Civilization is racist

[h0ncho]

http://experiencepoints.blogspot.com/2010/12/critical-eyes-on-civilization.html

Last week, Ben Abraham posted an article calling for more persuasive games writing. In his post, Ben cited my recent article on Barbarians in Civilization V as an example of a piece that doesn’t quite achieve his desired goal. He states:

“Albor assembles the facts like a curios botanist might overturn a moss covered rock to see what grows underneath, and the facts are indeed worth assembling and investigating, however, Albor closes out the post before taking down any notes on what he finds under there. It finishes before reaching anything like its full potential.”

Looking back on my post, I could not agree more. While I both agree and disagree with Ben’s far more comprehensive article, I’ll be setting his many points aside (although for more, see David Carlton’s response and their brief conversation in his comments section.) Previously, I looked at one aspect of Civilization V’s procedural rhetoric and the game deserves much more. This post seeks to amend that error.

There are a few important aspects of Civilization V that are very important to recognize, but that I do not want to belabor entirely. Civilization V is dangerously simplistic of identity groups at best, if not flat-out racist. India’s unique trait, for example, is “Population Growth,” which doubles unhappiness from the number of cities and halves unhappiness from total population. This feature is most suitable for cultural victories. Firaxis mechanically constructed the Indian civilization, and cultural expansion in general, to conform to the notion of culture as a calculable attribute of groups of people, a notion that suggests the crowded streets and slums of Delhi, Mumbai, and Kolkata compose the necessary features of a cultural Mecca. Meanwhile, these densely packed cultural oddities, the game suggests, are relegated to fanciful dreams of utopia. India is just one example of vagrant stereotyping among many.
Diplomatic victories are equally shallow. In order to win such a victory, players must build the United Nations and win an election for world leader. The UN in Civilization V is a mockery of the actual international body. Players construct the UN independently. No general assembly exists, therefore there can be no international agreements, no peace settlements through UN channels, and certainly no human rights declaration. The UN functions as a narrative facade, obscuring one method to declare a single individual the winner. An election does take place in which city-states vote and play a deciding role. However, city-states can be bribed with gold or permanently influenced by liberating their city from other civilizations. A diplomatic victory announcement frames it as a competitive event, stating “you have triumphed over your foes” and your cunning has “divided and sown confusion among your enemies.” In Civilization V, enough riches can buy peace, and peace is just another form of selfish control.

Civilization V peddles modernist myths of linear and irreversible progress and characterizes political relations as neatly organized and legible. In fact, the hexagonal tiles of Civilization V mirror what Political Scientist James C. Scott calls the “imperialism of high modernist, planned social order.” Like the grid logic that allows states to impose order upon a people, and thus exert control, the tiles of Civilization V allow the player to quickly understand, order, and control their civilization. The games does more than depict a legible world, it calls on players to procedurally create such order. The barbarian encampments, the nomadic tribes, are eliminated only when the entire world is within line of sight of a civilization’s units. Illuminated by the presence of the state, the tiles are free of risk and can be purchased and exploited at will.

A civilization’s expanding borders are a visible depiction of control over an increasingly legible landscape. Scott’s discussion of rural settlements could easily be attributed to the creation of new digital civilizations when he states, “A new community is thus, also by definition, a community demobilized, and hence a community more amenable to control from above and outside.” Whereas Scott criticizes states with “an authoritarian disregard for the values, desires, and objections of their subjects,” Civilization V retains no such claim. The subjects of Civilization V have no values, desires, or objections to speak of. The game recreates the high-modernist discourse of ordered and legible civilizations as a digital playground.
Civilization V procedurally renders a vapid conception of social relations marked by blanket uniformity. Although players can unlock globalization as a technology, the game does not model a complex economic system of globalized production and consumption across borders. Civilizations are neatly confined and controlled. Poverty and inequality are not an issue, and class holds no explanatory relevance for historical processes or civilizational growth.

