Terra maps, are they racist?

[kolhite]

Anyway, the terra maps obviously build on the classical understanding of the 'discovery' of America, but this is not a problem of racism but of game mechanics in that there's no middle ground between barbarian and flat out civilization.

Many goats gotten in this thread. So as an experiment, I'm going to foolishly try revisiting the point (as I understood it) of the original post in a way that gets no goats.

There are no actual races in the game, and no actual racism; it's just a game.

Keeping that firmly in mind, the terra map is highly suggestive of the historical colonization of the new world. It also suggests a certain vision of that colonization, i.e., "the classical understanding of the 'discovery' of America". This understanding was intrinsically joined to a racist discourse in which natives of the Americas were not viewed as possessing the same natural rights as their European colonizers. Since these commonly-termed "savages" had no natural right to property or sovereignty, they and the land that housed them were legally and in good conscience free for the taking. The claiming by discovery of vast tracts of land went hand in hand with a depiction of the Americas as sparsely inhabited. Estimates vary, but William Denevan for instance puts 57 million or about 10% of world population in the Americas in 1492 (though of course the population fell sharply from there).

So it isn't unreasonable to see the terra map's depiction of new world natives (a smattering of barbarians amid all that free land) as suggestive of---which does not mean identical with---a distorted and racist worldview that sufficed to justify a prolonged process of forced displacement and genocide.

There are problems with any historical analogy you draw with this game, this one included; still, as an ostensibly historical simulation, the game invites them.

This analogy is there to be drawn; am I offended by it? No. More to the point, am I offended by someone pointing it out? No. Would I be sticking up for Native Americans by being offended by it? No. Do I think someone who plays a terra map is racist? No. Do I play them myself? No, but only because they are not fun.

 

[Lone Wolf]

The claiming by discovery of vast tracts of land went hand in hand with a depiction of the Americas as sparsely inhabited. Estimates vary, but William Denevan for instance puts 57 million or about 10% of world population in the Americas in 1492

That's actually pretty sparsely populated for such a large continent.

 

[kolhite]

There's 13.5% of the world's population in the Americas today. Then as now they are less densely populated than the rest of the world, on average.

EDIT:
I'm also speaking in context of what is now thought to be a severe underestimation in past accounts of the size of the native population pre-16th century. So "sparse" is a relative term; relative to current population levels, 57 million in the Americas is yes pretty sparse.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Really? Didn't know that.

 

[kolhite]

Current numbers courtesy of wikipedia

Really? Didn't know that.

Neither did I until I just looked it up

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I wouldn't say that. Some people have outright made it a point to express their Native heritage and still do not find it offensive. So some in the thread can see the connection. Plus when the map is obviously inspired by Earth's history, acting unable to see it is like not wanting to admit someone you saw at the store was black because you are afraid of appearing racist and claim "you don't pay attention to such things". Forget the fact you have eyes and know what a black person looks like.

You're misinterpreting what I said. I didn't say Terra maps bore no relation to real Earth history, as that's obviously the point. I said that there was no direct link between Terra maps and "offence to Native Americans". It's the idea that there is some intrinsic, undeniable offence factor that I was questioning. You might as well claim that history books are racist, because they tell you that people used to be really racist.

 

[PieceOfMind]

But generally it is necessary to discourage the use of what are widely considered to be inflammatory, insulting or bigoted terms, in certain contexts. Tell me which is better, moderate political correctness, or the widespread and normative use of derogatory terminology across society, like in nazi germany?

Godwin's law ftw

I thought that was quite funny.


On the topic of racism...
I find it hard to accept the argument. For starters, various American civs included in the game can start in the old world on terra maps. Hence you can't make a case that they are being discriminated against.

If anything by using the generic term barbarian they are doing their best to be politically correct and avoid being racist. The barbarians don't have a clear race as they are presented in game anyway.

The only way which I can think of that the game carries a racist message is in the fact that it loosely follows history. Since it is well established that powers in the past have used "race" to justify various exploitative policies, we come to that point of history in the game and we recognise it within our own minds. We are coming to the game, expecting to see racism and so finding it in the most tenuous of ways.

I see it as kind of like how on rare occasions young (innocent) children can make remarks that appear racist, especially as apparant to an adult who attaches more meaning to what is said, yet the child does not say it with a racially derogatory intent.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

There's 13.5% of the world's population in the Americas today. Then as now they are less densely populated than the rest of the world, on average.

EDIT:
I'm also speaking in context of what is now thought to be a severe underestimation in past accounts of the size of the native population pre-16th century. So "sparse" is a relative term; relative to current population levels, 57 million in the Americas is yes pretty sparse.

Disease kills a lot of people that history never records, especially in this case...it is hard to tell the extent.

