Racist Undertones in Conquests

[Jon Shafer]

Not enough artwork means pre-existing art had to be used instead.

Obviously, they started with the "American" leaderheads and used them all up. And then they ran out. What do they do now? Use Catherine? Caesar? They probably just ranomly chose the leaderheads to use for each minor civ. As was also pointed out previously in this thread, they also tried to use leaderheads which were aimed at the ancient era. Don't you think having Bismarck in a fur coat would be kind of silly?

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
the bald Joan doesn't just "take the wind outta your sails"?

Not sure why she has to get all militant and stuff...

I dunno. I've usually lost before I get to see her like that.

Nah, seriously - they really do need to fix that nonsense with the bald head. Maybe the think she's some sort of precursor to Sinead O'Conner?

For all that, she's still a lot better than Catherine, in any age.

[jkelly]

Actually, Civ3 *is* racist...

...in the proper meaning of the word, the game asserts a humanity-divided reality. Civ III differentiates between four "races", and ethnicities matter as part of gameplay.

Of course, the original poster was using the word in the common sense of "prejudice against certain races" (sometimes contrasted to 'racialism", when people are trying to distinguish between holding that ethncities are inherently different and the position that some are worse than others).

What I find a lot more alarming than whether or not the game designers illustrated an insensitive "lumping" of non-white peoples in their choice of artwork is the reactions that a number of posters above have had to the question.

"Just a game" is actually an alarming argument; it means that we are supposes to believe that anything that is not regarded as being of cultural importance should never be questioned for its message. Are Chick tracts "just comic books", and therefore shouldn't be taken seriously as hate literatute? Or is that anything that we find entertaining should not be examined for a political message? I suggest that is, at best, a very naive view to take, given the last century.

Calling something "PC", and thereby dismissing it, is, at its heart, a straightforward refusal to avoid discrimination. I don't believe for a second that those people who refuse to examine anything that they can call "PC" are making a larger argument that language does not govern opinion, or that language cannot be cruel, but instead are just unwilling to consider examining their own opinions and cruelty. It's ignorance and laziness. (Aside: I suspect it is monlingualism leads to the assumption that one's language needs no adjustment)

Civ III is a laughably Eurocentric game, based on a suspect (original meaning of the word) liberal view of history (that intellectual progress and personal freedom are inherently desirable and support each other) that could use a little criticism. Presonally, there are areas in which the politics of the game do chafe. I am not clear on why someone who would want to discuss that line of thought with other people who have devoted an extraordinary amount of attention to the game should be told to find another game to play. I don't feel any need to only engage with other people or their work that happen to match my political prejudices exactly, and I would hope that remains true for a great number of people.

Off to try out the Beta patch.

[SporkPimp]

Re: Actually, Civ3 *is* racist...

Originally posted by jkelly
"Just a game" is actually an alarming argument; it means that we are supposes to believe that anything that is not regarded as being of cultural importance should never be questioned for its message.

Bull, and you know it.

The argument is not "it's just a game, and hence is inherently not offensive", but rather "it's just a game, and hence fire-and-brimstone attempts to create outrage are sorely out of place." The fact that this is a forum for discussion of the actual game and not of semiotic analysis of cultural mores would also make this a question of appropriate venue.

Or is that anything that we find entertaining should not blah blah

Oh, cut it out.

...are just unwilling to consider examining their own opinions and cruelty. It's ignorance and laziness.

Your uniform assumptions are no better than anyone else's. Your implication is that anyone who doesn't feel that apolyton forums are a proper place to respond to someone trolling about semiotic racist undertones is an ignorant, cartoonish racist... well, I think it speaks for itself.

Grow up. You're not the One True Font of Wisdom as you assume yourself to be.

I don't feel any need to only engage with other people or their work that happen to match my political prejudices exactly, and I would hope that remains true for a great number of people.

Shut up already. Do you do this at the dinner table?

Subject 1:"I hate yams."
Subject 2:"You hate yams because you hate South Americans. The undertones are obvious."
Subject 1:"Oh, shut up. This is ridiculous."
Cartoonish Caricature of you, jkelly: "DO YOU HATE EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOU? OR ARE YOU JUST TOO LAZY TO FACE YOUR OWN ETHNIC PREJUDICES?"

Etc.

As for the original post... please. Most everyone ignored what was, in my opinion, the argument that shot this troll to Hell... paraphrased, it was, "Are you offended that Abe Lincoln's leaderhead was used for Burgundy?"

