Slavery in EU4

[Shaka]

I start this post because because Newdeath12 had started an earlier one expressing his revultion to the casual inclusion of slavery as a resource in the game.He like me was uncomfortable at the idea but the thread was closed down. I mean the games description as to slavery being around since antiquity pays no reality to what the Atlantic slave trade was and meant.
In roman times an army would conquer a region and take an army captive and maybe a few rebellious tribes. The war would end and those peoples would become part of the empire paying taxes and providing troops etc. The slaves after a generation or two might well be incorporated into the army or marry into slave owning class.
But with Atlantic slave trade we are talking about something different verging on a genocide. Almost half of those transported died from sickness or hunger. Lets be clear as to the Industrial scale of the Atlantice slave trade, they reackon 4 million at least were transported in an area the size of western europe. Show me a time in history when this happened. An area almost the the size of western europe was depopoulated. In the carribean slaves were worked so hard they did not live beyond 30. There was no integration to the land owning classes. Where as most older slavery took place during wars this went on for 400 years.
Why is this important, because younger players and those lazy to see the truth can be easily mislead by the games caption that this was normal practice at the time. Large scale slavery hadnt been present in europe since roman times. Also the games explanation sounds like some sort of justification stating DEMAND as the key concern. No there were paid labourers to be found wherever they looked really, if they paid enough.
I think the game might feel the need to include slavery to be historically accurate but its explanation/justification for it is verging on liablious and is definately very insulting to those who have a humanist outlook.

[Shaka]

like i said i not the only one that feels this way

[Shaka]

newdeath12 13 Mar @ 11:01pm
Oh,.......i'm now a slaver.
So I colonize the west african coast near mali thinking the trade goods that will develop would be something like ivor or gold. But what did I get?....slaves....... What did I forget about history? The slave coast........ Sad thing is, even if I gave away the land the slave resource has been discovered and set.....so....instead of giving away something that will be there anyways.....were going to trade....slaves..... I feel dirty.

[Meme Trash]

It's a historical game, and slaves were a huge part of history. Denying that it happened by not putting it in the game would be like denying the holocaust, the Armenian genocide, or the Rwandan genocide. Facts are facts and you can't change that.

[Free Luigi M.]

Originally posted by Shaka:

newdeath12 13 Mar @ 11:01pm
Oh,.......i'm now a slaver.
So I colonize the west african coast near mali thinking the trade goods that will develop would be something like ivor or gold. But what did I get?....slaves....... What did I forget about history? The slave coast........ Sad thing is, even if I gave away the land the slave resource has been discovered and set.....so....instead of giving away something that will be there anyways.....were going to trade....slaves..... I feel dirty.

The person you are quoting simply feels unconfortable with slavery. He isn't criticizing its presentation in the game or its perfect historical representation. He didn't say anything close to what you wrote.
So what is your critic to the game again?

[Asane]

Tobacco shouldn't be tradable because It promotes kids smoking
Naval Supplies shouldn't be a resource because it might cause kids to become sailors after playing this game


Sorry, Slavery was and always is a major part of human history, There are still millions of slaves in the world, and it's actually a good thing anytime we recognize the history of them, because for free thinking individuals, it reminds us of that dark road it took.

I hate when people try to take the PR moral highground and ignore history, trying to censor slavery out of a game set in the age of exploration and American Coloniolism? Really? You realize that most of the Western Hemisphere economy was being driven by slavery from 1700 and on, I mean, when you finish the time period for this game, it's only a few years until the American Civil War, which was heavily based around the issue of Slavery, It is incredibly relevant and important to the entire scope of History.

Victoria 2 has a lot more slavery based events, and allows you to abolish, or attempt to embrace it, and give's you much more control over it, but the EU4 timeline needed Slavery around the last quarter of the game.

If your main argument is truly the word Demand
-
-
Get over it, Keep in mind, that you start colonizing around 1500, Slavery started to actually become in demand then, As the very colonies that you're settling mostly used Slave Labor, and Native exploitation to be created. Heck, the way you genoicde the Native Americans and South American tribes is actually even more of a horrific event, Slavery vs Mass Genocide at a continental level. Also, Native Americans being used as slaves should be logistically no different from African people being exploited, yet for some reason when people think Slave, we immediately ignore all of those indiginous people for just the 1 demographic of them.

In order to give a detailed and historically accurate slave trade, they would need to do an entire expansion around it, and I'll tell you this, having an expansion about the slave trade is probably a PR Suicide compared to just having them as a resource.

Hypersensitivity about issues such as slavery is something that really boggles my mind, I agree it was an awful black mark on history, especially for the more advanced cultures that utilized it, but focus more on stopping current day slavery, or teaching less educated peoples of the horrors, don't try and cry about a video game simulations small reference to it.