But of course no country could sustain modern populations with pre 1900s technologies, or at least not grow them fast enough to match today w/o it .

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

It's not racist, and at least it's not Earth 18 civs. That is probably the most unbalanced and arguably 'racist' maps I have ever seen. Though the unbalanced part is pretty obvious while the racist part is debatable.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's not racist, and at least it's not Earth 18 civs. That is probably the most unbalanced and arguably 'racist' maps I have ever seen. Though the unbalanced part is pretty obvious while the racist part is debatable.

It's the mali that get truly shafted there though. Remember that when earth 18 was released (vanilla), native america was not in civ.

But yeah...the mali start has only flood plains and iffy surrounding land, far weaker than anybody elses...even HC's. HC actually isn't bad if you move slightly and get sailing early-ish, since you have 1000's of years uncontested for south america with no "new world" war threat (monty won't sail past the peak and will focus on USA).

Sal also has it a little hard, but he is in decent position for an early offensive and his capitol, while not great, is doable.

Best starts belong to mainland Europe, Aztec, China, and Persia.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Mainland Europe is a great start for the human, but the AI-controlled Europe usually ends up a marginalized balkanized mess.

And what's so racist in Earth18?

 

[Disgustipated]

It's not racist, and at least it's not Earth 18 civs. That is probably the most unbalanced and arguably 'racist' maps I have ever seen. Though the unbalanced part is pretty obvious while the racist part is debatable.

how is that racist? That's like saying god is racist.

Perhaps people are throwing that word around a little too easily?

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

how is that racist? That's like saying god is racist.

Perhaps people are throwing that word around a little too easily?

I am throwing it around. It's all part of my plan to diminish the meaning of the word so that the South may have an easier time rising again.

 

[millahnna]

so that the South may have an easier time rising again.

Please don't give my idiot redneck relatives any ideas. I finally got them to shut up about the "don't worry Mouse, you don't look Indian" stuff.

 

[Kullervo]

I'd say that they are not racist... the americas have great city places... even the Incas do well with a little brains (I've won on Monarch as them). It's the Mongols, the Mali, and to some extent the Arabs that get shafted. I still don't really get where racism comes into this.

 

[Ataxerxes]

Please don't give my idiot redneck relatives any ideas. I finally got them to shut up about the "don't worry Mouse, you don't look Indian" stuff.

lol. I like it! We always have some relatives we "love" but they drive us insane. Every time my father visits his younger sister he talks to himself for a week.

One of my moderately redneck relatives said she was in awe of George Bush. I was so stunned I didn't reply.

On topic, I don't believe Terra maps are racist. Anybody can start in the old world on a terra map. A possible point (I don't agree with) is that it might be construed racist that Shaka is a psychopath, Mali surrenders to somebody every game and Sitting Bull is coded to sit there and annoy everybody but never become powerful.

 

[Kullervo]

Shaka, a psychopath? Oddly enough, I have never noticed... he is a very smart warmonger, and a very decent ally. I have never been backstabbed by him (IE declared war on at more than +1 dipplo). The only problem I have with him is that he is ALWAYS the worst enemy of the civs I tend to try to make friends with, like Hatschie or Mansa.

It's Monty that's the psychopath, and I would not say that that's racist. In fact, that's kind of realistic. When he says he will sacrifice 50000 warriors in your honor, he's not exaggerating much. In real life, Monty was quite the bloodthirsty religion maniac.

 

[cardgame]

REALITY > political correctness

By any standard, the peoples of the Americas were barbarians.

 

[millahnna]

By any standard, the peoples of the Americas were barbarians.

Meh. Like anything else, what the various tribes were like varied from group to group and person to person. Technically barbarians because they weren't part of what Europe considered "civilized society?" Yeah, I suppose so. But in the case of some tribes I'd argue they were a heck of a lot more "civilized" than their invaders. Technologically less advanced and civilized have nothing to do with each other, though it is common to associate the concepts with each other.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Shaka, a psychopath? Oddly enough, I have never noticed... he is a very smart warmonger, and a very decent ally. I have never been backstabbed by him (IE declared war on at more than +1 dipplo). The only problem I have with him is that he is ALWAYS the worst enemy of the civs I tend to try to make friends with, like Hatschie or Mansa.

It's Monty that's the psychopath, and I would not say that that's racist. In fact, that's kind of realistic. When he says he will sacrifice 50000 warriors in your honor, he's not exaggerating much. In real life, Monty was quite the bloodthirsty religion maniac.

Shaka will declare anywhere below a net +11. Getting him to pleased while he dislikes others is usually good enough.

He is the strongest of the warmongers and probably the strongest non-CRE AI, only rival being Joao (who is better for teching and worse for war), and quite possibly the single AI I hate the most.