The game sure is fun though, isn’t it. To be fair, there is a lot of value in Civilization. For one thing, it can give unique insight into the process by which paradigms and practices shape the reality they seek to describe. Players can even challenge dominant narratives of history. However, all this demands a critical perspective. Games that depict real world processes and systems should not be played lightly, at least not at first. While Civilization V alone may not be all that persuasive, particularly for gamers who seem so damn good at ignoring a game’s fictions, it functions within a greater discourse about civilization and progress that does, in fact, sway popular perceptions and global policies. Designers and players should first and foremost navigate the intersection of digital systems and global systems critically, before we become enraptured by fun alone.

See kids, this is why you should stay off the drugs postmodernism.

 

[Camikaze]

He might have a point if Civilization V were not a game.

Games that depict real world processes and systems should not be played lightly, at least not at first.

'Games...should not be played lightly'. That pretty much sums up what is wrong with this critique. You're not meant to overthink it; it's just meant to be a bit of fun. It isn't a social commentary.

I'd be curious to see how this guy thinks the game should be designed.

 

[beestar]

See kids, this is why you should stay off the drugs postmodernism.

Moderator Action: *snip*

Actually, that was rather amusing essay, and in many ways an accurate criticism, while simultaneously being completely irrelevant.

 

[The_J]

The great thing about blogs is that every idiot can have one....obviously.

 

[esemjay]

You know, this post is right. When the DLL comes out, I'm going to do a mod. I'm going to remove all Leader and Civilization traits from the game- so that nobody gets offended by stereotypes. I'm also going to remove all of the unique units from the game, so that nobody thinks that I'm trying to say that I believe any one country was better than another at any specific time. I'm also going to remove the ability to control anything, so that nobody can make the game offensive by playing to oppress another country or by winning and making any one country superior to the others in any way.

I will then call this game "The History Channel."

--

Seriously, this is as bad as when people said that Call of Duty and Medal of Honor were offensive because when you play the multiplayer- sometimes you get put on the Insurgent side. Because people are using the games to train to kill American Soldiers, right?

If you can't even handle playing the Civilization series without getting offended, maybe you should:

1. Return the game
2. Destroy your computer
3. Move into a cave

 

[JohnnyW]

Um....okay.

 

[Eskel]

Yep, Civilization is racist, cynical, pragmatist and immoral.
Much to the same extent as any other strategic, especially multiplayer online strategic game.
It is quite obvious - the main goal in game is zero-sum victory, while defeat doesnt' cost player anything. In each subsequent games AI has also no knowledge of past human player behaviours, so there isn't any form of penalty for breaking agreements of any form. Thus almost everybody use genocide, backstab and exert control upon weakest to achieve their goals.
In real world the main goal isn't victory but survival. Defeat in most cases costs much more than you can gain through victory, what is the main reason for all moral and altruistic behaviours - they are simply optimal in terms of non-zero sum game theory.
Sad part of this is that any experience might influence player's point of view, so yes - author is right saying that games shouldn't be taken TOO ligthly.

 

[bobbyboy29]

Finally, someone who finds hex tiles as racially and historically offensive as I do!!!
I wonder what shapes wouldn't offend the author? Circles? Maybe if we were all on the same tile holding hands...

Ok, we've seen the arts students rant. Now I want to see a rant blog from the physics student who complains about CiV going for "3D graphics" when really they should have been aiming for an 8th dimensional gameplay projected onto a 6D plane, or something like that.

 

[beestar]

Moderator Action: *snip*
.

Aw, you ruined my lovely 'Mort de l'Auteur' reference.

(For the record I don't wish for the physical death of any actual authors ...)

 

[GKling]

And what about chess? Why does it always have to be black against white? Racist!

 

[code9]

This sort of criticism attempts to give Civ5 some credibility, and every brand needs that. However, this article fails even at that.

It would be relevant if Civ5 was a simulation used somewhere in the school system, or maybe not even then.

 

[SuperJay]

Fable 3 is totally rasist too. You literally get whiter as you become morally good.

Oddly enough, you also become pale if you're morally bad, you just look diseased instead of carved from marble.

(I hated this feature.)

