Firaxis stereotyping Orientals

[Elrohir]

People who believe that racism has been around since the dawn of civilization are confusing race and ethnicity. In the ancient times, of course civilizations would fight with one another based on the sense of local identity (but also local authority). By the middle ages, world religions allowed people to transcend local identity and find broader networks of cooperation -- such as the Crusades. But ideas of race were pretty much inconsequential.

It was only by 1600 or so that they constructed the notion of the White Race, where the French and Germans and English and Dutch (who had faught each other for centuries) were now part of one big happy family. ... and they needed to defend that family from the threat of other Races.

Get yourself an education:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4343452&postcount=180

You're right, they didn't think of it as the "white race". They thought of it as "civilized men" versus barbarians; or Britons versus Frenchmen, or any number of differences based upon look or origin or other nonsense. The name might be different, but the idea or results were the same; this is quibbling.

 

[AriochIV]

People who believe that racism has been around since the dawn of civilization are confusing race and ethnicity.

Get yourself an education and look up the word race. It's essentially the same as the definition of the word ethnic, and in common usage has nothing to do with the three "races" defined in the 18th century. Mincing words is not a valid form of argument.

 

[dh_epic]

Mincing words is not a valid form of argument.

Not when the words mean two different things.

A race can include many ethnicities. A single ethnicity cannot include more than one race.

The entire concept of a race was built out of the need to foster cooperation between poor Irishmen and rich Englishmen... and divide poor Irishmen from poor Africans. Divide and conquer.

and its not as if ethnic strife between europeans disappeared when 'race' was made important or that there were no ethnic or cultural similarities between otherwise ethnically distinct europeans. its just a matter of what distinctly constituted a race in people's minds, which became very scientifically-oriented at one point.

Also, if you're going to talk about how the Germans, English, and Dutch all of the sudden became a "big happy families" (an outright stupid oversimplification of the situation) why not take a look at this century and Communism, which made various Asian and Caucasian groupings "one big happy family" - another outright stupid oversimplification, but keeping in line with your thinking...

Exactly my point. It's not like Europeans grew into the idea of "we are one race against another" quite easily. There are literally DOZENS of ways that people organize themselves and form social bonds. Race is not a natural or instinctive grouping. If you place a group of 3 year olds in a room together, you won't find any instinctive racial preference. And in practice, there was a lot of cooperation between the races in the early colonial days -- cooperating against the aristocracy, of course.

Up until 400-500 years ago, race had almost no impact on conflict: every conflict that was related to a difference could be described in terms of their ruler, their language, and their religion. For race to mean anything of consequence, a hard definition needs to be created and enforced. It requires a power structure that rewards members of one's own race, and punishes the others. You have to convince a man to feel more kinship with those of his 'race' than his fellow christians, or fellow farmers, or fellow english speakers. This is why the aristocracy gave indentured servants the duty of slave-patrols, so they feel kinship with the aristocracy along racial lines, rather than feeling kinship with the slaves.

 

[The Q-Meister]

And people have just as much right to say that the person's accusations of racism are completely baseless.

Yes, and I have openly stated this myself. Or at least they are highly exaggerated. I made that comment in response to several posters who more or less said "Get over it- it's just a game" or "This is a Western game - deal with it" I felt and still feel those comments were very insensitive and complaining about a game for your belief that it is culturally insensitive or racist is entirely legitimate.

NOW, does that mean that every charge of racism must be true? Of course not. As for this specific charge, I don't believe it is.

 

[The Q-Meister]

As if White males are not sterotyped in the US. Please. Watch some television or any other media and see how Western Euro White males are regularly emasculated on everything from sitcoms to commercials to radio.

Please.

Get over it. It's a game.

Are you telling me that the British in the game or the American are a true representation of what I am as well?

Guess what: It isn't. Thing is, I have more important things to concern myself with other than a computer game stereotyping me, and for those of you that do not, I suggest you get something more substantial in your lives to help build your self esteem instead of a game.

Just sayin.

Well you obviously don't; I mean, you are here right?

 

[The Q-Meister]

Westerners should also be offended by the widely held, and very wrong, belief that Europe and the Mideast were somehow uniquely warlike. I see this idea time and time again among westerners, as if Asians were somehow more peaceful and enlightened.

