhead. They are fairly rare..
These folks, experts in the field.. believe he had brown hair and light brown eyes.. no ginger in sight. And may even have had leprosy.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/scotland-now/what-robert-bruce-looked-like-9417623
Guy living downstairs from me is ginger, his wife a redhead. They are fairly rare..
These folks, experts in the field.. believe he had brown hair and light brown eyes.. no ginger in sight. And may even have had leprosy.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/scotland-now/what-robert-bruce-looked-like-9417623
Last edited:
God of Kings
Ruler of all heads of state
It is time a new Civ game not feature humans.
No more concerns about political correctness or the lack of it.
Better yet, no real life animals (or even a caricature of them such as anthropomorphics) would be depicted, not even humans.
Humans are beasts, well-intentioned or not.
No more concerns about political correctness or the lack of it.
Better yet, no real life animals (or even a caricature of them such as anthropomorphics) would be depicted, not even humans.
Humans are beasts, well-intentioned or not.
Spoiler Potential non-human alternative :
Pythakoreas
Chef Tain
Even better, buy license for every Nintendo character and make a Smash Bros. style Civ game. I'll be having fun kicking Hyrule Kingdom butt with my Star Fox airstrikes and Koopa airship support. My anthropomorphic air force is nowhere near non-humanoid as Kirby but I'll take it as long as I'm fighting those humans.
God of Kings
Ruler of all heads of state
That would be an excellent proposal for Civ for the Switch!
All the fun without any of the controversy!
Nintendo already made a X-COM like game with its characters (ok, it's Ubisoft), so it won't be long until the Switch will get a civ game in which the Mushroom Kingdom competes with Hyrule, the Rabbids and Pikmins who can build the ladder to the moon first (the rabbits will use paper boxes for that, while the Pikmins use Pikmins...).It is time a new Civ game not feature humans.
No more concerns about political correctness or the lack of it.
Better yet, no real life animals (or even a caricature of them such as anthropomorphics) would be depicted, not even humans.
Humans are beasts, well-intentioned or not.
Spoiler Potential non-human alternative :
Morningcalm
Keeper of Records
Sorry to cut in with a more a serious post, feel free to ignore:
Firaxis, on the other hand, likely chose Seondeok because she embodies values they liked--a woman ruler who was resisted simply for being female, and who nevertheless won out (leading to more acceptance of female leaders by the Silla, who went on to have other queens).
Unfortunately after the Seondeok controversy in VI I can easily see Firaxis choosing a more politically palatable leader for Korea in future Civ games--we may see Sejong again with a similar scientific bent, since other famous Korean leaders are boring and/or way more focused on military (Wang Kon, Gwanggaeto) which ancient Korea was indeed good at but modern Korea was not. It would be cool to see Admiral Yi, but he never ruled Korea so chances of him being leader are a tad unlikely.
Hopefully franchise lead Ed Beach will not give up on female leaders in Civ and will add more despite the alt-right Korean YouTubers' reaction to Seondeok. This includes future (hopefully female) African and Mayan rulers in Civ VI.
Well, Seondeok wasn't chosen for historical reasons I would say, so much as she doesn't embody Confucian values like the artist and calligrapher Shin Saimdung did. A meek artist rather than a queen of a kingdom is in line with Korea's (even now, ongoing) Confucian values.
Firaxis, on the other hand, likely chose Seondeok because she embodies values they liked--a woman ruler who was resisted simply for being female, and who nevertheless won out (leading to more acceptance of female leaders by the Silla, who went on to have other queens).
Unfortunately after the Seondeok controversy in VI I can easily see Firaxis choosing a more politically palatable leader for Korea in future Civ games--we may see Sejong again with a similar scientific bent, since other famous Korean leaders are boring and/or way more focused on military (Wang Kon, Gwanggaeto) which ancient Korea was indeed good at but modern Korea was not. It would be cool to see Admiral Yi, but he never ruled Korea so chances of him being leader are a tad unlikely.
Hopefully franchise lead Ed Beach will not give up on female leaders in Civ and will add more despite the alt-right Korean YouTubers' reaction to Seondeok. This includes future (hopefully female) African and Mayan rulers in Civ VI.
The leader sex aspect is just marketing pr really. Leaders should be the most evil, the most amazing, the most entertaining.. who they were or looked like is pretty immaterial and if alt right or left or middle or lost politics don't like it.. well they can build a time machine and go back and change the past. Can't they..
They could have a Margaret Thatcher variation of England.. I'd always be in eternal war then.
Which actually brings up a point.. these other leaders of the various civs.. Most of them seem to be unelected kings and queens ie people born into the position, or elected themselves through intrique or warfare into the positions.
