Genghis Khan Portrayal: Offensive or Not?

[Captain]

nye,

If I'm not mistaken, we have (or had) a level of mutual respect for each other. I am indebted to your helpful posts over the past while, and I find you a level-headed guy with reasonable posts and a decent sense of humour.

that said, please leave siredgar alone. I do see Siredgar being picked on by some other posters. He has a right to defend his thread and his opinions. He has done so in an honourable fashion, and not retaliated unprovoked.

He finds it offensive. He isn't asking everyone to agree with him. To my knowledge, within this thread, he hasn't done anything to deserve your disrespect or anyone else's.

[notyoueither]

Alright, Captain. I will do as you ask, because you have asked it.

I will leave you with this though. While racism is surely a terrible thing, the undeserved accusation of it is not much better. It can be a label used to dismiss people and ideas who are not necessarily guilty of the crime.

Finally, I'll repeat this. I will grant you something. Yes, stereotypes that pit virtuous ideals against ugly evil ones are racist. But that is not how civ 3 depicts these things. They are doing a fair job of sharing the ugly stick around. If all of the leaders are caricatures, how is it racist that the one of Ghengis is also?

[siredgar]

Originally posted by notyoueither
siredar. You'd be the expert on it (babble). On this point I'll accept your opinion.

I'm glad we've agreed on something.

[Captain]

if this was an argument carried over from some other thread, leave it out of this one.

please back up your accusation of histrionics or take it back. there are many others out there who post more flamboyantly for pettier causes.

also, why do you call it psycho babble? it seems like a fair conclusion that the intensity of the "it's not racist and this is stupid" arguments in the face of no one accusing anyone else of racism, that some people feel they've been labeled racist and need to defend themselves.

I am fairly sure siredgar never called anyone racist. he just said he suspects a racist factor. then he gets shouted down. he responds by saying "I see your point" and goes on to explain himself more.

it isn't proof, it's just logical. think of those old sitcoms where the mischievous teenage kid goes and does something he/she knows the parents will disapprove of. then the parents, completely unaware of any wrongdoing, return home and ask
"did everything go well dear?".
the teen replies "of course, it did! why would you think otherwise. nothing happened!"
This of course, puts the parent on immediate suspicion and he/she says "ok, so everything went well. I was just asking."
teen replies"well don't. I'm able to take care of things. I'm a responsible adult now."
parent: "okay, we can see that. no one said you weren't."
teen: "right then. ...good."

parent: "so... then did you have a good time?"
teen: what do you mean? good time? are you implying something?
parent: I'm just asking if you had fun is all.
teen: fun? no more than usual. nothing out of the ordinary.
parent: ok, well, that's good.
teen: right.

parent: so, what did you do?
teen: nothing.
parent: what do you mean nothing?
teen: nothing! that's all. nothing.
parent: you had to have done something, you couldn't have just sat around all day. I thought you said you had fun?
teen: yeah, I did.
parent: well, you can't have fun doing nothing. what did you do?
teen: nothing! just, you know, ordinary stuff, the same things I always do.
parent: ok. ...um... like what? watch tv? read a book?
teen: no.., I mean, yes, yes. why all the questions! I thought we agreed I was responsible and that nothing happened!"
parent:"wait a second, why are you getting so upset?
teen: "I'm not upset!"
parent: ok then! stop shouting!
teen: who's shouting! not me!
parent: you are right now!
teen: alright so I am! well, I have a right to! I'm sick and tired of all these accusations!
parent: what accusations! I didn't even say -"
teen: no but you were thinking it!
parent: you can't know what I was thinking!"
teen: well, then why this interrogation?!"
parent: this isn't an interrogation!
teen: yes it is! you're grilling me about something! why can't you just trust me!
parent: we do trust you, why are you getting all defensive?
teen: I'm not defensive, I'm just... I'm just... you're so suspicious! you can't even trust your own child!
parent: that's not ture, it's just when you act like this, we get concerned. we want to know what happened?
teen: I told you already, nothing happened! why can't you believe me?!

so on and so forth....

sorry, I got carried away with that little skit. it's not a proof or anything, just a little illustration.

[siredgar]

I truly appreciate the words of wisdom from Carver and especially Captain. It is reassuring to know that those of reason are also the ones refraining from unpleasantness and use logic instead of feelings.