And honestly, if a kid even knows where the slave coast is, he's already a leg up for most educational standards for most countries, knowing that area was the shipping lane for Slavery is about the most I could see a kid concluding from slavery, outside of that, most High School Social studies programs probably touch on the subject even less than the couple events you get out of Eu4.

[kente]

it's a game, if you take serious whatever happen in a game, you should reconsider your priorites

[King_0_Hell]

I don't really have an issue with slavery in the game myself. I mean, all it does is add to the realism of the time period. And as others have said, You will eventually get the option to abolish slavery

[Shaka]

Originally posted by kente:

it's a game, if you take serious whatever happen in a game, you should reconsider your priorites

I know its a game, I think the point I was making was clear. The game, in its explanation of slavery, when a colony reveals slaves as a resource says DEMAND was the reason for it. This is a justification. I dont feel is compatible with a modern view of history. I stated why many times in posts.
If there was a game that gave a view that the Holocaust was an acceptable policy due to over population in Europe or similar that too would offer a view that is not compatible with a modern view of history.
"Consider my priorities", sorry i dont understand that. In fact some of the replies to this post have displayed a complete ignorance as to what the Atlantic slave trade was. So I do feel that by raising this is completely necessary. People are ignorant as to the nature of the horror and genocide of this practice. I think when representing history in a game that prides its self on its accuracy there should be more care not to offend by giving a pro slavery attitude in game play and EXPLANATION. But more so it offers a view of history to a younger generation that is wrong and not compatible with the norm.
I have never stated once in any posts that it should be removed from the game. Personally I would like the option to remove it. Thats not the point I am making.
I said that the games explantion for slavery appears as a justification for this practice. In no way does it mention it was wrong or evil. Or that there was a great morale debate about it during this period which ultimately led to its abolition. Its just another resource.
As for comparison with Tobacco resource I think that is silly. Atantic slave trade was a 400 year event that deeply scared Africa and Africans and was barbaric in its nature. How does that compare to Tobacco. Sorry I dont see that.
"Get over what" the game was released in the 21st century gives explanation for its inclusion akin to 16th century view of it. I will raise this point because its valid.
Other post (Newdeath12) raised the point that he was uncomfortable with slavery in the game. BUT THAT POST WAS TAKEN DOWN HENCE THIS ONE. How many more have been removed??????????
I think there are some general reasons why people might feel uncomfortable with it.
I think the essence of this is.

As Slaves are treated as just another resource like Tobacco the game is almost saying that it was ok to capture people and transport 15 million over the Atlantic because it enabled cash crops to be harvested. - Neo facist view

No where in the game there is a daming word about slave trading. It is almost justified by its presence and definately by the explanation of it. I think that this is irresponsible. As I said before, if those with the means looked carefully at the laws in Sweeden or where ever you are there may be grounds for a prosecution along the lines Holocaust denial. I dont know maybe in the European court for Human Rights.
I like the game suffered trying to kick ass with france check my screenshots. This is my opinion others feel similar and I think its a valid point that I raised because debate on the topic looked to be stifled by the removal of posts on the subject.
This I might add may indicate Paradox embarrassment of the way slavery is represented in the game.
But certainly for myself and others who buy a game thinking its like Civ 5 or other strategy games and after a few hours of gamplay find themselves slave trading half of Africa to the new world - it can be a shock. People who paid £40 for a game, suddenly find themselves competing for the slaves like it was gold or spices. With a justification type explanation for slaves might feel a little bit upset - look for a refund maybe.
Case in point

newdeath12 13 Mar @ 11:01pm
Oh,.......i'm now a slaver.
So I colonize the west african coast near mali thinking the trade goods that will develop would be something like ivor or gold. But what did I get?....slaves....... What did I forget about history? The slave coast........ Sad thing is, even if I gave away the land the slave resource has been discovered and set.....so....instead of giving away something that will be there anyways.....were going to trade....slaves..... I feel dirty.

Now Mr Newdeath uses the term "I feel dirty." DIRTY. Now do you think he has just had a lovely couple of hours gameplay after spending £40 or whatever. Or do you think he is pissed off about buying some game that some might argue has a right wing, almost neo fascist type view of history specifically slave trading.

[Shaka]

Originally posted by God of Faces:

There was a demand for it, as cash crops costs came from the harvesting mostly. So the farmers wanted to cut costs and increase profits. The best way to do this was free labor. The men who did this cared only about profit and so enslaving was not a problem to them. Demand was high for slaves in South America and the west indies, as most only lived till 25. And the keeping of slaves where they at was because of demand at first. Individualy cash crops dont sell all that much. However there grow quickly and easily as well as there being alot. A lot of slaves where needed to cut costs and to produce a lot of crops to make any profits. Portugal did not have a large population when they started slavery and wages would be high as plantation fight over workers. Demand for low costs to increase profits drived plantations for slaves and a large number of them. Slavery was out done when the industrial revolution happened and waged workers were more reliable than slaves and waged industrial work pasted Slave plantations. This caused tensions between the north and the south in the US. Slavery was caused by a demand for increased profits of cash crops which need large number of harvestors. And nothing cuts costs like free labor. This is why it happened at first, it was because of demand of increased profit margins of cash crops.

