So, many wargamers are coming round to the idea that having a more diverse group of players is good for the hobby. Good. But when inclusiveness is dicussed, my impression is that wargamers mostly think about having more women and young people playing. But an important group that feels distanced from wargaming as a hobby are those that don't have a white background. And for them inclusion is harder because they don't share the historical background that white women and young white men have in common with the middle aged white wargamers.
Your chest may swell with 'Men of Harlech' when you see Zulu. But how does a non-white person view such a movie other than as a massacre of dark skinned people? And this is Zulu, which apparently stands out positively for portraying the Zulu as 'worthy opponents', whatever that may mean. Most Western and colonial movies (or popular books like Tarzan and King Solomon's Mines) don't have much time for the faceless opponents of Europe's benevolent harbingers of civilization.
And wargame rules very much copy the frames that are to be seen in the movies and history books from our youths. Titles referring to a 'dark continent', rules with individual white heroes. Their opponents may be mostly cardboard character with wornout colonial stereotypes. And often the stats for white characters will be superior for no other reason than that, well... er....
While I still love the basic idea behind the 'Science vs Pluck' rules of the Sudan wars, it highlights exactly what the problem is with 'colonial' wargaming. The imbalance in violent means is so great that only a significant cock up amongst the Europeans can offer the Mahdist opponents a chance of defeating them. But having this game with only the British side played, it also removes the choices and agency from those opponents. They have become no more than NPC zombies that charge unto their doom against the Maxim guns and Martini Henries.
Would you want to play that as if your roots lay in the Sudan? How are those of Pakistani heritage to enjoy a game about the Northwestern Frontier when the rules take the white men as the point of reference? Likewise, how would an Indian feel about a ruleset on the First Indian War of Independence rather than one about the Indian Mutiny? What is a Maori to think when all the New Zealand tribes are lumped together generically in the painting guide while the facings of each British regiment are specified in detail?
Should we not delve deeper into the question what motivated the Zulu warriors in opposing the British invasion? Why did some Native American tribes or Indian kings side with the French, others with the British, others with the Spanish, and why do they fight each other? And should we maybe seek out conflicts which aren't so one-sided?
The history of colonialism and imperialism has shown that violence was part and parcel on all levels of European expansion. Not only during conquest, but also afterwards. These actions have been rebranded as pacifications, police actions or punitive expeditions, against 'bandits', 'fanatics' and 'restive tribes'. This resulted in genocide more often than just the Bandanese, the Herero, the Tasmanians and Native Americans
If we don't look critically at how we approach these subjects on and around the table (and on social media), we will find that all talk of inclusivity will sound empty to those that we would like to reach out to.
Good point. History usually reflects the preoccupations and viewpoint of the culture that writes it. Are we now able to escape this?
ReplyDeleteI remember talking to some younger gamers who said they avoided historical scenarios because they didn't want to get the history wrong. They either didn't want to do the research or had not researched thoroughly enough. So they stuck to fantasy or science fiction scenarios.
For me - a mature straight white man - I am deeply involved in reading and thinking about history. Gaming is a method that induces me to read more and to think more about the historical scenarios I design games for. But as you say, I should remember to question my assumptions about my viewpoint.
I can see the point of young people not wanting to get history wrong, but then again, they are happy to delve deeply into the lore of Star Wars, GW or comics.
DeletePerhaps it has more to do with not having to argue with old people over it (which might be why at some point they will turn away from SW, GW and comics as well)?
A lot of wargamers are only superficially attracted to the history as well. I remember talking to an American wargamer who had a crusader army in nuce white mantles with red crosses on them.
I suggested that many knights would be wearing their own livery. He agreed, but said that he wanted to painted like the armies he'd seen in the movies when he was young.
Others are happy just to read the Bernard Cornwell books.
Admirable post, thanks for writing it. All I can add is that I once tried to show my wife the "Men of Harlech" sequence from Zulu, of which film she was blissfully unaware. At first she liked the singing, but then she was horrified by the repeated volleys mowing down the Zulus. "Why did you show me that?" she said crossly, and truth to tell, I felt like a bit of a jerk.
ReplyDeleteAs Hilaire Belloc once said, "Whatever happens, we have got, the Maxim gun, and they have not".
Thanks for giving your reaction! I can imagine your wife's reaction. It is a sudden change of tempo if you see it out of context of the rest of the movie.
DeleteI must admit that a lot of wargamers expressing their love of the 'Men of Harlech' scene on social media was one of the things that set me onto this path. It's ostensibly an interesting scene about the effect of singing on morale but the 'We Welshmen can do better than that' line suggests that the white men are even superior in that department. Never mind how it is rooted in historical evidence.
Also, a draft version of this blog included the Hilaire Belloc quote, but sometimes you must kill your darlings. ;-) So I dont mind you adding it at all
The games we play are simulationS of, on the whole, senseless brutality .
ReplyDeleteBlood , burnt bodies, dismembered limbs and general horrid carnage, all simulated with the movement of figures and the throw of some dice.
If we stopped to really think about what you are simulating then we might never do it.
Colonial games add a further twist to that as might a game featuring the SS etc
As for inclusiveness. when I was young I gamed with mostly young white men with a few middle aged older ones. Now I’m older I game with older white men with a few younger white men.
I will happily have a game with just about anyone but there doesn’t seem to be much demand from other demographics to give it a go and I am not sure that there is that much that can be done to change it. Willing to try though if people have some good practical suggestions
Regards
Thanks for taking the time to respond! I've seen from RPGs and boardgames is that it helps to show you are trying. They have expresly set out policies to create a safe environment for women and lgbti at conventions (yes, there was a need to do that, and people have been kicked out for breaking the rules). Maybe we should ask them? I guess that what works in other fields (politics and workspace) also works to some extent in hobbies. The best thing that can happen is of course a sudden influx of young people of all kinds, but you have to be incredibly lucky to have that happen. Until then we can try and persevere and remain open to opportunities
DeleteFine post, Jur!