[Andrew_Jay]

As Yoda would have said . . . better listen, he's wiser then anyone else here :-)

"When conquored Mongolia, China, Persia, and Russia you have, not look so good either will you"

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Captain
if this was an argument carried over from some other thread, leave it out of this one.

please back up your accusation of histrionics or take it back. there are many others out there who post more flamboyantly for pettier causes.

also, why do you call it psycho babble? it seems like a fair conclusion that the intensity of the "it's not racist and this is stupid" arguments in the face of no one accusing anyone else of racism, that some people feel they've been labeled racist and need to defend themselves.

I am fairly sure siredgar never called anyone racist. he just said he suspects a racist factor. then he gets shouted down. he responds by saying "I see your point" and goes on to explain himself more.

First you ask me to leave him alone, and the subject I would gather. Then you invite me to discuss him? Peculiar.

How would you react if I asked you to calm down now?

How would you react if I said I am quite appalled by the level of anger and lashing out by some of the posters. It is apparent that I have touched a nerve of some sort. I am suspecting that this is based on a form of self-projection stemming from guilt. After all, don't you think it is strange to spark such hostilities based on a single observation?

Which posters, which posts (that's a pretty broad brush being used to tar whom)? No reponse, other than Please calm down.

Now imagine that I had posted the generalization, you had posted the question about which ones, and I replied by telling you to calm down. I'm sure you'd just leave it alone. Right?

[ChaotikVisions]

Well now...

After reviewing the posts on this thread, I have noticed that those who do not see anything offensive about the Genghis Khan portrait have been ones that are truly offensive-- more likely to use profanity and primitive logic. It makes me think, "Who is the true 'barbarian' here?"

I was very curious to know why I was being told to "lighten up" and "drop the crap" when I am making a personal observation. I have never claimed to speak for anyone but myself. No, I am not Genghis Khan nor am I Mongolian, Chinese, or even Asian. But that does not mean that I relinquish the right to express my feelings and stand up for a group of people. Following this kind of logic, nobody but the Jews should have spoken up for themselves during the Holocaust. Nor should have white "sympathists" from the North gone down to the South to support black civil rights in the 60's. I am a fan of Northeast Asian culture and history and I am also a human being. The statements I am making on this subject are not frivolous nor politically-driven.

I have always tried to contribute to this forum with my own knowledge and information that I research from books, journals, and the Internet specifically related to the topic. Thus far, I have felt that I have had an overall positive effect and have generally refrained to the best of my ability from personal insults. Suddenly, however, my remarks are being described as "absurd" and "silly" whining and I am being called an "ignorant" fool who punches "low blow(s)". Curiously enough, at the same time, I'm being accused of making "serious charge(s)" of racism and allusions to "facism". All on the same thread!

Yes, Hohenzollern, diversity is good when others are portrayed as savage, idiotic animals and not you. Let's see some of this "diversity" as you call it with the European portraits.

Yes, Chaotik, I am sure that the Viking great leader will not look anything like Mongolian one because he is "tall, strong, and blond".

And yet, you may want to know that Genghis Khan (Temujin) was also tall and strong, too.

http://www.oars.utk.edu/volweb/Scho...ling/dustyh.htm

In fact, one Chinese writer described the Mongolians as tall and strong warriors always led by a charismatic figure:

http://www.upenn.edu/museum/Mongolia/section2.html

Being blond, however, seems to be the crucial factor for you.

Both the Mongolians and Vikings lived in "harsh" environments and were "barbarians". However, it is evident that one deserves to look more savage and idiotic than the other. But of course, your eyes don't see what I see so how can you possibly view Genghis Khan's portrait as such. It is "normal" to you. He is just a Mongol, right?

Of course, many of you have indicated that the only way this portrait would be offensive is if it had a sign hanging above it saying, "This is what all Mongolians look like."

As many people on this forum have said before, this is not "just a game" but an educational tool, too. Regardless, even if it is just a game, like any product such as a film, TV ad, or toy, it has an effect on people's perception of things. So, yes, portrayals do matter, even in a game.

The fact that some of you are even attempting to argue that the portraits of Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I, and Joan of Arc look anywhere nearly as offensive as that of Genghis Khan is appalling to me.

So, Chaotik, it is apparent that not only could you care less about what other people think about you, but about what they think, too.

One thing that you need to understand is that the past 500 years have been dominated by Europeans. That is why there is all this talk of Euro-centrism. No matter what you say, the fact of the matter is that racism has not been a two-way street as some of you may claim. There has been a predominant attitude of European superiority and a history of depicting others as monkeys or even worse.