Or, by extension, "Are you equally offended that all White/Caucasian/European/Western races are 'lumped together' in the same way?"

You're not. Why? Because you're trolling, or you're oversensitive and are embracing the troll because it validates your irrational cynicism.

Grow up, and get back to telling me if Communism is viable now, or if Cossacks are worth the shields.

-SporkPimp

Edit: Grammar, redundancy, legibility, etc.

[Kuciwalker]

Civ III is a laughably Eurocentric game

Designed to sell to a Eurocentric audience. It's MARKETING.

[Jeem]

Re: Actually, Civ3 *is* racist...

Originally posted by jkelly
Civ III is a laughably Eurocentric game, based on a suspect (original meaning of the word) liberal view of history (that intellectual progress and personal freedom are inherently desirable and support each other) that could use a little criticism.

What on earth are you on about? Perhaps you'd think it better for the game overall if the Germans were led by Hitler, the Russians by Stalin and the French by Napolean? Throw in Thatcher for the English, Bush for the Americans and we'd have a pretty boring game based around loads of militaristic/industrial civs...

The only reason anybody remembers the dead civs is because Europeans documented them. If that weren't the case, one of the major factions in Civ3 would probably be the Belgians. If I were an Aztec, I'd be pretty proud that my race has survived in history, regardless of how they are seen. After all, it wouldn't be all that wrong for them to be a 'backward, barbarian' civ instead of 'agricultural, militaristic'. The Spanish probably thought so when it took them all of a month or two to destroy them. Fact is, they *were* backward and barbarian compared to a far superior foe. Civ3 remembers them as something far more important.

Most Danes alive today are quite proud of their Viking ancestry, even though they are portrayed as pillaging pagans in Civ3. You know what - If I were Danish I'd be quite happy about that too because it's better to be known for anything than to be unheard of.

As a patriotic Scotsman, it annoys me slightly that the Scots aren't in Civ3. After all, we're one of the longest running Civ's still alive today. However, I'm not deceiving myself that we've offered a great deal as far as conquest and empire building goes. In the realms of Scientific research however, we've been world leaders in our time and still are today in certain areas. You wouldn't be posting on this forum because without a Scot inventing the TV and telephone, there wouldn't have been an internet. Then again, without Penicillin we'd probably all have died out to some superbug long ago.

We just wouldn't make a very interesting race. Others that are less successful (certainly as far as longevity goes) still make the game based on interest level and what they've done in the past as documented by the victors (what else are Firaxis meant to go on?).

There is no racism in civ3 - if you think there is then you must be right off your rocker and are out to find trouble where there is none.

Like the original poster of this thread.

[Jaguar]

This is a lame thread.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
This is a lame thread.

You think this is lame? Try the OT forum.

[Jaguar]

I'm an OT regular. You just don't know that because you're a n00b!

[Cerbykins]

If Civ is racist, then make me a mass murderer and ethnic cleanser
(I once did some 'experimenting with pop rush, both for effectiveness and for getting rid of the 'upstarts' )
The sad truth is, I get nothing for making a 'better world', and EVERYTHING for land grabbing and breeding like rabbits

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
I'm an OT regular. You just don't know that because you're a n00b!

Then you should know what I mean.

[Jaguar]

shutup n00b youre time isnt even worth proper capitlziation, punctoation or spelling

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
shutup n00b youre time isnt even worth proper capitlziation, punctoation or spelling

I'm obviously not a n00b. You must be so proud of your ignorance to be so eager to display it.

[Theseus]

WELL... this went to hell in a handbasket rather quickly.

Calm the h*ll down.

First, the stray into OT silliness: Keep it there, it is not needed here.

Second, the subject matter: Hmmm... I pause here... yes, inherently, Civ-type games bring up all of the hackneyed race arguments. I.E., one can certainly introduce that argument into discussions here... but I don't buy it, in the negative connotations. Sure, in a broad examination of human history and development, in a 'Guns Germs & Steel' kinda way, well, fine, but as posited by the first post in this thead.

Nope.

Come back another day.

For that matter, here's an interesting challenge: Name an entertainment vehicle that is LESS biased! (in the brooooaaadest sense)

/me plants a big-ass flag in the ground!

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Theseus
For that matter, here's an interesting challenge: Name an entertainment vehicle that is LESS biased! (in the brooooaaadest sense)

OK. Broadly speaking, a form of entertainment with little bias may be gambling. Such as Vegas or even the lottery. I'll have to get back to you on other forms of entertainment. Its getting late...