Genghis Khan Portrayal: Offensive or Not?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Trip
Like this.

now that's someone to be intimidated by, Trip

[Carver]

Originally posted by wrylachlan

Since we don't know what he really looked like, isn't it up to the artist's conception? And do we know that the artist himself isn't Mongolian? I'm not suggesting that he is, but isn't this the assumption you are working on? That he is some white guy who is insensitive to race? Isn't that assumption in itself racist since it assumes that a minority who is sensitive to race couldn't get a position as an artist in a successful game company?

Being someone who is quite concerned with racist portrayals in the media (which includes computer software) I have often had to contend with statments similar to yours. Racism promoted by the media inculcates the minds of the majority population as well as the minds of the minority population. Minority groups themselves can sometimes accept and become desensitized to racist protrayals of themselves, to the extent that they may adopt and mimic some of the racism of the majority population. The race of the artist or artists at Friraxis is irrelevent. If he (or she) was white, he needs a wake-up call. If he was "Mongolian", he needs a wake-up call.

To the "PC Sucks" crowd I say; Fighing racism is not politically correct, it is correct...period. I refuse to be desensitized to racism. I refuse to accept racism. When I see a racist act I will call the culprit on it. When I was younger I wasn't always comfortable making an issue of offensive acts, but being older and more confident I nolonger shy away from the challenge. Legal, institutionalized racism lasted so long in the U.S. largely becuase of good people who remained silent - I do not want to be one of racism's silent partners.

Thank You

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
now that's someone to be intimidated by, Trip

Isn't it so!

[Carver]

Originally posted by ChaotikVisions

I'm just tired of seeing people yell 'racist' for anything however remote it might be, these are not even close to legitimate concerns that should be taken to Firaxis. Its just picking at something and whining that its racist, with no real purpose. I doubt anyone from Firaxis will ever read this, and any e-mails you send them would probably be laughed at. To find racism in something like this, you have to want it to be there, rather then following common sense that shows it isn't there.

You're tired of seeing people yell racism, well there are people out there who are tired of experiencing racsim. This cartoonish image, which is akin to something from Spike Lee's Bamboozled , is an entirley legitimate concern. The purpose is for the media to cease its racsist infestation of pop culture.

And beleive me, I do not want the racism to be there.

[Mr. President]

Is it racist for all the little white girls like Britney to go on stage mostly naked since it might make white women look like harlots?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Mr. President
Is it racist for all the little white girls like Britney to go on stage mostly naked since it might make white women look like harlots?

if it is, I'm a racist


(note: I don't dance on a stage, at least not when I'm nearly naked, I just appreciate it )

[notyoueither]

Man. Yo'all get a grip.

OK. Ghengis is quite ugly. Is he all Mongolians? BTW, Katherine is very disturbing to me, especially since I share some German ancestory with her. Where is the racism? If the depiction of the Khan is racist, so then is that of Kathy.

How about Alex. I can only imagine all the experiences behind that pinched face. Is Mark on here screaming about Greek oppression?

I will grant you something. Yes, stereotypes that pit virtuous ideals against ugly evil ones are racist. But that is not how civ 3 depicts these things. They are doing a fair job of sharing the ugly stick around.

[DhulKhidr]

This picture looks much better.

[wrylachlan]

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

I would like to ask those who think it is racist the following questions:
1. Is it racist because he is ugly?
2. Is it possible to depict an ugly person of minority race in a non-racist way?
2b. If I am doing a historical painting of a group of white people meeting a single minority, and I know from historical record that that minority is "ugly" (broken nose, scars across his face, lazy eye, the works), am I beholden to "pretty him up" so that future generations will not see my work as racist?
3. What "Real" picture of Ghengis are you using for the baseline to judge how "charicatury" this picture is?
4. This is the hard one. A thought experiment. You sit down with the portraitist and have a discussion on race. He/she prooves to you through the informed discussion of other racially stereotypical images that he/she is indeed sensitive to race, but believes this image is not racist. Is your opinion more valid than his/hers?
4b. If you have a panel of judges who are all sensitive to race, and they look at a painting and split down the middle as to whether or not it is racist, what do you do? Who decides? Who has the power to decide? Who granted that power?

