There are a number of games I've seen that have offended people such that they will not play them.
I'm not talking about games like Juden Raus or Up Against the Wall... that, while offensive to people now days, are more an artifact of their times then they are a game created with modern sensibilites.
And I'm not even talking about intententionally offensive games like Ghettopoly.
I'm talking about games meant for a mainstream audience (insomuch as there is a mainstream audience for niche board games).
There's the obvious games about WWII that draw ire. In fact I've seen accusations calling the all war game hobbiest as facist wannabes. WWII games are in particular frowned upon in some quarters because they allow players to "play" the Nazis. There's a lot of hemming an hawing about how appropriate this is. But check out the most recent edition of Axis & Allies and you will not see a single swastika. In the original version you'd think Erwin Rommel led the third Reich.
Some frown on war games in general about all the death. And I have to admit, playing a game of Paths of Glory weirds me out due to the amount of carnage represented. WWI must have sucked.
But these offenses caused by war games do not surprise me at all.
Let's go for something a little less obvious: Puerto Rico. In Puerto Rico, players try to build buildings and develope plantations in and around colonial era San Juan, Puerto Rico. There's no war, no violence but you do have to "hire" "colonists" that come in on a "colonist" ship. The colonists are represented by little brown disks (make sure you read some of the comments on that picture!).
Puerto Rico defenders say that the colonists are also employed in offices, universities, etc. And therefore the little brown disks represent generic workers. Supposedly the prototype of the game that was used before it was published had blue disks as workers. Nevertheless, many people refuse to play the game for due to this little "colonist" issue.
Now for something that completely surprised me: Imperial. Imperial is a stock market game where players, rather than investing in companies, invest in pre-WWI era European countries. A company's value is a function of how well developed its military and industrial capacity is. A player holding a stock majority in a country can even use its military to attack a neighboring country in order to reduce that county's stock value.
So how does this novel take on the stock market game genre offend? Well, people associate this game's theme with the ideas put forth in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Go figure.
I find it fascinating to see what people, myself included, find to be offensive.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Religious Freedom
I was reading about the holocaust. Interestingly enough when all the foreign national Jews were trying to quit Germany during the initial phases of persecution, it was difficult to evade the Nazis because most nations in Europe at that time put a person's religion on their passport. Americans were lucky in that there was no such mention on US passports.
A friend of ours recently moved to Germany. Part of the visa application asks the applicant about their religious beliefs. Furthermore, according to him, one has to pay taxes to support the popular religions of Germany. An individual gets to choose whether a portion of their taxes go to the Lutheran Church or the Catholic Church.
I was listening to Cherie Blair on NPR. She mentioned that one of the reasons it's expected for a British Prime Minister to be a member of the Church of England is due to the fact that the Prime Minister gets to appoint the Archbishop of Canterbury.
This level of religious interference on the part of government seems so foreign to me.
A friend of ours recently moved to Germany. Part of the visa application asks the applicant about their religious beliefs. Furthermore, according to him, one has to pay taxes to support the popular religions of Germany. An individual gets to choose whether a portion of their taxes go to the Lutheran Church or the Catholic Church.
I was listening to Cherie Blair on NPR. She mentioned that one of the reasons it's expected for a British Prime Minister to be a member of the Church of England is due to the fact that the Prime Minister gets to appoint the Archbishop of Canterbury.
This level of religious interference on the part of government seems so foreign to me.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Playing with Facebook
Well, I tried myspace.com. That website seemed like it was straight out of 1995. What a joke.
Now I'm playing with facebook. You can my account here.
Cheerio!
Now I'm playing with facebook. You can my account here.
Cheerio!
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Shelby Foote's "Civil War"
For the past two years I have been reading Shelby Foote's The Civil War: A Narrative. It's about three thousand pages of detailed history. Having read all that, I don't really know what to say. First of all, it's the first in depth history I've every read. It's still not at the academic level, as far as I know. The the detail is more than anything I've ever experienced.
I was surprised by how repetitive the descriptions of battles became. The attacker either tried to get around the defenders flank, or concentrated forces for a break through. What was tricky and much more interesting was larger scale view of keeping the troops supplied and dealing with the geographical considerations.
What was sobering for me, besides the sheer number of casualties, was the political situation. Hardliners on both sides refused to budge, preferring blood. They, at least, had Lincoln. A moderate despite the South's hatred of him, he was catapulted onto center stage out of no where. Prior to his election he was mostly unknown and lived the life of a typical country lawyer. He served in congress in a fairly unremarkable fashion before losing his seat and returning to Illinois to practice law.
Once he had the job of President, he proved to be a brilliant politician. Then he died, just as the war was ending. Foote talks about him being a sort of late bloomer.
