Civilization IV: Colonization Called 'Morally Disturbing'

[Andy Chalk]

Civilization IV: Colonization Called 'Morally Disturbing'

The recently announced Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Colonization has raised some eyebrows at Variety's Cut Scene [http://weblogs.variety.com/the_cut_scene/2008/06/civilization-iv.html] blog, where writer Ben Fritz calls the game mind-boggling and "morally disturbing."

"Goddammit, am I the only one who thinks it's morally disturbing to make a game that celebrates COLONIZATION?" Fritz said in the article. Describing information he was given about the original Sid Meier's Colonization [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier%27s_Colonization], released in 1994, Fritz says at first he took it for a joke. "But sure enough, it was real," he said. "However, I dismissed it as a relic from a time when neither developers nor players took videogames seriously as media with moral implications."

"But the idea that Firaxis [http://www.2kgames.com/] and Sid Meier himself would make and release a game in the year 2008 that is not only about colonization, but celebrates it by having the player control the people doing the colonizing is truly mind boggling," he continued.

Fritz compared the situation to the Resident Evil 5 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/op-ed/1335-Zombies-and-the-White-Man-s-Burden] promotional trailer which showed African zombies being cut down by the game's white protagonist. Quoting Newsweek journalist N'Gai Croal, who said the imagery in the trailer was "messed up," Fritz said a game about colonization is 100 times more messed up. "Throughout history, colonization regularly involved stealing, killing, abuse, deceit, and the exploitation or decimation of native people," he added. "Anybody with a shred of moral conscience who studies the history will be appalled. Whether it was British rule in India or slavery in Africa or Aboriginal children kidnapped and taken to Christian schools in Australia or the dislocation of Native Americans in the U.S., there were no positive colonization experiences."

He also decried the game's inherent racism, which he said is one of the underlying principles behind every colonization effort in human history. "The obvious comparison that springs to my mind would be if somebody released a game called Civilization IV: Confederacy, in which players have to 'lead a proud people to defend their values and traditions against their oppressive neighbors to the north,'" he said. Such a game may not require players to own and abuse slaves, but defense of the Confederacy is by default a defense of slavery, he claimed.

Fritz said he's not calling for a ban on the game, emphasizing that 2K has every right to release it for sale. "But I think personally they shouldn't release it, if it's at all what it appears to be based on the early marketing," he continued. "And I'm hoping a lot of people agree with me and will say so publicly."

2K Sid Meier's Colonization IV [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/84401], in early June.


Permalink

 

[Zombie_King]

"Morally Disturbing"? Seriously, WTF?

 

[Robert0288]

Seriously, WTF?

/signed

 

[twentyeighth]

Content = condonation?

 

[Archon]

Ultimately, there was nothing unique - either for good or evil - in Europe's colonization of the New World.

Colonization has occurred since the dawn of human history. When the Sea Peoples landed in the Fertile Crescent, when the Vandals settled in North Africa, when the Seljuk Turks took over Asia Minor, when Anglo-Saxons colonized Celtic Britain, and the Normans invaded Anglo-Saxon England, when the Moors colonized Spain, it was colonization, and there was "stealing, killing, abuse, deceit, and exploitation." These practices have been the norm of human history. But there was also dynamic growth, cultural exchange, inter-marriage, and rich blossoming of art, music, language, and technology. The beautiful English language is richer for the mixing of French and German roots. Wonderful Spanish culture is richer for the existence of Andalusia.

Fritz claims "there were no positive colonization experiences" but provides no evidence to back this up. The creation of the longest-lasting democratic republic in history in North America is not a positive colonization experience? The unification of India under rule of law and democracy and the end of Sutee in the Indian sub-continent was not a positive colonization experience? The creation of Hellenistic culture and the spread of philosophy and language throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and Asia Minor was not a positive colonization experience? Of course some positives occurred from colonization. (If I were a utilitarian I could probably even make the argument that it led to a net positive in human welfare, but I won't).

Nor is there anything inherently racist in colonization, except insofar as one ascribes all tribal-national behavior to "racism", which would be a foolish ex poste application of a modern moral notion onto our ancestors. Were the (white) Normans racist towards the (white) Anglo-Saxons? Of course not. No moreso than the Theban Sacred Band were "gay". Racism as we understand it today arose only in the context of a society that had first formulated the notion of "equality of man" - a very recent phenomenon - that enabled one to judge a person as morally evil for disagreeing with the equality of man. Up until then, suggesting that a person was a "racist" for favoring his tribe or people over that of another would simply be laughed at. Tribal-national thinking was, and is, the norm in the pre-Enlightenment world. The Aztec culture that the Spanish colonists displaced wasn't "racist" and wouldn't have known what the word meant. It captured and ritually sacrified other tribes' peoples and thought that was a moral good!

