2K/Firaxis responds to "Rascism" of Colonization

[GIO888]

Col II should ship as it's billed -with an Americas map!

Everything else - Slavery, playing as Native Americans - is Moddable!

That's the beauty of the CIV4 game engine.......

 

[wolfigor]

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.

I quote this post as I could have quoted many others in this thread, nothing personal.

Like it or not slavery is something that happened in human history (and to different extent still exists in the world) and omitting it in a game will not make it disappear.
The same applies to the wars against american natives and other stuff that appeared in the original colonization game.

Why anybody should be offended?
The game is only trying to portrait a historical period as best as possible in the limit of playability and software constraints (do not forget that the original game came out when computers had very limited power compared, many orders of magnitude less than now).

Actually being able to see this stuff in a game have two very positive effects:
- People who may not have known anything about that period of history can actually learn something
- it's possible to understand the reasons behing such atrocius acts of cruelty and exploitations like slavery and exterminations of native cultures.

The European colonists didn't act cruel because they were evil, they did because they had a very clear economic advantages.
Understanding, even with a game, the economic implications at the base of that historical time may help us to understand why such cruelty still exist today.
There is no offence in knowledge.
There is no offence in remembering history.

There is only offence (against intelligence) in closing our eyes to the world and into polically correct hipocrisy.

I did play a lot of strategy games in the past based on world war 2.
Often using the nazi at the conquest of Europe: this didn't mean I was a nazi or accepted their doctrine.
Playing such games didn't make me shave my head and start tensing my right arm.

The same with Colonization: people have brain, they see the difference between a game and reality.

Players are NOT morons that cannot distinguish reality from a game... c'mon lets be realistic!

 

[CyberChrist]

Actually then Slavery is already included in cIV: Colonization, as you will be able to choose to include Slavery(civic style) in your own custom made Constitution once your colony declares Independence.

Of course, if you are talking about implementing actual Slave Trade then that would require Africa to be represented in some form as well.


Playable natives would indeed require Firaxis to think up a whole new angle for them alone - so I can see why they are probably not going to do that. But it wouldn't be impossible to come up with different objectives/mechanisms for the natives to replace the ones the Europeans have.

Ie. native statesmen could be working to unite the various native tribes against the invaders instead of working for Independence (using sort of a UN mechanism among the natives perhaps).


On topic then I normally choose to ignore ill-informed people and whatever equally ill-informed nosense they may post on the net. However, I can't help but finding it ironic that he makes the accusation of the game being racist, when he is clearly guilty of making detrimental judgements more or less solely based on the 'color of the game' himself.

 

[volbound1700]

Isn't there already an Age of Discovery scn for Civ3 that allows you to play as the Natives?

 

[bob bobato]

I don't see whats the big problem with turning off a 'Slavery' Option. If you could turn off random events, like earthquakes etc, why not slavery? After all, as

Like it or not slavery is something that happened in human history

is true, so is "Like it or not Natural Disasters is something that happened in human history". If one could be disabled, so could the other. But if thats not good enough...you could also make it possible to illegalize slavery in your col empire. That would be historically accurate.

 

[CyberChrist]

Options are always a good solution/compromise to controversial elements in a game.

 

[thadian]

they should have just given the "non-apology apology" and said...

"We apologize for any inconvenience the themes of this game may have caused to anyone with deep regret and remorse. As such, we hope you will enjoy this product for what it is, as well as our future releases.

Kind regards,
Firaxis"


Isn't this how its usually done?

 

[tlucky4life]

The problem with the idea that the conflict was a native versus european one is that its wrong. Immediately this comes up;"The natives need to band together to fight off the Europeaners". First of all Im assuming this game "Colonization" starts off in the 1600's. (Founding of Jamestown 1607) People consistantly overlook the real situation, which was native and European versus native & european. Not as vassals, but allies, not just to send them off to die, but as partners. Escpecially the French in America lived with the Algonquin tribes of the Great Lakes, many as indians. Combining aspects of both cultures. The French get a bad rap getting lumped together in the Europeaners category.

The Americans are the ones that committed most of the atrocities from around 1776 to 1830. The "Indian wars", and Andrew Jacksons removal policy. Before that the natives are still there. The revolution was really a catalist event that brought droves of imigrants from Europe. The natives were beat with population, not guns and steal. As theyre populations went down with desease, and constant fighting, the American population was pouring off the boat.

The Iroquois are a must. From about 1630 to about 1680 they were said to be the strongest military force in North America. Sofisticated government, and trade. This is the reason for much peace within the colonies. The Iroquois are effectively a shield from the many pro French Algonquin tribes of great lakes.

What's different about the the native's aims? Their goals arent drive out the Europeaners until later much later. Their goals are trade, and the control of it, as well as the gaining of new territory to harvest fine furs.

Look it up, its there, theres alot that can be done with it. It is very interesting all the things going on, either way there were large tribal entities that were just as powerful and sometimes more powerful than theyre Euopean counter parts. The tribes saw the Europeans as we kind of see the Chinese, a partner to buy nice manufactored goods from. Also there is not enough attention given to the embargo's & price increases on goods sold
to natives. One of the reasons for colapse was too much dependence on foreign goods. Goods that had been readily available for over a hundered years. Alot of damage was done economically by the French finally getting all those furs on market and causing the price to fall out. The burst of the "fur bubble".

Other large entities;
1. The Iroquois Confederacy (5 nations) THe League of Peace & Power. Invaded the great lakes, midwest, and reported as sending war partys as far west as Nebraska. Shield for the colonies, if they wanted to run out the colonist they would have in the mid 17th century. They did not want to they wanted to control the trade of furs coming from all the other tribes.

