 |
Offensive or Not?
This poll is closed. |
| Yes. |
   |
8 |
14.29% |
| No. |
   |
30 |
53.57% |
| I don't care. They're all "offensive". |
   |
18 |
32.14% |
| Total: |
56 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
|
Darkworld Ark
|
|
of the Capitalists
May 2002
time: 05:19
|
|
Thanks Harlan!
As for the Chinese painting of Ghengis, how do we know that he doesn't have bad teath from that? I'm sure that if that paiting were to smile, his teeth would be just as bad as they are in Firaxis' portail of Ghengis.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:19
|
|
I won't take position in the argument again, I'll discuss the rhetorics :
Captain & KhaoticVisions do show their point, explain how they think and so on. They have both good reasons to think their way, and they show these reasons.
Hohenzollern is indeed a bearer of anger. Thanks Siredgar for pinpointing me who the angry ones were, I really felt lazy to browse the whole thread again.
Siredgar is way too emotive, compared to Captain : he thinks Genghis is Chimp-like (while many others, including myself, consider him very humanly ugly), and seems not to understand people can have a different representation of the same thing. That's sad, and Siredgar is a kind of pendant to Hohenzollern : no rational discussion.
OK, now, to the point.
I don't think it's possible to portray a minority without it being racist. The true message is what people percieve : if you depict an ugly "minoritarian", the "majoritarian" who sees the picture might think : "Oh ! The ugly minoritarian ! No doubt he and his likes are inferior !" or such a thing.
Many won't. But some will. I suspect that diehard antiracists, who see racism everywhere, suffer from these racist misrepresentations (Siredgar, I'm not talking specifically about you, but you could enter the category... I can't say, because I don't know you enough). If you were subtly taught the Blacks are inferior to the Whites, then any representation of a Black person can seem offensive to you, if this person has obvious flaws (uglyness, mischievous or something).
If you have no subtle racism in your culture, you might just think : "oh, someone ugly".
But, I highly doubt any culture has no racism, or at least no discrimination about what's different from the norm. Personally, I have racist tensions, which I fight, but which are deeply rooted in my psyche. Racism is bad and I know it, but it's hard to fight against your subconscious.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Darkworld Ark
|
|
of the Capitalists
May 2002
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by siredgar
3. It seems that you are relying on guesses and "probably"s more than anything else. If you were to make the same assumptions about Elizabeth I, I am sure she would truly look like a toothless "hag". |
Since we know the paintings of Ghengis Khan are propoganda, you're relying on guesses and "probably"s just as much as anybody who says that that's how he looked. As for Liz, she proboly should have had bad teath, although she's already a 'hag'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FrantzX
|
|
The masses have spoken. Civ leaders can be ugly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Carver
|
 |
reprocessing plutonium, Yongbyon, NK
Jan 2002
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Siredgar is way too emotive, compared to Captain : he thinks Genghis is Chimp-like (while many others, including myself, consider him very humanly ugly), and seems not to understand people can have a different representation of the same thing. |
Well let's look at a Nazi death camp in the 1940s. Who was emotional there? The Nazi soldiers were probably very calm and cool as they went about their jobs of killing Jews. The Jews, who were seeing their family members taken, tortured, mutilated, experimented on and killed, would have been very emotional. Suffering and hate cause emotions. Being emotional about an issue does not negate one's argument, not in the least.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Darkworld Ark
|
|
of the Capitalists
May 2002
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Carver
Well let's look at a Nazi death camp in the 1940s. Who was emotional there? The Nazi soldiers were probably very calm and cool as they went about their jobs of killing Jews. The Jews, who were seeing their family members taken, tortured, mutilated, experimented on and killed, would have been very emotional. Suffering and hate cause emotions. Being emotional about an issue does not negate one's argument, not in the least. |
There's a large difference between Ghengis Khan looking ugly & Nazis killing Jews...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Darkworld Ark
|
|
of the Capitalists
May 2002
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Carver
Harlan, the pictures you posted (of "genuine" Mongolians) look tasteful and respectful. These men look intelligent, determined and strong. The graphic racial slur Firaxis has handed us makes a mockery of the Mongolian people. And yes, when talking about a country as little understood as Mongolia in the US or Europe, the leaderhead very much represents his people.
Ghengis doesn't need to be "pretty". I don't much care about bad teeth or an imperfect complexion. But the expression on Ghengis' face (from the screenshot we have) is one of imature foolishness. Ghengis should not be the Jar Jar of civ3. You can give me a man who is poor, ugly and even dirty; but if he looks (most importantly, if the expression on his face looks) honorable, intelligent and delibrative it would not be a racist portrayal.
