Postmodern Culture article

[MiloMilo]

Originally posted by MosesPresley
Please provide examples of other colonial nations.

Sorry, I'm the philosopher. Theseus is the resident historian around here. You'll have to ask him for such facts. For what it's worth, I don't see anything about colonial attitudes that would necessarily restrict them to Christian-western societies. Hellenistic and Roman cultures seem to have engaged in such behavior way back when; I seem to remember something about Japan as well. China's attitudes towards Tibet and Taiwan seem to fit the bill as well. But again, don't blast me if I have this stuff bass-ackwards--I'm less informed about world history than a lot of people on these boards.

If your only thought as to the game's purpose is that is fun, then you are the one who is being uninteresting. The author of the article was interested in the underlying subtexts and assumptions of the game's rules and mechanics.

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying the subtexts aren't there. It just seems to almost be a truism to say that they are there. What are the implications of that? That the author put over 10,000 words on paper and didn't run with the ball any further than he did left me dissatisfied.

What's more, I think he failed in his original objective, which was to justify this new field of study. I didn't see any analysis that wouldn't be captured by someone trained in, say, culture/media studies or comparative literature.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by MiloMilo


Sorry, I'm the philosopher. Theseus is the resident historian around here. You'll have to ask him for such facts. For what it's worth, I don't see anything about colonial attitudes that would necessarily restrict them to Christian-western societies. Hellenistic and Roman cultures seem to have engaged in such behavior way back when; I seem to remember something about Japan as well. China's attitudes towards Tibet and Taiwan seem to fit the bill as well. But again, don't blast me if I have this stuff bass-ackwards--I'm less informed about world history than a lot of people on these boards.



I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying the subtexts aren't there. It just seems to almost be a truism to say that they are there. What are the implications of that? That the author put over 10,000 words on paper and didn't run with the ball any further than he did left me dissatisfied.

What's more, I think he failed in his original objective, which was to justify this new field of study. I didn't see any analysis that wouldn't be captured by someone trained in, say, culture/media studies or comparative literature.

True enough Milox2, Greece certainly had an expansionist part of their history Syracuse, Rome and Carthage were origionally Greek colonies that in time grew into a distinct culture of their own. China at one time had Korea as a colony and parts of Japan. Aztec's, Incas, Mayans, and just about every other major power of the time has subjugated people simply because they had the power to do so. Nor is the idea of a barbarian culture a distinctly American or European. Every culture has a word similar to the word barbarian, and western culture is no different. From the ancient civilizations to modern ones, nomadic peoples have always been looked down upon by "civilized" cultures. Nothing in his article was even slightly shocking, revealing, or interesting to me, and seemed to me to simply be an opportunity to take a game and spin a rant about the decadence of western civilization.

[Brizey]

One can just as easily turn the tables on the author of the article. After about 100 words I could predict the tone and general content of the rest. Typical anti-western revisionist rhetoric aimed at a new target. No different than the typical condescending attitude westerners supposedly have towards other societies.

The problem with this type of "analysis" is that it is not really analysis. There was no real attempt to balance the argument or build comparitive empirical evidence. No alternative hypotheses. The author made up his mind about something then wrote 10,000 words. Just more babble pretending to be scientific or at least rational.

[MiloMilo]

Originally posted by Brizey
The problem with this type of "analysis" is that it is not really analysis. There was no real attempt to balance the argument or build comparitive empirical evidence. No alternative hypotheses. The author made up his mind about something then wrote 10,000 words. Just more babble pretending to be scientific or at least rational.

Exactly.

[MosesPresley]

This is not to anyone in particular.

The gist of the arguments against the article appear to be, everybody hates and kills indigenous peoples, so it must OK. Since it is OK to murder technologically backwards people, then we certainly should not be analyzing our games, writings etc. that entertain and educate our culture. The same culture that condones the extermination of indigenous peoples and promotes it as entertainment.

This attitude is exactly why the author wrote the article in the first place. He wants people to think about why they think what they think and why they act the way they act.

The American people, and I'm picking on the Americans, because I am one, and they are the only people that I really have any sway over, albeit infinitesimal, need to take responsibility for our history. The sins of the fathers will have to be paid for eventually and the bill may come due sooner than we think.

[ruby_maser]

Originally posted by MosesPresley
He wants people to think about why they think what they think and why they act the way they act.

The American people, and I'm picking on the Americans, because I am one, and they are the only people that I really have any sway over, albeit infinitesimal, need to take responsibility for our history. The sins of the fathers will have to be paid for eventually and the bill may come due sooner than we think.

Well said, MP, and I do value this article for its attempt to have us take responsibility for our past... while it fails to make mention over the entire length of a very long article that the subjugation of indigenous peoples and the genocide of nations is not an American phenomenon, while it fails to mention through the course of a very long article that (even if you don't tough a hair on a poor 'indigenous' tribesman's head, you may still be planning to exterminate every non-indigenous country in the game, whiles it fails to mention the ill-treatment of displaced peoples as they are represented as unpaid slave labor.

Gee, what does that say about America's treatment of the people other non-indigenous countries? Or many others countries for matter?

