[Suggestion] Racial prejudice impeding marital union

[invock]

:excl: Mandatory clarification : This suggestion does not reflect its author's point of view on interracial relations (which is the absolute opposite for that matter). It might seem politically incorrect, but is done ONLY in order to enhance the game realism considering the era it takes place in.

Having bought the excellent African portraits DLC, I discovered with quite a shock that the Duchy of Wallachia was at the hands of a black Duke, descendant of a noble family originally from Abyssinia. Having converted to catholicism, is father was able to marry the previous duchess.
Considering the era we play through, it seems useless to explain how this situation is highly unplausible. Should I remind that the Valladolid debate only took place in 1550, and that beforehand it was widely considered that people of "darker complexion" (to use a horrible politically-correct modern term) had no soul ? How could an african man, as noble as he might have been, have married a white european duchess under those conditions ?

My suggestion goes by itself : Shouldn't there be a strong racial prejudice malus to marital unions, as there is already one based on religious differences ? This one would be based on how distant cultures might be to one another, so that some "tolerance" would still occure for some geographical situations (Spain strongly mixed with Arabic cultures, Southern Morroco/Northern Mali, Egypt/Abyssinia, Byzantine Empire/Turkish populations, ...)

 

[PureBeef]

Possibly a way to avoid this would be restricting marriages to nobles from your "territory" of Europe. So Western Europeans can only marry nobles from there, Southern Europeans only from Southern Europe, etc...

 

[Zhetone]

Possibly a way to avoid this would be restricting marriages to nobles from your "territory" of Europe. So Western Europeans can only marry nobles from there, Southern Europeans only from Southern Europe, etc...

I doubt that Western Europeans would be completely opposed to marriages with Central or Eastern Europeans, though. It's not THAT simple if we want to be completely accurate.

 

[fwubqrt]

It's a sticky subject to be sure, but I also see the King of Abyssnia commonly marrying Saxon princesses as a pretty odd occurrence.

 

[Alexander Seil]

There are plenty of examples of east-west political marriages.

The real problem is that the game ignores how isolated some parts of the map were from others. Europeans at the time were only vaguely aware of Abyssinia...yet you can conduct diplomacy with Ethiopians from Iceland, instantly and with no issues (such as your couriers being intercepted by the 50 Muslim states on the way).

As for racism, I'm not sure how much stock I put into this...this is 11th century Europe. They don't know what Triangular trade, Jim Crow and apartheid were. A black man from Abyssinia is as questionable of a marriage choice as a Nordic pagan (actually, probably preferable, being Christian).

 

[Sarog]

Possibly a way to avoid this would be restricting marriages to nobles from your "territory" of Europe. So Western Europeans can only marry nobles from there, Southern Europeans only from Southern Europe, etc...

That would be overkill, I think. I would see no reason why a noble from the low countries shouldn't be able to marry an italian or a spaniard. And it might impede marriages between Catholic Europe and the Crusader states if marriage was locked to conform to geographic regions.

I'd rather see reluctance penalties in the arrange marriage window. A small reluctance penalty for "undesirable culture" or some such, together with a distance penalty should prevent ethiopian Denmark or mongol Ireland.

 

[kishurki]

God, this is not sticky at all. This leftist politicians made you all weak and so cacious about so called "political correctness". Stop babbling about "this is not my point of view" or "this is sticky but i agree". Racism was common in that timeframe and there is nothing about political correctness. I can not actually imagine white wenches wed to some low rank black counts. Of course, marriages on king or empire tier level were made out of politics, not race, but it would be impossible to wed your daugther to muslim black emperor, if you were catholic emperor of britania. Marriage should be tweaked a lot, as now you can marry almost anyone, if you want to have white muslim dynasty, you just invite some lowborn noble whites, or just marry them, with no penalities for religion, race or culture difference. Just as I said, timeframe! Pdox, work on marrieges some more, please <3

 

[Arimahn]

The game is aware of distances, so why not just have a distance penalty when arranging marriages? Then add a penalty for "Wrong religion" and BAM, much less Africans in Norway by 1150.

 

[Te. Kenzo]

I agree that in the game is too simple actually becouse there is not the concept of distance, however we know that during middleage daughter of nobles married maghreb nobles for example.

 

[Jayavarman]

Paradox should strongly encourage interracial sex via its games. However, the children should come out looking more biracial; a new portraits DLC is needed.

 

[Sarog]

The game is aware of distances, so why not just have a distance penalty when arranging marriages? Then add a penalty for "Wrong religion" and BAM, much less Africans in Norway by 1150.

Yeah I agree, distance penalty is the way to go. Even just for marriages between Christians, to prevent strange pairings like Irish-Hungarian or Italian-Russian. It makes sense that even kings wouldn't want to go too far afield for their brides.

 

[Zhetone]

Paradox should strongly encourage interracial sex via its games. However, the children should come out looking more biracial; a new portraits DLC is needed.

...what

 

[unmerged(75409)]

The Nubian and Ethiopian realms invariably get smashed by the Fatimids, and that's what drives the black characters into Europe in the first place (I think).

The Miaphysite religion of the Ethiopians should largely keep them from marrying into the Byzantine empire, but once they're refugees they convert and then the AI starts marrying them.

Nubians probably intermarry even before their eviction (they're vanilla orthodox so your random Wallachian dude would "like" them as much as any Greek character) but there aren't a whole lot of them. Ethiopians, though, are quire numerous and I think it's their destruction that pushes all those black characters into unlikely places.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

Yeah I agree, distance penalty is the way to go. Even just for marriages between Christians, to prevent strange pairings like Irish-Hungarian or Italian-Russian. It makes sense that even kings wouldn't want to go too far afield for their brides.

