You could make a better argument for sexist. Look at the portrayal of Catherine and Cleopatra in Civ 4. Complete with the clothes and sexual innuendo's. You don't see any of the male leaders wearing a g-string with a chiseled waxed chest or whatever while making suggestions about their penises.
-
We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.
Is the Civ series racist?
- Thread starter CivNoobie
- Start date
Lone Wolf
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 9,908
I don't think that the natives there are "homogenized landscapes". The issue is that you can't play as them, that they are de-protagonistized. But since other Firaxis products and mod spinoffs like RFC didn't de-protagonistize them, I'm fine with viewing this solely as a gameplay decision.
Lillefix
I'm serious. You can.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2003
- Messages
- 5,699
I think you're actually saying the opposite of what (I suspect)you're trying to convey. Or have I misunderstood something?
Cleopatra wasn't in Civ4.
But it's not unfair to portray them as such, since many powerful women probably had to use their sexuality to rule effectively(both Cleopatra and Catherine were quite charismatic afaik). And since the Civ leaders are often caricatures, I see no problem in this. No one's accusing Isabella of being anything other than a religious maniac I think.
I think I've hit it, sorry if my sentence structure is awkward at all, never one of my strong suits.
Anyways what I was saying is that Paradox pays absolutely no attention to anywhere outside Europe. Those countries merely exist to get quashed by the high and mighty Europeans, and hopelessly fall behind unless they "westernize".
i.e. no basis in actual history
~Corsair#01~
Deity
This is definitely true for Europa Universalis. I would argue that the whole technology system is racist, but more importantly the game treats vast swathes of the world as Terra Nulla and encourages genocide in areas with high "native aggressiveness" as the only means to establish a lasting settlement.
Civilization on the other hand is not racist. If anything it presents an idea of racial equality: the Aztecs will frequently be seen overrunning Spain and the USA, for example. Civ presents a view of history where all people are basically created equal. "Western Civilization" is not the pre-ordained owner of the world in Civ like in other games.
Civilization is violent and absurdly oversimplified (which is part of its charm), but I don't think its reasonable to say that its racist.
CELTICEMPIRE
Zulu Conqueror
The Civ series glorifies the values of Imperialism and Statism, however, they are not racist.
King Kalmah
Magyar Madness
I know Borat would not find that "Very nice"....
but yeah this game is as racist as Risk(no racism as all....)...IE whoever made this topic was bored
Nick Carpathia
Unleash the HAARP
Someone doesn't know how to abuse drafted Musketeers.
The Civilization game series tends towards teleological fallacies. Yes, everyone technically starts the same, but different places have stratified on their power. The implication is that only some people know how to run things, while others don't. Plus, you can plan out a Civ game for the entire history of existence, while in reality our almost all decisions are motivated by short term interests less than a generation old.
For example, the Eurasian-African landmass developed metal working while the American continents didn't was due to the latter failing to spend beakers towards bronze working, but because of a confluence of factors such as a lack of trade routes and cultural contact, and the technological niche already filled by already effective obsidian tools. Sure, obsidian was a dead end for most purposes, but it fulfilled the needs of the societies there in the short term, and that's all that matters.
The Civilization game series tends towards teleological fallacies. Yes, everyone technically starts the same, but different places have stratified on their power. The implication is that only some people know how to run things, while others don't. Plus, you can plan out a Civ game for the entire history of existence, while in reality our almost all decisions are motivated by short term interests less than a generation old.
For example, the Eurasian-African landmass developed metal working while the American continents didn't was due to the latter failing to spend beakers towards bronze working, but because of a confluence of factors such as a lack of trade routes and cultural contact, and the technological niche already filled by already effective obsidian tools. Sure, obsidian was a dead end for most purposes, but it fulfilled the needs of the societies there in the short term, and that's all that matters.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
It's made up for in Civ5, where France is ridiculously powerful.
I would argue that Civilization games are typically - but not always - less violent than reality. They are certainly not more violent, with the sole exception of massive modern-age nuclear wars.