For example, when the Japanese first started getting acquainted with ballroom dancing in the early 20th century, American newspapers ran cartoons of chimps dressed in formal dancing next to disgusted Europeans. Of course, the Japanese were blindly adopting Western customs and traditions and abandoning their own without a second thought. But the fact that in this modern era, another group of people can be depicted as primates in a major publication is saddening indeed. That is why this subject is such a sensitive matter. So, please try to be thoughtful in your comments and refrain from needlessly saying angry and hateful words. It makes you sound like the real apes. The world is changing. Accept it.

Nevertheless, I have come to the realization that there is no point in having a meaningful discussion or even embark on one with those that vehemently deny the possibility of bias without obvious signs-- especially when it is ingrained in the mentality. It is a futile effort at best.

And yet, I cannot alter my feelings and reaction towards the Genghis Khan portrait. I am deeply saddened by it and it is apparent that there are others who agree with me.

I apologize to those of you who feel that what I am saying is sappy, or whatever I expect some of you will say, but I do not resort to "bombing" activities nor did I bring you into this "mess". The choice to engage in this discussion is yours.

In fact, it seems that I am not the one telling other people what to do:

quote:

Originally posted by ChaotikVisions
Ok, I don't really care if you find it offensive, I just don't think it is, and along those same lines don't think you should bother posting it here. E-mail Fraxis, gather support among Chinese/Mongolians.

Well now, where to begin. You seem to think those that disagree with you are being most offensive, while this is not uncommon in arguements don't you think you're taking things a bit personal? Also, what "primitive logic" has been said? The few insults have been mild, and have came from both sides.

You were told that because many believe you are making something out of nothing. You can stand up for a group of people all you want, assuming that the thing you were standing up actually bothered said people in the first place. And to even consider an offensive portait of a leader to what happened to jews in WW2 is ridiculous, the scale is all wrong. The only thing that is similar is your interpreted racism of the portait and the racism the jews suffered. Again, you are comparing an entire peoples rights movement to an offensive portait, these are similiar only because of racism, not of scale.

And no ones claimed ignorance besides Captain as far as I know, and he is supporting you. Who is saying these things? I however do think this absurd and quite silly, you are making something out of nothing.

The viking leader will not look the mongolian leader because its two different people from two different parts of the world. Tall doesn't really come into it, since they're both just a head. So all thats left for the difference is hair and skin color, since they're both strong.(at least I interpret that from Genghis).

And yes, I know Genghis was tall and strong as well, I was just describing the Viking leader, not stating the differences between the two.

I don't quite see the relevance of the first link, it looks like someones school project and seems to be inaccurate as well from the second sight you have listed.

"The people are strong and warlike, they can see at night. They make armor from fish scales in order to protect themselves from stray arrows . . . They are eight feet tall, hunt and eat the flesh of wild deer."

Thats the only thing I can find on the website you posted by a Chinese writer. I just scanned over it, please post the passage if I missed it.

And as i've said since they're both mostly barbarian leaders, and depending apon if its the early portait of who established the kingdom, they'll both look pretty mean. The picture we see of Genghis for Civ3 is before he conquered China and Asia, before he was able to get more comforts away from his nomadic life. In which he did lead quite a harsh life.

One of the sites posted describes how his father was killed and his mother and himself left to the elements and their enemies, that doesn't exactly entail a good look soft kid.

And I would say the Vikings did not live in quite a harsh enviroment, though the Mongols did have many fertile areas. Vikings were forced to deal with cold more then heat, which has a different effect. I don't think Genghis looks "idiotic", he just looks like a big mean barb, not necessarily a savage. And you really shouldn't try to put words in my mouth to further your arguement, it won't get you anywhere.

Well yes, this does not represent the entire mongol race. The race is represented in game by cartoonish face icons in citys, wouldn't this be the thing to complain about, since this would "represent" the people? And no, this is just a game. By no means an educational tool, nor do I think anyone considers Elizabeth, Shaka, or Catherine representives or examples of their various races. Especially since leaders are almost always unique and different.

Saying that we think they are all ridiculously portayed appaled you? Simple because we do not see the "offense" you and a few see? I'm sorry it has to be that way.

How exactly is it apparent that I don't care what people think? If I didn't, would I be arguing this right now? Wouldn't I have just ignore this and moved on, because what "people" thought didn't matter to me?

Well, I can't really speak on that since I don't consider myself "European", most of the US doesn't either. They keep calling us isolationists because of it too. I don't think i'm superior to anyone, anything I can do I know theres someone out there of any race that can do it better.

