Civ4:Col & ethically dubious historical events

[alh_p]

I don't mean this thread to be inflamatory, offensive or destructive in any way but I'm interested in how civ4:colonization (and indeed the old colonization) picks and chooses its way through the minefield of political correctness that is the legacy of the "colonial era" of history.

There has already been a thread in reaction to the "morality" of this game but I wanted to address a few issues that I'm aware of (there may well be others):

1. Conquest & plunder

2. Slavery

3. Religious conversion

4. Genocide

5. Forced "relocation" of populations

Before I get any further, I am of the opinion that all manifestations of the above are and were reprehensible. That is my individual, non-enforced opinion and is free to be questioned.

My opinions aside, why is it that #1 and #3 (almost also #5) of the above are likely to be included in the game, but not #2, Slavery?

Originally posted by 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.

Has a judgement been made by Firaxis that Slavery is worse than genocide and that it therefore shouldn't be modeled in the game?

Personaly, I don't see how one can be said to be better or worse than another.

So, if you develop a historical game and include genocide as a real & intended strategy, on what grounds do you exclude Slavery as a game element?

[Niptium]

This becomes old and repetitive and annoying posts. It all started with the guy calling a game Colonization ''offensive'' - all he wanted was publicity. What an a**hole.

If it was left to me

I would include the possibility of :

1-Slaves
2-Genocides
3-Conquest and plunder
4-Everything else

And leave to the player the judgement to act accordingly to his wishes. No need to censor history or act upon an idea of political correctness for any reason.

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by Niptium
This becomes old and repetitive and annoying posts. It all started with the guy calling a game Colonization ''offensive'' - all he wanted was publicity. What an a**hole.

If it was left to me

I would include the possibility of :

1-Slaves
2-Genocides
3-Conquest and plunder
4-Everything else

And leave to the player the judgement to act accordingly to his wishes. No need to censor history or act upon an idea of political correctness for any reason.

This.....

It's a game, and you are free not to play it.

[snoopy369]

Slavery was absolutely included. What else do you think 'indentured servant' means???

It doesn't include african slavery, because it simply wasn't needed, I think - it would have been one additional complication to the game, that was outside the scope of the game (as it did not include Africa as a location). Sid certainly didn't mind slavery as a gameplay option, as it's in the Civ games ... I think you're ascribing meaning to something that has no meaning, or not the sort you think.

[alh_p]

I should have made this clear: why ISN'T slavery more of a feature in the game?

snoopy369 i take you point regarding the Indentured servants, but it seems (I'm no authority) that indenture was (at best) a form of apprenticeship.

To my knowledge, the key point regarding slavery was the purchase of human beings as a commodity. They had no contracts as such -as far as I know.

The Spanish empire almost entirely depopulated the Carribean by slavery and forced labour of the native Amerindians.

In classic colonization, you could send a missionary to an indian settlement, then attack and destroy it -receiving "free" Indian converts as they threw in their lot with you.

You could not purchase or trade in humans though.

As Niptium said, it should be down to the player to choose what to do in a "game" situation, emulating the historic era & the choices made then, or not.

In either case, there should be consequenses (both +ve and -ve) to whatever choice is made (e.g. escaped slaves joining your colonies from time to time if you choose to oppose slavery, and occasional slave revolts if you do utilise slavery).

As I understand it, slavers were both private, as well as state sponsored enterprises. I'm sure these could be emulated by some game mechanic or other.

[snoopy369]

Indenture was a form of slavery. There is no question there. You were legally the property of your indenturee for that period of time; the fact that he wouldn't be quite as harsh with you as with a black slave came because the blacks were seen as subhuman/animal, not because of their slavery. It ended, sure; sometimes. Many indentures became significantly extended through various questionable practices (similar to practices used to essentially indenture blacks post-slavery).

My point is that Col has slavery - in some form, both in indian workers and indentured workers. Thus, clearly Col was not intending to 'avoid' this topic, as your OP states. Further, Civ certainly includes slavery as a significant game mechanic, so again, they're not avoiding Slavery in general, it's simply not present in THIS game.

Thus, I do not think that they left out african slavery because of a fear of political correctness. I think they (Sid) left it out because it was an unnecessary game mechanic. You certainly could add it - and if Civ4Col does not include it, I guarantee there will be a mod, made by someone, that includes the mechanic you describe above - but it probably wouldn't add that much complexity to the game, and might well have been more trouble in terms of programming and balancing than it's worth.

Please remember:
Colonization is not a historical simulation.

Say it with me.

Colonization is not a historical simulation.

Colonization is a fun game with interesting gameplay mechanics. Elements are left in or not due to gameplay concerns first, and history second. If you want a true historical simulation, I recommend Paradox Games, they generally focus on history first.

I think the big issue with slavery, in general, is the same as is the case with Civ4: it's nearly always going to be too powerful. If you make it in any way realistic, it will be so powerful that every player will need to use it to compete (as is true in Civ4 - anyone who doesn't use slavery early on is at a significant disadvantage to a player who does use it, with only an incredibly small subset of maps where this is not true - less than 1%). In Col, this would be even MORE true - it would be the overriding gameplay mechanic. Since Col is not intended to be a Slavery simulation, but a Colonization simulation, it was undoubtedly easier to leave it out, than to either gimp it significantly, or allow it to take over the game.

