Many errors here, let's start with first paragraph:
The Americas were "easy to colonize" because the Europeans, who did not bathe, brought scores of horrific diseases which they were immune to and that absolutely decimated the Amerindian population. Africa was not easy to colonize, and actual "colonialism"-- the settlement of the land by a non-native population-- only really occurred on a relatively large scale in the south. Most of Africa was "colonized" in a system known as New Imperialism, which did not occur because of "uncivilized nature" of Africans, but rather because the Europeans used violent technology and firepower overwhelm tactics to beat back the African populations. In fact, in the one region where the natives had anything near equivalent technology, IE Ethiopia, European imperialism was totally prevented in the earlier stages.
Second paragraph: Nope. There are many civ mods in the steam workshop that prove you wrong here, such as Colonialist Legacies. There are literally thousands of cultures in the world, and classifying "civilizations" based on Eurocentric conceptions of the world will obviously belittle the non-European civilizations.
Third paragraph: While it's true that Europeans have had more global geopolitical influence than many others, it's actually laughable to say they have more "history". History is linear and occurs across the world, and every culture in the world has just about the same amount of history. While it's true the popular conception is that history is always written, most history in the world has been oral for most of the existence of humans. But regardless, it is very Eurocentric, because it relies on the assertion that places conquered by Europe had no civilized history before the Europeans came. I mean look at a civ like the Aztecs; they were completely conquered by Europeans (due to disease) but they still merit a civilization based on their achievements before European interference.
Fourth paragraph: Not much of anything wrong here, I agree Southeast Asia could use some love. We need Tagalog civs!
Fifth paragraph: Strongly disagree. More from a marketing standpoint, because Americans wanna play America, Germans wanna play Germany, Brits wanna play Britain, etc. However if you dial back the OVERWHELMINGLY DISPROPORTIONATE number of Euro civs then it's very easy.
EDIT: Also obviously this entire thread is at its core riddled with Eurocentric inaccuracies but it seems as though other users have already broken down some of the OP stuff. So no need for me to.
Way to blatantly distort my words and completely miss my point. Either you inadvertently misread my post, or you're being deliberately intelectually dishonest.
Either way, your post is way off, but I'll reply for the sake of my good name.
the Europeans, who did not bathe, brought scores of horrific diseases
You kind of lost all your credibility here.
which did not occur because of "uncivilized nature" of Africans,
Who claimed the Africans were uncivilized?
but rather because the Europeans used violent technology and firepower overwhelm tactics to beat back the African populations. In fact, in the one region where the natives had anything near equivalent technology, IE Ethiopia, European imperialism was totally prevented in the earlier stages.
That's exactly what I said.
it's actually laughable to say they [Europeans] have more "history".
Again, who said that? It's baffling how you're just inventing things out of nowhere.
Second paragraph: Nope. There are many civ mods in the steam workshop that prove you wrong here, such as Colonialist Legacies. There are literally thousands of cultures in the world, and classifying "civilizations" based on Eurocentric conceptions of the world will obviously belittle the non-European civilizations.
Yeah, no.
I'm sorry, but you don't get to define the concept of "civilization" at your will. The concept was created in 19th-century Europe, so yes, it is Western-centric by nature. And, guess what?, Civilization is a game based on the Western historiographic tradition.
By definition, the term Civilization refers to urban societies, that is, organized around developed cities, as opposed to loose, non-centralized tribal societies.
Now we all know Firaxis doesn't always stick to this definition with their "civs", and personally I'm glad they don't. But it's inevitable that they prefer to include societies which fit the concept
which their game is named after.
So no, civ mods don't prove me wrong in any way. I never said there weren't thousands of interesting cultures in Africa and the Americas. But, simply put, most of them don't fit the definition of civilization (which, again, doesn't mean they're not
civilized). Therefore, as I said, those regions will always be more empty of civs (and by civs I meant and I mean official in-game civilizations) than Europe and Asia.
Fifth paragraph: Strongly disagree.
I welcome this instead of the "You're wrong" attitude of the previous words.
More from a marketing standpoint, because Americans wanna play America, Germans wanna play Germany, Brits wanna play Britain, etc. However if you dial back the OVERWHELMINGLY DISPROPORTIONATE number of Euro civs then it's very easy.
If you dial back the number of Euro civs, then you cannot achieve a balance of historical significance.
Anyway -- in the future, please read my words more carefully and moderate your anti-Western zeal.
Both conciously and subconciously modern American culture has spread propaganda that justifies its claim to the land by suggesting nothing of significance came before, and every time someone puts a spade in the ground in ohio of new mexico, or most other places really, we find out its ever more wrong.