History is still with us and the media have an obligation to ensure that marginalized and/or unknown ethnicities are not portrayed as fools. |
The reason that he looks like a retard in the pic is because he's smiling, all the leaders looked stoned when they smile. I'm sure you'll fear for your life & immortal soul when he's annoyed or furious.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ninot
|
 |
Centre Bell
Nov 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
Ok, I wanna restate my biggest point
In many of the Civ3 portraits, character traits are well displayed and seem to be the intention (thus Joan in an Army shirt in the modern age, cuz she was a warrior for the french).
Genghis was a warrior... he looks like hes been threw a war, its appropriate.
If they made him look like that Chinese propaganda, it would be the realists crying out bloody murder... hehehe.
Personally, I don't take the leader as representative of the group. If i did, I would believe that all Chinese folk were communistic (i have atleast a dozen very close chinese friends... none are communists that I know of).
So, to sum this up(again), I think there isn't anything that wrong with an ugly Khan. I think its just a bit of a coincidence that the most famous Mongol was ugly.
And for something Siredgar replied to something said about "Genghis Khan should have been portrayed during his later years of rule"... well, All of the leaders are portraid by when they were in their prime. Caesar isnt exactly a 54 year old in his portrait, Lincoln isn't a young lawyer, and Mao isn't a young revolutionary. If Civ3 wants to think that Khan did something important when he was 20 something, then thats fine with me. I think if he is shown as 40 or 50, then he would only be an older ugly guy.
oh... and as for the actual depiction, say ya take away the battle scars, and what might be dirt, and ya give him a bath... he might be an attractive leader... but im guessing the given pics are from the ancient age... and Khan did not have the luxuries of baths. Im guessing as soon as a modern era pic of Khan is released, it will be plain that Khan can look decent.
And a note on the thread
I completely respect Captain's posts. I wouldn't mind a rebuttle from him.
However
If siredgar replies to my post... well, lets just say im in a bit of agreeance with NYE. If Siredgar replies to me... i want some hard info, not just accusations of "probablies" and such.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Harlan
|
|
Berkeley, CA, USA
Aug 2005
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
1. You still haven't shown an alternative picture of Genghis Khan to the ones I have posted. |
I thought I had made it clear, and that Mongolia Today article makes, clear, that there are no other portraits of Ghengis. Given that the one portrait and the few descriptions of him come from incredibly biased sources, we have no way of knowing what he looked like. He could have looked like a complete idiot with drool running down his face. He could have looked so noble and brilliant that you'd break down and cry tears of joy to see such a face. There's just no way of knowing for sure. We can only make best guesses based on the evidence available to us and what we know about the Mongols and the time generally. That's all I'm trying to do.
quote:
2. I find nothing offensive about the picture of the Mongolians you have shown. If Genghis Khan was portrayed anything like either of those men, I would have no problem. He is not.
|
As I said, I wouldn't have drawn him with that silly smile. My main point in posting those pictures was to contrast those with the Kublai Khan era propaganda portrait, to show how completely off that one is.
quote:
3. It seems that you are relying on guesses and "probably"s more than anything else. If you were to make the same assumptions about Elizabeth I, I am sure she would truly look like a toothless "hag".
|
I've done a lot of reading and studying about the Mongols. Feel free to read some quality books on the subject and then respond with your own probablies. If you still maintain that Ghengis looked anything like that portrait you posted, then I like my probablies a lot more than yours.
quote:
4. I believe you stated that Genghis Khan should have been portrayed during his later years of rule and questioned the judgment of the people at Firaxis on this matter. I wonder why they did that, too. Let's think... |
If Firaxis had racist intentions in their portraits, why would they have wanted to make Cleopatra black skinned? There have been a number of black scholars for years trying to claim she was black - she's a very admired figure in history.
Yes, the Ghengis portrait is a charicature. But is there a clear pattern of racist malice towards non-white portraits? No. They're ALL charicatures, with overly exaggerated facial expressions. Some white ones look dumb, some non-white ones look dignified. As I said before, I have problems with all of their portraits because of inaccuracies and cartoonishness, and I don't see Ghengis so bad that he's in a class of his own. I certainly fail to see any chimp resemblance, and I haven't seen any other posters claiming to see that either (but I may have missed a few posts).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Harlan
|
|
Berkeley, CA, USA
Aug 2005
time: 21:19
|
|
Carver,
You're forgetting one important fact about Cleopatra: she was ethnically Greek. Starting with Alexander's general Ptolemy, the Greeks ruled Egypt from around 300 BC. Even prior to this time, there were many Greeks in Egypt (typically living in completely separate towns or neighborhoods), but once Ptolemy took over, big numbers of Greeks came in. They typically lived completely different lives, almost like two societies inhabiting the same space. Greeks and Egyptians were so separated that Cleopatra was the first (and only) Ptolemaic ruler who even bothered to learn Egyptian! The entire upper class was Greek (social classes were very ethically rigid in Egypt in those days - the Egyptians were relegated to being peasants by the conquering Greeks), which is why none of the rulers ever needed to speak Egyptian. Furthermore, the Ptolemaic dynasts quickly adopted the tradition of pharohs to marry only their sisters and other close relatives, so there's really no doubt at all that there was little to no Egyptian blood in Cleopatra, much less something one could call black.