This is not an unbiased paper. This person has an agenda to legimate the separation of the field of game-studies from the encroachment of other already-established fields. He chose a single set of event (not well in keeping with postmodern doctrine) because it best framed his picture that there is something to be gained by not allowing this little, insignificant sub-field ("the indigenous peoples") to be subjugated by a larger, more-developed field ("the evil Americans").


All joking aside, his agenda clouded his judgement and caused him to turn a global issue into a cultural one.

Not only did he not convince me that games-studies deserved separate-field status, but he also managed to offend me. Am I offended as an American? NO! I'm offended as Civilization 3 player. This guy took a game he had on his home computer and turned it into a semester-long project that probably took about one week to write after researching.

[igloo_boy]

I have a couple problems with Mr.Douglas' essay.
Firstly, he doesn't give an accurate account of Civ3 game mechanics. Most obvious to me, his repeated statement of "...the game constructs history as a level playing field." Anyone who has played the game for any time will surely disagree with that statement. Getting stuck on a tiny, tundra covered island while other civs enjoy cattle and grasslands on a major continent does not constitute a "level playing field". Douglas also seems transfixed on the "vacant wilderness" he sees in the Civ series. Did he only play the first few turns of a game? Yes, the world does look pretty empty with regards to human inhabitance in 4000BC but by ~1500AD there isnt a lot of "vacant wilderness" left.
Secondly, imagine a Civ senario based on the discovery, invasion, and colonization of N+S America.
Douglas encapsulates the European settlement of the americas with a spearman moving into a goodie hut. "...the Civilization series is infused with an American ideology that is comforting insofar as it justifies genocidal practices and the stealing of land by positing an empty virgin continent that is paradoxically populated by what the game manual calls "minor tribes" that can't improve the land and tame the wilderness." What a ****-ass senario that would be! (pardon my french). Were I to create a senario with Europeans landing in the americas, it wouldnt simply be an empty continent with some godie huts. I would probably have the "natives" be represented by the Iroquoi, Aztec, and Mayan civs, each with culture, cities, roads and technology (albeit not as technically advanced as the European civs).
Douglas completely misses the boat with his narrowminded views. He would lead us to believe that the Civilization series represents Native Americans with a few barbarians in a few huts. "What the Civilization series stages is the contradiction between this comforting "national fantasy" (Berlant 1) of the virgin land and the reality of the complex aboriginal societies all over the Americas." Seriously, did he miss the Iroquoi civ???
Thats all I've got for now, I think I'll go play SMAC, capture some cities of an indigonous culture and nerve staple the natives.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by igloo_boy
Firstly, he doesn't give an accurate account of Civ3 game mechanics. Most obvious to me, his repeated statement of "...the game constructs history as a level playing field." Anyone who has played the game for any time will surely disagree with that statement. Getting stuck on a tiny, tundra covered island while other civs enjoy cattle and grasslands on a major continent does not constitute a "level playing field".

You seem to have missed the point of his statement. Obviously not everyone's start is exactly the same, his point is that you can play as any civilization without any major ddifferences. In essence, you have equal chances, regardless of civ choice.

Douglas also seems transfixed on the "vacant wilderness" he sees in the Civ series. Did he only play the first few turns of a game? Yes, the world does look pretty empty with regards to human inhabitance in 4000BC but by ~1500AD there isnt a lot of "vacant wilderness" left.

This makes no sense. Does something have to part of the game until the end of the game for it to be discussed? Of course not, that's just silly. In fact, what you suggest is exactly what he's saying. You colonize the vacant wilderness because the people that live there are inferior to your civilization.

Secondly, imagine a Civ senario based on the discovery, invasion, and colonization of N+S America.
Douglas encapsulates the European settlement of the americas with a spearman moving into a goodie hut. "...the Civilization series is infused with an American ideology that is comforting insofar as it justifies genocidal practices and the stealing of land by positing an empty virgin continent that is paradoxically populated by what the game manual calls "minor tribes" that can't improve the land and tame the wilderness." What a ****-ass senario that would be! (pardon my french). Were I to create a senario with Europeans landing in the americas, it wouldnt simply be an empty continent with some godie huts. I would probably have the "natives" be represented by the Iroquoi, Aztec, and Mayan civs, each with culture, cities, roads and technology (albeit not as technically advanced as the European civs).

Obviously he's not suggesting creating a scenario. He is describing how 'native' tribes are portrayed in the game.

Douglas completely misses the boat with his narrowminded views. He would lead us to believe that the Civilization series represents Native Americans with a few barbarians in a few huts. "What the Civilization series stages is the contradiction between this comforting "national fantasy" (Berlant 1) of the virgin land and the reality of the complex aboriginal societies all over the Americas." Seriously, did he miss the Iroquoi civ???

I really think you should reread his essay. Every argument you have seems to boil down to your inability to comprehgend what he said. He is clearly not drawing a line between, say, the American civ and the Iroquois civ, but between 'playable civilizations' and 'hut civilizations'.

[igloo_boy]

punkbass2000, I think you have misunderstood the points I was trying to make. Equally likely, I haven't made my arguments clearly enough. I'll try to explain and expand the parts of my argument that trouble you.