Civ games are the products of a specific culture. I think Civ 1 and 2 were games you can't make again today. Their outlook is optimistic from the immediate post cold-war triumphalism of the west. Civ2 had a very strong edutamient vibe because of how it used the then 'new' CD-ROM Full motion video tech.
In anycase, Firaxis had taken great pains to not make the American civ overpowered, and in terms of 'fun' I've always felt the series is a love letter to the Civilizations of the Fertile crescent, and is fairly progressive in that with each iteration, it has given more and more share to native/aboriginal Civs in the new world.
That said, in terms of audio/visual content, it is certainly western centric. Civ4's soundtrack consistent mainly of music from western composers. Before Civ4, it was almost all inhouse compositions with some ethnic sounding themes.
Civ5 finally delved into folk songs, and having the leaders speak in their native languages (although approximating dead languages or languages that has evolved over millenia is a bit of a guessing game)
The series is moving in the right direction.
In anycase, Firaxis had taken great pains to not make the American civ overpowered, and in terms of 'fun' I've always felt the series is a love letter to the Civilizations of the Fertile crescent, and is fairly progressive in that with each iteration, it has given more and more share to native/aboriginal Civs in the new world.
That said, in terms of audio/visual content, it is certainly western centric. Civ4's soundtrack consistent mainly of music from western composers. Before Civ4, it was almost all inhouse compositions with some ethnic sounding themes.
Civ5 finally delved into folk songs, and having the leaders speak in their native languages (although approximating dead languages or languages that has evolved over millenia is a bit of a guessing game)
The series is moving in the right direction.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Eh, they had plenty of Europeans down as barbarians too.
It's not just that their de-protagonised, it's that they're basically lacking in historical agency. If you're playing as the French, the Dutch are de-protagnoised, but they can still do everything you can do, but Natives don't even build improvements, they just sort of sit there and wait for you to stomp on them. All they can do is occasionally fly into a rage and attack you, which in game terms puts them at the level of better organised wild animals.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
I think civ is more offensive to humanity by having it obey my and the AI's command than it can possibly be offensive to any human sub-group.
If I want to have fun with Nationalism + Gunpowder I play Turkey. Or Ethiopia even.
mitsho
Deity
Civilization is certainly eurocentric, with combining China and India into one civ each, while we got all these European Kingdoms... It's also from the scope of the tech tree, the naming of the eras and so on, but that's not necessarily racist. After all, it's a game.
Which also explains the thing about the natives/barbarians, it's necessary for the game to work. If it were a simulation, it'd also be eyebrow raising, but mostly because historical science is trying to get away from these stereotypical generalizing depictions of history, and also away from the teleological "aiming-at-Alpha-Centauri" Civ literally does with its tech-trees. There are no dead-end techs anymore...
Well, let's compare a historical painting of Catherine and her civ 4, 5 and Revolutions depiction:
I do agree with you that it's not misogynistic per se, since these are not used to put down and Civ often goes out of its way to chose female leaders. And it is ok, since it's a game, and games are allowed to be this way. But let's not deny the effect is there. (and I'm undecided how bad it is that the civ4 catherine is one of the first google image hits and that google's first suggestion for completing Catherine the Great is "horse").
And btw. there are two male leaders I'd think that cater to the "appreciates men, not women" mind, namely Alex with his youth and Kamehameha on whose abs you really could chisel out something
Oh, and I probably should also mention the ugly Catherine from civ3, but can you imagine a female leader looking like Genghis did in civ3?
Which also explains the thing about the natives/barbarians, it's necessary for the game to work. If it were a simulation, it'd also be eyebrow raising, but mostly because historical science is trying to get away from these stereotypical generalizing depictions of history, and also away from the teleological "aiming-at-Alpha-Centauri" Civ literally does with its tech-trees. There are no dead-end techs anymore...