Throughout mankind's history, every invading and conquering nation has considered itself superior to the group which it conquered and displaced, and they didn't require modern notions of racism to do so. They knew they were better because they had won. "Right of conquest" has a far older and longer resonance than Wilson's 14 Points.

If Fritz wants to condemn Civilization: Colonization, he needs to condemn as well the entirety of the Civilization franchise, Medieval Total War, Rome Total War, every 4X strategy game ever made, and probably most grand strategy games set prior to World War I. Otherwise, let's just accept there's no moral difference between sending Pilgrims to colonize Plymouth and sending Romans to colonize Gaul, and move on.

 

[Lvl 64 Klutz]

Last time I checked, there was nothing inherently evil or immoral about colonization, it's not the concept's fault that it tends to go wrong...

And I'm sick of hearing abot the RE5 thing, too. Apparently killing undead is only fine morally if the zombie happens to be white? Give me a break, I understand if the reason people find it in bad taste is because of the atrocities in Darfur, but the reasons I usually hear involve simply race.

 

[Robert0288]

from wiki

Destroying native settlements yields a quick profit and makes land available, but prevents the substantial long-term gains to be made by friendly bargaining and trading. Destruction of native settlements also counts against your final score.

seems to me like the history of whiping out indiginous people is being discouraged, while still allowing for historical accuracy. +1 for Sid Meier, What does Fritz want us to do? re-write history?

 

[EOr]

Why would Colonization be any more disturbing that Civilization? I have to think that this author has actually never played either. And come to think of it, he could well have been traumatized by the board game Risk when he was a child.

Either that, or when viewing the blurb about Colonization, he was overcome by a sense of European-American guilt because this particular iteration of the common conquer-the-world-via-your-computer theme involved what he believes HIS ancestors did that was not so nice. In that case, this author may want to check out Galactic Civiliations or Alpha Centauri or Sins of a Solar Empire where he can happily conquer and subjugate others without historical referents. Or, who knows? Maybe he'd just be happier in Webkinz world...

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

Ranty Time:

Oh for fucks sake... COLONIZATION IS HISTORY, IT HAPPENED, DEAL WITH IT! Argh! it's not like the game is going "YAY SUBJIGATION OF NATIVE PEOPLES!" just like Medieval Total War wasn't like "Yay, Burn Heretics!" pretending "bad stuff never happened" is fucking moronic.

Rant Over.

The History Major rage in me is quelled.

 

[Godheval]

Ultimately, there was nothing unique - either for good or evil - in Europe's colonization of the New World.

Fritz claims "there were no positive colonization experiences" but provides no evidence to back this up. The creation of the longest-lasting democratic republic in history in North America is not a positive colonization experience? The unification of India under rule of law and democracy and the end of Sutee in the Indian sub-continent was not a positive colonization experience? The creation of Hellenistic culture and the spread of philosophy and language throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and Asia Minor was not a positive colonization experience? Of course some positives occurred from colonization. (If I were a utilitarian I could probably even make the argument that it led to a net positive in human welfare, but I won't).

Spoken like a true and devoted eurocentric. Just as you've taken the time here to analyze and critique Fritz's position, surely you must be aware that the full extent of his understanding of colonialism wasn't expressed in his diatribe against Civilization IV. Anyone can argue that SOME good came out of ANY negative experience - like, depending on who you talk to, the founding of Israel in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Does that make all of the events surrounding the Holocaust a "net positive gain"? Give me a break. You're probably the same person who would argue that sweatshops are ultimately beneficial to the people working one tier above slave labor, because without those shops they'd have even less money.

It is in fact, "morally disturbing" to even discuss the subjugation or annihilation of any peoples within the context of "net gains". Civilization IS a video game, but when talking about actual real life history, it seems perverse to me to discuss things as if by some sort of points system. There ARE no "net gains" when a people have been annihilated, as in the case of the natives of the Americas after European colonization.

And you talk about the positive outcomes of the British colonization of India without mentioning all of the negatives. For all your criticisms of Fritz ignoring the "net gains", YOU yourself ignore the obvious negatives.

As a brief mention to any FOOL - history major or not (and your background means nothing in this discussion) - who passes over the atrocities of history as things that just "happened" and need to be "gotten over", is obviously a member of some privileged class who has never had to contend with the detriments of any sort of historical legacy. It is always the people who stood to benefit from colonization - either directly as it was occurring, or from the wealth or status amassed on that foundation - who can so easily dismiss history as "just something that happened".