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

[civman2000]

PC is bad, because it makes it look as if everyone is tolerant when they're not. It hides the racism of their thoughts from the language. I'm not saying I support NOT being PC, but forcing people to be PC just makes it look as if they are not racist even if they are. IMO, it would be better if we taught people reasons to be PC rather than forcing them to be PC.

[godinex]

THe portrait is really ugly and offensive for the stupid look like, like Ghandi, like Lincolnl in the ancient ages...

[siredgar]

Of course, if all of the non-European great leaders were ugly and animal-like there would be accusations of racism. We're not idiots, most of us at least. Yes, Montezuma is quite good-looking and normal acting overall. But let's look at the truly ugly and animal-like caricatures.

It looks like the only ones that are really ugly are Genghis and Ghandi. Nobody comes even close to these two. Catherine is unattractive, but that's because she is just plump. She does not look like an animal.

Also, who has the most outlandish behavior? Mao and Ghandi. Have you noticed that all of the European great leaders generally appear civilized and "normal"-looking?

All I have to say is, let's see how the Viking great leader turns out compared to Genghis. If he is equally grotesque in appearance and chimp-like in behavior, then I will "shut up" as you have all demanded.

Honestly, I am appalled by the lack of sensitivity from many of you. I was shocked when I saw the depiction of Genghis and everyone here seems to think it is normal.

[Jon Shafer]

Considering that most people from around the world in the past aren't exactly considered "attractive" by western culture doesn't mean they should make them so just for a game... What do you want them to make Ghandi look like? That is how he looked. Do you want them to pick out some handsome Indian man now and model him for the role? Come on guys, seriously now. I can see an argument over Ghengis Khan, especially considering no one knows what he looks like, but I doubt he was anywhere near a handsome fellow. Like others have said, he'll probably be in a nice business suit with his hair slicked back with gel and some nice dental work in the modern age, just like a Mongolian these days would.

[siredgar]

Ghandi did not look like a dried up elephant-like creature.

[Jon Shafer]

So you're saying that every leaderhead was supposed to look like the actual person 100%?

I don't really notice all that much of a difference, other than his cheeks being sagged a little. Ghandi was not a pretty fellow.

[Jon Shafer]

I'm sure Otto Von Bismarck would be flattered as well...

[ChaotikVisions]

In reply to Captain-

so far, you've made some decent points. reasonable arguments. fair enough. I'm listening.

So does that mean you agree hes fine looking how he does, and that it isn't racist? Or what?

I would not make that claim for you. Most of your post above has been reasonable. You are making that claim yourself.

Tired of hearing 'racist'? That's unfortunate and I wish you weren't. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that those who see it don't have a right to point it out without being shouted down. And I think you can agree that the thread starter was being shouted down by some posters.

I said you would think me insenstive because I said I didn't care, and still don't care. I'm tried of hearing 'racist' over things that aren't. Now if someone gets fired for there skin color, that racist. If someone gets insulted because of it, thats racist. If someone is physically injured because of it, thats racist. But a cartoonish face in a game IS NOT racism. It is just a game, the whole relevance it has to real life is in some of the historical theming it has. Those who see it can e-mail Firaxis about it, and leave us out of the mess. And of course he was, these false racist claims can destroy things, I wouldn't want to see it happen to Firaxis or any other legitimate thing.

Ok, explain to me why you don't think I'm Chinese or Mongolian? Furthermore, one doesn't have to be a member of a minority to see it or speak about it. Oftentimes the minorities are silent because they are the minority. They are not in a position to make a statement without fear of reprisals. You have to realize that they don't want to rock the boat for fear of making things worse. Please tell me you understand this.

