Genghis Khan Portrayal: Offensive or Not?

[Spiffor]

I don't find Genghis' picture offensive : he was a conqueror, lived as a nomad, it's normal he hasn't the orthodonthy of modern rich countries. The fact that other pre-modern leaders have good teeth is rather unaccurate.
But it's sure I'll have him cautious at me all the time : being cautious, he doesn't show any tooth

[Captain]

Yes. Accusing people of being "PC" is just as serious as accusations of racism.

Some Apolytoners seem to have a certain penchant for tunnel vision. I suspect Carver's thesis is right, most of the people calling this a "silly question" or "PC" have never been on the receiving end of racism. To them, the way a certain race is portrayed doesn't matter because it's never theirs.

Haha, it's just a joke! Just a game! Just making people uncomfortable, unwelcome, and unappreciated. Just making a worse environment, a worse atmosphere, and often a more dangerous situation for someone else. In my country, we call that harassment. It costs so much for someone else when you encourage this kind of atmosphere, and would cost you so little to encourage a more welcoming, more inclusive atmosphere. But that's too much of a bother for most of you, isn't it?

Call us oversensitive if you want, all that really shows is that you have not a single f*cking clue what people different than yourselves go through. You obviously have no idea how harmful negative portrayals of races can be. Do you even know what the term Mongoloid means? Images are just as powerful as words.

LaRusso, he's not "pounding" anyone. If anyone is, it's you, for trying to shut him up. And me, for trying to open your eyes by force of argument. Just a game? How about just a movie? Just a book? Just a textbook? Just a course? Just a curriculum? Just an educational system? Just a political institution? Just a national policy? You think there's a clear line anywhere? Point it out. You forget that racism isn't about rules and not crossing the line. It's about attitudes. And with attitudes, there are no boundary lines, only directions.

It is true that Genghis was not attractive, nor Attila, nor many of the "barbarians". History bears that out. Life was not kind to physical appearances, but why so much more unkind to certain faces? True enough, all the faces of the civs are caricatures. That doesn't mean it can be excused. Political cartoons, satire, and other forms of caricature are valid for public persona and institutions - it is not the same case when parodying & stereotyping races. If it were a case of leaders alone, fine. But since these leaders represent certain civilizations, grouped ethnically, it shouldn't be taken so lightly. They are not just faces, they are representative.

Of course, there are worse things in the world with far more rampant racism and greater effect. But if you're on these forums, you obviously care about civ. Why shouldn't you speak up when you feel disturbed by something? If people can rant about lethal bombard and get a Firaxian response, what makes you think this is any less of a serious question, any less worthy?

Fine, keep discussing whether archers should have defensive bombard. That's so much more of a relevant thread for civ 3!

I seriously doubt anyone at Firaxis purposely meant to offend, but intent is not a requirement for racism. Ignorance is the basis and many of you posting here are the strongest evidence of that. Have I gone so far as to insult some of you by saying that? Good. Because moderate language doesn't seem to be something you understand.

In truth, I don't have such a big problem with the game. I'd more likely side with the crowd that says "Yes, it's offensive but since Firaxis didn't intend it to be, I won't take it personally. I'll just let them know and if they wish, they can change it, with my thanks. But I wouldn't boycott the game." If that's the case, then why do I raise such a fuss? Because of the ignorant, puerile response of certain other posters. Someone has to speak up for the cause of being more sensitive to these concerns because it seems the majority not only doesn't care, but goes so far as to tell those concerned, that they are being silly and to forget it. Portrayals do matter, especially representatives of entire ethnic groups. At best, you're being ignorant and unconcerned for others. At worse, you're actually trying to preserve the world's status quo and all the unearned benefits that accrue to you.

[dunk]

Genghis looks just like Mao. Except with bad teeth.

[DhulKhidr]

I agree with siredgar, the portrait is the most offensive of all of them. Whether it was intentional or not is another matter. I was struck by the negative depiction. But ultimately I have to agree that it is just a game with a bunch of stupid depictions in it all ready. So one more is not enough to make me vote against the designers with my money.

[Dinner]

I am personnally upset that those fluffy pink marshmellow chick candies that are sold at Christmas are so racist. Everyone knows sub-adult chickens are yellow so it is offensive to have pink marshmellow chick candies...

[Spiffor]

Captain :
I agree portrayals are very important in the fight against racism. But I think you overstate the importance of Genghis' picture way too much :
- Racism exists mostly between the big "races" : Asians, Blacks & Whites (in all directions). I heard many people complaining about the Blacks, but I never ever heard someone complaining on the Mongols. Except around Mongolia, I don't think there can be a serious anti-mongol racism anywhere.
- Other non-white leaders are as ridiculous as white leaders. I don't think there's any racism (even unwanted) in the other leader heads.
- "Mongoloid" (if it's the English word for "mongolien" in French, when you have three chromosomes-21, and thus are mentally handicapped) means that your facial traits look like the traits of the Mongols : flattened nose and bead eyes. I don't know if the Mongols are like this. I wonder if anyone here doesn't know the difference between the Mongols and the mongoloids.

