Genghis Khan Portrayal: Offensive or Not?

[siredgar]

Just because he was a barbarian ruler doesn't mean he should be portrayed as an ugly idiot, too.

Compare with this painting:

http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~p...es/genghis.jpg

[siredgar]

Also, I am suspecting that there is a racist factor involved, too.

[nationalist]

Lighten up.

The leader heads are all at least partial characitures of the leaders. No one knows for sure what a majority of these leaders looked like. Therefore, some amount of artistic liscense is expected, especially when the leaders are depicted in an age other than their own. Is Firaxis racist because they made Xerxes look ridiculous in the modern age? Are they racist because they give Gengis Khan bad teeth? Do you consider the other Asian characters' portraits racist? Is Firaxis specifically targeting their racism towards Mongols and no other Asian nation? Racism is a serious charge, and should not be thrown around lightly.

[Terser]

Originally posted by siredgar
Just because he was a barbarian ruler doesn't mean he should be portrayed as an ugly idiot, too.

Compare with this painting:

http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~p...es/genghis.jpg

The Great Khan lived a very hard life, and by all accounts he was a very hard man. If the truth were known, I imagine that he more closely resembled the CivIII leader head than the soft, grandfatherly-looking man portrayed in that idealized painting.

[Carver]

Originally posted by nationalist
Lighten up.

Racism is a serious charge, and should not be thrown around lightly.

I don't think it was a charge, it was a question.

[siredgar]

Originally posted by Terser
The Great Khan lived a very hard life, and by all accounts he was a very hard man. If the truth were known, I imagine that he more closely resembled the CivIII leader head than the soft, grandfatherly-looking man portrayed in that idealized painting.

You may have a point, but he still looks like a beady-eyed idiot than anything else. I would have prefered a Genghis with a meaner face like Bismarck.

[History Guy]

Of course it's not racist, or meant to be offensive. It'd be as easy to say that this thread is offensive to Firaxis for even bringing up this rather silly question.

[Carver]

History Guy, racism is not a silly question, it is an ugly fact of history and an ugly occurance today. But, obviously, you've never been on the receiving end of it.

Khan's portrayal is a rediculous characiture resembling the Cleveland Indians' mascot. Why is the childish smile necessary? The obvious implication is that Asians and "Indians" are children, or at least have the minds of children.

The more I think about it, the more offensive that picture becomes. I feel moved to send Firaxis a formal letter (snail mail) to point out this stupid move.

[Mr. President]

Offensive? Gimme a break. Why is it offensive to make Genghis Khan's physical appearance a certain way, but not offensive to make the Americans an "expansionistic" civilization? Or to snicker under one's breath that the English ruler was one who presided over an era of "colonialism and slavery"?

The point I'm making is that they are trying to make a game with real-world civilizations, and obviously not everybody is going to agree with the way they do it. The remedy, as usual, is obvious: You can play a different game.

[History Guy]

Hmmm...perhaps you should also complain about the childish smiles of Caesar, Alexander, Hammurabi, Lincoln, Xerxes, and indeed just about everyone in the whole bloody game. I think one could just as well say "Firaxis is racist against the Romans, for drawing Caesar as they did. Or: Firaxis is racist against Americans for illustrating Lincoln in a silly fashion". When compared to everything else in this game, the argument sort of falls apart.

[Terser]

Originally posted by Carver
History Guy, racism is not a silly question, it is an ugly fact of history and an ugly occurance today. But, obviously, you've never been on the receiving end of it.

Khan's portrayal is a rediculous characiture resembling the Cleveland Indians' mascot. Why is the childish smile necessary? The obvious implication is that Asians and "Indians" are children, or at least have the minds of children.

The more I think about it, the more offensive that picture becomes. I feel moved to send Firaxis a formal letter (snail mail) to point out this stupid move.

The only leader head that is not a caricature in CivIII as it is now is Bismarck (which is one of the main reasons I always played Germany). The rest--white, black, and Asian--have exaggerated features and expressions that make them look stupid. I hate it, and I wish Firaxis had taken a different tack, but that was the design decision they made.

If you're going to protest the caricaturization, you need to make it a package deal. Object to the fact that the images are not really that funny, don't add anything to the game, and can in fact actually distract from the overall immersiveness of the playing experience.

As to this letter you allude to...well, you probably should have wrote it a long time ago.

[asleepathewheel]

not offensive

Its a game, not a social commentary.

into polls siredgar?

[Mr. President]

"Ooh! They drew Lincoln with a stovepipe hat! They're characterizing Americans as being stuck culturally in the 1860s!"

[History Guy]

Mr. President--

[siredgar]

Regardless, the contrast in portrayal between Genghis and Isabella is noteworthy.

While someone from Spain would surely not be upset, I can only imagine what someone from Mongolia would think of all of this.

I'm not PC, but I find it offensive.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Carver
Why is the childish smile necessary? The obvious implication is that Asians and "Indians" are children, or at least have the minds of children.

The picture probably represents Ghengis when he is gracious. I bet that he doesn't smile like that when furious. You are taking a wild leap when saying that Firaxis presents Asians as being childlike. Completely absurd. I'll ask again: what do you think about Firaxis' presentation of other Asain nations?

