I about crapped myself when I read the post about some guy thinking Colonization is a racist game... so laughable. Anyways, here are my thoughts, let me know if you agree or disagree. Maybe playing all those hours of Civ have made me a racist... ha!


http://blackenheimer.com/sid_meier_civilization_racist_colonization_260608

That is actually a very interesting article. I too would indeed be offended IF i was not a computer games player. This is another one of those episodes where non gamers dont understand how games work. Colonization is a re-imagining of history and nothing more. If he wishes to get himself worked up, he should perhaps take a look at the WW2 genre. With all the nazis and communists and comminazi zombie monsters one can role play as, he will get himself into a lather and forget he even heard about this game...

It's an interesting take, and it's sometimes refreshing to look at videogames in this way.

The blog that complained about it sucks, though.

I don't see why he's so up in arms with Colonization (A STRATEGY GAME) when there are much more violent and sadistic games out there. Sure racism is bad, but I REALLY don't think this is a racist game, or that the overtones are immoral...

Typical stuff from people with little education who have nothing much to contribute to society.

I'd recommend reading the definition of racism to see what it is and isn't, then taking a fresh look at history.

Chess is a racist game that has been promoting racism since it first made its appearence 100's of years ago. In typical racist fashion this game is pitting white against black and more recently white against red, green, blue etc etc. Does anyone see a pattern here? AAAAAAND White goes first EVERY TIME. This game promotes white supremecy. (Insert Sarcasm here)

:lol:

It's a game, nothing more.

Well, he got the attention he was asking for...

Well, he got the attention he was asking for...

EXACTLY

When people start making HUGE stinks over stuff that really has no real effect on them anyway I remember my favorite quote of all time....

"If everybody minded their own business, the world would go around a great deal faster than it does." - The Duchess, Alice in Wonderland

If you think about it for a minutes it totally true, if people focussed on stuff that actually matters like healthcare, education, crime, family, and stopped focussing on stupid silly petty crap our society would be such a better place. Focus on fixing things instead of spending the whole time trying to find out who's fault it is.

I have noticed that people who 'crusade' on various issues such as racism,,, when they run out of real problems to persue, they start digging desperately to find something else, and they will grab hold of any old nonsense they can find. This is a shame really because in doing so, they only succeed in destroying all credibility for their entire cause.

When it comes to racism however, no matter how stupid the nonsense they persue, they are protected by some kind of 'magical' invisible force that somehow turns anyone whop stands against them into a racist!!

Edit: I forgot to add one more thing.... so when it comes to nonsense racism issues, even though everyone knows in the back of their mind that it is total crap, no one says anything for fear of being labled as racist. It is the perfect form of mind controll!!

It's not racism, brutality, an inspiration for violence, or anything like that; It's history.

Clearly video games are dangerous. We can't let young people be exposed to something as potentially harmful as, oh, I can barely type it out, it's so horrible, but as dangerous as... history!

:rolleyes:

Chess is a racist game that has been promoting racism since it first made its appearence 100's of years ago[...]
Obviously we need to ban chess too, then.

And to think I play PC games to escape the everyday issues of political correctness and similar issues of the "real world" only to encounter them here. :(

This entire thread is bull, The argument that the game is racist is ludicrous.


Now watch this thread get trolled over while the OP silently laughs at all of you.

If you think thats funny/stupid, you should read the clamor about Resident Evil 5 being racist because you play as a white guy shooting black zombies.

Eh, the article has a point. I have to say, though, the original box art for Colonization is jingoistic as hell. The stars and stripes as the sails on the Santa Maria? Y'kidding me?

Billiards has been perceived by some as racist as well. I once went to this pool hall ran by skinheads. They had Slayer in the jukebox.

Perhaps games like Ethnic Cleansing and White Law have had spread their influence into the rest of the video game world.

I read the post, and replied.

I think if the poster of that Blog were familliar with Sid Meier's work, he would appreciate the unflinching effort to remain historically accurate, regardless of how uncomfortable the topic may be.

I have noticed that people who 'crusade' on various issues such as racism,,, when they run out of real problems to persue, they start digging desperately to find something else, and they will grab hold of any old nonsense they can find. This is a shame really because in doing so, they only succeed in destroying all credibility for their entire cause.

When it comes to racism however, no matter how stupid the nonsense they persue, they are protected by some kind of 'magical' invisible force that somehow turns anyone whop stands against them into a racist!!

Edit: I forgot to add one more thing.... so when it comes to nonsense racism issues, even though everyone knows in the back of their mind that it is total crap, no one says anything for fear of being labled as racist. It is the perfect form of mind controll!!

I don't find that particularly accurate. There's no shortage of people telling him that his argument is crap. In fact, I've never noticed any shortage of people who are comfortable with loudly disagreeing when someone calls something a racial issue. And as well it should be.

But, as far as I've noticed, calling something a racial issue is certain to draw the fire of conservative commentators. In fact, I think that is often the point of people calling something a racial issue. If you call it a racial issue, when it is probably not, conservative commentators will probably cover it extensively and, therefore, are free advertising.

I don't think there's any shortage of authentic racial issues, however I find those issues are rarely brought up by anyone, liberal or conservative. Authentic race issues require thought and careful consideration. Shallow racial issues, such as this particular blog, only require a person to have an opinion and to make as much noise about it as possible and are much more popular among liberals and conservatives. It gives both sides something to yell at the other about, self-validate their own goodness and righteousness, and most importantly, never force them to take an uncomfortable look at themselves.

The dude who called racism needs to sit down and watch about 7 straight hours of the late great George Carlin to get his head straight. Just cause some group of people decided to kick some other group of peoples butt at some point in the past and some historical game simulates it does not make it racist. If it was a game about the mongols raping, burning and killing white people no one would care but because its white people doing the winning its "racism". Go to hell dude. History is what is. You can't rewrite it and making historical simulations about racists (was anyone not racist in the past btw?) does not make the game itself inherently racist.
In fact all historical simulations are racist by definition. Hell I'm part Jewish I should find the fact that the Panzer has +50% vs armor offensive towards my people. Why should the golden age unit of Germany be from the period when they decided to slaughter millions of my people? Lame right? Oh wait I sound like a retard all of a sudden... GO to an NAACP meeting tell it to people who actually care (crap that was a "racist" comment wasn't it? please don't ban me for it. 1st amendment)

I read the link:

:rotfl:

Nice piece of Sarcasm.

Colonization a racist game? Perhapss. But then again, it's just a pale shadow compared to the content of the most violent and racist game of all: Chess. Can't you see it? Black and white figures murdering each other all the time, even the board is painted in black and white to highlight the intrinsic racism of that game. Ban chess, I say. BAN CHESS!

And checkers too.... :p

somebody is-hyper sensitive

seems like everyone is pretty much in agreement. The guy writing for variety is just overreacting very very badly. I really don't like how he calls for people to basically boycott the game... that's just stupid...

That is actually a very interesting article. I too would indeed be offended IF i was not a computer games player. This is another one of those episodes where non gamers dont understand how games work. Colonization is a re-imagining of history and nothing more. If he wishes to get himself worked up, he should perhaps take a look at the WW2 genre. With all the nazis and communists and comminazi zombie monsters one can role play as, he will get himself into a lather and forget he even heard about this game...

I can see the reason for concern, as he's right when he says games are now "media with moral implications". People often cite civ as a way to learn about history, and if it has biases or incorrect history, it is fair to criticize it for those biases and errors.

That being said ...

If we were to never make games dealing with any morally objectionable period of history, what historical games could we have? None!