There are some interesting passages. Here's one from Jefferson Davis, Confederate President, which he stated in 1862:
"There is indeed a difference between the [North and South]. Let no man hug the delusion that there can be renewed association between them. Our enemies are a traditionless and homeless race. From the time of Cromwell to the present moment they have been disturbers of the peace of the world. Gathered together by Cromwell from the bogs and fens of the north of Ireland and England, they commenced by disturbing the peace of their own country; they disturbed Holland, to which they fled; and they disturbed England on their return. They persecuted Catholics in England, and they hung Quakers and witches in America."
He continues:
"The issue before us is one of no ordinary character. We are not engaged in a conflict for conquest, or for aggrandizement, or for the settlement of a point of international law. The question for you to decide is, Will you be slaves or will you be independent?"
I find the way he conflates the North with Puritans and the hypocrisy of "Will you be slaves..." fascinating.
Lincoln's second inaugruation address is famous and shows his intended leniency for the south - leniecny he could not practice because Boothe killed him thus putting reconstruction in the hands of the South's worst political enemies. Here's the closing of the speech:
"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan - to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves and with all nations."
Previously in the same speech he had noted:
"If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?"
I think that once evil is entrenched in society it can't help but cause devestation.
Sergeant Berry Benson served in Lee's army from before the war broke out until Lee's surrender to Grant. Here's what he said about war in later years:
"Who knows but it may be given to us, after this life, to meet again in the old quarters, to play chess and draughts, to get up soon to answer the morning roll call, to fall in at the tap of the drum for drill and dress parade, and again to hastily don our war gear while the monotonous patter of the long roll summons to battle? Who knows but again the old flags, ragged and torn, snapping in the wind, may face each other and flutter, pursuing and pursued, while the cries of victory fill a summer day? And after the battle, then the slain and wounded will arise, and all will meet together under the two flags, all sound and well, and there will be talking and laughter and cheers, and all will say: Did it not seem real? Was it not as in the old days?"
Is war a part of us, I wonder? Deep down, do we lust for it? Freud talked about "thanatos", a death instinct, a desire for violence, as being an inherent part of human psyche.
In contrast to Benson, there was George H Wood, a line officer who fought in all the major battles of the army of the Potomac during the last three years of the war. Wood was fatally injured by the accidental discharge of a gun after hostilities had ended. As he lay dying he spoke to his chaplain saying, "[D]o you suppose we shall be able to forget anything in heaven? I would like to forget those three years."
I was surprised by how repetitive the descriptions of battles became. The attacker either tried to get around the defenders flank, or concentrated forces for a break through. What was tricky and much more interesting was larger scale view of keeping the troops supplied and dealing with the geographical considerations.
What was sobering for me, besides the sheer number of casualties, was the political situation. Hardliners on both sides refused to budge, preferring blood. They, at least, had Lincoln. A moderate despite the South's hatred of him, he was catapulted onto center stage out of no where. Prior to his election he was mostly unknown and lived the life of a typical country lawyer. He served in congress in a fairly unremarkable fashion before losing his seat and returning to Illinois to practice law.
Once he had the job of President, he proved to be a brilliant politician. Then he died, just as the war was ending. Foote talks about him being a sort of late bloomer.
There are some interesting passages. Here's one from Jefferson Davis, Confederate President, which he stated in 1862:
"There is indeed a difference between the [North and South]. Let no man hug the delusion that there can be renewed association between them. Our enemies are a traditionless and homeless race. From the time of Cromwell to the present moment they have been disturbers of the peace of the world. Gathered together by Cromwell from the bogs and fens of the north of Ireland and England, they commenced by disturbing the peace of their own country; they disturbed Holland, to which they fled; and they disturbed England on their return. They persecuted Catholics in England, and they hung Quakers and witches in America."
He continues:
"The issue before us is one of no ordinary character. We are not engaged in a conflict for conquest, or for aggrandizement, or for the settlement of a point of international law. The question for you to decide is, Will you be slaves or will you be independent?"
I find the way he conflates the North with Puritans and the hypocrisy of "Will you be slaves..." fascinating.
Lincoln's second inaugruation address is famous and shows his intended leniency for the south - leniecny he could not practice because Boothe killed him thus putting reconstruction in the hands of the South's worst political enemies. Here's the closing of the speech:
"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan - to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves and with all nations."
Previously in the same speech he had noted:
"If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?"
I think that once evil is entrenched in society it can't help but cause devestation.