In the end, Civilization is just a game, and perhaps Fritz is wrong in thinking that games should not address history - it DID happen, after all - but he is not wrong to point out the game's unilateral (i.e. pro-colonial) perspective. That any of you would use this as an excuse to justify colonialism speaks to your own perverse understanding of the world.

 

[TomNook]

The real mystery here is why the hell does this man have a video game blog?

 

[tendo82]

The unilateralism of the scenario, in which the game takes place, shows a definite cultural imperialism. Just as CivIV offered the choice to play as one of many different cradles of civilization, why doesn't Colonization offer the chance to play as other great colonial empires? Instead it focuses on the fairly recent colonization of the New World, the effects of which are still profoundly, and painfully, felt in South America and the few Native American reservations left in North America.

It is also troubling that the original game, and perhaps this is being addressed in the new one, avoids the issue of slavery entirely. To ignore the fact that the new world was built on the backs of African and indigenous slaves amounts to a cultural sugar coating of one of the most painful realities Americans have had to deal with.

If Civilization IV really wanted to make its mark in the field it should offer a companion expansion called Subjugation, wherein you play as a Native American or African American who finds themselves repeatedly displaced and denied the opportunities Europeans have. There could be disease trees instead of tech trees, with the eventual goal of the game being to successively marry out of your race/ethnicity until you can finally be mistaken as a European and be entitled to all the benefits that come with that designation.

 

[Junaid Alam]

The battle over the merits and demerits of Western colonization has been going on in academia since the end of formal colonialism in the 1950s and 1960s.

If one defines colonialism in the broadest sense, of one culture or value system or tribe extending its territorial reach, then of course, it is impossible not to find merits here and there throughout history.

But colonialism, located within a historical context as Western colonialism in the last 500 years - can this be considered a net positive?

The problem with tallying up gains from said colonialism is that the exercise inherently assumes the indigenous people would never have made these - or even greater gains - themselves sooner or later. It also underestimates the long-term effects of interference.

For instance, British colonization of India did end Suttee - but British tax and agricultural policy also resulted in starvation of millions of Indians. The British also exacerbated - note that I did not say 'invented' - antagonisms between Muslims and Hindus in India as part of a divide and conquer strategy. The result was the 1947 partition along religious lines, during which hundreds of thousands died in migration.

At any rate, the goal of Western colonization was not to lift up the natives, although that rationale was often invoked while natural capital and labor was plundered. Occasionally, Western powers established institutions in the colonies, not out of generosity, but because they expected to control the country by grooming native elite classes to oppress their own populations. More often though the societies were simply left in tatters, like Belgium's role in the Congo and Portugal's role in other African states.

The long-term results of most Western colonization have actually been quite disastrous. Specifically, the creation of artificial states through arbitrary boundaries - ones that did not recognize ethnic and tribal realities, but were concocted so the great powers could carve up natural resources - has been disastrous. It is the kindle that has set aflame sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East in endless sectarian struggles, to the tune of millions of lost lives since the 19th century. (Think: Israel and the Arabs, Iraq, Hutu versus Tutsis, etc.)

 

[Geoffrey42]

Anyone can argue that SOME good came out of ANY negative experience - like, depending on who you talk to, the founding of Israel in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Does that make all of the events surrounding the Holocaust a "net positive gain"? Give me a break. You're probably the same person who would argue that sweatshops are ultimately beneficial to the people working one tier above slave labor, because without those shops they'd have even less money.

Get the pitchforks! I think we've got a straw man! And one step closer to fulfilling Godwin's Law, at post 10! What progress...

Philosophical question: if a straw man flames, does he catch on fire?

It is in fact, "morally disturbing" to even discuss the subjugation or annihilation of any peoples within the context of "net gains". Civilization IS a video game, but when talking about actual real life history, it seems perverse to me to discuss things as if by some sort of points system. There ARE no "net gains" when a people have been annihilated, as in the case of the natives of the Americas after European colonization.

Morally disturbing, certainly. Rationally though? Everything is relative. The outcome for the Native Americans of European colonialization? Negative. The outcome for me? (Arguably) positive. If there were some way to add them together, you might end up with some sort of net (negative, or positive).

In discussing the use of atomic weapons on Japan, is it perverse to discuss the outcome in terms of lives lost versus lives that might've been lost had more traditional warfare been used? And better yet to evaluate the event in terms of lives lost had a completely peaceful resolution been reached. Why is that metric not useful? If we don't have anything as convenient as "lives", might we not use something more subjective, like "points" (to account for intangibles)?

If anything, Archon says he won't analyze it in a utilitarian manner, and then uses the term "net", which implies that he's doing addition/subtraction on some basis. Maybe better to rephrase your thoughts, and discuss the "gains" of various colonizations/annexations, rather than the "net gains", which implies the losses were made up for.