2. The 3 Fires a traditional confederacy of Ojibwe/ Chippewa, Ottawa, & Potawatomi, that represents the bulk of the French Algonquin Alliance. They drove the Iroquois back accross the great lakes, drove and the Sioux out of Minnesota. Large in number almost twice as big as the Iroquois. The difference being in structure and leadership.

3. The Cherokee Nation- Large in number, & area, deliberate & diplomatic quasi- trade partners of the English.

4. The Creek confederacy- Large expansive confederacy of tribes in georgia and surrounding area.

 

[Lord Shadow]

Aren't you forgetting about the Aztecs and Incas? They were the most advanced native civilization by the time the Europeans settled the American continent. Some conquistadores claimed Tenochtitlan and Cuzco were more impressive than cities back in Europe!

I think that you needn't fudge too many things to make them a viable, playable choice. However, it's true that a whole new set of gameplay mechanics would be needed to make the natives as engaging to play as the European powers.

As for the article, I've nothing else to add. You guys have already said everything.

 

[CyberChrist]

The problem with the idea that the conflict was a native versus european one is that its wrong. Immediately this comes up;"The natives need to band together to fight off the Europeaners".

Well, since the natives (if they were to be included as playable nations) obviously cannot be using the mechanism of building Rebel sentiment aiming for Independence from Europe, then what would you suggest that the native nations should have as a replacement mechanism/goal to work towards - if not to ultimately unite against the rising threat of the growing European presence?

 

[Jerrymander]

I can't wait for the Hot Coffee mod.

oh yeahh

 

[mrt144]

Is it any worse than this?

 

[tlucky4life]

Aren't you forgetting about the Aztecs and Incas? They were the most advanced native civilization by the time the Europeans settled the American continent. Some conquistadores claimed Tenochtitlan and Cuzco were more impressive than cities back in Europe!

Different time period, if they are covering it then sure, by the 1607 (founding of Jamestown) the Spanish were already there (Mexico) & had been there for over 50 years. Differnent types of weapons, better muskets moving away from the pike. Colonization based on the picture is based on the East coast of North America. Not the plains as they have displayed the tribes in teepees.

To the other response about what should theyre goals be?

Just the same as everyone else. Number one trade, agriculture & resource gathering (maize, tobacco, deer, herbs for medicine, buffalo, wood, bark for making canoes, sweet tree syrups for flavoring food, and varios other resources) warfare.

Natives were competing with other tribes to reap the monopoly of the fur trade interactions between Europeans & indians. Self preservation & expansion not set in the framework of race.

Like stated before people try to make this about race v.s. race. There were alot of different independant entities even within the European factions that work with & against each other, sometimes within the same country allegiance. These individual colonies worked with different tribes against other European entities with theyre allied native tribes, ect. The Natives saw the Europeaners as seperate tribes. This European v.s. Native idea was one that didnt show up until the colonies started expanding out of N.E. and then the natives saw the Europeans as another tribe native or European that was moving into they're territory.

The picture above is rediculious & discusting.

 

[Jerrymander]

Is it any worse than this?

Nothing is worse than that.

 

[HuronKing]

I've seen gameplay from Custer's Revenge... as was the case with most Atari games, the box cover is way more pleasant to look at than the game itself. However, I could've done without the grotesque little Custer in the foreground...

 

[tlucky4life]

Look Im a native american which doesnt make me a spokesmen for all native americans. Personally, I dont think that colonizations representation of European historical writtings is racist. What I do feal, though is that the natives are many times underrepresented.

Whats racist is some of these simple stereo types that were written in the removal years (as redoric for removal) after & against the facts by people that were selling a book, & didnt know nothing, and Pawnee Bill esc shows. A view that all natives are so simple, even stupid thats racist. These viewpionts and really modern public opinion was based on this rederic instead of the history.

Also its worse to cover it up, than talk about it. Read the history, about the Iroquois & the back story of the Beaver wars. The Cherokee, Creek conferacy, all complex factions in the Americas. There were different sizes of native factions, small, medium & large just like the rest of the world.

There are also two other factions in America that I will discuss that I feal are a product of these claims. One faction we'll call them the Democrats portray Nduns as mythical wood elfs, taking some of our customs & traditions & turning them into jelly. Wearing wild trade things you guys probably associate with natives, that are in the upmost sense of the word generic. We are almost not indian enough for them Not like real people, like last time I checked we are. People with flaws, many, just like everyone else.

Then you've got another faction lets just say the Republicans (a tiny sliver of) that are racist & try at ever turn even to this day to destroy us & all meaningful & real history of our peoples.

To me there is no reason for guilt. This wasnt ancient history though, & youve got to realize that there are deep bruises to our familys that are clearly evident today.

At the same time that doesnt mean saying off the wall racist stuff is cool either. You do that & your propogating that set of ideals.

 

[blackhawkdown93]

god, that guy is such a ******: first of all: he doesnt understand it is a game, something to get us out of everyday life. and anyway, the game is based on history, and recreating it in a game is a way of increasing public knowledge of what happened in that "dark" era. personally, i think that the age of exploration is a great era to set this type of game in, racist games probably wouldnt even be out on the market anyway, so wats the point of whinging about them??: i mean: firaxis did that religion thing really well in civ 4, as it was designed not to offend anyone, why should colonisation be any different?

 

[Lubricus]

Now, was that comment necessary, blackhawkdown93? tlucky4life is, as all of us, free to state his opinions. Please don't turn this thread into a flame war.

 

[blackhawkdown93]

no WTH!! i meant the guy who said that civ 4 bts was a racist game!! not the person above me...

 

[blackhawkdown93]

no WTH!! i meant the guy who said that civ 4 colonisation was a racist game!! not the person above me...