That is sad to hear, racism is an ugly thing. I don't think however, that it bares relevance to this conversation. You keep calling Genghis a "chimp-like" thing, which I can't quite see and neither can many others. I have not as far as I know, said hateful words, and if I have you have my apoligy. I am simply arguing my side, baring your insults as a I must. What does an ape sound like, I wonder? Since you call me one, it would be useful to know. And the world is always changing, one of those common knowledge things.

Simply because you can only convince a few that this portait is offensive, means that you can't have a meanigful discussion? Most everyone is staying civil, a few insults aside. I simply don't see the offensiveness of this portait, it isn't any more offensive then the others. An effort is only futile if one quits trying, all things can be acomplished eventually.

Its too bad to hear that, I have hope yet I can show people they are making something out of nothing.

I don't think what you are saying is "sappy", I simply think it wrong for the reasons I have stated quite a bit.

I did not give you a command, I gave you advice. That if you really want to see this offensive portait removed you would need to go to the source of the problem.

And yes, that site Imp. Montezum was quite informitive, I see you have posted the portrait from it as well.

Taken from this site - https://<a href="http://www.mongolia..._face.html</a>

THE GREAT CONQUEROR'S TRUE FACE


The only portrait of Chinggis Khaan.
No documents or portraits were left behind to convey the real appearance of Chinggis Khaan. The few descriptions of him available are from vague historical chronicles. Alladin Juvaini (1226 - 1283), a Persian historian, wrote in his History of the World Conqueror:

"Trustworthy persons have related that Chinggis Khaan, at the time that he came into Khorasan, was 65 years old, a man of tall structure, of vigorous build, a robust body, the hair on his face scanty and white, with cat's eyes, possessed of great energy, discernment, genius and understanding, awe inspiring, a butcher, an over-thrower of enemies, sanguinary and cruel … He was an adept in magic and deception and some of the devils were his friends."

The only existing portrait preserved until today was painted in 1278, almost a half a century after his death. Khublai Khaan, the grandson of Chinggis Khaan, ordered artist Khorisun to paint the portrait, and asked some of Chinggis Khaan's few remaining trusted men to overlook the painting and make sure it reflects the true image.

The portrait was kept in the Forbidden City in Beijing along with other portraits of Chinggis Khaan's descendants; rulers of the great Mongol empire. In 1949, General Chiang Kai-shek took it and many other treasures to his retreat to Taiwan.

Perhaps, the final discovery of Chinggis Khaan's tomb will also bring the re-creation of the true face of the Greatest Conqueror of all time.

I did not link the image, since you have posted it above. I'm also sure you meant to post the entire article, since it bares relevance. The portait you posted was painted half of a century after his death, and thought to be accurate only by those few who remained who knew him(remember, people did not live easily into there 70's and 80's then). This taken into account, also the fact that all portaits are usually exaggerated in the persons favor. And also that this portait was of an old Genghis, the Civ3 one is obviously before he conquered China and still living the nomads life. The eyes and nose are quite similar, only the hair, darker shade of skin and teeth set it apart.

[Captain]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Alright, Captain. I will do as you ask, because you have asked it.

I will leave you with this though. While racism is surely a terrible thing, the undeserved accusation of it is not much better. It can be a label used to dismiss people and ideas who are not necessarily guilty of the crime.

Finally, I'll repeat this. I will grant you something. Yes, stereotypes that pit virtuous ideals against ugly evil ones are racist. But that is not how civ 3 depicts these things. They are doing a fair job of sharing the ugly stick around. If all of the leaders are caricatures, how is it racist that the one of Ghengis is also?

sorry nye, I didn't notice this while I was typing the last one. my apologies. I had to step out for a while. I will probably only be abel to post 1 more for the night, and that will be for wrylachlan because I left him hanging. I'll get back to you later.

thanks nye, I'm sorry I didn't clarify. what I meant was I didn't want a flame war breaking out between you two. you are totally welcome, as anyone else is too, to discussion. I know this is an internet forum and thus we are all generally less polite than we would be in real life, but I like the these boards a lot, I like (most of) the people on these boards a lot, and I like good disucssion that doesn't degenerate into flamewars, so that's why i ask for that level of respect when the thread starter is not looking to pick a fight.

again, my apologies.

[siredgar]

Yes and paintings of European great leaders were exaggerated in their favor, too. And yet, it seems that they are more believable than that of the tricky-tricky Asians, right? Please tell me how this is fair in your mind.