European and Western civilization has, on a whole, been far more violent and more war-like than other civilizations. They have been far more likely to conquer other parts of the world. Look at a map - how many places in the world outside Europe were conquered by Europeans? How many non-African or non-Asian parts of the world were conquered by Africans or Asians?

Now we can argue and perhaps speculate that if other nations had the means to go conquer as much as Europeans did that they would have done so, but sorry to say, that would only be speculation. Even today, how many military bases does the US have outside America?

History is all we can go on and history tells us that the West has been and continues to be, far more likely to engage in international conflict than non Western ones.

 

[The Q-Meister]

I understand the notion of not wanting to get too euro, but, afterall, would the game be at a great loss if Spain for example were replaced by Poland?

Yes.

I think Spain has been in every version. I don't think you should ever take France, Germany, or England out, because they had very many times where they were major players; Spain less so.

Germany was only a united country in 1870; before this date, Spain had a MUCH larger impact on European and especially world history.

So what's happened since 1870? See, most every nation has their down time to some degree. Myself, I couldn't care less how well somebody spread their language and so on. The major factors for me was their military, ecomomic, and land power.

What has been going on in Greece since 1870? (Or for that matter, the last 1000 years?)
What has been going on in Mongolia since 1870?
What has been going on with the Aztecs since 1870? (Or since they were conquered by Spain 500 years ago?)

I hope you get the idea. It is really ridiculous to even get into the historical importance of Spain but since you might need it some info here it goes- Spain was the "Germany" during the Middle Ages; the main continental power that rivalled England. Spain started the whole European Age of Discovery, funded and launched the Columbus expedition, conquered 2 civilizations that made it to the final edition of Civ IV (Incas, Aztecs) Not sure if any other civ in Civ IV can say the same.

Spain also colonized parts of Asia, Africa as well as most of the Americas; recall that Spain at one point claimed territory from the present day US all the way down to the tip of South America. Yes they eventually lost this territory, but so did every other European power.

I really don't want to get into the whole nationalistic nation bashing stuff and start making jabs against another country since that really isn't what this game should be about. I hope we can just agree that Spain's global empire, the first empire where the sun never set and one of the few in world history that rivals (and some say beats) the English empire deserves a place in the game.

 

[The Q-Meister]

To Getting Fat:

You might not understand the importance of what you call being "politically correct" but just imagine this scenario for a second:

Someone talking about a movie being offensive and streotypcal regarding African Americans and then using the "n-word" in his speech. After the predictable outcry, he then justifies it by saying that "well in my local community where I come from the use of the word is OK"

How do you think that looks?

When going on a public and international forum you must make some effort to use language which is not perceived as offensive or derogatory to the general public, ESPECIALLY when you are making the charge of being culturally or ethnically insensitive or biased in some manner.

It just weakens your case considerably. Imagine the scenario I just provided above: Would you take this person seriously?

So if this thread achieves anything, hopefully it teaches everyone that the words like "Oriental" and "Far East" (which you still have not explained why you used; if you are really from Hong Kong then China is not "far" from you at all! That term as I stated before, is a Eurocentric term; far from whom? Far from Europeans.) are to say the least controversial terms that many consider to be have racist-overtones.

Attacking a medium for being culturally insensitive and then using insensitive language does not help your cause and hurts your credibility.

 

[boazman]

European and Western civilization has, on a whole, been far more violent and more war-like than other civilizations. They have been far more likely to conquer other parts of the world. Look at a map - how many places in the world outside Europe were conquered by Europeans? How many non-African or non-Asian parts of the world were conquered by Africans or Asians?

Partly it was because European Civilizations are the first to possess the capabilities of conquring and maintaining a global empire; and partly because all the different people on Africa and Asia are defined as 'Africans' and 'Asian' in a oversimplified way, creating the impression the Asian never expand but only fought with its 'own' people, so much as British fought with French. If you, for example, dropped the use of 'Asian' and considered Han, Mongols, Turks, Persians, Arabs as different 'races', then you will see they were pretty war liked too: the Hans kept colonizing the Hmong, Yue in South West China, the Mongols and Turks, we all know they were war like tribes, and the Arabs, well they created an Islamic empire stretchs from Spain to India.

So Europeans are not born more war-like...just that they were more successful (in a way) .

Please be noted that I'm not a member of any Western Civilizations (I'm Chinese) and have little interest in defending them.

 

[The Q-Meister]

So Europeans are not born more war-like...just that they were more successful (in a way) .

I agree. "More successful at war-making" is a better way of putting it.