Sure, representations play an important role, but in Civ, you can look the other way around : it's imaginable to have all the so called "Barbarians" having empires much more powerful and enlightened than the so called "Civilizations". The very fact that the Mongols are a "Civilization" in the game is positive, since it(s not obvious to many people on these boards.

[Hohenzollern]

oh please

This is getting stupid.
Drop the crap about how anyone who thinks that the leaderhead isnt offensive is racist/ignorant/blind etc etc.

By the way, pick a side when you post, makes it easier to agree/take you out.
Also, you'll have to someday realize that realistic events/occurences are NOT your beef, if you are Genghis Khan, fine be mad. If you are not, shut your damn mouth, nothing worse than a whining child.

I AM angry now. This thread had integrity, but it has gone to hell. If you are a minority, and had suffered racism in any form, then you have right to be mad. To be mad at people that had nothing to do with, nor have racist tendencies is plain foolish. Just because you are a minority, does not mean you ever had the right(s) to act vengeful. I am a British Canadian, my first friend was a black boy. I have many Indian/Pakistani friends. Most of my highschool friends are Phillipino or Vietnamese. Point being that I love different cultures. I love reading and experiencing about other cultures. Therefore I have a tendency to find things in history funny, for god sakes if you dont find some aspect of history funny, you are missing life. I think if they made a Chretien face with his mouth contorted, and he said eh at the end of every sentence no matter what the context, i would
laugh my bum off. Besides, I am 50% English, and you dont see me flooding the forum with cry baby antics like "OMG Elizabeth looks like a corpse, thats racist!" When you know history, you know why they made her look like that. So, research your facts and make logical, flowing arguments that are supported by facts if you dare try to play the race card against a game. ITS A DAMN GAME. Times are not what they were.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is using their past to gain something. Plain and simple. The vast majority of minorities I know and have befriended
dont give a crap about history. The reason is they know its not they way it was anymore. STOP LIVING IN THE PAST AND MAKING PEOPLE FEEL GUILTY ALL THE DAMN TIME WITH RACIST ARGUMENTS. Political correctness is evil. It forces people to walk on egg shells, how is that fair and equal? how is that even democratic? Sounds like a regime that wants all their folks to think the same way. Anyone living today knows the damn diff between racism and jokes. Besides, the alternative would be to eliminate all civ charistics, all city designs, and no leader heads. WELCOME TO FASCISM. I am using the caps to make my point clear and get under your skin, because i cannot stand whiners, or worse, bored whiners.
DIVERSITY IS OUR FRIEND!

[ajbera]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I am personnally upset that those fluffy pink marshmellow chick candies that are sold at Christmas are so racist. Everyone knows sub-adult chickens are yellow so it is offensive to have pink marshmellow chick candies...

Hear hear, my brother.

Anyone ever read "The Lathe of Heaven"? Let's just homogenize everyone, turn 'em all grey.

Personally, I think all the leaders in Civ3 look kinda goofy (excepting Joan of Arc and Cleopatra - both foxes), but then again, I think I look kinda goofy, so I feel a sense of camaraderie with them.

I'm sure I'll get flamed, but that's my two cents.

[ChaotikVisions]

Ugh.

Great, next someone is going to say CSAs are racist, because its stereotyping there culture. Ugh, you people who whine over things like this have too much time on your hand. We're talking about a barbarian leader who the only portraits that do exist probably were meant just to glorify him, not go for accuracy. He lived his life in a harsh climate and many other things, I do think the civ3 leader head for him is a bit odd, but its not even close to being racist. No more then any of the other civ3 heads are.

This is just a game, one leader head does not portray the race. I mean do you really picture a whole nation of Cleopatras when considering Egypt IRL or in game now? I doubt it. Leaders for the most part usually aren't the norm for the race anyway. I mean seriously, how many of the civ3 leader heads can you find that are compareable to any actual race? It isn't racism that they look different, its just an exaggerated thing meant to bring a bit of humor and theme to the game.

I'm so tired of everyone yelling 'racist' at the drop of a hat. Of course according to captain because of that i'm insensitive, well who cares. I know i'm not looking down on anyone because the color of there skin, I could care less what other people think about me. And as to why Genghis looks the worst of the civ3 heads, is because unlike most of the other rulers, he had to establish his empire, not just take over ruling it or rise to power in a semi-comfortable enviroment.