I will agree with him on one other point though: really, the game should allow you to play as the natives. I don't like being forced to take a perspective; maybe I'd find it challenging to see if I could preserve my independance.

And yeah, the stars and stripes on the ships are absurd beyond belief.

Eh, the article has a point. I have to say, though, the original box art for Colonization is jingoistic as hell. The stars and stripes as the sails on the Santa Maria? Y'kidding me?

The stars and stripes do not equate to jingoism.

I read the link:

:rotfl:

Nice piece of Sarcasm.

did you read the variety article too? that wasnt sarcastic. What's weird is that he appears to be a 'video games' reporter and he doesnt know anything about video games. I mean, i dont actually think he plays them, unless he thinks playing wii sports counts.

I can see the reason for concern, as he's right when he says games are now "media with moral implications". People often cite civ as a way to learn about history, and if it has biases or incorrect history, it is fair to criticize it for those biases and errors.

That being said ...

If we were to never make games dealing with any morally objectionable period of history, what historical games could we have? None!

I will agree with him on one other point though: really, the game should allow you to play as the natives. I don't like being forced to take a perspective; maybe I'd find it challenging to see if I could preserve my independance.

And yeah, the stars and stripes on the ships are absurd beyond belief.
yeah, perhaps we better not tell him about the aztec sacrificial altar or the mesoamerican mod where we get bonus points for human sacrifice etc.
The thing is, most civ players, or gamers in this genre LOVE their history. If they dont, then they quickly start to learn about the great moments of history...(i got introduced to people like hammurabi via civ)..we know all about horrible civilizations, we know the difference between 'right' and 'wrong'
another poster is absolutely right, sid meier and his teams always tackle the subject as it is rather than making allowances. Perhaps this is another one of those 'political correctness gone mad' stories? and just like those stories, the man in question doesnt know what he is talking about.

Well ... some time ago , someone posted the Gamespot tutorial on BtS and the guy analysis and game were particularly dreadful ( good science city = 70 bpt :lol: ) and he managed to lost in Noble..... Given that atleast half of Civfanatics and apolyton communties can win on Noble, they could had easily spent better their money if they hired someone from here than paying that guy that was thinking that Civ IV was meant to be played like AOE ( given the UU descriptions, it was clear that it was the case )

In resume: video games reporters quality is pretty poor most of the times.

Perhaps this is another one of those 'political correctness gone mad' stories? and just like those stories, the man in question doesnt know what he is talking about.

I think it's fairly obvious that the writer is not greatly interested in history. If he was, then he'd be aware that it is impossible to write a history game which doesn't deal in objectionable material. You can't even write a WW2 game playing only as the Allies without bombing German cities.

And he says he'd be offended even if you did avoid morally objectionable subjects, because then you'd be "glossing over" things.

Well ... some time ago , someone posted the Gamespot tutorial on BtS and the guy analysis and game were particularly dreadful ( good science city = 70 bpt :lol: ) and he managed to lost in Noble..... Given that atleast half of Civfanatics and apolyton communties can win on Noble, they could had easily spent better their money if they hired someone from here than paying that guy that was thinking that Civ IV was meant to be played like AOE ( given the UU descriptions, it was clear that it was the case )

In resume: video games reporters quality is pretty poor most of the times.

Link please!

Must dig a little... wait pls ;)

Correct to myself: it was from IGN... It was posted in Civfanatics by xfactor99 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=241505&highlight=Strategy+guide) ( I recommend you to read the thread as a apetizer :p ) and if you want to jump in , here is the link (http://guides.ign.com/guides/896712/) ( read it all for more prolonged :lol: ;) ).

Believe me, it makes to respect people around here much more ;)

Just for a peek....
The Incas are a challenge, but they can hold their own in the beginning of the match due to their unique unit and building coming very early. Still, they'll need to be on the ball and constantly expanding if they want to exist in the last turns of the game.

Hwachas get a bonus against melee units, but siege weapons in general are overrated, and shouldn't be relied upon.

If you thought the Ottomans were bad, trust me, the Romans are quite insane as well. Though Rome isn't quite up to the military ability as Germany and Mongolia (!), they are quite a force in the early turns. Praetorians are enough to turn the tide of early-mid-match wars, and can lead to Rome possessing large amounts of land very quickly. Fight and claw your way to winning, but just don't expand too quickly too fast; that was what brought down the real Rome. Learn from its mistakes.
What a noob.....

Oh my lord...

I'm not really as experienced with the game as some of the people here but even I know how blatantly wrong that guy is

And he got payed to play..... :cry:

"If everybody minded their own business, the world would go around a great deal faster than it does." - The Duchess, Alice in Wonderland

If you think about it for a minutes it totally true, if people focussed on stuff that actually matters like healthcare, education, crime, family, and stopped focussing on stupid silly petty crap our society would be such a better place. Focus on fixing things instead of spending the whole time trying to find out who's fault it is.

Man, I know, like, all that stuff going on in Darfur. Doesn't affect me! Why should I care!

Siege weapons overrated? :lol:

And should not be relied upon :rotfl:

another poster is absolutely right, sid meier and his teams always tackle the subject as it is rather than making allowances.

That's not quite true. If you read the interviews in the Chronicles box set, you'll find they were very careful in many areas of Civ 4, especially with the religions. Many allowances were made there to make the portrayal of religions in the game "fair".

And this is exactly as it should be, and why the original article makes a great point (though overstates it). When we deal with these issues, we have to be sensitive in how we portray them. This doesn't mean candy coating history, but it does mean recognizing the scope and reach of the media and being responsible. The reactionary article completely missed this in a storm of juvenility, which does everyone a disservice and makes those of us who enjoy the game look like vitriolic idiots.

In resume: video games reporters quality is pretty poor most of the times.

...until you realize that they don't have the hundreds of hours to devote to a single game that the members here and at Apolyton you mentioned do, and they have to cover many games (sometimes dozens) in a month. Trust me, it's not an easy job to play enough of a game to figure out what an audience will or will not like about it, then write a review that's concise enough to see print while being thorough enough to cover the topic and fair to the game's target market, all while speaking to your particular audience.

^^Fair enough... but sometimes they could do a far better job. have a look at the link I posted.... it is supposed to be a strategy guide and the guy looks that played only 1 game before making it.... A little lacking, right? Atleast , if he even had followed Civfanatics and Apolyton links and checked the war room articles and simply copy-pasted , he would had made a far better job

The stars and stripes do not equate to jingoism.

No, but having the stars and stripes on the Santa Maria (or any ship on its way to colonize the Americas) seems kind of absurdly US-centric. C'mon, that's the only reason Europeans came over here? To have a bunch of English religious fanatics, ex-cons, debtors, and lowlifes (with their descendants) have a revolt over taxes and found the USA, a country which everyone at the time would have given about fifty years tops before it was reabsorbed into the British Empire?

...until you realize that they don't have the hundreds of hours to devote to a single game that the members here and at Apolyton you mentioned do, and they have to cover many games (sometimes dozens) in a month.

No excuse. Most reporters are capable of interviewing people who know what they're talking about, defer to the more knowledgeable, and take care to double-check their facts to make sure they get things right. Video game reporters are generally of poor quality because they rarely bother with any of these things.

No, but having the stars and stripes on the Santa Maria (or any ship on its way to colonize the Americas) seems kind of absurdly US-centric. C'mon, that's the only reason Europeans came over here? To have a bunch of English religious fanatics, ex-cons, debtors, and lowlifes (with their descendants) have a revolt over taxes and found the USA, a country which everyone at the time would have given about fifty years tops before it was reabsorbed into the British Empire?
...Erm. Yes, it would appear so. There were German, Dutch, French, Portuguese and Spanish lowlifes too, but never mind. If you are so ashamed at being American, then perhaps you should return to the motherland and be reabsorbed yourself.

