Civilization IV: Colonization Called 'Morally Disturbing'

[Godheval]

All of what you say may be true. Still doesn't mean you're not an obstacle, though.

Do you really think you're doing any good by telling every white person who thinks he or she "understands the particulars of a non-white person's experience of discrimination" that their "purpose" is to "trivialize or at least dilute every other instance of racism"?

Well now you're misquoting or misunderstanding me. I don't tell anyone their purpose in doing anything. Their actions and their arguments demonstrate their purpose quite clearly. And nowhere did I say that this was true in all cases. You, on the other hand, seemed to imply that THE reason (as in all instances) that people cite racism against whites was to "test" the nobility of a person's cause - i.e. whether they're just crying foul or pursuing true justice. And I'd say that most people aren't that clever. Most instances of mentioning "racism against whites" are responses to complaints about racism by non-whites - thus my feeling that it is an attempt to dilute or deflect accusations of racism through a false claim to understanding it.

All you are doing is confirming their suspicions that your only interest is in getting white people to feel guilty, and not about really changing the world for the better. Maybe that's not your true intent, but just like someone who thinks they look really cool in that Members Only jacket, that's the reality.

Actually, no. MOST people in the world are non-white, and since exclusive clubs are usually, you know, exclusive, they wouldn't have a majority membership. "Members Only" isn't a characteristic of non-white clubs, but rather....well, need I state the obvious?

My goal is not to make white people feel guilty, but to make them acknowledge the reality of racial dynamics (mostly in America, since I can't speak with any real knowledge on any other country), since most of them - like many of the people on this board - seem ready to just dismiss out of hand all complaints of racism as people being "hyper-sensitive" or just needing to "get over it". It is not the place of any person or group that has not experienced a pronounced and prolonged history of racism, subjugation, or discrimination to tell the people who HAVE that they are being hyper-sensitive or that they need to get over it. It's simply not right.

Do you want to win some impotent intellectual battle about the exact subjective experience of the different flavors of racism, or do you want to get people to think racism is bad?

It was a singular point within a larger battle. One that still needs to be acknowledged before progress can be made.

In what way did Archon do either of those things? Like Geoffery42 pointed out, you're beating up a strawman here, just like Fritz did when he talked about the game of _Colonization_ as if it were a game about the phenomenon of colonization, and not what it's really about: the events leading to the American Revolution.

Maybe you should try actually reading the comments you are criticizing first--just like he should try playing the games he's criticizing first--if you don't want to be lumped in with "those who cry racism or injustice at every turn."

Um...maybe YOU should read what he wrote. He definitely did speak of colonialism in terms of "net gains", as if to dilute (hm, there's that word again) the significance of the atrocities that took place with all the benefits that were reaped in the aftermath. It is important to note WHO those benefits served, too. You can't talk about "net gains" for all of humanity, when all of the people involved in any colonization event weren't included in both the atrocities and the benefits.

 

[greygelgoog]

If they really want morally disturbing, they should try the Europa Universalis games. I established a trading post in western Africa, and my primary export: SLAVES! The games get "Teen" ratings for tobacco and alcohol references (tobacco and wine are trade products) but no one seems to bat an eye over the fact that the game includes the slave trade.

 

[Skrapt]

It is not the place of any person or group that has not experienced a pronounced and prolonged history of racism, subjugation, or discrimination to tell the people who HAVE that they are being hyper-sensitive or that they need to get over it. It's simply not right.

The problem is you're complaining about a game based on fictional events... it's a game that in no way perpetuates racism of any kind and trying to make it up as 'morally disturbing' when in fact it is nothing of the sort. It's a game, which makes you a little hypersensitive, you're not arguing over some real atrocity, you're making a big deal out of literally nothing.

 

[Johnn Johnston]

I'm guessing that he has never heard of any Civ game before. They all involve colonisation - it is difficult to play the game without colonising something at some point.

 

[GothmogII]

I think it'll be very interesting if one of a few possible endings happen:

1) The Native Americans take over.
2) The Americas decide to accept English/French/Dutch/Spanish rule. (It was a real possibility back in the day)
3) Islam, Buddhism or any of the other religions that were around take hold.

Now that would take a step away from "morally disturbing" and into "morally interesting".

And at least in Colo, you don't have nerve-stapling.

What? Those drones get unruly you know!

As for the article, I don't really have the intelligence to make an argument, but, I don't agree with this guy. As has been said, it's just a game. Sure, they can be used to explore ideas, some even controversial, but it's still just a game.

Also...that site also has one of Yahtzee's vids a few pages back hehe.
http://weblogs.variety.com/the_cut_scene/2008/04/yahtzee-on-supe.html

 

[Hawaiigm]

Godwin's Law is here. Argument over.

