• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

The Modern Age livestream - new leader, Harriet Tubman

I think part of the reason for Tubman v. MLK or Douglass or DuBois, is that she provides a unique mechanic with espionage. (and one that makes sense even if all you know about her is the Underground railroad…and makes more sense the more you know about her)
 
I'm glad they included Franklin too because I prefer having a more traditional Civ leader option for the US which Franklin as a founder pretty well fits. HOWEVER, I think Tubman's spy focus leans beautifully into the idea of the Modern era with the espionage and it'd be fun to play as her and do a late 19th/early 20th century style America game with a big focus on building the Empire of Banana. The Robber Baron trait giving influence from assigned resources with her discount for espionage should make for a shenanigan filled game where you're focused on destabilizing a country with espionage so you can take it over and get more resources assigned.
 
I'm glad they included Franklin too because I prefer having a more traditional Civ leader option for the US which Franklin as a founder pretty well fits. HOWEVER, I think Tubman's spy focus leans beautifully into the idea of the Modern era with the espionage and it'd be fun to play as her and do a late 19th/early 20th century style America game with a big focus on building the Empire of Banana. The Robber Baron trait giving influence from assigned resources with her discount for espionage should make for a shenanigan filled game where you're focused on destabilizing a country with espionage so you can take it over and get more resources assigned.
Also espionage isn’t Modern Age…it’s available in all ages.
 
I think part of the reason for Tubman v. MLK or Douglass or DuBois, is that she provides a unique mechanic with espionage. (and one that makes sense even if all you know about her is the Underground railroad…and makes more sense the more you know about her)
MLK would be too "late" because seems like modern era cut off would be around space race and I don't think religious gameplay would be one of the focus in third era
Douglass would be good, but the vibe IMO would be too similar with Ben Franklin (likely Friaxis first choices)
 
The comments on her video are quite vile if you know certain dogwhistle expressions which I unfortunately do.

Is she an unusual leader figure? Sure, but the same goes for Ben Franklin, Confucius, Machiavelli and most remarkably Ibn Battuta, none of whom have ever ruled a nation or even a military unit. I'm not sure I would be that open for non-leader leaders if I were dev, but its Firaxis artistic choice so to speak, and they do admittedly pick very interesting figures to serve as unorthodox leaders.

And yet, strangely enough, none of these have caused significant controversy in the youtube comments - even Ibn Battuta who was merely an explorer. Strangely enough it's always with black people, or women, or LGBT people, that suddenly legions of critics crawl out from their crevices, who suddenly are extremely passionate about 'historicity', 'realism', or any rationalised grounds on which existence of, say, black women, is unwarranted in any particular case.

When a white guy becomes shogun in the popular TV series nobody bats an eye, but when a black guy becomes shogun in the popular game series suddenly everybody is a passionate historian first, fan of cool action second. Give me a break. What's the most pathetic here is the cowardice - just admit that you don't like black people, don't use those nonsensical double standards that emerge in their sharpness only when black people enter the cultural scene.

Worst part is, whenever there is a genuinely terrible media production employing diversity (say, Forspoken video game with black woman protagonist), I know when I laugh at it I am in the same crowd as those despicable people, who never like any black women anywhere, no matter the quality of a given work. So how do you discern those from sane critics? My rule of thumb is to distrust those who are emotional in such discourse, who are genuinely seething with contempt, who are cackling viciously and with ill intentions, not just you know... criticize.
 
Last edited:
No need to go see the comments on her video when we have vile comments about barfing when people find out it's true she's a leader right here.
 
Twitter is much more aligned with the average person, generally and on this particular point especially. (polls do show a near-perfect left-right split amongst twitter users)
Experience has taught me no online platform reflects the views of the average person. Most people in real life have a longer span of attention than most people on Twitter.
No need to go see the comments on her video when we have vile comments about barfing when people find out it's true she's a leader right here.
So far it’s been only one person in this thread and only one like to that post. Someone’s eventually gonna report them sooner or later, and our collective sanity won’t be dented.
 
The comments on her video are quite vile if you know certain dogwhistle expressions which I unfortunately do.

Is she an unusual leader figure? Sure, but the same goes for Ben Franklin, Confucius, Machiavelli and most remarkably Ibn Battuta, none of whom have ever ruled a nation or even a military unit. I'm not sure I would be that open for non-leader leaders if I were dev, but its Firaxis artistic choice so to speak, and they do admittedly pick very interesting figures to serve as unorthodox leaders.

And yet, strangely enough, none of these have caused significant controversy in the youtube comments - even Ibn Battuta who was merely an explorer. Strangely enough it's always with black people, or women, or LGBT people, that suddenly legions of critics crawl out from their crevices, who suddenly are extremely passionate about 'historicity', 'realism', or any rationalised grounds on which existence of, say, black women, is unwarranted in any particular case.

When a white guy becomes shogun in the popular TV series nobody bats an eye, but when a black guy becomes shogun in the popular game series suddenly everybody is a passionate historian first, fan of cool action second. Give me a break. What's the most pathetic here is the cowardice - just admit that you don't like black people, don't use those nonsensical double standards that emerge in their sharpness only when black people enter the cultural scene.

Worst part is, whenever there is a genuinely terrible media production employing diversity (say, Forspoken video game with black woman protagonist), I know when I laugh at it I am in the same crowd as those despicable people, who never like any black women anywhere, no matter the quality of a given work. So how do you discern those from sane critics? My rule of thumb is to distrust those who are emotional in such discourse, who are genuinely seething with contempt, who are cackling viciously and with ill intentions, not just you know... criticize.
I was a bit confused when reading the comments. I thought the reason why people hated Netflix's Cleopatra or Anne Boleyn TV-series was that they black washed history instead of telling stories of actual black people. Seeing an actual black person, whose inclusion was justified by Machiavelli and Confucius, get the same treatment as black washed Cleopatra is worrisome to say the least. I sincerely hope this is just over-correction rather than racism being normalized.
 