@Frekk - no, that award goes to British newspaper journalists, who I enjoy catching in outright lies. The only review of Civ Rev I haven't bothered to read is the British Guardian one, because I know it will be a pile of crap written by someone only marginally less shrill, pinko and in denial about certain issues than the person in the original link. In fact some of the best journalism I've ever read (Amiga Power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_Power)) was video game reporting.

...Erm. Yes, it would appear so. There were German, Dutch, French, Portuguese and Spanish lowlifes too, but never mind. If you are so ashamed at being American, then perhaps you should return to the motherland and be reabsorbed yourself.

It's not shame, it's self-deprecation. In any case, I myself am descended from a political emigre from Egypt within the last half-century, so...no.

...Erm. Yes, it would appear so. There were German, Dutch, French, Portuguese and Spanish lowlifes too, but never mind.

Actually England was fairly unique in using its New World colonies as a social pressure vent by settling them with malcontents, like the Puritans, and encouraged those who were faring poorly to make a new start in the colonies. Most of the settlers were town dwellers, rather than farmers, and very few practiced artisans or craftsmen were among them (because these were generally succesful and in demand in England). Strangely enough it was a hugely succesful method of colonization and the Republic continued the policy (there was nothing new about "huddled masses" and "wretched refuse" when the inscription was placed on the Statue of Liberty - it resonated because it had been so since the start).

The French, for instance, envisioned New France as a chance to make a "pure" Catholic country, free of Huguenots and other undesirables, and mostly when colonists were sought, they looked to refined persons of means - seigneurs - and charged them with the responsibility to assemble the farmers, artisans, etc that they would need to support themselves overseas as a small colony. They took active measures to prevent malcontents from settling in New France, though they were not always succesful.

Likewise the Spanish populated their colonies with clergy and the younger, landless, fortune-seeking sons of nobility, hoping to create a kind of feudal Utopia with the Christianized natives as the peasant class.

Actually England was fairly unique in using its New World colonies as a social pressure vent by settling them with malcontents, like the Puritans, and encouraged those who were faring poorly to make a new start in the colonies. Most of the settlers were town dwellers, rather than farmers, and very few practiced artisans or craftsmen were among them (because these were generally succesful and in demand in England). Strangely enough it was a hugely succesful method of colonization and the Republic continued the policy (there was nothing new about "huddled masses" and "wretched refuse" when the inscription was placed on the Statue of Liberty - it resonated because it had been so since the start).

The French, for instance, envisioned New France as a chance to make a "pure" Catholic country, free of Huguenots and other undesirables, and mostly when colonists were sought, they looked to refined persons of means - seigneurs - and charged them with the responsibility to assemble the farmers, artisans, etc that they would need to support themselves overseas as a small colony. They took active measures to prevent malcontents from settling in New France, though they were not always succesful.

Likewise the Spanish populated their colonies with clergy and the younger, landless, fortune-seeking sons of nobility, hoping to create a kind of feudal Utopia with the Christianized natives as the peasant class.

interesting, i never thought about that before...would you say this is why the french rule in N.America ultimately failed to succeed?

Well, from the governement ideas for american colonies, ultimately only one worked as intended: the Portuguese one ( I wonder why nobody mentioned it yet.... ) The french failed to attract enough people to make something strong enough to face the English, the English failed to maintain control of their colonies ( something about "taxes without representation" :p ) and ultimately leaded to 3 ex-English colony countries in the Americas, The Spaniard experience ultimately led to a lot of Feudalized relatively small countries more interested in warring each others than in anything else ( logical step of a feudal-styled system when you withdrawn the King figure of the active board )...... The Portuguese only intended a united and Catholic colony ( they acepted anyone in Brazil as long as it was Catholic.... Italians ,Germans.... ) and even the indenpendence was relatively harmless.....

interesting, i never thought about that before...would you say this is why the french rule in N.America ultimately failed to succeed?

No ... the Seven Years War was a global conflict, and France was fighting Britain not only in North America but also in Europe and in fact the bulk of France's efforts went to the European theater, while Britain sent large numbers of forces from Europe to the colonies and expended most of its efforts in colonial theatres. Considering their tiny population, and the fact they had to fend for themselves, the French colonies did very very well for themselves and if it was merely a war between the colonies, without overseas reinforcements, probably could have held their ground or even forced concessions.

Particularly illustrative of the state of things was the Albany Congress, just two years before the Seven Years War opened. This was essentially a meeting between the Iroqouis - England's allied native superpower - and colonial representatives. At issue was the fact that the English colonies simply couldn't defend themselves from the French and their numerous minor native allies, and the Iroqouis were upset at shouldering the burden by themselves. One of the Iroqouis leaders is famously quoted as having said, "We desire that you will strengthen yourselves ... you have thrown us behind your backs, and disregarded us ... brethren, you were desirous we should open our minds and our hearts to you; look at the French, they are men; they are fortifying every where; but we are ashamed to say it; you are like women, bare and open, without any fortifications."

We came, we saw, we conquered. Get over it.

im glad my white ansestors conquered america from the natives, with out that i whouldnt be hear, pluss the natives didnt defend it very well.

I made an age of discovery scenario which I made all out historical and put slaves as resources in Africa and South America to represent the slave trade.

it's a game that reflects history.

Like GTA4 is a game that reflects modern society..............

It is pathetic that there is even a question on this. It is more pathetic that someone would think of this.

Seriously, how many people playing the game say "I hate the damn indians, lets kill them all." The average sane player recognizes natives in the game for what they are, a valuable component of the game.

The real problem comes when the people who make the game start worrying about the few lunatics out who over react and try to make an issue out of anything that involves race (or religion, I was very disappointed about the approach to religion in Civ4).

...until you realize that they don't have the hundreds of hours to devote to a single game that the members here and at Apolyton you mentioned do, and they have to cover many games (sometimes dozens) in a month. Trust me, it's not an easy job to play enough of a game to figure out what an audience will or will not like about it, then write a review that's concise enough to see print while being thorough enough to cover the topic and fair to the game's target market, all while speaking to your particular audience.

I must respectfully disagree. Sports journalists who write articles about teams or games are expected to know what they are talking about. Take college football, where there are over a hundred teams in Div-IA. With all but the handful of teams who are off are playing every week, individual writers and prognosticators have an enormous amount of material to cover. When these guys write stories, make projection or post rankings that are ridiculous they get hammered in reply comments section. Just go look at the comments to Mark Schlabach's columns on ESPN. Mr. Schlabach's projections are, put politely, unreasonable, hence readers are slamming him.

Likewise, a "video game reporter" writes a pitiful article about a video game and he's now receiving the well earned criticism. Video game writers must be held to the same standards expected of journalists in other fields.

No ... the Seven Years War was a global conflict, and France was fighting Britain not only in North America but also in Europe and in fact the bulk of France's efforts went to the European theater, while Britain sent large numbers of forces from Europe to the colonies and expended most of its efforts in colonial theatres.

