Help support TMP


"Native Americans unhappy about new wargame (Yahoo News)" Topic


87 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please do not use bad language on the forums.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Hobby Industry Message Board


Areas of Interest

General

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Ruleset


Featured Showcase Article

Modular Buildings from ESLO

ESLO Terrain explains about their range of modular buildings.


Featured Workbench Article

Taking the Spin Out of Magnetic Flight Stands

Can Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian solve the rotation problem with magnetic flight stands?


5,126 hits since 15 Apr 2010
©1994-2022 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 

Procopius16 Apr 2010 4:17 a.m. PST

Doctor X


I think the obvious in hiding in plain view.

Plain view? Where? I'd like to see that!


This woman is a Vagina Warrior…she is complaining about wargaming….

Yes, she's right, let's all give up Wargaming and warriors and concentrate on the other part of her title!

Cheers,

Pro…

M1Fanboy16 Apr 2010 4:22 a.m. PST

@Major Mike:
Survival of the Witless gave me and some friends HOURS of hilarity. Especially the "Going Postal" rule.

flicking wargamer16 Apr 2010 4:42 a.m. PST

They need less than 160 more preorders for the game to be published. link

I wonder how many presales were generated by that article.

vtsaogames16 Apr 2010 5:18 a.m. PST

Any publicity is better than none. Now I know about this game and may well get a copy.

Two Owl Bob16 Apr 2010 6:26 a.m. PST

My house was repossessed by the bank in the 80s. I want Monopoly taken off the shelves NOW!

Oddball16 Apr 2010 7:06 a.m. PST

I'm going to order mine right now.

I live in the area where some of the bloodist fighting took place. You can see the locations all around and markers of different attacks.

I also have a bit of the Native American blood in me (4x Great Grandfather).

Having that bloodline in my DNA, I state that I am deeply offended by the term "Native American" and actually prefer to be called "Original American" in the future.

Conquest Miniatures16 Apr 2010 8:09 a.m. PST

I agree with that Squinty Mexican fella above…

Though I agree that there will always be people who don't understand what we do, and will look completely ignorant (from our view) of the things we do, I'm surprised at how hypocritical and outspoken alot of posters here are over the subject. In fact, I'm actually a little offended by some of the posts here.

There are numerous threads I've read here of people saying they won't play this period or that, because it's too recent, or one's family was involved or some such. Isn't that the same thing as this lady is saying when it comes down to it?

There were even flame wars over someone posting some concentration prison model wasn't there? What's so offensive about that then?

While I don't agree with her views, she still has the right to have them, and of course, you certainly have the right to have your views, but a little sensitivity and mature understanding of ones personal feelings, seems fair.

But it seems as usual, since it's a war game, and we are war gamers, then it's a personal attack on us and we must equally and then some attack back.

I also disagree with comparing it with who started what and deserves what, which therefore justifies this game and not that game and so on. I could get this thread into a 100 pages if I go on…

My $.02 USD (that I got from some white guy who went to a casino and lost ;-)

Sane Max16 Apr 2010 8:10 a.m. PST

Oddball, 4 of your Great Grandfathers were Native American?

Point 1 – Lucky it wasn't 5!

Point 2 – What sort of parties did your Great Grandmothers go to?

Pat

coopman16 Apr 2010 8:30 a.m. PST

If you don't like our wargame…..don't play it.

Mulopwepaul16 Apr 2010 8:30 a.m. PST

Of course everyone has a right to their opinion. The aggrieved also have a right not to play games to which they object; they even have a right to ask the manufacturer to halt production and everyone else to alter their behaviour accordingly; but the manufacturer and everyone else also retain the right to say "no, and here's why…"

SBminisguy16 Apr 2010 8:42 a.m. PST

Still, if I tell you about my really cool game in which you get to (depending on your own loyalties and nationality) get to -

1) Be an Al Queda operative and fly planes into the Twin Towers. Or take a truck full of fertilizer to a day care centre in a federal office building.

2) Be an IRA bomber and blow up public figures in the UK. Or just heroically shoot people on their own doorstep.

