Firaxis and the Gross Misrepresentation of Non-Western History?

[MisterBarca]

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.

 

[bode404]

In fact, I didnt even know about Wang Kon or Qin Shin, and strongly dislike Mao being in the game.
People would say that they are more famous, though, and it stimulates sales. Well, I'm not sure if such a butcher really does that...

 

[Psyringe]

Personally, I'm happy that the people at Firaxis at least *acknowledge* non-Western cultures, and make them an integral part of their product. That the game is still very focused on western civilizations, and a western perspective on history, is old news.

 

[grumbler]

If I want to learn something about (eastern) history, I read a book. When playing CIV, I'm mainly interested in having fun. So far, the "clowns" have been quite successful at entertaining me.

 

[anima36]

$$$$ - i want to play civ with leaders i know so i am more likely to buy the game, i would have bought the game anyway but it would not have been so fun, for the small proportion of eastern people who play the game there are extensive modding tools to include the leaders they wish to play with.

 

[PimpyMicPimp]

This is 'merica pal. Perhaps you've heard of it, it's the center of the universe. We won both World Wars single handedly, destroyed those Evil Communists, liberated countless countries from bad guys, invented everything, first on the moon, stopped Iraq from using it's WMD, and will kick anyones ass who says otherwise. Take your "history" and shove it.

USA IS #1!

 

[Pangur Bán]

I've gotten fed up saying Taizong should be leader of the Chinese. If Westerners were taught in any detail about his reign and the greatness of Tang culture in general, he'd be a shoe in.

Saladin is the perfect example of both Western-based and fame based bias. Yes, he is famous in Western culture as an anti-Crusader leader, but of little important indigenous importance compared with, say, actual caliphs like Harun Al-Rashid or Muawiyah I. He is not even the most famous anti-Crusader in the Arab world. It is Baibars not Saladin, who has traditionally held highest place in the memory anti-Crusading Arab memory. Though, of course, neither Baibars nor Saladin were actually Arabs, not important in itself of course, but in Saladin's case another reason why he is firmly a choice based on ignorance and Western fame.

However, I should add that similar treatment is given to Western civs. E.g. Ragnar was not any significant ruler of the "Vikings" (i.e. the Scandinavians) ... though he was chosen ahead of guys just as cool but actually important, guys like Cnut and Harald Hardrada. Charles de Gaulle has been chosen ahead of rulers fifty times more important, say Philip Augustus or Charles the Victorious. Victoria - who was not even a proper ruler - ahead of say Henry II or Edward I. Frederick of Prussia, not even ruler of Germany, ahead of countless great rulers such as Otto the Great, Henry III, Frederick II, etc; two Roman rulers from one generation, Julius and Augustus, the generation most famous to most people; Julius was put ahead of more significant rulers like Constantine the Great. Fame counts for more than importance ... and that's that as far as Firaxis are concerned.

But one has to remember, it is just a game. As so many have discovered, it is not the game to choose if you're looking for historical accuracy or sophistication.

 

[silver 2039]

Ghandi as a leader is a particularly horrible choice, he was never leader of the country at any point in history, nor is he that important when compared to the achievements of other leaders there are leaders far more worthy of mention. Personally I would rather see Akbar the Great in rather than Ghandi.

 

[Psyringe]

Ghandi as a leader is a particularly horrible choice, he was never leader of the country at any point in history, nor is he that important when compared to the achievements of other leaders there are leaders far more worthy of mention. Personally I would rather see Akbar the Great in rather than Ghandi.

I find that quote woefully disrespectful towards Gandhi and his influence on history. Akbar certainly wouldn't have been a bad choice, but he's not unique. Almost every nation has its great conquerors. But very rarely a determined pacifist manages to win a fight for independence - actually, before Gandhi, most people wouldn't have even thought it possible to do so. That's Gandhi's gift: He opened the minds of people worldwide to a non-violent way of pursuing their goals, even in a violent environment.

Akbar's achievements were substantial within India, but his international impact was way smaller.

Side note, I always thought that the spelling "Ghandi" is wrong, so I'm surprised to see it used by an Indian. Can you enlighten me?

 

[RedRalph]

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...

 

[FuRRie]

Let me tell you something else.
I'm getting sick and tired of all you people complaining what leaders should be in the game and which should not be.
Firaxis takes leaders that are well known by the general public, and nobody cares wether they we're great leaders or they "weren't really the leader of the country called x".
Let me tell you, you people who complain, which is, let's say 5% of all the CIV players care.
The rest doens't care and just wants to have a fun game!