Finally, there have been plenty of visual and written depictions of Cleopatra (and the other Ptolemaic rulers) from the time that confirm all this. Recently there was a minor story in the news that Cleopatra wasn't the beauty the stereotype makes her, but looked pretty ordinary. But this isn't news, just some people rediscovering/ popularizing what more educated scholars have long known.
Had you been talking about pre-Ptolemaic pharohs, you would have been right. Some of those were dark enough to be labelled "black" today. Egypt was conquered several times from the south, so whole dynasties would have looked black.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
siredgar
|
 |
New York, NY
Nov 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
OK, now, to the point.
I don't think it's possible to portray a minority without it being racist. The true message is what people percieve : if you depict an ugly "minoritarian", the "majoritarian" who sees the picture might think : "Oh ! The ugly minoritarian ! No doubt he and his likes are inferior !" or such a thing.
Many won't. But some will. I suspect that diehard antiracists, who see racism everywhere, suffer from these racist misrepresentations (Siredgar, I'm not talking specifically about you, but you could enter the category... I can't say, because I don't know you enough). If you were subtly taught the Blacks are inferior to the Whites, then any representation of a Black person can seem offensive to you, if this person has obvious flaws (uglyness, mischievous or something).
If you have no subtle racism in your culture, you might just think : "oh, someone ugly".
But, I highly doubt any culture has no racism, or at least no discrimination about what's different from the norm. Personally, I have racist tensions, which I fight, but which are deeply rooted in my psyche. Racism is bad and I know it, but it's hard to fight against your subconscious. |
I think this sounds like psycho-babble to me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
siredgar
|
|
New York, NY
Nov 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Siredgar is way too emotive, compared to Captain : he thinks Genghis is Chimp-like (while many others, including myself, consider him very humanly ugly), and seems not to understand people can have a different representation of the same thing. That's sad, and Siredgar is a kind of pendant to Hohenzollern : no rational discussion.
|
Please do not compare me to someone who spews out hatred and anger and profanities (i.e. Hohenzollern).
Anyhow, because I am the one who is upset about the Genghis Khan portrait, that is why I have started this thread. Captain is contributing to the discussion, so he is likely not to be as upset as I am. Regardless, I believe he too used profanities in one of his earlier posts (sorry, Captain). Just because it doesn't upset you doesn't mean that you are more logical than I am. Please look and read the other posts to see who is being truly "emotive". It is apparent that you are a sloppy reader.
Last edited by siredgar on 26-05-2002 at 00:38
|
|
| |
|
|
|
siredgar
|
|
New York, NY
Nov 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
By the way, I don't reply to poorly conceived posts. So, don't worry your feeble little mind, Ninot.
Last edited by siredgar on 26-05-2002 at 00:39
|
|
| |
|
|
|
siredgar
|
|
New York, NY
Nov 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Harlan
I thought I had made it clear, and that Mongolia Today article makes, clear, that there are no other portraits of Ghengis.
We can only make best guesses based on the evidence available to us and what we know about the Mongols and the time generally. That's all I'm trying to do.
As I said, I wouldn't have drawn him with that silly smile.
Feel free to read some quality books on the subject and then respond with your own probablies.
If Firaxis had racist intentions in their portraits, why would they have wanted to make Cleopatra black skinned?
|
Harlan,
1. I have posted not one but two portraits of Genghis Khan. They look nothing like the Civ3 depiction. I am not arguing that that is exactly what he looked like. But I would say he looked closer to these pictures than he does in the Civ3 version.
2. So, your guesses are better than actual portraits that are supported by Mongolian authorities? Anyhow, if he was portrayed anything like the Mongol warriors in the picture that you posted, that would be fine. But that is not what was done. Regardless, you have to understand that leaders are generally better kept than their subjects. For example, not everyone in Elizabethan England looked as properly groomed as their ruler.
3. Yes, that is the key factor. That smile makes him look insanely idiotic. I agree with you here.
4. I read books all the time. I do not, however, engage in "probablies" to support an argument. That is called speculation. If I am speculating, then I say so instead of trying to pass it off as fact to a bunch of unsuspecting Apolytoners.
5. Cleopatra was Greek. It seems that they mixed European facial features with African skin tones. Perhaps it was a compromise. I don't know why they did that, but she looks beautiful.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Darkworld Ark
|
|
of the Capitalists
May 2002
time: 05:19
|
|
You know siredgar, you'd proboly get more support if you dropped the "Holier than thou" attitude, because it's REALLY annoying.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-05-2002 11:47
|