Sergeant Berry Benson served in Lee's army from before the war broke out until Lee's surrender to Grant. Here's what he said about war in later years:
"Who knows but it may be given to us, after this life, to meet again in the old quarters, to play chess and draughts, to get up soon to answer the morning roll call, to fall in at the tap of the drum for drill and dress parade, and again to hastily don our war gear while the monotonous patter of the long roll summons to battle? Who knows but again the old flags, ragged and torn, snapping in the wind, may face each other and flutter, pursuing and pursued, while the cries of victory fill a summer day? And after the battle, then the slain and wounded will arise, and all will meet together under the two flags, all sound and well, and there will be talking and laughter and cheers, and all will say: Did it not seem real? Was it not as in the old days?"
Is war a part of us, I wonder? Deep down, do we lust for it? Freud talked about "thanatos", a death instinct, a desire for violence, as being an inherent part of human psyche.
In contrast to Benson, there was George H Wood, a line officer who fought in all the major battles of the army of the Potomac during the last three years of the war. Wood was fatally injured by the accidental discharge of a gun after hostilities had ended. As he lay dying he spoke to his chaplain saying, "[D]o you suppose we shall be able to forget anything in heaven? I would like to forget those three years."
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Iron Man and Cloverfield
I saw two movies this weekend. Iron Man and Cloverfield.
E and I were able to put the kids to bed and E's sister's house and catch a late viewing of Iron Man. Frankly it's awesome. I don't much like reading comic books and the only Iron Man I've ever read is from the early issues of the Ultimates. But having a suit that does all those things was really cool to me as a kid. Who wouldn't want an Iron Man suit?
Cloverfield I saw on DVD while E was doing some shopping. This is one of the scariest movies I've ever seen. The filming style was completely disorienting and made it so that I, as the viewer, could never really figure out what was going on. My heart was thumping and I was gripping the arms of my chair.
Both movies are rated PG-13 and rightfully so.
Anyway, if you wait until after the credits in Iron Man you will see a scene that foreshadows where Marvel Studios is taking their movies. Imagine a whole series of movies that are both individual and tie in to the greater Marvel universe.
I've always thought a movie about the Avengers would be impossible. There're too many characters and too many famous people that play those characters. I would only be interested in such a movie if it was more in line with the Ultimates (a modern retelling of the Avengers) rather than the Avengers as they first appeared in all their comic book campiness back in the '60s.
What form will Marvel's Avengers movie take?
Well, here's the original Nick Fury:
Here's Ultimate Nick Fury:
Look familiar? Well, they got Samuel L. Jackson to show up in the Iron Man movie as Nick Fury. So I'm thinking Ultimates is where the Avengers movie is going.
If you look at Marvel's movie plans there's another Hulk movie out this year and down the way they are planning another Iron Man movie, a Thor movie and a Captain America movie. Well guess who the Avenger's starting line up is? Finally in 2011, after all these movies have been release we're supposed to get an Avengers movie.
I can't wait.
E and I were able to put the kids to bed and E's sister's house and catch a late viewing of Iron Man. Frankly it's awesome. I don't much like reading comic books and the only Iron Man I've ever read is from the early issues of the Ultimates. But having a suit that does all those things was really cool to me as a kid. Who wouldn't want an Iron Man suit?
Cloverfield I saw on DVD while E was doing some shopping. This is one of the scariest movies I've ever seen. The filming style was completely disorienting and made it so that I, as the viewer, could never really figure out what was going on. My heart was thumping and I was gripping the arms of my chair.
Both movies are rated PG-13 and rightfully so.
Anyway, if you wait until after the credits in Iron Man you will see a scene that foreshadows where Marvel Studios is taking their movies. Imagine a whole series of movies that are both individual and tie in to the greater Marvel universe.
I've always thought a movie about the Avengers would be impossible. There're too many characters and too many famous people that play those characters. I would only be interested in such a movie if it was more in line with the Ultimates (a modern retelling of the Avengers) rather than the Avengers as they first appeared in all their comic book campiness back in the '60s.
What form will Marvel's Avengers movie take?
Well, here's the original Nick Fury:
Here's Ultimate Nick Fury:
Look familiar? Well, they got Samuel L. Jackson to show up in the Iron Man movie as Nick Fury. So I'm thinking Ultimates is where the Avengers movie is going.
If you look at Marvel's movie plans there's another Hulk movie out this year and down the way they are planning another Iron Man movie, a Thor movie and a Captain America movie. Well guess who the Avenger's starting line up is? Finally in 2011, after all these movies have been release we're supposed to get an Avengers movie.
I can't wait.
Monday, May 5, 2008
I'm, Like, Totally Offended!
...Okay, not really.
There are two great ideas I try to live by. One is: "I could be wrong." I learned this is an important outlook while serving as a missionary. If I expected people to change their life view, than I should be willing to change mine. I shouldn't smugly accept the fact that I was living the best of all possible worlds.
This blog is for me to post my opinions without sugar coating them. I accept the fact that my view may be narrow focused, misguided or simply wrong. That's why I like people to post with their ideas.