Well, let's compare a historical painting of Catherine and her civ 4, 5 and Revolutions depiction:
Spoiler :
I do agree with you that it's not misogynistic per se, since these are not used to put down and Civ often goes out of its way to chose female leaders. And it is ok, since it's a game, and games are allowed to be this way. But let's not deny the effect is there. (and I'm undecided how bad it is that the civ4 catherine is one of the first google image hits and that google's first suggestion for completing Catherine the Great is "horse").
And btw. there are two male leaders I'd think that cater to the "appreciates men, not women" mind, namely Alex with his youth and Kamehameha on whose abs you really could chisel out something
Oh, and I probably should also mention the ugly Catherine from civ3, but can you imagine a female leader looking like Genghis did in civ3?
Spoiler :
)
Peck of Arabia
Sociable Recluse
Games like Civ and Europa Universalis are Eurocentric, but, from a marketing point of view Europe and America are probably the top markets- not to mention that the majority staff that work on the game are probably of European descent (or in the case of Europa Universalis and the Paradox Games, actually European)
Is that wrong? I don't know, as a European I guess I can't comment- it works for me, but I can see why it doesn't work for many others.
As for the misogyny; I guess it's whatever sells- it's mostly men who play these kinds of games, or computer games in general (The Sims being the big exception). Personally, I don't approve of "sexing up" female leaders as it distracts from their accomplishments as talented leaders and politicians (and politics just isn't sexy) Also the sexing-up effect is largely lost on me. But am I going to do anything about it (apart from write a long-winded post on an internet forum?) No.
As for charges of racism- it's a problem because, well, the past was racist. People of different ethnicities were enslaved, subjugated, or at best patronised as being the White Man's burden incapable of self government... and that's just White people vs everyone else. This is the time period these games deal in and to try to whitewash this so the past is all happy families would be at the expense of it's historical credibility (as well as being quite a boring game to play) So I'd err on the side of accuracy over pleasantries too probably a greater degree that a lot of other people would. Having said that, I agree with Paradox's decision to not simulate the holocaust in Hearts of Iron- as a player I really don't want those kinds of horrific moral dilemmas when I'm trying to have fun.
(I am also in favour of levelling the playing field enough to allow for the unexpected- Aztecs invading Spain for instance- it's a game after all)
General conclusion- I can see problems with the games as they stand, but I'm fairly content with the status quo
Is that wrong? I don't know, as a European I guess I can't comment- it works for me, but I can see why it doesn't work for many others.
As for the misogyny; I guess it's whatever sells- it's mostly men who play these kinds of games, or computer games in general (The Sims being the big exception). Personally, I don't approve of "sexing up" female leaders as it distracts from their accomplishments as talented leaders and politicians (and politics just isn't sexy) Also the sexing-up effect is largely lost on me. But am I going to do anything about it (apart from write a long-winded post on an internet forum?) No.
As for charges of racism- it's a problem because, well, the past was racist. People of different ethnicities were enslaved, subjugated, or at best patronised as being the White Man's burden incapable of self government... and that's just White people vs everyone else. This is the time period these games deal in and to try to whitewash this so the past is all happy families would be at the expense of it's historical credibility (as well as being quite a boring game to play) So I'd err on the side of accuracy over pleasantries too probably a greater degree that a lot of other people would. Having said that, I agree with Paradox's decision to not simulate the holocaust in Hearts of Iron- as a player I really don't want those kinds of horrific moral dilemmas when I'm trying to have fun.
(I am also in favour of levelling the playing field enough to allow for the unexpected- Aztecs invading Spain for instance- it's a game after all)
General conclusion- I can see problems with the games as they stand, but I'm fairly content with the status quo
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
I hope you jest, sir!
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
Which is historically accurate. There are portions of the globe that the game should leave open to being modified to achieve European levels of global dominance. China, for example, had every capability of matching Europe in the time period played it simply didn't materialize for myraid reasons. But you as the player may be able to achieve it.
That can't be said for the US East Coast natives for example. There is no combination of events that would have made them a competitive civilization within the time frame played against historical European actions. Its not racist to point that out. Civ actually levels this by starting everyone out at the same time, where as in real life civilizations met at varying stages of their development which can largely explain much of their disparities when in conflict.