Now I hate slavery, and when i get the chance I ban it in my empire when i get the chance. The reason I posted this is because the athour stated that is was not because of demand, it was. Later it turned into something else. Also I would like to know shaka means when demand did not cause it. What did than? And the number i hear of slaves transported is like 12-15 million slaves and between 25-33% of them dieing a long the way. Making the entire thing one of the worst events to happen in all of history.

This is a sensible reply. However you make the assertion that
"Demand was high for slaves in South America and the west indies, as most only lived till 25. And the keeping of slaves where they at was because of demand at first."
Demand was not high for Slaves essentially. Demand was high for Labour. This is different. If the nation chose slavery as an option to handle a Labour shortage then thats an option. However it is essentially a DEMAND for LABOUR, no. We have labour shortages in areas today. But this does not lead to Atlantic Slave trade type like depopopulation. As I mentioned earlier Europeans went to the new world as Bonds men. Re: portugal and small population dunno sounds a bit weak with all that cash sure they could have paid workers from other countries. I do accept that its practice increased profitability for the chosen few not really at issue with that.
The game has been released in 2010 or what ever and its tone does not represent that. I think you more than most might see that.
Other than that you make interesting points.

[Shaka]

Also game wants to be historical wheres the Haiti slave revolt event?????

[Daniele63]

http://steamcommunity.com/groups/eu4p

[Shaka]

"And honestly, if a kid even knows where the slave coast is, he's already a leg up for most educational standards for most countries, knowing that area was the shipping lane for Slavery is about the most I could see a kid concluding from slavery, outside of that, most High School Social studies programs probably touch on the subject even less than the couple events you get out of Eu4."
Arcane

You make my point for me here. Yeah most kids today might not know much about it bar a couple of recent films. So their contact with this issue, which you feel is quite minor where as i would disagree, might come from this game which gives almost a justification for Slavery. Basically the games tone is that europeans had no choice to go slave trading. That is rubbish, insulting and as stated before that might be able to be challenged in court. The game states it is a matter of fact that it was necessary. Labour might of been in demand but slave trading was only one way to do this. Are you really telling me that no other people apart from Africans could grow these crops. If anyone else tried to grow them they would just wither and die. Please i will engage in debate but talk sense.
If Paradox want to go the whole hog include in depth about slave trading. State who started it how it came about. State what kings passed acts to allow it Charles 1st in UK i think. Give an insight via events like other areas have been covered. But for God sake dont just include it as a resource that has always been there like Gold. And like Gold mining it was some commodity that didnt have a MAJOR social and political impact.
Basically we talking about HUMAN BEINGS here being traded compared to stuff like Coffee and wine. Am i only the one seing this.
Nobody saying rewrite history. Just saying make game fun without discovering your a nation slave trading and making people feel sick and dirty re: Newdeath12s post. Make in game prose reflect common version of history.
In fact i think on this games description it doesnt anything about slave trading so those that buy it and are offended like Newdeath should just get a refund. I think thats fair and sensible.

[Narf]

Originally posted by Shaka:

The game states it is a matter of fact that it was necessary.

Here's the entire problem: you don't get it that the game does not do that. You go all bonkers because you don't get the difference between "demand" and "necessity", failing the very basics of economy. Stating that there is a demand for something does not mean that that thing is a must-have. For humans, anything beyond air to breathe, food, drinkable water and a habitable climate is not a necessity. But we all want more, right? We want shelter from rain, we want fancy clothes to wear, we want the newest mobile phone, we want a nice game to play on the high-end PCs which we also want. This "I want to have that" is called demand when the person also has the means to get it. We certainly don't need most of the things. But we want them for several reasons.

And the slavers, back then and today, want slaves because they are the cheapest form of sufficiently available workforce, because that would give them the biggest profit and the least amount of trouble. And so there you have the demand for slaves.

[Shaka]

Look on this it states due to the increase plantations in the new world there was increased demand for slaves. I would argue that it gives the impression that these plantations could not physically operate without slaves. No they could not operate without labour slaves is one way to get labour not the only way, thats a big difference.

[Kagemin]

Originally posted by Shaka:

Look on this it states due to the increase plantations in the new world there was increased demand for slaves. I would argue that it gives the impression that these plantations could not physically operate without slaves. No they could not operate without labour slaves is one way to get labour not the only way, thats a big difference.

To me it gives the impression that more plantations mean more demand for slaves. Which is pretty much how it was, no?
Of course the plantations could operate with normal labourers too, but slaves were much cheaper and easier for the landlords.

As Narf said, there's a difference between demand and neccessity.