 

[flyingbunnys]

Diplomatic victories are equally shallow. In order to win such a victory, players must build the United Nations and win an election for world leader. The UN in Civilization V is a mockery of the actual international body. Players construct the UN independently. No general assembly exists, therefore there can be no international agreements, no peace settlements through UN channels, and certainly no human rights declaration. The UN functions as a narrative facade, obscuring one method to declare a single individual the winner. An election does take place in which city-states vote and play a deciding role. However, city-states can be bribed with gold or permanently influenced by liberating their city from other civilizations. A diplomatic victory announcement frames it as a competitive event, stating “you have triumphed over your foes” and your cunning has “divided and sown confusion among your enemies.” In Civilization V, enough riches can buy peace, and peace is just another form of selfish control.

"The UN in Civilization V is a mockery of the actual international body." Thats funny, I think the actual international body does a good enough job of mocking its self. The UN in real life is no different than the UN in the game, the only difference is the UN in the game is useful.

I think the author also misses the fact that its a game and the point of a game is to win.

 

[Truthy]

Yes indeed...hex tiles are just a cruel method to impose authoritarian control.

 

[esemjay]

Yes indeed...hex tiles are just a cruel method to impose authoritarian control.

Not to mention that Barbarians can't spawn there! It's so cruel, how you are often encouraged to go out and eradicate the barbarians before they can make peace with you!

This game would suck HARD if the author of that article made it. There would be no military, no government, and all you would have is control of 1 unit that... I don't know... smoked weed or something.

 

[D_Toccs]

Wow that's just . . . wow!

Civ, AoE, Rise of Nations and any other game that gives you control over a real world civ is bound to bring out all sorts of inappropriate and possibly racist remarks.
I am not a racists neither are my friends, yet when we sit down to a lan game of civ 4, lines like, "well nothing can go wrong with a German in charge of the UN" or "The mighty Christian people are preparing to crush the filthy Hindus" fly around like wildfire. Those comments do not equate to real world beliefs, they just show people having fun playing a game.

As a history buff I understand that a civilization's development is not linear. As a gamer though I understand that to accurately represent the progression of a society or culture can not be done unless you are making a highly detailed simulation, which Civ is not and has never claimed to be.

The individual points you bring up are not in themselves wrong, however your conclusion that the game is racist certainly is.

 

[h0ncho]

Yes indeed...hex tiles are just a cruel method to impose authoritarian control.

Hehe yeah that was my favourite as well.

All in all his main problem is that he doesn't really understand what a computer is or what is capable of. He probably thinks that a computer works something akin to magic, and the magicians only have to put more organic and friendly magic into it to make it work better. But the fact is that a computer cannot really do anything that cannot be expressed mathematically, so of course things will have to be calculable, controllable and so on.

 

[Horizons]

----------

 

[skallben]

On the racist implication; we could just as well say the same about western leaders past classical era. If european culture can be interpreted as only warlike and imperialist then it is the same stereotypes. Euro-centrism and racism should not be mixed up when talking about contemporary society

I am of the opinion that we should allways question our views of the world. Be that my own limited knowledge of Oda Nobunaga or be that what values are projected on me via cinema, massmedia, games etc. If people do think that (post)modern society has some kind of interest in serving you information as objective as possible, then you are up for a surprise. For that information that is not heavily influenced by contemporary values is rare, in worst cases information are presented to you with an agenda, be that the political profile of the newspaper or viral marketing etc.

As for critique of modern civilization, it can often end up zelaous, ending up defeating it's own purpose. CiV could possibly have done better representing historiy and it clearly offers a linear path throughout history. That does not mean you have to reevaluate your perception of history and revert back to hegelian romantics. CiV is a simulation of our past documented history and if a player does not understand that people in a autocracy suffer, maybe they should read the pedia or just don't make historical assumptions from a computer game.

CiV is not the best subject for pointing out entertainment as a bearer of cultural values IMO. I think that the biggest issue of all is simply that many individuals have never learned to view the abundance of information presented to us today with a critical eye.

 

[jtb1127]

I'm just glad that someone else as finally came to the realization that civilization is no more than a strict control method that has been imposed to supply stereotypes towards poor Indian minorities. It is true that computer games are no more than simple and easy ways to coerce various ethnic groups into living on fractions of land shaped like hexagons where they can be abused.