3) Add your own "This may cause offence and probably will ---" scenario, to taste.

I am pretty sure that there would be people here suggesting that maybe that wasn't an appropriate form of entertainment.

What you're proposing is to design a game where the FOCUS is killing innocents, as opposed to a game in which ONE of the aspects of the game reflects that both sides depopulated each other's territories, but is not the FOCUS of the game, which is still a strategic war game. If its an AH style game you can bet that it mostly deals with logistics, movement and combat, not atrocities. I'd guess there's simply a phase in the game "Check for Atrocities" or some such, scored some way or other. Not having the game, I couldn't say.

Once you get on this slippery slope of "Sensitivity" there's no stop but the basement of PC mire and muck.

SBminisguy16 Apr 2010 8:44 a.m. PST

Btw, next controversy?

link

Let's get CAIR involved, eh? I'm sure they can whip up some offended sensitivities REAL quick!

SBminisguy16 Apr 2010 8:46 a.m. PST

Here's anyone can know unless the NA group has a copy of the game, "Fog of war is introduced in the form of a unique Battle Effects Die that simulates six unexpected possibilities, one of which could affect every combat. Such unexpected events include ambushes, spies, defender reinforcements, massacres, defender panic, and the introduction of Indian Guides."

Hmmm…a die roll that results in an unexpected event, one of which is a massacre. Yeh. That's it so far folks!! Let's get outraged!

Lee Brilleaux Fezian16 Apr 2010 9:04 a.m. PST

"Once you get on this slippery slope of "Sensitivity" there's no stop but the basement of PC mire and muck."

Actually I'm pretty sure that the slippery slope we most often find ourselves trying to stay upright on is the exact opposite. We are trying to avoid the perception that we are designing games that celebrate mass murder. We are interested in conflict, but we aren't warmongers any more than readers of mystery novels are pro-homicide.

Then again, I'm not one of those gamers whose wardrobe consists largely of SS themed T-shirts in a fragrant XXXL size.

50 Dylan CDs and an Icepick16 Apr 2010 10:32 a.m. PST

Totally agree with Mexican Jack.

I've known people who have no sympathy for stories like this, and yet who have been angrily complaining for years about violent video games, and how they're offensive and dangerous.

Or what about a game in which one side plays doctors and medical researchers, and the other side plays Cancer? ("Woo-hoo! I drew the Budget Cuts for Mammographies card!")

The weirdest thing, to my mind, is that many people get more offended when they realize that other people are offended by things they like. It becomes a sort of "Grievance Escalation." (How dare you get mad about something that I'm not mad about!)

…. hmmm…

My God, I'm a genius! That's it!

GRIEVANCE WARS: The Game of Escalating Umbrage. Which player will maximize his Sanctimonious Outrage, while moving around the internet?

Goldwyrm16 Apr 2010 10:43 a.m. PST

That describes the Internet. It's the longest running most successful open source MMORPG of playing out the human condition. Sorry Sam, the credit for inventing the Internet has already been taken. grin

SBminisguy16 Apr 2010 10:57 a.m. PST

We are trying to avoid the perception that we are designing games that celebrate mass murder.

Did ya make that strawman yourself? That's a ridiculous argument based on nothing substantive. If you look at the only example you can find regarding this game it states that massacres may be reflected as a die roll giving "unexpected events." The game is neither focused on nor glorifies mass murder. The Grievance crap being reflected in the news article is based upon skewing reality to annoint one group as a victim deserving of special treatment, and if they have to fiddle with reality to get that special treatment they will. It's political, not reality.

Reality is King Phillip's War is an important forgotten aspect of history in which colonists and native americans fought each other for control of New England, some tribes take one side against the other -- both on the European side and against, and Europeans fought Europeans as well. Bad stuff happened. Europeans did nasty stuff, native Americans did nasty stuff.

