Is Colonization a Racist and Immoral Game?

[Slade Wilson]

What negative connotation in the name? You mean the part where there are megacities with fast food joints in place of thick woods and tepees 300 years earlier?

Works for me

I suspect most people playing the racist and immoral cards would shut up pretty quick if you started taking those things away.

[guermantes]

Originally posted by wodan11
You have to admit Colonization is different from those others, because the negative connotation is quite literally the name of the game.

Which indicates that the person who complained gets more upset by symbols/labels than actual content (whether it be computer games, television, politics etc), which in turn is a tell-tale sign of the over-sensitive approach to advocacy.

[wodan11]

Hypocrisy is a staple food group of those who take up a cause to advocate. They tend to have a cause or cause and oppose it to extremes, while not taking a good hard look at other things in their lives that are analogous. And, they tend not to think it through. Such as the people who want the world to give up industrialized farming, either because it's "harmful to the earth" or to "go back to nature". But let's not think about the fact that without those techniques we couldn't feed half the people living on the Earth right now, let alone that the population of the planet is increasing at an alarming rate.

I guess I'd be in favor of such things as long as those people are the ones who have to give up food first, and that we will have periodic evaluations to change our minds and start using again

Anyway that tends to be how I feel about someone who "takes up a cause". It's incumbent upon every human to be ethical in their daily lives. Take it beyond that and you get into the "tunnel vision" like I mentioned above.

Anyway, as far as Colonization... there are a lot more harmful games out there. Like Grand Theft Auto. That's a lot more damaging to our precious young snowflakes. Colonization I'm sure will present the historical context in a sensitive manner, and being a game will get a lot more exposure than the snowflakes surely get in school. Heck, I see it as an ethical positive, not negative.

Wodan

[Verrucosus]

I agree that it does sound less noble than "Civilization". However, the term Colonization does not in itself refer to the negative connotation. It could as well refer to the exploration and peaceful settlement of truly virign soil (which America was not). It's not the term itself, but my own associations based on our history and the fact there are natives in the game that remind me of the terribly dark side of the story.

By the way, for Germans the "Total War" title raises sinistre associations as well, because that term (in German, of course) was an important propaganda term in the 2nd World War.

Again, celebrating history as a whole (Civilization) or an important part of it (Colonization) does not imply that everything that happened is glorified or even just "a price that had to be paid".

[wodan11]

People tend to think that the settlers "stole" the land from the indians. For the most part, they were emigrants, not invaders. The indians did not have land ownership, and any tribe which wanted to relocate simply did so. Think of the European settlers as doing exactly that. Simply establishing a colony was right in line with the indians' own practices. It's an interesting way to look at it.

(Aside: that's not to say there weren't atrocities; there were, by both sides, though most by the Europeans. I would suggest that the atrocities and the mere act of settling are distinct things and that the latter wasn't evil and wasn't against the indians own societal rules. That's why I think "emigration" actually may be a more apt word than "colonization".)

[Darsnan]

Originally posted by wodan11
You have to admit Colonization is different from those others, because the negative connotation is quite literally the name of the game.

So maybe if they changed the name to something like "Sid Meier's Atlantic Continents", then that would be more palatable?

One of the things I've observed in the past regarding games is that a controversial topic can be made "palatable" simply by changing the setting. Take the European conquest of Central and South America for example: in essence its a group of races banded together under one religion waging a war of extermination/ persecution/ domination against an indigenous people. This would never sell as a game. However if you take that same underlieing theme and put it into a sci-fi setting, changing the Europeans to aliens and the indigenous peoples to humans, then place the game in a cool sci-fi setting such as a ringworld, and have the marketing geeks come up with a catchy name like "Halo" - you've got yourself a multi-million dollar franchise.

Anyways, my son, who plays AoE 3, thinks Colonization sounds like a cool game, so we'll be picking it up, regardless of what the PC Nazis say.

D

[TriMiro]

Originally posted by wodan11
People tend to think that the settlers "stole" the land from the indians. For the most part, they were emigrants, not invaders. The indians did not have land ownership, and any tribe which wanted to relocate simply did so. Think of the European settlers as doing exactly that. Simply establishing a colony was right in line with the indians' own practices. It's an interesting way to look at it.

(Aside: that's not to say there weren't atrocities; there were, by both sides, though most by the Europeans. I would suggest that the atrocities and the mere act of settling are distinct things and that the latter wasn't evil and wasn't against the indians own societal rules. That's why I think "emigration" actually may be a more apt word than "colonization".)

As far as North America goes I believe you are right, however, the Natives in South America did have land and cities and empires. Spanish conquistadors were quite brutal to those and they did steal their land. Anyway, it is history and people should know about it. There are many WW2 movies that show scenes of Nazi atrocities, should we ban Schindler's List for that reason?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by guermantes


Which indicates that the person who complained gets more upset by symbols/labels than actual content (whether it be computer games, television, politics etc), which in turn is a tell-tale sign of the over-sensitive approach to advocacy.

Something we too often have here in Germany.
If you publicly say a bad word or phrase, associated with the 3rd Reich people on the left are very fast to see you as some kind of Neonazi, no matter under which context these words/phrase has been said.

[Unimatrix11]

You know - and if Colonization and other emprie-building games were unethical - so what ? Reenacting atrocities in a game helps us remember their consequences. The purpose of the crime commited is it being remembered.

EDIT: Though in that case (of an unetichal game), i´d like to play the ´good´side. Maybe any chance we could play a native tribe in Col2 ? Maybe that would silence even that critic...

[Verrucosus]

Hee, I can already see my Incan armada appear in the seas off Seville ... on second thoughts, that's what I do in Civilization, so I don't need a new game for that.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Unimatrix11

EDIT: Though in that case (of an unetichal game), i´d like to play the ´good´side. Maybe any chance we could play a native tribe in Col2 ? Maybe that would silence even that critic...

Interesting idea. In Europa Universalis you could do it AFAIK.

[Blaupanzer]

The real PC Nazi is at http://weblogs.variety.com/the_cut_s...zation-iv.html with the "it makes me squirm" theme. Some folks want to pretend that less-than-savory history never happened or should go unmentioned. Therefore a game that reminds them of this stuff must glorify it.

Do gamers care what such folks think? Do historians? Sometimes. I say disregard nonsense. The revised game looks like it might be fun. Not sure the terra map here doesn't do much the same, but we'll see.

[Gearyman]

You'll always have people that want to make a big "moral issue" out of any kind of success. What makes me steamed is people that rant "evil!" about a game written for entertainment purposes, yet praise a movie (which is also for entertainment purposes) that goes even further with racial and sexist tones.

History, although we may not like or approve everything that happened, is history. If an author writes a non-fiction work and doesn't research history for accuracy, that author's work is criticized. I think a game should also be somewhat historically accurate. However, the game also gives you the option to change how history occurred and do some things better.

As for the Blackenheimer blogger saying the game wasn't that good: well, I guess ignorance is bliss. I still load up Col1 and play it. I was ecstatic when I heard the announcement about C4C. Long live Sid Meier!!!

[Harovan]

Colonization is about discovering and conquering a continent, that had been discovered and conquered by others millenia before, and in this process enslaving and exterminating the first discoverers. In this light, it is certainly not political correct.

But, it is a game and not even a bloody one, at least not bloodier than, say, Civ. So frankly, who cares about political correctness? Who does is free to not buy this game and be done with it.

[CyberChrist]

Personally I find it extremely scary if the world has come to a point where people starts cutting out parts of history that doesn't fit with any perception of 'politcal correctness'.

If anything that point of view sounds more like fascist propaganda being implemented all over again under a new name.