"Is gaming the Zulu War insensitive in this day and age?" Topic

Weasel, I was with you till you mentioned Testament…;)

Gennorm, thanks for sharing. Probably for the best cosplay wasn't around back then!

An annual show called 'Armageddon' received a lot of attention and changed its name to 'Colours' which it has been called since.

We put on an annual demonstration game at a Train & Hobby show (ie most of the crowd are NOT wargamers).

We've been discussing as a future project a Sudan game. But when I look at all those black flags the Mahdists carried, I wonder if the punters might think we're suggesting ISIS & we'd get some sort of backlash.

Yes, I know some of you will think that's someone else's problem but we're there for a fun two days, not a series of po-faced arguments (I'd go to the UM board if I wanted that).

But when I look at all those black flags the Mahdists carried, I wonder if the punters might think we're suggesting ISIS & we'd get some sort of backlash.

My dad always said, you should never worry about what stupid people think, but you should always worry about what stupid people do.

Perhaps a large, obvious, block letter, can't miss it sign with "Mahdist War (1881–99)" would help. A sign can't stop every possible moron from saying something, but it might assist others (not you) around the table to point and say, "here's your sign" to him.

I appreciate your point, etotheipi but in these circumstances, I'd rather avoid a conflict than win some sort of moral victory.

War gaming itself is sexist and insensitive in this day and age. It mostly glorifies white male aggression and privilege against either other aggressive and privileged white males competing to see who can exploit the underprivileged or aggressive and privileged white males subjecting an indigenous native population and usually doesn't include large contingents of gender neutral or LBGT components.The inherent sexism can be demonstrated by the fact that the majority of "gamers" are male and the historical aspect of it's origins in H.G.Wells book "Little Wars: a game for boys from twelve years of age to one hundred and fifty and for that more intelligent sort of girl who likes boys' games and books" the title of which is sexist in and of itself

No, and I do not care what others think of my hobby.

Oh wow, holy thread resurrection.

What I find strange is that – generally speaking – the Zulu Empire (which was an absolute dictatorship of the worst type imaginable) is considered the goodies in the war, while the British Empire (which was, for all its warts, a paragon of democracy, liberalism and progress by the standards of the day) is considered the baddies.

Certainly no politician would dare make that point in these enlightened times.

You get +1 for being reasonably democratic but -1 for being democratic at bayonet point in other people's countries.

Hence a final "goodness" score of 0.

Zulus were autocrats (-1) but defending the homeland (+1), hence, the score is even.

Scores can be modified up by +1 for snappy uniforms and for the outrageousness of the hats worn.

For comparison, in 1914, the British get a +2 (Democratic and while abroad, are defending someones homeland) while the dastardly Hun gets a -2 (imperial and invaders).

No snappy uniform bonus there though.

An extra minus 1 applies if your name is a common synonym for "evil" (Nazi's, Stalin-era USSR, Imperial Japan).

3. As a kid I was entranced by a drawing of H.G. Wells playing on the floor with his toy soldiers. I guess Mr. Wells and I are insensitive sexists. Now that I think about it, I would certainly prefer his company to that of those who are so easily offended. Thanks, John Miller

3.
Jaxenro, you might care to consider that HG Wells was only reflecting the 'sexist' attitudes of his era, in which boys and girls were given different toys and expected to engage in different types of play, and that he was writing somewhat ironically and 'tongue in cheek'.
I'm with you, John Miller!

3 it appears this is hardly open to debate. It is not often that this amount of wargamers agree on a somewhat political discussion. Hear….Hear

Weasel

I think you missed the '-3' the Zulus would get for 'their homeland' actually being the land they had grabbed at assegai-point from other black tribes in the previous generation or two – the Zulu Empire expanded 14-fold under Shaka, for example, and it is reckoned their ultra violent expansion accounted for between 1 and 2 million lives in the insane bloodbath of the mfecane.

There was a reason why so many blacks fought on the British side as allies, and I don't think it was connected with snappy hats.

I feel this is all a micro-aggression, now I must leave to find my safe place.

arthur1815

My guess is either satire is no longer PC either, or I am just damnably bad at it

My point (and once you need to explain satire, it, like a joke, is now pointless) is that war itself and most of what is connected with it is "insensitive" or "offensive" to someone. So why single out the Zulu war?

Aren't the Native American wars in the America's insensitive? The campaigns of conquest of Central and South America? Caesar's wars in Gaul? England in Egypt? France in Algeria? The Mexican American war? The Napoleonic wars? I won't even go into those that make models of WWII German tanks and planes?

jaxenro

100% agree – there is no reason (other than the bizarre post-Colonial guilt which afflicts some, and which seems to have turned the Zulu Empire into a peaceful, stable, multi-party democracy) why the Zulu War should be any more 'off limits' than any other conflict.

I imagine that the gutter press would have a field day if it was 'revealed' that an MP had a WW2 German army, especially one with SS units.

Greenleader – We'll have to add a modification for how long the land has to be yours before you get the +1 then!

I suppose that'll be the 2nd edition, available shortly :-)

3, not an issue, unless some clod is using REALLY exaggerated racist cartoon like figures.

Hats Off to *Flashman14"

He got (so far) 70+ individuals to give him attention.
Why else pose such a question.

Well Done Sir…or kid.

@Jaxenro

Perhaps it's ok if the Zulus win…

There are way too many of these $%^&@# sensitive people in the world. They're just jealous that we're having fun with our toy soldiers and they're not. Go get your own hobby.

Really?

I don't think it's as crazy a question as some of you make it out to be. I don't know the OP, so mabe he is trolling you. I agree with most of you that it isn"t a problem (for me anyway), but surely it is fair to ask questions like this as times have changed since the modern start of our hobby. Slide the question along the scale some degrees and imagine how would you answer the question if it was "Is Gaming the "Battle' of Wounded Knee insensitive?"

But in what way is the Zulu War comparable to the Battle of Wounded Knee?

Assymetry of technology? One side has machine guns and artillery.

The ultimate outcome of either conflict was never in question in spite of individual events like islandwaha or little big horn.

I am not sure I agree.

Asymmetry of technology is a feature in many wars, including virtually all colonial wars and many ultra modern conflicts. The OP was specifically about the Zulu War, and – bearing in mind the many thousands of rifles the Zulus had – the handful of wonky Gatlings were hardly enough to make the imperial forces invincible.

As for the outcome never having been in doubt, I respectfully disagree. The British lost the First Boer War a couple of years later, a conflict which – without the benefit of hindsight – one would also have thought the outcome of should never have been in doubt. Similarly, we have the Gordon Expedition and the Italian debacle in Abyssinia. I see no reason why another defeat on the scale of Isandlwana might not have seen the political will to prosecute the Zulu War collapse in a similar fashion.

I also note you said 'The Battle of Wounded Knee', rather than the 'Plains Indians Wars' – I agree that few people would enjoy gaming 'a massacre', be it Wounded Knee, the mass-murder of black non-combatants by bittereinders during the Boer War, or the firebombing of Dresden. But I cannot see how the Zulu War (in its entirety, rather than a specific, one-sided action) fits into that category.