Your analysis seems accurate, I would add that in fact England was fighting against France and France was fighting against Austria to protect Prussia from them. As Austria was a major power at the time, France had to spend huge manpower there. In colonies it's mainly local settlers and natives that fought against British troops. Only some french marines were there.
In France, the Seven Years War is known as "the war for the king of Prussia", because France did fight against her own interrest. This war created a strong British empire in the world, kicking France out of her main colonies and a strong Prussian kingdom in Europe, giving the first blow to french military superiority over Europe, which will end in the french defeat of 1940.
Between 7 Years War and WW2, France lost around 10 times more population during wars than UK or any other nation in Europe, in order to keep it's leadership. Far more than what could be supported by the country.

At the beginning of WW2 population figures in Europe were:
70M German
48M UK
40M France,
to be compared with 1700 figures:
25M France
6M England (8 UK)

The impressive difference is to be related with huge french casualties during Revolution Wars, Napoleonic Wars and WWI.

7 Years War had probably a greatest impact on today's world than any of the world war or Napoleonic Wars.

Racism? no it's a game (as many other said).

Civ IV is not racist. It is just that Firaxis provided some cultural distinctions and then left it to others to fill in the gaps in the unique units to produce a graphically distinct game ala Wolfshanze Mod for Civilization IV. I really do think though they did make a big mistake in putting the US ensign on one of the ships. That wasn't used until the American War Of Independence. Did they even use the right Stars and Stripes or a Modern Stars and Stripes Version?

I voted yes. Ghandi was a racist, Abraham Lincoln was a racist, I am a racist, and so are you. :goodjob:

It follows that Sid Meier is a racist, and that any game that Sid Meier creates is going to be a little bit racist. Why does this deserve another . .. .. .. .ing thread?

dwhee how exactly was the real Ghandi racist? Keep in mind he kept in control a lot of elements that would have tried to achieve Indian self-rule by other more violent methods. Also Abraham Lincoln was the one that proposed freedom for slaves. Okay so he failed to think about providing for them. But that doesn't exactly sound like the actions of a racist man to me... In games you deal with abstractions based on a character as it is very difficult to program in all facets of somebody realistically. A lot of characters in popular TV, Books and Plays are not really fully developed three dimensional...

I'm an Ojibwa and I hardly find Civ racist at all. It only portrays racist attacks on natives that happened in actual history. I think it is important that the horrors and atrocities committed against the aborigines of the Americas not go ignored and the colonization of the new world not painted in a peaceful, happy, Utopian light, because that is far from what happened. No, Civ isn't racist, it's truthful.

Exactly and it is important that debates like this get brought up. We see an example in Germany where these type of cultural debates are ignored and as a result we see Neo Nazis due to the mystification of figures such as Hitler... Also these debates make sure that it is in people's minds the past so that the same mistakes hopefully will not be repeated...

I have noticed that people who 'crusade' on various issues such as racism,,, when they run out of real problems to persue, they start digging desperately to find something else, and they will grab hold of any old nonsense they can find. This is a shame really because in doing so, they only succeed in destroying all credibility for their entire cause.

When it comes to racism however, no matter how stupid the nonsense they persue, they are protected by some kind of 'magical' invisible force that somehow turns anyone whop stands against them into a racist!!

Edit: I forgot to add one more thing.... so when it comes to nonsense racism issues, even though everyone knows in the back of their mind that it is total crap, no one says anything for fear of being labled as racist. It is the perfect form of mind controll!!

I agree with your sentiment, but be careful you don't make exactly the same mistake yourself. You have some fairly BIG generalisations in the those paragraphs of yours! ;)


It's not racism, brutality, an inspiration for violence, or anything like that; It's history.

:lol: But there's a lot of racism, brutality and violence and lots of "other things like that" in history too. Just because Hitler (to take an example off the top of my head) is in "history", that does make it automatically acceptable to behave like him, or promote his views on the value of human beings depending on whether they are Jews or not... Does it? The fact that it is history is actually irrelevant.


That is actually a very interesting article. I too would indeed be offended IF i was not a computer games player. This is another one of those episodes where non gamers dont understand how games work. Colonization is a re-imagining of history and nothing more.

I think you get near the point here. I agree with your comment about games, and it being a re-imaging of history. If someone wishes to be upset about this, he needs (with respect to BakingTheArt) to decry it in history, and campaign for people to see how bad it is (if that is their point of view). Criticising a game for this reason really isn't the most effective way to go. Criticise the attitude, the history, whatever, and maybe people might just decide not to play the games. Criticise the game and people will ignore you, or tell you to go away.

I think it's an over statement to call civ/colonization racist. However, when you think about it, civ/colo is sort of arrogant, the way it treats other countries. I mean, many times, they don't really research them, they make up their own history. In civ 3, for example, France was lead by Jean d'Arc, which sort of implied that the designers though that she was a greater leader than any of France's real leaders.
Most games have simplified the world and it's history incredibly, with some countries being combined to make new ones (Greece, India), and other countries being forced into a European mold ('Chivalry' advance for chinese, etc). There has been too much of an emphasis on European countries, while ignoring others that were just as important (such as the Arabs). It's all a game of course, and none of this matters, but it's a little disturbing when a lot of these things are completely uneccesary (Just get rid of Jean d'Arc, bring in Louis XIV!). Civ's racist? No? Arrogant, dismissive, self-important? Yes, definitely.

And another fun fact. Whenever there has been an Amerindian civilization (other than the Aztecs, Incas, Maya), it has never been the same one twice (Sioux, or Iroquoi), and in civ 4 BtS, they were simply called 'Native America' (Interesting name, considering that the 'Native' title is from a USA point of view). What do you think that implies, especially the 'Native America' civ?

... it mimics a racist human history.

But there's a lot of racism, brutality and violence and lots of "other things like that" in history too. Just because Hitler (to take an example off the top of my head) is in "history", that does make it automatically acceptable to behave like him, or promote his views on the value of human beings depending on whether they are Jews or not... Does it?

No, that doesn't make it acceptable, but neither should Hitler's inclusion in a video game, a history based game on that (to continue your hypothetic), be considered immoral (or racist).

I think that is part of Germany's problem today, they mystified Hitler and his regime to people and therefore now there are those that missed some of the important points about what he did do during his rule. If he had stopped before Poland and settled down he would have been remembered for his rebuilding of Germany. But as history says he didn't...

I think that is part of Germany's problem today, they mystified Hitler and his regime to people and therefore now there are those that missed some of the important points about what he did do during his rule. If he had stopped before Poland and settled down he would have been remembered for his rebuilding of Germany. But as history says he didn't...

Exactly, had the people of Germany not had the historical facts (albeit racist agenda) of Hitlers government, he would not be so mystified today in Germany. Just because history is ugly doesn't mean you scorn it.
"There is no wealth like knowledge; no poverty like ignorance."

I think that is part of Germany's problem today, they mystified Hitler and his regime to people and therefore now there are those that missed some of the important points about what he did do during his rule.
There's no shortage of demystifying facts about Hitler in Germany. The Third Reich is part of every school curriculum in the country. However, a couple of the myths that the Nazi propaganda spread around are still alive ... like this one:

If he had stopped before Poland and settled down he would have been remembered for his rebuilding of Germany.
If he had stopped before Poland, Germany's whole economy would have been in shambles within two years. Large parts of the (feigned) economic recovery were based on the MeFo bill fraud. People were already getting uneasy about the, and were about to find out that the government had spent billions of Reichsmark that never existed. Moreover, the money had been spent for a gigantic military rearmament, which was absolutely useless for the economy in peacetimes. Hence, as soon as the fraud had been discovered, Germany would have been ravaged by the turmoil of a massive inflation that had been caused directly by Nazi policies.

So, *if* Hitler had stopped before Poland, he would have been remembered as the man responsible for driving Germany into one of the greatest economical crises in its history.