Most minorities that do eventually speak out against entrenched racism, do so with allies who can and do take up someone else's cause. It's called caring. It's called looking out for someone besides yourself. I don't see why you have a problem with this.

When no one else cares, when there are no allies, then non-violence and intelligent discussion turns into violence. "If the majority is not willing to listen and address our concerns, then we must take things into our own hands." Is that what you really want? Open hostilities?

Why don't I think you're Chinese or Mongolian? Simple logic. Most of the copies of Civ3 I would assume were sold in Canada/USA/Europe. There are some, but not a whole lot of Chinese/Mongolians living in those areas. There are more of other races such as English/French/etc.. living there. Therfore, the majority of games would have been sold to other races, with some among the Chinese/Mongolian though i'm sure. Then out of those who bought it, theres only a small number who visit this forum, meaning that the chance is rather low.

So perhaps some don't wish to say anything, but usually there are a good number who will say something. People seem more inclined then ever to speak up on any little thing in these times, if there was a serious problem in Civ3 I would expect someone who is Chinese/Mongolian to come forward. They could explain why they felt it was that way, but none have come forward as of yet. I suppose taking up someone elses cause isn't too bad, but DO YOU KNOW for sure this is how they feel?

Now tell me, do you think someone is going to bomb Firaxis offices over this? Something that we as of yet, only have views(I believe) from non-Chinese/Mongolian people about. So we do not even know for sure, that this offends anyone besides for others who have interpreted it as such. This is ridiculous and a phantom complaint, thus there will be no violence, no hostility.

I'm sorry you see it that way. I wish you could see the purpose.

Please reply to what I said, do you not think the faces represent the race or what? I see no purpose in this, because it has no real basis. Your grasping at threads, or something like that. Bad memory on that saying.

once again, the portrait is offensive for some people, myself included. why do you insist that we not find it offensive? it's the insistence that we cannot be validly concerned about it that points to racism.

Ok, I don't really care if you find it offensive, I just don't think it is, and along those same lines don't think you should bother posting it here. E-mail Fraxis, gather support among Chinese/Mongolians. And are you seriously saying that your complaints are legitimized by us not wanting to see some little thing turned into racism in a game we like? Thats like saying I can fly and being legitimized because no one can prove to any certain degree that I can't.

In reply to Carver-

You're tired of seeing people yell racism, well there are people out there who are tired of experiencing racsim. This cartoonish image, which is akin to something from Spike Lee's Bamboozled , is an entirley legitimate concern. The purpose is for the media to cease its racsist infestation of pop culture.

And beleive me, I do not want the racism to be there.

I'm tired of people taking things and making it into racism. I know racism exists, and I know people experience. But I do in no way think there is racism in Civ3. In no shape, form, words, or anything at all. And I really don't consider Firaxis part of the "media" either.

In reply to SirEdgar-

Of course, if all of the non-European great leaders were ugly and animal-like there would be accusations of racism. We're not idiots, most of us at least. Yes, Montezuma is quite good-looking and normal acting overall. But let's look at the truly ugly and animal-like caricatures.

It looks like the only ones that are really ugly are Genghis and Ghandi. Nobody comes even close to these two. Catherine is unattractive, but that's because she is just plump. She does not look like an animal.

Also, who has the most outlandish behavior? Mao and Ghandi. Have you noticed that all of the European great leaders generally appear civilized and "normal"-looking?

All I have to say is, let's see how the Viking great leader turns out compared to Genghis. If he is equally grotesque in appearance and chimp-like in behavior, then I will "shut up" as you have all demanded.

Honestly, I am appalled by the lack of sensitivity from many of you. I was shocked when I saw the depiction of Genghis and everyone here seems to think it is normal.

