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

[SummerMadness]

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

Scramble for Africa was a new strategy game — what is called a “eurogame,” to contrast the genre with war games and more confrontational luck-based American board games. In it, the player would “take the role of one of six European powers with an eye toward exploring the unknown interior of Africa, discovering land and natural resources,” as the game’s description put it.

And with that, Scramble for Africa became board gaming’s entree into the very particular, sometimes confusing and very of-the-moment culture wars of 2019.

“The Holocaust could be a topic for a resource management game, but most people would rightly see that as reprehensible,” one BoardGameGeek user wrote. “The Scramble for Africa, as a historic episode, was marked by exploitation, chattel slavery, and brutalization of a racial group that their oppressors often considered lesser humans.”

 

[ChicanaRose]

“The Holocaust could be a topic for a resource management game, but most people would rightly see that as reprehensible,” one BoardGameGeek user wrote.

And how is this not equally-reprehensible?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Most games revolve around war and such. Inherently, games are about conflict. There is usually something to get in a tizz about - Risk is about conquering the world, and Monopoly was originally invented to demonstrate the evils of capitalism, for instance.

If we just stuck it on an alien world, no one would complain, but frankly, that is what essentially was the case to the 19th century in Darkest Africa. Computer games like Civilisation or the ilk are no worse, and there are multiple such games in which slavery or forced labour are in-game parts thereof. It is historical reality, and making games about it is an easier way to teach about its reality, besides. If anything, modern history tends to ignore the Scramble for Africa as some weird thing inbetween WWI and Napoleon, so I would think this a good education tool that should be applauded.

 

[Ironhold]

Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, tabletop gaming has for generations included games where people could play as the bad guys.

In fact, Axis & Allies -> Axis & Allies - Wikipedia -> has been around since 1981.

I've got a recent copy of that (last 15 years, still sealed), an assortment of tabletop games from the 1980s wherein you can role-play a number of conflicts up to and including WWIII (with at least one player taking on the role of the Soviets), and an actual board game based on re-creating Desert Storm (with someone playing as Iraq).

These are as much about teaching history and tactics as they are anything else.

What's more, Dungeons & Dragons' alignment chart includes "evil" alignments in its list of alignments (lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, true neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, chaotic evil), and many other games have clear bad guys people can play as.

Does this make every last game ever in existence evil for existing?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Most games revolve around war and such. Inherently, games are about conflict. There is usually something to get in a tizz about - Risk is about conquering the world, and Monopoly was originally invented to demonstrate the evils of capitalism, for instance.

If we just stuck it on an alien world, no one would complain, but frankly, that is what essentially was the case to the 19th century in Darkest Africa. Computer games like Civilisation or the ilk are no worse, and there are multiple such games in which slavery or forced labour are in-game parts thereof. It is historical reality, and making games about it is an easier way to teach about its reality, besides. If anything, modern history tends to ignore the Scramble for Africa as some weird thing inbetween WWI and Napoleon, so I would think this a good education tool that should be applauded.

I was going to say that it's a pretty tasteless idea....but I think you made some good points. I think this period in history does get glossed over a bit....and instead of the reality of European powers carving out colonies and resources from Africa out of necessity, it gets turned into this weird caricature of greedy white people who hate black people destroying Africa as quickly as possible.

If the intent was to teach the players the realities of the survival of their nations as it related to the acquisition of foreign resources....then I don't really see anything wrong with it.

It is a board game after all. Does anyone play those for fun?

 

[Tanj]

It is a board game after all. Does anyone play those for fun?

 

[Nithavela]

Don't play monopoly.

 

[SummerMadness]

I guess some folks can’t wait to play those Holocaust games where you manage your camp populations while fighting a war. So educational and worthy of our applause.

I think any indignance displayed for canceling this game while recognizing that a game about other human atrocities would be tasteless certainly demonstrates the point.

 

[Nithavela]

I guess some folks can’t wait to play those Holocaust games where you manage your camp populations while fighting a war. So educational and worthy of our applause.

I think any indignance displayed for canceling this game while recognizing that a game about other human atrocities would be tasteless certainly demonstrates the point.

Risk is a simulation of global warfare.
Stratego is a pitched battle.
Monopoly is about pricing everyone out of being able to afford a roof.
Cluedo is about a bloody murder.
Even chess is a mercyless battle were everything is sacrificed for victory.

If you don't like a game, don't buy it and/or play it. Stop trying to shame people from making their own decisions. Live and let live.

