Genghis Khan Portrayal: Offensive or Not?

[DhulKhidr]

Re: oh please

Originally posted by Hohenzollern
This is getting stupid.

Actually I thought it was an decent exchange of reasonable, yet differing opinions until you piped in with this post.

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

It's not crap, it's true. Your post is a poorly-written example of just that.

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.

Anyone ever see the movie "Falling Down?"

When you know history, you know why they made her look like that.

Quit clouding the issue with obvious BS!! Get a grip! Elizabeth looks like a normal Brit, except for the white teeth. Now everybody knows that if any leader is going to be presented with bad teeth, it should be the English monarch.

Times are not what they were.

Yes they are.

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.

Racism, and the suffering caused by it are in the past???

[Captain]

Re: oh please

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

No, the racists are the ones who insult and denigrate those people who are offended by negative portrayals of certain races. You can disagree that the leaderheads aren't offensive, but insulting people who think it is offensive is where I come in and tell you you're an ignorant, blind, racist jerk.

By the way, pick a side when you post, makes it easier to agree/take you out.

Pick a side, can't you tell yet? Well, I have been writing to several different threads so maybe I've not made something clear that I've written elsewhere.

Well I'll make it clear right now.
I'm on the side that's for trying to see it from someone else's point of view. I'm on the side that acknowledges people's concerns, not brushing them off. I'm on the side that says "you've got a valid point", not the side that says "your concerns are stupid". I'm for the side that has a reasonable discussion, not for the side with immediately rolling of the eyes and snide comments about how tiring and futile it is to talk about racism.

Let me say it once more: I don't have a big problem with the game, I have a problem with certain posters who obviously have no respect for those who want to speak up against negative portrayals.

Also, you'll have to someday realize that realistic events/occurences

please explain.

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.

yes there is. an ignorant boor who tells people to shut up when he doesn't like what they're saying. it might make him feel bad or guilty... he can't respect that other people would find this portrait offensive, can't bring himself to even admit someone else might be offended, so calls everyone who is offended a whiner or PC.


[QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE]
you're missing the point.

Just because you are a minority, does not mean you ever had the right(s) to act vengeful.

Explain what you mean by vengeful. I fail to see how saying the portrayal of Genghis Khan as the leader of the Mongols is negative and offensive, results in you thinking it's 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.

You said you liked history and studied it. I ask you to take some time then, and see how history has affected the present. I won't try to convince you, I only ask that you look carefully and objectively, doing a few hours of research, and then ask yourself whether you really think the present can be separated from the past. Should you really be unconcerned about why certain groups of people have a lower socio-economic status and education due to historical institutionalized racism? The southern Civils rights movement came about around 30-40 years ago. lots of people are still alive whose attitudes haven't changed. lots of children grow up learning form their parents that racism is the norm. do you really think all that has been made right in such a short time? seriously, you do the research. I'm never going to convince you with my arguments, just take the time and do your own research. what do you have to lose from trying?

STOP LIVING IN THE PAST AND MAKING PEOPLE FEEL GUILTY ALL THE DAMN TIME WITH RACIST ARGUMENTS.

who's making you feel guilty? do you have something you should feel guilty of?

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.

agreed. PC makes people do things out of fear. Genuine change comes because attitudes change. but no one can make someone change their mind. that's the purpose of discussion, and one of the reasons we have forums like these. telling people to shut up isn't a good way to show that you're open minded.

Anyone living today knows the damn diff between racism and jokes.

No. It's still a problem. You don't see it? that's unfortunate because it seems that your life's experiences should show you that it's not true.

Besides, the alternative would be to eliminate all civ charistics, all city designs, and no leader heads. WELCOME TO FASCISM.

please explain what you mean by fascism and how this relates.

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!

I can't stand people who tell others to shut up and take their sensitivities elsewhere because they're unimportant. How respectful is that?

[Spiffor]

We're heading towards the OT at immeasurable speed

Captain :
My unclear sentence meant that all leaders, whatever their race, are as ridiculous. Seeing a ridiculous Shaka or a ridiculous Mao in Civ isn't racist in the meaning that Alexander and Ceasar are also ridiculous.

As for the debate : I don't think you should take trolling too personally. I suppose many people come here for the same reason than me : to discuss Civ3, which is just a game (to repeat once again). Serious matters get dicussed -at least by me, but I'm sure I'm not alone- with other people, with whom I have more affinities / interest in talking politics.
So, don't think that people who say racism is irrelevant because Civ is just a game are people who subconciously help racism. Those are people who don't care in this arena, it doesn't mean they don't care in other arenas.