Its just a game, and these are spoofs of them. I don't think any of them are animal like, even Genghis. Nearly all of them look like they are ugly and/or drugged up though. And how are the Europeans anymore normal looking? Elizabeth is a hag, Joan of Arc reminds me of a womens rights activist, Catherine is quite fat and ugly, Bismark is some what normal, but looks like he had one face lift too many. Infact, alot of them have that quality.

And Mao isn't too bad in general, though he smiles alot and calls me a paper tiger. Gandhi apparently looks fairly close to how he did in real life. And how is Genghis chimplike in behavior? He just looks like a mean barbarian. I mean he doesn't have long arms, slumps when he walks, or something like that. And I doubt the Viking leader will be "chimplike" either, considering they were tall, strong, blond haired guys(according to history and such, wern't they?).

Sensitivity to what? An ugly barbarian leader? I don't get mad when I see the President who guided the US through the civil war stoned, or any of my distant relations with english royalty with that hag Elizabeth. My German/French ancestry doesn't mind Joan of Arc or Bismark either. Its all just a spoof, and they're all ugly pretty much.

[Darkworld Ark]

Originally posted by ChaotikVisions
And I doubt the Viking leader will be "chimplike" either, considering they were tall, strong, blond haired guys(according to history and such, wern't they?).

The Viking leader will proboly be Erik the Red, who had red hair.

[ChaotikVisions]

Bah, Erik the Red wouldn't be a good representation. He was popular but he didn't actually lead anything. Canute would be better.

[Jon Shafer]

Well tell me why Joan of Arc, Mao Tse Tung, Caesar, etc. were included? Joan did nothing, Mao is modern, and Augustus Caesar did more than Julius. They were chosen because people know then better than they would other leaders, like Augustus, Napoleon (figure that out), and many of the ancient Chinese dynasty emperors.

[Darkworld Ark]

Originally posted by Trip
Well tell me why Joan of Arc, Mao Tse Tung, Caesar, etc. were included? Joan did nothing, Mao is modern, and Augustus Caesar did more than Julius. They were chosen because people know then better than they would other leaders, like Augustus, Napoleon (figure that out), and many of the ancient Chinese dynasty emperors.

Joan was included because they needed another female leader...

[Spiffor]

Siredgar :
Trip has a point : Gandhi was ugly by our standards, no matter how you look at it. You could look for other photos on the 'net, you'll se he wasn't pretty at all. I consider him rather less ugly in the game than in reality (beautiful smile )
I still don't see how Gandhi and Mao act so differently. Every time I play against them, they have a pretty normal behaviour IMO, please show examples so that we can follow you. I'm eager to believe you, but you need to be more concrete. The only specific AI I noticed was Elizabeth being more backstabbing than the others (but this isn't anti-English racism, this is utter reality )

Carver :
Is it possible you tell us precisely from what minority you're, and in which country you suffer ? I don't know for the others, but I sure would follow you better if I could picture your problems more concretely.

To almost everyone else here : I'm not from a minority, and I will probably never will. But I suppose I can imagine what racism is when you recieve it : just wath Gattaca (the movie) : you're completely comparable with the starring white male, and you'll probably feel the racism more directly. What happens to this "natural" being in the future happens today to the minorities. (For the others, I hope my comparison is good, please correct me if it isn't)

[siredgar]

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

Let's just see how Brennan or whoever the Viking great leader is turns out. Anyhow, I don't think "tall, strong, blond haired" necessarily equates to attractive or human-like. You could easily have a tall, strong yeti. If the Viking great leader looks like a yeti, then I have no problems with Genghis.

Regardless, it is interesting to note that you doubt that a European barbarian leader will look unattractive and yet you readily accept such a hideous and chimp-like caricature for a non-European barbarian leader. Thus, it goes without saying you are biased.

[Ninot]

Ok, I have the simple answer

Civ3 is teaching the world a lesson, that some people are just plain ugly.
lol

seriously tho. I gotta label this as overactive PC complaining. Its just a fact that the Mongol's have never had the lush living conditions associated with beauty to make a guy like the Khan a handsome man. The mongol's were known for war and rampage. I think its suitable enough that Genghis' face looks like its been threw both.