Reality is this is about a game that attempts to simulate the scope and nature of the conflict, and there's nothing in the description of the game that would lead anyone but a professional "Vagina Warrior" grievance monger to believe the game glorifies massacres. Here's the link to the game's description:

link

And it happened 450 years ago. If you define your grievances, or your core identity by what happened 450 years ago you are living in a very self-constrained world of grievance and hatred. I pity someone who does that.

aecurtis Fezian16 Apr 2010 11:01 a.m. PST

"NA groups are notoriously thin skinned about the whole 'getting shafted for hundreds of years' thing. You'd have to be an idiot not to understand why."

His/Her Majesty's subjects have often preferred to take the side of the natives rather than that of those dissenting colonists who had left the old country to avoid religious persecution.

I commend to you this narrative:

link

…for an alternate perspective.

"And it happened 450 years ago. If you define your grievances, or your core identity by what happened 450 years ago you are living in a very self-constrained world of grievance and hatred. I pity someone who does that."

For some--on both sides--it's family history: no less significant than, say, the battle of the Boyne (where my Huguenot forebears busied themselves killing Irishmen), an event that some take umbrage at today.

Allen

Lee Brilleaux Fezian16 Apr 2010 11:53 a.m. PST

"Did ya make that strawman yourself? That's a ridiculous argument based on nothing substantive."

Of course I didn't. It's out there anytime the general public looks at the stuff we do for fun. It's there in the mom who doesn't want her kids playing games about war. It's there in the folk who think fantasy games are about communing with the Devil. In this case, it's about a hyper-sensitive group who think their heritage is being maligned/exploited. Which is almost certainly not the designer's intention. It sounds as if the protester-in-chief, having talked to the guy, understands that now.

Being smart and talking to people about their concerns is the best way to resolve them. That's all I'm saying.

Lee Brilleaux Fezian16 Apr 2010 11:55 a.m. PST

"His/Her Majesty's subjects have often preferred to take the side of the natives rather than that of those dissenting colonists who had left the old country to avoid religious persecution."

We continue to be glad to see the back of them. Indeed, November 25th is celebrated as "Good Riddance to Pilgrims Day". Someone will dress in a tall hat and scowl while the rest dance, sing and enjoy themselves.

It's unfortunate that our letter to the Indians, "Poison the turkey if you know what's good for you!" was returned due to insufficient postage.

SBminisguy16 Apr 2010 12:28 p.m. PST

Being smart and talking to people about their concerns is the best way to resolve them. That's all I'm saying.

Agreed.

nvdoyle16 Apr 2010 1:08 p.m. PST

It's… complicated.

This.

vtsaogames16 Apr 2010 1:48 p.m. PST

And this ain't even on the Napoleonics board.

SBminisguy16 Apr 2010 2:32 p.m. PST

Being smart and talking to people about their concerns is the best way to resolve them. That's all I'm saying.

…however, it occurs to me that the native american offended group WENT TO THE MEDIA first to get some muck stirred up. Had they just went to the publisher to resolve this we never would have heard about it, hmm??

Griefbringer16 Apr 2010 3:07 p.m. PST

And it happened 450 years ago

Ahem, more like about 335 years ago (1675 + 335 = 2010).

Time to get outraged about the level of maths education these days?

Hrothgar Berserk16 Apr 2010 3:14 p.m. PST

vagina warriors? I would like to build a HOTT vagina dentata army.

SBminisguy16 Apr 2010 5:36 p.m. PST

Should be easy -- just break out the sculpy and look at a Georgia O'Keefe painting or other source material of choice…add legs, arms and weapons…or teeth, if you're into weird Japanese anime…then only play when no females or minors are present…with beer.

mandt216 Apr 2010 9:02 p.m. PST

The difference between such hypothetical "Holocaust" games and King Phillip's War is that the putative aggrieved victims of the KPW game--the Wampanoags--were the ones who started the war.

By the "Holocaust" or Al Qaeda analogy, it would be like the sons of SS veterans or Al Qaeda terrorists demanding that no one game WWII or modern conflicts, not because war is evil

I can't believe that some of you are splitting hairs over who has the moral right to be offended by a wargame. Not to mention that the assumptions made in the above statement are incorrect at their core.

