5 ms·

There was a hysterical review of Civ IV: Colonization by Ben Fritz that was so over the top with political correctness it almost had me rolling on the floor lau

There was a hysterical review of Civ IV: Colonization by Ben Fritz that was so over the top with political correctness it almost had me rolling on the floor laughing. Seems his blog has gone offline, though. Some excerpts here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/84721-Civilization-IV-Colonization-Called-Morally-Disturbing http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/84721-Civilization...

eropple 12y ago
"Political correctness"? Ben Fritz was completely correct to ask why people are celebrating the colonial era with entirely unchallenging entertainment products. Colonization as a historical event was absolutely horrific and to make a game, something just for entertainment, in it without acknowledging this is straight-up wrong. Meier consciously skated away from the fact that colonials enslaved and exterminated other human beings in order to sell a game, and fucking well should be faulted for it. I mean, for god's sake, if you have a mission in a settlement and you start shelling it with artillery the natives will flock to your mission for protection. Do you, like, not see how shitty (not to mention ahistorical) that is? Or is it just that it didn't happen to white people so it doesn't matter? And that isn't to say it's a bad game when divorced from the failure to accept and reasonably present the historical context that Meier wanted to play in. It's a tremendous game. I still think Colonization is a more fun experience than Civ, and the Religion and Revolution mod for Civ4Col is absolutely fantastic. But the game cannot be divorced from the astonishingly shitty historical context. RaR also does a lot (not as much as it could, but a lot more than anything Meier or MicroProse or Firaxis ever did) to make you answer those questions, too, and is a much, much better game for it.
- joeclark77 12y ago
  Never saw the RaR mod, thanks for the tip. I don't remember the mission/artillery thing from the game, either, but why wouldn't it make sense to take cover in a sturdy building when cannonballs are falling on your village?
  - eropple 12y ago
    Because it converts them to be your units. It turns them into "Indian Convert" units that are agricultural producers but useless in manufacturing capacities. It's a bandaid over frigging slavery.
    - joeclark77 12y ago
      Or it could represent, I don't know, maybe conversion?
      - eropple 12y ago
        No, conversion happens from establishing a mission and keeping peace with a native power for a long enough period of time. Conversion from attacking them? Let's be real here. It's a stand-in for European abuses from Haiti to Canada and all points between. And you know it's indefensible, so let's not play dumb.
        joeclark77 12y ago
        You're not describing the mechanic well enough to make that clear. You're saying that if you had a mission in an Indian village, and then you shelled the village with artillery, the Indians became converts all of a sudden? Or was it when another power attacked? The way you describe it it actually sounds like a bug or an exploit. If the attack had to come from another civ, maybe it represents "refugees" flocking to your civ? You are taking for granted that everyone here prefers the 20th-century Marx-Zinn (yes, politically correct) version of American history, and as a consequence of that, that Meier was deliberately trying to "lie" about that history (which is itself false). If you drop your problematic assumption, there's no way to get to "indefensible" and "play dumb" from this feature/bug you're describing.
        eropple 12y ago
        It could be a bug. Given their shitty treatment of People Who Aren't White in the sequel, too, I am comfortable not giving them the benefit of the doubt. As for your second paragraph: "Marx-Zinn" history? Dude! We have the receipts for people that done got bought and sold. Forget your attempts to cast history that happens to not glorify every white person ever in that "politically correct" light, these are primary sources. Are primary sources hissssssss socialist hissssssss too? There is nothing "politically correct" about "the people you are making a game about systematically enslaved and exterminated people and you have a duty to not look the other way." That's not even "lefty", that's just being a basically functional human being. Does it make you upset that you are not entitled to rework history because it looks bad for Dead White People? That's a shame, but it's minimum viable humanity. I promise you that it's not that hard to meet that low, low bar.
- ekianjo 12y ago
  > Meier consciously skated away from the fact that colonials enslaved and exterminated other human beings in order to sell a game, I don't agree. Colonization as a game clearly shows there were different methods to colonize the new Land based on the nations' strategies. The French, for example, were rarely known to exterminate locals, on the contrary usually forged alliances and friendship with local populations. That's what you see as well in "The Last Mohican": french colons being very close to Indians, and there are many sources to confirm that point. So Colonization was not all done the Spanish way, and most of the deaths the locals endured came from viral infections spreading in non-immunized populations and certainly not slavery or battle. There were reports from Spaniards entering cities in south-America, expecting resistance but instead finding most of the people dying from infections.
  - eropple 12y ago
    The French certainly did, you're right, and Colonization even namedrops the coureurs de bois. But (as far as I can tell) there is not a single use of the word "Africa" in the game. The only mention of "slavery" that I can find in the game--which I have installed, because aside from its super problematic presentation of history it's a really great game--is in the little Colonopedia blurb about Bartolome de las Casas...where they then elide that he advocated enslaving Africans instead. (And, certainly, he later recanted that position. So say that too! But paint the whole picture.) So, sure, you're right, #NotAllColonizers--but seriously, do you think that the ability to play in that way obviates the duty to actually present history as it, like, was, and not as will make your purchasers feel comfy? Art is hard. Come correct or don't come at all.
    - ekianjo 12y ago
      > But there is not a single use of the word "Africa" in the game. OK, I'll grant you that, but at the same time, massive slavery scale occurred mainly after 1600-1700 (see Wikipedia reference below) so while slave trade started earlier it was not prominent in the early colony days, and it was first led by Portuguese and Spanish before other nations opted in. > It is estimated that more than half of the entire slave trade took place during the 18th century, with the British, Portuguese and French being the main carriers of nine out of ten slaves abducted from Africa.[44] Certainly the game is not perfect on that aspect, but since it's an American game, it would probably be very sensitive to touch upon that subject in the first place. I can't even imagine how that would be sold there if slavery had been integrated.