EDIT :As for "Mongolians" : even if the term can lead some feebleminded people to think the Mongols are all mentally retarded, I think the immensely huge majority of people know they aren't. Again, this word comes from the fact that Mongolians show the same facial traits as the only Eastern people who were known in Europe at the time : the Mongols. Mongolians/mongoloids and Mongols are NOT synonymous, not even near to. Everyone knows that a Civ who conquered almost all Eurasia cannot be made only from retarded

[Captain]

Re: Ugh.

Originally posted by ChaotikVisions
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.

so far, you've made some decent points. reasonable arguments. fair enough. I'm listening.

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.

I would not make that claim for you. Most of your post above has been reasonable. You are making that claim yourself.

Tired of hearing 'racist'? That's unfortunate and I wish you weren't. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that those who see it don't have a right to point it out without being shouted down. And I think you can agree that the thread starter was being shouted down by some posters.

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.

Ok, explain to me why you don't think I'm Chinese or Mongolian? Furthermore, one doesn't have to be a member of a minority to see it or speak about it. Oftentimes the minorities are silent because they are the minority. They are not in a position to make a statement without fear of reprisals. You have to realize that they don't want to rock the boat for fear of making things worse. Please tell me you understand this.

Most minorities that do eventually speak out against entrenched racism, do so with allies who can and do take up someone else's cause. It's called caring. It's called looking out for someone besides yourself. I don't see why you have a problem with this.

When no one else cares, when there are no allies, then non-violence and intelligent discussion turns into violence. "If the majority is not willing to listen and address our concerns, then we must take things into our own hands." Is that what you really want? Open hostilities?

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'm sorry you see it that way. I wish you could see the purpose.

I doubt anyone from Firaxis will ever read this, and any e-mails you send them would probably be laughed at.

that's too bad then, isn't it? lynch mobs used to laugh whenever their victims screamed in pain or begged for mercy. how is it you think being laughed at will help anything, or convince me that it's worth laughing about? when some people laughed at Rodney King being beaten, should I have laughed too? when some friends make racist jokes, am I to say that just because it's a joke, I can't find it offensive?

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.

once again, the portrait is offensive for some people, myself included. why do you insist that we not find it offensive? it's the insistence that we cannot be validly concerned about it that points to racism.

[moomin]

Lighten up, people, please.

It's not as if Khan is in worse shape than Ghandi, really, and I see no complaints 'bout him. Khan probably looked more or like that in real life anyway - no cushioned little pince he.

I find the ungly women more disturbing, personally.

[Jon Shafer]

If you ask me, I'm offended because they messed up Napoleon. I mean, they spelled his name wrong... something COMPLETELY different... "Jon Dark" or something like that, and the picture.. MAN it doesn't look anything like him! Someone sue Firaxis!!!

[siredgar]

Captain, I applaud you for taking a stance on a sensitive subject as this. I am glad that someone here shows some sensibility and reason without resorting to "shut up because I hate your whining" type statements.

Overall, I have been noticing that with few exceptions the European great leaders are generally more "normal"-looking and attractive than the non-European ones. The Genghis portrait goes a bit too far. What I am specifically talking about is the depiction of non-Europeans as looking or acting less than human. I don't think it's fair and certainly not warranted in the year 2002. We should take a step forward rather than backward.

Genghis truly looks like a beady-eyed, toothless chimp. Is there any other leader that is comparable to this?

[wrylachlan]

Alright, two arguments that are totally in opposition to each other:


One:
PC has gotten this horrible name and people run around and scream about how they are being oppressed by PC but the basic idea of PC is fairly sound. Language shapes our ability to think. The brain tends to think in patterns, it understands the world in patterns, and the specific words we use shape the way we think.

Let me give a real over-the-top example. What if the English word for female/woman/girl was "bad" which is also the word for... well bad. If every time you had to talk about women you called them bad, I dare say your opinion of women would be shaped by that. And if women wanted some sort of equality, it would probably be a legitimate target to ask people to use some other word than "bad" to describe them.

This is all that PC is saying. The people who started the PC movement weren't hell-bent on sending people to jail for mis-speaking. They simply wanted people to start recognizing how their speach patterns could potentially contribute to prejudice.

And some good things have come out of the "PC Revolution". Draftsman is now draftsperson, fireman - fire fighter, and numerous more changes that the anti-PC movement railed against that now seem pretty reasonable and tame.

