Since its announcement, Civilization 7 has been at the center of an ongoing debate about whether the game has embraced modern "woke" ideology.
Some claim that Firaxis is promoting a progressive agenda, while others feel the controversy has been overstated. The discussion has become so polarized that it often overshadows the actual gameplay changes and the state of the game itself.
One of the primary triggers of the debate is the selection of Harriet Tubman as a playable leader. Historically, Civ has included military and political figures, but Tubman definitely stands apart from the usual choices.
Tubman was an American abolitionist and a freedom fighter. She was born into slavery in Maryland but escaped to freedom in 1849. After getting her own freedom, she spent her life helping others escape and risking her life repeatedly as a “conductor” on the Underground Railroad. She was also an advocate for women’s rights and social justice long after the Civil War ended.
During her time, Tubman was considered a fugitive and an outlaw under U.S. law because she actively defied the Fugitive Slave Act, which made it illegal to help enslaved individuals escape. She leads multiple rescue missions, aware of the risk of arrest and severe punishment, which has made her a wanted figure by the authorities.
Many people today are also unaware that Tubman also worked for the Union Army as a scout and spy. She gathered intelligence, guided Union forces, and even helped plan the Combahee River Raid in 1863, an operation that freed over 700 enslaved individuals and disrupted Confederate supply lines. From a modern perspective, her actions are generally regarded as heroic and morally justified.
Some critics suggest that, even though Tubman was an important figure, she wasn’t a national leader in the traditional sense, so her inclusion feels more like an effort at diversity than a justified historical decision. But then again, many players applaud Firaxis for thinking outside the box when it comes to leadership and recognizing people who made history in different ways.
This builds on the pattern established in Civ 6, which brought in a more diverse set of "leaders" than in previous games. The real question is whether adding Tubman is about giving her the historical credit she deserves or just jumping on the current cultural bandwagon.
Firaxis has not explicitly framed it as a political decision, but the discourse surrounding it suggests that perceptions of "wokeness" in gaming are deeply subjective. However, the selection of leaders has always been somewhat flexible in the Civ series, with past entries including figures who were not necessarily traditional heads of state but had a major impact on their civilizations.
Figures like Joan of Arc (Civ III & VII), Hannibal (Civ II, III & IV), Theodora (Civ III, V & VI), and Ben Franklin (Civ VII) have appeared in past titles. In that sense, Tubman’s inclusion doesn’t break new ground.
The new Ages system is another change that’s been criticized, as it makes players switch civilizations instead of guiding one nation through all the ages. For example, a player might start as Rome, transition into the Mongols, and then shift into Prussia by the final stage.
However, a number of players feel this framework downplays national identity and reinforces a “globalist” outlook, distancing itself from the traditional concept of a unified civilization developing over time. For purists, the whole point was being able to dive deep into one empire, and this new direction feels like it's losing what made Civ stand out.
Oddly enough, Civ 7 faces criticism from both ends of the spectrum. It has been pointed out that the game still leans too heavily on Western history, favoring European and American figures and leaving out other, less recognized civilizations. Others feel like the whole push for diversity in leadership is a bit much, and it ends up with representation that seems a little too forced.
This isn’t a new argument for the series. Even in Civ 5, Firaxis started to push away from an overly U.S.-centric approach by adding leaders from Africa, South America, and Asia. The issue with Civ 7 is that, even though it clearly tries to be inclusive, not everyone is happy with it.
The Civ series has always been a product of its time. As far back as Civ 1, the game introduced elements like global warming, which would likely be criticized as "woke" by today's standards.
Firaxis has a history of implementing socially and politically aware themes. Still, the debate today is less about whether the game is educational and more about whether it’s inserting modern ideologies into its mechanics and leader choices.
To be frank, Civ 7 doesn't seem to be aggressively advocating for any one ideology in particular. Instead, it continues a pattern of expanding historical viewpoints and refining gameplay mechanics. That is ultimately a matter of personal perspective.
Lost in all the noise about "wokeness" is the actual state of the game. Civ 7 has been met with criticism not only because of its leader choices but because of technical flaws, a clunky UI, and gameplay that feels pretty rough around the edges.
Many long-time fans (myself included) believe the main issue isn’t representation but rather that the game doesn’t feel as complete or engaging as its predecessors.