Western Bias?

[evrett37]

Since we are discussing things that should and shouldn't be included in the civilopedia...I thought I'd bring up something from history that has always bothered me - I am of the opinion that the Chinese, Vikings and Polynesian kayakers mapped parts of the world prior to Columbus, Magellan and many other western explorers and chinese maps were used to "discover" the new world.

So when my kid goes to kindergarten he hears all these bs about Columbus sailing the ocean blue. Now thankfully the teachers leave out all the pillaging and raping of the natives..but like the story of the pilgrams first thanksgiving..there is not a lot of fact involved in the story of "discovery".

My question is - does Civ, now in its 5th incarnation, with all the resources at its disposal (civ 4 could pay for spock for crying out loud), have the responsibility to be historically accurate as possible in the Civilopedia entries that pertain to real history?

 

[Skwink]

No. Civ is not supposed to be accurate as possible. Civ is about rebuilding history each time you play.

 

[evrett37]

No. Civ is not supposed to be accurate as possible. Civ is about rebuilding history each time you play.

Sorry I should clarify - I'm talking about being accurate in the Civilopedia entries which teach little bits of Earth history

 

[dinofs]

No. Civ is not supposed to be accurate as possible. Civ is about rebuilding history each time you play.

Exactly. Even if Civilization 5 were to acknowledge something like this, I fail to see how it would affect gameplay at all, especially considering China is the only one of those nations actually in the game. Regarding the Civilopedia, I wouldn't be against something like "It is believed that Chinese ships may have made it to the Pacific coast of the Americas before Colombus," but out-and-about stating that the Chinese did reach America would not be accurate, considering the lack of proof.

 

[Rupe]

I think the reason we give Columbus and those other evil westerners credit for "discovering" the new world is that for the first time people other then the natives came and stayed and more importantly did stuff.

If you can name the chinese or polyneseian fells that made those maps and explored the new world you might have half a case but in the end they didnt stay, and if they did they were absorbed into the local population.

Sure Columbus didnt discover anything, just ask any native american. But he has name recognition and once he came others followed in great numbers and stayed and once they planted roots they did alot. Good bad, doesnt matter. They did stuff that lasted so they are remembered.

I would love to see some of the things you pointed out brought into civ. But to say the game is in some way biased to western ideas or people really isnt quite accurate. If it was truely biased half of the leaders in the game would have never been in. Only people you learn about in a grade school social studies book would be in. And anyone that went to public school in the US knows how lacking history is here. There is alot of western stuff and people in the game but that might just be because westerners have done a lot.

 

[Skwink]

I agree with these two.

 

[nc-1701]

That Chinese ever made it to the America's is hardly an accepted fact in academic circles, in fact is generally discounted due to a complete lack of hard evidence. Now the Vikings we do know made it to the Americas quite early on, but I don't think that's too important for civ to take note of because who reads the civilopedia anyway? I certainly don't aside from checking the exact effect of things occasionally, I certainly never read the history tidbits. For history your better off reading an actual history textbook.

 

[astrognash]

It's like this. Person A discovers a cure for cancer, and cures himself, his mother, and then never tells anyone else, ever. Person B, some 500 years later, "discovers" a cure for cancer, and tells the world. Regardless of how he got that cure, or the fact that A discovered it first, who really deserves the credit?

If the Vikings had, you know, actually told someone else in Europe about the New World, then maybe things would be different. But they didn't, and so we credit Columbus.

 

[evrett37]

History textbooks tend to be written by white conservative Christians in Texas. There is DNA and animal evidence as well as several boats and towers all over north, south America. Read 1421 http://www.1421.tv/

 

[Skwink]

If I had sailed to a far distant land, I would record it. And besides, if there is DNA and animal evidence, how come China landed first a widely unbelieved statement?

 

[bjbrains]

History textbooks tend to be written by white conservative Christians in Texas. There is DNA and animal evidence as well as several boats and towers all over north, south America. Read 1421 http://www.1421.tv/

1421 is pretty unbelievable (Yes, I've read it). The entire book is mostly assertions, guesses, and wild conclusions. The "evidence" he presents was discredited back when it was written. The "sequel" is even wilder, with even less evidence. It's basically just a bunch of "Well this 'had' to have been Chinese" or similar bad assertions. He's just a good story teller, he's not a historian.

Oh, by the way. I'm completely for telling the real story of Colombus. But that is more about talking about the consequences of his actions than speculating about possible voyages that have no basis in reality.

 

[fatherlorris]

I will add to this little circus with two names, Antonio Meucci and Alexander Graham Bell.

