Racist Undertones in Conquests - Page 3

Jon Shafer · December 24, 2003, 20:27

Not enough artwork means pre-existing art had to be used instead.

Obviously, they started with the "American" leaderheads and used them all up. And then they ran out. What do they do now? Use Catherine? Caesar? They probably just ranomly chose the leaderheads to use for each minor civ. As was also pointed out previously in this thread, they also tried to use leaderheads which were aimed at the ancient era. Don't you think having Bismarck in a fur coat would be kind of silly?

Jeem · December 24, 2003, 21:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
the bald Joan doesn't just "take the wind outta your sails"?

Not sure why she has to get all militant and stuff...

I dunno. I've usually lost before I get to see her like that.

Nah, seriously - they really do need to fix that nonsense with the bald head. Maybe the think she's some sort of precursor to Sinead O'Conner?

For all that, she's still a lot better than Catherine, in any age.

jkelly · December 24, 2003, 21:33

...in the proper meaning of the word, the game asserts a humanity-divided reality. Civ III differentiates between four "races", and ethnicities matter as part of gameplay.

Of course, the original poster was using the word in the common sense of "prejudice against certain races" (sometimes contrasted to 'racialism", when people are trying to distinguish between holding that ethncities are inherently different and the position that some are worse than others).

What I find a lot more alarming than whether or not the game designers illustrated an insensitive "lumping" of non-white peoples in their choice of artwork is the reactions that a number of posters above have had to the question.

"Just a game" is actually an alarming argument; it means that we are supposes to believe that anything that is not regarded as being of cultural importance should never be questioned for its message. Are Chick tracts "just comic books", and therefore shouldn't be taken seriously as hate literatute? Or is that anything that we find entertaining should not be examined for a political message? I suggest that is, at best, a very naive view to take, given the last century.

Calling something "PC", and thereby dismissing it, is, at its heart, a straightforward refusal to avoid discrimination. I don't believe for a second that those people who refuse to examine anything that they can call "PC" are making a larger argument that language does not govern opinion, or that language cannot be cruel, but instead are just unwilling to consider examining their own opinions and cruelty. It's ignorance and laziness. (Aside: I suspect it is monlingualism leads to the assumption that one's language needs no adjustment)

Civ III is a laughably Eurocentric game, based on a suspect (original meaning of the word) liberal view of history (that intellectual progress and personal freedom are inherently desirable and support each other) that could use a little criticism. Presonally, there are areas in which the politics of the game do chafe. I am not clear on why someone who would want to discuss that line of thought with other people who have devoted an extraordinary amount of attention to the game should be told to find another game to play. I don't feel any need to only engage with other people or their work that happen to match my political prejudices exactly, and I would hope that remains true for a great number of people.

Off to try out the Beta patch.

SporkPimp · December 24, 2003, 22:28

Quote:

Originally posted by jkelly
"Just a game" is actually an alarming argument; it means that we are supposes to believe that anything that is not regarded as being of cultural importance should never be questioned for its message.

Bull, and you know it.

The argument is not "it's just a game, and hence is inherently not offensive", but rather "it's just a game, and hence fire-and-brimstone attempts to create outrage are sorely out of place." The fact that this is a forum for discussion of the actual game and not of semiotic analysis of cultural mores would also make this a question of appropriate venue.

Quote:

Or is that anything that we find entertaining should not blah blah

Oh, cut it out.

Quote:

...are just unwilling to consider examining their own opinions and cruelty. It's ignorance and laziness.

Your uniform assumptions are no better than anyone else's. Your implication is that anyone who doesn't feel that apolyton forums are a proper place to respond to someone trolling about semiotic racist undertones is an ignorant, cartoonish racist... well, I think it speaks for itself.

Grow up. You're not the One True Font of Wisdom as you assume yourself to be.

Quote:

I don't feel any need to only engage with other people or their work that happen to match my political prejudices exactly, and I would hope that remains true for a great number of people.

Shut up already. Do you do this at the dinner table?

Subject 1:"I hate yams."
Subject 2:"You hate yams because you hate South Americans. The undertones are obvious."
Subject 1:"Oh, shut up. This is ridiculous."
Cartoonish Caricature of you, jkelly: "DO YOU HATE EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOU? OR ARE YOU JUST TOO LAZY TO FACE YOUR OWN ETHNIC PREJUDICES?"

Etc.

As for the original post... please. Most everyone ignored what was, in my opinion, the argument that shot this troll to Hell... paraphrased, it was, "Are you offended that Abe Lincoln's leaderhead was used for Burgundy?"

Or, by extension, "Are you equally offended that all White/Caucasian/European/Western races are 'lumped together' in the same way?"

You're not. Why? Because you're trolling, or you're oversensitive and are embracing the troll because it validates your irrational cynicism.

Grow up, and get back to telling me if Communism is viable now, or if Cossacks are worth the shields.

