Why Harriet Tubman?

[Raven Ranks]

You could have used a black leader though. Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King, Elizabeth Coleman, Maya Angelou, Rosa Parks, Charles Richard Drew, etc. Why choose slavery? Why make THAT what we represent? America has done a lot for both the black community and the world. Our history is defined by more than the ugly. It's almost like it's intentional.

[Brickthing]

Escrito originalmente por Efour:

Slavery should be a researchable tech/civic in modern civ games.
And there should absolutely be modern fascist leaders representing ideologies.

It was in Civ 4 and funnily enough was actually a pretty good in game policy choice.
Their is no world where it gets put into a modern Civ game.

[iheartdaikaiju]

Escrito originalmente por Brickthing:

Escrito originalmente por Efour:

Slavery should be a researchable tech/civic in modern civ games.
And there should absolutely be modern fascist leaders representing ideologies.

It was in Civ 4 and funnily enough was actually a pretty good in game policy choice.
Their is no world where it gets put into a modern Civ game.

If I remember right you had to sack a population and you got hammers and gold for it?

I for one think they absolutely should have history's problems and problem children in the game, because it's fun stamping them out. It was a blast in civ 5 taking over the world congress just to ban nukes on your way to a science or domination win. Stellaris lets me do the same thing to ban slavery everywhere, and the galaxy even looks the other way when I turn all their planets into my planets when they don't comply.

So I am going to agree, history's greatest monsters should be in the game because what could possibly be more satisfying in a 4x game than conducting operation ivy inside Hitler's colon?

[GodsleftAsscheek]

Escrito originalmente por Sarumoon:

Escrito originalmente por Guest In Disguise:

Today i learned that america still uses slaves because they have to keep reminding us of slavery in every way possible.

Right, you just want to forget about it.

No thanks. Your people enslaved an entire race for 400 years. Don't get over it.

first off "your people"? also slavery was a world wide problem involving all ethnicity, white enslaving black and brown, black and brown enslaving white, white and white, and black and black. you do not know the history of slavery, that much is clear. for almost all of history it had nothing to do with race.

[Do It For Hargon]

why harriet?

because, in objective historical reality, she was a major influential figure for the us of a. not to mention she was an effective asset in war and just all round excelled in everything she did. a total badarse of a person.

absolutely deserves a seat in civ roster. (unless you reject history)

[temps]

Many in this thread seem to have some misconceptions about the history of slavery, so I think these articles add meaningfully to the discussion.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/mar/10/20040310-115506-8528r/
https://news.osu.edu/when-europeans-were-slaves--research-suggests-white-slavery-was-much-more-common-than-previously-believed/

[Ad'Nar]

Escrito originalmente por Sarumoon:

Escrito originalmente por Guest In Disguise:

Today i learned that america still uses slaves because they have to keep reminding us of slavery in every way possible.

Right, you just want to forget about it.

No thanks. Your people enslaved an entire race for 400 years. Don't get over it.

Name a race that didnt enslave others or werent enslaved themselves? Ill wait.

[Radimov]

Escrito originalmente por Ad'Nar:

Escrito originalmente por Sarumoon:

Right, you just want to forget about it.

No thanks. Your people enslaved an entire race for 400 years. Don't get over it.

Name a race that didnt enslave others or werent enslaved themselves? Ill wait.

Generally, Anglos have been much more slave-owning and less lenient with slaves and indigenous people since they did not consider them to have souls.

Catholics who get all the bad rap in Anglophile movies and advertising have been much more lenient in this regard. In fact, Isabella I of Castile in 1500 prohibited slavery and treated the indigenous people as free citizens, and some of them were granted noble titles.

[ShadowDark3]

Escrito originalmente por Raven Ranks:

You could have used a black leader though. Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King, Elizabeth Coleman, Maya Angelou, Rosa Parks, Charles Richard Drew, etc. Why choose slavery? Why make THAT what we represent? America has done a lot for both the black community and the world. Our history is defined by more than the ugly. It's almost like it's intentional.

Everyone you listed was fighting AGAINST systems established and supported by America. America has improved over the years, but it wasn't America that led that change. It was black individuals and communities being repressed BY America that brought that improvement about by fighting tooth and nail against an oppressive government and laws designed to disenfranchise minorities.

[@R+5]

Escrito originalmente por Endemize:

Why not have her? Unless you take your video games too literal and need them to be absolutely accurate to history, I am not sure I see the problem.

you are not familiar with games and or this franchise.