But as you demonstrate by yourself, some of the myths that the Nazi propaganda machine planted are hard to kill ...

I didn't think you could drive a country that was already in economic turmoil any further... Okay, I always had the impression that economic progress had actually been made and the economic system of Germany was stable before WWII. I didn't realise about that fraud. What books can you recommend that might be in English about that? Just curious about it...

I didn't think you could drive a country that was already in economic turmoil any further...
The economic turmoil from the world-wide recession was already reclining. Basically, Germany was in a good position to recover when the Nazis took power - with a sensible long-term economic policy. The Nazi economic policy, however, was in no way sensible. It produced a short-term surge in the military-based industry, bought with money that didn't exist, which created jobs to impress the populace. It also left Germany in a position to either fall into the next crisis while all other countries in the neighborhood were recovering from the recession, or use the freshly build military to plunder other countries (which had been the plan all along, and the reason why the Nazis started such a hazardous policy).


Okay, I always had the impression that economic progress had actually been made and the economic system of Germany was stable before WWII. I didn't realise about that fraud. What books can you recommend that might be in English about that? Just curious about it...
My sources are in German - I'll check my link list and send you a PM if I find something in English.

I think that is part of Germany's problem today, they mystified Hitler and his regime to people and therefore now there are those that missed some of the important points about what he did do during his rule.


Nonsense. We treat him more accurately and extensively in school than any other country in the world. As you demonstrate so eloquently.

As for Neonazis, we are not the only country with some racist right-wing nuts. It's also a problem that got worse with the desillusionation of many people from the former GDR. It has *nothing* do with mystification of Hitler.


If he had stopped before Poland and settled down he would have been remembered for his rebuilding of Germany. But as history says he didn't...

No, he would still have been remembered as the man who murdered the jews and his political opponents.


Exactly, had the people of Germany not had the historical facts (albeit racist agenda) of Hitlers government, he would not be so mystified today in Germany.


I don't even get what you are trying to say. Is there a negation to much? Are you suggesting the people of Germany should *not* have the facts of his government so that will not be mystified? :confused:

Chess is a racist game that has been promoting racism since it first made its appearence 100's of years ago. In typical racist fashion this game is pitting white against black and more recently white against red, green, blue etc etc. Does anyone see a pattern here? AAAAAAND White goes first EVERY TIME. This game promotes white supremecy. (Insert Sarcasm here)

:lol:
And, you forgot that when u position the board and you're trying to figure out whether to put the white or black square to the right side, you've just got to remember that "white is always right!"

Chivarly was also done in the Middle East. Not to be mean but history itself is very Euro-centric because most of the great powers, technology, advances, etc. came out of Europe. Democracy, Enlightment, all those great techs were from Europe.

You take a top ten all-time civilizations (judge by power, tech, culture signifigance, etc.) you probably have to go with

1. Roman Empire
2. Chinese
3. British Empire
4. Greeks
5. Americans
6. Arabs
7. Egyptians
8. Russians
9. French
10. Spanish

That puts 6 Europeon civs in the top ten and America is probably just an extension of Europe so that is 7.

It is hard to find civilizations that were that powerful outside the Euro-Middle Eastern World. If you took out Middle East and Europe you would have basically the Mayans, Aztecs, Incans (really no other civilization from America did much outside these three, the Visigoths or Irish would be more worthy then the Sioux and Iroqious). China, Korea, Japan, India, Songhai, Axum, and maybe Khmer Empire. There really isn't much outside of the Mediterrean and Europeon world. Also post Christ, really the only major civs in Middle East were the Arabs and Ottomans.

Chivarly was also done in the Middle East. Not to be mean but history itself is very Euro-centric because most of the great powers, technology, advances, etc. came out of Europe. Democracy, Enlightment, all those great techs were from Europe.

You take a top ten all-time civilizations (judge by power, tech, culture signifigance, etc.) you probably have to go with

1. Roman Empire
2. Chinese
3. British Empire
4. Greeks
5. Americans
6. Arabs
7. Egyptians
8. Russians
9. French
10. Spanish

That puts 6 Europeon civs in the top ten and America is probably just an extension of Europe so that is 7.

It is hard to find civilizations that were that powerful outside the Euro-Middle Eastern World. If you took out Middle East and Europe you would have basically the Mayans, Aztecs, Incans (really no other civilization from America did much outside these three, the Visigoths or Irish would be more worthy then the Sioux and Iroqious). China, Korea, Japan, India, Songhai, Axum, and maybe Khmer Empire. There really isn't much outside of the Mediterrean and Europeon world. Also post Christ, really the only major civs in Middle East were the Arabs and Ottomans.
Really?

No, you would have:

The Malays
The Javanese
The Khmer
The Thais
The Vietnamese
The Japanese/Yamato
The Koreans
The Uyghurs
The Tibetans
The Mughals
The Tamils
The Kannadas
The Telugus
The Marathas
The Rajputs
The Delhi Sultunate
The Carthaginians
The Berbers
The Axumites
The Abyssinians
The Bengalis
The Songhay
The Mandinka (Mali, semi-related to modern Mali)
The Zulu
Great Zimbabwe
The Soninke (Ghana, unrelated to modern Ghana)
The Egyptians
The Ayyubids
The Timurids
The Afghans
The Sinhalese
The Khwarezmids
The Incas
The Mayans
The Aztecs
United States (not actually in Europe, just dominated by European culture)
+quite a few more

If the US and Carthage are omitted because they where dominated by European/Middle Eastern culture, then:
The Khazars (a Turkic state in Europe)
The Bulgars (another group of European Turks)
The Himyarites (more Ethiopian than Middle Eastern)

And many of those (Tamils, Malays, Javanese) can be split into many large empires (Cholas, Cheras, Pandyas for Tamils, Srivijayans and Malaccans for Malays, Sailendras and Majapahit for Javanese) rather than single cultures.

History became Eurocentric in the colonial era, not before. And to include the Middle East as part of "Eurocentric" is in itself eurocentric.

The Middle East is not part of the West, and never was.

Yeah, gunpowder, the compass, algebra, the zero... they all came out of Europe.

Chivarly was also done in the Middle East. Not to be mean but history itself is very Euro-centric because most of the great powers, technology, advances, etc. came out of Europe. Democracy, Enlightment, all those great techs were from Europe.

:lol: No. The history (that you've read/seen) is Eurocentric because it was written by people of European descent with European descent interests in mind, perhaps even for teaching those of European descent, or living in nations ruled by those of European descent.

History is usually whatever-centric depending on the author of the history. :)

Really, I would go:
1. Rome.
2. Britain.
3. USA.
4. USSR/Russia.
5. China.
6. Japan.
7. Aztec.
8. Mayans.
9. Germany.
10. France.

These are my top 10 all time powerful civilizations throughout History. Notice that Rome features quite near the top due to how long it managed to hold a diverse empire together. Greeks were not really quite as good at holding together power. Greece is more like a group of states that squabbled with each other throughout history and therefore Greece never was quite as powerful in the Classical age as romantic thought projects it to be...

and what about India or Egypt. Much more historically influential than Maya or Aztec. And as far as power goes, where's Mongolia?

There's no shortage of demystifying facts about Hitler in Germany. The Third Reich is part of every school curriculum in the country. However, a couple of the myths that the Nazi propaganda spread around are still alive ... like this one:


If he had stopped before Poland, Germany's whole economy would have been in shambles within two years. Large parts of the (feigned) economic recovery were based on the MeFo bill fraud. People were already getting uneasy about the, and were about to find out that the government had spent billions of Reichsmark that never existed. Moreover, the money had been spent for a gigantic military rearmament, which was absolutely useless for the economy in peacetimes. Hence, as soon as the fraud had been discovered, Germany would have been ravaged by the turmoil of a massive inflation that had been caused directly by Nazi policies.