 

[SummerMadness]

Risk is a simulation of global warfare.
Stratego is a pitched battle.
Monopoly is about pricing everyone out of being able to afford a roof.
Cluedo is about a bloody murder.
Even chess is a mercyless battle were everything is sacrificed for victory.

If you don't like a game, don't buy it and/or play it. Stop trying to shame people from making their own decisions. Live and let live.

None of the games you mention represent actual events. There’s a big difference between choosing Axis versus Allies over a game that allows you to manage genocide.

Arguing that people should say nothing about something they disagree with is odd to me. They are free to make the game and people are free to voice their disapproval of the game.

 

[essentialsaltes]

While the topic of the game is tone-deaf, I doubt the game glorifies (or even simulates) the cruelties of that era.

That said, I would not want to curtail the topics one could address in a game situation. Particularly when they are approached in the right way. Films about Nazis can be Triumph of the Will or they can be Schindler's List. Games are also an artform.

Anyway, board games? That's not nerdy enough by far. Let's LARP the Wannsee Conference.

A Chamber larp about the Wannsee Conference, where the Final solution to the jewish problem was formalized.

Or an abusive prison camp.

"Kapo is a story about the prisoners in a surrealistic Danish prison camp, a story of powerlessness and dehumanization. Players will be introduced to an environment of bizarre social norms and values. The camp is ruled by an eat-or-be-eaten mentality, you will die or prey on those weaker than you, ultimately forcing you to choose between yourself and your loved ones."

 

[Paulos23]

Board games are a great way to experance different historical periods to understand, to a limited extent. If the game had a way to play it without the destruction of Africa, it would be interesting to play against others to see how the game makers see the mechanics working out.

But, some game themes just dont work for some people. And this may be such a case for me.

 

[ChicanaRose]

So...no one else sees this game as being grossly racist? Maybe I'm the odd one here?

 

[ThievingMagpie]

So...no one else sees this game as being grossly racist? Maybe I'm the odd one here?

The game has already been pulled by the publisher so its no it's not going anywhere. I think the subject matter trivialises a particularly bloody part of history and I wouldn't want to play it - unsure if that means its racist or just crude.

 

[iluvatar5150]

On Facebook, some of my game designer friends were talking about this article and have drawn distinctions between games where the details of the factions are essential parts of the game mechanics (e.g. Axis & Allies) vs other games where the theme is less necessary and more of a veneer. (though, I suppose that's brought up in the article, too)

My initial reaction is to see this in the same way that I see issues of cultural appropriation in other artistic mediums. There are ways to do it that are respectful and okay and ways to do it that aren't, and that even in the best of cases, it's going to be something of a subjective judgment call that ought to factor the intentions of the creator.

 

[That Guy 11200]

I used to have a board game called Escape from Colditz. Colditz Castle was a Nazi POW camp. In the game one player plays as the Nazis, the others play POWs trying to escape. It came out in the 1970s and it's still available to buy.

I have computer games (e.g. Total War) where I can burn cities, kill prisoners of war and enslave people. They've been around for years and I've never heard of anyone complaining about those game mechanics.

I have absolutely no problem with a game like Scramble for Africa existing. That's because I can separate reality from fiction. I know that the people who play these games don't embody the values of the people they are playing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Are we talking Chutes and Ladders or Life?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I guess some folks can’t wait to play those Holocaust games where you manage your camp populations while fighting a war. So educational and worthy of our applause.

Yeesh....the thread is asking if it's ok to play these games....not if they're on our respective Christmas wish lists.

I think any indignance displayed for canceling this game while recognizing that a game about other human atrocities would be tasteless certainly demonstrates the point.

To be honest, I don't think the Holocaust example holds water. What exactly are the opposite factions of that board game going to be? Nazi war camp guard vs lazy train conductor?

None of the games you mention represent actual events. There’s a big difference between choosing Axis versus Allies over a game that allows you to manage genocide.

What's the difference when we already know what the Axis powers did? We can have a game of Union vs Confederacy and not mention slavery....but everyone knows it happened.

Arguing that people should say nothing about something they disagree with is odd to me. They are free to make the game and people are free to voice their disapproval of the game.

Agreed....people are free to voice their disapproval. I also think people are free to call out people voicing their disapproval. Having an opinion doesn't make anyone free from being judged by it.

 

[Nithavela]

To be honest, I don't think the Holocaust example holds water. What exactly are the opposite factions of that board game going to be? Nazi war camp guard vs lazy train conductor?

Maybe an expansion for "Ticket to Ride".

I'm joking, of course. That's a horrible board game.

 

[mala]

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.