Firaxis and the Gross Misrepresentation of Non-Western History?

[Wodan]

Whenever de Gaulle comes up, the first thing I think of is the George Carlin schtick:

"Charles de Gaulle rose from the dead today... just to prove he could do it."​

Wodan

 

[Churchill's Hat]

Yes, of course its US centric and western-centric-- its made in America. However, the vast majority of Civ players (no, I don't have the facts) are probably normal people, who know some history, but aren't historians. If Firaxis were to cater to the American ignorant crowd, the Arabian UU would be a terrorist bomber, and the French UU would be a "Surrender" unit that would give up as soon as it was approached by an enemy unit. If they were to cater to the historical crowd, there would be around 16 more civs than there are right now, there would be two leaders for each civ and they would have to meet prerequired standards (such as, no mass killings). Okay, so maybe I'm overstating a little, but Firaxis is trying to make it historical enough for the historians, while letting some of the ignorant people feel smart by putting in more famous leaders. Since they cater to neither the historians or the ignoramus, both marginal crowds feel they cater to the other marginal crowd. And to the historians, if you don't think its historical enough, there's plenty of mods out there.

 

[PimpyMicPimp]

^ I think you win this thread

 

[ChrTh]

When I want to learn history I watch the History Channel

Really? Usually I avoid the "History" Channel if I want to learn history.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Really? Usually I avoid the "History" Channel if I want to learn history.

i agree.

 

[ChrTh]

i agree.

Actually, I should be fair. Occasionally they do worthwhile introductory specials (like the one on the War of 1812, or the Sahara). I just can't take seriously a channel that claims to be about "History" but spends so much time on UFOs and DaVinci Code-esque topics.

 

[cybrxkhan]

and much of it on American history, which is not equiviilent to history, most forunately

 

[ChrTh]

and much of it on American history, which is not equiviilent to history, most forunately

Actually, if you put a gun to my head, I'd say their #1 topic is World War II. Granted, it usually has an American angle or starting point, but they cover a ton about the other participants.

After that it's military history in general. I like to imagine that the average History Channel Viewer is a Greatest Generation Nut who is armed and ready to defend the planet from Alien Hitler when he returns (as prophesied in the Lost Book of John called Barsabas -- suppressed by the Catholic Church for centuries, of course).

 

[Churchill's Hat]

I call the History Channel the Hitler Channel for this reason-- every day its another special on it.

 

[Alternator]

Each civ given one leader and 1-2 "great people" would be a good goal for firaxis. Outside of educational forms of entertainment though the only thing about china taught in america is in the apocalypse the "evil china commies" will march down the yellow river, and that "Commie Mao was evil". Likewise, most know "ninjas are cool" or (lol) "Chinese invented gunpowder". (well, they DID invent the stirrup).

Most americans are taught only american history and not world history efficiently. At that the childeren are taught in a fassion of conservative-themed bias. The difference seems to be sociology, which is more liberal. (bias either way is bad).

Depends on your state; I live in Taxachusetts and had liberal bias shoved down my throat, which resulted in frequent debates with my history teachers.

They really don't like it when an informed and motivated classical liberal objects to modern liberal bias.

it would be nice if they would give each nation 2 leaders. This way people can have it how they want it. I dont care if the name on the screen says Asoka or Ghandi. Bismark or Stalin. To me, its all about the trait/UU combo. I love history, but its a game.

I imagine it would be hard in the shoes of Firaxis. First, they have to "westerenize" their game. Sad but if they want appeal in the american market, they have to cater to the ignorance. They can either make a product ignorant people will buy, or one that only historians would buy, and america is FULL of ignorance.

You think America is somehow unusual in this? Nations come in two flavors: extreme cultural emphasis on schooling, and ignorant, with very few exceptions.

On topic, rather than being an arrogant newbie sure to restart old fueds:

Gandhi managed to serve as the leader/figurehead organizer of India's independance from England; I'm not sure how much more a guy has to do to qualify as a leader for the civilization as a whole. He may not have held formal power, but his deeds were enough to shift official policy and his family held real political power for decades.