I want to thank everyone for posting on my blogs. When people want to comment, discuss or provide opposing arguments to my opinion, that's awesome.
But I am going to have to insist that people not put "I hope I didn't offend anybody" disclaimers in their posts. It's annoying.
An individual being honest with their opinions does not constitute offensive content just because it might differ from someone else's. I don't think anyone who has ever posted on this blog means to offend or be disrespectful.
If I think someone is being mean, I'll contact them about it. If you read something that is offensive, feel free to bring it up with the individual who posted it or with me and we can talk about it.
Oh, and I'm not sorry if I offended anyone.*
*Please don't make a habit of posting this kind of disclaimer either.
There are two great ideas I try to live by. One is: "I could be wrong." I learned this is an important outlook while serving as a missionary. If I expected people to change their life view, than I should be willing to change mine. I shouldn't smugly accept the fact that I was living the best of all possible worlds.
This blog is for me to post my opinions without sugar coating them. I accept the fact that my view may be narrow focused, misguided or simply wrong. That's why I like people to post with their ideas.
I want to thank everyone for posting on my blogs. When people want to comment, discuss or provide opposing arguments to my opinion, that's awesome.
But I am going to have to insist that people not put "I hope I didn't offend anybody" disclaimers in their posts. It's annoying.
An individual being honest with their opinions does not constitute offensive content just because it might differ from someone else's. I don't think anyone who has ever posted on this blog means to offend or be disrespectful.
If I think someone is being mean, I'll contact them about it. If you read something that is offensive, feel free to bring it up with the individual who posted it or with me and we can talk about it.
Oh, and I'm not sorry if I offended anyone.*
*Please don't make a habit of posting this kind of disclaimer either.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
What's Up With Dutcher?
A recent post on my family's website left me thinking about Mormon cinema, it's overall suckiness, and the only guy who I've ever seen really get it right, Richard Dutcher.
I loved God's Army. It had some lame "living the Wymount dream" falling action. But the story seemed honest and has been the most realistic depiction of missionary life that I've ever seen, out side of reality of course.
I also really enjoyed Brigham City. It takes standard Mormon stereotypes and turns them on their ear. It's completely subversive. It drew me in with it's tried and true stereotypes and then totally spun everything around. I don't think anyone not steeped in Mormon culture would get half of what he does in this movie. And as it turns out, most people who are steeped in Mormon culture didn't want to have anything to do with it. According to Wikipedia a number of Mormon crew hands were so incensed they walked off the set.
I heard rumors that he was going to make a Joseph Smith movie, but after seeing The Book of Mormon Movie I became completely disenchanted with Mormon cinema and have avoided it ever since.
So, Today I started wondering what Mr. Dutcher has been up too. Well, first of all, I found out he completely agrees with me concerning the state of Mormon cinema. Though I completely disagree with him concerning the power of cinema. The written word will always have more power than a movie.
But he's also jumped out of the boat, so to speak. He's no longer a practicing member of the Church, doesn't plan on making Mormon themed films any more and his next movie is rated R.
I'll leave it for another post to discuss why I think R rated content is like cooking food with poop. (Yeah, you can do it, but why?) For now I'll just return a farewell to Dutcher, albeit belatedly, and also say good-bye to the promise of a good movie about Joseph Smith.
I loved God's Army. It had some lame "living the Wymount dream" falling action. But the story seemed honest and has been the most realistic depiction of missionary life that I've ever seen, out side of reality of course.
I also really enjoyed Brigham City. It takes standard Mormon stereotypes and turns them on their ear. It's completely subversive. It drew me in with it's tried and true stereotypes and then totally spun everything around. I don't think anyone not steeped in Mormon culture would get half of what he does in this movie. And as it turns out, most people who are steeped in Mormon culture didn't want to have anything to do with it. According to Wikipedia a number of Mormon crew hands were so incensed they walked off the set.
I heard rumors that he was going to make a Joseph Smith movie, but after seeing The Book of Mormon Movie I became completely disenchanted with Mormon cinema and have avoided it ever since.
So, Today I started wondering what Mr. Dutcher has been up too. Well, first of all, I found out he completely agrees with me concerning the state of Mormon cinema. Though I completely disagree with him concerning the power of cinema. The written word will always have more power than a movie.
But he's also jumped out of the boat, so to speak. He's no longer a practicing member of the Church, doesn't plan on making Mormon themed films any more and his next movie is rated R.
I'll leave it for another post to discuss why I think R rated content is like cooking food with poop. (Yeah, you can do it, but why?) For now I'll just return a farewell to Dutcher, albeit belatedly, and also say good-bye to the promise of a good movie about Joseph Smith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)