-SporkPimp

Edit: Grammar, redundancy, legibility, etc.

Kuciwalker · December 24, 2003, 22:28

Quote:

Civ III is a laughably Eurocentric game

Designed to sell to a Eurocentric audience. It's MARKETING.

Jeem · December 24, 2003, 22:59

Quote:

Originally posted by jkelly
Civ III is a laughably Eurocentric game, based on a suspect (original meaning of the word) liberal view of history (that intellectual progress and personal freedom are inherently desirable and support each other) that could use a little criticism.

What on earth are you on about? Perhaps you'd think it better for the game overall if the Germans were led by Hitler, the Russians by Stalin and the French by Napolean? Throw in Thatcher for the English, Bush for the Americans and we'd have a pretty boring game based around loads of militaristic/industrial civs...

The only reason anybody remembers the dead civs is because Europeans documented them. If that weren't the case, one of the major factions in Civ3 would probably be the Belgians. If I were an Aztec, I'd be pretty proud that my race has survived in history, regardless of how they are seen. After all, it wouldn't be all that wrong for them to be a 'backward, barbarian' civ instead of 'agricultural, militaristic'. The Spanish probably thought so when it took them all of a month or two to destroy them. Fact is, they *were* backward and barbarian compared to a far superior foe. Civ3 remembers them as something far more important.

Most Danes alive today are quite proud of their Viking ancestry, even though they are portrayed as pillaging pagans in Civ3. You know what - If I were Danish I'd be quite happy about that too because it's better to be known for anything than to be unheard of.

As a patriotic Scotsman, it annoys me slightly that the Scots aren't in Civ3. After all, we're one of the longest running Civ's still alive today. However, I'm not deceiving myself that we've offered a great deal as far as conquest and empire building goes. In the realms of Scientific research however, we've been world leaders in our time and still are today in certain areas. You wouldn't be posting on this forum because without a Scot inventing the TV and telephone, there wouldn't have been an internet. Then again, without Penicillin we'd probably all have died out to some superbug long ago.

We just wouldn't make a very interesting race. Others that are less successful (certainly as far as longevity goes) still make the game based on interest level and what they've done in the past as documented by the victors (what else are Firaxis meant to go on?).

There is no racism in civ3 - if you think there is then you must be right off your rocker and are out to find trouble where there is none.

Like the original poster of this thread.

Jaguar · December 25, 2003, 00:56

This is a lame thread.

Vince278 · December 25, 2003, 01:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
This is a lame thread.

You think this is lame? Try the OT forum.

Jaguar · December 25, 2003, 01:02

I'm an OT regular. You just don't know that because you're a n00b!

Cerbykins · December 25, 2003, 01:14

If Civ is racist, then make me a mass murderer and ethnic cleanser

(I once did some 'experimenting with pop rush, both for effectiveness and for getting rid of the 'upstarts'

)
The sad truth is, I get nothing for making a 'better world', and EVERYTHING for land grabbing and breeding like rabbits

Vince278 · December 25, 2003, 01:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
I'm an OT regular. You just don't know that because you're a n00b!

Then you should know what I mean.

Jaguar · December 25, 2003, 01:28

shutup n00b youre time isnt even worth proper capitlziation, punctoation or spelling

Vince278 · December 25, 2003, 01:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
shutup n00b youre time isnt even worth proper capitlziation, punctoation or spelling

I'm obviously not a n00b. You must be so proud of your ignorance to be so eager to display it.

Theseus · December 25, 2003, 02:41

WELL... this went to hell in a handbasket rather quickly.

Calm the h*ll down.

First, the stray into OT silliness: Keep it there, it is not needed here.

Second, the subject matter: Hmmm... I pause here... yes, inherently, Civ-type games bring up all of the hackneyed race arguments. I.E., one can certainly introduce that argument into discussions here... but I don't buy it, in the negative connotations. Sure, in a broad examination of human history and development, in a 'Guns Germs & Steel' kinda way, well, fine, but as posited by the first post in this thead.

Nope.

Come back another day.

For that matter, here's an interesting challenge: Name an entertainment vehicle that is LESS biased! (in the brooooaaadest sense)

/me plants a big-ass flag in the ground!

Vince278 · December 25, 2003, 02:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
For that matter, here's an interesting challenge: Name an entertainment vehicle that is LESS biased! (in the brooooaaadest sense)

OK. Broadly speaking, a form of entertainment with little bias may be gambling. Such as Vegas or even the lottery. I'll have to get back to you on other forms of entertainment. Its getting late...

vmxa1 · December 25, 2003, 03:52

The reason I dismiss it is because it is asine. It also presumes an evil or malicious intent that I am not willing to accept on such trivial data.
It is more likely just carelessness or economics. If there was some supporting facts, then we could go down that path.
When people I don't know do something that I could interpret as a slight, I give them the beneifit of the doubt.