Where as the American leaders for example and many english leaders were voted for. They weren't really leaders.. not in the sense of kings or queens.. I mean we tend to see peter or catherine or elizabeth types as natural leaders.. who lead often for decades at a time. Not some elected person.. who leads for 4 years or 7.. before they loose the next election or get assassinated.
They could have a Margaret Thatcher variation of England.. I'd always be in eternal war then.
Which actually brings up a point.. these other leaders of the various civs.. Most of them seem to be unelected kings and queens ie people born into the position, or elected themselves through intrique or warfare into the positions.
Where as the American leaders for example and many english leaders were voted for. They weren't really leaders.. not in the sense of kings or queens.. I mean we tend to see peter or catherine or elizabeth types as natural leaders.. who lead often for decades at a time. Not some elected person.. who leads for 4 years or 7.. before they loose the next election or get assassinated.
Last edited:
For the modern countries, the criteria is "which leaders became iconic leaders whose influence and ideas shaped more than just their brief span of office".
For example, Teddy Roosevelt and his Rough Riders, his themes of conservation, his "speak softy, but carry a big stick" are all still core parts of the American psyche. If you asked Americans to name our top 5 Presidents of all time (especially if you forced them to exclude the previous 3, the preventing "our current/most recent" bias), Teddy is usually in the top 3.
Washington takes the top spot, but honestly it's on reputation. He was an ok President, but he's mostly known for his integrity of not accepting the crown as Emperor of America, his leadership during the Revolution, and setting the precedent of the peaceful transfer of power. From a "did stuff and affected our future" standpoint, he's sort of middle-of-the-pack.
FDR, the only President to break Washington's two-term precedent, makes the top five based on our rapid industrialization and his perceived leadership during World War 2 and the Great Depression.
Lincoln for Emancipation, holding the Union together by sheer force of will during our Civil War, "Four score and seven years ago, our forefathers brought forth...", etc.
After those four is where you start to get a bit fuzzy in the "who could be an American leader in Civ?" Jefferson, with an expansionist/colonial/diplomatic agenda? Monroe with an isolationist/anti-colonial/this-is-our-hemisphere agenda?
The only other ones that get close are ones I don't like because they're too recent (Kennedy and Reagan). But that's because I don't like latter-half of the 20th century leaders unless we can't avoid them.
For example, Teddy Roosevelt and his Rough Riders, his themes of conservation, his "speak softy, but carry a big stick" are all still core parts of the American psyche. If you asked Americans to name our top 5 Presidents of all time (especially if you forced them to exclude the previous 3, the preventing "our current/most recent" bias), Teddy is usually in the top 3.
Washington takes the top spot, but honestly it's on reputation. He was an ok President, but he's mostly known for his integrity of not accepting the crown as Emperor of America, his leadership during the Revolution, and setting the precedent of the peaceful transfer of power. From a "did stuff and affected our future" standpoint, he's sort of middle-of-the-pack.
FDR, the only President to break Washington's two-term precedent, makes the top five based on our rapid industrialization and his perceived leadership during World War 2 and the Great Depression.
Lincoln for Emancipation, holding the Union together by sheer force of will during our Civil War, "Four score and seven years ago, our forefathers brought forth...", etc.
After those four is where you start to get a bit fuzzy in the "who could be an American leader in Civ?" Jefferson, with an expansionist/colonial/diplomatic agenda? Monroe with an isolationist/anti-colonial/this-is-our-hemisphere agenda?
The only other ones that get close are ones I don't like because they're too recent (Kennedy and Reagan). But that's because I don't like latter-half of the 20th century leaders unless we can't avoid them.
Alexander's Hetaroi
Deity
George Washington would be another ginger.
He and Lincoln can take a break for a little bit. I think Lincoln, unfortunately would have a problem with loyalty. 
Anyway I'm fine with the way they took on America with Teddy Roosevelt, especially the National Park and cultural route. Also giving us Wild West rough riders is a plus.
I wouldn't mind Jefferson as an alternate leader. I think acquire tiles faster and cheaper with gold could work as well as more exp for recon units. I'm thinking of Louisiana Purchase. Maybe also somehow being able to buy tiles from other players. I don't know how it would work from a gameplay perspective, but it would be unique.
Monroe would be a little similar to Roosevelt, but without the rough riders, considering Roosevelt championed his doctrine. Millard Fillmore would be good just to hear Sean Bean say his name.
OneMoreTurnPerTile
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 26, 2017
- Messages
- 45
What would be a good list of politically incorrect, or at least truely controversial leaders?
That would be a fine way to get this topic locked.