[ChaotikVisions]

In reply to Captain

Spiffor, thanks for taking a civil tone. we may disagree, but I respect you for your approach here.
btw, thank you for the advice about trolls, I am trying to stifle the urge to respond everytime I'm baited. I think I've also made my positions fairly clear so I am trying not to repeat myself too much. still, I'm willing to continue the discussion.
oh, and your last post? two that come right off the top of my head are Hohenzollern, who does shout that he's angry, and Chaotikvisions who has the same tone.

chaotikvisions,
why do you insist on conflict? is it absolutely impossible for you to acknowledge that other people might actually find this offensive?
perhaps you don't care what others think, but I do. that's the whole purpose of discussion, to learn from others as well as to share your experience, not to win an argument or take somebody down. if you have no intention of listening to others, then it is you who should not bother coming to the forums. instead of insulting the thread starter and saying the complaint is invalid, why don't you just leave? you say we shouldn't bother to post this because you think the subject isn't important. if that is the case, why don't you leave the thread alone? go do whatever it is you deem more important. since you don't care, and we do, then depart and let us discuss this in peace without your belligerence. Firaxis is not going to evaporate simple because we raise a concern about the image of Genghis Khan, and no one has accused Firaxis of racism either. They don't need your defense.

btw: I really don't see why I have to be Asian in order to find the portrait offensive. I can find it offensive regardless, and if I was Asian and I didn't find it offensive, that would not make other people's opinions invalid either.
Now, if I said I was asian, I doubt you'd believe me anyways. you'd probably think I was just making it up to lend weight to my argument. I don't feel the need. If you feel the need, look up my past post history. probably somewhere between my 100th-200th post there will be a post indicating my heritage. since it was written long ago, I obviously did not make it up to "suit" the current circumstances. I post almost exclusively to civ3 general, some in creation, some in stories, and now some in ptw. you can find it somewhere there and settle it in your own mind.
otoh, your logical deduction does make sense. A game sold to a predominantly western market will have a majority of the dominant ethnocultural group. but we minorities do have the game too.

abjera, no I am not offended by anything you said in that particular post. I may not agree 100% with your conclusions, but you spoke reasonably and with respect to others.

Conflict? Well, this is an arguement. Some believe it is offensive, some don't, and we are arguing the point. I suppose this is conflict. I have not denied that you find it offensive, I have simply tried to show you why I think it isn't, in the same way you are trying to show me it is. If we were having a nice chat, then yes the purpose could be simply to be nice and learn from others. But this is mostly an arguement, and we are trying to prove our respective points.

I have listened to you and others, and I have responded, you simply do not like my response in the same way I do not like yours. And just because I disagree with you or others, does not mean I should leave. It just means I need to tell my side of the arguement better. How have I insutled the starter of the thread, besides for disagreeing with him? Again, you tell me to leave, I cannot tell I have proved my point, which i'm afraid may take awhile, but i'm a very determined person. I said you shouldn't bother to post this, because your making something out of nothing. To let the post go on and me ignore it would go against what I believe.

So I argue my side of it. I don' think Firaxis will evaporate over false claims of racism in a portait, it just bothers me that people will try to make these things. And isn't the whole point of this thread accusing Firaxis of a racist portayal of the Mongolian leader? "Wether intentional or not" I believe it was?

You don't have to be asian to find it offensive, I simply though those who have reason to be offended by a portait of an important history figure would have more reason to be, so I was wondering if they could come forth.

If you said you were Asian, I would believe you. I don't think you would resort to lying to win an arguement. I don't however feel like looking through posts, just tell me what you are. Chinese, Mogolian, Korean, Vietmese, Japanese, what? I know i'm missing a few there, just wondering as to the specifics. Simply tell me yourself.

I said some Chinese/Mongolians would almost certainly have bought the game as well, not only other races. I just said the majority would be of others, which is why didn't think the odds of someone here being Chinese/Mongolian were very good.

[ChaotikVisions]

Eh?

Yes and paintings of European great leaders were exaggerated in their favor, too. And yet, it seems that they are more believable than that of the tricky-tricky Asians, right? Please tell me how this is fair in your mind.

The site you took the portait from says it is not truly accurate, I was just offering my thoughts on why it probably wasn't as well. And who has said European portaits are more "accurate"? The reason this portait isn't is because it was painted half a century after he died, not because of the region the man lived in. Again, do not try to put words in my mouth, it will get you no where. I did not claim the European portaits were more accurate, so I have no need to say which is "fair" either.

And plese respond to the rest of my post, an arguement wil become a shouting match if all sides fail to respond calmy to everything and logically.

