I might be bass-ackwards on this, but I see games that simulate historic/actual events to be something of a teaching tool. Actually participating and doing in a simulation of the region/events at the time will, for me anyway, bring a breadth of understanding and empathy that was previously simple ignorance of a subject. As opposed to seeking out books and reading about what happened first; I'd rather go through a game to learn about something, and if it's interesting, I'll pursue reading on the subject to see how it actually happened.
I admit ignorance in general of how Africa was carved up by the powers-that-be at the time, though the motivators are obvious. While Scramble For Africa being deep sixed is not a huge loss to me, I think it is a missed opportunity to offer insight and possibly expanding horizons of those interested in this history and how things panned out.
You guys know me (well, most of you). I'm not screaming pro-SJW or anti-SJW sentiments, here. A game is a game is a game. We all play games that the normies reading the NYT would probably gasp in horror over. I truly don't see Scramble For Africa as being that big a deal...it really would depend on how it portrays some things. It's not like we're talking about Juden Raus here, though I can certainly see how it could be perceived that way.
In the same vein, playing the Germans in any Eastern Front game could be seen as glorifying Nazism and the destruction of Slavs, Jews, or anyone else, even if those very events are not 'simulated' in such games.
The line is way too fuzzy and gray to draw between what's 'acceptable' and what's not, though some games certainly fall clearly in one category or another.
Topic: NYT Covers Scramble for Africa Controversy (Read 29232 times)