While King Phillip may have fired the first shot he was acting in response to white encrouchment on the lands of his people. In other words, he was defending himself and his people from an invasion. Likewise, Bin Laden has stated that his attack was in response to American commercial and military presence in the Middle East, along with a long list of other grievances real or imagined.

Funny that you brought up the SS thing. I have a "German-American" friend (he came to the states 50 years ago) who was offended by that recent Brad Pitt WWII comedy. He felt that many WWII movies give the impression that all Germans were SS and therefore evil. I guess I can see why he might feel that way. Actually, I think he is right, to an extent. So, I could easily understand how he would be offended by a "Holocaust" game since it would no doubt depict Germans as mass murdering monsters, perpetuating an inaccurate perception. Yes, some Germans in WWII were mass-murdering monsters, but most weren't.

That doesn't mean that I am going to stop playing "Nuts" with the Germans cast as the bad guys. I'm just not going to play with him.

Mulopwepaul16 Apr 2010 11:32 p.m. PST

"While King Phillip may have fired the first shot he was acting in response to white encrouchment on the lands of his people. In other words, he was defending himself and his people from an invasion."

If one is determined to have the Wampanoags wear the white hats, one can hammer the facts to justify anything, I suppose--grievances real or imagined…but is one seriously arguing that "illegal immigration" is grounds for war and genocide?

Andrew May117 Apr 2010 4:10 a.m. PST

I agree with what Conquest miniatures said, we do seem to take it personally every time someone complains about a wargame, yet we're for the most part, adults pushing little toy soldiers around a table.

Responses like the ones in this thread don't half put people of wargaming, especially when the actual news story itself seems to have come to a more amicable resolution where the people who took offence are working with the games company to sort this kerfuffle out.

Alot has been said about how unreasonable the protest was. What about how unreasonable we've been about it?

Maybe we just need to lighten up a bit, we'll probably all live longer and be alot happier if we did…laugh

Personal logo Murphy Sponsoring Member of TMP17 Apr 2010 5:47 a.m. PST

Since it's an obscure group of people who feel "offended"…my first thought on this, (and this is sad to say), is that they are
A: Overly sensitive, and thin skinned.
B: Ready to be "offended at anything" that gets them attention.

and most of all…

C: "Offended" that they weren't "consulted" on the development of this game and thus weren't able to garner themselves 10% of the royalties.

Me thinks that if someone wrote them a check, they'd suddenly either be very supportive of it, or go away….

Klebert L Hall17 Apr 2010 7:00 a.m. PST

Smallpox had wiped out most Indians in New England before ever the Pilgrim Fathers set foot on the land. The Pequots, Narrangansetts, and Niantics were spared that. Yes, they suffered from the war. Now they're getting their revenge, scalping the whiteyes at Foxwoods. Let it go.

On top of that, most of them are about as much "Native American" as I am "Viking" or "Roman"… The Pequots and Narragansetts were pretty much wiped out centuries ago. I don't know, but I expect the Niantics were, too. There are a few Wampanoags around still, though.

Well: see above. It's… complicated. Foxwoods is owned by the Pequots, who had been mostly wiped out by the colonists in the Pequot War; the Narragansetts sided with the colonists in that one. A few Pequots assisted the colonists in King Philips' War; but the Narragansetts aided the Wampanoag. The Narragansetts and Wampanoag are both working on casinos of their own, but don't have them approved yet.

IMO, it's even more complicated than that.
My read of King Phillip's War has always been that we (Rhode Island) were at least tacitly supplying King Phillip with support and refuge (if not encouragement) as long as he killed those bastards in Massachusetts, whom we hated.

The war certainly ended promptly once Massachusetts showed up here with an army, and convinced us to actually fight him instead of just pretending. The revelation of his "secret" base of operations came about quite quickly after the arrival of the Massachusetts army, too. At that point, the jig was up, and we stabbed him in the back.

It's too bad I don't know anyone else that plays board wargames anymore, or I'd pick up a copy.