[Captain]

Originally posted by wrylachlan
I'm not saying this is racist or it isn't. Like many difficult subjects, I haven't fully made my mind up.

very sorry, I'm running low on time now and I'm afraid this isn't going to be a very good reply. I could very well be missing the point in some of these questions but just let me know.

People have different opinons on what constitutes racism, and I am not pretending my definition is the right one. I am only putting it out here as my own.

I would like to ask those who think it is racist the following questions:
1. Is it racist because he is ugly?

Not alone. I think it is offensive because Genghis as a leader is representative of the Mongols and I find, in general, that his portrait does go further than the others in caricaturization. This offense comes because I think it gives a negative portrayal of Mongols. So that is why I think it has a racism factor. Not on purpose, just in consequence.

(also, I object to certain other portrayals, including Gandhi and Catherine, but I won't get into details here - til someone asks. In general, I also dislike the caricatures and wish they took a different approach. Not a big deal really, but if they changed it, I would be pleased.)

2. Is it possible to depict an ugly person of minority race in a non-racist way?

Yes. If the person is not representative of the minority. Of course, that depends on how the viewer sees it... so I am not 100% of this.

2b. If I am doing a historical painting of a group of white people meeting a single minority, and I know from historical record that that minority is "ugly" (broken nose, scars across his face, lazy eye, the works), am I beholden to "pretty him up" so that future generations will not see my work as racist?

are you referring to a single individual or a group?
either way, in general, no you don't have to pretty him up.
but one has to be careful of so called historical records. (ex. certain paintings done before photgraphy was available, have been used by historians to extrapolate certain conclusions. they have their methodologies and I take it with a grain of salt as do they. unfortunately, when it is popularized in a newspaper or musuem, for example, it is taken to have received "official sanction" and therefore, I think it can be very harmful and dangerous. recall that many of our historical records involving First Nations people described them as backwards savages and all the various "proofs" and "evidence" that justified their treatment.)

3. What "Real" picture of Ghengis are you using for the baseline to judge how "charicatury" this picture is?

Aside from that given by others, I personally know thousands of Asians including a few from the northern steppes (i.e. Inner & Outer Mongolia), and while they are not necessarily beauties, they are not as hideous as that picture is.
Yes, it's true that dental care was worse then than now, but then why does Caesar have perfect teeth? And Bismarck? If we're going to say Genghis led a hard life of poor dental hygiene, we must admit the same for the others? And while I'm not an orthodontist, it is generally accepted that there are four major facial factors in attractiveness - facial structure (cheekbones, eye spacing, nosebridge), teeth (alignment, color, number), complexion (acne, scarring, blotchy, clear), and hair (frames the face). I haven't the time now to go in depth but it is also true that people make judgements about personality and character based on appearance and apply them as a whole. eg. black -> dark -> night -> dangerous -> evil/sin, white->snow, clean, pure, faithful, peace. round face -cherubic, kind, jolly. long face, beady eyes - evil, serial killer... stuides have shown that people are less likely to suspect a round faced person of commiting a crime than a non-found face. (research shows this ties strongly to childlike features and the perception of innocence)

4. This is the hard one. A thought experiment. You sit down with the portraitist and have a discussion on race. He/she prooves to you through the informed discussion of other racially stereotypical images that he/she is indeed sensitive to race, but believes this image is not racist. Is your opinion more valid than his/hers?

No. But his/hers isn't more valid than mine, or really anyone elses. The point isn't whose opinion is more valid.

I would listen to the artist and rethink my position, as I am doing through this whole thread. I can admit my mistakes. I can do the reflection as an artist too. Hard to believe since I've got an engineering background and a teaching background, but I'm also involved with art a great deal. I fI drew something or wrote something, which someone found offensive and they talked to me about it, I would think about it. I know what it's like to pour yourself into something only to have it criticized, but I also know that as an artist, I always think I can do better as well. The image in the mind is usually better than what we can actually achieve on canvas.I would seriously take it into consideration because I'm not so full of myself (yet) that I think I am always right. I could have missed something. I am not afraid to offend anyone, but I do not wish to offend anyone, simply because I care. Why on earth would I want to hurt someone else, purposely or not? Even if I have the right of way, I'll yield to another driver because to me it's more important to avoid an accident than to get my rights (though sometime I am sorely tempted to demand them, I am not perfect).
If it was someone I felt was being a crank, or trolling, I wouldn't take it so seriously, but I'd still hear him/her out first.