[siredgar]

I've seen the video clips of Genghis and Isabella changing their expressions gradually and the former is noticeably more comically ape-like than the latter.

As for the other Asian great leaders, I think that Mao is portrayed as a "ha-ha, jokey-jokey" kind of character which I find funny but somewhat disturbing.

I don't think I really have a problem with Tokugawa, but that may be because we in the West have so much more respect for the Japanese than the other Asians.

Anyhow, I have a great deal of respect for Genghis and I think he deserves to be portrayed as something more than what appears to be a toothless, beady-eyed monkey.

[Jon Shafer]

Joan of Arc bald is quite flattering. The smiles for all the people look incredibly ... weird. I really don't find anything offensive. As has been said, they're all caricatures, they're not really meant to look exactly like them is it? It's doubtful most leaders would be flattered if they saw their likeness in Civ III...

[Grrr]

I find that you are all whining over a silly subject. Uglyness is fact. Why bother? I would think if your life was much like that of Ghengis Khan then you'd look like that.

[Harlan]

Siredgar,
The picture is not offensive (or at least no more than any other leader, all of which are caricatures). In actual fact Ghenghis probably looked even uglier than in the picture. The Mongols ritually scarred themselves on their cheeks for instance. They coated their entire skin in animal fat to keep warm. Most of his life if not all of it he would have looked and dressed pretty much like everyone else in the army - being "one of the guys" was part of his success.

The portait you point out is complete fiction. First of all, it was drawn long after Ghengis was dead. It was part of a series of Mongol Khan portraits by a Chinese artist late in the Yuan dynasty, as part of an attempt to give that dynasty Chinese legitimacy. Note how Ghengis looks basically like any other Chinese emperor - that's purposeful propaganda. There's a famous painting of Kublai Khan that is part of the same series you can see here:

http://www.chinapage.org/painting/kublai.html

Kublai probably looked very much like that, being very Chinese in his ways by the end of his life, but not so Ghengis.

I agree the game has some issues with being PC (such as having personality stereotypes for each civ), but this is not one of them.

[notyoueither]

I prescribe a liberal dose of pills, not too many though. If I were a doctor, you could cash this in at the gates of happy land.

[Jethro83]

Who the hell cares what they look like. As long as they at least vaguely resemble their real-life counterparts, then that's just fine. Anyway, if you hate the way they look, get a graphics tool and mod a new portrait for them. Its that simple people. Just think about it.

[Kurgan]

I am spanish, and I think that Isabella looks very atractive, and the Khan looks like gollum, or an orc, and I do not like it at all, it is not that I find it offensive, it is just that I never herad that he was related with the hunchback???(spelling) of Notre Dame

[Cookie Monster]

Is it me or has anyone else thought that Xerxes in the modern ages looks like Howard Stern?

[Fidel]

Originally posted by siredgar
As for the other Asian great leaders, I think that Mao is portrayed as a "ha-ha, jokey-jokey" kind of character which I find funny but somewhat disturbing.

I don't think I really have a problem with Tokugawa, but that may be because we in the West have so much more respect for the Japanese than the other Asians.

i sincerely hope you are joking. aside from a general reccomendation of 'we in the west' type, try perceiving this as a game, not a unique opportunity to promote multicultural respect and co-existance. you are trying to pound everyone into submission.

[Alex]

This is silly. The faces are not offensive. They are caricatures. I hate these PC things...

[Bru|seR]

Originally posted by siredgar
Just because he was a barbarian ruler doesn't mean he should be portrayed as an ugly idiot, too.

Compare with this painting:

http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~p...es/genghis.jpg

lol

[Alex]

Besides, it will be fun to play against Genghis, his angry face must be absolutely scary.

[ACooper]

All I know is that is will be fun to kick Genghis' ass!


Not offensive. As said before, a bald J of A is more offensive. But who cares?

[Hohenzollern]

Originally posted by siredgar
Just because he was a barbarian ruler doesn't mean he should be portrayed as an ugly idiot, too.

Compare with this painting:

http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~p...es/genghis.jpg

well it appears you are bored or ignorant or both? No offense, but hell if you about to call Firaxis racist or intending to be, then you have already taken off your gloves.
When i first saw the pic i was like "WOW, and accurate pic of the man for once!" I was happy with the difference. Diversity is good, this isnt a game of placebos for people that love to complain.
Its a game for history/strategy gamers and people like us think its either 1. Find it very Funny. Not in bad ways, because once you know alot about history, you become jaded, and idealized pictures are worse.
2. Dont care. A large majority have the idea that these are not attempts at 'actual' portraits for godsakes. They just like to see a different face when they talk to a different civ, remember diversity is our friend. Read Harlan's post, that man knows his stuff.

In closing, you made me really frustrated and slightly offended. I think Genghis having an ugly and rugged face depicts the mongols well, as for the teeth, they had to chew deer hides with their teeth, you do that for years on end and tell me how good your teeth come out ok?
Please, refrain from calling people racist, its a low blow.