 

[silver 2039]

I find that quote woefully disrespectful towards Gandhi and his influence on history. Akbar certainly wouldn't have been a bad choice, but he's not unique. Almost every nation has its great conquerors. But very rarely a determined pacifist manages to win a fight for independence - actually, before Gandhi, most people wouldn't have even thought it possible to do so. That's Gandhi's gift: He opened the minds of people worldwide to a non-violent way of pursuing their goals, even in a violent environment.

He would have a better place as a great prohpet than a leader of an actual civllization. He never lead the country, lead a movement nothing more and when the government actually came to power he resigned. Leaders in civ should be leaders that actually LEAD their nation.

Also Akbar wasn't just a conqueror though he was greatly distinguished on the battlefield he was also an incrediable adminastrator and it was under him the Mansabh System developed and he was tolerant going so far to have a Hindu wife, and he had his own religon known as Din-Il-Ilhai which sought to blend diffrent aspects of Hinduisim, Islam and other religons into one. He also made contributions to architecture with places liek Fatephur Sikri the capital he built.

He is a far more fitting leader then Ghandi.

Furthermore his foolish idealistic beliefs only served to weaken India.

He launched his last fast-unto-death in Delhi, asking that all communal violence be ended once and for all, and that the payment of Rs. 55 crores be made to Pakistan. Gandhi feared that instability and insecurity in Pakistan would increase their anger against India, and violence would spread across the borders. He further feared that Hindus and Muslims would renew their enmity and precipitate into an open civil war. After emotional debates with his life-long colleagues, Gandhi refused to budge, and the Government rescinded its policy and made the payment to Pakistan. Hindu, Muslim and Sikh community leaders, including the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Hindu Mahasabha assured him that they would renounce violence and call for peace. Gandhi thus broke his fast by sipping orange juice.[14]

Yeah some Indian leader he is. And not only that he was a complete hypocrite he opposed partition on one hand and then supported it on the other. And he furthermore only protested against things when it suited him. Not a word of support did he give to the Indian sailors that mutinied against the British, or freedom fighters liek Baghat Sing, did he do anything to prevent them from being hanged? He could have but no, he didn;t. He was nothing more than a bloody hypocrite and India would be better off without him.

It is generally believed that Gandhi's model of Swaraj has not been followed by the Indian government. He had wanted a system of a classless, stateless direct democracy.[12] For achieving this he wanted to disband the Congress Party after independence. He said, "Its task is done. The next task is to move into villages and revitalize life there to build a new socio-economic structure from the bottom upwards."[13] However none of these objectives were achieved when India became independent. India, although a federation, got a strong central government. Representative democracy, rather then direct democracy was adopted. The Congress Party was not disbanded. Rather it went on to become one of the frontrunners in running the government of India.

And not only that he wanted to implement direct democracy in INDIA! Bloody hell. Do you have any idea what a disaster that would have been for the country if that actually happened? We're fourtnate we didn't adopt more of his retarted ideals. Hell we were stuck with his swadeshi ideal of "be Indian, buy Indian" till 1990 which stunted India's potential economic growth.

Akbar's achievements were substantial within India, but his international impact was way smaller.

His international impact doesn;t matter, the impact on India is what matter since he is the one who is supposed to be the leader for India, not for some international confederacy or something. As it stands Akbar had a far greater impact on India than Gandhi ever could.

Side note, I always thought that the spelling "Ghandi" is wrong, so I'm surprised to see it used by an Indian. Can you enlighten me?

I have bad spelling.

to some people Gandhi was evil

He wan't evil, just hoplessly idealistic. Nehuru was also idealistic because he was influenced by Gandhi but fourtnatley not to such an extent, though still badly enough that he ended up losing Aski Chin and the Thang La Bulge and Azad Kashmir.

 

[prestermatt]

If I want to learn something about (eastern) history, I read a book. When playing CIV, I'm mainly interested in having fun. So far, the "clowns" have been quite successful at entertaining me.

I agree. While I think that the developers should strive to make the game as accurate as possible, there's always going to be room for complaint. For every civ they include, there will always be people arguing that another one would be "better"; for every leader, there will always be someone else who would have been "more appropriate". All of this, of course, is based on very subjective and particular assessments of history. I mean, how can you look at thousands of years of Chinese history and pick "the best two" leaders? Best on what grounds? Military, economic, political, religious, cultural, fame, good looks, etc., etc.?

I'm sure if you set a whole team of professional historians to decide on a "historically accurate" and "best" set of civs and leaders, they'd take far too long and would still not come to a satisfactory conclusion -- they'd just keep arguing with each other.

And of course the game reflects bad Americanized views of history. Can you imagine if they tried to get consultants/experts from every culture represented? It would add modern diplomacy issues to historical debates. It would be a mess!

At some point, we just have to appreciate the fact that we have a great game to play, however flawed. And if you want accuracy, try the Europa Universalis series...

 

[LlamaCat]

His rule was extremely weak, and it was his weakness that necessitated the autocratic correction of his brilliant son, Gwangjong.