 

[Valadon]

If you want someone or some nation to resent and dislike you, do something good for them. The best thing you can do for anyone is spill your blood to save their freedom. Three times in the 20th century the US saved the freedom of those countries that have free systems from totalitarian evil. So, of course, the nations we so saved resent and dislike us for it. Yes, Americans can be arrogant, obnoxious, overbearing and the rest of it. But would you prefer Americans sometimes irritating personalities or to be ruled by Nazi Germany or Communist Russia? Without the US you would be.

Also, all great powers have and always will project their power, economically, culturally and militarily. So does America now. But again, however much you don't like Iraq or anything else the US is doing, can you imagine what the world would be like under Nazi or Communist rule? Everything is what it is only by comparison. I find it particularly amusing that nations like France and Germany, who tried again and again to conquer the world now lecture America on morality in foreign affairs. In German mouths particularly it sounds like ashes.

History, is, to a large degree, deterministic. We like to think that we can control all by use of our free will but this is just putting on airs. Civilizations run according to general laws, just as there are laws of physics, so are their laws of History; Marx was right about this, though completely wrong about the particulars.

As for the choice of particular leaders and whether the game is too centered on the West; well so what and of course. I don't mind people showing off their historical knowledge; which of us who has any has not done this? I even learn interesting things I didn't know from this. But get off the bigroty bit. If Civ had been invented in China we would have 20 Eastern civs and 4 others, with leaders like Hitler and Jeff Davis and Idi Amin. Civ is 70% game and 30% simulation (ajust the numbers as you like it is more game, but it is a good simulation of how civilizations work in the long run than in particular instances of leaders and nations. The confusion of nations with civilizations in the game is my particular pet peeve. Some single, like China, are also civilizations. England, US, Germany, France, Spain are not civs, they are nation states within Western Civilization.

 

[Valadon]

If you want someone or some nation to resent and dislike you, do something good for them. The best thing you can do for anyone is spill your blood to save their freedom. Three times in the 20th century the US saved the freedom of those countries that have free systems from totalitarian evil. So, of course, the nations we so saved resent and dislike us for it. Yes, Americans can be arrogant, obnoxious, overbearing and the rest of it. But would you prefer Americans sometimes irritating personalities or to be ruled by Nazi Germany or Communist Russia? Without the US you would be.

Also, all great powers have and always will project their power, economically, culturally and militarily. So does America now. But again, however much you don't like Iraq or anything else the US is doing, can you imagine what the world would be like under Nazi or Communist rule? Everything is what it is only by comparison. I find it particularly amusing that nations like France and Germany, who tried again and again to conquer the world now lecture America on morality in foreign affairs. In German mouths particularly it sounds like ashes.

History, is, to a large degree, deterministic. We like to think that we can control all by use of our free will but this is just putting on airs. Civilizations run according to general laws, just as there are laws of physics, so are their laws of History; Marx was right about this, though completely wrong about the particulars.

As for the choice of particular leaders and whether the game is too centered on the West; well so what and of course. I don't mind people showing off their historical knowledge; which of us who has any has not done this? I even learn interesting things I didn't know from this. But get off the bigroty bit. If Civ had been invented in China we would have 20 Eastern civs and 4 others, with leaders like Hitler and Jeff Davis and Idi Amin. Civ is 70% game and 30% simulation (ajust the numbers as you like it is more game, but it is a good simulation of how civilizations work in the long run than in particular instances of leaders and nations. The confusion of nations with civilizations in the game is my particular pet peeve. Some single, like China, are also civilizations. England, US, Germany, France, Spain are not civs, they are nation states within Western Civilization.

 

[MarkM]

PLEASE give these kinds of threads a REST!



It's a GAME Einstein, not a documentary!

 

[injeKT]

As a writer with a considerable background in East Asian history, I am wondering whether Firaxis is guilty of a gross misrepresentation of East Asian history--and by association, perhaps non-Western history simply. To make the argument succinct, as it is late: It appears to me that Firaxis has done very little serious research in picking East Asian leaders. The formula seems to have been "Let's just pick those leaders who are well-known in the West," when it should have been "Let's find out who is considered the greatest leaders by the natives of those civilizations represented." In so doing, Firaxis has came up with some curious choices when it comes to East Asian leaders.

I suspect the same dynamic is at work with other non-Western civilizations (or those Western civilizations that have not survived to modernity), but let me restrict my points to East Asia--as that is my field of expertise.