[temps]

Escrito originalmente por Raven Ranks:

You could have used a black leader though. Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King, Elizabeth Coleman, Maya Angelou, Rosa Parks, Charles Richard Drew, etc. Why choose slavery? Why make THAT what we represent? America has done a lot for both the black community and the world. Our history is defined by more than the ugly. It's almost like it's intentional.

If you want a non-slave black American leader Obama would make more sense than any of these people you're mentioning considering he was actually elected president twice. MLK and these other people were never elected to anything

[@R+5]

Escrito originalmente por Do It For Hargon:

why harriet?

because, in objective historical reality, she was a major influential figure for the us of a.

how so, relative to the other characters mentioned as possibilities? ie:

Escrito originalmente por Raven Ranks:

Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King, Elizabeth Coleman, Maya Angelou, Rosa Parks, Charles Richard Drew, etc.

so this is a real question:

Escrito originalmente por Raven Ranks:

Why choose slavery? Why make THAT what we represent? America has done a lot for both the black community and the world. Our history is defined by more than the ugly. It's almost like it's intentional.

and the reason is obv: is the same bs they forced into castlevania the animated series in netflix, with a character that had nothing to do with the series.

"woke" media for a long time has represented "black" people (people with afro-ascendancy) as directly connected as victims of slavery, specially from white people, which actually is inaccurate, but "easy to force fed". the fact is most civs and cultures had and used slaves, of their own groups (yes, asian groups also had asian slaves, and african tribes also had african slaves). most people forget or ignore, that even if medieval and later europeans had some negative believes and practices, they were mild when compared to those of the aztecs or other "less technologically advanced civs", or even some that may have adopted some modern standards but still relied in some old or ancient beliefs that were used to justify some violent and abusive practices.

it was thanks to commerce and big ships all those slavers began to trade "their products", and since tall strong people are more useful for building tasks than those who are smaller, and you are building a new nation, you will want to spend in that to reduce costs (specially since most of the pilgrims and migrants are broke people trying luck away from the limits that are imposed by their own gov).

and that is also what spread ideas about liberty (not actually "proto-leftism", since actual liberals and anarchists are opposed to socialists) that also gradually led into ending slavery (people used it, but not everyone felt ok with it: just accepted it as "normal", because that was "normal" for centuries, even when it was already fading out thanks to technology and science)

[dukesalt]

Guys the reason is simple. Harriet Tubman is an iconic symbol of a major period in American History. She had an interesting life, and became the face of a much larger event/system (the underground railroad). There are other people who arguably accomplished more as "leaders" (Frederick Douglass) but Tubman is a household name so they decided to go with that.

Similarly, Benjamin Franklin was a very influential and iconic person who led an interesting life during an important period of American history, but he never held any kind of political office. There are a dozen other founding fathers that you could argue had a bigger real impact and were better leaders (has John Adams ever featured as an American leader in any game?), but Benjamin is a household name so they went with that.

This is far from the first time civ has done this. Ghandi never held office, and only led the Indian National Congress party for a single year, but he was so influential and became the face of the Indian independence movement, so he's typically picked as the leader of modern India instead of, say India's first prime minister, Nehru (I don't know enough about Indian history to say how influential Nehru specifically was).

Is there an iconic person in history who represented an important period, event(s), or idea? Then they probably make a good civ7 leader. Simple as.

(this opinion only counts for civ7. I think previous games almost always stuck with heads of state, and for good reason. Since leaders are detached from civs in civ7, I think additions like Tubman, machiavelli, and Lafayette are perfect.)

[[SM] thejuanald]

Escrito originalmente por Raven Ranks:

Escrito originalmente por Narnyay:

why are you against the freeing of slaves? that is a Huge part of american history and something you should be celebrating

The entire world participated in slavery and the majority of the world still does. Africa, the Middle East, Asia. All still engage in slavery. I am not a fan of constantly rehashing something Europeans abolished 200 years ago. All it does is divide us.

the only people it divides is people who advocate for owning slaves and those that do not.

[kesmai]

Who cares?
Outside of the US absolutely no one knows who this character is.
Not a clever choice if you ask me.
Its like if the french would be represented by Jean Casimir-Perier.
Or the Chinee by Yuwen Yun (宣皇帝).
lol

[donald23]

Apparently slavery cannot be discussed without resorting to racism, discrimination and bigotry. Now that it has been cleaned up, topic is closed.