Comments

1. Paul wrote:

   This’ a video game and therefore it cannot possibly touch on all the historical facets of colonialism. For example, if Meier had dealt with slavery, then he would have also had to deal with Native Americans owning slaves and the nature of slavery in different colonies. I bet the game also doesn’t deal with ethnic strife within the British colonies or miscegnation or any other complex and hard to simulate issues.

   The author’s closing paragraph belies the same mindset that he decries in the article. That “Let’s kill honkey” attitude helps no one and weakens his argument greatly.

   Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 7:40 am ¶

2. Glossolalia Black wrote:

   Paul, I’ve been seeing your argument around several websites’ comments sections, and while it thrills me that we’re getting exposure to the same kinds of blogs, it also makes me wonder about your m.o. in all this…

   I’m going to attempt to see you not as a troll but as someone with information that I may not have, so that I can go to the sources of your assertions and make my own decisions about it.

   I have white, black and native ancestry. I haven’t heard anything about Native Americans owning slaves. Could you point me at a source, please?

   The “let’s kill honkey” part of your commentary’s a bit hard to take, really. I’m just going to ignore that part and hope that you have some real sources to share.

   Finally: miscegenation’s a word that leaves a bad taste in my mouth, like mulatto. I’m sure you can understand why.

   Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 7:57 am ¶

3. Jus Plain Ol Me wrote:

   I have spent (or as my wife would contend, wasted) so many hours in the past decade playing Civilization. On some weekend nights, I could spend hours on that game.

   Admittedly, this review of Colonization made me think about issues that I previously had not. Combine that with the fact that I now have a 10-month old bi-racial daughter and everything takes on new meaning. It especially hit me that Plasma Rit talked about the elementary school angle given to students: colonists and Native Americans got along swimmingly. My wife and I are going to have to do a lot of at-home supplemental educating.

   I’ll probably have to pass on Colonization for now. I’ll remain content with my Civilization II and Civilization III experience. However, I’ll have to pay closer attention to the subtle or not-so-subtle racism in the game - aside from the obvious characterizations given to each country’s spokesman.

   Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 8:32 am ¶

4. Eric Grant wrote:

   From up here in Canada, where US history is often better known than our own, any medium that portrays Native nations making strategic military alliances with European colonizers (if that is what this game suggests, even indirectly) looks like a corrective to one of our own historic blind spots.

   We often have a collective notion of the Eastern/Central Native nations just being paved over by the colonizers, but that view ignores the indispensible military roles that, for instance, the Iroquois played in Britain’s defeat of France in this part of North America, and again when the Iroquois were frequently the decisive force protecting Canadians/British colonists from US invaders in the War of 1812, or earlier, the various Native peoples’ central roles in the fur trade which brought the first Europeans inland on this part of the continent to begin with. Canada would not and could not exist without the aid of Native nations–which makes all the crap that’s been thrown their way in the last 200 odd years all the more despicable.

   Heaven knows European colonization has not been good for Native peoples, but I’m happy to hear of any work that shows they had important roles in North Americans’ collective history, beyond hapless victims/guides/trackers, and that Native people and their political leaders have been making proverbially rational economic, military and diplomatic choices based on what information and resources they had available (just like anyone else) all through the four centuries that have passed since the first Europeans thought this might look like a nice place to make a life.

   Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 8:43 am ¶

5. Lyonside wrote:

   >This’ a video game and therefore it cannot possibly touch on all the historical facets of colonialism.

   Paul - the point is, the gamemaker TRIED to touch on historical realities of colonialism. And failed in some pretty significant respects - and in the process, painted a glossy picture that, as the author points out, REINFORCED myths that the game seems intended to tear down.

   >That “Let’s kill honkey” attitude helps no one and weakens his argument greatly.

   Oh gee, so you wouldn’t support a game that lets you BE the invaded instead of the invader? Privileged much?

   I didn’t get the “lets kill white people” vibe from that statement. That’s a concern troll statement if I ever heard one.

   What I get is that since the game only places the gamer in the position of the Europeans, a good alternate POV would be to be in the position of the native peoples - “battle” doesn’t mean “kill” in all contexts - it could be the more peaceful options being rewarded as in the original game.

   Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 8:45 am ¶

6. Anna wrote:

   Thank you SO much for this post! I grew up playing Civilization and Colonization. Oddly, it led to me asking a lot of questions about whether or not the scenarios in the game were “accurate” or not - and those questions led me to become an American Studies major and think about colonialism *all* the time.

   I don’t think that video games should be held to any less a standard than novels or movies. It’s important to recognize that it’s a fictionalization of history, just like any other. But the gaming world has a history of prioritizing game play and play balance over historical accuracy. It’s more fun to play a game when everyone gets an equal chance to win (this is why the Germans can win in Axis and Allies) and when the decisions you make to win the game are unfettered by moral ambiguity (this is why there is no mention of concentration camps in Axis and Allies).

   Colonialism is still a very popular theme in family board games (Settlers of Catan, Puerto Rico) - but since there are no images of people in these games (aside from the cover on the box), and no mention of “natives” or “colonists” - you play through the actions of colonialism without all the guilt you might feel sending your musketeers into native villages in Colonization. Or, at least, the guilt I hope you’d feel. . .

   Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 8:49 am ¶

7. Mickey wrote:

   It’s funny you posted this; I saw a commercial for the expansion pack last night. It’s rated E for Everyone ages 10+.

   And this argument that Native American’s owned slaves! I must have been asleep in history class that day. Could someone point me in the direction of some books/articles?

   Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 8:51 am ¶

8. Mickey wrote:

   Oh yeah, the Natives being converted to Christianity bothers me. A lot.

   I consider myself a Christian, but never felt the need to convert anyone. I always wondered, what makes my religion so much better than someone else’s?

   I left a church because all the talk of converting Muslim people to Christianity and how we needed to pray for their souls.

   Gah!

   Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 8:54 am ¶

9. lxy wrote:

   Perhaps a better name for this game would be American Holocaust, because that is what the European colonization of the Western Hemisphere meant for many Native Indian nations, as David Stannard has suggested in his book of the same name.

   American Holocaust
   http://thirdworldtraveler.com/History/American_Holocaust.html

   Many modern-day European Americans particularly in North America would rather gloss over this genocidal history as it contradicts not only their own nationalist propaganda myths but might even cause them to question the very nature of “Western Civilization” itself.

   Indeed, what is it that Ghandi said when asked what he thought of Western Civilization?

   “It would be a good idea.”

   Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 8:57 am ¶

10. atlasien wrote:

    I remember many years ago in college, I had an Iraqi foreign student friend with a wicked sense of humor who had the original Civilization. He always picked the Babylonians to play, and gleefully nuked America as soon he developed the technology.

    This game of Colonization sounds like it just reinforces the idea that Europe was destined by fate to rule the world. Why couldn’t this game have been based around the contingencies of geography and history, a la Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs and Steel?” Tweak a few variables, and you have tapir-mounted Native Americans colonizing Europe instead.

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 8:58 am ¶

11. J wrote:

    Pertaining to the holding of slaves by Native Americans – as much as I am loath to cite Wikipedia, this is the only resource I could come up with at this hour: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Slavery_among_Native_Americans

    I first heard about Native Americans having slaves on the show African American Lives which aired on PBS this past February. When they were tracing Don Cheadle’s lineage, they found out that he was descended from slaves held by the Chickasaw Nation. After the Civil War, the slaves ended up stateless citizens, as they were living in Oklahoma, primarily, which was Indian Territory then and not a state.

    Go and watch that documentary _ you end up learning a lot of things you didn’t know about black history.

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 9:06 am ¶

12. Lyonside wrote:

    >And this argument that Native American’s owned slaves! I must have been asleep in history class that day.

    The facts are that some native tribes practiced a form of slavery/servitude, throughout North and South America, but it was NOT the chattel slavery practiced by colonial powers and later nations, and it was NOT racially based, overall, except where some tribes (notably, the Cherokee) also held African slaves, at the same time period as whites.

