Sometimes I wish...

[Acadien]

Sometimes I wish american-european game inventors weren't so Ethnocentric.

If I would have the chance to modify Civ1, I would hardly change a thing. But one thing I would do is to increase the number of civ's in the list. There is just too many european or "Caucasian-race" civs relative to the rest of humanity. It seems that the modern era (world war 2) was more in the mind of the creators of the game than the rest of human history and human acheivments.

For instance, the america's, only the american and the Aztec? why not have the inca too? They could at least put one north american tribe as a civ, Why not the Iroquoi? which had it's own confederation of nations when white folk came to grab their land?

Africa is a big joke for me, only the egytians and the zulu? Come on, the craddle of humanity! I can name at least three other important historical civilizations that all had their golden age at one point. The "Congo", the "Mali" (that region had another name, Can't remember it), and there was "ethiopia", who also became the first christian kingdom. I could speak on and on about the richness of these civs and their ways but I won't do it here.

The Turks should have defenitively been in there, more so than the germans, that country is a relatively young entreprise no? Still I would keep all the civs in it right now, but add some.

Now, for Asia, there is the Mongols and the Chineese and India. Japan could have been in there, and maybe the Polynesians?

It is understandable that they probably predicted that white folk would be the majority that were going to play the game but this game (civ1) could have been much more rich in different civs.

For example, instead of having two civ's assigned to each color, it could have easily been three!

Just for the reccord, I'm not trying to lash out at Caucasians, I am Caucasian myself. I'm just saying that this game is about the humanities, and as always, well, we are so often too centered on ourselves and recent history, to the under-representation of others.

PS: would it be hard to modify the game so that three civs were assigned to each color ?

 

[Diviner]

civ2 has actually three civs assigned to one color and it is more ethnocentric having the sioux, the japanese etc. in the latest expansion of civ3 there are 31 playable civs (and one hidden), but that is little too much, kind of toying with the numbers

i think the civ1 choices are pretty good and are they really europe-favoring? english, germany, france, russia besides the ancient people. i think dropping one of these and instead putting the Mali Kingdom instead... ehh

 

[Whelkman]

I think the perceived ethnocentricity has more to do with marketing and historical "fairness" than anything else. United States' main trading partners need inclusion for overseas sales, and Civilization would not have been taken seriously had it omitted any of the following: Chinese, Egyptian, English (should have been named "British" with a Scottish figurehead), Greek, Roman.

Other than overcrowding in Eurasia (which, again, is historically accurate), the EARTH map is well represented, though I would have liked to see the Turks (instead of Mongols) and Spanish (instead of French or Germans) and could have done with two less European nations overall because of overcrowding in EARTH. I think Africa adequately represented. Ethopia would be a good idea were the Egyptians not two tiles away, and Congo is close to the Zulus. Similarly, the Central and (north) South Americas would be overloaded were Mayans and Incas included.

Spain gets a raw deal in Colonization, too. The documentation all but says, "Use these guys if you want to kill a bunch of Indians."

 

[Veni]

Acadien, you raise an interesting point. I would not pretend to know what was in Sid Meier's mind when originally creating Civ (once upon a time!), but the issue seems to me to be centered less on ethnocentrism per se, but rather the actual conception of the term 'civilization': this is the core, the source, the center, the Urquel of the Civilization game series. 'Civilization' here is synonymous with a particular historical paradigm: that of the unilinear progression of [W. Eur./Christian] history from the 'Fertile Crescent' to the Med to Europe proper, etc.; a cultivation or marching forward from the irrational or traditional towards increasing rationality/modernity of the contemporary nation-state system. The 16 'tribes' (i.e., 'ethno-nationalities') of Civ I all fall along this line, with exception of the Mongols and Zulus (which [sans Alt-R] present ueber-agressive existential threats to the others), or the Chinese and Indian (which present historical analogues). The βάρβαρος (barbarians) proper dwell stammering and curly-haired in the undiscovered country beyond the light of civilization, or perhaps beneath the 'Goody Hut' when cash or the 'advanced' tribe would be more welcome.

That said, the game models this particular linear progression of history, and (as is) would be incapable of modeling alternative historical social organization/technological evolution. For this reason, the alternative 'civilization' choices offered in CTP & later Civs strike me as being a tad farcical, in that it arbitrarily applies universal 'civilization' standards to historically contingent 'ethnes'. I believe Alpha Centauri & Civ IV are on a better track, however, in allowing a range of social organization, yet even here the variables are only 'evolved' with technological advances to trump their predecents.

In short, I believe the game model is problematic only as far as the individual human player fails to recognize it as a particular historical one and conflates it with universal human history. Appreciating this boundary, it remains such a frickin' awesome game ...

 

[Acadien]

whelkman,

Regarding the overcrowding argument, Well, it is not necessarily so. For example, if each color has three civs assigned to it. Green could be Babylonians, Zulu, Congo. So in africa, you would not have both (Congo, Zulu) appearing at the same time. However, the overcrowding on the earth map was not really in my mind when thinking about this. I Always play random maps. What was in my heart was the fact that it would not have been much more effort to add other great civilizations/peoples of history.

One more example, What about the Persians? this was at one time, the largest and most developped multi-ethnic empire on the surface of the earth.

 

[Acadien]

Veni,

You are right, what a hell of a game. And it's just intended to be a game. I think that the fact that we grow old playing this sweet game makes us think about stuff that may be beyond the game itself. I don't want to speak about religion too much here, but I don't subcribe to the view of "CIVILIZATION" being the spread of christian.... (even if in civ, you can build cathedrals and not mosques and other stuff, another indication of enthnocentricity).

