Arabic Crusaders - Are they offensive?

[Esca]

I am not offended, but are there any limits?

Would you accept a unit called a torturer?
A wonder called Gestapo?
Or perhaps Guantanamo Bay?

These would steal techs from the opposition.

Maybe The Inquisition? This would stop units defecting.

 

[Loopy]

I'd rank them as less offensive as capturing enemy workers and killing citizens to rush a project. I mean it's not like it's say a Gas Chamber GW. As I understand them, the Knights Templar were originally formed to protect pilgrims on the way to the holy land -- something that could apply to other civs.

As for a Jihad wonder, people write what they know. That there's a slight Christian slant to a game written by an American company isn't too unexpected.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Similar to what other people have said:

I'm not personally offended, but there are no doubt people out there who would quite legitimately be offended by this, and I would defend their right to be offended without hesitating.

Beyond that argument, I think it is preferrable to have a more "generic" religious order wonder anyway. Clearly more imagination would have to go into it than "religious order wonder", but at least the unit should not have any aesthetic link to one particular religion, just because it would seem less silly when built by a non-christian civ.

If I'm not mistaken, none of the existing religion-based buildings and wonders explicitly cling to one religion, even where we know that the real-life counterparts do. It doesn't take a leap of imagination to see the Islamic counterpart of the Sistine Chapel, but Knights Templar just seems horribly unauthentic when built by a civs that have strong ties to other religions.

The descrition for the wonder could still explain the real-life order on which it is based, just increase the "generic" feel of the wonders name and the unit it produces.

 

[Duke Togo]

I suscribe to the belief that in situations like this, the only people who are offended are those looking to be offended.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Since I'm completely underwhelmed by political correctness, I'm not offended at all. There's being offensive, which is going to vary a lot with the item and the thin skin of certain groups. You cannot avoid it and do anything worthwhile. Then there's having no taste, which is what a gas chamber improvement would be. Some of the same people that would pitch a fit about a Columbus wonder or anything similar would be the first to whip out the "prude" shots if anyone objected to a brothel improvement. It's a game.

 

[Justus II]

Actually, there is an Inquisition wonder (with the Wonder graphic being an Iron Maiden torture device) and an Inquisitor unit in the Middle Ages scenario. Basically is the Middle Ages version of the Secret Police Headquarters (FP+ blocks propaganda, stealth attacks). Of course, that scenario trys to replicate the crusades, but also leads to non-historical events, as I have read about Notre Dame being completed in Jerusalem by the Abbasids, etc.


There are certainly other wonders that have negative connotations for other groups, try playing the Mesoamerican scenario, as you build temples named for different gods, and then sacrifice captured workers on altars... It is a game, and one that trys to give a flavor for certain events or eras from history. But the civilizations do not necessarily develop along the same lines they did historically. After all, every civ is required to research Polytheism, AND Monotheism, whether they developed those concepts historically or not. I just accept that these are hypothetical civilizations, with some resemblance to their historical counterparts, and leave it at that.

 

[downwithgravity]

ick...get over it.

i voted No.

 

[Nihilist]

An Arabic Crusader is something I personally find exceptionally ironic, amusing and by no means offensive.

Virtually everyone can be offended in some way by this game: Muslims by Crusaders/Inquisition; Jews by Crusaders/Inquisition and obviously Fascism; fundamentalist Christians by the ToE wonder; atheists by Monotheism/Polytheism/Theology being necessary techs; black people by slavery; Japanese by the Manhattan Project, and so on and so forth...

 

[Underseer]

Generally speaking I don't find historical ironies like this offensive, but this one comes pretty close. Let's just say if a Jihadi wonder were added I would be equally queasy about it.

I mean the Inquisition is in only one scenario. Christians could only get so worked up about the ToE: no one practices that religion anymore. Every Japanese will tell you that as bad as the nukes were, many more civilians died to ordinary bombs. Ultimately the war itself was the trauma and the nuke just a punctuation mark at the end. I can't think of too many fellow atheists who would be offended by the presence of religious advances and wonders in the game. It's hard to imagine the march of human history without all those colorful myths and faerie tales; they are a legitimate part of our collective cultural heritage even if they're factually wrong. It's not like I'm going to insist that Shakespear be removed from the game just because his plays were fiction.

So while there are other things you could compare to the crusaders, but the crusaders are right on the edge of what I consider acceptable, as would be the case if someone made a Dachau city improvement or a Witch Trials wonder.

crusader is not a generic term, it is derived from the word crusade which is derived from the Latin word crux, meaning cross. the word crusade refers to the march of warriors and peasants throughout Europe to Muslim lands in the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries, with papal sanction.

Yes, like all words "crusade" has a specific origin, but like most words it has evolved over time and picked up new meanings.

We Americans are notoriously poor at history, so most of us think of "crusades" purely in its modern meanings and not in its original meaning. I've even heard Arab Americans causually use the term in conversations (with the modern meaning of course).