    From what I understand, enslavement or servitude as practiced by native tribes was a consequence of warfare, tribute, or other notions of debt. The status wasn’t static necessarily (i.e. a “slave” often could become part of the tribe, through intermarriage or adoption), and it was not based on parentage or physical appearance in the codified way of the Slave Codes and US federal law.

    So, the “but Indians had slaves too” argument is at best an oversimplification, at worst a red herring.

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 9:07 am ¶

13. Miriam Heddy wrote:

    A quick google search on “Native Americans owning slaves” turned up this:
    http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/history/hs_es_indians_slavery.htm

    I honestly don’t know enough about it to comment, but it might be a place to begin research.

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 9:08 am ¶

14. J wrote:

    This article also has information relating to the Cherokee ownership of slaves.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_Freedmen_Controversy

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 9:10 am ¶

15. shah8 wrote:

    When people say that native americans held slaves too, they are typically talking about the Cherokee. For various reason, the Cherokee experience is not always synonymous with the aggregate experience of aboriginal americans.
    Now, Meso americans and South Americans also had many slaves, but that is something of a side angle for this topic.

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 9:26 am ¶

16. Charlie wrote:

    As for Native Americans owning slaves - here’s a link :

    The legacy of Native Americans owning slaves has come up recently in the vote of various tribes (including the Seminole, Cherokee and Creek nations) in Oklahoma voting to deny AA descendants of the slaves owned by Native Americans rights as members of the various tribal nations.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/02/AR2007030201647.html

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 9:38 am ¶

17. RJG wrote:

    @Mickey’s It’s rated E for Everyone ages 10+.:

    This might also be why the game avoids certain issues. It’s like if someone went to try and make a G/PG movie about Colonization. Topics would become quickly glossed over if not outright ignored to avoid too many red marks which would result in a T or M ESRB rating.

    I’m not saying that these topics should be avoided in a game, but that it may not just be a case of them going “hey let’s leave out the part about the Colonists doing the really bad things” as much as the company’s heads going “hey we want this to be rated E - skip the parts about the torture and the genocides and the other things that could upset the delicate sensibilities”.

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 9:49 am ¶

18. Paul wrote:

    GB
    Since you appear to be someone who starts a discussion with a veiled insult (”I’m going to attempt to see you not as a troll”), I’m reticent to engage you in an intelligent discussion.

    I shall only say that miscegenation was the legal term used and therefore is historically accurate, despite the taste it may leave in your mouth.

    Mickey:
    Check on the Five Civilized Tribes as
    slaveowners. Here’s but one article, “Slave
    Country” by Adam Rothman. It has a bit
    about how accomodationist members of
    these tribes ran cotton plantations.

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 9:59 am ¶

19. DEAF FEMINIST PUNK! wrote:

    I think I will stick to SIMCity games.

    I’d rather “colonize” a tiny area of Mars or somewhere far, far away….

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 10:07 am ¶

20. sejw wrote:

    Re: Native Americans owning slaves, if anyone saw African American Lives 2 on PBS (aired a few months ag0), they told the story of actor Don Cheadle’s ancestors, who were owned by the Chickasaw Nation.
    Check it out: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/aalives/profiles/cheadle.html

    To quote from PBS: “A sovereign nation within the U.S., the Chickasaw Nation did not recognize the end of slavery until 1866. After 1866, the freedmen in the Chickasaw Nation, Don Cheadle’s family among them, hold neither U.S. nor Chickasaw citizenship until the 1890s when the Dawes Commission redistributes communally held land.”

    More Googling will surely turn up more. Surprised the heck out of me when I watched it.

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 10:11 am ¶

21. R wrote:

    I by no means agree with the entirety of Paul’s comment, but I learned about Native Americans owning slaves in a grad-level history class. Thanks to Amazon, I could find the reference:

    “Indian Territory comprised the second-largest slaveholding region in the West. The Cherokee, Cree, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole entered the region after the Indian removal treaties of the 1830s, and they brought slaves with them. Of the five hundred Indian nations that inhabited the United States, the Five Nations were virtually the only Indians holding blacks in bondage. Moreover, only a minority in each tribe were slaveholders. Yet for this minority, which often was each tribe’s political and economic elite, slavery was a profitable labor system and a proud source of identification with the planter culture of the Old South” (Quintard Taylor, *In Search of the Racial Frontier: African Americans in the West, 1528-1990*, p. 62). He goes on but I’m not retyping everything!

    Bottom line, history is complicated, and there’s no way any game can completely reflect that. But it would have been interesting if the option to play Native Americans had been there.

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 10:24 am ¶

22. Classical One wrote:

    This is actually an old trend. Ever hear of the game Axis and Allies? You can play the Axis side of the equation and take over other Asia as the Japenese or Europe as the Germans. Another game called Fortress America was about the Invasion of the U.S. by communist forces. There also games where you can fight the Civil War as the Confederacy. Should these games be banned too?

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 10:25 am ¶

23. Clueless WW wrote:

    I was thinking of getting this, since I generally like Meier’s RTS style. One of Microsoft’s Age of Empires expansion packs had a colonies section — no cooperation with the colonized, though — but I hated the gameplay. And last night we were playing the latest Lego game — based on the Indiana Jones movies, so there’s a bit of unsettling content even there. (Shame, really, because I am an undying fan of the Lego games.)

    Some Native American tribes did have slaves. It was not “institutional” (i.e. everyone has some and they are integral to the economy), nor were they generally bought and sold. I’ve also gotten that sense from a few narratives I once read about white settlers kidnapped — they were used as servants far more often than they were adopted into the tribe.

    None of this excuses slavery in general, nor justifies the vibe I’m getting from Paul’s comment.

    I don’t know of any books, but a bit of Googling:
    http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/history/hs_es_indians_slavery.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_slavery
    http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/black_voices/voices_display.cfm?id=2
    (Most hits I got for native american slavery deal with the more well-known “when white men landed, they used the Indians for labor.”)

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 10:26 am ¶

24. Phrone wrote:

    Given that I’ve never played Colonization, this might sound ignorant: but if you can play as the major colonial powers, would it really have required a different engine to let the player choose a Native American tribe? I think that would have been a really interesting twist and allowed the player to see that colonization is not just the actions of the colonizer.

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 10:39 am ¶

25. Theora wrote:

    “Cherokees, along with Choctaws, Chickasaws, Creeks and Seminoles, were long known as the “Five Civilized Tribes” because they adopted many of the ways of their white neighbors in the South, including the holding of black slaves.”
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/02/AR2007030201647_pf.html

    “Most Native American tribal groups practiced some form of slavery before the European introduction of African slavery into North America; but none exploited slave labor on a large scale. Indian groups frequently enslaved war captives whom they used for small-scale labor and in ritual sacrifice. Most of these so-called Indian slaves tended to live, however, on the fringes of Indian society. Although not much is known about them, there is little evidence that they were considered racially inferior to the Indians who held power over them. Nor did Indians buy and sell captives in the pre-colonial era, although they sometimes exchanged enslaved Indians with other tribes in peace gestures or in exchange for their own members. In fact, the word ’slave’ may not even accurately apply to these captive people.”
    http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/history/hs_es_indians_slavery.htm

    * MYTH: The Cherokee Nation is expelling all the descendants of their former slaves.
    o FACT: There are more than 1,500 descendants of former slaves who are Cherokee citizens today because they can find an Indian ancestor listed on the Dawes Rolls. The Cherokee Nation is offering free genealogical expertise to assist any descendant of Freedmen who wants to research whether they can find such an Indian ancestor and thus become a permanent citizen. That said, slavery was a grave injustice and a painful chapter in our nation’s history, when 2% of Cherokees owned slaves. It should be noted, however, that the Cherokee Nation voluntarily freed these slaves in 1863.”
    http://freedmen.cherokee.org/FactsAboutCherokeeCitizenship/tabid/730/Default.aspx

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 10:41 am ¶

26. Sanguinity wrote:

    The southeastern tribes, before Removal owned black slaves:

    “From 1750 to the American Civil War in 1861, Native Americans, especially those in the Southeast, interacted with enslaved blacks in every way possible, although there is no evidence that blacks ever owned Indian slaves. The nature of this interaction depended upon the historical character of the Indian groups, the enslaved people in their midst, and the white slaveholders. Native Americans assisted runaway slaves and also tracked them down and returned them to slavery. They married free and enslaved blacks, and accepted the children of such unions with few strings attached. They also sold blacks to whites, trading them like so many blankets or horses. Most importantly, many Indians owned black slaves. By 1824, it is estimated that the Cherokee owned 1,277 black slaves; the Choctaw and the Chickasaw held over 5,000 blacks in slavery by 1860. Some mixed-blood Indians, such as the Choctaw chief Greenwood Lefore and the Cherokee chief John Ross, owned between 100 and 400 enslaved blacks respectively. And when the southeastern Indians were forcefully marched west to present-day Oklahoma by the American government in the infamous “Trail of Tears” in the 1830s and 1840s, as many as 15,000 enslaved blacks were taken with them.”

