Civilization is racist

[wapamingo]

problem with the poles from a civ perspective is that they are too often the whipping boys of their bigger/badder neighbors. they've never been a strong world power, and even regionally their apex was probably average at best. any civ that is most famous for being a punchline is probably not major civ material...

edit: whoops, I think I just offended somebody. political correctness is hard work!

Well, the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth was a force in the middle-ages; Poles saved Vienna twice from obliteration by the Ottomans; and I think the invented the Sausage.

 

[esemjay]

and I think the invented the Sausage.

This, alone, is a reason to include Poland.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Besides if we include Poland we can have: "Poland has declared war on Germany!" "Frankfurt has been captured by the Polish empire!" "Munich has been captured by the Polish empire!" "The German civilization has been destroyed!" "Poland wins a domination victory!"

 

[Harvestmoon]

You do not substantiate a claim by providing waffle. You need to provide evidence that has substance that supports your argument.

I think the claim was "Civ games boast way more than they provide, seeing how simplified and modernist the design happens to be", and the support was things like stereotypical UAs (like India's UA promoting dense, "cultural" cities that endeavor toward unrealistic utopian ideals), hollow technologies that don't come close to having credulous effects (globalization was his example, IIRC) and that sort of thing.

Regardless of your position on the subject, I think the guy made a point and supported it.

 

[esemjay]

I think the claim was "Civ games boast way more than they provide, seeing how simplified and modernist the design happens to be", and the support was things like stereotypical UAs (like India's UA promoting dense, "cultural" cities that endeavor toward unrealistic utopian ideals), hollow technologies that don't come close to having credulous effects (globalization was his example, IIRC) and that sort of thing.

Regardless of your position on the subject, I think the guy made a point and supported it.

I think he should spend less time analyzing the game and more time either playing it or uninstalling it. Your analysis boils his entire article down to "I don't like it because it's not a history book."

 

[Harvestmoon]

You can spin it that way if you want to dismiss it, but I think that's actually part of his complaint - that is IS too much like history, such to the point that anyone playing Ghandi should pack a ton of people in their cities, all the while reinforcing Occidental stereotypes and ethnocentricities.

 

[esemjay]

Statistically speaking, India has the 2nd highest population in the world (17.5%) and 7th largest land mass (2.4%), with 29% of it's population living in urbanized areas. Why would it make sense to make the game operate the opposite way around? So as to not offend people with "reverse-racism?"

The game provides you with a leader with a unique challenge- and you have to find a way to play within the confines of the "suggestions" that it provides in order to reap the full benefits. You're acting like I'm going to assume that, because a video game portrays India's culture a certain way, that I am going to assume that it's how India actually is. Honestly, if someone is offended by the cultural traits certain civilizations are given in a video game, they should move into a cave until they quit being such a p*ssy.

 

[Ataxerxes]

You can spin it that way if you want to dismiss it, but I think that's actually part of his complaint - that is IS too much like history, such to the point that anyone playing Ghandi should pack a ton of people in their cities, all the while reinforcing Occidental stereotypes and ethnocentricities.

If you look hard enough and twist it enough, any game is racist. Anything you put in to try to have a "unique" is probably going to reinforce a stereotype. We could take out all uniques but that would be a more boring game. Random "uniques" would be bound to upset someone besides feeling more false. I'm not a fan of CivV but these types of threads are from people looking for something to feel offended about.

We've seen these threads before. Some have accused Civ IV of being racist, despite the fact that the Civ IV African Civilizations are stronger in random games than most others and Shaka in CivIV is often the most dangerous AI.

I apologize if India having a large population and crowded cities in an Occidental stereotype.

 

[Harvestmoon]

I don't think anyone said squat about it working the "opposite way around". The point of the critique (mind you, I'm inferring here) is that it's tacky to make Occidental perspectives establish normative qualities in the game.

There are other ways of portraying civilization traits. I have to look up the stuff from IV, but I'm pretty sure it was better-arranged.

 

[tom2050]

So is the original poster saying that the Civilization game itself (DVD, box, etc) is racist against Indians? I would think the OP means the publishers or developers. Because that would mean that 2K Greg and 2K Elizabeth are also in on the whole thing, along with Sid. Are these the people that are racist, or only specific people? Will you please name who you are talking about OP. Thanks ahead of time for clarifying for me.

It's not only Indians, but remember all the other comments in the empty pedia about other countries? I don't know if they took them out or not though, it hurts to browse the 'void'.

I am not one of those politically correct types, so I think this thread is a bit much.

 

[esemjay]

I don't think anyone said squat about it working the "opposite way around". The point of the critique (mind you, I'm inferring here) is that it's tacky to make Occidental perspectives establish normative qualities in the game.

There are other ways of portraying civilization traits. I have to look up the stuff from IV, but I'm pretty sure it was better-arranged.

Nice job dodging the point of the statement. It wouldn't matter if these were all made up civilizations with made up leaders, people would find a reason to be offended by them because they would identify fictional nations with historic ones.

 

[GhostWriter16]

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

Point being... don't read too much into a game

While there are somewhat plausible arguments (While I disagree with their offensiveness), of being offended if modern people like Hitler or Stalin being included, I fail to see for the life of me why leaders from long ago can even be constructed as offensive.

 

[Androrc the Orc]

You can spin it that way if you want to dismiss it, but I think that's actually part of his complaint - that is IS too much like history, such to the point that anyone playing Ghandi should pack a ton of people in their cities, all the while reinforcing Occidental stereotypes and ethnocentricities.

