2K/Firaxis responds to "Rascism" of Colonization

[volbound1700]

They need to put the slave trade in it for it to be truely historical. Slave labor from Africa was a huge part of the Caribbean and Southern North American colonies.

Also unless you are the Spanish, most the time it is not even worth it to conquer the natives, they usually provide you with free stuff and only demand food from you and they don't use up a great deal of the land. I usually just ignore them until the Revolution time and then incite them to attack my former mother country I am seeking independence from.

 

[lumpthing]

The Iroqouis would fit the bill alright, since they did expand (immensely) after the arrival of the Europeans. English guns greatly accelerated their conquest of native rivals and, for a time, they went from controlling a small patch in upstate New York to dominating much of the Great Lakes basin. And they were never really trying to drive off the Europeans ... they were very close partners with the English and sought to - well, did - achieve a standing in North America equivalent to any of the colonies. Until the Revolution, when they disintegrated in internal divisions over questions of which side to retain allegiance with. I think this group, at least, would fit well in the context of the game.

The other groups might be difficult to portray, though.

I think the Aztecs and the Incans would be good as well. The Spanish were very lucky with these two great empires. The Aztec king decided they were prophesised gods and refused to fight until it was too late and the Incans were crippled from their civil war (and possible thought the Spaniards were gods too, I can't remember). If it wasn't for these two accidents of history, those nations might still be with us today.

If it was to have basis in history then playing as the natives would certainly be more of a challenge than playing as the Europeans, but what's wrong with that? I'm disappointed it isn't possible to play as any native civs, but I'm sure it will appear in the mods.

I can understand why some people might disapprove of a game about colonization because colonization did go hand-in-hand with racism historically. However that's true of just about any warfare-based game (and that includes non-European wars). It's only in modern times that there has been a significant movement against denigrating other cultures.

Also, historical colonisation involved good motives (a free-er society, greater knowledge of the world) and neutral ones (more trade) mixed in with the evil ones. Colonisation cannot be reduced to just a racist ideology and nothing more. For me what made Sid Meier's Colonization fun was the excitement of discovering and settling an unknown land and the way that instead of generic 'hammers' and 'trade' points you had actual resources and manufactured goods, transforming the civ economy into something more meaningful and playable. I think this reflects how Colonization was more than conquering and ideologically degrading native americans.

Finally, the player doesn't not have to oppress the natives in Colonisation. They can trade with them give them gifts and always be nice to them.

None of that applies to Grand Theft Auto, where the player can only follow the 'evil' path and has no better in-game motive then self-advancement, but which this blogger guy apparently didn't criticise.

 

[cephalo]

For Americans, I think it is very important to play games about American history. Playing historical games is a fun way to begin learning about history, and every American should know their history. The simple fact is, racism is a huge part of American history. You have to deal with it head on. You can't tell the story without the plight of the natives, or about the horrendous crime of slavery, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be told.

However, for a company dedicated to fun, this is not going to be easy. I would say that if the game is fun for African American players and also Native American players, then they could be satisfied that they treated the subject with due respect. I do know that some friends of mine who are African American get visibly upset when the topic of history comes up at all. Thier history is one of sadness, injustice and humiliation. The anger is still there and is rekindled time and again. Imagine coming home from fighting in Viet Nam, going to a place for a hamburger and being told, "We don't like n**** in here boy. You better leave." I heard that story only a year ago, told to me with some emotion, so it's still pretty fresh.

Yeah, I'd say this game won't make everyone happy, but the story should still be told.

 

[kurtkage]

I cannot believe my eyes reading the quotes from these people.

I thought was funny that the linked article brought up the fact that Colonization was released so long ago lol. Where was the outrage omg!?

I guess civilization should be banned too as it allows a form of slavery, conquest of other nations, nukes, wars, etc. In fact it seems to me that most of Sid's titles could be seen in a negative light. Railroad tycoon, the railroads helped to complete the conquest of north america etc. Pirates are bad mmmkay. Don't even get me started on Golf!

Why doesn't this guy go after GTA4 or something? Oh that's right, because Rockstar has pretty much beaten the psycho conservatives with Free Speech yay!

I'm sorry that we humans have done some not so nice stuff in our history, but too bad. If you are so against colonization then perhaps he should move to Africa somewhere in the cradle of mankind otherwise he'll be living in a colonized region of the world omg.

Such BS I can't imagine what they are thinking hahaha. Ok enough ranting.