    That history has had present-day ramifications, too: see the entire Cherokee Freedmen Controversy. (In general, Wikipedia’s articles on Native Americans tend to be weak — riddled with the American mythocentric POV — but at first scan it looks like this one gives a reasonable outline of the history of the issue.)

    With respect to primary sources, you could also look at Patrick Minges’ Black Indian Slave Narratives — it’s a collection of Federal Writer’s Project ex-slave narratives, focusing specifically on interviewees with Native heritage. I’m still reading, but the introduction suggests that at least some of the narratives will be from individuals who had been enslaved by Natives.

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 10:53 am ¶

27. dave wrote:

    I think Anna touched upon some good points here.

    One thing I’d say in defense of the game Civilization is that its just as likely an African nation was the winner/colonizer. And really, war games inherently involved war. And war is bad. However, war games are fun. Sigh.

    I don’t have the words today, can anyone want to tackle that aspect?

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 11:03 am ¶

28. RJG wrote:

    @Phrone’s “but if you can play as the major colonial powers, would it really have required a different engine to let the player choose a Native American tribe?”:

    It shouldn’t have to based on what I know about the games.

    A lot of the Civ games have multiple, notably different, ways to “win”.

    ::game nerd::
    The Civ game I have (I forget which one) allowed me to win through a wide range of options, the ones I remember being (I think there are more too):
    1) Control X% of the world
    2) Be the first into space
    3) UN forms through X happening, be a part of the UN, something here, be the most influential person in the UN at a certain point.

    And with some of those, you can even still accomplish those through violence or otherwise.

    You can use military strength to take over the world or be diplomatic enough to absorb them by offering enough boons (cultural advances/technology/etc). You can trade research with different groups to get to where you need to be to launch a spaceship or you can take that technology by threatening to attack countries who researched it if they don’t turn it over, or you can have spies from your embassy in country X steal it non violently.

    So it’s not like winning in a Civ game always means taking over the most stuff.
    ::/game nerd::

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 11:06 am ¶

29. Mickey wrote:

    @ Lyonside:

    Thanks for the info!

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 11:23 am ¶

30. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Apologies for the late comment approvals y’all, I’m feeling kind of sick today.

    I want to add a couple things to the convo, so I apologize in advance for not addressing you all directly:

    Re: Playing video games

    Simulation games like this one actually “teach” people a lot more about war and conflict than they will ever learn in school. The best games have hours and hours of research behind them and you spend anywhere from 25 - 100 hours immersed in the game designers adaptation of history. So it is very important that we hold designers accountable for the versions of history they present.

    Re: Historical Parity

    I have never played Civilization but I was a HUGE fan of Age of Empires II, specifically the expansion pack (The Conquerers). These games have enormous potential for teaching multiple views of history - I could either play as the Spanish trying to invade the Aztecs; or I could play as the Aztecs defending against the Spanish invasion. I was not as into historical analysis and accuracy in video games back then, so there may be problems within the game I am overlooking. But from, what I remember the options where there to play as anyone and to conquer anyone. Also, each civilization had its limitations, but also it’s own great strengths, so there really weren’t any limitations besides personal preference in the game.

    Age of Empires III took a decidedly colonialist twist in the new world. I’ll download the demo & report back.

    Re: Banning games

    A critique is not the same as a call for BANNING! I wish people would get this through their heads. Critique is necessary for gaming to evolve as an art form and it helps to make a good game better. Especially in a game setting such as this when a lot of the accolades are based on the gameplay and realism.

    What also pisses me off is that critiques about gameplay and characters are always treated with reverence - except when it comes to a social issue. Talk gender or talk race and suddenly, people get all afraid.

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 11:23 am ¶

31. Mickey wrote:

    And to everyone who is filling in the gaps of my Texas public school education, thank you as well.

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 11:30 am ¶

32. PaulPortland wrote:

    Classical One wrote:

    “This is actually an old trend. Ever hear of the game Axis and Allies? You can play the Axis side of the equation and take over other Asia as the Japenese or Europe as the Germans. Another game called Fortress America was about the Invasion of the U.S. by communist forces. There also games where you can fight the Civil War as the Confederacy. Should these games be banned too?”

    By the tone of your post, apparently you’re of the camp that believes “political correctness” is destroying America and depriving us of all our freedoms.

    This despite the fact that the great majority of the books being pulled from library shelves are being objected to on conservative religious grounds. This despite the fact that a qualified and able individual had his presidential aspirations seriously threatened by the opinions voiced by SOMEONE ELSE merely because those opinions were deemed beyond the pale by the majority. When was the last time an Ethnic Students Union had the reach and power to derail a presidential campaign?

    No one is calling for banning or censoring video games or books or movies or songs or t-shirts which we disagree with or find offensive. As a matter of fact, troublesome works of art are usually the most fertile ground for advancing conversations about race, economic justice, war/ peace, gender, etc. forward because it allows both sides of the debate the ability to move towards an understanding of each others concerns.

    In other words, dissecting, analyzing, and uncovering the privileges, latent aggressions, and meta-myths which underlie popular media works is vastly different from demanding that said media works be banned. Rather what threads like this are trying to do is to say: “Look, you can play Colonization, enjoy it, rock the high score, and beat it on the Emperor difficulty level if you want, but as you are doing so, please understand that you are partaking in a version of history which marginalizes the roles of Native peoples in the Americas as well as distorts the relationship between the European colonizers and the indigenous tribes at the time.”

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 11:39 am ¶

33. Ken Arromdee wrote:

    “This despite the fact that a qualified and able individual had his presidential aspirations seriously threatened by the opinions voiced by SOMEONE ELSE merely because those opinions were deemed beyond the pale by the majority.”

    If you’re talking about Obama and Wright, that happened because of Obama’s own close association with Wright, as well as Obama’s own reactions to the controversy (such as claiming he didn’t know what Wright said).

    “No one is calling for banning or censoring video games or books or movies or songs or t-shirts which we disagree with or find offensive.”

    Yet. It always ends up that way.

    Of course, you could quibble over the exact definition of “censorship”, such as saying that self-censorship doesn’t count as censorship.

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 1:00 pm ¶

34. annalouise wrote:

    Like the other commentators I’m most annoyed/confused/puzzled by why the game designers didn’t create an option for players to play the colonized instead of the colonizers. In Civilization IV (which I love) a player can choose to play the Inca, Maya, Aztec or Iroquois so it’s not even like the game isn’t already set up for that option.
    It would be a better game. Explore better historical concepts and create a more interesting set of historical “what-ifs”. As in, “what if” you, the player, playing as the Mayan empire decide not to temporarily ally with the Spanish against the Aztecs but to be put aside your differences and repell the invaders?

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 1:16 pm ¶

35. Jorge wrote:

    First off, I love this series of games (and most grand strategy turn based games), so I might be biased towards the game.

    The issue of portraying slavery in a game can be very tricky. They can either make it strictly economical (I imagine you have X number of settlers that grant X amount of production plus X amount of slaves that grant production bonus) without focusing on human aspect of the issue. You can probably throw in a few negative aspects for the player, such as risk of rebellion, decreased migration, etc.

    I remember there was another game called Call to Power which had slavery in it. It was pretty much dealt with in the way I described above. They also included a description of the practice in the game encyclopaedia (much like Civ does). To me, this was a good way to handle the issue.

