I'd imagine the complaints stem from the fact that she was never in charge of the country.
But then they should have complained when Ben Franklin was announced.
Or maybe they did complain when Ben Franklin was announced, but you can't really go "look at these bigots hating on Benjamin Franklin," so that wasn't shared around as much.
Of course even if that were the case, there would be people who draw the line at Tubman and not Franklin anyways, which could be a case of actual bigotry.
Or maybe a significant subset of the audience wasn't taught in school that Tubman was that influential, and sees this as blowing a historical figure out of proportion.

[–] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 6 points 4 hours ago

I imagine the at least some portion of the criticism comes from irritated leftists as well. Harriet Tubman is basically a civ leader chosen to pander to and resonate with a certain US-centric audience, but it should be noted the lack of representation of actual African civilizations as compared to a continent like Europe. Here's a couple maps to show what I mean:

https://i.redd.it/6hjvikrkwuu71.png

https://preview.redd.it/bc6rvax3m4851.png?auto=webp&s=6fb79dd4a68ce627fbd530d7105ef0385ca23d8c

It's inherent imperialism and pandering that the same western countries are given so much love when there are so many really cool civs out there that haven't been explored at all. Not to mention the fact that the majority of the African civilizations and city states that have made it into the game are centered (unsurprisingly) around the Mediterranean sea.

[–] Not_mikey 24 points 14 hours ago

They also have Confucius in this one, who also only became popular after his death. When he was alive, he was just a middling beuracrat with a following of maybe a couple dozen people.

Don't think he got many complaints...

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 12 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Ben Franklin could almost be considered something like a shadow leader, with very little direct power but a significant amount of political influence. I haven't played newer Civ, if a Ben Franklin play purely buffs soft power, trade/research agreements, etc, I could see this working. He was still an actual statesman though, so even still he's on paper a better choice. But he's not a great choice if the build isn't based on soft political influence. But Tubman just wasn't that kind of leader, what she did was amazing, but it wasn't really leadership of a civilization.

[–] Plastic_Ramses@lemmy.world 9 points 14 hours ago

Ghandi was never a statesman.

[–] Not_mikey 6 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

She may not be a state leader, but she is a spiritual leader and civ has had a lot of those. Some people lead with a military or beuracracy, but others lead by embodying a spirit, becoming a symbol of it and inspiring others to do the same. This spirit could be patriotic, religious, ethical or liberatory, either way a person's passion and commitment to, and articulation of that spirit can draw others in and spread its influence just as much if not more than a state institution.

In the same vein tubman is a leader so is confucius who is also in the new civ. During his lifetime he was just an advisor to a petty king who rarely listened to with a small following. But after his death he became a symbol of ethics whose spirit looms large over much of east Asia. His influence is far greater than the Zhou or any of the other kings of the spring and autumn, yet he ranked far below them during his time.