Slashdot Mirror
Revisionist History in Age of Empires
The fact that Microsoft Game Studios picked and chose from the past in order to make Age of Empires fun is understandable. While recognizing that, the Wonderland Blog brings up the (dubiously laudable but) important role Age of Empires has in educating young people. Alice asks if such a game, helpful to the teaching of the young, should futz with the past the way it does. The Guardian Blog follows up on her commentary by discussing the game and the issue in the context of Serious Games. From the article: "With the snowballing of interest in Serious Games and governmental support for the development of games in the classroom, should this be an issue that is seriously debated in development houses?"
The only time they should take these things into consideration is if the title is being developed as an Educational/"Edutainment" program. Otherwise, gameplay should trump fact. Everybody knows that the Great Pyramid didn't actually give the Egyptians a free granary in each of their cities, right?
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Actually, the smallpox-infected blankets story is now held to be a myth. If it happened at all, it certainly was not a recurring practice.
That doesn't invalidate the larger criticism*, obviously, but it's striking how often the people who hand out lectures on distinguishing between myth and "fact" almost always have some rather glaring problems with their own "facts".
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
" important role Age of Empires has in education young people."
Ah yes, AoE has really embiggened our vocabulary hasn't it?
"Derp de derp."
I'm sure someone will provide an analysis of the game comparing it's story to accepted historical theory. Blogging isn't just for geeks, you know.
-- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
The reviewer's problem seems that AoE3 doesn't go along with the revisionist history supported by the reviewers.
From TFA
'The crux is that the Native Americans in AoE III "are not so much a peoples to be exploited and killed off with pox-infected blankets as they are partners in your war against the other countries," according to Kotaku.'
So, the reviewer has the racist view that Native Americans are weak social incompetents whose only purpose is to be exploited and killed. To the reviewr's Native Americans are not fully realized human being (capable of both selfishness and charity, both good and evil) but instead the reviers complains that they are not seen only as victims.
When in reality (not the reviewer's politically correct fantasy) the Indians were a number of unallied and often mutually antagonist tribes/countries that frequently allied with the Europeans. For example, the Anti-Aztec Indians that allied with the Spanish in order to topple their Aztec masters. These Indians did this, not solely for the Spaniards benefit (although the Spanish did benefit) but because these Indians hated their Aztec rulers.
Another example, would be the French and English Indian allies during the French-Indian War. Once again various Indian tribes and mercenaries sided with either the French or English in the hopes of increasing their (the Indians) wellbeing and domination over an opposing Indian tribe.
Did the Europeans do bad things to the Indians? Yes, both as individual settlers and as organized acts of imperialism. But they also acted in a way roughly (it is hard to tell without the game being published yet) in accordance with AOE3's portrayal. The Europeans took the Indians on as allies when needed or convenient.
It is revisionist to re-write the history of the Native Americans to exclude their acts of savagery and genocide, leaving them only as objects of pity, too incompetent to fend for themselves or produce noble achievements. This revisionism which denies the Native Americans their true history and their ability & potential to share in the both the horrors and grandeurs of basic human nature is racist.
The review's problem seems to be that AOE3 does not exclude the self-interested actions in favour of the reviewer's political point of view. The reviewer's view of history is more revisionist than AOE3s.
Now son, if I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times; playing Ages of Empire is going to distort your understanding of history and the world. Now go play Grand Theft Auto or Extreme Beach Volleyball so I don't have to worry about your perspectives of reality getting distorted.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Instead, think about how the British allied with the Sikhs against the French. Or the French with the Hurons against the British Colonists (French and Indian War). Or Nelson attacking the French with help from local native Central Americans. Or Cortes taking advantage of the cruelty of the Aztecs to create a series of alliances with the local natives. Or the British allying with the Egyptians and using Indian troops against Muslim holymen in the Sudan. Or T.E. Lawrence with the Bedouin fighting the Turks.
No, that has been the pattern of history. Despite what modern day opponents of Colonial History may say, the West has historically used ambitious natives in their money making schemes. Africans enslaved Africans, not Europeans. Chinese sold Opium to Chinese, not the British. Indians fought against the Afghans under British leadership.
Quite frankly, this sort of history as being presented in the article is erroneous to the point of being deliberate. Is there an agenda here, or is this just some deluded fool?
Hoist Number One and Number Six.