To begin with, I have already written at length about the ridiculous inclusion of Wang Kon as the sole Korean leader. I don't want to repeat myself, but no Korean--whether the expert historian or the average Joe in the street--would tell you that Wang is even remotely close to the greatest or the most important Korean leader. He was a puppet "founder" of a Korean dynasty neither known for its power or longevity. Why was he picked? He was personally not remarkable--neither a great general nor a great administrator. His rule was extremely weak, and it was his weakness that necessitated the autocratic correction of his brilliant son, Gwangjong. But for Gwangjong, Wang's new dynast would not have lasted half a century. And even then, the Koryo dynasty was nothing remarkable. It was weaker than Koguryo, for instance; it was the shortest of all major Korean dynasties. It was also internally the weakest among all major Korean dynasties, as its king almost never had any power. Finally, Wang actually did not "found" Koryo, as anyone with a modicum of knowledge of Korean history knows. The founder of Koryo dynasty was really the mad monk-king, Gung Ye.

Wang Kon, I am sorry to say, Firaxis, was an insignificant figure in Korean history--compared to others who could have taken his place: Sejong the Great, Gwanggaeto the Great, Yi Bangwon, Yeon Gaesomun, et al.

So much for Korea; but what of China? The problem is that China is represented by two leaders who are among the worst butchers in East Asian history. True, unlike Wang Kon--who was simply weak and insignificant--both the Chin Emperor and Mao are important figures. But did you really have to pick both the blueprint totalitarian and the latest model totalitarian to represent a culture known for its moderation? Now, I am in principle averse to putting men like Hitler and Stalin and Mao as a leader, but I would not have objected with putting one of these scoundrels in there. But two?

It is not as if there is a dearth of important, powerful, and benevolent Chinese leaders. How about Taizong--who is universally considered the greatest Chinese monarch and the founder of perhaps the greatest Chinese dynasty of them all? (Officially Taizong's father was the founder, but later historian have established that Taizong was the true founder.) Even the Kangxi emperor would have been a good choice to replace either Shi-huang-di or Mao.

Of course, the average Westerner knows no idea who Taizong is--nor the clowns at Firaxis. But most know who Mao is (heck, even Mike Tyson has him tattooed to his arm), and many--thanks to Jet Li--know who the Chin emperor is. So a Mao replaces a Taizong. Surely, a "dumbing" down of history at its worst.

Yeah, Firaxis, a company run by history nerds, did no research and said to hell with real life history when making a game based largely on HISTORY itself.

Good call.

Wang Kon was the founder of a dynasty that stuck around for 400 years. You don't start a dynasty like that out of pure luck. He single handedly unified the Three Kingdoms, not through war, but through diplomacy. Wang Kon was HARDLY insignificant. I'm starting to think whether or not it is, in fact, you that has no concept of Korean history. MANY Koreans from the days of Wang Kon even NOW look at him with great regard as he was the ONLY one to fully unite Korea...something that last until 1948.

Sorry, dude....but, you really have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[Hero]

As a writer with a considerable background in East Asian history, I am wondering whether Firaxis is guilty of a gross misrepresentation of East Asian history--and by association, perhaps non-Western history simply. To make the argument succinct, as it is late: It appears to me that Firaxis has done very little serious research in picking East Asian leaders. The formula seems to have been "Let's just pick those leaders who are well-known in the West," when it should have been "Let's find out who is considered the greatest leaders by the natives of those civilizations represented." In so doing, Firaxis has came up with some curious choices when it comes to East Asian leaders.

I suspect the same dynamic is at work with other non-Western civilizations (or those Western civilizations that have not survived to modernity), but let me restrict my points to East Asia--as that is my field of expertise.

To begin with, I have already written at length about the ridiculous inclusion of Wang Kon as the sole Korean leader. I don't want to repeat myself, but no Korean--whether the expert historian or the average Joe in the street--would tell you that Wang is even remotely close to the greatest or the most important Korean leader. He was a puppet "founder" of a Korean dynasty neither known for its power or longevity. Why was he picked? He was personally not remarkable--neither a great general nor a great administrator. His rule was extremely weak, and it was his weakness that necessitated the autocratic correction of his brilliant son, Gwangjong. But for Gwangjong, Wang's new dynast would not have lasted half a century. And even then, the Koryo dynasty was nothing remarkable. It was weaker than Koguryo, for instance; it was the shortest of all major Korean dynasties. It was also internally the weakest among all major Korean dynasties, as its king almost never had any power. Finally, Wang actually did not "found" Koryo, as anyone with a modicum of knowledge of Korean history knows. The founder of Koryo dynasty was really the mad monk-king, Gung Ye.