4b. If you have a panel of judges who are all sensitive to race, and they look at a painting and split down the middle as to whether or not it is racist, what do you do? Who decides? Who has the power to decide? Who granted that power?

Each person must decide for themselves. That's an inherent power we have - in the sense that if we possess anything at all in this world, it is our minds. We make those choices and live with the consequences, whatever they may be, significant or not.

The point I'm making is that most of you who are arguing that it is offensive are assuming that if you don't find it offensive you are generally insensitive to race. But I think I am fairly sensitive to race and I don't think it is a cut and dry case of racism.

you are right that it is not cut and dry. I am not assuming that if you disagree, you must be insensitive. I did make that presumption based on the post response's tone and diction. If someone said "this is stupid", then I do think that person is insensitive because it isn't. Perhaps it comes from my years of teaching children that there are no dumb questions. If we want to learn, we can't be afraid of asking unpopular or embarrassing questions. Siredgar posed a question, those who think it irrelevant or stupid should just not answer. Everyone else, including those who disagree, is of course welcome to answer.

[Captain]

chaotikvisions,
didn't have time to read carefully and I have to go now, but thank you for taking it down a notch. whether or not it means anything to you, you have my respect back.

i'll be back!

[Harlan]

Please show some evidence, instead of guessing with your "probably"s and whatnot. Can you show us an alternative picture?

Siredgar,
I don't relish the idea of posting here, but since you're questioning my post, I feel obliged. I think people need to chill out a bit - people are getting way too emotional. Stuff like "tricky tricky Asians" seems inflamatory, as if the only people who could disagree with you must hold horrible Asian stereotypes. You may not mean it that way, but its very easy for words to be misconstrued.

I think you're well intentioned in combatting racism, but I also think you must not know some important things about the Mongols, if you think that portrait you point out has anything to do with how Ghengis Khan actually looked.

Let me run over some history for you. You may know it, but it should be new to at least some people here. To any outsider, Ghengis Khan was little different from any other Mongol warrior chief prior to 1206. That was the year he was made head of all the Mongols, and actually given the name Ghengis. At that point, he was already approximately 40 years old.

Up till then, he lived a very rough life even by the standards of the time and place, having been forced to kill people to stay alive even while still a child. He was a fugitive from the age of 9, a tortured slave and so on. The Mongols in those days lived such rough lives that it is nearly impossible for us to imagine. For instance, if need be they could ride for weeks on a horse, day and night, and never need food or water (virtually no other people in history have been able to do this!). Of course any human being will die if they don't have some water, so they found a solution - in a pinch they would cut a wound into the horse's neck and drink the blood, thus not even needing to stop. They would sleep on the horse, pee and take a crap from the horse. If the accounts of Ghengis' early life are even a bit true (there no doubt was some mythologizing going on, but what can be corroborated has so far been shown to be true), he would have been full of wounds and scratches by the time he was 40.

Given the fact that Firaxis chose to depict him as a young man, there's little doubt that he would have dressed like that, and have scars and lost some teeth. Of course it would have been better to show him as an old man, when he was actually the leader of the Mongols.

Regarding teeth, it has been pointed out that Caesar and others have all their teeth in good shape. No doubt some of these people should be missing a few teeth, and have pimples and so on. But the Romans and many of their decendents actually did brush their teeth (check out Peter James' book Ancient Inventions) though what they called toothbrushes would probably gross us out. But one thing we tend to forget is that people who were born into the highest classes in history tended to have very good diets. Though most of history, the elites were often one head taller than the peasants and thus often naturally assumed to be superior on this basis alone. Anyways, (AFAIK) the other non-white leaders have all their teeth, its only Ghengis that doesn't.

That's as it should be: if I could only give one leader bad teeth it would be Ghengis, not only because of all the hand to hand violence his took part in, but because of the incredibly poor Mongol diet then, which was about as meager and limited in variety as one can have and still live. They largely survived off of kumis - fermented yak's milk.

Now, regarding the one portrait of Ghengis. The link provided above tells me nothing I didn't know, or didn't say already, which I will post again here:

The portait you point out is complete fiction. First of all, it was drawn long after Ghengis was dead. It was part of a series of Mongol Khan portraits by a Chinese artist late in the Yuan dynasty, as part of an attempt to give that dynasty Chinese legitimacy. Note how Ghengis looks basically like any other Chinese emperor - that's purposeful propaganda. There's a famous painting of Kublai Khan that is part of the same series you can see here:

http://www.chinapage.org/painting/kublai.html

Kublai probably looked very much like that, being very Chinese in his ways by the end of his life, but not so Ghengis.