I like the fact Firaxis is trying to introduce as many as possible female leaders into the game. However, why doesn't that ever apply to America, or Rome?
I understand the fact that to this day, none of the American presidents were female, nor were the Ceasars of Rome, however, this creates a double standard in my mind.
Poland, for example, had 4-5 great kings worthier of inclusion than Jadwiga, ones who ruled for much longer and their accomplishments outweigh hers, but Firaxis chose Jadwiga instead, mostly on the fact of her being a woman, I gather.
The criticism of Seondeok in Korea is likely borne out of the fact that there were numerous male great leaders to pick from to lead Korea in Civ 6 instead of her.
Perhaps Firaxis is Reverse-Sexist? - kidding
Yes, female leaders are nice to look at and converse with on diplomacy screens, however, the leaders chosen to lead a nation in a game that deals with actual history in a large part, should be based on their achievements, length of reign and the legacy they left behind. However though, we'd have a lot less female rulers in the game then...
Ultimately though, I think that all playable Civs should have a Male and a Female leader (at least one of each) to lead them in the game.
All Civilizations in the game should have at least 2 Great Leaders available to lead them in the game, 1 male and 1 female. Even if the female one was only a consort (or a president's wife), if worthy of inclusion, then go with her.
Like in some of the previous iterations; when starting a new game, a player picks either female or male leader to lead the civ he/she intends to play as, and has the option to pick which civs he/she wishes to play against, as well as the leaders that will lead them.
I understand the fact that to this day, none of the American presidents were female, nor were the Ceasars of Rome, however, this creates a double standard in my mind.
Poland, for example, had 4-5 great kings worthier of inclusion than Jadwiga, ones who ruled for much longer and their accomplishments outweigh hers, but Firaxis chose Jadwiga instead, mostly on the fact of her being a woman, I gather.
The criticism of Seondeok in Korea is likely borne out of the fact that there were numerous male great leaders to pick from to lead Korea in Civ 6 instead of her.
Perhaps Firaxis is Reverse-Sexist? - kidding
Yes, female leaders are nice to look at and converse with on diplomacy screens, however, the leaders chosen to lead a nation in a game that deals with actual history in a large part, should be based on their achievements, length of reign and the legacy they left behind. However though, we'd have a lot less female rulers in the game then...
Ultimately though, I think that all playable Civs should have a Male and a Female leader (at least one of each) to lead them in the game.
All Civilizations in the game should have at least 2 Great Leaders available to lead them in the game, 1 male and 1 female. Even if the female one was only a consort (or a president's wife), if worthy of inclusion, then go with her.
Like in some of the previous iterations; when starting a new game, a player picks either female or male leader to lead the civ he/she intends to play as, and has the option to pick which civs he/she wishes to play against, as well as the leaders that will lead them.
Alexander's Hetaroi
Deity
The problem is you will go into territory of making up some leaders along with an agenda an ability to the point where they might not even be just real, but not even mythological. Aka Shakala for Civ 2, which was basically Shaka as a female.
Unlike queens, the title first lady doesn't really mean anything. It just means you are the wife of the president. It doesn't really hold anything in terms of power.
Catherine leading France was already a stretch, but at least she was a regent ruling because her sons weren't of age.
OneMoreTurnPerTile
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 26, 2017
- Messages
- 45
True enough! Maybe I'll start a different thread, rather than get this one locked.
At the national level, there aren't any American "civilization leaders" that meet the level of "lead or close enough" and "have been dead a while". Great people? Sure, piles of women. Binders full of 'em. But national leaders? It's the bad part about having only a couple hundred years of history.
DanQ
Owner, Civilized Communication
I led the conversation on the PolyCast episode (#298) you are referring to. I indeed presented some common arguments citing her as a bad choice for Korean leader based on actions she took during her reign. I concluded, however, that Seondeok's selection as leader for Korea need not be rooted in the fact that her sex was female, listing accomplishments during her reign in counter. My fellow panelists agreed.
Morningcalm
Keeper of Records
While that's true, I was simply pointing out that you guys missed out another online source on Reddit which was counterattacking such criticisms of Seondeok--of course, I was appreciative of the panelists' conclusion but felt a counter source could have been incorporated in the discussion and mentioned in the podcast summary for those who were just glancing. The current podcast summary only cites the negative source. It's good to cite alternative textual counterpoints in the summary for controversies like this lest people get the wrong impression. An overly patriotic Korean friend of mine pointed to the podcast as evidence that the podcasters didn't adequately research counter arguments to the anti-Seondeok alt-right. I listened to the podcast and pointed out his initial impression was wrong, but I have to admit I was initially concerned. :|
I do not see much, if any, whitening.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
