Slashdot Mirror
Activision Responds to American Indian Boycott
JorgeDeLaCancha writes "As previously reported, the American Indian Development has begun a boycott of Activisions game GUN. Activision has quickly responded. From the article: 'Activision does not condone or advocate any of the atrocities that occurred in the American West during the 1800s. GUN was designed to reflect the harshness of life on the American frontier at that time.'"
People are too sensitive these days. That said, I think boycotting makes sense in this case. It's a hell of a lot better than trying to ban the game. If you don't like the game or it's apparent message then don't buy it. I don't see what the big deal is here.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
I don't really give a crap how we're portrayed in video games. I really doubt this boycott is going to make much a difference anyway. You need economic consequences for a boycott to work and American Indians simply aren't a large enough segment of the game buying public to make any difference whatsoever.
You could have a 'Gas the Jews' game, not to provoke racism or hate crimes, but to reflect the harshness of gassing large numbers of people.
How do you think Activision would go with that one?
...in which a strange group of travellers arrive on your shores with overwhelmingly advanced military technology, and start to eradicate your people through diseased blankets and open hostilities, and then make treaties with you that they have no intention of honoring. The point of the game is to die of old age to win.
Let's just hope there isn't a Custer's Revenge minigame hidden in there
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
News Flash! Someone is always offended by some feature in some game at some time.
....
... which is a matter of creative freedom and the story writer chose to go for a stereotypical western setting as it was perceived back in the days. Now, because someone is offended, they are calling for a boycott of the game because they don't like how things were back there and they don't want to be remembered by it.
Next we start complaining about movies about the American Civil War depicting uneducated black slaves, because it wasn't pretty and we would rather forget that part of history
This is a question of "the chilling effect". Someone is always offended. The only reason Gamergod, and later other pages, were carrying this news item, written by a hyper sensitive and potentially paranoid woman is because they know it's controversial, will be syndicated and will give them ad clicks. Not that the boycott would do any damage, Indians are not even a blimp on the radar when it comes to game sales anyway.
Having played GUN, definitly a mediocre game, I can say that the Indians are getting the best portrayal of all factions in the game. There are countless white villains, bandits that are depicted as devils, murderers, killers and rapists. The indians, in the grand scope of things, are portrayed as noble and the main character realizes that his initial attack on the indians was wrong and he helps them out.
This author sees a problem where there is no problem. The game is by no means picking on the indians or portraying them worse than any other group in the game, it rather seems that the author is upset about the way the story writer chose the individuals in his story to act
Everyone who has played GUN can attest its mediocre, it features sensless violence and very mediocre graphics. However it is not racist or discriminating against indians. The author seems to wish that it was and uses a completely constructed connection to an old Atari game to make it seem like Activision/Neversoft did this on purpose to discriminate against indians.
Next time some red haired woman will come along and sue blizzard for allowing players to cast fire spells on red haired female human mages because, you know, some witches were burned a couple of hundred years ago. OMFG!
Or how about we stop playing Castle Wolfenstein online because some germans might be offended by us blasting Nazis online?
Or how about we ban GTA:SA because you play a black gang member beating up hookers? Some hooker / black gang member / black non gang member might be offended?
Or maybe we should just stop making games that include any kind of reference to the real world, and while we are at it we also stop any movie that features any kind of minority at all?
I heard Harry Potter offended some puritans in the South for witchcraft, we better make sure to boycott those games, books and movies too.
Seriously, we should just create some category "people offended by something" and post all these kind of news in there. Would be long, nobody would care, and all would be good.
Jews are boycotting The Bible and any books about Nazi Germany, because it portrays their oppression at the hands of others.
No, there's a huge difference. It would be if Jews are boycotting a game in which you play a German soldier or officer that orders and follows out the killing of millions of Jews.
American Indians want people to learn about the atrocities committed against them. They don't want people turning it into a game and acting out the oppression themselves.
Disclaimer: I'm not an native American, and I don't know their opinions. This is just what I'd assume.
- dshaw
You fool! Circling the wagons makes it easier for the attackers to encircle you... instead, square your wagons, force them further out when trying to encircle you.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
WTF ???
... hope you are happy convincing all the mindless freaks.
.. what do you expect?
m herstsmallpox.htm
You jerk
Fact is, there was a plan to do this. And small pox later broke out where they targetted. There are no photos of the actual handover obviously
Provide some evidence to support your view. Evidence-less assertions may work if you are a talk radio host or post on freerepublic.com.
Fact is the native americans got screwed, and their land/inheritance stolen. No amount of trying to convince oneself otherwise will chnge reality. Ironically the USA supports the Israelis getting their ancestral homeland from the Palestinians.. yet native americans can forget getting their ancestral home back. Sad but true.
The evidence is overwhelming to support the view of blankets being used to spread smallpox... do some god damn googling.
http://www.somsd.k12.nj.us/~chssocst/ssgavittus1a
From straightdope.com: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_066.html
Lord Jeffrey Amherst, commander of British forces in North America during the French and Indian War (1756-'63). Amherst and a subordinate discussed, apparently seriously, sending infected blankets to hostile tribes. What's more, we've got the documents to prove it, thanks to the enterprising research of Peter d'Errico, legal studies professor at the University of Massachusetts at (fittingly) Amherst. D'Errico slogged through hundreds of reels of microfilmed correspondence looking for the smoking gun, and he found it.
The exchange took place during Pontiac's Rebellion, which broke out after the war, in 1763. Forces led by Pontiac, a chief of the Ottawa who had been allied with the French, laid siege to the English at Fort Pitt.
According to historian Francis Parkman, Amherst first raised the possibility of giving the Indians infected blankets in a letter to Colonel Henry Bouquet, who would lead reinforcements to Fort Pitt. No copy of this letter has come to light, but we do know that Bouquet discussed the matter in a postscript to a letter to Amherst on July 13, 1763:
P.S. I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself. As it is pity to oppose good men against them, I wish we could make use of the Spaniard's Method, and hunt them with English Dogs. Supported by Rangers, and some Light Horse, who would I think effectively extirpate or remove that Vermine.
On July 16 Amherst replied, also in a postscript:
P.S. You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race. I should be very glad your Scheme for Hunting them Down by Dogs could take Effect, but England is at too great a Distance to think of that at present.
On July 26 Bouquet wrote back:
I received yesterday your Excellency's letters of 16th with their Inclosures. The signal for Indian Messengers, and all your directions will be observed.
We don't know if Bouquet actually put the plan into effect, or if so with what result. We do know that a supply of smallpox-infected blankets was available, since the disease had broken out at Fort Pitt some weeks previously. We also know that the following spring smallpox was reported to be raging among the Indians in the vicinity.
To modern ears, this talk about infecting the natives with smallpox, hunting them down with dogs, etc., sounds over the top. But it's easy to believe Amherst and company were serious. D'Errico provides other quotes from Amherst's correspondence that suggest he considered Native Americans subhumans who ought to be exterminated. Check out his research for yourself at www.nativeweb.org/pages/l egal/amherst/lord_jeff.html. He not only includes transcriptions but also reproduces the relevant parts of the incriminating letters.
Come on, everyone knows you should *triangle the wagons.
Don't you remember geometry?
Of course, you should be able to firgure that out on your own.
A blog about stuff.