So, *if* Hitler had stopped before Poland, he would have been remembered as the man responsible for driving Germany into one of the greatest economical crises in its history.

But as you demonstrate by yourself, some of the myths that the Nazi propaganda machine planted are hard to kill ...

excellent post, i always deeply admire how much germans know and fully appreciate the facts about the third reich. i wish us brits did not have as much amnesia as we seem to do about the horrors perpetrated by the British empire.

Really, I would go:
1. Rome.
2. Britain.
3. USA.
4. USSR/Russia.
5. China.
6. Japan.
7. Aztec.
8. Mayans.
9. Germany.
10. France.

These are my top 10 all time powerful civilizations throughout History. Notice that Rome features quite near the top due to how long it managed to hold a diverse empire together. Greeks were not really quite as good at holding together power. Greece is more like a group of states that squabbled with each other throughout history and therefore Greece never was quite as powerful in the Classical age as romantic thought projects it to be...
I have to question your list... USA? They've only been on the top for 70 years. Where's the Arabs, Egyptians or a single Indian civ?

I don't see how Germany, the Aztecs and Japan where more influental than the Arabs, Persians and Egyptians.

It is very pathetic that people want to find racism everywhere.
I've read in news that in England racism is also when a kid in kindergarten doesn't want to eat a food what belongs into foreign cultures.. and when they say phew! For example if the kid will find fried bugs on his plate and it seems ugly he cannot reach as normal people would do. And that's the fault of European Left-Wing politics who promote the political correctness because then they get easy votes from immigrants. Also it's very strange that the kids must read homosexual fairy tales where a prince falls in love into another prince, that's sick!

So my suggestion would be that society shouldn't think about the pseudo problems like racism(where it is not real) and homophobia, instead they should deal more with real issues.

I've read in news that in England racism is also when a kid in kindergarten doesn't want to eat a food what belongs into foreign cultures..
It is racist to refuse to eat foreign food because its foreign. Its not really that bad when a little kid does it though because they don't know any better.
and when they say phew!
No it isn't.
For example if the kid will find fried bugs on his plate and it seems ugly he cannot reach as normal people would do.
Nobody feeds fried bugs to little kids, and most people in the country react to fried bugs with disgust, not just kids.

And that's the fault of European Left-Wing politics who promote the political correctness because then they get easy votes from immigrants.
That people complain about things like this is the fault of silly tabloid newspapers who like to go about publishing scare stories about kids eating bugs.

Also it's very strange that the kids must read homosexual fairy tales where a prince falls in love into another prince, that's sick!
I do agree with you here that teaching kids about sex that early in life is a bit wrong.

So my suggestion would be that society shouldn't think about the pseudo problems like [QUOTE]racism(where it is not real)
and homophobia, instead they should deal more with real issues.
Racism and homophobia are real issues.

Racism and Homophobia may be issues but as some people handle it now it is somewhat pseudo problem. It is like when feminists create new issues where women are discriminated when a lot of the problems are really silly. I don't know is it issue in everywhere but in my country some feminists found problem in men and women toilet. Because women are little longer in toilet then feminists found that their toilet must be bigger because otherwise queues to there are longer. But when women commit makeups behind the mirrors in the toilets and waste time there that's not problem :D

Ok I didn't want to tell about that. In my point of view, racism is problem when one race is humiliated by another not when you in some reason need to choose between 2 people (one is black and another is white) and when you choose white then black complains that you're racist. Also racism IS when black does something against whites.

Racism and Homophobia may be issues but as some people handle it now it is somewhat pseudo problem.
I don't really understand what you are saying. If anything, racism (or 'xenophobia', in case Skadistic comes to complain about semantics) has increased in Europe over the past few years.

It is like when feminists create new issues where women are discriminated when a lot of the problems are really silly. I don't know is it issue in everywhere but in my country some feminists found problem in men and women toilet. Because women are little longer in toilet then feminists found that their toilet must be bigger because otherwise queues to there are longer.But when women commit makeups behind the mirrors in the toilets and waste time there that's not problem :D
Women don't take longer because they put on make up in the toilets. I don't know about in Estonia, but here toilet cubicles don't have mirrors in them. Apparently, women take longer because have to use the cubicles rather than urinals, meaning that they all have queue up to use them.

Ok I didn't want to tell about that. In my point of view, racism is problem when one race is humiliated by another
Yes.

not when you in some reason need to choose between 2 people (one is black and another is white) and when you choose white then black complains that you're racist.
Nobody says that that is racist, the problem is when you systematically choose white people most of the time. There was something a while ago when a load of CVs with indentical qualifications were sent out to various companies. Some of them had Muslim names on them, and some had English names. The companies mainly chose the ones with English names, which is preferring one ethnic group (English people) over another (Pakistanis and other Muslim-majority groups).

Also racism IS when black does something against whites.
Yes, I agree here as well, as long as the thing is done because of race. If a crime gang in America that is mainly black goes and has a fight with a white gang, that's not really racially-motivated, they would have still done it if the other side was the same race as them.

There was something a while ago when a load of CVs with indentical qualifications were sent out to various companies. Some of them had Muslim names on them, and some had English names. The companies mainly chose the ones with English names
Yep, there has been a lot of research on this. Just recently a study dealt with teachers: Teachers were sent a set of essays, and the researchers randomly mixed students' names on them. Turned out that the same essays consistently got worse grades when the (fake) name of the student hinted at an ethnic background different from "European American".

I don't think the teachers would've labaled themselves as racists, but as this study (and many others) show, it's not quite that easy.

Racism IS a real problem, altough the article takes it too far.

And seriously, this is turning into a conservative vs. liberal.

I don't really understand what you are saying. If anything, racism (or 'xenophobia', in case Skadistic comes to complain about semantics) has increased in Europe over the past few years.

There is a reason, it is not only racism but it is hatred against immigrants because a lot of them cause problems and people do not want more. If they can be civilized as the native people then that would be ok.


Women don't take longer because they put on make up in the toilets. I don't know about in Estonia, but here toilet cubicles don't have mirrors in them. Apparently, women take longer because have to use the cubicles rather than urinals, meaning that they all have queue up to use them.

But it has been said that men visit toilets more frequently than women.
And in Estonia here are mirrors in toilets, not in the boxes where the pot is but where washbowl is.


Nobody says that that is racist, the problem is when you systematically choose white people most of the time. There was something a while ago when a load of CVs with indentical qualifications were sent out to various companies. Some of them had Muslim names on them, and some had English names. The companies mainly chose the ones with English names, which is preferring one ethnic group (English people) over another (Pakistanis and other Muslim-majority groups).

If there wouldn't be any reason then it is racism but if the nation has experiences that Muslims may be not as effective than the others. For example people do not trust gypsies because they steal and soothsay a lot. That's the similar reason why not women is not taken where job needs lifting heavy things. In one word if the other nation is same trustful than natives and still is being discriminated then it is a problem.

There is a reason, it is not only racism but it is hatred against immigrants because a lot of them cause problems and people do not want more. If they can be civilized as the native people then that would be ok.
Immigrants are hard-working and civilised people. If we didn't have immigrants then there would be nobody to do jobs which native workers don't want to do.


But it has been said that men visit toilets more frequently than women.
Source?