eropple 12y ago

"Political correctness"? Ben Fritz was completely correct to ask why people are celebrating the colonial era with entirely unchallenging entertainment products. Colonization as a historical event was absolutely horrific and to make a game, something just for entertainment, in it without acknowledging this is straight-up wrong. Meier consciously skated away from the fact that colonials enslaved and exterminated other human beings in order to sell a game, and fucking well should be faulted for it. I mean, for god's sake, if you have a mission in a settlement and you start shelling it with artillery the natives will flock to your mission for protection. Do you, like, not see how shitty (not to mention ahistorical) that is? Or is it just that it didn't happen to white people so it doesn't matter? And that isn't to say it's a bad game when divorced from the failure to accept and reasonably present the historical context that Meier wanted to play in. It's a tremendous game. I still think Colonization is a more fun experience than Civ, and the Religion and Revolution mod for Civ4Col is absolutely fantastic. But the game cannot be divorced from the astonishingly shitty historical context. RaR also does a lot (not as much as it could, but a lot more than anything Meier or MicroProse or Firaxis ever did) to make you answer those questions, too, and is a much, much better game for it.

joeclark77 12y ago
Never saw the RaR mod, thanks for the tip. I don't remember the mission/artillery thing from the game, either, but why wouldn't it make sense to take cover in a sturdy building when cannonballs are falling on your village?
- eropple 12y ago
  Because it converts them to be your units. It turns them into "Indian Convert" units that are agricultural producers but useless in manufacturing capacities. It's a bandaid over frigging slavery.
  - joeclark77 12y ago
    Or it could represent, I don't know, maybe conversion?
    - eropple 12y ago
      No, conversion happens from establishing a mission and keeping peace with a native power for a long enough period of time. Conversion from attacking them? Let's be real here. It's a stand-in for European abuses from Haiti to Canada and all points between. And you know it's indefensible, so let's not play dumb.
      - joeclark77 12y ago
        You're not describing the mechanic well enough to make that clear. You're saying that if you had a mission in an Indian village, and then you shelled the village with artillery, the Indians became converts all of a sudden? Or was it when another power attacked? The way you describe it it actually sounds like a bug or an exploit. If the attack had to come from another civ, maybe it represents "refugees" flocking to your civ? You are taking for granted that everyone here prefers the 20th-century Marx-Zinn (yes, politically correct) version of American history, and as a consequence of that, that Meier was deliberately trying to "lie" about that history (which is itself false). If you drop your problematic assumption, there's no way to get to "indefensible" and "play dumb" from this feature/bug you're describing.
        eropple 12y ago
        It could be a bug. Given their shitty treatment of People Who Aren't White in the sequel, too, I am comfortable not giving them the benefit of the doubt. As for your second paragraph: "Marx-Zinn" history? Dude! We have the receipts for people that done got bought and sold. Forget your attempts to cast history that happens to not glorify every white person ever in that "politically correct" light, these are primary sources. Are primary sources hissssssss socialist hissssssss too? There is nothing "politically correct" about "the people you are making a game about systematically enslaved and exterminated people and you have a duty to not look the other way." That's not even "lefty", that's just being a basically functional human being. Does it make you upset that you are not entitled to rework history because it looks bad for Dead White People? That's a shame, but it's minimum viable humanity. I promise you that it's not that hard to meet that low, low bar.
ekianjo 12y ago
> Meier consciously skated away from the fact that colonials enslaved and exterminated other human beings in order to sell a game, I don't agree. Colonization as a game clearly shows there were different methods to colonize the new Land based on the nations' strategies. The French, for example, were rarely known to exterminate locals, on the contrary usually forged alliances and friendship with local populations. That's what you see as well in "The Last Mohican": french colons being very close to Indians, and there are many sources to confirm that point. So Colonization was not all done the Spanish way, and most of the deaths the locals endured came from viral infections spreading in non-immunized populations and certainly not slavery or battle. There were reports from Spaniards entering cities in south-America, expecting resistance but instead finding most of the people dying from infections.
- eropple 12y ago
  The French certainly did, you're right, and Colonization even namedrops the coureurs de bois. But (as far as I can tell) there is not a single use of the word "Africa" in the game. The only mention of "slavery" that I can find in the game--which I have installed, because aside from its super problematic presentation of history it's a really great game--is in the little Colonopedia blurb about Bartolome de las Casas...where they then elide that he advocated enslaving Africans instead. (And, certainly, he later recanted that position. So say that too! But paint the whole picture.) So, sure, you're right, #NotAllColonizers--but seriously, do you think that the ability to play in that way obviates the duty to actually present history as it, like, was, and not as will make your purchasers feel comfy? Art is hard. Come correct or don't come at all.
  - ekianjo 12y ago
    > But there is not a single use of the word "Africa" in the game. OK, I'll grant you that, but at the same time, massive slavery scale occurred mainly after 1600-1700 (see Wikipedia reference below) so while slave trade started earlier it was not prominent in the early colony days, and it was first led by Portuguese and Spanish before other nations opted in. > It is estimated that more than half of the entire slave trade took place during the 18th century, with the British, Portuguese and French being the main carriers of nine out of ten slaves abducted from Africa.[44] Certainly the game is not perfect on that aspect, but since it's an American game, it would probably be very sensitive to touch upon that subject in the first place. I can't even imagine how that would be sold there if slavery had been integrated.