 

[John Galt]

How does this Civ differ from any of the others in moral terms? All the others were about was building up your society to be the best and grind everyone else under your heel. This has been the theme that has made the games so fun and successful. The only thing that differs in this new installment is the setting. While the events that occurred in history do not display wholly ethical dealings, historical events are by no means the only path open to the player. While the goal is the same(survival and domination) brutal means are not necessarily encouraged. If there is any moral issue, it is caused by the player and not the game itself.

On colonialism, I find that while it has some pretty nasty elements in it (plutocracy is never appreciated), it has some advantages that cannot be overlooked. In many historical cases, it allowed for the exploitation of resources on a larger scale. It brought together the political structure and technology of the colonists with the resources of the natives. While one group generally was able subjugate the other during the lifetime of a colony, you cannot ignore the fact that it also brought Western Civilization into new lands. It has helped correct over-population, served as a penal system, and in the long run, given the indigenous peoples chances they may never have had.

With all due respect towards Native American culture, I think we can all agree that the quality of life in the New World is far higher than it was a couple centuries ago. Yes, colonialism does have a terrible, ghastly downside to it, but, we cannot simply condemn it as evil based only on short-term consequences. To get a better grasp of a situation, we should look at it in terms of centuries and statistics, not just the events of one particular era.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

With all due respect towards Native American culture, I think we can all agree that the quality of life in the New World is far higher than it was a couple centuries ago. Yes, colonialism does have a terrible, ghastly downside to it, but, we cannot simply condemn it as evil based only on short-term consequences. To get a better grasp of a situation, we should look at it in terms of centuries and statistics, not just the events of one particular era.

Some might say that the surviving Native Americans disagree. Mount Rushmore for instance.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Godwin's Law is here. Argument over.

Can we please put "Godwin's Law" in the same cultural dustbin as "bling bling" and "def" and other completely overused phrases?

Godwin's law is a specific example of a more general principle that also appears to be true.

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of any comparison of any given group to another approaches one."

The Economist's extension is that "a good rule in most discussions is that the first person to call the other a Nazi automatically loses the argument."

Neither stops if a comparison to the NASI party or ideology is achieved.

Godwin's actual law is

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

 

[Knight Templar]

Having said all that its just a game, come back to me when they come up with virtual concentration camp.

I'd go for that. Sim Dachau would be a kick ass game. Political correctness is for pussies and neocons.

I keep thinking to myself "Satire, sarcasm, satire, sarcasm". But somehow I'm not sure.

 

[Doug]

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).

This kind of statement is exactly what makes it so hard for we liberals interested in truth and justice to get our point across. When people bring up "White people suffer from racism too! White people have been subjugated, too!" they're not testing whether you are aware of those facts--they are testing whether your arguments are based on something noble and just.

And you just failed that test.

You are a 'liberal' who 'tests' people like that? Hmm, I see - maybe its an American thing - but Mr Godheval has a valid point: White people are quick to point out racism against us (and yes, I am white and British) but our ascentors were involved in some of the most repressive colonization efforts. However, I do feel that taking issue with game over this is taking it too far.

To be honest, Colonization does brush over the issues of slavery in the new world - although you can befriend and/or slaughter the native Americans. But if you were to take issue with that, you'd need to ban the whole Total War series (Shotgun, maybe not, but Rome:TW didn't make a big thing of the Roman cultural extermination of the Gauls, amongst others, and Medieval brushed over both christian crusader atrocities, and the other crimes of the era, not exclusively christian by any means).

Virtually every single subject is, somehow, connected to some horrible act from our past (lets face it - humans as a species aren't particularly nice to each other, or our environments). By the same token that he complained about colonization, Civilzation (the game) didn't really include the horrors of slavery (or at least, only Civilization 4 included it as a goverment opinion).

Eygpts, Greeks, Mongels, Romans, the Islamic empires, Europeans in general (Brittain and France especially), Africans - all have been involved in slavery at some point, and many more besides. The fact of the matter is slavery is what was used before the advent of engines. Its an appauling thing and should be stamped out as throughly as possible whenever encountered, but I don't think any culture can claim true innocence from this crime.

But anyway, I've probably gone off topic - basically, we all have different view points, and whilst history shouldn't be sugar coated, does that have to invade every area of our gaming? Who's up for a WW2 shooter in which you're allies are pretty likely to accidently shoot you, you have liberate a consentration camp, and your commardes will occasionally butch surrendering enemies to loot?

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I hate people like this Fritz with every bone in my body. What's more evil than colonization? Ignorance.

 

[Schulza]

Fritz it?s just a game, if u are worried, send a notification, or a consumers report so parents are aware of the issue, for most who play the original game in 1994, like myself, let me tell u that most of us are over 18 so we can decide for ourselves what?s ?morally disturbing? or not, so just chill out men.

 

[Johnn Johnston]

I hate people like this Fritz with every bone in my body. What's more evil than colonization? Ignorance.

Amen to that. A big [citation needed] to him.