ReplyDeleteAll miniature wargames which are well intentioned (aiming to create fun) have a place in the hobby. For me, part of that fun is trying to understand why wars and battles are fought, and how they came to be fought in the way that they were - and then trying to replicate that on the battlefield.
I really like the "Science vs Pluck" set of rules, and it gives a very good, and a fun, game. But it's only part of the story - one side, in fact. It misses out on seeing the other side of the battle and the different motivations, rivalries and history of the Mahdist Sudanese. (I say "missing out", not "wrong").
Part of taking a hard look at Colonial gaming is seeing the "other" side, and becoming interested and engaged in that side's perspective. Taking that rounded view - perhaps even playing a reverse "Science vs Pluck" ("Faith and Freedom"?) - is just as viable as a wargame.
I remember reading about hill warfare in Afghanistan in the early 20th Century a few years. I read quite a few books, bu the one which really resonated was “Waging War in Waziristan”, by Andrew Roe. What that book really delivered was an understanding of why the hill tribes of Waziristan were so hostile, uncontrollable and resilient. Without understanding the motivation of the hill tribes to fight, trying to figure out what the British and Empire troops were attempting to do was impossible. I was left with an image of the hill tribes of Waziristan which was every bit as fascinating as the view from the Empire side.
Thanks again for the super post!
Thanks Sidney, always generous! :-)
DeleteI agree fully with your points on finding out why wars are fought and why the way the are fought. Also seeing the other side in research (and showing them in rules, I would add).
Great book suggestion, maybe I can track that down.
Thanks for raising this. I think this is important. I wrote Battles for Empire colonial rules back in the 1990s and these were definitely inspired by those same sources of imperialist white bias that you mention. Since then I have done a PhD dissertation and recently published an article on British 19th century military culture and particularly how warfare (predominantly colonial warfare) was represented in that culture. This has enriched my thinking on the subject of war-game rules. BFE2 was a mechanical revision, but I have just started work on BFE3 with an eye to the issues that you raise and that I contemplated in my academic works. Now, my rules were always out making sure both sides had a chance to win in the right circumstances and played well by their commanders. It was a reaction - historical more than political - to the likes of Peter Gilder's Sudan game that had the Ansar played by the rules (the Zombies). Not my thing. But what lingered on in my rules was the Imperialist language. This was deliberate since the fellows who I knew were inspired to wargaming by exactly that history and culture that made colonial gaming popular. I think this is a big part of the problem of alienating non-white players and my rules were part of the problem. Diction like "dervishes" are period correct from a British perspective, but not correct in terms of describing the followers of the Mahdi and then the Khalifa. Adjusting this language is important. It is not 'political correctness' but historical correctness. Will BFE3 fully address the problems associated with colonial games? No. Battles were rare and often did confirm the organizational and technical superiority of western military systems; of course these could fail spectacularly. But battles were often hard to precipitate since the various indigenous peoples were well aware of their strengths and weaknesses and "battle" often threw the advantage to their opponents. Consequently, colonial wars were defined far more by colonial 'pacification strategies' of destruction in an effort to force capitulation or decisive battle. The former fall outside the context of most miniatures rules so we are left with battles that can be tricky to balance for play purposes and do conjure some of the stereotypes. But when I play colonials it is crucial that the scenario allows both sides to win and use their systems to advantage. Lots to think about. Thanks again for raising this.
ReplyDeleteHi Chris, thank you for responding in depth to my post and being so open about the changes in your approach of the rules over time.
DeleteLike you, when I started wargaming I was stuck with what I had been fed, and like you my views have changed by reading history and follwoing academic discussions about colonial violence, but also how our views have been shaped by the sources through which we access history.
Once you know the colonial stereotypes, it becomes hard to take those sources at face value. Indiginous opponents are always treacherous and hot headed. But the brave white men always keep cool and see through them.
Like you say, the 'pacification' strategies (mostly destroying the livelyhood of the population, or the people themselves) are often the most effective means, with occasional desperate skirmishes. I can see how hard it is to work this into a wargames ruleset.
I think we're being connected by Thomas, so I can get a copy of your rules. I'm very interested to see where they are going!
Some excellent points you have raised. The parallel of colonial gaming with say WW1 or WW2 are not similar. The later wars are more inclusive how both sides are represented, The Germans and Japanese are no longer evil but are just the enemy on a wargame table. Chris is correct in that language and stereotyping needs to be changed probably reflect history. Although there is still a generation that keep the stereotype alive. A mate of mine in the UK his father fought the Japanese in Burma. He says his father hated the Japanese until his last breath. I can see why. However it really is up to our generation to change the culture so that younger gamers are more understanding of the history. I’m 62.
ReplyDeleteHi tjm, thanks for your reaction. I can see how WWII was very much alive for our parents and grandparents. Anti German sentiment was strong when I grew up in the Netherlands, but it is much less now. Germans have a done a lot to achieve that, I must say (much more than the Japanese, so there is still a small group of vehemently anti Japanese people who were in PoW or civilian camps under Japanese occupation). But I guess Japanese and Germans would have no problem joining a Dutch wargames group.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how that applies to post WWII immigrants to the Netherlands. I can see how those of Surinamese or Caribian background would feel uncomfortable with colonial wargaming (coming from former colonies), while people with Turkish or Moroccan ancestry would frown at it more than really have a problem with that. BUt I'm afraid they wouldn't automatically feel welcome in a white middle aged environment.