Civilization - be all and end all?
The game Civilization is about ... Civilization. That is, it is about civilizing the material, animal and human world, and beyond to other worlds in some games. Every game you play is a long march from prehistory, through ancient, classical, medieval, modern and future times; a linear path from a nomadic and isolated way of life to a technological human hive.
But what is "civilization", and have we ever thought of it critically. Perhaps the descendents of Native American tribal peoples would be the obvious folks to cast a cold eye on the concept. As an outsider, I know they have a reputation for ecological responsibility and a historical opposition to the oppression of the colonial state which has now become the United States of America.
I stumbled across an essay called "Fascism, Genocide, and Extinction: An Indictment Against Civilization", written 8 years ago, by an author under the pen name "admin1" on the Republic of Lakotah website.
I should note that this republic really constitutes a rejected proposition and apparently not supported by the Lakotah tribal leaders but led by an activist called Russell Means who was defeated in presidency elections of the Oglala Sioux Tribe in 2006. That's meant to imply he did not have popular support, but even if so that doesn't mean his claim for sovereignty was invalid.
The language of Civ is death
The essay is pretty extreme in it's language and it's propositions, but I think the vision of Civilization described within its pages is coherent with the vision of Civilization in the game of the same name.
What if it is civilization itself—the very thing Gore and friends are saving—that is the cause of ecological catastrophe? [...] In the proper historical context, civilization is revealed to be a fascist system of control, a ten thousand-year genocide against sustainable ways of life that pushes humanity toward extinction.
[...]
Civilization, then, by this view, is the culmination of an evolution, the final stage toward which all other stages of human society were invariably progressing. Civilization is humankind’s final destination. [But] could it be that our perception of civilization as a final, grand stage of human social evolution may somehow be faulty?
In this view, farming is "totalitarian agriculture" which brutally subjugates nature, and works against us. "Something about these steps took away our autonomy. They made us dependent. Supposedly we were freed from the barbarism of self-determination toward a new Freedom of work and a world of stuff." Food surpluses from farming led to more people, which led to a greater need for farmed food, which led to more people, ... and on and on until we are forced to master microscopic bacteria in order to sustain the lives of those unhealthy civis who are dying from their unnatural urban environments, truly outside of nature in the sense of being subject to natural population pressures and balances.
It's a Garden of Eden perspective. To leave our beautifully ignorant but balanced lives we had to understand them, and so destroy them with that understanding, much as Adam and then Eve eat the Apple, influenced by the temptation of the snake. You can make your own mapping of the snake up, you get the picture 😅 🐍
Russell Means meets Sid Meier, or these Meier Means
There are certain congruencies which are interesting to me. I'll go though some of them.
Work
The work ethic at the heart of civilization, the slavery to mass production, is the very distinguishing feature absent from tribal life, where needs are efficiently met in play and joyful activity.
When you have a top down system of organization, such as we find in Civ and in our lives as state citizens, our labour can be view en mass as a variable in an equation, labour * time = production. We do these kinds of calculations from small businesses up to the populous of the entire state, thanks to the wonders of mathematical abstraction. That is, we're removed from our context as complex and individual people and seen as components contributing towards production.
This is completely at odds with "uncivilized" tribal life. The author claims that tribal peoples "required but an average of two hours a day to provide their needs and desires", a stark contrast to a work orientated life. But the Cult of Work requires people to keep working. I commented recently with 
Leaning towards conspiracy I could say that our masters intentionally aim to keep us safely occupied with work (and as
Or as 
Barbarism and the nomads
Barbarians are an early game stage feature In Civ and your first real existential threat. It looks like they are based on the nomadic people who posed a similar and very real threat to great empires like the Roman Empire and China, which would make them a Barbar / Hun amalgamation. In both cases they eventually overthrew them (though it's always stated not before the systematic rot had set in within the empires).
For Means and his independent Lakotah tribesmen, the "civilizing" of these plays out as it does in the game Civ:
Civilization’s official policy is quite consistent. Tribal people were left with the clear choices of assimilation or death. [...] However, the Native American experience was different in the respect that, from early on, it was clear that assimilation was not an option.
And it wasn't an option for those little guys in the game on horses in perennial red coloring, the color of danger. (I don't want to trivialize Native American genocide here, just show how it is (mis)represented in games). The game gives us no way out, we must either fight them or be killed by them. Recently I tried to play a game non-violently which means either have no military units at all or if you do, keeping them away from aggressors because by the game rules they will attack if attacked. Every time the barbarians overrun your fledgeling civilization and the game ends.
Interesting in Civilization: Beyond Earth the barbarians are replaced with native alien creatures, as this game takes place on a newly colonized planet. If you do not attack them you can navigate your civilization to assimilate with them, though it is rather more like the Borg than people with different colored skin living down the street.
