Is Civ IV a Racist and Immoral Game? HA!

[Pigmerikan Mao]

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.

 

[Healz]

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...

 

[Mad Professor]

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.

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.

 

[bob bobato]

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?

 

[ditchhook]

... it mimics a racist human history.

 

[Pigmerikan Mao]

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).

 

[Healz]

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...

 

[Pigmerikan Mao]

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."

 

[Psyringe]

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 ...

 

[Healz]

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...

 

[Psyringe]

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.

 

[Ammar]

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?

 

[The Snug]

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)

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!"

 

[volbound1700]

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.

 

[Saim]

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.

 

[Mad Professor]

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.

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.

 

[Healz]

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...

 

[MrPopov]

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

 

[SharpMango]

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.

 

[Saim]

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.