Although I remember reading that China, once sent trading missions to Africa, at a time when it was one of the most, if not the most powerful nations in the world and they did not make much of an effort to send their armies over there to conquer.

But you are right, while differences undoubtedly persist, as they do amongst European civs level of conquest, most nations in the world if given the chance to do what the (more successful) European powers did would have done it.

 

[Charles 22]

Yes.



Germany was only a united country in 1870; before this date, Spain had a MUCH larger impact on European and especially world history.



What has been going on in Greece since 1870? (Or for that matter, the last 1000 years?)
What has been going on in Mongolia since 1870?
What has been going on with the Aztecs since 1870? (Or since they were conquered by Spain 500 years ago?)

I hope you get the idea. It is really ridiculous to even get into the historical importance of Spain but since you might need it some info here it goes- Spain was the "Germany" during the Middle Ages; the main continental power that rivalled England. Spain started the whole European Age of Discovery, funded and launched the Columbus expedition, conquered 2 civilizations that made it to the final edition of Civ IV (Incas, Aztecs) Not sure if any other civ in Civ IV can say the same.

Spain also colonized parts of Asia, Africa as well as most of the Americas; recall that Spain at one point claimed territory from the present day US all the way down to the tip of South America. Yes they eventually lost this territory, but so did every other European power.

I really don't want to get into the whole nationalistic nation bashing stuff and start making jabs against another country since that really isn't what this game should be about. I hope we can just agree that Spain's global empire, the first empire where the sun never set and one of the few in world history that rivals (and some say beats) the English empire deserves a place in the game.

I have no problem with Germany being un-united before 1870, especially considering it's been such a major world power since then.

Yes, I knew there had to be a better example than Spain, so now I'm on the "oust Greece for Poland" bandwagon

Mongolia? Well Carthage would qualify too. The thing is, there are civs that no longer exist, which during it's day were such a major power that excluding them, particularly when you're wanting a bunch of different regional representatives, might not be the best thing. I guess you have to have Mongolia for Khaaan.

Aztecs, yes another extinct civ, but at least it puts another americanesque civ out there, but I suppose in my view I would prefer Mexico.

Oh, I have no doubt Spain had an empire for quite a few years, but as I was looking at things, with the more recent the years of empire, the more important said civ would be, then before you gave me grease on a platter (greece) Spain was my only victim for Poland to usurp.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I guess this is exactly the mind set that I have problem with. A civ is considered by people like you to be significant only when it is an "earthshaker", or in more explicit terms, when it has influence on the Europeans.

What have the "imperalistic" Romans done on Asians? Why Alexander the Great is considered the "Great" and "aggressive"? Why Qin is only considered a "protective", not imperialistic or aggressive, regional power in comparison? As I mentioned before, if Roman or Greek armies ever had a chance to confront Qin's army, good chance is the Roman and Greek armies would lose.

Remember the nomadic tribes like XiongNu were steamrolled by the army of Han Dynasty. Although it's debatable, I still believe the Huns like Attila that later caused so much troubles to the Europeans were related to the defeated tribal races that were forced to migrate to the West by the Chinese Han armies because militaristically speaking they were too alike. Maybe Chinese have never directly attacked the Europeans, they probably have at least set up a major headache for them.

China was an earthshaker in EAST ASIA (and very recently worldwide)
Japan was an earthshaker in EAST ASIA (and recently worldwide)

The fact is China barely affected what went on in the Middle East, and powers in the Middle East barely affected what when on in China


The Greeks were not Earthshakers in Asia, nor were the Romans (although the Romans were Earthshakers in Europe)

This has nothing to do with whether a not a civ should be included/is important this was specifically referring to the concept that "Asia" starts somewhere East of India. China, Japan, Korea, Mongolia and the other places that people mean when the substitute "Asia" for "Orient" only makes up ~1/3 of Asia... It's like using the word North American when you mean Mexican. The fact is the Greeks were almost as big a power in Asia as China was (although not nearly for as long)

And while China had some impact on all of Asia through trade routes, in terms of Total Asian impact, the Mongols have them beat easily.