Fighting from without and within
Waysism, liberalism and the state (cough I mean racism)
Dan Harmon, the creator if the cosmic horror, darkly funny sci-fi cartoon Rick and Morty has a podcast called Whiting Wongs with one of his writers Jessica Gao (yes I can Google links) with the tag line "An honest conversation about race and writing between two people who think very highly of themselves." It's an extremely candid look into the minds of the liberal establishment view, touching on white guilt, white priveledge, who should be "allowed" into certain conversations, to make certain shows, to voice certain characters, and the messy and confusing world of a regulated rights system which is the progressive worldview. (it also influenced the title of this post in reference to the previous one 😉)
On the one hand it's absolutely terrible, full of the stuff above. On the other hand the extreme candour is not only endearing and funny, but very explanatory on the workings of identity politics in the US. I recommend it, if only for informational purposes.
In episode 3, I Don't Care If I'm White Or Wong, dan has an epiphany which might be useful in this discussion on Civilization:
Dan: I always wondered why would you bother take the racist side if you're white? My racist brethren, maybe all they're thinkin' is, maybe they're actually like straight up like in tune with the non-racist reality that all people are truly the same and their saying "Yea, well if the shoe was on the other foot you'd fuckin', you'd oppress me and you'd like take all the food you could get, and you'd...", and it's like, "we're being kinda cool about it considering we won." It's like simutainously the most like kinda vile thing you could say but ironically the root of my progressiveness is actually more racist because I'm first and foremost thinking like, "man, us white people - we sure are good at being Nazi's. I gotta compensate for that"
The part I'm interesting in here is the imagined "racist brethren" point of view, which to repeat it is:
"Yea, well if the shoe was on the other foot you'd fuckin', you'd oppress me and you'd like take all the food you could get, and you'd...", and it's like, "we're being kinda cool about it considering we won."
It's clear that Civilization the game plants itself firmly in the liberal progressive view of world history and revolving around the enlightenment. Dan's comment above strikes me as essential point to understanding liberal intra-nation, and often intra-race, violent competition. We can oppress you if we want but we don't, we're going to be kinda cool about it since it's better for us if you're all happy. This betrays, not the reality, but the skewed view of reality as a competition between identites. So Dan is racist, but he recognizes that he should not act out his racism because it's for the best, i.e. in his interest.
In the game we find states fighting against each other (sometimes through non-violent means, but fighting none the less) the cohesion of which is signified by their cultural and racial identity and appears in the form of game bonuses loosely based on perceived historical advantages. We also find them cooperating, even forming alliances, but always at arms length. Most importantly, we as player are basing our superiority solely on the fact that it's us, it's our team, this is what we were born as.
All of this flies by the real unracist idea that national borders and ethnic commonality do not need to result in bands of competing groups literally out to get each other in order to increase the stock of their group and consolidate their wins by oppressing the losers.
Civ is politically Western-centric (unsurprisingly), as was covered in an article I referenced before, which notes that
Of all the government types, democracy provides the most economic and scientific bonuses; for players who want to win by creating a wealthy, high-tech nation, it’s the political system of choice.
[...]
Does all this sound familiar? It should to Americans and Europeans, because it fits the modern Western view of politics so nicely. Democracies are creative and wealthy, but not suited for war. Authoritarian political systems are warlike, not prosperous, and they get their technology by stealing it from the democracies. Translate Civ into a book, and it could serve as a text in an American high school civics class.
And don't forget that this high school civics class curriculum is very much in line with the progressive liberal worldview. I think this shows us that Civilization the game is an extension of these modes of teaching, which is more or less intentional. This goes towards answering my original question, "Is Civilization a platform for the ideas of the state?"
Smash the state - rejoin your tribe
However the game is easily critiqued on the grounds of it's assumptions about the one true Civilization. In Civ the goal is to "progress" through the stages of civilization and win by being the best at it, which could be mean the strongest, smartest, most holy, fastest, etc. The basic thing is beating the other players.
I think that, like the Civ and SimCity players who chose to use the game as a way to investigate and express their resistence to the very ideas it carries, it too can be used both ways.
What I've come to see is that when taken at face value, it is a vehicle for the ideals of the state. It contains the simple narratives we all learn in state education and through our societies. But looked at questioningly it could possibly help us challenge those.
Until next time
My next task will be to see how it could be modified into an interesting critique of the systems it relies on.
Thanks for reading. 😸
I'll leave you with this anti-plan against Civilization from the so-called Republic of Lakotah:
The ideal tribal revolution, according to Daniel Quinn, would (1) not take place all at once, (2) work incrementally as people built off of each other’s ideas, (3) be led by no one, (4) not be initiated by any governmental, political, or religious body, (5) have no target end-point, (6) proceed according to no plan, and (7) reward supporters with reciprocal support (Quinn, Story). In this view, then, resistance to civilization takes on an antithetical character to the rigid, centralized and institutional forms of the fascist system. It becomes, in its character and operation, non-teleological, non-hierarchical, non-institutional, de-centralized, and organically organized. In short, it must be everything civilization is not.
Edit notes
I updated the Whiting Wongs section after rereading and finding I muddled up my points.