Wang Kon, I am sorry to say, Firaxis, was an insignificant figure in Korean history--compared to others who could have taken his place: Sejong the Great, Gwanggaeto the Great, Yi Bangwon, Yeon Gaesomun, et al.

So much for Korea; but what of China? The problem is that China is represented by two leaders who are among the worst butchers in East Asian history. True, unlike Wang Kon--who was simply weak and insignificant--both the Chin Emperor and Mao are important figures. But did you really have to pick both the blueprint totalitarian and the latest model totalitarian to represent a culture known for its moderation? Now, I am in principle averse to putting men like Hitler and Stalin and Mao as a leader, but I would not have objected with putting one of these scoundrels in there. But two?

It is not as if there is a dearth of important, powerful, and benevolent Chinese leaders. How about Taizong--who is universally considered the greatest Chinese monarch and the founder of perhaps the greatest Chinese dynasty of them all? (Officially Taizong's father was the founder, but later historian have established that Taizong was the true founder.) Even the Kangxi emperor would have been a good choice to replace either Shi-huang-di or Mao.

Of course, the average Westerner knows no idea who Taizong is--nor the clowns at Firaxis. But most know who Mao is (heck, even Mike Tyson has him tattooed to his arm), and many--thanks to Jet Li--know who the Chin emperor is. So a Mao replaces a Taizong. Surely, a "dumbing" down of history at its worst.

DID you also know that Wang Kon never even owned a computer!!!!!!!!!! What's he doing in a computer game????????

 

[injeKT]

I still really don't get how this guy can say "but no Korean--whether the expert historian or the average Joe in the street--would tell you that Wang is even remotely close to the greatest or the most important Korean leader."

I'd be for this idea if he actually went out and asked 100 Korean people what they thought. But, I really think it's safe to say that they would hold him in high regard as (as I stated before) he was the first (and only) Korean to unify Korea. A unification that lasted until the 1940's.

That's pretty impressive.

 

[injeKT]

Yes, of course its US centric and western-centric-- its made in America. However, the vast majority of Civ players (no, I don't have the facts) are probably normal people, who know some history, but aren't historians. If Firaxis were to cater to the American ignorant crowd, the Arabian UU would be a terrorist bomber, and the French UU would be a "Surrender" unit that would give up as soon as it was approached by an enemy unit. If they were to cater to the historical crowd, there would be around 16 more civs than there are right now, there would be two leaders for each civ and they would have to meet prerequired standards (such as, no mass killings). Okay, so maybe I'm overstating a little, but Firaxis is trying to make it historical enough for the historians, while letting some of the ignorant people feel smart by putting in more famous leaders. Since they cater to neither the historians or the ignoramus, both marginal crowds feel they cater to the other marginal crowd. And to the historians, if you don't think its historical enough, there's plenty of mods out there.

Sigh. Anyone see any irony in this statement?

 

[jkp1187]

Hmm....

I'm of the school of thought that leaders should be picked on the basis of how influential they were and how their countries internationa standing improved os disimproved under their stewardship. I'm no expert on Oriental history, not by a long shot, but surely Mao, having had a huge hand in driving the japanese out of the country, founding the present state, liberating China from outside (even Soviet) control for the first time in centuries, developing nuclear weapons, basically facilitating the creation of North Korea, and making restoring Chinas status as a regional (or even Great) power deserves inclusion?

As I said, I odnt think only "good" leaders should be included because its completely subjective, believe it or not, to some people Gandhi was evil, to some people Hitler was good etc...

Agreed. And (for the love of god) I'm not trying to turn this into a Hitler thread, but surely he was a 'prime mover' of history. The geopolitical/economic shape of the world today exists in no small part because of Hitler's actions.

I also suggest that Franco be considered for Spain, and Salazar for Portugal. Ditto Hailie Salessie (sp?) in Ethiopia. They were certainly significant in their countries' respective histories, and it would also be nice to keep the WW2 leadership thing going....

I would also include Indira Gandhi. She was very significant and, besides, how cool would it be to have a militarily aggressive Indian leader?

