Genghis Khan Portrayal: Offensive or Not?

[Jon Shafer]

I agree with Harlan. That's why I voted "they're all offensive." They're not supposed to look like the real person.

[Carver]

Originally posted by Harlan
If Firaxis had racist intentions in their portraits, why would they have wanted to make Cleopatra black skinned? There have been a number of black scholars for years trying to claim she was black - she's a very admired figure in history.

She wasn't "black", as in sub-Saharan African. But she certainly was nowhere near as white as the western actresses that have portrayed her. The areas of Egypt and Sudan have long had "black" African and Arab populations living there. It seems most likely that Cleopatra had features from both. (which is why trying to put people in racial boxes is inherently unscientific and inaccurate - but that's a whole nother thread)

[Harlan]

Carver,
You're forgetting one important fact about Cleopatra: she was ethnically Greek. Starting with Alexander's general Ptolemy, the Greeks ruled Egypt from around 300 BC. Even prior to this time, there were many Greeks in Egypt (typically living in completely separate towns or neighborhoods), but once Ptolemy took over, big numbers of Greeks came in. They typically lived completely different lives, almost like two societies inhabiting the same space. Greeks and Egyptians were so separated that Cleopatra was the first (and only) Ptolemaic ruler who even bothered to learn Egyptian! The entire upper class was Greek (social classes were very ethically rigid in Egypt in those days - the Egyptians were relegated to being peasants by the conquering Greeks), which is why none of the rulers ever needed to speak Egyptian. Furthermore, the Ptolemaic dynasts quickly adopted the tradition of pharohs to marry only their sisters and other close relatives, so there's really no doubt at all that there was little to no Egyptian blood in Cleopatra, much less something one could call black.

Finally, there have been plenty of visual and written depictions of Cleopatra (and the other Ptolemaic rulers) from the time that confirm all this. Recently there was a minor story in the news that Cleopatra wasn't the beauty the stereotype makes her, but looked pretty ordinary. But this isn't news, just some people rediscovering/ popularizing what more educated scholars have long known.

Had you been talking about pre-Ptolemaic pharohs, you would have been right. Some of those were dark enough to be labelled "black" today. Egypt was conquered several times from the south, so whole dynasties would have looked black.

[zulu9812]

Oh my god. Why do people keep going on about racism and whatnot in Civ3?? Stop it!

[siredgar]

Originally posted by Spiffor
OK, now, to the point.
I don't think it's possible to portray a minority without it being racist. The true message is what people percieve : if you depict an ugly "minoritarian", the "majoritarian" who sees the picture might think : "Oh ! The ugly minoritarian ! No doubt he and his likes are inferior !" or such a thing.

Many won't. But some will. I suspect that diehard antiracists, who see racism everywhere, suffer from these racist misrepresentations (Siredgar, I'm not talking specifically about you, but you could enter the category... I can't say, because I don't know you enough). If you were subtly taught the Blacks are inferior to the Whites, then any representation of a Black person can seem offensive to you, if this person has obvious flaws (uglyness, mischievous or something).

If you have no subtle racism in your culture, you might just think : "oh, someone ugly".
But, I highly doubt any culture has no racism, or at least no discrimination about what's different from the norm. Personally, I have racist tensions, which I fight, but which are deeply rooted in my psyche. Racism is bad and I know it, but it's hard to fight against your subconscious.

I think this sounds like psycho-babble to me.

[siredgar]

Originally posted by Darkworld Ark


Since we know the paintings of Ghengis Khan are propoganda, you're relying on guesses and "probably"s just as much as anybody who says that that's how he looked. As for Liz, she proboly should have had bad teath, although she's already a 'hag'.

No, I am not because I never said he "probably" looked like this or that. All I did was show two portraits of him.

[siredgar]

Originally posted by FrantzX
The masses have spoken. Civ leaders can be ugly.

The point of my poll was to see if there were any other people who would find Genghis Khan portrait offensive. Of course, knowing that most of the people who play the game and come to this forum are European or North American, I KNEW that the majority would disagree with me. I expected about 20%, possibly 30% (thinking the world has changed), optimistically. So, claiming that the majority opinion is the right opinion is not just. It's like taking a poll in the South years before the Civil Rights movement on whether blacks should be given equal rights as whites.

