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/~phalsall/images/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]

Re: Genghis Khan Portrayal: Offensive or Not?

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]

Re: Re: Genghis Khan Portrayal: Offensive or Not?

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.