My only rule would be to exclude anyone currently alive.

EDIT: Just another thought -- I know many are complaining about a lot of non "western" civs having only one leader. This could be rectified easily in some cases but in others, perhaps not so much. Who would be a good second leader for the Aztecs? The Mayans? The Incans? The Khmer? (No, not Lon Nol.)

 

[eoc]

about the Three Kingdoms...
how about Zhuge Liang? hes revered in China, (supposedly) geniuos strategist, carries a fan and sits in a carridge...
its almost like adding Hannibal, so why not?
but... whatever.

since you have seen the video of Three Kingdoms, you should know that ZhuGeLiang was not a lord, his master was LiuBei who was the descendant of LiuBang who built Han Dynasty.
ZhuGeLiang was totally a genius at stratagem or politics, but his most weakness was not good at using or training others. That was why he cannot be set to the game as a wonderful leader. while you still can find a clue ZhuGeLiang in the game, you know, uu ChoKoNu was invented by him.

 

[Yakk]

Victoria - who was not even a proper ruler - ahead of say Henry II or Edward I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_era

The Victorian era of the United Kingdom marked the height of the British Industrial Revolution and the apex of the British Empire.

She was just the leader of a world-spanning, massively dominate, British Empire.

Not a proper ruler... heh.

Constantine the Great

Byzantine Empire.

Furthermore his foolish idealistic beliefs only served to weaken India.

...And freed it from British occupation.

Cleopatra wouold be an okay leader, only problem is she is not Egyptian.

She did rule Egypt. Sure, her ancestors where immigrants.

and Gandhi... well, that i think was the leader i first really was surprised at when i played my first civ games. some argue that he was influential and worldy impact and peaceful and all. how about Martin Luther King Jr.? is he a leader for America?

Had MLK Jr. been instrumental in the revolutionary war against Britian, he might be.

and yes, i don't like it how China is represented by two evil men. one is fine, but China isn't all about killing and totalitarian regimes. a good number of its rulers were brilliant, cultured, humane men - they may have been authoritarian, yes, but at least they were cultured and all. men like Taizong, Kangxi, Taizu...

well, but its just a game after all, isn't it? the leader problem can be fixed if Firaxis uses a leader system like in the Total War series or Europa Universalis. of course, then it might get too complicated.

You can implement your own leaders, and even your own leader-heads. Go for it!

More than simply Western centric... Civilization has since the beginning a very US centric view.

Written and paid for US centric view, that is.

In the initial civ game, half of "Middle Age" wonders were British and all of "Modern times" wonders were American (except the unaffiliated ones such as universal suffrage and cure for cancer). During the successive Civilization games, there have been significant improvements to this, even if I'm very dubious about the inclusion of "musicals" instead of "operas" but whatever it seems I'm alone on this.

Which "middle age" wonders? For my memory!

Actually, I should be fair. Occasionally they do worthwhile introductory specials (like the one on the War of 1812, or the Sahara).

A US channel covered a war in which the US got it's ass spanked well? *gasp*!

If you want someone or some nation to resent and dislike you, do something good for them. The best thing you can do for anyone is spill your blood to save their freedom. Three times in the 20th century the US saved the freedom of those countries that have free systems from totalitarian evil.

WWI: Stayed out of the war, only joined after one of their cruise ships was sunk by the Germans.

WWII: Stayed out of the war, only joined after the Japanese blew up half of their navy.

Cold War: Stayed out of the war, only joined after Russia set off a nuclear bomb, and showed itself capable of threatening the USA.

History, is, to a large degree, deterministic. We like to think that we can control all by use of our free will but this is just putting on airs. Civilizations run according to general laws, just as there are laws of physics, so are their laws of History; Marx was right about this, though completely wrong about the particulars.

Pseudoscience blather. A claim that something is deterministic, but no testable claim to be able to predict...

In case you didn't notice, the Laws of Physics are not deterministic. They fail the determistic test on two grounds: first, Q-M is probibalistic. Second, even relatively simple systems (3 body problem) are chaotic.

Together, these two facts mean that you cannot gather enough information about a sufficiently complex physical system so that you can predict it's future state.

...

The Civ standard seems to hold that founding, unifying or freeing a nation gives you lots of "leaderhead points".