As for said modern usage, it is interesting that the new meaning is something of a double-edged sword. It can be either a comliment or insult, but often it implies both. On the one hand it means a person is strongly motivated or motivated by morality, but it also implies that the person is a dangerous fanatic, possibly immune to reason.

A good example would be Ralph Nader. Throughout his public life both his friends and enemies have used the word "crusader" to describe him.

Historical Qubble:
Both the Crusades and the Inquisition killed both Jews and Muslims. It is incorrect to associate one with Jews and the other with Muslims.

 

[sealman]

1. Any of the military expeditions undertaken by the Christians of Europe in the 11th-13th centuries for the recovery of the Holy Land.
2. Any war carried on under papal sancations
3. Any vigourous or aggessive movement for the defense or advancement of an idea or cause.
- Random House College Dictionary

As you can see above, the first 2 definitions clearly relate to what some people view as a Christan war. A Christian Jihad if you want to think along those lines. But consider this:

Jihad: 2. Any vigourous, often bitter, crusade for an idea or principle.
-Random House College Dictionary


The words words mean the same thing. And, if you are stuck onthe first 2 def. for crusade, what is wrong with an Arab Crusader anyway? I know many Arab Christians. Just because they are Arabs, does not mean that they are Muslims, just like there are many Europeans who are not Catholic.

I think you can assume that my vote is that it is not offensive.

 

[WickedSmurf]

Offensive? No, as in absolutely no way... Sheesh...

But I do find it rather offensive when the Mongols build the Pyramids... [/irony]

 

[SanPellegrino]

Originally posted by Sark6354201
Crusader is too often associated with an image of a barbaric European killing poor Arabs. Crusader IS a generic term, and the Knights Templar were simply an organization of Teutonic Knights (I think...)

no, they were different knight orders. the templars were founded 1121 and consisted mainly of french, spanish and italian knights. The Teutonic (German) knights were founded 1190 and engaged mainly in the baltic.

like said before civ is a bit "westernocentric" but well, it was made in the west.

 

[Underseer]

Sealman,
Just because Random House says so, doesn't make it right, at least not with respect to words that recently entered English from a foreign language. Particularly a word as loaded as "Jihad". Just as too many Muslims miss that "crusade" has picked up other meanings in the intervening centuries, too many westerners forget that "jihad" has a very specific meaning (but that meaning gets distorted because the media only uses it in certain situations).

The meanings are indeed similar, but not quite "the same thing."

Oh, and "Arab Christian" is an oxymoron. "Arab" isn't a race (they're technically caucasians). To be an Arab one must be

1. Ethnically from the Middle East (although some Africans qualify)
2. Speak Arabic as one's primary language
3. Be a Sunni Muslim

Iranians don't count as Arab because they speak Farsi (Persian) and are generally Shia not Sunni. Sorry to be a stickler; I can't help myself.

 

[Sark6354201]

I know very little about Knights and Chivalry, so pardon my ignorance.

A word's origins don't automatically give its meaning. As was posted earlier Crusade can be a generic term defined by the dictionary.

 

[bru]

Unless I feel that an act was intentionally made to insult I could not care less! Again it is just a game.

 

[Ville]

It's just a game

 

[Revolutionary]

It doesn't offend me but then again I'm not Arab or muslim. I'm also obviously not I victim of the crusades or the inquistion.

so I can't really say if its offensive but I do think that it is too far in the past for people now a days to be offended by something that was an influential part of history to be included in a game that is based on history.

I also think that captured workers, especially with the new look they have that makes them look like slaves which they basically are, and killing the civilians by whipping/starving/destroying cities to be more offensive. Of course I'm not offended by this since I do these things in the GAME all the time

 

[Revolutionary]

Originally posted by WickedSmurf
But I do find it rather offensive when the Mongols build the Pyramids... [/irony]

I would also find this much more offensive

 

[Gladi]

Bright day everybody

Underseer- are not Arabs ethnicum? Like Jews? Religion and/or ancestry? And if not who are than all these Coptic people in Egypt and other christians elsewhere in Arabic world?

And I am not offended. And my ancestors were attacked by several crusades (in the early fiftheenth century). Still if Lands of Bohemian Crown ever get into Civilization3 I would try very hard for acquisition of this wonder. Knights Tempar and crusader are not best names (holy warrior sounds indeed better to me) but I am not personally offended. And that is what all is about. During my stay in USA (exchange student at High School) I am continuously learning what people offends here. It differs from culture to culture and from person to person. And let the past be past we should learn from it and never repeat such mistake ( from both humanistic and military perspective) as Crusades were. I hope we can agree on that, right ?

 

[Goober]

Of course not, they would be a great addition to the game. They have Crusaders, why should they not have Arabic Crusaders? I would caution a "Jihad" unit though, like a guerilla. That might not be as well accepted. But a Arabic version of the Crusader sounds fine, they have a European one, and to round it out they should have an Arabic one. Be neat for mods recreating the Crusades . . .