RE: Learning the Wong things from the White games?
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.
You make some good points. I think you're saying some things that I would probably question if I was you also.
One issue I can see is that I confused the meaning of "progressive" by firstly invoking the progressivist movement, as related to the enlightenment, which was my intended meaning, with modern "progressives" by using some examples from Dan Harmon.
Progressivism is not antithetical to religious faith, in fact Western religions have gradually embraced progressivist viewpoints over the centuries, so much so that they are quite tied into modern theology. In addition, many modern democracies have a strong relationship with religion, such as the US and UK for example. While there is Church and State separation it would be ignorant to say that religion does not play a role in politics.
So the progressivist view of history, as opposed to the atheist progressives view of history, is what I meant. But the comparison is limited in some of the ways you've highlighted, that Civ allows for broader religious influence in state affairs than we currently see.
The progressivist view is also a Western view of the world, as the enlightenment was a European event, to which the global "west" owes it's lineage. Just because other middle or far Eastern nations do well or even better than Western nations in the game does not mean that the over arching view of history is not Western-centric, it in fact is. For example we have the Classical period, complete with Greek trappings, the Enlightenment, etc., all from the Western historical world view.
Regarding proximity and racism, on further reflection I think I over played that significantly, I have to agree with you, racism does not really feature in the games, unless you think stereotypes are racist, which I don't on their own. My suggestion was that race has a role to play in national identity in the game, and thus could be seen as race against race in the nation against nation struggle. But it's clear to me that you're right, it is primarily nation against nation and race is largely the clothes the characters wear and does not seem significant.