[siredgar]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Siredgar is way too emotive, compared to Captain : he thinks Genghis is Chimp-like (while many others, including myself, consider him very humanly ugly), and seems not to understand people can have a different representation of the same thing. That's sad, and Siredgar is a kind of pendant to Hohenzollern : no rational discussion.

Please do not compare me to someone who spews out hatred and anger and profanities (i.e. Hohenzollern).

Anyhow, because I am the one who is upset about the Genghis Khan portrait, that is why I have started this thread. Captain is contributing to the discussion, so he is likely not to be as upset as I am. Regardless, I believe he too used profanities in one of his earlier posts (sorry, Captain). Just because it doesn't upset you doesn't mean that you are more logical than I am. Please look and read the other posts to see who is being truly "emotive". It is apparent that you are a sloppy reader.

[siredgar]

Originally posted by Darkworld Ark


There's a large difference between Ghengis Khan looking ugly & Nazis killing Jews...

Duh.

Obviously, he is making an analogy. You must be one of those people who require a sign above Genghis Khan's portrait saying, "This is what all Mongolians look like." in order to see it as racist in anyway.

Duh...

[siredgar]

By the way, I don't reply to poorly conceived posts. So, don't worry your feeble little mind, Ninot.

[siredgar]

I do not expect people to agree or disagree with me. As I have stated before, I knew that the majority would disagree with me for obvious reasons.

I posted this thread to listen to other people's thoughts and address an issue that I felt was important.

Therefore, I should not be upset that other people disagree with me. However, I will defend myself and my thoughts when I am needlessly insulted on intelligence and beliefs. If I stated something completely idiotic or my message originated from Canada, then go ahead and respond in such a way. But I do not believe I did either.

[siredgar]

Originally posted by Harlan

I thought I had made it clear, and that Mongolia Today article makes, clear, that there are no other portraits of Ghengis.

We can only make best guesses based on the evidence available to us and what we know about the Mongols and the time generally. That's all I'm trying to do.

As I said, I wouldn't have drawn him with that silly smile.

Feel free to read some quality books on the subject and then respond with your own probablies.

If Firaxis had racist intentions in their portraits, why would they have wanted to make Cleopatra black skinned?

Harlan,

1. I have posted not one but two portraits of Genghis Khan. They look nothing like the Civ3 depiction. I am not arguing that that is exactly what he looked like. But I would say he looked closer to these pictures than he does in the Civ3 version.

2. So, your guesses are better than actual portraits that are supported by Mongolian authorities? Anyhow, if he was portrayed anything like the Mongol warriors in the picture that you posted, that would be fine. But that is not what was done. Regardless, you have to understand that leaders are generally better kept than their subjects. For example, not everyone in Elizabethan England looked as properly groomed as their ruler.

3. Yes, that is the key factor. That smile makes him look insanely idiotic. I agree with you here.

4. I read books all the time. I do not, however, engage in "probablies" to support an argument. That is called speculation. If I am speculating, then I say so instead of trying to pass it off as fact to a bunch of unsuspecting Apolytoners.

5. Cleopatra was Greek. It seems that they mixed European facial features with African skin tones. Perhaps it was a compromise. I don't know why they did that, but she looks beautiful.

[siredgar]

Originally posted by Carver
Harlan, the pictures you posted (of "genuine" Mongolians) look tasteful and respectful.

Ghengis doesn't need to be "pretty". I don't much care about bad teeth or an imperfect complexion. But the expression on Ghengis' face (from the screenshot we have) is one of imature foolishness. Ghengis should not be the Jar Jar of civ3.

I think what Carver has posted summarizes my thoughts better than I have in my posts.

[Darkworld Ark]

You know siredgar, you'd proboly get more support if you dropped the "Holier than thou" attitude, because it's REALLY annoying.

[siredgar]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Personally, I have racist tensions, which I fight, but which are deeply rooted in my psyche. Racism is bad and I know it, but it's hard to fight against your subconscious.

Perhaps that is why you find the depiction of Genghis Khan acceptable. In fact, it seems that you described your own reasons for this very well.