And in Estonia here are mirrors in toilets, not in the boxes where the pot is but where washbowl is.
Then why would there be a big queue for the toilets then?



If there wouldn't be any reason then it is racism but if the nation has experiences that Muslims may be not as effective than the others.
That is still racist, its stereotyping.

For example people do not trust gypsies because they steal and soothsay a lot. That's the similar reason why not women is not taken where job needs lifting heavy things.
Again, this is stereotyping, which is wrong. There is something called 'equal opertunities', which means that you can't hire or fire people based on silly and arbitary prejudices.

In one word if the other nation is same trustful than natives and still is being discriminated then it is a problem.
All nations are just as trustful as any other. No culture values deceit or laziness.

What if you tried to get a job in another country, but your employer was a bigot who refused you because he thought Estonians were untrustworthy? What would you do then?

Immigrants are hard-working and civilised people. If we didn't have immigrants then there would be nobody to do jobs which native workers don't want to do.

Some of them are hard-working civilized people but some of them refuse to do work, they hang on undergrounds, rob people. And that's the fact that Muslims have far more rights in Europe than Europeans in Arabian lands(OT).
Perhaps it is not racial problem but the fact that immigrants refuse do adopt native rules and want to push their owns. They refuse to learn official language because it would be easier that natives speak theirs. In Estonia we have a lot of Russians and face same problem, so it is not Racial problem it is more National. But still the minorities have to adopt the native rules or re emigrate to their homeland if there is better.



Source?

Hmm, that was a newspaper article a few years ago in Estonian language so it is hard to prove it.


Then why would there be a big queue for the toilets then?


Sometimes there are boxes where you go in, then there is washbowl and then there is a door to the pot :D





That is still racist, its stereotyping.
Again, this is stereotyping, which is wrong. There is something called 'equal opertunities', which means that you can't hire or fire people based on silly and arbitary prejudices.

That's almost same that if you can choose between a guy who haven't been punished and who have been jailed 2 times. I think majority of us trust the first one. The Gypsies have their own culture and traditions. If they are too much depended of their family and cannot make things their own then you have to take them as a whole not as a single person, you have less risk. We Europeans are individualists and it is easier to give us equal chances.



All nations are just as trustful as any other. No culture values deceit or laziness.

Have you heard what Robert Mugabe did in Zimbabwe where before his rule there were White educated farmers and the life was OK in that country. But the land was forcibly taken away from the farmers, distributed to blacks and the farmers were forced to leave. Before that the life expectancy was about 60 years but now it is 34-37. Inflation is about 100 000 percent per year. So in conclusion in Africa there is possible to live without foreign aid if the people want it.

What if you tried to get a job in another country, but your employer was a bigot who refused you because he thought Estonians were untrustworthy? What would you do then?

I don't know places where Estonians are untrustworthy except in the Russia but that's another issue. It is because of Bronze Night. But no Estonians will go to work there. But we would be untrustworthy in foreign lands then there should be a reason and I would accept it.

Some of them are hard-working civilized people but some of them refuse to do work, they hang on undergrounds, rob people. And that's the fact that Muslims have far more rights in Europe than Europeans in Arabian lands(OT).
Natives and the children of immigrants also loiter around and rob people. Criminality isn't caused by being an immigrant, its caused by being disadvantaged.

Perhaps it is not racial problem but the fact that immigrants refuse do adopt native rules and want to push their owns. They refuse to learn official language because it would be easier that natives speak theirs. In Estonia we have a lot of Russians and face same problem, so it is not Racial problem it is more National. But still the minorities have to adopt the native rules or re emigrate to their homeland if there is better.

If you want to get a decent job then you have to speak the native language, you just can't work properly without it. Most of the people I know who haven't tried (or suceeded) to learn English are old men who don't work and just come with their families.

As for adopting native customs, I don't really see it as essential unless your customs offend native people. For example, if somebody who lives in some remote rainforest tribe and wears only a loincloth decides to move to a western country, he should really start wearing clothes. But if you just wear different clothes I don't see an issue.


Hmm, that was a newspaper article a few years ago in Estonian language so it is hard to prove it.

Sometimes there are boxes where you go in, then there is washbowl and then there is a door to the pot :D
I don't understand why that would cause queues. :confused:

That's almost same that if you can choose between a guy who haven't been punished and who have been jailed 2 times. I think majority of us trust the first one.
Yes, but not all gypsies are criminals, only ones who do criminal things. If a big caravan of gypsies showed up and started leaving litter, stealing and generally causing disruption, I wouldn't employ them, but if they weren't doing those things I would.

The Gypsies have their own culture and traditions. If they are too much depended of their family and cannot make things their own then you have to take them as a whole not as a single person, you have less risk.
We Europeans are individualists and it is easier to give us equal chances.
Since when are Europeans any more individualistic than gypsies? That just sounds like a made up excuse for not teating the Europeans as a group as well...

That argument leads to some kind of crazy loop anyway: you are saying that because Europeans follow their culture of individualism, they don't follow their culture as tightly as others. Which would therefore mean that they aren't individualistic as they don't follow their individualistic culture, a complete contradiction!


Have you heard what Robert Mugabe did in Zimbabwe where before his rule there were White educated farmers and the life was OK in that country. But the land was forcibly taken away from the farmers, distributed to blacks and the farmers were forced to leave. Before that the life expectancy was about 60 years but now it is 34-37. Inflation is about 100 000 percent per year. So in conclusion in Africa there is possible to live without foreign aid if the people want it.
That just means that Mugabe is tin pot dictator who gives people jobs because of their race rather than their qualifications. Which sounds an awful lot like right-wingers in Europe...

I don't know places where Estonians are untrustworthy except in the Russia but that's another issue. It is because of Bronze Night. But no Estonians will go to work there. But we would be untrustworthy in foreign lands then there should be a reason and I would accept it.
In Britain lots of people think eastern Europeans can't be trusted with work as they think they don't do their jobs properly. I don't think this myself, of course, but lots of people have the same attitude to immigrants that you have, only they complain about Pakistanis and eastern Europeans rather than Russians.

This is all kind of off-topic anyway though...

The term Racism is very abused these days to the point where we have long ago gone past the point of the Boy who cried Wolf.

Racism is when you judge a person or group of persons based more or less solely on their racial heritage - it is NOT refusing food or any other produces because it may or may not come from a foreign country, it is NOT pointing out and investigating problems that may or may not exist due to immigration, it is NOT feeling threatened by and speaking out against the customs and beliefs of other religions - and it certainly isn't producing a game like Colonization emulating a certain era of human history (assuming it doesn't make use of unbalanced racial stereotypes).

Now, some of these NOT examples may very fall into other equally problematic definitions (nationalism, xenophobia, religious persecution etc.), but to claim they are cases of Racism is to admit ignorance about the true meaning of the term Racism.

Racism is a serious issue, please stop watering down the term by crying Wolf at all opportunities and/or by supporting those who do.

Natives and the children of immigrants also loiter around and rob people. Criminality isn't caused by being an immigrant, its caused by being disadvantaged.

And they are disadvantaged because they don't do anything to be more advantaged. In Estonia, Russians who have learned the official language have even better chances to get a job than Estonians because they speak Estonian and Russian both. But people who know only Russian are advantaged in their fault because they are lazy to learn.


If you want to get a decent job then you have to speak the native language, you just can't work properly without it. Most of the people I know who haven't tried (or suceeded) to learn English are old men who don't work and just come with their families.

We have also elders who can't speak Estonian but they are lived here about 40 years or more so they were younger. So if people don't want to learn then they do not and that's only their own fault.


