Should Board Gamers Play the Roles of Racists, Slavers and Nazis?

Ana the Ist said:

Are we talking Chutes and Ladders or Life?

Click to expand...

Interesting. Over here it's called snakes and ladders. At any rate, I meant real board games, like Cosmic Encounter or Titan.

Tanj said:

Interesting. Over here it's called snakes and ladders. At any rate, I meant real board games, like Cosmic Encounter or Titan.

Click to expand...

Snakes and Ladders? Who would ride a snake?

Can't say I've heard of those games....they anything like warhammer or mechwarrior?

Ana the Ist said:

Snakes and Ladders? Who would ride a snake?

Click to expand...

I have no answer to that question.

snakes and ladders board - Google Search

Can't say I've heard of those games....they anything like warhammer or mechwarrior?

Click to expand...

More abstract that giant fighting robots and orcs. Both of which are also decent games, though not really what is meant by "board games"

I prefer eclipse, settlers of Catan.

SummerMadness said:

Should Board Gamers Play the Roles of Racists, Slavers and Nazis?

Click to expand...

Definitely. A game is a model which allows the players to play with different actions and see the results. The idea is to learn. Even if someone is playing a "bad" character the idea is to learn from it. What would be bad or sinful is taking away lessons from a game to use them for evil. But by playing a bad character in a game one is essentially playing "devil's advocate". And the reason people play "devil's advocate" and label it as such is to game or model a counter-argument and how it will play out. The goal is to learn. If you are learning in order to implement it for evil then that becomes the sin. But if you're learning in order to counter the evil that you're learning about then obviously that's a good outcome.

Not a board game, but the book "The Screwtape Letters" by CS Lewis is a Christian book meant to educate and edify Christians. But how does CS Lewis accomplish that? He wrote that book from the perspective of a demon who is teaching another young demon how to be good at being evil! In this way CS Lewis helps us to understand the adversary and how they hurt us. But he does this so that we can have knowledge and then figure out how to best protect ourselves from those tactics that the demons and Satan use.

So "playing" is a great way to learn and is not actually "doing". It's a great way to learn and be edified but it's what is in someone's heart and how they use that education which is what is ultimately sinful.

mala said:

the problem with including games like total war and civilization is that those games allow you to play the otherside and conquer the europeans or whoever else was the particular oppressor involved. whereas a game built around exploiting africa doesn't really allow for those nations to beat back the invaders.

Click to expand...

The problem is that it doesn't allow for a fictional scenario that never happened?

I barely remember Axis and Allies but I don't recall an option to play as a band of militant Jews that could overthrow the nazis.

Edit- I can understand wanting to have an option that isn't available. I remember an old Star Wars game that had a brief appearance of Ewoks in it, and thinking "man...I really wish I could play as an Ewok faction and take over the empire with logs and pointy sticks".

I can't really fault the game's creator for not indulging me though. That may not have been what they were shooting for.

SummerMadness said:

That was my exact sentiment, a game where you can be the Nazis or POWs allows you to pick either side, whereas this game focuses on who can exploit a group of people the most, who can sabotage an enemy by exploiting a vulnerable population into rebellion. If the game allowed you to control European and African nations where you can be imperialists or organizing nations to prevent the “scramble,” I think the response would be quite different; this game is all about determining who can rape an indigenous population the best.

Click to expand...

Oh, to that, I agree. A game with the african people as an active player sounds far more interesting, too. After all, they had a lot of advantages and there are examples of some africans effectively repelling the europeans.

It could be a game of assymetrical warfare, with the european nations working against each other and having low numbers of high-power military, while the african tribes would lack cohesion and firepower, but have the home advantage and numbers.

Could be done with the vietnam war, too.

As an aside, did you know that one of the points of the Versailles Treaty is that Germany was to return the skull of an African chieftain to Tanganyika (modern Tanzania) that they had taken, after he had resisted them with some success? The British put it in to show the natives the definitive end of German power and because the British administrator thought head-hunting barbaric (nevermind that Kitchener played polo with severed heads in the Sudan).

Nithavela said:

Oh, to that, I agree. A game with the african people as an active player sounds far more interesting, too. After all, they had a lot of advantages and there are examples of some africans effectively repelling the europeans.

It could be a game of assymetrical warfare, with the european nations working against each other and having low numbers of high-power military, while the african tribes would lack cohesion and firepower, but have the home advantage and numbers.

Could be done with the vietnam war, too.

Click to expand...

I know there's battles sub-Saharan Africans won....but the few I remember always seem to owe more to European incompetence than anything else. Africa is home to some of the most gruesome and one-sided conflicts in history. I think the shortest war ever is on the eastern coast somewhere that a local leader raised his banner in defiance and surrendered in the course of less than a day.

That said, there always was one act of defiance that stuck out in my mind as being particularly bold and wise. I don't remember all the details, just that it was one of the tribal leaders, chieftains, or kings who had decided to refuse to continue trading in slaves...of which there were few. Unlike the others though....he tried to negotiate the terms of trade into a position wherein he would allow it if he got the means of production for muskets. In essence, he wanted his own "musket factory".