    I guess my question is, how do you balance the portrayal of slavery (which I think should be included) in any game? I’ve seen a similar discussion about the issue of forced labor during WWII for strategy games set in this era. Personally, I would not enjoy a game which allows decision X but then starts moralizing about it, pretty much making my decision wrong.

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 1:23 pm ¶

36. harrumph wrote:

    Ken Arromdee — “Yet. It always ends up that way.”

    Really? How many games can you name which have been banned in the US? How many can you come up with which even been altered by their developers in direct response to an outcry about anything other than sexual or violent content?

    I assume from the attitude you take and from your comments about Obama that you’re from the US. Whatever else one might say about this country, they’d have to admit that it protects freedom of speech better than anywhere else in the world; your whining about “censorship” is just a smokescreen for the fact that you’d prefer not hear anybody else’s critical opinions of the things you like.

    As for the Civilization/Colonization games, I’ve been a huge fan of the Civ series ever since I was a little kid — I’ve played all four, spanning a solid decade and a half. I never got into Colonization; I don’t pretend to have been a really enlightened elementary school student who recognized the game’s Eurocentrism and historical whitewashing — it was more that the narrow focus wasn’t my cup of tea. I always liked the massive scope of the Civ games, the fascinating process of completely rewriting world history over the course of twenty hours or so.

    I recognize now that the game actually was (and the sequels continue to be) pretty Eurocentric in less obvious ways. You could play a game with all Native American and African civs, nary a white person in sight, but you’d still be forced to follow the approximate course (technologically, in particular, but also socially and infrastructurally) of European history. The wheel, for instance, is one of the first-tier ancient technologies, something every player must research within the first few centuries of Civ history, while the calendar comes in the classical or medieval era, in the company of Shakespearean drama and the machinery required to build windmills. Never mind that the Maya, who never developed the wheel at all, were easily a thousand years ahead of Europe in the sophistication of their calendar.

    That said, I still get a kick out of watching Ethiopian helicopter gunships chase down Roman musketeers, or Incan submarines sink Spanish galleons. The leaders in Civ 4 are all caricatures, and they have a few cringe-worthy lines (Sitting Bull says some crap about a peace pipe, I think), but they all play with styles from which players might actually learn something, seeking varied priorities which don’t buy into ideas of Western cultural superiority at all. Many European leaders (Churchill, Isabella, Stalin) are barbarous, uncultured warmongers; many African leaders are devout, diplomatic statesman-scientists like Mansa Musa or peaceful, cultured civilizers like Hatshepsut (Shaka’s an incredibly belligerent jerk, but at least he’s no pushover). The series has often included special scenarios which focus on non-European historical periods (feudal Japan, imperial China, the Middle East in the 13th century, Mesoamerica right before the Spanish invasion) and allow the player to steer history in different directions (in the last case, for one, it’s possible to throw the Spanish back into the sea).

    I’ll be curious to see where they go with the new Colonization; as it looks like now, it remains much less appealing to me than Civ, and now for more reasons than just one.

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 2:26 pm ¶

37. Daniel wrote:

    First of all, English is not my first language, so please forgive me if I make any mistake.

    To me, the article contradicts itself:

    1. When Sid Meier depicts the violent side of colonization, the author states that “the idea of a game about conquering other civilizations and stealing their land is pretty tasteless”.

    2. When Sid Meier depicts the alliance and sometimes peaceful relationships between European and Indians, the author says “it conveniently sidesteps the cruelty and abuse Native Americans received at the hands of the colonists”.

    So, what is the solution?

    The game presents belligerent and peaceful options and let the player decide. In addition, the game punishes the player if he/she destroys Indian settlements. What is wrong with that? Is not the game delivering the player a message when he/she is penalized for attacking the Indians?

    It would be great to be able to play as the Indians, but this game is more about nationalism than colonization: you have to built a colony and become independent from the metropolis. Playing as the Indians would involve a different set of objectives and other ways to win the game that would have nothing to do with the game’s main narrative.

    This said, I also would love to see a colonization game from the native’s perspective.

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 2:34 pm ¶

38. harrumph wrote:

    Although now that I think about, they did make the disappointing move between Civ 3 and Civ 4 of folding the Sioux into a single generic “Native American” civilization (with Sitting Bull as a leader but totem poles as special buildings), which is wildy inaccurate, silly in light of the fact that the game has three other Native American civs, and sadly representative of the common perception of North American indigenous people as all basically being one big group of whooping, feathered headdress wearing, totem pole building, teepee dwelling, tomahawk chucking, pipe smoking stereotypes.

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 3:39 pm ¶

39. Glossolalia Black wrote:

    Paul, it was the “let’s kill honkey” and the multiple posts in a few comments sections on the subject that kind of had the “troll” flavor to it.

    That, and the whole “People of color had slaves too!” argument.

    Why the term “miscegentaion” bugs me, in case you care, can be best (read: most quickly) explained probably by this answers.com quote :

    Today, the word “miscegenation” is still used when referring to past ethnocentric and racist attitudes and practices concerning multiraciality. It is also still in use by some as a general term encompassing the different social and demographic aspects of “race-mixing”. However, because of its controversial history, other terms such as “interracial” or “interethnic” are more common in contemporary usage. In genetics, the term “admixture” is used for the interbreeding of people of different ethnicities or races. Sociologists also use the terms “outmarriage” or exogamy (the opposite of “inmarriage” or endogamy) for marriage and procreation within marriage with someome from outside of one’s social group. However, the boundary of a particular social group does not have to be “racial”, it can also be based on religion, culture, lineage or ethnicity.

    http://www.answers.com/topic/miscegenation

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 3:41 pm ¶

40. PaulPortland wrote:

    Jorge wrote:

    “I guess my question is, how do you balance the portrayal of slavery (which I think should be included) in any game? I’ve seen a similar discussion about the issue of forced labor during WWII for strategy games set in this era. Personally, I would not enjoy a game which allows decision X but then starts moralizing about it, pretty much making my decision wrong.”

    Good question.

    First off, I think including options like slavery and forced labor, if they were historically available in the read world, is better than ignoring them altogether and thus giving players a false impression of the high human costs of these particular events in history (respectively the colonization of the New World and World War II).

    As for how might a game designer include slavery or forced labor as options? Sure, there’s the option you wrote about in your comment - allowing the player to partake in slavery and forced labor, but moralizing about it in such a way as to take the player out of the game while annoying them in the process. This is, in my opinion, the wrong way to go about it.

    A better way to include grotesque options like slavery or forced labor or ethnic cleansing, etc. is to constantly ramp up the consequences and costs in a logical and meaningful way for the player who uses those options. For example, players who partake of slavery for its economic benefits in a game about colonization would also have to contend with slave rebellions, with economic sanctions from anti-slavery nations, with a loss of scientific ingenuity due to the inability to take advantage of half of their populations intellectual know-how, and with having to apply more extreme and graphic measures of “pacification” in order to control their slave populations. The hope here is that by a) making the activity cost-ineffecient in a reasonable (non-badgering) way and b) forcing the player to sacrifice ever more of his own humanity in order to maintain the practice, the player can learn from the game rather than be lectured by it or, worse, let off the hook by the game.

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 3:46 pm ¶

41. Logan wrote:

    Well, I hate to have this viewpoint, but I’m of the “it’s only a videogame” crowd in this situation.

    Admittedly, the Civilization series’ are fun to play (outside World of Warcraft and Starcraft, I’ve devoted more time to Civ I than any other game). I haven’t played Colonies, but I’ve played most of the Civilization games. To me, the core of the game was always about nation-building, how do you want to develop your sciences, do you want to be a military powerhouse, etc. The historical accurateness was always just a kinda side-issue, which added to the game. To me, the game never was about making a social stance.

    To add onto it, what kind of stance could’ve been made here? There’s a lot of issues which are very touchy, like religion, slavery, colonization, racism, etc. where there is no right way to address it, where any method of addressing it would have criticism. With this game, outside of having the option to play as various Indian tribes (and not just as “Indians” but actual tribes), I think the game handled the plight of Native Americans as well as it could have while not being a game about said plight. I’m not saying its above criticism, but I just think that there isn’t too much they could’ve done with what they were going for.