Again, let's review some history. When Kublai Khan conquered China, it was the first time in history that China was completely conquered by foreigners. Since the Chinese have historically believed in the divine Mandate of Heaven for the legitimacy of their emperors, they had a huuuuuge PR problem on their hands. How to get the Chinese to accept the Mongols as legitimate rulers? Kublai Khan spent a large amount of effort on this. He moved his capital, learned the language, took up Chinese dress, adopted the traditional Chinese trappings and symbols of power, etc etc... Of course, sprucing up his ancestry is a natural part of such a propaganda campaign. Thus, during the height of this campaign, he commissioned portraits of all the past khans and himself, and made them to look just like other Chinese Emperors. There may be some vague historical truth to the portrait, but any such would be far secondary to its primary purpose as a propaganda tool. If you doubt any of this, I suggest you read a few books on the Mongols and the Yuan Dynasty.

Now look again at that portrait you pointed out: he looks chubby, no wounds or marks of any kind, maybe a couple of age lines on his forehead. Kind of like a wise old sage. In fact, doesn't he look like a wise, benevolent empreror? That's the whole point of why it was commissioned! Does that jibe at all with a person who was a fugitive at the age of 9, and who died falling from his horse participating in an animal hunt in the wilds of Mongolia far after all his doctors warned him to take it easy, possibly in his seventies? Fighting, hunting and living in the Mongol steppes until the day he died, Ghengis clearly was a guy who never settled down to become a Chinese type emperor. He was the total opposite of Kublai Khan. (By the way, once the Mongols got wealthy from their conquests, some, like Ghengis' son Ogedai tended to overdo it with food and drink. Ghengis however railed against this, tried to prevent it as much as he could, and maintained his old habits. He still would have been lean and strong the day he died).

Of course all leaders throughout history have had their portraits prettied up - look at Queen Elizabeth's official likeness and then a real picture of her today, for instance. But the Ghengis one is likely to be among the more extreme, simply because of the propaganda situation and the fact that by that time it was made virtually no one in the target audience of the portrait (the general Chinese populace, not other Mongols who by and large hated Kublai anyways) had any idea of what Ghengis looked like, and so the artist could make it whatever they wanted it to be. Normally one is at least partially constrained by some kind of reality check.

Regarding the quotes in that article, did you know the Persian author they speak of was commissioned by a decendant of Ghengis to write that history? Needless to say, he flatters the Mongols (though there is much to learn from that account if you read between the lines). There mere fact that Ghengis was as powerful as he was and what he did can account for virtually that entire description of him. Do geniuses really radiate genius? Very rarely - the genius aspect goes on in your head, it doesn't make your whole body glow. No doubt Ghengis was a genius, but I highly doubt he had an aura of "awe inspiring discernment, genius and understanding"!

Regarding power, take a look at Henry Kissinger. Clearly not an attractive, fun or personable man, yet all kinds of models slept with him (yuck! - I don't want to think about that), heck, even intelligent actress Susan St. James. Power itself is an aphrodesiac, and distorts all views.

So, what did Ghengis Khan in fact look like? I can't say, since there are no accurate portraits or descriptions. The best guess is that he looked much like any other Mongol warrior of the time, but even more battle worn and wounded.

Getting back to Firaxis and racism, if I were the artist I wouldn't have drawn him with that silly smile, and I would have made him a lot older. But given the age, he's probably one of the more accurate portraits they did.

I don't see a racist tendency either - I just see a general trend of dumb and inaccurate charicatures. Lets face it - they all pretty much suck. Alexander especially looks absolutely nothing like the descriptions and portraits of him, but that's true of many others, like Caesar. Cleopatra they were even going to make black skinned, until a bunch of people on these forums pointed out some real history on her and they toned it down. Some minority hating racist artist would not have made Cleopatra black skinned. The only reason Bismarck looks halfway normal is cos his stereotype is the dour, stuffy old guy. Hannibal they even have the audacity to call King Hannibal, and I highly doubt their portrait will have anything to do with what Hannibal looked like, since true portraits of him are hard to find and they didn't even bother with others who's real likenesses were easy to find.

There is a saying: don't blame malice for what can be explained by stupidity. I think that's what we have a case of: dumb portaits, not racist ones. With Ghengis they just got lucky in that the general stereotype of rough, battle scarred warrior guy living in a yurt happens to be true in that he really was a rough, battle scarred warrior guy who lived in a yurt.