It's, to my knowledge, the only instance where such a demand was made of any of the early European traders. It shows a rather profound understanding of not only the long term effects of the continued slave trade, but the rather steep imbalance of it, and the only real way out. I doubt he really understood that it wasn't something anyone was going to grant him. Still though...I wonder how high up the request got, and just how sharply it must have changed opinions of him.

Ana the Ist said:

I know there's battles sub-Saharan Africans won....but the few I remember always seem to owe more to European incompetence than anything else. Africa is home to some of the most gruesome and one-sided conflicts in history. I think the shortest war ever is on the eastern coast somewhere that a local leader raised his banner in defiance and surrendered in the course of less than a day.

Click to expand...

Certainly, but that's the beauty of fictional scenarios and games. Just like the possibility of the Axis actually winning the war in 2nd world war or the USA winning the Vietnam war, Africa successfully uniting and ousting the invaders would make for an interesting and memorable gameplay experience.

Ana the Ist said:

I know there's battles sub-Saharan Africans won....but the few I remember always seem to owe more to European incompetence than anything else. Africa is home to some of the most gruesome and one-sided conflicts in history. I think the shortest war ever is on the eastern coast somewhere that a local leader raised his banner in defiance and surrendered in the course of less than a day.

That said, there always was one act of defiance that stuck out in my mind as being particularly bold and wise. I don't remember all the details, just that it was one of the tribal leaders, chieftains, or kings who had decided to refuse to continue trading in slaves...of which there were few. Unlike the others though....he tried to negotiate the terms of trade into a position wherein he would allow it if he got the means of production for muskets. In essence, he wanted his own "musket factory".

It's, to my knowledge, the only instance where such a demand was made of any of the early European traders. It shows a rather profound understanding of not only the long term effects of the continued slave trade, but the rather steep imbalance of it, and the only real way out. I doubt he really understood that it wasn't something anyone was going to grant him. Still though...I wonder how high up the request got, and just how sharply it must have changed opinions of him.

Click to expand...

Blackadder goes Forth has a funny bit of how Blackadder had long served in the African service, because the worst he ever had to face was a sharpened mango.

That one day war was the British occupation of Zanzibar, where the Sultan surrendered after a morning bombardment by gunboats.

Quid est Veritas? said:

Blackadder goes Forth has a funny bit of how Blackadder had long served in the African service, because the worst he ever had to face was a sharpened mango.

That one day war was the British occupation of Zanzibar, where the Sultan surrendered after a morning bombardment by gunboats.

Click to expand...

Ah gunboat diplomacy. The good old days...... I fear Boris might be a fan.

Goonie said:

Ah gunboat diplomacy. The good old days...... I fear Boris might be a fan.

Click to expand...

He is great at diplomacy and skirting Britain's colonial legacy, isn't he? I laughed myself sick when he started quoting Kipling about the "great gawd Budh", when visiting the golden pagoda in Burma.

I am looking forward to much entertainment from his premiership, as an external observer.

Quid est Veritas? said:

That one day war was the British occupation of Zanzibar, where the Sultan surrendered after a morning bombardment by gunboats.

Click to expand...

The entire Anglo-Zanzibar war is the shortest recorded war in history, lasting a whole 38 minutes from first shot to final surrender.

Needless to say Khalid bin Barghash (who acceded to the Sultanate of Zanzibar after the suspicious death of his cousin) and his court were making for the German consulate considerably closer to the former than the latter. The majority of the defenders were servants and slaves.
Slavery on the island of Zanzibar was banned by bin Barghash's successor at the "suggestion" of the British inside the first six months of his rule.

As a historical oddment in that most of the casualties happened after the end of the war - the bombardment caused the wooden palace to catch fire, which spread. In the end the crews of two of the protected cruisers involved in the shelling went ashore to act as auxiliary firemen.

Nithavela said:

It could be a game of assymetrical warfare, with the european nations working against each other and having low numbers of high-power military, while the african tribes would lack cohesion and firepower, but have the home advantage and numbers.

Click to expand...

Some guy's list of the top 10 wargames set in the Anglo-Zulu War.

"I love the unique map, and I especially enjoy the struggle of suppressing panic, managing the troops, and combating the never-ending tide of Zulu warriors. Of course, playing the mass of Zulus is a blast too. However, a Zulu commander can easily get lulled into a false sense of superiority with his greater numbers. A cool-headed British commander can quickly pull the table out from under the Zulu battle plan."

Ana the Ist said:

The problem is that it doesn't allow for a fictional scenario that never happened?

I barely remember Axis and Allies but I don't recall an option to play as a band of militant Jews that could overthrow the nazis.

Edit- I can understand wanting to have an option that isn't available. I remember an old Star Wars game that had a brief appearance of Ewoks in it, and thinking "man...I really wish I could play as an Ewok faction and take over the empire with logs and pointy sticks".

I can't really fault the game's creator for not indulging me though. That may not have been what they were shooting for.

Click to expand...

i was only addressing the inclusion of games like civilization or total war being included as an exploitation themed game. i was replying to another poster that did include them as such. i wasn't even attempting ot address the issues in the OP. i have no idea why you decided to reply to me as such but whatever. and axis and allies doesn't fit that list either. the game is a historical reference of world war 2. the selling point is that it's a war game. it's not a nazi celebration game.

I had a boardgame called colditz as a kid ....always preferred being the pow