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 3:52 pm ¶

42. PaulPortland wrote:

    Ken Arromdee wrote:

    “If you’re talking about Obama and Wright, that happened because of Obama’s own close association with Wright, as well as Obama’s own reactions to the controversy (such as claiming he didn’t know what Wright said).”

    That’s not the point I was making. We can argue all day about the tactical reasons Obama was taken to task for the Wright controversy. My reason for bringing up that event was to demonstrate that in America, the power to frame discourse does not lay in the hands of people of color/ progressives who are constantly accused of censoring people in the name of political correctness. To think so is to be utterly blinded by privilege.

    Just take a look at the mainstream news, at the political climate in Washington, D.C., at which pundits get to speak their minds freely, at who’s point of view gets treated with respect and who’s point of view is treated with skepticism, and it becomes incredibly obvious that for all the hullabaloo over how political correctness is apparently getting conservatives on college campuses sent to re-education camps is a lot of bull-poopy.

    For instance, during the entire Obama/ Wright debacle, people on the left practically begged the MSM to also turn their attention to McCain and his associations with the lunatic Christian Right, and apply the same sort of guilt by association standard that they were applying to Obama. Of course, we were given the same excuses as you give in your comment as to why the McCain situation was different, but even if we take McCain out of the equation and replaced him with the Republican Party as a whole and their relationship with the Christian Right throughout the 1980s and 1990s, does Obama’s relationship with Wright still seem of a different, more insidious nature? Of course not.

    Again, maybe Obama could have handled the situation better from a political/ horse-race point of view. He was certainly sent running to find a way to appease the white folks in power and in the country at large. But that’s beside the point. In a larger sense, the Wright debacle perfectly demonstrated that political correctness is a much more effective tool when used by the powers that be - you criticize white privilege, you criticize American foreign policy, you criticize blind patriotism, you criticize America’s relationship with Israel, you criticize America’s history of racial violence, and you are getting beat down hard, branded a terrorist sympathizer, and, hell, let’s throw in anti-semitic to boot.

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 4:11 pm ¶

43. Joseph wrote:

    @Latoya
    Sorry to hear you are feeling poorly…I have been waiting for you to chime in on this thread because you are a self-described gamer and I am curious to hear your thoughts on this. I’m thinking a lot about what you’ve written but I wanted to add something myself from a different point of view:

    I am no gamer–but I have been aware of the Civilization games for a while and been deeply ambivalent about them. I played an earlier version and was really disturbed by it. Based on my experience with the game I am not surprised by its evolution into “Colonization” since the term “civilization,” which is most often used neutrally, is a colonial concept. It is hard not read a tag line like “Create a New Nation” without my blood running cold. “Civilization” is always imagined in the west as a gift, bestowed on savage, childlike, PoC by white men who sometimes have to make hard calls on behalf of the colonized, who after all, are unable to govern themselves. Anyone who thinks this thinking ended in the 19th century should listen to five minutes of news coverage about Iraq. Pick a channel, any channel… If I took a shot every time I heard this scenario described in relation of Middle Eastern politics I’d be drunk all the time, which seems more and more reasonable the closer we teeter to war with Iran.

    I can’t argue with the enjoyment a gamer might experience playing a game like this–but I question the reasoning behind creating a game around the “civilizing” project of colonialism in the first place. Would a game about US American slavery or the Jewish Holocaust be considered a potential teaching tool about these events/phenomena? (And no, I’m not considering these as equivalent historical events but rather making a broad analogy). My point is that “civilization” is not even close to a neutral term but rather one that has been–and continues to be–used against PoC all over the globe to justify colonial aggression. Nevertheless, US Americans (including western PoC) are so inculcated into the foundational colonial narratives of this country that it is difficult to cultivate the distance that would result in the reflexive distaste that say, a multiple POV game based on slavery would inspire.

    So it might be a fun game. But the idea that it would even get made in the first place grosses me out. It proves to me that colonialism is still–even in otherwise progressive US American circles–not taken seriously. Maybe the popularity of such a game is another iteration of the hipster bigotry we have been talking about recently?

    That is is not meant as a shot against those of you that enjoy the game–at all. I am just wondering about the lack of historical context that makes a game like this possible. And asking: how can we justify a blind spot this large considering the currency of colonialist arguments in relation to contemporary politics?

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 5:07 pm ¶

44. Jay wrote:

    Colonialism is still a very popular theme in family board games (Settlers of Catan, Puerto Rico) - but since there are no images of people in these games (aside from the cover on the box), and no mention of “natives” or “colonists” - you play through the actions of colonialism without all the guilt you might feel sending your musketeers into native villages in Colonization. Or, at least, the guilt I hope you’d feel. . .

    Remember the “colonists” in Puerto Rico are brown…

    Anyways, I find a lot of people just have a disconnect, almost willful ignorance about the scenario played out in Puerto Rico _even as they mention how much they love the theme_. It boggles my mind.

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 7:16 pm ¶

45. Joseph wrote:

    “To me, the core of the game was always about nation-building, how do you want to develop your sciences, do you want to be a military powerhouse, etc. The historical accurateness was always just a kinda side-issue, which added to the game.”

    I’m sorry but that disturbs the fuck out of me.

    The willful disconnect here between the material consequences of colonial violence and the coolly analytic detachment of the “nation-building” project suggested by this game is horrifying. Colonial “nations” don’t get built from scratch they are built on the ashes of the cultures they replace.

    “To me, the game never was about making a social stance.”

    Yeah, okay. I take back my maybe.

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 9:11 pm ¶

46. Ken Arromdee wrote:

    “How many can you come up with which even been altered by their developers in direct response to an outcry about anything other than sexual or violent content?”

    That’s a tricky question because 1) you’re choosing not to count self-censorship as censorship, and 2) just about anything censored for other reasons has at least some violent or sexual elements too.

    This way the “Kill the Haitians” that was taken out of Vice City doesn’t count because after all, it’s about violence. The home video versions of Street Fighter II altered the the original opening to a white man punching a white man, instead of punching a black man, but that doesn’t count because it’s violence, and beside it was preemptive self-censorship rather than being done in direct response to a pressure group.

    Night Trap was accused of promoting violence against women, and censored on that basis, but it also doesn’t count because it’s violence, even though the specific accusation of “violence against women” is associated with feminism.

    There was the gay character (Ash) removed in Streets of Rage 3–he was a stereotype and it may have been a good idea to remove him, but it would count… except that self-censorship doesn’t count, it has to be a direct response to an outcry.

    And Nintendo’s code prohibited material which “contain language or depiction which specifically denigrates members of either sex” or which “reflect ethnic, religious, nationalistic, or sexual stereotypes of language” (http://www.filibustercartoons.com/Nintendo.php). But this is self-censorship again.

    You’ve pretty much defined away all the examples.

    Not to mention that Paul denied not only that games are censored… but also books, movies, and songs. Denying that those get censored is utterly ludicrous.

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 11:22 pm ¶

47. Ken Arromdee wrote:

    “Of course, we were given the same excuses as you give in your comment as to why the McCain situation was different,”

    I think you fail to recognize that people who disagree with you politically may actually be as intelligent, sincere, and decent as people on your own. Instead you’re assuming that all such disagreement is merely an excuse.

    “but even if we take McCain out of the equation and replaced him with the Republican Party as a whole and their relationship with the Christian Right throughout the 1980s and 1990s, does Obama’s relationship with Wright still seem of a different, more insidious nature?”

    If a specific Republican called Jerry Falwell his spiritual advisor and was personal friends with him for 20 years, I’d have no problems saying that’s no less different or insidious than Obama.

    Posted 21 Jul 2008 at 11:39 pm ¶

48. Anna wrote:

    to Jay:

    “Remember the “colonists” in Puerto Rico are brown…”

    Ouch! I forgot about that! (People who don’t know the game: they’re little brown wooden disks that represent your workers)

    I guess you have to wonder where the line is between theming and gameplay. Are you pushing around little wooden disks, or are you pushing around imaginary workers? If you play Civ, or Puerto Rico, or any game for long enough, you might eventually stop seeing the graphics and the language and the “theme” that the designer has used to package gameplay. I certainly don’t think of the “hacienda” card as a real hacienda in Puerto Rico. I don’t think of my phalanx in Civ as real phalanx. I think about winning the game.