You seem to have missed the point of his statement. Obviously not everyone's start is exactly the same, his point is that you can play as any civilization without any major ddifferences. In essence, you have equal chances, regardless of civ choice.

Yes, the civs traits are very close (identical in civ2). However, if you start them on an earth map, in their historical starting locations, there ARE major differences. Being in contact with many other civs speeds tech research, amongst many factors, compared to civs in relative isolation. Just like in real life, where you start affects where you end up.

This makes no sense. Does something have to part of the game until the end of the game for it to be discussed? Of course not, that's just silly. In fact, what you suggest is exactly what he's saying. You colonize the vacant wilderness because the people that live there are inferior to your civilization.

My point here is simple. Prior to ~4000BC there isnt much in the way of civilization on Earth. There weren't even that many people. I'm willing to bet that if I could take a walk around Earth circa 4000BC, I wouldn't see many people, just a lot of "vacant wilderness".
This leads directly to your next comment,

He is describing how 'native' tribes are portrayed in the game.

. In paragraph 16 and 17 in particular, Douglas makes very clear that, in his view, the "native" tribes are represented by barbarians and goodie huts. He impresses that Native Americans (amongst others) are only modeled in the civ series by empty space. I disagree with this, many "native" tribes have their own distinct civs, namely the Iroquoi in Civ3.
I'm arguing that the "empty" land that your civ grows into in the REX phase (4000-1000BC) is, in fact, mostly empty! The civs that first come to be in there areas are the first. Douglas' argument makes this time frame out to be when the "natives" of N.America were conquered. Rather, in the Civ series, given a world map with all the civs started in their respective locations, European explorers would not find empty americas but cultures with roads, towns and cities, native to that area.

I hope this clears up some of the ambiguities in my first post.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by igloo_boy
punkbass2000, I think you have misunderstood the points I was trying to make. Equally likely, I haven't made my arguments clearly enough. I'll try to explain and expand the parts of my argument that trouble you.

Fair enough. I must admit, having read yout post, I did not fully understand all your points. I'd like to keep mind that all thoughh your arguments are clearer now, I still believe they are not directly related to the article, or, at the very least, not to the quotes. This, however, does not make them invalid arguments.

Yes, the civs traits are very close (identical in civ2). However, if you start them on an earth map, in their historical starting locations, there ARE major differences. Being in contact with many other civs speeds tech research, amongst many factors, compared to civs in relative isolation. Just like in real life, where you start affects where you end up.

I must admit I was thinking of civ3 when I wrote that, but yes identical in previous civs. Although, I thought there was some strategy in choosing which civ your opponents could not be (I recall many a civ1 game as the Romans, Mongols, and Babs/Indians for this very reason). In any case, it is quite true that the start positions are not fair.

My point here is simple. Prior to ~4000BC there isnt much in the way of civilization on Earth. There weren't even that many people. I'm willing to bet that if I could take a walk around Earth circa 4000BC, I wouldn't see many people, just a lot of "vacant wilderness".

Hmmm... I'm not sure I believe this, for reasons that I will not go into for the moment (all though I guess if you meant the Earth 'on average' I would have to round down and agree). Anyway, I agree with you in an abstract sense, insomuch as there was time when this would be true, depending on where 'history' starts.

This leads directly to your next comment, . In paragraph 16 and 17 in particular, Douglas makes very clear that, in his view, the "native" tribes are represented by barbarians and goodie huts. He impresses that Native Americans (amongst others) are only modeled in the civ series by empty space. I disagree with this, many "native" tribes have their own distinct civs, namely the Iroquoi in Civ3.

True. There is a Native American (aka 'First Nations') tribe known as the Iroquois, and they are represented in Civ3.(though, to use the same argument, there are many other First Nation 'hut civs' in the game) (to go back to to civ2, we see the Sioux as well. Unfortunately there are no First Nations civs in civ1, though we really should count the Aztecs, really. To go back to the original topic, I question whether or not the fact that we don't think of the Aztec as First Nations because they had more scientific advancements or other similarly natured, whilst the 'real' First Nations lived more simply and yet perhaps advanced socially or spiritually. This is, of course, unmeasureable).

I'm arguing that the "empty" land that your civ grows into in the REX phase (4000-1000BC) is, in fact, mostly empty! The civs that first come to be in there areas are the first. Douglas' argument makes this time frame out to be when the "natives" of N.America were conquered. Rather, in the Civ series, given a world map with all the civs started in their respective locations, European explorers would not find empty americas but cultures with roads, towns and cities, native to that area.

Hmmm..... well, now this argument is somewhat academic, as it's hard to say what happened several millennia ago. Theoretically, we took over from homo erectus. They had good run with their mix of instinct and (relatively) high intelligence + hands and various stone tools for a while, but then the ice age ended, and homo sapiens were more adaptable, eventually running homo erectuc further and further northward, eventually assimilating out-breeding them into extinction. It makes one wonder whether or not the extinction of dodo is necessarily a bad thing ecologically, or if we were lucky enough to see true natural selection in progress.

hope this clears up some of the ambiguities in my first post.

It did indeed. Thank you