We mostly do not choose to be enthnocentric. I mean, just by growing up in a particular culture, we have that given culture as an influencal basis for most things we undertake, and we often fail to see the significant others in the world (unless you are part of a very small nation of group, then you have no choice but to know about the giants and tyrants of the world)

Civ is very much about alternative histories, the player and computer civs redo the world, where no game is exactly the same. So I don't think that civ games we play should all unfold to be ultemately representative of real human history.

This reminds me of the great book, Guns Germs and Steel (or something like that), where the thesis is that: where you are located, what resources, climate and domesticable plants and large animals you have access to, very much dictates the possibility of developping a rich "civilization". So it's not ultimately race related. No game of civ is the same (espacially with random maps). If I choose to play Zulu, will I feel weird because I am leading in technology and litteracy and this is not what has historically transpired in the real world? Of course not! Go Zulu! Civ is very much about alternate worlds for me, not about duplicating history.

I think that Sid did not include Zulu, and Mongols, just for them to be other types of barbarians. I think that in sid meyer's mind, the term civilization has a much more open definition. If not so, why include civs that historically were not technology oriented (Mongols, Zulu) and ommit great advanced civs for their time such as Turks and Persians? and the presence of Indians and Chineese kinda demolishes the fertile crescent march toward the grandeur of europe thing... And oh, another example, the Aztec are in there, not christian, a great civilization but not historically technology-material-orieted.

Generally, I would not vew it as comical of bizzarre to have included in civ1 the other great nations-ethnic-civs of human history, so that the alterante earthly worlds we are playing in (especially in the random maps) be more richly diverse. I would have really wanted to see the Turks, Mali, Congo, Ethiopia, Persians and others. It would have really made the game less centered on europeans (French, English, Americans, Germans, Russians, Romans...) Modern Europe is but a part of us, geography-wise and history-wise.

I think it was a natural reflex for the creators to focus on christianity as a natural step in the developpement of civilizations. But I don't share the vew that this religion or materialistic technologies should be the all important criteria for interest in including or exluding civ's. All of human history should have been represented equitably. I'm going beyond the scope of this little game but, It would have been really cool to have more "tribes" in the Civ1, I don't play the other civ games.

The forefront of christian religion in the game (all civ's has to go through christianity) as if it and only it played such a pivotal role in human "civilization" is also a bit ethnocentric because all kinds of religions play the same basic kind of social cohesion rôle.

So, I'm gonna stop now, This is just way beyond a game just meant for fun. But precisely for fun, I would have liked to see other great nations-races-civs of human history represented in there, for a more equitable representation and more diversity; More Fun!

 

[Acadien]

What about it,

Would it be too hard to modify the game so that each color had three possible civs ? I herd that the code of the game is a real mess to work in. Is that true?

It would be great to try and draw the leader of these potential civ's to be added, so that the graphics would be in the same (slightly hilarious) style of the other civ1 trive leaders (Napoleon, etc...).

 

[Whelkman]

I herd that the code of the game is a real mess to work in. Is that true?

Largely due to DOS' atrocious memory model, you'll find this true of most 16 bit games. Even the legendary John Carmack disowned his Wolfenstein 3D code. You'd be better off substituting strings and starting locations for the existing civs. You'd have to build an encoder for the game's graphic format to replace drawings. Some info here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=226080

 

[Veni]

Acadien

I was essentially agreeing with you, only attempting to expand your argument. I too have often wished that a broader array of historical civilizations were represented in this game, although not only in titular form (pressing the 'esc' key at the civ selection screen accomplishes this), but also in a broader range of 'civizational' possibilities. 'Alt-R' leader randomization does accomplish this to some degree (e.g., when the scientifically advanced, democratic Zulus are repeatedly hounded by barbaric American catapults!), yet any given 'civilization' still falls somewhere along the line of the unilinearly defined 'civilization'. As a beautiful game, this is perhaps a necessary mandate, only "sometimes I wish ..."

Perhaps I should have been somewhat more specific. I take issue with any definition of the term 'civilization' which excludes or marginalizes any particular cultural or political group. In other words. while it is reasonable to talk about differing socio-cultural systems, I find it unreasonable to talk about one civ being 'better' than another. Historically, this sort of thinking has served to justify the creation of vast inequalities between 'civilizations', to say the least. Examples would include the colonization of the 'new world' and Africa by W. Eur., Kazakhs by Russians, or Uighurs by Han Chinese.

Acadien, I do apologize if I have 'waxed philosophic' on your post ("way beyond a game meant for fun"), but it is an issue with personal and practical implications in my life ...

Peace and Pancakes

 

[Acadien]

Veni,

Please don't appologize, this all makes for interesting conversation!

I think that the Word "civilization" is a tricky one and can have varied meaning.
I tend to associate that word with a more societal meaning. When you have a distinct group with a long continuous history, particular rules and ways of living and mythology/religion/etc.... I tend to view that as enought to be "civilized" or be a "civilization".

In the past, it seems you had to have something grand, like technology or incredible achievements or military might and a particular set of values, to be "civilized"; with the rest of the world being uncivilized. To me, a civilization could be great or not, or have brutal rules, or not. For example, the Inuit, even as survivalists, are viewed by me as a civilization, because they had a long continuous history, their own set of society rules, spiritual particuliarities, ways of thinking, etc....

That being said, we are still stuck with some kind of historical definition of what consitutes a civilization. It's still a bit weird to speak of American civilization, french civilization, canadian civilization, etc.... We tend use that word at a larger scale, like, Islamic civilization, western civilization, etc....

Civilization, what a complicated term....