Firaxis stereotyping Orientals

[dc82]

Well yes and no. True, it was built mostly by the warring states in the area, but it's often attributed to him, since it was during his reign. Even so, the one's built then aren't the ones we see today or think of when one thinks of the Great Wall. Earlier walls were built with compacted dirt, clay (or whatever material depending on the surrounding terrain type). The stone structures we think of today were done in the Ming dynasty.

 

[Wodan]

Qin Shi Huang was a conquerer, the "Bismarck" of his time and had many Asian states trembling in their boots.

Who better to give a trait that gives all his units First Strike?

(Leave aside for the moment the label of that trait. In fact, for purposes of discussion, let's call the trait "Alertness".)

Wodan

 

[Wodan]

Is that really what it comes down to? Would this thread even exist if the trait had been called Alertness?

Wodan

 

[Pvblivs]

Yes. It's just that, after all.

In other threads the dicussers bother about the "Imperialistic" and "Expansive" who-should-get-it. But most of the thread they just talk about the meaning of the name.

 

[lobster]

The game designers have made this a big talking point nonetheless.

 

[binhthuy71]

If the game was historically spot on then no one would play it. Would you want to play as the Romans knowing that your empire would collapse around 400 A.D.? Or how about playing as the Americans and waiting until the Seventeenth Century for your first turn? So, how much Civ cleaves to actual history has to be a matter of degree. You can pick apart the historical accuracy or lack thereof until the cows come home but in the end complete accuracy is secondary to gameplay. You either accept the compromises and play the game or you don't.
You can also mod the game yourself or choose from the myriads of mods that attempt to redress the historical inaccuracies.

 

[Pvblivs]

Obviously we're all subscribed here to keep talking. And if there's no good topic we'll find something, for sure.

"Well I'm really pissed that I can't play with this and that leader anymore, we've had such a great time . And I'll never ever betray him and the solemn memories of the good old times with him and play another one. I just throw Warlords back into the garbage it came out of"



edit: Of course there's no point for me being so sarcastic. As I keep talking and talking about such topics as well. Even if I know that it's worth nothing. But I 've to wait until Friday until I can play this.
So I HAVE to talk about it. And I HAVE to make myself an opinion about (hey afterall it's) a game and tell it to everyone. What I like best is to pretend to be offended about something I haven't even played yet

 

[Aegis]

The Mongols weren’t aggressive? That’s rich. They attacked everybody, from the Europeans to the Arabs to the Chinese and Japanese. Not just the Europeans. If they’re not aggressive, who is? Ghandi? They certainly were not labled "Aggressive" because they attacked Europe. I think the Chinese would have a differing opion.

For China, I believe they had Qin right the first time with Industrious and Financial, what with the building of the Great Wall and the Silk Road. The Great Wall was built to help protect the Chinese people from the Mongols. Granted, it was to prevent them from getting away so that their stolen goods could be recovered, but it was built for defensive purposes, nonetheless. The Chinese were also quite adept at building strong fortresses as a result of constant Mongol attacks, so I can understand Qin as being Protective, however I think Industrious and Financial is the better fit for him and Philosophical for Mao.

As for Japan, it has been extremely aggressive in the last few hundred years, attacking Korea, China, the Philippines, and most recently, the USA. The Chinese, in particular, would take chagrin to the statement that the Japanese were somehow not aggressive. And while Japan may be an Industrial and Financial powerhouse today, Tokugawa is the leaderhead in the game. So until we’re staring at Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi in the diplomacy window, I am quite happy with Aggressive and Protective. We have to remember that these are Leader traits, not National traits. That’s why different leaders for the same country have different traits.

 

[DigitalBoy]

Wait. Where is racism in the Civlopedia?

 

[snipafist]

I highly dislike the Protective trait for China. For Japan and Korea (both states defined in some fashion by their resistance to China and/or the Mongols earlier, and for Japan, by its resistance to Western conquest later), I feel it is more fitting. China, however, doesn't really fit as a theme. It's abilities reflect China well (lots of wall-building, which China is known for beyond just the Great Wall, and an emphasis on missile combat), but the theme is completely off - China isn't a very defensive or insular nation. I'm not quite sure how to remedy the disjunction in my mind, however.

 

[Pvblivs]

I highly dislike the Protective trait for China. For Japan and Korea (both states defined in some fashion by their resistance to China and/or the Mongols earlier, and for Japan, by its resistance to Western conquest later), I feel it is more fitting. China, however, doesn't really fit as a theme. It's abilities reflect China well (lots of wall-building, which China is known for beyond just the Great Wall, and an emphasis on missile combat), but the theme is completely off - China isn't a very defensive or insular nation. I'm not quite sure how to remedy the disjunction in my mind, however.