As for adopting native customs, I don't really see it as essential unless your customs offend native people. For example, if somebody who lives in some remote rainforest tribe and wears only a loincloth decides to move to a western country, he should really start wearing clothes. But if you just wear different clothes I don't see an issue.

Muslim customs include honor murders, forced marriages, polygamy(4 wifes) and fathers can insist children even when they are mature. And I agree that their customs are OK until they aren't against native laws and do not offend native people while natives shouldn't not quit their traditions for them because nobody asked them to immigrate. For example I would never quit eating pig meat because Muslims do not like it. But I don't like when Russians yell loudly in buses while drinking beer and having drugs. Here it is more their custom even they are minority.


Yes, but not all gypsies are criminals, only ones who do criminal things. If a big caravan of gypsies showed up and started leaving litter, stealing and generally causing disruption, I wouldn't employ them, but if they weren't doing those things I would.

But they have shown up that. Perhaps it's better to examine him more and if he is not tied with his big family then he can be more trustful otherwise he still is like the others. They are nomadic people and do not have homeland so they have that bad habits to survive. But they have chances to do better but they do not use it. And if the gypsy has good CV and I've searched that it is not false then I would take him. In 3-4 months he has try-out time so when he doesn't fit into collective or doesn't make good job then it's over.


Since when are Europeans any more individualistic than gypsies? That just sounds like a made up excuse for not teating the Europeans as a group as well...
Not exactly because the more individual and developed people are the less they are depended on customs.

That argument leads to some kind of crazy loop anyway: you are saying that because Europeans follow their culture of individualism, they don't follow their culture as tightly as others. Which would therefore mean that they aren't individualistic as they don't follow their individualistic culture, a complete contradiction!

That's only my point of view! If you personally think that an old custom is a bull crap then your father cannot insist to follow that but in Muslim culture they can and the children will obey. The strangest thing is that they escape from their homeland and still do the same from what the escaped.



That just means that Mugabe is tin pot dictator who gives people jobs because of their race rather than their qualifications. Which sounds an awful lot like right-wingers in Europe...

When the humanity started then we had almost equal chances to be riches and developed. Like in civilization game. If you make right decisions you grow better. The Africans didn't make right decisions and now that's aftermath. Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Aleksandr Lukašenka are also dictators but their people do not starve because of their culture. And the races are naturally different, not only in skin color but for example Asians are more fanatic than Europeans. That's why communism in North Korea has famines but in cuba they have manjana and they still live.


In Britain lots of people think eastern Europeans can't be trusted with work as they think they don't do their jobs properly. I don't think this myself, of course, but lots of people have the same attitude to immigrants that you have, only they complain about Pakistanis and eastern Europeans rather than Russians.

Right and because they had to live in communism where they hadn't motivation to more. In soviet time everyone must had work. If they hadn't then the job was created for them. Usually 2-3 people did same job as now 1 does. Yes 17 years passed but some habits are still same and it takes time to forget that. And I believe that Eastern Europeans are not so problematic than Pakistan people.

This is all kind of off-topic anyway though...

So and So.

The next phase of that experiment should have been to send out CVs where the Muslim and Ethnic names are on better qualified and written CVs than the English names and see whether they get the same result. In reality, I don't really consider that in that case it really is racism when you have applicants with the same skill levels and everything, you go for the one that you think will fit in best. Unfortunately for the ethnic and Muslim but that is the way it goes. Too many people try to read racism into what may be rational thought processes of the manager involved...

All nations are just as trustful as any other. No culture values deceit or laziness.

"Trust" iself is a cultural word. What one culture values as trustworthy may not be considered trustworthy in another. In the "west" people often value "truth" highly, and get fruistrated when they visit Africa and discover that their African friends do not value it so highly. This does not make their African friends less trustworthy though - their African friends will stick to them through thick and thin, happily lying to protect them and support them. The idea of "truth" is secondary to relationship in many such cultures.

Regarding cultures actually valuing deceit, I know of one, in Papua New Guinea, where (at least until outside influences began to change the culture as invariably happens when any culture meets another) what we would call treachery was highly prized as a mark of civilisation and sophistication. People who could pull off the most gob smacking backstabs were considered intelligent and desirable to be had as friends.

It's only one example in thousands of cultures around the world, but it is one!

The term Racism is very abused these days to the point where we have long ago gone past the point of the Boy who cried Wolf.

Racism is when you judge a person or group of persons based more or less solely on their racial heritage - it is NOT refusing food or any other produces because it may or may not come from a foreign country, it is NOT pointing out and investigating problems that may or may not exist due to immigration, it is NOT feeling threatened by and speaking out against the customs and beliefs of other religions - and it certainly isn't producing a game like Colonization emulating a certain era of human history (assuming it doesn't make use of unbalanced racial stereotypes).

Now, some of these NOT examples may very fall into other equally problematic definitions (nationalism, xenophobia, religious persecution etc.), but to claim they are cases of Racism is to admit ignorance about the true meaning of the term Racism.

Racism is a serious issue, please stop watering down the term by crying Wolf at all opportunities and/or by supporting those who do.

I wanted to write something very similar this morning. I started posting but just couldn't collect my thoughts. I was reading the posts by The Fisherman and Desert Fox and quickly realised that neither one of them understood the term Racism. You said it well, so I'll leave it at that.

@Desert-Fox: Regardless of intentions to say that Asians are more 'fanatic' than Europeans is racist, ignorant to say, and scientifically bogus. Looking over the rest of your post(s) I'd say you have a pretty sad worldview.

No, I don't feel that any of the Civs games are racist. Whoever wrote the blog was more offensive than the game is.

Strange discuss....
In France, colonization is at that time a great problem. I mean "the real" colonization. As a former colonialist country, some frenchmen say and think: it was a bad thing, it was made under racist theories, bla bla... Others say: the natives were protected, educated. Peace was on their lands, bla bla...
In fact, it's all these points.
IMO: it's history. We can't say there is racism there. It's "only" the domination of a group of men on an other group of men at one time. Who were the masters in 200 BC ? In 450 AD ? and so on.... And today ?

Useless discuss....

I don't believe Colonisation was a racist game. It was also a damn good game. I do find people who make generalisations about groups of people based solely on their culture, religion or sex offensive and ignorant though.

This is a good example of the Internet at it's best, Here we have a nobody blogger express there opinion, that colonization is racists.

I say good work on the OP not linking directly to the Original article don't give them any more attention and ad money for writing crap.

(I should know I have a blog too, but mine is full of nothing and is ad free :p
http://www.icomefromthenet.net/blog/)

I voted yes~

I am so offended! They are anti-jewish (a jew religion but not isreal civilization? The Arabs should have been the Jews!) And those native american's are just stupid, they arent human beings, when we came over they were still trying to make tools and domesticate animals, if we didn't bring them christ they would probably be extinct by now. they dont deserve to be a civ, but i must say Poland is deserving! Lets just make a game where we go kill savages and colonize a REAL society!


Wow, that must have made me sound stupid. I wonder if any of the critics think that about their idiot radical statement. I would like an option to play as natives to resist the colonization, or as a chance to play a barbarian state which would be fun... I guess i can also complain that so many religions are excluded and that ghandi wasn't a leader and that GW Bush should replace washington and all the other stupid things ive heard.


For you true civ fanatics out there, i hope you enjoyed my mockeries of our critics! Lets just be careful not to let this game become to real to us, and make sure we dont go whipping slaves to finish our barracks so that we can rush an army of pretorians all over new york city!