A game made in a Western country for Western people has Western points of view! I am shocked!

 

[Harvestmoon]

Nice job dodging the point of the statement. It wouldn't matter if these were all made up civilizations with made up leaders, people would find a reason to be offended by them because they would identify fictional nations with historic ones.

I don't have to dodge a damned thing, pal. I didn't write the damn critique.
I'm just saying what I think the point of it was, and that I think the critic supported his claim. Unless you just get off on arguing with people and acting the Big Fish on these forums, I don't know what else we have to say to each other on this subject.

A game made in a Western country for Western people has Western points of view! I am shocked!

Just because you can expect tacky, ethnocentric behavior doesn't mean it's justified.

I took a moment to refresh myself on Civ IV leader traits and they were very general and the same ones applied to multiple leaders across the spectrum. It was better at trying to be more objective than the leader traits in Civ V.

Now, you can argue THAT, too, but FFS you'd just be arguing to argue at that point.

 

[Eskel]

Why the hell bring Poland into this discussion? Have you guys any problems with it?

Back to topic.
Though form of the article prevails over its substance, I do not see where author fails with what seems to me as his main thesis: games that depict real world processes and systems should not be played lightly.
As I said before - it might be a trivial observation, but still accurate and in general underestimated.
I have always lol'ed over similar articles, until I saw how playing one massive multiplayer online strategy game can impact on my world view.

In short period I played it, I managed to learn that I am able to switch sides at slightest opportunity, backstab, and undertake pragmatic decisions rather than honourable ones, regardless of others opinions, in order to win.
Accidentaly it happened along with my move from subordinate into executive position. From day to day I had to stop treating employees as mates, and begin to evaluate and manipulate them. Then I also realized how often, more or less consciously, I use ruthless tactics and knowledge of human behaviour taken from that online game - which used to be just a simple entertainment.

It is hard to tell if it was a cause or a consequence of my true nature which showed itself through game. I tend to believe that game helped me to achieve some of my current goals and influenced my personality. Though I took it as enriching experience, nevertheless think that everyone should know what is happening to them, in order to accept or reject consciously oncoming changes.
Thats why I agree for some extent with OP article. I can only encourage everyone to observe cautiously what impact has on you your favourite entertainment...especially if you spend on it as much time as on Civilization game.

 

[esemjay]

I don't have to dodge a damned thing, pal. I didn't write the damn critique.
I'm just saying what I think the point of it was, and that I think the critic supported his claim. Unless you just get off on arguing with people and acting the Big Fish on these forums, I don't know what else we have to say to each other on this subject.

"Big Fish," really? If I remember correctly, you joined in the discussion with:

None of you guys... this went right over your heads, huh?
Wow, get a Lit degree, I guess.

You introduce yourself by saying that you are the only person with the education to understand what the article says, continue by dodging my statements that people will find reasons to be insulted by video games, then concluding by trying to call me the jerk?

 

[DaveGold]

Well lets look at his Indian paragraph in more detial.

There are a few important aspects of Civilization V that are very important to recognize, but that I do not want to belabor entirely.

They're not important. It's a game. He does labour his point.

Civilization V is dangerously simplistic of identity groups at best, if not flat-out racist.

Yes it is simplified and no it is not racist. It is so dangerous that someone might actually shoot a game designer from the pent up rage and frustration.

India’s unique trait, for example, is “Population Growth,” which doubles unhappiness from the number of cities and halves unhappiness from total population.

Fine.

This feature is most suitable for cultural victories.

True but this statement, with 'most suitable', is a weak statement.

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

So the author has turned 'most suitable' into a deliberate defining characteristic of the Indian model, to suit his argument.

a notion that suggests the crowded streets and slums of Delhi, Mumbai, and Kolkata compose the necessary features of a cultural Mecca.

It's the author who calls Indians cities all slums. I don't see Firaxis doing that.

Meanwhile, these densely packed cultural oddities, the game suggests, are relegated to fanciful dreams of utopia.

This actually doesn't make sense in the context of his argument. I suspect he's implying that Firaxis want to see these big Indian cities as utopia!

India is just one example of vagrant stereotyping among many.

This conclusion is also total nonsense. Stereotyped city dwellers are the exact opposite of roving vagrants. I assume he means that Indians should be insulted because they're portrayed as living in slum cities. Let's look at his logic once more in detail so we can see the problems:

- Indian cities are slums in reality.
- It an unbelievable utopia for India to ever have big cities that are not slums.
- Firaxis deliberately created India as a race of big cities.
- Firaxis is therefore racist for stereotyping Indians as only living in slums cities.
- Culture comes from big cities.
- Big Indian cities are always slums so it is ridiculous that they could produce culture.

 

[cavilier210]

Do some of you have nothing better to do then sit on a forum debating the points of a no-name blogger and his ridiculous arguement that a game must be racist because it takes a general persepective on certain cultures and makes a gameplay aspect on them?

I mean seriously. Being offended is the fault of the person being offended. It's a personal choice to be offended. No one can control your thoughts, and thus control your reactions. For instance, i could punch you in the face. You have 2 choices, walk away or attack me back. I don't make you choose either. Your culture may influence your final decision, but in the end, it's your decision.

 

[esemjay]

<Snip>

I lol'd

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: If the discussion doesn't improve and get back to a civil level, then the thread will just get closed.