When is PC too PC?

[Inanna]

Yes - that's what I was trying to get to earlier. Is the eventual effect of the game to increase empathy for slaves or desensitize players to use of slaves.

Since this is a game, I doubt the first really happens.


---------------
Please bear with my typos & grammar mistakes. Sent from my iPhone - Palantirs make mistakes too.

[tinwë]

The problem then becomes that it appears like you're "whitewashing" history. Pretending the uncomfortable bits didn't happen. Its part of the narrative. Until George Takei started speaking out, I knew nothing of the Japanese Internment camps. But then they made a Musical about it. Art is a powerful force. If you use art to suppress information rather than free it... Well, if those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, then what of those who deliberately hide history behind political correctness?

But slavery is not being whitewashed from what is traditionally considered to be “art” here. 12 Years A Slave was a critically acclaimed box-office success movie that won several Oscars and other awards, and Game Of Thrones is a non-historical fantasy with all sorts of slavery involved (at least in the books - I haven’t kept up with the TV show). I think the issue here is probably that this is a game. I’m not a gamer, so I can’t speak to what degree these sort of games are viewed as art, but I can see how a “game” that includes slavery might been seen as offensive in this country, for the reasons that Lali mentioned.

I also assume that this more of a marketing issue then anything else - the makers of the game assume they will sell more copies if they remove what they think might be offensive in certain markets?

[CosmicBob]

I also assume that this more of a marketing issue then anything else - the makers of the game assume they will sell more copies if they remove what they think might be offensive in certain markets?

I imagine this is exactly the reason.

[Alatar]

Is the eventual effect of the game to increase empathy for slaves or desensitize players to use of slaves.

Neither. In the same way that shooting virtual people with virtual guns does not increase empathy or desensitize players to gun violence. I guess it speaks a lot to the American psyche that even the mention of slavery must be erased from a game set in a time where slavery was currency, but its ok to simulate gun violence in a world where gun violence is a very real and current issue! If we must be sensitive of the (relatively) recent use of slavery in the past, why is nobody sensitive to the current alarming escalation of gun related deaths. I would posit that its because people are capable of seeing the difference between Call of Duty and Columbine. Why then is it so hard to see the difference between Puerto Rico the Game and the Reality.


tinwë, even ignoring the "is game art" question, one has to acknowledge that they are both forms of entertainment. Why the double standard?

[yovargas]

While people can tell the difference between Call of Duty and Columbine, I guarantee that a video game where you play the Columbine shooters would make people very, very angry. In fact, as you're probably aware, there was a game released last year (Hatred, I think) where you played an "active shooter" who's purpose was to kill as many innocent people, including cops, as possible, before you get taken out. The game received a huge amount of extremely angry and negative publicity.

[Impenitent]

I think it comes down to what the individual gamer is given licence to do within the world of the game.

Having slavery as a background element would not be as offensive if gamers could not buy/sell slaves. And they could probably get away with a game based on Columbine if the game players were all on the right side. In other words, if the game parameters are constrained.

[Alatar]

Yes, but if a game is a trading game set in colonial times it would be farcical not to include slaves in that since slavery was integral to the economy?

[Impenitent]

Then maybe the whole concept on which the game is based is in bad taste?

Posting on phone via Tapatalk

[tinwë]

tinwë, even ignoring the "is game art" question, one has to acknowledge that they are both forms of entertainment. Why the double standard?

Perhaps, but there is a difference in kind. Film, literature, theater and other such art forms are not, usually, competitive in the way that games are. Nobody comes out of a movie bragging about having bought more slaves then someone else. A game that included such a component, especially one set in Colonial America, would indeed be in very bad taste, and would likely spark a very understandable outcry.

Art, in addition to being entertaining, can also be informative and educational. Games can do that too, I suppose (again, I am not a gamer, so I can’t really comment on that). If a game set in colonial times educated players about the horrors of slavery, then that might not be so objectionable. But a game that treated the trading of slaves as a way of “winning” the game would indeed by in bad taste. In my opinion, at least.

[Cerin]

If we must be sensitive of the (relatively) recent use of slavery in the past, why is nobody sensitive to the current alarming escalation of gun related deaths.

Because everyone is subject to the threat of being shot. Only black people were slaves. If you had a game where only one race was subject to gun violence, that would be problematic in the same way.

[Inanna]

What about in the game - is there a racial connotation to slavery?


---------------
Please bear with my typos & grammar mistakes. Sent from my iPhone - Palantirs make mistakes too.

[yovargas]

Then maybe the whole concept on which the game is based is in bad taste?

That's kinda my thinking too, at least as a general thought since, again, no idea what this game is actually like.

[Dave_LF]

Only black people were slaves.

They may be the only group that was subjected to systematic, hereditary slavery based on racial doctrine, but they are certainly not the only people to have been made slaves. I trust that's what you meant?

[Alatar]

Its worth pointing out that there was a pretty huge problem with Irish slavery also. But we'll leave that aside.

Here's the description of Puerto Rico from Boardgamegeek.com:

In Puerto Rico players assume the roles of colonial governors on the island of Puerto Rico. The aim of the game is to amass victory points by shipping goods to Europe or by constructing buildings.

Each player uses a separate small board with spaces for city buildings, plantations, and resources. Shared between the players are three ships, a trading house, and a supply of resources and doubloons.

The resource cycle of the game is that players grow crops which they exchange for points or doubloons. Doubloons can then be used to buy buildings, which allow players to produce more crops or give them other abilities. Buildings and plantations do not work unless they are manned by colonists.