You just discuss the word "protective", but you like the effect. Thus, just ignore the word and stick to the effects. After all that is the relevant, not the word. How should they've named it else? Make good proposals that fit into the traits scheme.

But hell - don't complain if you got no problem with the trait but just the word.
After all: If a trait emphasizes defensive buildings and units, why shouldn't the trait be named "Protective"? China protected itself always very much from foreign influence, the Mongols etc. pp. Is it THAT wrong now?

Just try to find some real arguments, I beg you

 

[p dandy]

Wait. Where is racism in the Civlopedia?

That exactly what I want to know. I never read through the leader/civ descriptions.

 

[freshmaker]

In fact, some of my friends will correct anyone who calls them an Oriental, often pointing that rugs are oriental, not people.

If the rug and the person come from the same place... why shouldn't they have the same name? Anyway in terms of Eurocentrism, "Asian" is no better than "Oriental", since they're both terms coined by the Romans, not the Asio-Orientals themselves. There's nothing wrong with "Asian", but I think it's basically a fad. People get tired of being called the same thing over and over!

What we really need is a thread about is how offensively stereotypical the religions in Civ IV are. I mean, just consider the Jewish Temple of Solomon. Build it and you start getting money from all over the world, like some kind of global financial conspiracy? I mean, how far does Firaxis have to go before someone will put a stop to these terrible slurs?

 

[El Koeno]

Wait. Where is racism in the Civlopedia?

Note that the OP wasn't the one to bring up racism. Racism in the civilopedia was brought up in post #3.

I must say I feel this whole thread is a bit of an over-reaction. Maybe Firaxis has a stereotypical image of Asians. Then it is good of the OP to point that out. But I don't really think the image is a particularly bad image, so i can't really see what all the fuzz is about.

Let's just all move along and play the game.

 

[Brota]

Nah, let's argue more cuz I'm bored at work.

 

[snipafist]

You just discuss the word "protective", but you like the effect. Thus, just ignore the word and stick to the effects. After all that is the relevant, not the word. How should they've named it else? Make good proposals that fit into the traits scheme.

But hell - don't complain if you got no problem with the trait but just the word.
After all: If a trait emphasizes defensive buildings and units, why shouldn't the trait be named "Protective"? China protected itself always very much from foreign influence, the Mongols etc. pp. Is it THAT wrong now?

Just try to find some real arguments, I beg you

Fair enough. In retrospect, I find protective somewhat fitting for Qin, but it's completely wrong for Mao. Qin represents more of a classical Chinese outlook, but Mao is completely modern.

 

[dc82]

If the rug and the person come from the same place... why shouldn't they have the same name? Anyway in terms of Eurocentrism, "Asian" is no better than "Oriental", since they're both terms coined by the Romans, not the Asio-Orientals themselves. There's nothing wrong with "Asian", but I think it's basically a fad. People get tired of being called the same thing over and over!

What we really need is a thread about is how offensively stereotypical the religions in Civ IV are. I mean, just consider the Jewish Temple of Solomon. Build it and you start getting money from all over the world, like some kind of global financial conspiracy? I mean, how far does Firaxis have to go before someone will put a stop to these terrible slurs?

One's for objects one's for people - you have a number of people and an amount of objects... plenty of English words differentiate between the two. Not that it's prob. the official difference between the two anyways.

Are you serious about the Jewish comment? You do know that all the religions in the game are treated exactly the same.

 

[Pantastic]

I think people still have the right to say something if they feel something in the game is racist.

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

Qin Shi Huang to Aggressive, Industrious

The funny thing here is that you seem to be objecting much more to the titles of the traits than the effects. The protective trait is IMO more useful to Qin's warmongering than aggressive would be because his main offensive unit for the 'big push' will be Cho-Ko-Nus, which don't benefit from aggressive but do benefit a lot from free drill promotions.

There's nothing about the 'protective' trait that says 'a leader with this trait doesn't conquer anything', that's just something that a few people have randomly decided it means.

 

[Pantastic]

Mao: Sending a million man army to another country to intervene in another country's affairs is protectionist?!?! I am not making a judgment call on whether it was right or a wrong for Mao to do this, but sending large armies across another country's borders is by definition, not protectionist.

By what definition exactly? The word they used is protectionist, not pacifistic. A quick look at dictionary.com certainly doesn't support the definition you seem to be using, according to it 'to protect' just means to protect from injury, harm, enroachment, or restriction. Nothing seems to rule out protecting your people from harm by ensuring that someone else stays out of a country you consider a buffer zone against invasion, which is certainly how the Chinese viewed the situation in Korea.

Traditionally, countries have attempted to protect themselves and their people by interfering in all sorts of other countries affairs, I'm not sure why you think protectionist means that they wouldn't.

 

[Gherald]

China isn't a very defensive or insular nation.

China is and always has been extremely defensive. It's not insular, but that has nothing to do with "Protective".