I mean, jeez... should all women be offended by Liz or Joan, because the game is "insinuating" that by the modern age, all women are either bald, or snobish?

It isn't racism, it is a depiction, and one I believe is done quite well.

And I won't have anyone telling me that I say this because I've never had racism aimed toward me. That is a load of.. notright stuff.

Also, I don't perticularly think ANY leader is depicted pourly at any point. Even Baldo Joan... cuz she WAS in the french army, and it kinda suits her. Actually, if I could put a hand on how Ghandi was designed, I mighta put him in a very nice suit for Industrial age... but thats just me.... heck, I would have changed everyone except Bismark and Lincoln for the Industrial age, so that doesnt matter.

Sorry if i went offtrack, im really tired.

[ChaotikVisions]

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

Let's just see how Brennan or whoever the Viking great leader is turns out. Anyhow, I don't think "tall, strong, blond haired" necessarily equates to attractive or human-like. You could easily have a tall, strong yeti. If the Viking great leader looks like a yeti, then I have no problems with Genghis.

Regardless, it is interesting to note that you doubt that a European barbarian leader will look unattractive and yet you readily accept such a hideous and chimp-like caricature for a non-European barbarian leader. Thus, it goes without saying you are biased.

Anger? I'm not really angry myself, just annoyed at people who make things out of nothing. Ah, so to deny is to prove then? That is the resort of someone who has no arguement. Simply because we argue you are wrong, and that it is not there, does not mean that is there because we do. And thats a nice theory Freud, where'd you get your phsyiciatric degree from?

The viking leader will probably look just as odd as all the others, though in the "viking" sort of way i'm sure. I however am not "attracted" to any of the leaders(I don't see anything in Joan either, whats with you people?). As for human like, they only are that in the vague resembelance, since they are spoofs and quite odd in general. And let me get this straight, you wouldn't think Genghis as a racist portayal if another leader looked as "offensively" portayed in your opinion? Thats quite odd.

I doubted the Viking leader would look like a chimp because I don't think Genghis looks like a chimp in the first place. It wasn't a matter of thinking Europeans "better" or more "attractive", I just don't see this whole chimp thing. I don't think Genghis is chimp-like or any of the other leaders, they are all spoofed somewhat dipictions. That does not make me biased, I simply thought the viking leader would look like the popular historical dipiction, in the same way that Genghis looks like one mean barbarian.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Terser
The only leader head that is not a caricature in CivIII as it is now is Bismarck (which is one of the main reasons I always played Germany). The rest--white, black, and Asian--have exaggerated features and expressions that make them look stupid. I hate it, and I wish Firaxis had taken a different tack, but that was the design decision they made.

If you're going to protest the caricaturization, you need to make it a package deal. Object to the fact that the images are not really that funny, don't add anything to the game, and can in fact actually distract from the overall immersiveness of the playing experience.

I agree wholeheartedly and I seem to remember much the same arguement being raised at the time the original heads were first featured. The lighthearted cartoonish style may not appeal to everyone (myself included) but it is in keeping with the Civ tradition of not taking itself too seriously. I'd argue it is an improvement on the naff FMV Civ II advisors who clearly had a costume budget of about five dollars to split between them.

[notyoueither]

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

I think you are projecting siredgar. I see a whole lot of discussion. You see anger and lashing out.

Which posters? Which posts?

Or are you just dumping a load of psycho-babel cr*p on people who do not agree with you?

[Imp. Montezuma]

http://www.mongoliatoday.com/

[siredgar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.oars.utk.edu/volweb/Schoo...ing/dustyh.htm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[siredgar]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I think you are projecting siredgar. I see a whole lot of discussion. You see anger and lashing out.

Which posters? Which posts?

Or are you just dumping a load of psycho-babel cr*p on people who do not agree with you?

Please calm down.