    A lot of critics attack games as though the players won’t be able to distinguish between reality and fiction (not in this post, but in more mainstream media). Most gamers I know would never consider shooting someone or enslaving someone or even stealing someone’s resources in real life - and they don’t think that they are genuinely simulating those things by playing games. It is, in fact, just a game. The question is: Where is the line, as a gamer, as a game designer, beyond which a theme becomes unpalatable or inappropriate for gameplay?

    Posted 22 Jul 2008 at 8:33 am ¶

49. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Anna -

    I don’t think there is a line. Manhunt can attest to that, as well as the hundreds of other games that are made and distributed for a limited audience, not necessarily for mainstream outlets.

    I agree with you about the fact that most gamers have a clear idea where a game leaves off and reality begins. However, just like with any other art form - movies, film, novels - gaming can reinforce some of the nastier ideas of society and serve to reinforce existing issues and stereotypes.

    Or, it could challenge them.

    Since gaming is so interactive, it has enormous potential to challenge a player in a way that other media does not. I could read in a textbook about Tenochtitlan and get a paragraph long summary - or I could play Age of Empires and actually experience the rise and fall of the Aztec empire. In this way, historical games can serve as a teaching moment, though that is not their original intention.

    I learned a lot playing Age because while the nation building and competition was fun, the campaigns were so detailed, I really felt like I was immersed in that moment in history.

    But there in lies the problem - history isn’t exactly agreed upon. And I don’t think saying “it’s just a game” works because games do have influence. The better solution is to call for more realism in games, from a social justice standpoint as well as a design standpoint.

    Posted 22 Jul 2008 at 8:52 am ¶

50. Anna wrote:

    @Latoya

    Looking at it again, I agree completely with what you said. Couldn’t have put it better.

    Posted 22 Jul 2008 at 9:05 am ¶

51. Dan wrote:

    What’s funny is the instant criticism of Obama and Wright’s relationship, as if to say beyond discussion that Wright’s comments are heinous and wrong. A tactic that would be amusing if it were not so dangerous.

    However, when looked at, Wright’s comments not only stand up to scrutiny but also are revealed to be quite accurate. People just don’t like to hear the truth. The HIV comment was a bit far fetched in my opinion, however when one considers U.S. history and documented cases such as the Tuskegee syphilis study, Wright’s opinion of HIV is rendered entirely possible.

    In Wright’s comments you will zero hate speech, however when you look at people like Pat Buchanan, Rev. Hagee and Parsley who are tied to McCain, you see how utterly hate-filled their speech is.

    Buchanan has said that AIDS is nature’s retribution for homosexuality; that women are “not endowed by nature” with sufficient ambition or will to succeed in a competitive society like that of the United States; and that the U.S. should annex parts of Canada so as to increase the size of the nation’s “white tribe” (because we were becoming insufficiently white at present), among other things.

    Buchanan wrote, in 1977, that Hitler had been “an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier in the great war,” a man of “extraordinary gifts,” whose “genius” was due to his “intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path,” yet when Farrakhan says Hitler was a great leader, but a vicious killer, Farrakhan is crucified. Buchanan is applauded.

    Same when Buchanan wrote in 1990 that survivors of the European Holocaust exaggerated their suffering due to “Holocaust survivor syndrome,” and that the gas chambers alleged at Treblinka couldn’t have actually killed anyone because they were too inefficient.

    Jerry Falwell said America had 9/11 coming because we tolerated gays, feminists and liberals. John McCain proudly received his support and even spoke at his university’s commencement.

    Reverend John Hagee has called the Catholic Church the “Great Whore” and dismissed Catholicism as a “cult”. He has said that the Anti-Christ will rise out of the European Union (of course, the Anti-Christ will also be Jewish). He has said all Muslims are trained to kill and will be part of the devil’s army when Armageddon comes.

    Reverend Ron Parsley believes America was founded to destroy Islam. Reverend Parsley says Islam is an “anti-Christ religion” brought down from a “demon spirit.”

    John McCain says Reverend Rod Parsley is his “spiritual guide.”

    Draw your own conclusions.

    Wright is a stuffed teddy bear compared to these hatemongers and for Obama to be vilified for his relation to Wright, in light of all the venom these white Christian right-wingers spew, is the height of hypocrisy and a glaring double standard.

    This shit may work when preaching to the right-wing sheep, but when you come to a blog populated by thinking people who are not right-wingers, and who crusade against hate speech, expect arguments such as these to be revealed for the wet paper bags that they are.

    And if you would like to anaylze Wright’s comments, I welcome…no, relish, the opportunity.

    Posted 22 Jul 2008 at 9:36 am ¶

52. Sarah wrote:

    Thanks for the interesting post. I’ve never played Colonization, but I’ve been a fan of Civilization since I was a kid, and still sometimes play the game to relax. I’m coming at this issue from a position of white privilege and being pre-disposed to favor the game. I realize that these issues aren’t a “game” for many people.

    Having said that, I’m ambivalent about the game’s social implications. I completely agree that the vision of “civilization” the game promotes is embarrassingly Euro-centric (and thus white supremacist.) Sure, “wonders of the world” created by non-white people figure prominently into the early part of the game, but once you hit the modern era, “civilization” is basically defined as “European and American.”

    On the other hand, I can sort of see how the game implicitly rejects racial essentialism. The game’s complete reconstruction of history can suggest that all people are equally capable. In different randomly-generated scenarios, the “most powerful civilizations” can be completely different, despite the defining characteristics of the world leaders. Non-white people have just a good a chance at “winning,” I think.

    Maybe I’m a bit naive, but I think that–with proper discussion of the issues–the game could even be used to teach young children that white supremacy is not inevitable or natural or anything but a historical construct. The dominant narrative (in society) pretty much takes this for granted, essentially justifying the oppression of POC with the racist canard that “they’re not as capable.” In Civ, that isn’t so. After many games, it becomes obvious that game outcome is greatly influenced by random factors. For a child indocrinated with white supremacy, Civ can introduce the idea that the white supremacist world we live in is just one of many possible outcomes. Most white children probably aren’t going to get there on their own, but perhaps it can be a teaching tool.

    Anti-racist education needs to go well beyond this, obviously, including a thorough education of real history, in which Western domination is the result of enslavement, exploitation, and colonization of others. To a poorly educated gamer, Civ can easily reinforce white supremacy, but there are some different ways to look at it.

    On another note, one of my favorite Sid Mier games was a sci-fi version of Civ, called Alpha Centurai. They haven’t made an updated version, as far as I know, but I really loved that game as a kid. The game play is essentially identical to Civ, but takes place in a post-apoctalyptic scenario in which different “factions” are colonizing a planet which is uninhabited except by space worms (I think). Different factions are determined by values rather than nationality or ethnicity. Is such a sci-fi version “safer,” or does it just end up reinforcing the mentality of colonization and conquering just the same? I don’t really know.

    Sorry for the long post. The discussion of Sid Mier games really struck a chord with me.

    Posted 22 Jul 2008 at 10:05 am ¶

53. Mhari wrote:

    Awesome post.

    It’s funny, because playing Civ, I always wanted a sandbox mode where there was nobody on earth but me, and I could just build my cities in peace. I enjoy it on that level as a fantasy, like the Sims or building with blocks.

    Once there are other civilizations on the board, we will inevitably conflict, and frankly I hate going to war. If they’d just keep their half of the map, I’d leave them alone! I don’t like that it always ends up as an arms race of one kind or another.

    But I guess the conflict is what makes it fun for a lot of people, which is disturbing now that I think about it.

    Posted 22 Jul 2008 at 12:56 pm ¶

54. harrumph wrote:

    Ken –

    When I said “sexual or violent content” I was referring to games that came under regulatory or consumer pressure for one or both of those things by themselves (the Hot Coffee thing, all the hubbub over Postal 2), without any aspect of violence against women, violence against homosexuals, etc. Night Trap may be a fair point, except that from looking it up on Wikipedia (not totally reliable, granted) I see that it was never banned or censored at all, just pulled off shelves by a few retailers.