What the heck is an "autocratic correction"? Gotta love these "writers"

 

[MisterBarca]

His rule was extremely weak, and it was his weakness that necessitated the autocratic correction of his brilliant son, Gwangjong.

What the heck is an "autocratic correction"? Gotta love these "writers"

I am not a native English speaker; so my writing gets sloppy when I write too fast--esp. late night.

My point was that Wang Kon was a weak ruler who could not control the aristocracy and whose weakness rendered the throne essentially a nonentity. Gwang Jong, his son, strengthened the throne and beat the recalcitrant aristocrats into submission.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

In fact, I didnt even know about Wang Kon or Qin Shin, and strongly dislike Mao being in the game.
People would say that they are more famous, though, and it stimulates sales. Well, I'm not sure if such a butcher really does that...

I understand your point, however, I need you to mention 3 world leaders from throughout history that made an incredible impact on the regional or world scene and was completely and utterly moral in every way according to our standards today. No slaves, no butchering, no war mongering, no religious oppression, etc etc etc. You'll probably find this to be exceptionally difficult. My point being that most of the leaders featured in the game (besides Ghandi) are guilty of some kind of immoral rule or another. Think of Stalin, and the Khans. Anyway, I think we need to rule out morality when it comes to discussing leaders in a game who's goal is to rule the world in one way or another.

 

[NYHunter]

We currently have two discussions in this thread. One about misrepresnetation of non-Western history and and off-topic about Gandhi.

I find these lengthy historical complaints to be merely a way of showing off knowledge. Rather then accepting a game for being a game people insist in getting into long debates about how something is wrong. What does it accomplish? Nothing more then showing that you are at best educated on something and at worse you rushed to Wikipedia and found that it conflicted something in a game so therefore the game has a major flaw.

In either case one must remember that everything in civ is SUPPOSE to be abstract. This game is not suppose to be a documentary. When I want to learn history I watch the History Channel or go to the library, but I play a game to escape reality not to learn how that reality was formed.

That's not to say I myself am not guilty of getting involved in these debates. Look at all of my anti-Khmer post. I say what I think but the difference is I don't act as if it such a problem. I accept that it isn't suppose to represent history at all. As long as Firaxis does not take it too far, like having Walt Disney rule the Americans, I will play and buy the game. If they do, then I won't play and buy it. It's that simple.

By, the way. A Western game is going to have a Western bias. People complain that it is too western-centric. Yes the game is internationally popular, DESPITE being too Western-centric. So obviously it is not much of a problem. But, if it is such a problem then why are you even on a Fanatics website about it?

 

[Breunor]

To be honest, I think they make a bad choice about leaders for BOTH Western and non-Western leaders. In BOTH cases, they choose the most famous instead of the most important leaders.

This is very subjective, but I don't agree with about half the leaders they picked, chosen because they are famous. In CIV III, they even had Cleopatra and Joan of Ark.

In many cases, the choices taken, famous people, WERE good choices but perhaps there were better choices who aren't as famous.

So, I don't take the complaint as accurate unless there is evidence that the inclusion of fame above merit is MORE PRONOUNCED for Eastern Civilizations than for Western.

Breunor

 

[cybrxkhan]

i myself ultimately dont care about the choice of leaders, but sometimes it does tick me off.

some leaders are ??? and probably should not be in the game. Ragnar, for example, can be replaced by Canute, a much more regional-power leader - and Canute can still have the Viking stereotype!

or take Cleopatra/Hatshephut + Ramses II for example. Cleopatra wouold be an okay leader, only problem is she is not Egyptian. Hatshephut? didn't do much for Egypt. Ramses II? Egyptian version of Bush - pretty much lost a war, said he was all awesome and victorious, built a lot of monuments for nothing. there are a myriad of Egyptian leaders that are possible, STILL using the Egyptian pharaoh stereotype!

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?

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.

 

[The Flame]

This is 'merica pal. Perhaps you've heard of it, it's the center of the universe. We won both World Wars single handedly, destroyed those Evil Communists, liberated countless countries from bad guys, invented everything, first on the moon, stopped Iraq from using it's WMD, and will kick anyones ass who says otherwise. Take your "history" and shove it.

USA IS #1!

Why is it that I want to kill you SOOO bad?

Let me tell you something else.
I'm getting sick and tired of all you people complaining what leaders should be in the game and which should not be.
Firaxis takes leaders that are well known by the general public, and nobody cares wether they we're great leaders or they "weren't really the leader of the country called x".
Let me tell you, you people who complain, which is, let's say 5% of all the CIV players care.
The rest doens't care and just wants to have a fun game!

I totally agree. It's a game people, geez! All the leaders do is give some bonuses to the civ, not much else.