Jaguar · December 25, 2003, 06:16

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
When people I don't know do something that I could interpret as a slight, I give them the beneifit of the doubt.

Vince278 · December 25, 2003, 07:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

ChrisiusMaximus · December 25, 2003, 14:05

The problem with this thread is it allows to much spam by those eager to spam. It would be better to get locked up and forgotten.

Its funny how most of the really LOOOOONNNNNGGGGG and boring posts are by settlers, set up as DL'S to spam away until fried by ming.

This is as Theseus and others have stated a forum to discuss a game, not to trawl through the mire of s**t posted by some and most recently by SporkPimp.

Cerbykins · December 25, 2003, 16:41

Then make me a mod and I'll lock it down already!

Seriously though, speaking as forum newbie having made long boring posts

, I only post up on stuff on the topmost page of threads (so far

). I haven't the time to trawl ten years of archives...

The Slayer · December 25, 2003, 21:12

So, you continue spamming this thread, you nOOb's ?!

Anyway. just a thought.

If you think that Civ is racist, then why do you play it? Why do you buy it? And why are you posting here in a Civ-players forum?.

With this, it seems (at least for me) that you don't like Civ.....

And, when the mods will end their Xmas celebrations and will toast this thread, uh?

JazzToucan · December 26, 2003, 06:24

Should Bismarck or Lincoln or Queen Elizabeth have represented the Olmecs?

Vince278 · December 26, 2003, 07:18

Quote:

Originally posted by JazzToucan
Should Bismarck or Lincoln or Queen Elizabeth have represented the Olmecs?

Yes.

I believe the point everyone is trying to make is that it doesn't really matter. I don't think we have any surviving portraits of notable Olmec leaders of any reasonable quality but that shouldn't stop us from including them as a civ. I play Civ because its a darn good strategy game. Graphics and sound are a secondary concern (and a distant one at that. I used to enjoy playing Empire as well.)

Puma · December 26, 2003, 07:52

pc+1
What's a troll?
... good to see things toned down on this thread ... they were getting quite fiery ... I think The Slayer made the best point

Alex · December 26, 2003, 08:13

nah, this thread should remain open to all kinds of spam fests... then the massive punishment could begin...

Master Zen · December 26, 2003, 10:22

This thread is absolutely ridiculously pathetic.

I find it totally despicable how some people find "racism" even in the most inoffensive things, case in point the Mesoamerican scenario. As a Mexican, I should have far more reason to complain if I found this scenario racist, and guess what? I don't. What is worse is that these dumb-ass PC idiots in their quest to make this world safe from bigotry and discrimination end up complaining about things that don't even correspond to their countries or culture.

Tell me, those who think this scenario is racist: do you have indian blood in you? Are you a descendant of any of the cultures included in the Mesoamerica scenario? I thought not.

-MZ

Jaguar · December 26, 2003, 11:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Vince278

Vince278 · December 26, 2003, 20:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

Kuciwalker · December 26, 2003, 21:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Puma
pc+1
What's a troll?
... good to see things toned down on this thread ... they were getting quite fiery ... I think The Slayer made the best point

A troll is someone who posts solely to start a huge argument/flamewar (basically baiting, except not directed at anyone).`

Plotinus · December 27, 2003, 11:41

What a vitriolic lot, and over Christmas too!

Well, I think jkelly is right. The merits or otherwise of the original post in this increasingly unedifying thread are wholly overshadowed by some of the responses to it. jkelly is right to say that, if there is racism in Civ3 or any other computer game, that is serious. And Sporkpimp apparently wilfully misunderstands him. Any attempt to *create* a fire-and-brimstone outrage is of course reprehensible. But jkelly did not defend such an act - what he defended was the criticism of racism that, in the eyes of the critic, really is there. After all, if Civ3 or any other game *were* racist, wouldn't it be right to point it out? As I said before, I don't think there is any racism there, and I think the original poster was wrong, for much the same reasons that vmxa1 gives. But if so then it should be shown *why* he is wrong - he shouldn't just be showered with abuse. Calling him "sad" or "pathetic", especially in posts consisting of little else than that one word, is ridiculous and incredibly offensive. He's making a serious point that deserves to be taken seriously even if it's wrong. If people have no better comments to make than monosyllabic insults, they might do better to keep them to themselves.

jkelly is right again to criticise those who bandy around labels like "PC". In today's society, to be called "PC" is to be labelled so breathtakingly unfashionable as not to merit being taken seriously at all. And that is pure laziness, quite apart from the disrespect and rudeness it entails. Being PC doesn't make someone wrong, however trendy it may be to mock them.

In any case, this whole thread has gone desperately off topic, and everyone wants it deleted. Can't this be arranged pronto so everyone can get back to arguing about important things, like whether Joan or Theodora is hotter?