I was a bit confused when reading the comments. I thought the reason why people hated Netflix's Cleopatra or Anne Boleyn TV-series was that they black washed history instead of telling stories of actual black people. Seeing an actual black person, whose inclusion was justified by Machiavelli and Confucius, get the same treatment as black washed Cleopatra is worrisome to say the least. I sincerely hope this is just over-correction rather than racism being normalized.
I don't know how to answer this in more depth without getting political, but it's pretty straightforward: overt bigotry is becoming more normalized.
 
I think part of the reason for Tubman v. MLK or Douglass or DuBois, is that she provides a unique mechanic with espionage. (and one that makes sense even if all you know about her is the Underground railroad…and makes more sense the more you know about her)
I agree. I think the espionage angle was smart. You bringing up Douglas is an interesting option as well.
 
Probably the main problem with MLK Jr is that he is too recent. There are a lot of people who knew him personally who are still alive, and Firaxis wouldn't want to accidentally offend them by creating what is, in effect, a caricature and not a whole representation of the man.
 
Probably the main problem with MLK Jr is that he is too recent. There are a lot of people who knew him personally who are still alive, and Firaxis wouldn't want to accidentally offend them by creating what is, in effect, a caricature and not a whole representation of the man.
But can't they do some consultation with them if they do want a whole representation of MLK? They did it with Tecumseh .
 
But can't they do some consultation with them if they do want a whole representation of MLK? They did it with Tecumseh .
But...why? Harriet Tubman is a great choice. Frederick Douglass is a great choice. MLK is a great choice. They're all great choices. Trying to rank them to find the "best choice" is mere CivFanatics pedantry.
 
Giving Tubman an espionage bonus looks pretty inspired to me. I'm not sure I'd want to be her neighbor, but I can't fault the design choice.

Also her modeling and animation is excellent. It's the only time I've seen a leader and didn't feel compelled to resent the 1v1 diplo screen.
 
I don't know how to answer this in more depth without getting political, but it's pretty straightforward: overt bigotry is becoming more normalized.
I'd expect Americans know more about Harriet Tubman and honour her more, since people across the political spectrum have been doing it since the 1980s. No one had a problem honouring her in various ways until, for some reason, now. You have plaques honouring her since the 1910s. That's what you get when you have a generation raised by iPads and TikTok I guess? :(
Trying to rank them to find the "best choice" is mere CivFanatics pedantry.
That's what we do best here :thumbsup:
 
But...why? Harriet Tubman is a great choice. Frederick Douglass is a great choice. MLK is a great choice. They're all great choices. Trying to rank them to find the "best choice" is mere CivFanatics pedantry.
I'm afraid this forum wouldn't exist without CivFanatics pedantry.
 
But can't they do some consultation with them if they do want a whole representation of MLK? They did it with Tecumseh .
None of the leaders have ever been a "whole representation" of an actual person. They are usual one-dimensional caricatures. At best, they are two-dimensional caricatures. The clichés and stereotypes are deep in civ's DNA.

For Tecumseh, they chose to work with a group of people from the Shawnee. I don't know whether the whole Shawnee community thinks like this group, and whether some other group would find it more problematic. Spoiler: I don't know much about Shawnee communities, organizations, societies in the present day. What I do know, however, that it would be problematic with the Afro-American community. There are very active and vocal organizations and communities within it that argue (very loudly) about heritage, values, roles, etc. It would have been hard to pick a group, work with them, and not offend another with different views.

But I agree with @Eagle Pursuit that he's also just too recent. And for such a recent figure, he was very influential for the present day, which naturally makes him more controversial (as in: harder to criticize/dislike without attacking a whole community or defending a racist system) than 20th century persons with less of an social legacy tied directly to their person (e.g., Churchill or De Gaulle).
 
None of the leaders have ever been a "whole representation" of an actual person. They are usual one-dimensional caricatures. At best, they are two-dimensional caricatures. The clichés and stereotypes are deep in civ's DNA.

For Tecumseh, they chose to work with a group of people from the Shawnee. I don't know whether the whole Shawnee community thinks like this group, and whether some other group would find it more problematic. Spoiler: I don't know much about Shawnee communities, organizations, societies in the present day. What I do know, however, that it would be problematic with the Afro-American community. There are very active and vocal organizations and communities within it that argue (very loudly) about heritage, values, roles, etc. It would have been hard to pick a group, work with them, and not offend another with different views.

But I agree with @Eagle Pursuit that he's also just too recent. And for such a recent figure, he was very influential for the present day, which naturally makes him more controversial (as in: harder to criticize/dislike without attacking a whole community or defending a racist system) than 20th century persons with less of an social legacy tied directly to their person (e.g., Churchill or De Gaulle).
Just give it a bit of time. We'll get MLK for Civ9.
 
I think part of the reason for Tubman v. MLK or Douglass or DuBois, is that she provides a unique mechanic with espionage. (and one that makes sense even if all you know about her is the Underground railroad…and makes more sense the more you know about her)
I think Queen Nanny of the Maroons could've filled a similar role. She fits the espionage theme since the Jamaican Maroons had set up a intricate espionage network that infiltrated British operations in the island. The Maroons were so good at disguising their location that the British would tell stories about trees coming to life and attacking people.
 
Top Bottom