During each round, players take turns selecting a role card from those on the table (such as "Trader" or "Builder"). When a role is chosen, every player gets to take the action appropriate to that role. The player that selected the role also receives a small privilege for doing so - for example, choosing the "Builder" role allows all players to construct a building, but the player who chose the role may do so at a discount on that turn. Unused roles gain a doubloon bonus at the end of each turn, so the next player who chooses that role gets to keep any doubloon bonus associated with it. This encourages players to make use of all the roles throughout a typical course of a game.

Puerto Rico uses a variable phase order mechanic, where a "governor" token is passed clockwise to the next player at the conclusion of a turn. The player with the token begins the round by choosing a role and taking the first action.

Players earn victory points for owning buildings, for shipping goods, and for manned "large buildings." Each player's accumulated shipping chips are kept face down and come in denominations of one or five. This prevents other players from being able to determine the exact score of another player. Goods and doubloons are placed in clear view of other players and the totals of each can always be requested by a player. As the game enters its later stages, the unknown quantity of shipping tokens and its denominations require players to consider their options before choosing a role that can end the game.

For "colonists" read slaves. This becomes obvious when a ship of "Colonists" arrives and becomes a usable resource.

So, lets ask another question. Why this particular issue? Nobody has a problem with people playing the Axis side in Axis and Allies. Literally playing as Nazis. Why is it worse to play a slave owner in the 18th century than a war criminal in the 20th?

[Frelga]

As a Nazi, did you get points for sending people to camps? Cause I would definitely say it was not OK.

Treating people as things, that's where it all starts.*

[Dave_LF]

I think there is value in "playing" a slave owner (or a Nazi, or a Viking raider) if just because it lets you experience how easy and natural it is to go along with something that it universally condemned in your real life when it becomes just part of the system you (pretend to) live in. That goes for games, books, movies, and all the rest. Putting yourself in the bad guy's shoes helps fight the fallacy that slave owners (or Nazis, or Viking raiders) are fundamentally different from us.

And of course while people are free to complain all they want, I would oppose actual censorship on basic grounds of free expression.

[Cerin]

Only black people were slaves.

They may be the only group that was subjected to systematic, hereditary slavery based on racial doctrine, but they are certainly not the only people to have been made slaves. I trust that's what you meant?

I meant that black people were the one group systematically enslaved in this country. What other slaves are you alluding to?( I'm not clear on whether you were referring specifically to America in this time period, or to the world throughout history.)

I think there is value in "playing" a slave owner (or a Nazi, or a Viking raider) if just because it lets you experience how easy and natural it is to go along with something that it universally condemned in your real life when it becomes just part of the system you (pretend to) live in. That goes for games, books, movies, and all the rest. Putting yourself in the bad guy's shoes helps fight the fallacy that slave owners (or Nazis, or Viking raiders) are fundamentally different from us.

While I haven’t played this type of game, I wouldn’t think the mindset or atmosphere of game playing would lead to this type of serious consideration.

So, lets ask another question. Why this particular issue? Nobody has a problem with people playing the Axis side in Axis and Allies. Literally playing as Nazis. Why is it worse to play a slave owner in the 18th century than a war criminal in the 20th?

Maybe because the issue of Naziism, and the war the entire world fought to defeat it, is the substantive and central focus of the Axis and Allies game (I'm assuming), whereas in Puerto Rico, the issue of slavery isn’t in the forefront, with a war against its evil being the focus of the game. It’s an accepted and normal part of the life depicted.

[Lalaith]

A little OT now, but I just came across this on FB:

Last Living Civil War Pension Recipient

It blows my mind a bit to know those living links are still out there. She's 86-years-old.

Oh, and I definitely did think of the Irish slaves, Al. That is not very well-known, though.

Again, human trafficking is still a very real and disturbing occurrence on a global scale. I will refrain from getting out my soap box, but it is why I agree with tinwë's assessment here:

But a game that treated the trading of slaves as a way of “winning” the game would indeed by in bad taste.

[Alatar]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Well, unless you also think that any game where killing people is a way of winning the game is also in bad taste. i.e. most computer games, any wargame ever made... even Risk would qualify. Or, for that matter, Chess.

[yovargas]

Thing is, a lot of this depends on how fresh the wound of it is which is admittedly pretty darn subjective. In the US, the "wounds" from the 9/11 bombings are still extremely fresh. Using those attacks as part of light-hearted entertainment is guaranteed to make a lot of people very angry and upset. But you could make something fun set within some major massacre from the 1700s and hardly anyone would blink an eye. Slavery still happens to be (and likely will be for a long time) a very fresh wound for very many people.

I think it was you I saw you say (on FB?) that naming a drink "Irish car bomb" was highly insensitive. But to me, a guy very far removed from that, the name has almost no meaning or significance. I'd probably bet I didn't know it was a reference to anything when I first heard the name. To be honest, I'm still only vaguely aware what it refers to. (As an aside, that's the kind of thing that people have taken to calling a "privilege"; I still don't like the use of that word but some would say that I have the "privilege" of not being aware of your country's tragedies.) But it seems like it means a lot to you, or your country. If you heard me order that drink and said "Hey, that's shitty, don't call it that", should I say "Oh, lighten up, would you?" or should I say "Oh, sorry, I wasn't aware". I do definitely agree this kinda thing sometimes can get into weird, absurd places, but it seems pretty harmless for me to just call it something else in cases like this.....