Racist Undertones in Conquests

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Yet another really long and boring post about absolutely nothing.

If the thread starter was so concerned over this issue and convinced he was right, then why has he not returned to the debate ?

Only one answer really TROLL

[Alex]

ok, time to close this thread.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by ChrisiusMaximus
Yet another really long and boring post about absolutely nothing.

If the thread starter was so concerned over this issue and convinced he was right, then why has he not returned to the debate ?

Maybe after hearing some of our replies he got scared off...

(unless he's a DL )

[Metazoa]

Originally posted by Master Zen
This thread is absolutely ridiculously pathetic.

I find it totally despicable how some people find "racism" even in the most inoffensive things, case in point the Mesoamerican scenario. As a Mexican, I should have far more reason to complain if I found this scenario racist, and guess what? I don't. What is worse is that these dumb-ass PC idiots in their quest to make this world safe from bigotry and discrimination end up complaining about things that don't even correspond to their countries or culture.

Tell me, those who think this scenario is racist: do you have indian blood in you? Are you a descendant of any of the cultures included in the Mesoamerica scenario? I thought not.

-MZ

I shouldn't need to have "Indian blood" in me to care about the fate of Native American peoples or be Mexican to care enough about racism directed towards them. And why do you assume I am white? Simply because I made a post that appears "PC" to you? No, I do not consider myself an obnoxious liberal, and I assume you are dissapointed to hear this. I am just a normal guy concerned with the portrayal of non-European cultures in a game I enjoy playing. Is that so wrong?

[Metazoa]

And I am not a "troll" because I waited a week or two to reply to this thread. I do not check this site every day, as I have other things in my life to do.
I am sorry if I offended anyone by implying that the designers of this game are racist. Perhaps I'm wrong, and I know they rushed development. I admit that I am probably not right by saying that. To move on, there is still the issue of the unintended racism inherent in the game, or better worded by someone earlier, Eurocentrism. This is not a terrible concept, but just something we should ponder about. It definitely is not the correct way to view the world, but for a game that is apparently trying hard to make everyone happy, it is fine for now. This doesn't mean that they shouldn't try harder to make it more realistic.

[Metazoa]

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

Originally posted by Jeem


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.

Speaking of Eurocentrism...
Simply to call any culture "barbarians" is so wildly ignorant that I won't even go into it right now, unless someone would like me to try to sum it up.

[Kuciwalker]

Eurocentrism... DUH! Who do you think they're marketing to? Europeans and Americans!

Simply to call any culture "barbarians" is so wildly ignorant that I won't even go into it right now, unless someone would like me to try to sum it up.

Actually, calling them "barbarians" is based on lack of ignorance (aka knowledge ) - they had a level of technology that was behind Europe by thousands of years.

[Truman_Capote]

I believe he may be refering to the fact that barbarian originally meant to the Greeks or Romans anyone who wasn't Greek or Roman (It may've been both, or only one of them, I can't remember.)

Anyways Metazoa's point is valid. I also found racist overtones in the Sword of the Shogun Scenario. Representing the Japanese leaders as colorful banners implies that every Japanese person is a colorful banner.

Just because some Japanese people happen to be colorful banners doesn't mean we should assume that a colorful banner can represent any Japanese person.

Edit: Aw. Went back through the thread and saw someone beat me to this point.

[Mr. President]

Not another of these threads . . .

[joncha]

Actually, "barbarian" is derived from an derogatory term used by the (ancient) greeks to describe non-greek speaking peoples. Its based on the way those peoples were perceived to have talked ("bar-bar-bar").

So yes, it is an inherently racist term.

jon.

[treedom]

This is an idiotic topic.

But it gives me even more reason to *hate* those leaderheads. So much work went into such an utterly USELESS feature, that when it comes to making new scenarios, Firaxis is hesitant to replace their precious time drain with a custom BMP for the new civ. Whereas, if they had used regular pics for all the leaderheads instead of throwing away resources on making those ugly moving ones, it would be no big thing to just throw in a proper pic for the Olmecs, Burgundians, etc.

[dannubis]

Originally posted by skywalker

Actually, calling them "barbarians" is based on lack of ignorance (aka knowledge ) - they had a level of technology that was behind Europe by thousands of years.

In the field technological applications of inventions, yes. But they were far more advanced in social sciences (e.g. agriculture, sewer systems, ...)

[ThePlagueRat]

Europe had a tremendous technolgical advance in military terms, and one can say it's because of all those inventions used during the middle ages. This was a time of huge power struggles and it pushed technology in a military direction... many of the more scientific advances was obtained from the ancient Greece, Egypt and the Middle East. until Isaac Newton, europe was way behind in all other aspects of science. In the eyes of a chinese emperor europeans would be looked upon as barbarians because of their culture. It's all in the eyes of the beholder.

[Scriblerus]

I'm basically with jkelly. But what I find quite extraordianry is the shrillness and volume of the of-course-it-isn't-racist camp. Huge offences are committed every day by people who think it just doesn't matter how other people are portrayed (and not only on a racist basis). Inthisd instance, someone at Firaxis might have thought that substituting one race for another might not be good enough. Judging by previous topics, if plucky little Belgium had cropped up in a scenario with an African leader head, we'd have had endless complaints about Belgian representation ((cf the why aren't the Portugeuse/Bulgarians/Samoans included?complaints when Civ 3 was first released). This is all arguably OT, but there are clearly some people out there who can't make a coherent case but rely on being able to shout down those with whom they disagree. Of course, this is all much more of a hot topic in the USA where institutional racism is deeply emebedded in a large part of the country (Shout now, guys!!!!!).

I wonder how jeem would have felt if his Socts had been included as a tribe, but represented on screen by, say, a Japanese face. Or how doea he feel when foreigners describe him to his face as English?

By the way, those backward barbaric Amerindians were wiped out by European germs, not European cultural superiority. A little grasp of history wouldn't hurt.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by skywalker
Actually, calling them "barbarians" is based on lack of ignorance (aka knowledge ) - they had a level of technology that was behind Europe by thousands of years.

Ah yes, that is why when the Spanish reached Tenochtitlan their jaws dropped at seeing a city that was paradise compared to the rat-infested wrecks they called towns back in Europe. That is also why the Mayan calendar is actually more accurate than the one we use 500 years later.