I am going to write an email to Firaxis promising my Pre-order of c4:COL as the all mighty dollar speaks louder than crazy politically correct writers whining about nonsensical issues.

 

[GoodGame]

In truth though, not being able to play some of the European powers as well as the natives doesn't feel racist, it feels overly constrained. Sure going to the natives for expert workers was a cool concept and grounded in history, the original Colonialism setting assumes the natives were totally reactionary, when in fact some tribes (e.g. Iroquois) played a strong role and were crucial to political maneuvering before the hordes of unwashed Europeans finally immigrated. Especially during the Seven Years War period. Speaking of which, ignoring the home front during that war ignores stress on the colonial powers.

And native allies played a role even in the US Civil War.

A great topic for an expansion, but still I wish Firaxis would realize some of the features of the original Colonization are way dated, and should be updated by the Civ4 ruleset.

 

[TheRealCzar]

haha, I love reading these blogs. I hope he's never heard of Grand Theft Auto or he'll . .. .. .. . himself. I'm also a big fan of evangelical christian fundamentalist movie reviews that get upset about harry potter.

All joking aside, will I get to rape natives and spread syphalis? Because frankly, that's the only reason I play video games these days

 

[frekk]

The problem with making the natives playable is that it would feel like an entirely separate game lumped in with the main colonization game. As a native there wouldn't be any "old world" to trade goods with

Sure there would. Who do you think the Iroqouis were getting their guns from? Space aliens? They didn't get them from the colonies because the colonies weren't really producing manufactured goods yet.

the entire founding fathers and gaining independence concept would have to be tossed out/reworked entirely

Not as much as you might think ... they could just renounce alliance and start to deal independantly with other colonial powers, in effect, declaring independance.

having expert specialists that produce refined goods out of the regular resources wouldn't be possible, etc., etc.

True. Your economy would need to be based on trade and getting control of trade routes.

Not to mention that it would be tremendously harder to have to fight off four other technologically and financially superior AI opponents in addition to other tribes that you may not get along with.

Well, in the real history, the Iroqouis managed fine for a long time - in fact, until the Revolution, they were militarily equal to any of the colonies, except for the fact that France and England could reinforce their colonies with regular armies from Europe. It's the only native power I can imagine including in the game without altering it too much, since in effect, they operated alot like a European colonial power. They were playing off the French-English conflict and making a bid to come out on top, and they came very close to succeeding in the wake of the French and Indian War - but then the Revolution happened and tore them to pieces over divided allegiances.

It doesn't seem any more "what if" than playing New France as if it were being colonized in the English pattern, and declaring independance and all that. There's already a pretty heavy element of "what if" going on, with everyone in the game using the English model of colonization as a template.

 

[KaytieKat]

Hi

My favorite part was in comments on the critical artical where someone basically asked if a person who just now hearing about a game thats been out since 1994 REALLY Variety's BEST choice to be their main video game columnist?

Kaytie

 

[SilentHunter]

The Iroqouis would fit the bill alright, since they did expand (immensely) after the arrival of the Europeans. English guns greatly accelerated their conquest of native rivals and, for a time, they went from controlling a small patch in upstate New York to dominating much of the Great Lakes basin. And they were never really trying to drive off the Europeans ... they were very close partners with the English and sought to - well, did - achieve a standing in North America equivalent to any of the colonies. Until the Revolution, when they disintegrated in internal divisions over questions of which side to retain allegiance with. I think this group, at least, would fit well in the context of the game.

The other groups might be difficult to portray, though.

And what for choices would you have as a native leader? No priest, no elder statesman, no blacksmith, no founding father, no trade with old world. Sorry to say, but playing a native is not interresting. Rhyes&Fall allows you to play natives with interresting victory condition, but come on, playing Colonization with natives just kills all the flavour of the game.

Saying that Colonization is racist because you cannot play the natives is stupid. It cannot even be discussed, because it's absurd. Forget that guy.

 

[RedRalph]

I cant understand WHY slavery is omitted. Is it because this game is expected to sell far more in the US as a total then Civ? Many Americans are not ignorant about their history, at least most of the ones who play Civ arent, they know about slavery and wouldnt be shocked to have it included. As others have said, if I can play as Germany in Civ4 and completely wipe out Russia, nuke the middle east and adopt slavery as a civic, then whats the problem wuith having it in col?