[Dale]

Also note that in C4C with the Constitution setup on DoI, I'm pretty certain slavery will be represented in those civics.

As for other in-game:
- Indentured servitude is definitely a form of slavery. As pointed out by The Snoop, it was only for whites as the blacks were seen as sub-human.
- Criminals are forced labour within the colonies, either to improve (pioneer) or produce (resource collection).
- I believe in Col1 native converts only required half the maintenance (read food) of other colonists, thus implying some form of slavery over the converted natives.

[Niptium]

Originally posted by conmcb25
This.....

It's a game, and you are free not to play it.

You don't make any sense.

[Niptium]

Colonization didn't shy away from genocide and I hope C4C won't either (you could wipe away a whole tribe). Slavery wasn't represented though... this will change in C4C from what we hear.

I'm all for it.

[alh_p]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Colonization is not a historical simulation.

Say it with me.

Colonization is not a historical simulation.

oh ok....

Originally posted by snoopy369
I think the big issue with slavery, in general, is the same as is the case with Civ4: it's nearly always going to be too powerful. If you make it in any way realistic, it will be so powerful that every player will need to use it to compete (as is true in Civ4 - anyone who doesn't use slavery early on is at a significant disadvantage to a player who does use it, with only an incredibly small subset of maps where this is not true - less than 1%). In Col, this would be even MORE true - it would be the overriding gameplay mechanic. Since Col is not intended to be a Slavery simulation, but a Colonization simulation, it was undoubtedly easier to leave it out, than to either gimp it significantly, or allow it to take over the game.

Fair enough. I can accept that in gameplay terms, but arguably the preponderance of African slavery in American colonies was precisely due to how "powerful" a solution it was to the problems faced there.

I'm not aware of a single European colonizing state that did NOT utilise slavery. Yes I'm arguing for more historical veracity here, but only because african slavery was such a fundamental element to the new world colonies that to not represent it in the game would be drasticaly distorting the "historical setting".

ahem:

Originally posted by snoopy369
Colonization is not a historical simulation.

Say it with me.

Colonization is not a historical simulation.

[Heraclitus]

BTW I think forced relocation is present.

[yin26]

Here's a funny memory I have of the Age of Kings development: Dolphins were taken out of the game, because using them as a resource was too offensive. Never mind that you could go a slaughter wholesale the entire enemy population, gore and all. So here's my answer on this topic:

Don't expect consistency and rationality when it comes to issues such as this. At best, figure that "market forces" are the final arbiter. While I'm not sure how big the Dolphin Lobby was (perhaps Ensemble Studios just figured that it was SO easy to remove Dolphins while keeping fish, let's say, that they just did it for that reason alone), but it's pretty clear that slavery in major marketing sectors (ala the U.S.) is still a very sore subject.

Indentured Servants? Heck, weren't those white people? Didn't they enter in to the agreement willingly?

It IS a huge distinction, certainly emotionally, and certainly to a lot of possible buyers of your product. Market forces.

[alh_p]

True yin26, it's odd that there is a sort of ethical "scale" on this sort of thing.

As I tried to say in my original post, to my mind it's nigh on impossible to judge one of the 5 events/undertakings as "better" or the "lesser of evils".

The unfortunate consequence of the absence of African Slavery from the game is that it could lead one to conclude that genocide is more palatable to the US public/market than slavery.

Yes this isn't a historical game, but it does seek to model the colonial era in some way, specificaly it's economics and successionist politics.

That one of the fundamental pillars of the colonies' economy (Slavery -African and Native) is omitted (or altered to the extent of being un-recognisable) seriously calls any claim to a 'historical basis' into question.

I'm not bashing the game here, I love it. It was great fun and I'm really looking forward to the updated CIV4 release.

I'm more intrigued about what this says about the market -as yin26 discussed.

It may not surprise many to know that I'm European

[joncnunn]

Actually only 90% right during the timeframe Colonization is set on.
There were some (early on) Indentured Servants of African origin. Once the slave trade got established though that was eliminated in favor of Slaves.
White Indentured Servants though remained around much longer.

Originally posted by Dale

As for other in-game:
- Indentured servitude is definitely a form of slavery. As pointed out by The Snoop, it was only for whites as the blacks were seen as sub-human.

[chequita guevara]

Not that anyone likely cares, but white indentured servants were treated far, far worse in the North American English colonies than Black slaves. The owner only had an indentured servant for seven years, whereas he held the slave for the slave's life. Therefore, it was in his best interested to pace the work of the slave and maximize the work of the servant. Many servants didn't survive their term of bondage and of those that did, many were left to poverty. Very few had a happy life.

In the Caribbean colonies, however, sugar was so profitable that it was more profitable to work your slaves to death. It wasn't until the Brits ended the slave trade that treatment of Black slaves improved enough for them to live long enough to reproduce.