(and of course there are lots of indirect impacts, ie the Huns, etc. but multistage Indirect impacts are all too common)... after all [sarcasm]it was an IndoEuropean group that gave rise to Hinduism which gave rise to Buddhism, which was a major contributor to Chinese thought and therefore the those Indo Europeans can be said to be responsible for everything China did to impact the rest of the world..... [/sarcasm]

China was a Regional power not a Continental one... (of course the only reason say the Romans qualify as a Continental Power is because they were on a Small Continent)

 

[Demi-God]

Is it just a mere coincidence four Far East Oriental leaders (Mao, Qin, Tokugawa, Wang Kon) are given the protective trait in the Warlord expansion? I don't think so.

Firaxis gives them the protective trait most likely because they perceive these leaders, or more likely, the oriental people these leaders represent, as defenders and isolationists.

If you consider the leaders themselves, OK, Tokugawa adopted isolationist policy when he got old. However, Qin should not have got the protective trait. Qin built the Great Wall does not mean he's a defender or isolationist. In fact, he's the classic example of what an imperialist means - an empire builder. Mao did not befriend Americans does not mean he was an isolationist. It's just his friends were Russians, North Koreans and Vietnameses. He was a philosopher, and he really tried to implement communism, so why take away his philosophy and organized traits? About, Wang Kon, he wasn't even the greatest leader in Korean history. I don't know why he was picked.

In terms of the civs they represent, ancient Chinese were quite open-minded till mid-Ming. Tell me why there was a Silk Road (which I believe it should be made a Great wonder) to start with? Ancient Chinese (and even Chinese today) were about imperialism, high productivity, powerful economy (study showed that Chinese generated 1/4 to 1/3 of total world output till early 1800's), sophisticated bureacratic system. Giving both the ancient and modern time Chinese leaders protective trait is just not right. Except in the Edo period, Japanese were not isolationists. And where is the financial prowness of the Japanese? Their spirituality aspect? Their highly organized and stratified society?

Tokugawa was given the aggressive trait probably because Japanese have attacked the US before. Mongols leaders were imperialistic/aggressive because they attacked the Europeans. Everything is based on the EuroAmerican perspective.

When is Firaxis going to stop this crxp?

I think your reading into this way too much, I have a sterotype I like to use, its called bumfluff, and guess what? You fit great into that sterotype, congrats, your bumfluff.

 

[JasonusMaximus]

European and Western civilization has, on a whole, been far more violent and more war-like than other civilizations. They have been far more likely to conquer other parts of the world. Look at a map - how many places in the world outside Europe were conquered by Europeans? How many non-African or non-Asian parts of the world were conquered by Africans or Asians?

Now we can argue and perhaps speculate that if other nations had the means to go conquer as much as Europeans did that they would have done so, but sorry to say, that would only be speculation. Even today, how many military bases does the US have outside America?

History is all we can go on and history tells us that the West has been and continues to be, far more likely to engage in international conflict than non Western ones.

WOW. You my friend do not know your history at all. Warfare is not a Western/White/European invention. Almost every single country, race, creed, and empire on every major continent has a violent, war-mongering era that they can point to...some shamefully so. And there are violent conflicts happening right now all over the world...without any western influence. Us crazy-eyed western white folk have only been warmongering on a global scale for only the last few hundred years...small blip on the historical timeline if you ask me.

And to comment on the original point of this thread...Sweet Mary mother of Moses it is a game, and I do not doubt that the designers only goal was to make the Civ experience as enjoyable as possible.

 

[gettingfat]

I think your reading into this way too much, I have a sterotype I like to use, its called bumfluff, and guess what? You fit great into that sterotype, congrats, your bumfluff.

Just when I think I've seen enough stupidity, I see more.

 

[Demi-God]

Just when I think I've seen enough stupidity, I see more.

Aye, I can get even stupider if you like?

 

[brianshapiro]

I don't think that there should be as much of an unfocused relativism that would basically make all cultures the same. I think the truth between cultures is that there isn't a nonmaterial bloodlust and war whenever it happens is justified in real terms and peace whenever it takes place is justified in real terms. Some nations end up pursuing more agressive strategies of warmaking and some don't; and this does depend on their situation which is in part led by geography.

But it does't mean that essentially China and Hellenistic Greece were the same in terms of how they went to war and the drive and type of will behind the war. Even though China was involved in something that ended up local because the continent is shaped different and because there was less difference in neighboring ethnicities; and European countries for opposite reasons ended up involved in something different---it doesn't only make the wars appear different, it makes the actual wars different in content. Uniting states that are culturally and economically linked but are warring, as in China, is a different militaristic stance than extending an empire on percieved barbarian lands. Alexander took this mission all the way to India and may have gone on to east Asia if he was not bound to fail.