 

[Panzeh]

I cant understand WHY slavery is omitted. Is it because this game is expected to sell far more in the US as a total then Civ? Many Americans are not ignorant about their history, at least most of the ones who play Civ arent, they know about slavery and wouldnt be shocked to have it included. As others have said, if I can play as Germany in Civ4 and completely wipe out Russia, nuke the middle east and adopt slavery as a civic, then whats the problem wuith having it in col?

You have complete control over your labor anyway, what more would you want?

 

[Aurore]

A historical game should be wary of ommiting major concepts because of political corectness.

Slavery was a major factor both in the colonisation of American, its development, and its history. The civil war and the civil rights movements were not minor events.

Racism isn't a valid justification for exclusion, simply because you can read it both ways. Is leaving slavery out really showing respect to the african population? You might say so... or you might say that excluding slavery also hides the shame of the slavers and assists in historical whitewashing. You might say leaving out slavery shows disrespect to the suffering of the enslaved by not acknowledging their existance, and by denying the contribution of people like King.

Of course the decision here shows nothing of the sort. The designers wanted to make a game, and wanted people, all people, to have fun playing it without being offended. This involves walking a fine path through minefields and they chose one of several less than perfect paths, and it is hard to blame them for any given decision since after all this remains a game, not a tool to teach history.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Well, original didn't had slavery, but you did get indian converts if you attacked village that had your mission.

That was almost like active enslaving.
(worse then just buying slaves from Africa, IMHO)

 

[potatoe]

I think the game should have slavery but there should be an option to turn it off for those people that would be offended by it.

If they include slavery then there should be some negative side effects as well such as slave revolts or slaves escaping from colonies in order to discourage their use unless you desperately need colony workers.

 

[Grenouille]

Hmm, WW2 games never cover the Holocaust, but I haven't seen anyone complaining about that. Isn't it similar with slavery in a colonization game? It's still too hurting for many people to have it made into a game feature.

 

[onedreamer]

I think the game should have slavery but there should be an option to turn it off for those people that would be offended by it.

ROFLMAO. I hope for an option to turn off the Roman Empire in Civ because I'm offended by Bacchanalia. I also wish for an option to turn off Pyramids and the Great Wall, because they caused the death of a lot of slaves. Lastly, please let me turn off Hollywood !

 

[raigainousa]

Civ is made to give you a chance to build an empire in your computer, not be a real leader that enslaves natives. Natives is not racist in Civ4, and natives here will also be like in Civ4: not racist.

 

[lumpthing]

Hmm, WW2 games never cover the Holocaust, but I haven't seen anyone complaining about that. Isn't it similar with slavery in a colonization game? It's still too hurting for many people to have it made into a game feature.

that's just thing. many people view all european colonisation as pretty much as evil as slavery or the holocaust

 

[potatoe]

ROFLMAO. I hope for an option to turn off the Roman Empire in Civ because I'm offended by Bacchanalia. I also wish for an option to turn off Pyramids and the Great Wall, because they caused the death of a lot of slaves. Lastly, please let me turn off Hollywood !

How is any of this a relevant comparison? You can make a game about civilization without including the things you mentioned and nobody would really care but a game about the colonization of america that completely ignores slavery is pretty stupid. The issue of slavery is still fresh in a lot of people's minds and it's a lot more touchy of an issue than something from ancient times. Both including and not including it could offend people and so I thought my suggestion would've made a decent compromise.

 

[frekk]

Slavery was a major factor both in the colonisation of American, its development, and its history. The civil war and the civil rights movements were not minor events.

Colonization deals with everything before the American Revolution, which is the game's endpoint ... there was slavery, but it was on a much smaller scale and of a generally different nature (indentured slavery - and many of them were whites, usually German, Irish, English, or Scottish, believe it or not). Indentured slavery was not racially based and it was more of an apprenticeship system than chattel slavery - most commoners who emigrated to the English colonies did so under an indenture. Many Africans were also brought over, but during this period, they were indentured slaves, not (usually) chattel slaves. Just like European commoners, they had contracts (indentures) and became free after the term was over.

In the South, because of the tobacco plantations and agrarian-based economy, it gradually evolved into the race-based chattel slavery we are all familiar with from the civil war era, but this was very rare until a few years after the Revolution, not becoming a widespread practice until the 1780s. The Civil War, slave states, the slave-based economy of the South, and civil rights movements are all anachronisms in this context.