I disagree that Civ is Western-centric. Babylon and Korea are the best in-game civilizations for winning the scientific victory. Shoshones, Incas, Aztecs, Polynesians, etc are also very powerful in-game, with better bonuses than the Unites States, France, Venice, Netherlands, and Germany. In real life, some of these civilizations never stood a chance, yet in-game, every civilization has a chance of winning every victory condition.

I also disagree that Civ portrays a progressive view of history. I think the portrayal is very anti-progressive. The progressives tend to either hate religion or think that all religions can get along. They also believe that everyone wants peace. Clearly this doesn't happen in the Civ games. Civ portrays that casualties from war increase over time. It also shows that you can even purchase great scientists and engineers with faith, something progressive atheists hate. Civ also shows that you have to fight for your religion if you want to be militarily and technologically ahead of your enemies.

The tradition, piety, and rationalism are the strongest social policy trees. Honor can also be very dangerous. Progressives hate tradition, piety, and honor... they don't even like commerce, and depending on the individual, maybe not even rationalism or liberty. A progressive would probably go for the patronage and aesthetics trees and get wiped out by mid-game.

Civ also teaches that your worst enemy is probably your neighbor. This makes sense historically. The early wars are fought between people who settled close together for the most fertile lands. It's not racism. When you play multiple games, you realize that you don't intrinsically hate any civilization. It only matters if they are threatening your space. Therefore you always start out attacking whoever is closest to you or whoever is ahead. That's human nature.