Really, I would think the local Indians should celebrate the game – it brings to light part of their history that is little known, and in the game they probably have a chance to win.
-Kle.

mekelnborg17 Apr 2010 8:43 a.m. PST

There has long been a major disconnect between the old-fashioned history that tends to appeal to wargamers, and the new-fashioned history favored by the more modern textbook writers.

I took a first-year US history course in 1990 and the text made a much bigger deal about KPW than the designer sounds like he realizes, despite his job. And if he could not see this coming, I suspect he may have dropped the ball in his design, because the one insensitivity just might betoken others to be revealed when we see it.

That's already 20 years ago, and the reason why a liberal history text put almost as many pages into that war as some of the ones we think had a big impact, such as the Revolution or Civil War, was already mentioned by BrigadeGames.

With a much smaller population on both sides, the participation by larger percentages of the population and the huge impact on both societies, it was bigger on mathematical grounds.

I see the voices of wargamers thinking it's a small, forgotten, unheralded war--of miniature gamers not knowing Curt Schilling's been running a major wargame company for years--and even I in 1990 having read all of Parkman and then running into a text based on Jennings--and I see the disconnect from our own stratification.

I have played some games from Schilling's company and to generalize they tend to keep it relatively simple, not like Air War, and more towards the game part of wargame.

What Kle just said I had never considered, and I can see how there could be room for more than one game once we find out if, and how much, in all our diverse opinions, this game drops the ball.

I was actually interested in what the consulting would accomplish educationally, however bad that may sound at first.

I don't reject Francis Parkman entirely, but the more modern textbooks do big-time. Keyword 'entirely.'

The modern ones are more based on Francis Jennings' trilogy, and a more rabid anti-Parkman guy you may never find. That started coming out around 1975.

Besides him there is also Stephen Saunders Webb, who is heavily into what some other results were from this war.

Neither of these two are ever quoted in wargaming circles, although if you can choke down Jennings enough there is something of value there and in Webb, with a very different take on Marlborough also than wargamers tend to hear.

I had posted this list of their books on Anno Domini 1672 at rampjaar.blogspot.com a Dutch wargamer's blog based on this period. These books and other lesser ones based on this line have been out for a long time already, and that's why I think the designer should have seen this coming.

I can understand how wargamers could miss this stuff, even though some has been on the shelf for 35 years, because these are the books we look right past to get to the ones we like better.

This was interesting enough that I think I will get the game solo or no, but I don't expect it'll be the final word on the topic.

Steven Saunders Webb, Lord Churchill's Coup: the Anglo-American Empire and the Glorious Revolution Reconsidered, 1995
Also, 1676: The End of American Independence
Early: 1976, The Governors-General

Francis Jennings, the Covenant Chain trilogy:

1975-The Invasion of America
1984-The Ambiguous Iroquois Empire
1988-Empire of Fortune

aecurtis Fezian17 Apr 2010 8:44 a.m. PST

"IMO, it's even more complicated than that."

Yep, if you include the division in the colonists.

"My read of King Phillip's War has always been that we (Rhode Island) were at least tacitly supplying King Phillip with support and refuge (if not encouragement) as long as he killed those bastards in Massachusetts, whom we hated."

The pro-native stance was part of why you weren't included in the New England Confederation. "Rogue's Island", indeed!

Funny thing: although Anne Hutchinson is reputed to be related (my mother's family were Hutchinsons), I don't believe any member of the family has ever set foot in Rhode Island. It's still considered dangerous ground by good Puritans!

Allen

Klebert L Hall18 Apr 2010 8:36 a.m. PST

Neat, Anne Hutchinson has always been one of my favorite early Rhode Islanders.

There's a historical marker dedicated to her on the Quincy/Milton Ma. border, where she "tarried" on the way to her exile.
-Kle.

Gailbraithe Games06 May 2010 9:41 p.m. PST

And how about those family members who lost their lives to shrieking savages in attacks and massacres during the war?

…and some of the howling red savages who murdered and scalped across Massachusetts are likely to get their own.

Gee. Why would a Native American be concerned about how their ancestors would be portrayed in a wargame. I mean, clearly all wargamers are enlightened and civilized people, not savages

Pages: 1 2 

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.