    What examples of books or music in this country being censored can you come up with, while we’re at it? OJ Simpson’s fictional murder memoir? Profanity bleeped out on the radio? Can you offer anything as evidence that it “always ends up that way”?

    Your definition of self-censorship is questionable, by the way. If a video game developer, without any consumer or regulatory pressure, decides to change some aspect of the game in the name of good taste, that’s censorship? By that logic, is it censorship when I engage in a civil debate with a Republican instead of just screaming profane invective at him like I secretly want to?

    Posted 22 Jul 2008 at 5:17 pm ¶

55. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    To add on to what Harumph has said:

    The last video game I can remember being banned outright was GTA in Australia.

    Here, in the US, the banning of games is really complicated, particularly after they go to the review board. Even games like Manhunt 2 were not officially banned - they are given an AO rating, which many developers consider the kiss of death as most retailers don’t bother to stock AO. It also limits their marketing. So, they self-edited to drop the rating. That doesn’t really count as banning.

    Gaming is still further on the “for profit” scale than it it on the “for art” scale - as a result, designers and companies aren’t going to take the kind of stand needed in order to get banned. It just doesn’t make financial sense.

    Posted 22 Jul 2008 at 6:58 pm ¶

56. Brian wrote:

    This is the first I’ve heard of Colonization, though I am very familiar with Civilization. I never thought of or noticed the racist/classist/other-ist overtones and undertones of the game. Looking back, I primarily treated it as a strategy game first and never REALLY thought about the historical implications. However, thinking about it now, I can easily see how they are there. My question is this: looking at games that have some of these issues, be they games like Colonization or GTA, is it possible that an educated consumer can ignore these issues and simply enjoy the games for their educational aspects? What problems result from this approach? Does this imply a still-lingering naivety to these issues? I’m curious to hear there perspectives of others, since I know that I have generally taken the approach that, “I know that shit is in the game, but it’s just that: shit. And I’m playing for the gameplay.” Maybe I should just focus on Heros of Might & Magic, where there were pixies and Unicorns (though the “evil” characters always wore black… hmmm…). Thanks for any input.

    Posted 22 Jul 2008 at 9:30 pm ¶

57. Brian wrote:

    Hmmm, just realized Sarah @52 said what I had intended to say far better. Ummm, respond to HER posts maybe, since she addressed the issues I stumbled around far better than I. Again, thanks in advance to any insight from people who can give me other perspectives on this.

    Posted 22 Jul 2008 at 9:35 pm ¶

58. AmTav wrote:

    As a POC gamer and a huge Sid Meier fan I’m disappointed by the conclusions reached in the article. The implication is that no game can be made about this historical period…for Meier is apparently being condemned for allowing a peaceful conquest instead of forcing you to play war. Huh?
    The CIV series, which is Sid Meier’s best work, was very even handed about history and actually give good exposure to history via the military units, personalities, etc in all the different peopls you can choose to play us. Said best in #52…

    “The game’s complete reconstruction of history can suggest that all people are equally capable.”

    Posted 22 Jul 2008 at 10:27 pm ¶

59. harrumph wrote:

    Brian — “is it possible that an educated consumer can ignore these issues and simply enjoy the games for their educational aspects? What problems result from this approach?”

    I’d say the first problem is that the educational value of the game might be reduced (or warped) to some extent. The “Native American” civ in Civilization 4, for instance, would probably do more harm than good in the education of any kid who didn’t already know a great deal about the different North American tribes. An educated consumer can see past some of the flaws (I know I love Civ 4 in spite of them), but that’s no reason not to hold future iterations/spinoffs to a higher standard, right?

    On a totally different note, since pixies and unicorns came up and we’re all getting our nerd on anyway — ever thought of a post about fantasy, Latoya? As the foundation of so much game fiction and a constant, if somewhat marginal, presence in modern Western media in general (the Lord of the Rings movies, most heavy metal, a fair number of comics, etc.), fantasy carries some cultural clout. And it’s almost all rooted in the same white supremacist narrative, unchanged from Tolkien. The good guys (humans and dwarves) are modeled on Western and Northern Europeans (with elves sometimes loosely modeled on the Greeks and/or Romans); the bad guys (orcs, goblins, lizardmen, gnolls, and so on) are Moors, Arabs, Mongols, Aztecs . . .

    Racial essentialism is at the very foundation of fantasy, especially in games — orcs and trolls and their ilk are almost always fundamentally less intelligent than humans, and usually unchangeably evil to boot. A lot of traditional fantasy narratives, raiding tombs and dungeons, attacking the cities or temples of the “evil” races, smacks of thinly-veiled colonial-era adventuring. Probably better that I don’t just ramble on about this for another four paragraphs, but it’s something to think about, eh?

    Posted 22 Jul 2008 at 10:45 pm ¶

60. Jorge wrote:

    @ Brian

    When I play historically based strategy games, I don’t really think about the deeper implications about what I’m doing on the game board or computer screen, unless the game makers gets it completely wrong or is just plain old offensive (although I don’t think I’ve ever been offended by a game).

    A big part of these games is the role playing aspect. You can either play to type or play against it. Heck, part of the fun, for me, is doing the dastardly deeds I would never do in real life. Its all part of the fun in role playing games. I don’t think one is being naive as long as one is able to recognize the game’s faults or shortcomings.

    BUT…it does remind me of Battle Field: Vietnam. If I recall correctly, when you play the American side, you can call the Vietnamese Charlie and…I forgot the other one. Offensive? Yeah…but, its part of the game immersion I think. But I do have to admit I had to leave some games because the players where either making gay jokes (the usual volley of insults of fagot) or really stupid racist remarks. Ruins the game experience. So..how far should the game go to educate people in this case (about the Vietnam war), if at all?

    For me, if the game makes me curious about certain historical events, then it’s done its job. I can point out a game called Europa Universalis 2, which is driven by hard coded historical events. But EU is hardly a main stream game since it is like a big history lesson and it would bore most people to sleep.

    @ Sarah

    I remember Alpha Centauri. I really enjoyed it since, as you mentioned, it went away from different nations as we know them to more of a fight among different ideologies. And the planet is sentient and trying to kill you the more you pollute and spread. Fun times!

    Posted 22 Jul 2008 at 11:17 pm ¶

61. PaulPortland wrote:

    AmTav wrote:

    “As a POC gamer and a huge Sid Meier fan I’m disappointed by the conclusions reached in the article. The implication is that no game can be made about this historical period…for Meier is apparently being condemned for allowing a peaceful conquest instead of forcing you to play war. Huh?”

    I don’t think anyone in this thread has outright called Sid Meier a racist and that we should boycott his games. Personally, I love the Civilization games. I’ve played every single one, and every single iteration of the Civ franchise has ruined my sleeping patterns for at least 2 weeks after they each came out.

    Rather, I think this thread is doing what pop culture critics are obliged to do - investigate the underlying assumptions that make cultural hegemony tick, and try to raise people’s awareness to the reification of oppressive norms that skirt just under the surface of “throw-away” media productions like video games, genre fiction, comic books, TV shows, etc…

    Alright, as I was saying, people’s opinions and values, while certainly influenced by community, religion, racial identification, and all of the other “old school” ideological institutions, are also strongly determined by what they see everyday in the entertainment/ media the consume, especially in this day and age of 24/7 cable TV and broad band internet access.

    In other words, challenging the idea that a “video game is just a video game” (as Latoya as written) does not mean that we’re just looking for reasons to ban or censor something or to call the video game’s creator a dirty, accusatory name. Rather, the name of THIS game is to interrogate the unequestioned assumptions that do more damage when they are allowed to insinuate themselves into the collective consensus.

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 1:01 am ¶

62. Brian wrote:

    harrump-

    Thanks for your reply. I believe I used the word “educational” ambiguously there. I meant it in regards to what is learned through a strategy game itself, not the content within it. Playing strategy games are educational in the ways they challenge the user to problem solve and all that good stuff. I don’t know that I ever “learned” anything from civilization, except maybe random “facts” about certain historical buildings, which I never took at face value anyway. I’m sure there are better options in terms of the underlying message sent.