Once China was united, until some later point, there wasn't a need to aggressively pursue further strategies at war because there was a contentedness in peace. Europe over centuries had been in turmoil and extended warfare has often been a way of maintaining balance. The area around the Middle East has been a center of conflict.

I think though what this means is that wars have a historical meaning and are not aimless. I also think certain religions can be more aggressive; but I think in any case religion relates to real material issues in life, and if the issues of a more aggressive religion become nullified, so will the religion--or it will become subsumed in a larger ideology. but religions don't come about willy nilly, they fit a political and social and cultural need.

My point about racism was that race theory also fit a social need and was not an arbitrary way of seeing things. Even if race as defined by race theory is at no other time or place in history the most important way or even an important way at all of distinguishing people doesn't mean it is 'unnatural'---ie. arbitrarily formed. If someone from an ancient culture saw our world today, I think they would easily distinguish the same races we do. And difference in physical appearance (if thats whats taken as race) was as much of a potential issue that could lead to discrimination in any culture even if the difference just tagged you as 'alien'.

This doesn't mean I want Firaxis to tie religions to specific traits at all, I think that wouldn't work because of the model of the game. In the game, war doesn't take place based on need, revolutions don't happen based on need, technology and science doesn't develop based on need, industry doesn't develop based on need [the climate, environment, geography]---etc. because you have the concept of a 'player' who has to make decisions. Even how different government models work in the game, or how specific buildings work in the game, or technologies, is flawed if taken realistically, because they are defined in a game context. Now comes religion, which is historically no more based on need than these other things, but the existence of which is less directly pragmatically applicable. Putting actual traits on a religion in a game, regardless of the historic and cultural setting of the civilization of the game, would be ham-fisted.

I mean you -could- implement it in a logical way (ie what type of state/society would use such and such a religion for its purposes, ie what type of state/society would give this religion its purpose). But, like tying certain cultures to certain traits, and maybe to a greater degree, it would be seen as unfair. The way this is gotten around with civilizations is tying leaders with traits, which is most unpopular with students of history. But the reason we're talking about this at all is because a lot of asian civilizations were given the same trait.

If the game could be adequately changed to make this issue not a concern then they could go ahead.
What if the effects of a religion could have more than one tier or be astract--so if something is a state religion it acts differently than if something is not; or if something is in a city with multiple religions it acts differently than if it is alone; or if how a religion acts depends on the government in place etc. so one might suggest that islam under a democracy where many other religions exist in the same cities, has one aspect of its effects neutered, if there is no foreign muslim state, since most people would not find doubt that islam in its defined form is strict. or imagine a police state with islam as a state religion, that has mixed religion in its cities; one would expect the effects would be more towards internal control than military control (which shouldnt necessarily be aggressive rather than defensive either). I somehow doubt that this would be satisfactory though. there are too many factors to guess, to make people happy with the implementations.

one of my first responses to the announcement that religion would be included, was that art and philosophy, etc., might as well be included somewhere. if the religions weren't preprogrammed specific traits but this was tied down somewhere in the game through players actions, as someone suggested, this would make them no different than any cultural program.

Partly it was because European Civilizations are the first to possess the capabilities of conquring and maintaining a global empire; and partly because all the different people on Africa and Asia are defined as 'Africans' and 'Asian' in a oversimplified way, creating the impression the Asian never expand but only fought with its 'own' people, so much as British fought with French. If you, for example, dropped the use of 'Asian' and considered Han, Mongols, Turks, Persians, Arabs as different 'races', then you will see they were pretty war liked too: the Hans kept colonizing the Hmong, Yue in South West China, the Mongols and Turks, we all know they were war like tribes, and the Arabs, well they created an Islamic empire stretchs from Spain to India.

So Europeans are not born more war-like...just that they were more successful (in a way) .

Please be noted that I'm not a member of any Western Civilizations (I'm Chinese) and have little interest in defending them.

 

[incubuspawn]

Is it just a mere coincidence four Far East Oriental leaders (Mao, Qin, Tokugawa, Wang Kon) are given the protective trait in the Warlord expansion? I don't think so.

Firaxis gives them the protective trait most likely because they perceive these leaders, or more likely, the oriental people these leaders represent, as defenders and isolationists.