 

[paradigmx]

Keep in mind that only rarely where maps made prior to the 18th century trusted by other nations, hence why there really wasn't much in the way of map trading historically, even if someone had given Colombus a map of North America, I doubt he would use it and would have instead drawn his own map up.

Actually that would be a pretty neat idea for the game, if, while trading maps, you could give a false map and maybe have some kind of "reliability" marker for hex's under a fog of war that degrades over time depending on when, or if you have ever personally visited that hex.

 

[evrett37]

1421 is pretty unbelievable (Yes, I've read it). The entire book is mostly assertions, guesses, and wild conclusions. The "evidence" he presents was discredited back when it was written. The "sequel" is even wilder, with even less evidence. It's basically just a bunch of "Well this 'had' to have been Chinese" or similar bad assertions. He's just a good story teller, he's not a historian.

Oh, by the way. I'm completely for telling the real story of Colombus. But that is more about talking about the consequences of his actions than speculating about possible voyages that have no basis in reality.

Actually the best part of the book is its basically a list of things you can go see yourself. The maps for example you can see on the internet. They date back before Columbus and they show the coasts of the Americas in great detail. While you clearly do not beleive it enough people do to make it a best seller and several TV series. I found the evidence compelling. The 2nd book is about how the Renaissance inventors like Da Vinci bought their designs from Chinese sailors. Its very well presented with invention desgins from china predating the inventions in europe pictured next to the ones the western people created.

 

[bjbrains]

Actually the best part of the book is its basically a list of things you can go see yourself. The maps for example you can see on the internet. They date back before Columbus and they show the coasts of the Americas in great detail. While you clearly do not beleive it enough people do to make it a best seller and several TV series. I found the evidence compelling. The 2nd book is about how the Renaissance inventors like Da Vinci bought their designs from Chinese sailors. Its very well presented with invention desgins from china predating the inventions in europe pictured next to the ones the western people created.

The "lists of things" are there, but their attributions are wrong.

Also: The book was a "best seller" and a tv series because it's well written. Not because it's got good evidence in it. The public (aka, those who buy books), don't know how to analyze the evidence presented, especially when it's presented in one-sided or incorrect ways. There's a reason it's completely ignored by all historians, except when they're refuting it.

 

[astrognash]

Actually the best part of the book is its basically a list of things you can go see yourself. The maps for example you can see on the internet. They date back before Columbus and they show the coasts of the Americas in great detail. While you clearly do not beleive it enough people do to make it a best seller and several TV series. I found the evidence compelling. The 2nd book is about how the Renaissance inventors like Da Vinci bought their designs from Chinese sailors. Its very well presented with invention desgins from china predating the inventions in europe pictured next to the ones the western people created.

Yes, because being on the internet means it must be true!

 

[bjbrains]

BTW everret, there are several websites containing detailed writings about why 1421 and 1434 are a pile of crap (intellectually). The guy *isn't* a historian, doesn't know much about history in general, and makes some ridiculous assertions within the book and in other channels.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

History textbooks tend to be written by white conservative Christians in Texas.

Are you able to make any post lately that doesn't include some blatantly erroneous assertion, designed to insult at least some identifiable group?

I mean really. You're just being silly at this point. History textbooks are normally written by historians from all over the world, not just Texas. And it isn't just conservative white Christians that write them, either.

If you insist on starting these silly hate-speech threads and making ridiculous statements in order to stir us up, at least do it with some style.

 

[IAmEverywhere]

Srry, but what happened to the boycott the Anti-Americans who created this game. Tried to go for something new?

 

[frekk]

Since we are discussing things that should and shouldn't be included in the civilopedia...I thought I'd bring up something from history that has always bothered me - I am of the opinion that the Chinese, Vikings and Polynesian kayakers mapped parts of the world prior to Columbus, Magellan and many other western explorers and chinese maps were used to "discover" the new world.

So when my kid goes to kindergarten he hears all these bs about Columbus sailing the ocean blue. Now thankfully the teachers leave out all the pillaging and raping of the natives..but like the story of the pilgrams first thanksgiving..there is not a lot of fact involved in the story of "discovery".

My question is - does Civ, now in its 5th incarnation, with all the resources at its disposal (civ 4 could pay for spock for crying out loud), have the responsibility to be historically accurate as possible in the Civilopedia entries that pertain to real history?

While popular, all of these are fringe theories dismissed by most academics.

I don't want them writing that aliens built the pyramids or having "Atlantis" as a civilization either.