    As you pointed out with regards to fantasy, part of the problem is the way that this is so pervasive. Even ignoring the racial/ethnic implications of these movies, the fact that they still equate white to pure and dark to evil sends horrible messages. As a teacher, we have started to look at the areas in which our students are subjected to this idea that white = good/black = bad and, unfortunately, it is everywhere. And, even sadder, the kids can’t help but soak it up and begin to believe it. *Sigh*

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 1:10 am ¶

63. A. Taveras wrote:

    Brian-

    I understand there is a role for critics to challenge assumptions, I’m just personally disappointed by the overall verdict given here as concerns Colonization and by extension similar Sid Meier games. As far as games go I think Meier’s meticulously crafted titles are up there amongst the very best by any measure, even the issue of race. There are so very many games with real problematic issues that I’m let down by the author’s choice of target and also her conclusions.

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 10:05 am ¶

64. PaulPortland wrote:

    @harrumph,

    Fantasy fiction is an excellent example of how questionable assumptions about power and the Other are transmitted, even with the best of intentions (i.e., merely to give fans of the genre a sense of comfort and familiarity), in an irresponsible way.

    There are 4 ways, in my opinion, that the standard tropes of fantasy fiction, when left unquestioned, can result in the validation of oppressive assumptions:

    1) Might is right. In all fantasy fiction, problems and disagreements can only be solved through violence. Regardless of the plot machinations that may justify such a stance, the fact that fantasy readers have come to expect violence on the part of the heroes to bring about a happy ending is problematic.

    2) Absolute Good vs. Absolute Evil. Conflict in fantasy fiction is often simplified into a war between those who are 100% on the right and those who are 100% on the wrong. The Dark Lord is, in most cases, never allowed motivations for doing what he does beyond the most basic desires for conquest and subjugation.

    3) A Longing For A Golden Age. In a lot of fantasy fiction, especially of the high fantasy subgenre, the past was always a much better time. Victory can only be achieved by somehow returning to a more idyllic time in the past. Now, plot-wise, this may make sense (obviously, the action of the story must take place in the present time), but the ideology behind this longing for a golden age sounds a lot like the conservative longing for a time when “things weren’t so complicated,” regardless of how horrible things in the past were for other people.

    4) And Of Course, the Gutteral Other. Because much of fantasy fiction takes place in a pseudo-medieval setting where the heroes are stand ins for white Europeans (literally, or in the form of hobbits, elves, dwarves who represent facets of European culture) and the villains are gutteral, savage, evil races from parts beyond. The consequences of this are ably explained by harrumph @59

    Now, again, this doesn’t mean that we need to ban fantasy fiction or chastise writers who most likely unknowingly perpetuate these memes. It just means that understanding what’s going on under the hood of a lot of popular art is an important part of dismantling harmful ideologies as well.

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 11:10 am ¶

65. A. Taveras wrote:

    Good fantasy that avoided those tropes = A Wizard of Earthsea by Leguin.

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 12:35 pm ¶

66. Ken Arromdee wrote:

    “Night Trap may be a fair point, except that from looking it up on Wikipedia (not totally reliable, granted) I see that it was never banned or censored at all, just pulled off shelves by a few retailers.”

    Wikipedia uses the word “banned”, and mentions that it was pulled off enough shelves that the game wasn’t financially successful. When you say “a few” retailers, you’re drastically downplaying what actually happened.

    “Can you offer anything as evidence that it “always ends up that way”?”

    I think you’re misreading me. Obviously it doesn’t always end up that way in the sense that a campaign can be unsuccessful and not end up as much of anything. The point is that a successful criticism of game content leads to censorship. Anyone who says “I object to this game’s content, but I’m not trying to force them to change it” is disingenuous, because you know very well that that’s exactly what’ll happen if your campaign works.

    “Your definition of self-censorship is questionable, by the way. If a video game developer, without any consumer or regulatory pressure, decides to change some aspect of the game in the name of good taste, that’s censorship?”

    If they are changing it because they believe that failure to change it has a chance of leading to boycotts, anti-game action alerts from political pressure groups, and maybe even Congressional hearings, yeah. If it was just people deciding they weren’t going to buy the game, I wouldn’t count it, but I very much doubt most of the people who normally buy video games would be so offended by the things censored out that the company would see much effect from just that.

    “What examples of books or music in this country being censored can you come up with, while we’re at it?”

    This again depends on how you define censorship. Would Tipper Gore’s anti-music campaign count? She denied it was censorship, but we both know that warning labels lead to de-facto censorship, and that a lot of stores in fact refuse to sell CDs with labels. Or does it not count because it wasn’t successful enough, or because the labels are “advisory”?

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 1:35 pm ¶

67. harrumph wrote:

    Yeah, I love Le Guin.

    Look what happened when they adapted Earthsea for the screen, though . . .

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 1:37 pm ¶

68. Strategos' Risk wrote:

    The main body of the post:

    “1. Historical strategy games will always have baggage. Wargames let you play Nazis, Europa Universalis encourages forced conversion and eradication of natives, and Civilization reduces history to a template of invention and warfare. If we choose to only make games about the easy stuff (killing Nazis, ending Communism, feeding the hungry) then you close off a lot of the past to designers. Games can only speak to our history by portraying it, and, like it or not, narratives of conquest (starting small and getting bigger) have always been popular subjects.

    2. Colonization is about the United States. The goal is always independence and many of the founding fathers are Founding Fathers. But America was built on the blood of native peoples. Would Fritz prefer a game about America’s rush for independence that starts after the native populations are pushed beyond the Ohio? Isn’t that even more of a whitewash?

    3. The original Colonization had a brilliant historical narrative regarding native/European relations. The way the mechanics worked, immediate hostility on the part of the player would be met with quick defeat. You need the natives to survive the early game because they outnumber you, they can train your colonists and they will help you. But as you grow, you will inevitably encroach on their lands and relations will deteriorate. You can win without destroying the natives, but you are forced to make tough choices along the way. I am in no way implying that the genocide of the native peoples was the inevitable result of historical imperatives. But if any game has captured the dynamic between European colonists and the native population, Colonization was that game.

    4. It is the duty of a designer to avoid distorting history when possible, of course. But you can never tell the full story, any more than Terrence Malick’s The New World captured the Powhatan response to Jamestown. The criticism that Colonization misses the native point of view is a legitimate point. But you can make that point without getting over-excited about the fact that the story of America’s founding is being told. At least it’s not The Patriot. A game told from the native point of view (assuming that there was a singular point of view, a very debatable point) would run the risk of being Dancing with Wolves - a beautifully shot and well acted movie that told the story of saintly natives as seen by a white man.

    Of course, America’s legacy of slave holding is the big silence of game design. Where you can excuse the lack of games that confront the Holocaust because of that event’s singular horror, the Americas were largely a slave economy based on race. It’s a truth that games have been reluctant to accept or acknowledge, probably through fear that someone would interpret this as “celebrating slavery”.

    The problem, naturally, is that for all the talk about education in games, strategy games do not teach anything of importance with any great dexterity. The more didactic a game is, the less people want to play it. And if your message is beneath the surface (like the living planet in Alpha Centauri) you run the risk of people missing it altogether. ”

    Of course, I must add that it’s in response to a different critique.

    Posted 24 Jul 2008 at 2:46 am ¶

69. Jeffrey Lew wrote:

    Bah, that’s nothing. Check out the game “Imperialism” and “Imperialism II”. Those came out in the late 90’s.

    Posted 25 Jul 2008 at 3:21 pm ¶

70. an_taibhse wrote:

    @ 67:

    Earthsea in Clorox is an essay about just that, written by Le Guin herself.

    Posted 26 Jul 2008 at 2:12 am ¶

71. Dana wrote:

    Native Americans and Chinese Immigrants both owned slaves at some points during history. Anyone with enough money that seemed to want to own slaves, they were sort of a status symbol in some ways.

    Posted 28 Jul 2008 at 6:53 am ¶

Post a Comment