 

[sunami88]

Yet another media douchebag that can't help but cause a stir over a game he's never played.

I think we should be emailing Sid Meier and asking him if he payed this guy for ad space on his blog. Really, don't we all know about the Streisand effect [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect] by now?

Meh, let him complain, I mean, he's got the right. But why don't people try and become more informed before they do something like this? Trying to cause a moral outrage like that is just stupid.

 

[electric discordian]

And whilst were talking about this topic, decrying what happens when "whitey" reigns supreme, we must also spare a thought for the white farmers who were run from their homes or murdered by the Zimbabwe regime.

Colonization is a required part of history it led to where we are today.

If they release a slave trade simulator then he has a point but not in this case

 

[Godheval]

And whilst were talking about this topic, decrying what happens when "whitey" reigns supreme, we must also spare a thought for the white farmers who were run from their homes or murdered by the Zimbabwe regime.

Colonization is a required part of history it led to where we are today.

If they release a slave trade simulator then he has a point but not in this case

Tell you what, buddy...when the general public (and by this I mostly mean so-called "white America") acknowledges the legacy of colonialism and slavery - be it just in general conversation outside the academic sphere, or in the content of a video game - then I'll be open to discussing the merits of a game about the plight of white farmers in Zimbabwe.

But honestly, from a gamer's perspective, that sounds pretty boring. Unless of course those farmers find a hidden cache of ASSAULT WEAPONS and get to go all Master Chief on those black bastards! Now that'd be EN-TER-TAIN-MENT!

I always find it hilarious when people want to dismiss racism or subjugation with one side of their mouth, then try to turn to tables and mention RARE instances of white disenfranchisement or subjugation out of the other side.

White people suffer from racism too! White people have been subjugated, too! Well no shit, and no one suggests otherwise, but looking at things from a global perspective, those instances are few and far between, and their lasting effects are mostly trivial if not altogether negligible (obviously not in the case of the Zimbabwean farmers).

So following this line of thinking, let's skip over any games that might address the atrocities of French colonialism in Haiti and have a game focusing on the plight of the woeful wealthy French who had to find a new home after being kicked out. It could be an epic tale of looking for a place to belong - kicked out of your home and culturally removed from the land of your ancestors. It would be downright heart wrenching!

 

[SaintWaldo]

Colonization happened, and this game had nothing to do with it and can't possibly lead to anything like the real thing. The _game_ is fun. It also reveals how easy economics become when the cost of inputs can be reduced to zero or balanced against each other, and shows what you have to do to achieve that unsustainable sort of stasis that exists with a triangle trade. The game is also not solely about subjugating indigenous populations. It's possible to assimilate in a non-violent manner; it's still a form of subjugation, sure, but it's not the bloody kind and at least it's an option. Placing the option for, or "forcing", reprehensible behavior in a game is a valid form of ethical exploration and preferable by far to attempting to model the same thing in the real world. Eliciting a reaction in the player over such things is a valid form of ethical demonstration, if one chooses to consume it that way.

If BioWare gets lauded for presenting basically a false choice over killing the Little Sisters, why does this game get punched (by someone who admits THEY DIDN'T EVEN PLAY IT, just like Jack Thompson) over presenting a hypothetical recreation of actual historical human behavior? Oregon Trail let you choose to kill the Indians or trade with them. The same exists in this game. There is no "Smallpox laden blanket" item that enables some of the most heinous behavior of the colonizing European powers. But, the colonization of the new world is still viewable as a contest between powers over resources that could not be held by force by the indigenous population living on it. A simulation of the human condition is not responsible for that condition, just like a movie depicting rape does not necessarily lead to rape. This isn't Montezuma's Revenge we are talking about.

So, first things first: Play the damn game before you condemn it. That's the first rule of criticism, I was led to understand. Second, quit using video games as a vehicle for accusations of thoughtcrime if you consider yourself a supporter of the medium. There is no third point.

 

[Skrapt]

I think people are missing out on the important point that this is a game. It has no bearing on real life and I really doubt anyone playing it 20 years later if in some form of power would say 'Hey! You know what was great? Colonization!'. We as a population are trying to be way to 'politically correct' it's a game, it's not trying to make a racially abusive statement it's trying to be fun. And as the Medieval/Rome/Shogun total war series has shown, a lot of people like the campaign/RTS style of gameplay that these games offer

 

[jamiekhan]

If people may be offended by material in a game then it diserves to be disscused, however complaing about 'colonization' in a strategy game is the same as complaining about 'rape' in a drama novel.

The fact is the latter would never be subject to such critisism, we just need to explain to mr Ben Fritz that hes wrong, and then laugh at him for being suck a fucking idiot.