And your favorite insult once more, claiming we are ignorant. Your only basis on this insult is because we fail to see what you do, this sounds more like a different opinion rather then a lack of knowledge. Now if we have a Mongol or I suppose someone whos Chinese that visits the fourm, could they please tell us what they think of this? I'm so tired of people taking over causes just so they can argue something else is racist. Yeah I know i'm not Mongol or Chinese and i'm arguing it isn't, but i'm betting you aren't either and you are arguing it is.

Portayals do matter perhaps, but not in a game really, and at no point has anyone ever said the civ3 leader heads represent an entire race. If you want to see what a race looks like in civ3 terms, go into one of your citys, the cartoonish bit of graphics there show your race, complain about that, not about leader heads.

I'm just tired of seeing people yell 'racist' for anything however remote it might be, these are not even close to legitimate concerns that should be taken to Firaxis. Its just picking at something and whining that its racist, with no real purpose. I doubt anyone from Firaxis will ever read this, and any e-mails you send them would probably be laughed at. To find racism in something like this, you have to want it to be there, rather then following common sense that shows it isn't there.

[Hohenzollern]

exactly

well said Chaotik

[Bella Hella]

dude, didn't you guys ever see bill and ted's excellent adventure??? firaxis's portrait is just dandy.

seriously, it's just a game, and i'm sure firaxis wouldn't intentionally do something racist. in fact, i think they've tried in many ways to make sure it's NOT racist!

[FrostyBoy]

But what if Genghis Khan really did look like that?

[Alex]

Captain: blah blah blah blah blah.

PC crap. Civ3 is a game. It won't change the world. People will not start to despise Mongols because of this. I would not. Would you?

[JtheJackal]

I didn't even think that the portraits were any more than silly charachitures untill I started reading these fourms. Actually i still think that they are silly charachitures. None of them in my opinion looked at all stereotypical.
Besides I bet Khan will look all clean and professional in the modern age.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Captain :
I agree portrayals are very important in the fight against racism. But I think you overstate the importance of Genghis' picture way too much :
- Racism exists mostly between the big "races" : Asians, Blacks & Whites (in all directions). I heard many people complaining about the Blacks, but I never ever heard someone complaining on the Mongols. Except around Mongolia, I don't think there can be a serious anti-mongol racism anywhere.

One doesn't have to hate Mongols to be racism. One only has to look down on them. And yes, I have seen it. It exists. Less so these days than before, but it still exists. Yes, there are fewer Mongols around and you are right that the main tensions are between the "big" races, but Mongols get included with the Asians. When "Yellow Fever" arises, that's racism directed against asians, Mongols included. Yes, Yellow Fever is a term used to describe the phenomenon about fifty years ago but it still exists today, just less open. Few admit to it, but if you're an asian minority you can see it. It goes the other way too.

To prevent any "guilt" or "fingerpointing" at the dominant ethnic group of these boards, I'll use a minority example. If you're a non-asian in an asian majority, you'll be able to see this. You'll hear terms like "Gwy Lo", which Asians use to refer to non-asians. It's a very derogatory term. It doesn't mean they hate non-asians, it just means non-asians are beneath them, a sub-level of people. But Asians don't find the term racist, it's just what they've called non-asians forever. But that doesn't excuse it. Many asians don't see a problem with it, and they don't think of it as racism. but it definitely is. make no mistake about it. now, hopefully the natural corollaries to this can be made without me having to spell it out, and thus enrage even more people who don't like their consciences piqued.


as for civ 3, am I overstating? Of course. I fully acknowledge that. It is in response to the abysmal posts of certain others here. An extreme response provokes another one. When others are willing to come off their high horses and talk about the issues instead of using idiotic "blah blah blahs" or tossing the word "PC" around, then we can have some form of reasonable debate, such as your post has done.

- Other non-white leaders are as ridiculous as white leaders. I don't think there's any racism (even unwanted) in the other leader heads.

I am not entirely sure what you mean by the above sentence.

- "Mongoloid" (if it's the English word for "mongolien" in French, when you have three chromosomes-21, and thus are mentally handicapped) means that your facial traits look like the traits of the Mongols : flattened nose and bead eyes. I don't know if the Mongols are like this. I wonder if anyone here doesn't know the difference between the Mongols and the mongoloids.

where do you suppose the term comes from? and why would you not find it to be an offensive term? I don't know your background, but if the name of your people was synonymous with mentally retarded, I think you'd find that offensive. pictures are as strong as words.

Sure, representations play an important role, but in Civ, you can look the other way around : it's imaginable to have all the so called "Barbarians" having empires much more powerful and enlightened than the so called "Civilizations". The very fact that the Mongols are a "Civilization" in the game is positive, since it(s not obvious to many people on these boards.

you are right. that's a very good point and I am in total agreement with you.