Hmmmmm

The mother of the infant king of France in 1066 is known to history books as "Anna of Kiev". Daughter of an orthodox Russian Rurikovich prince.

 

[monsterfurby]

Paradox should strongly encourage interracial sex via its games. However, the children should come out looking more biracial; a new portraits DLC is needed.

I'd say "not make an issue of" is more appropriate than "strongly encourage". Paradox should keep out of politics and ethics, period.

Anyway, distance would cut it, imho. A distance modifier should also be different depending on your status. I can't see a count marrying or even being aware of any person outside their direct geographic surroundings - a King however should be able to marry anyone everywhere on the map.

 

[Raczynski]

God, this is not sticky at all. This leftist politicians made you all weak and so cacious about so called "political correctness". Stop babbling about "this is not my point of view" or "this is sticky but i agree". Racism was common in that timeframe and there is nothing about political correctness. I can not actually imagine white wenches wed to some low rank black counts.

Racism is, largely, a modern invention. I would like to see the evidence of the concept of racism existing on a large scale before the start of African slave trade, please. The fact that you "can't imagine" something tells more about you and your level of knowledge (probably based on what "everybody knows") than actual reality.

 

[Zhetone]

Racism is, largely, a modern invention. I would like to see the evidence of the concept of racism existing on a large scale before the start of African slave trade, please. The fact that you "can't imagine" something tells more about you and your level of knowledge (probably based on what "everybody knows") than actual reality.

"In the Middle East and North Africa region, racist opinions were expressed within the works of some of its historians and geographers"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Middle_Ages_and_Renaissance
And just above that section it mentions racism in antiquity, which should suit your interests. I know Wikipedia isn't a great source, but there are more dubious places for that kind of information.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

Racism is, largely, a modern invention. I would like to see the evidence of the concept of racism existing on a large scale before the start of African slave trade, please. The fact that you "can't imagine" something tells more about you and your level of knowledge (probably based on what "everybody knows") than actual reality.

You never lived in a village, did you?? People will make up any reasons to look down on strangers. If the strangers show up often enough, people start systematizing their prejudices and then you get plain old racism.

"Gypsies always steal" ... "Black people are all great dancers but stupid" ... "Jews are nasty money grubbers" ... "City people are all arrogant" ... "Those people from the other side of the hill are all inbred assholes" ... and so on and so on. Not a modern phenomenon.

 

[Raczynski]

"In the Middle East and North Africa region, racist opinions were expressed within the works of some of its historians and geographers"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Middle_Ages_and_Renaissance
And just above that section it mentions racism in antiquity, which should suit your interests. I know Wikipedia isn't a great source, but there are more dubious places for that kind of information.

The section on Middle Ages is about 14th century North Africans Muslims justifying slave trade, which is not really relevant to the medieval Europe (though similar to the later development of European racism). The section on antiquity is about Greeks feeling superior to Barbarians (i.e. everyone other) which I think is really well know but not really racism, and one example from Babylonian talmud.
The later part of the article actually supports my position:

racism itself is frequently described as a modern phenomenon. In the view of the French philosopher and historian Michel Foucault, the first formulation of racism emerged in the Early Modern period as the "discourse of race struggle", a historical and political discourse, which Foucault opposed to the philosophical and juridical discourse of sovereignty.[105] Foucault thus argued that the first appearance of racism as a social discourse (as opposed to simple xenophobia, which some might argue has existed in all places and times) may be found during the 1688 Glorious Revolution in Great Britain, in Edward Coke or John Lilburne's work.
However, this "discourse of race struggle", as interpreted by Foucault, must be distinguished from the 19th century biological racism, also known as "race science" or "scientific racism". Indeed, this early modern discourse has many points of difference with modern racism. First of all, in this "discourse of race struggle", "race" is not considered a biological notion — which would divide humanity into distinct biological groups — but as a historical notion. Moreover, this discourse is opposed to the sovereign's discourse: it is used by the bourgeoisie, the people and the aristocracy as a mean of struggle against the monarchy. This discourse, which first appeared in Great Britain, was then carried on in France by people such as Boulainvilliers, Nicolas Fréret, and then, during the 1789 French Revolution, Sieyès, and afterward Augustin Thierry and Cournot. Boulainvilliers, which created the matrix of such racist discourse in medieval France, conceived the "race" as something closer to the sense of "nation", that is, in his times, the "people".

 

[Isaios]

The game is aware of distances, so why not just have a distance penalty when arranging marriages? Then add a penalty for "Wrong religion" and BAM, much less Africans in Norway by 1150.

This is the best solution to my mind. Just do it the exact same way as the Mercenary capital system.

Paradox should strongly encourage interracial sex via its games. However, the children should come out looking more biracial; a new portraits DLC is needed.

I... I gotta... Wut?

Racism is, largely, a modern invention. I would like to see the evidence of the concept of racism existing on a large scale before the start of African slave trade, please. The fact that you "can't imagine" something tells more about you and your level of knowledge (probably based on what "everybody knows") than actual reality.

Well, the sermons initiating the First Crusade must be called racially motivated in part. Same with much of the reconquest of Spain. I know some of the late slave-holding in Norway/Sweden was racially determined.

The Arabs had laws restricting slavery of Arabs, but though it pretty neat for everyone else.

Race was then, as it's now, just one more way to differentiate. Far easier to kill "the Other" after all.