Now that is not to say that there weren't some people who were overly militant in their persual of PC, but to catagorically dismiss a large movement because of its most extreme members would be like assuming all Republicans are like Pat Buchanan or Alan Keyes.

So please don't throw the word PC around like it is a swear word when it has helped women and minorities in very many ways.

Two.
Here's the other side of the argument -

When black people first started appearing on television they were in servant roles, then it turned into stereotypical bad guys, and then there came an interesting period.

For a while you didn't see ANY bad guys who were black on TV. Black actors were realizing what the blacksploitation movies had done to them and didn't want to play bad guys. Black leaders wanted the young black children to see only black role models on TV. And the studio executives were afraid of being called racist if they programmed black bad guys into their programming.

Its only fairly recently that you're starting to see a balancing out of this effect where black actors appear with white actors as bad guys.

I happen to think that this is a step forward in our societal move away from racism.

As such, it may be a good sign that Firaxis is willing to simply caricature the way Ghengis really would have looked, instead of needing to tidy him up for the viewing public.

I think its hard to make an assessment of racism without an original picture of Ghengis to judge how much the charicature differs from it in a derogatory way.

Since we don't know what he really looked like, isn't it up to the artist's conception? And do we know that the artist himself isn't Mongolian? I'm not suggesting that he is, but isn't this the assumption you are working on? That he is some white guy who is insensitive to race? Isn't that assumption in itself racist since it assumes that a minority who is sensitive to race couldn't get a position as an artist in a successful game company?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by siredgar
Genghis truly looks like a beady-eyed, toothless chimp. Is there any other leader that is comparable to this?

GWB?

Oh, you mean in the game? Gandhi looks like ET to me, a little. Is that bad? If I were any of the leaders, I would feel insulted, not just Ghengrene.

[moomin]

Check out Gandhi. He's more than a match for Genghis. Then go admire the great beuaty of Cath the European übermensch.

[ajbera]

Originally posted by siredgar
Overall, I have been noticing that with few exceptions the European great leaders are generally more "normal"-looking and attractive than the non-European ones.

Hmmm...I've just looked over the leader portraits and I have to disagree. Hiawatha, Montezuma, Mao, Tokugawa, Xerxes and Hammurabi (not to mention foxy Cleopatra) all look fine and sane, on an even keel with the Euro-leaders. They do not look "less normal" to me at all. In fact, only one is particularly gnarly...

Genghis truly looks like a beady-eyed, toothless chimp. Is there any other leader that is comparable to this?

Mohandas K. Gandhi, the Mahatma. One of the wisest, most decent, most principled men in history, and he looks like crap. Should the Indian peoples of the world be offended? Gandhi did look something like that, so the portrayal isn't inaccurate.

Would you be happier if all the leaders looked like Joan? It would be a more pleasant visual experience, but not all world leaders are nice to look at. Abe looks like an axe murderer (as he did in real life), and I'd bet dollars to donuts that Genghis was a pretty scary-looking mother******.

I feel for those who have experienced racism, but I rather like having Genghis look barbaric and monstrous. If this offends, I'm sorry you feel that way.

[Spiffor]

Ajbera :
When you CONQUER (not raze) most of Eurasia, when you unite nomadic tribes under your leadership, and when the loyalty these tribes owe to you last until your very death, then you can't be only a Barbarian. You have to manipulate in the fine arts of politics. Even if Ghengis' politics was less delicious as in Europe's Kingdoms, it still was about obtaining supports with several means, including negociation. Considering Ghengis as a Barbarian is completely unaccurate (much like considering Attila as a Barbarian, while his main preoccupations was not useless carnage, but money and power : lifted the siege of Paris after a negociation)
I still think there's no problem for the Khan to be ugly, as it reflects the hardships of a central-asia nomad who had to struggle his whole life, but I don't think he must look like this because he's a "Barbarian". That would be insulting.

[civman2000]

i am borderline for the most part, but slightly on the side of not offensive. Unlike some people, I have listened to captain's arguments and I definitely agree that anyone who is sick of people saying things are racist and the other stuff is racist. Although not thinking a certain thing is racist does not maek you racist, not being willing to consider the possibility is racist.

[Darkworld Ark]

I don't see how you can find Ghengis offencive. Nowere is anybody saying that ALL Mongolians look like him, (although most in Ghengis' time did look like that) it's just a picture of him, & quite a hilarious one at that. ( I had a good chuckle after seeing him) What I want to know is if his face stays the same through all the Eras? (Imagine Khan in a buissness suit with that face.)

Captain, what would you prefer Mr. Khan look like?

[Jon Shafer]

Like this.