If you consider the leaders themselves, OK, Tokugawa adopted isolationist policy when he got old. However, Qin should not have got the protective trait. Qin built the Great Wall does not mean he's a defender or isolationist. In fact, he's the classic example of what an imperialist means - an empire builder. Mao did not befriend Americans does not mean he was an isolationist. It's just his friends were Russians, North Koreans and Vietnameses. He was a philosopher, and he really tried to implement communism, so why take away his philosophy and organized traits? About, Wang Kon, he wasn't even the greatest leader in Korean history. I don't know why he was picked.

In terms of the civs they represent, ancient Chinese were quite open-minded till mid-Ming. Tell me why there was a Silk Road (which I believe it should be made a Great wonder) to start with? Ancient Chinese (and even Chinese today) were about imperialism, high productivity, powerful economy (study showed that Chinese generated 1/4 to 1/3 of total world output till early 1800's), sophisticated bureacratic system. Giving both the ancient and modern time Chinese leaders protective trait is just not right. Except in the Edo period, Japanese were not isolationists. And where is the financial prowness of the Japanese? Their spirituality aspect? Their highly organized and stratified society?

Tokugawa was given the aggressive trait probably because Japanese have attacked the US before. Mongols leaders were imperialistic/aggressive because they attacked the Europeans. Everything is based on the EuroAmerican perspective.

When is Firaxis going to stop this crxp?

I didn't want to get into the subject itself, as it has allready most likely stated everything I would say anyway on both sides of the fence.
I did however want to point out that the silk road was a result of Ghengis Khans murderous ( yes I said murderous, the man commited genocide succesfully ) Rampage.
Ok a less opinionated way... is to say.
Mongols made the silk road... not the chinese.

 

[Volstag]

As if it's possible for Firaxis to boil down the traits of any leader into two classifications. The game is not an accurate representation of history, nor is it meant to be.

 

[scipian]

European and Western civilization has, on a whole, been far more violent and more war-like than other civilizations. They have been far more likely to conquer other parts of the world. Look at a map - how many places in the world outside Europe were conquered by Europeans? How many non-African or non-Asian parts of the world were conquered by Africans or Asians?

Now we can argue and perhaps speculate that if other nations had the means to go conquer as much as Europeans did that they would have done so, but sorry to say, that would only be speculation. Even today, how many military bases does the US have outside America?

History is all we can go on and history tells us that the West has been and continues to be, far more likely to engage in international conflict than non Western ones.

The West is not the most violent. Only the most competent in winning outside conflicts. Euros killed millions of Euros. Asians invaded Europe, massacred 100s of thousands, maybe more. Asians have massacred countless millions of Asians. The Middle East has continually been fighting for thousands of years and was actually comparatively peaceful doing Euro occupation. I don't know how many have been slaughtered but probably in the millions too. Africans and Americans (ancient. North/South) fought all the time and regurlarly wiped out rival groups. The human nature is warfare. Sure, Euros have been the most successful. But on a whole, I'd say that they were, very likely, much more humane than many others. Also, if any of the other groups had had the ability, they probably would have done so too. The only major differences I see are a tech advantage, geography, and the willingness to focus on outside enemies.

BTW-I'm not going to get drawn into this pointless debate. I only did this post to show that the West isn't the only warlike place. Don't hold fantasies about how the West is so violent. Everyone is. And now Euros are fairly peaceful. I may respond but not for long. I have not read the previous 11 pages, so I''ll briefly state my opinion.

My opinion is that people are too sensitive. I've seen a similar thread on MuggleNet about how Rowling has two few Asians, even though she probably had more than such a school would have (in mainly white UK). Went on forever with pointless debates. Probably a hundred pages now. I'll check and report back And, also, Eastern leaders were generally very protective, IMHO and IIRC (Just my opinion. Sorry for repetition, but please don't yell at me, "You're racist." I'm not). The leader was worshipped, the people lived in reverence and awe. The people thought of their leader as their god, protector, and guardian. Much more so than the European kings who were more like a fallible human. (Usually. Some did attain godhood style. But few. Alexander comes to mind. Even he though was deified mostly by Persians.)

BTW- We call people in the East, Easterners. Is that bad? I mean, they call us westerners. It works both ways. (In the U.S. too) And Oriental, I think, means East in Latin. I wouldn't mind if they called us the ____ (ancient Chinese term for West).

I respect your opinion though. :hopes to avoid being hit with a pointy wooden projectile: