Racist views

[Rob_A]

I was speaking to someone on a seperate forum about this game, huge discussions have arisen about the racist undertones of the game, I argued the racist is an over used term this day and age, but his argument back pretty much won it for me, heres what he had to say:

African Warlords was suggested on the forums. But its also what Matt has called them. I haven't seen a single reference to the African Union.

As for the other stereotypes: OK, how about the turbans and other cloth head coverings. The vast majority of militia are bareheaded. The whole turban thing is a Saudi thing (and as all know the likelihood of the Americans actually taking them out is nil sadly.). Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, the various Iraqi groups: all are bare headed or wear balaclavas. Taliban wear a rather strange hat I dont know the name of. Another stereotype: militia itself. Most middle eastern armies are comprised of trained, uniformed soldiers. Militias generally only appear in lawless places (Somalia, Iraq, Palestine). I saw the Tunguska too, and was impressed. I also know Matt wants to release more military units but when the first 3 units to turn up are: Militia, Technicals, Fedayeen then I feel that MGP may not be creating stereotypes as much as pandering to their players own.

China is imperialistic yes, but economically. And of course one must question whether they are much more imperialistic than say the US?

As for the racism...well. All the Euros and US are all white. Despite the fact that about 60+% of all US Marines are Hispanic or Black.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that MGP are above all promoting a racist unfair game. But I do think they aren't contradicting players who are.

Of course, it all comes down to your viewpoint. (End quote)

I have told him about Matt's supposed change to the WU and USMC troops to have multi-racial skin tones.
But what he has said about the MEA troops and the African 'warlords'. :?

Anyone else's opinion?
I do think Racist is an overused term, and war does go hand in hand with it, but you have to remember, we live in a politically correct world, you have to make it as real as possible if you want it to not be racist.
Its mostly MEA, this is why i will be looking at several companies for certain minis.

 

[Mr Evil]

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

the thought police attack

its a game, the minis are mass painted,simple.

 

[Rob_A]

I just realised I might have just stepped in it. Whoopsie.

I just want to point out that
A) it should be african Union
and
B) hopefully there are plans for MEA without turbans or wearing less stereotypical clothing.

Thats all, otherwise, please ignore....
Dont make me get blamed!

 

[britneyfan97]

Actually a great deal of Iraqi civilians wear the shemagh as daily attire. It's inconspicuous, can be used as a facial covering that keeps all of that pesky dust out of your face, and if you feel like taking a few popshots at a passing convoy its less conspicuous than a balaclava. It doesnt necessarily mean that they are Saudi.

I do agree there should be a regular army as well. Espescially if there is a forthcoming African faction.

 

[Ben2]

Part of it is process limitations and getting pre-paints right with one skin tone is being done, and then it will move on to multiple skin tones. British and American troops will be those most likely to become mixed race, however while the USMC has a huge proportion of marines that are black, hispanic etc this is far less true of the British. Bare in mind that about 94% of the British population is from a white European background, and while the recruitment of British troops from the Commonwealth skews that figure, it does not massively change it.

For the MEA government troops are on the way, but irregular militias are the norm in Afghanistan and to some extent Iraq, and if the West invade any other countries and push them towards warlordism as has happened in Iraq, then militias are going to be the norm. Given the asymmetric nature of modern warfare militias are here to stay. Iran has trained militia forces, for example, in case of US invasion, so an insurgency can start straight away with a set agenda, instead of slowly gathering speed with a number of conflicting agendas as had happened in Iraq.

However the MEA list is something that was subject to a lot of discussion, and while there were people like me in favour of strict theming ie if you want tanks you must have government troops as your squad choice, while if you select militia you can have x y and z options, Matt left them together to increase player choice. If I do get MEA I will be theming it, and I can see the possible virtue of themed lists in S&P.

On the Africa subject there are several organised and professional armies in Africa, the foremost being that of South Africa. However in countries like Sierra Leone, where we have intervened in the civil war, and the Sudan, Congo and various central African countries, militia forces are closer to the norm. Again what is likely to happen is an army list with a militia option and a government option (possibly the South African army with Centurions).

I can see why the MEA is a loose faction with militia and government troops, and while I would like theming restrictions, players would complain that they would get half as many choices.
The mini design and initial releases is heavily influenced by Iraq and the Lebanon war however, comprised as it was around regular forces. While it would be massively politically incorrect to market a wargame based on the Iraq conflict, that is what BF 2 is based on and BF:Evo drew a lot of inspiration from that. Admittedly after the playtesting and discussion group it draws a lot less inspiration from it, but there is still an influence.

African Union and African Warlord forces will most likely be placed on the same release schedule and you can mix them, to represent African union forces (a professional military) and local forces (militia), in the same way as the MEA.
Note that while Matt is constrained by the requirement to give players choice so they will buy stuff, I am not and so the Merc list I have done forces you to pick a theme and that dictates the equipment and squads that you can choose.

 

[soulman]

Well as they say its a game, its funny, in was on a wahammer type forum, taking about doing a ghost recon type game, and some was alittle shocked about playing modern battles...!!!!!
I guess once a war is so 20+ years over, you are allowed to play on the tabletop..!!

Crazy world indeed, as for the racism card, if i play the USA OR BRITS i will be shouting " die ********* scum " as i runover them with my tank bareheaded or turban.

And if i`m playing the MEA, i will do whatever i can to crush the invading white fave devils..!!!

Its only a game.......

I do hope i have not placed a large log on the fire tonight

 

[Rob_A]

I can see the racist members of our local club being banned!
Our club has strict rules against that. :lol:
yet loads of people are interested.

 

[Poko]

jeesz. some people i guess don't have enough real problems.
im sure all those MEA models are deeply touched that someone stood up to defend their rights :wink:

seriously, most of europe IS white(or do i say causcasian?), so no problem there.
MEA-my guess is that they had to make the starting forces different to each other, hence the release of the militia before the proper military forces for that faction

as for the stereotypes-it's pretty much a given in a game that isn't a simulation to make use of some stereotypes, they make the factions more distingusihable than just by having different guns.

 

[Mr Evil]

im putting camo paint on my guys faces any way

bothered, do i look bothered

(english joke)

 

[Rob_A]

jeesz. some people i guess don't have enough real problems.
im sure all those MEA models are deeply touched that someone stood up to defend their rights :wink:

No need for sarcasm , sure, I might read this and think its not so much of a problem, but a lot of people will not buy it because it simply looks like an American 'comedy' performed by puppets.

seriously, most of europe IS white(or do i say causcasian?), so no problem there.
MEA-my guess is that they had to make the starting forces different to each other, hence the release of the militia before the proper military forces for that faction

I understand this too.

as for the stereotypes-it's pretty much a given in a game that isn't a simulation to make use of some stereotypes, they make the factions more distingusihable than just by having different guns.

Oh yeah of course, but some are ott stereotypes.

I understand all these points, and its fair enough. I do agree, I think rascist is an overused term these days, but for those who are truly rascist, I hold no respect. I think thats their opinion, but its one I am TOTALLY against. Petty racism like saying someone is racist for saying Im white is not, I AM white, just like I know people who are black or half cast, thats just how we speak.
Personally I would go through most of my BF evo USMC and EU repainting skin, seeing as I plan on repainting he faces at a minimum anyway.

 

[Mr Evil]

i have to add here, i used to play against a guy who was coloured, and he painted his men all white with a black comander, when i asked why no black troopers he said he prefered seeing the white man bite the bullet lol and none of the catachans had convincing afros !!! to be honest only middle class white boys are bothered about other ethnic groups being shown on the table in my exsperiance.

 

[Rob_A]

I would have had a go at him tbh!
Cheeky sod.

 

[BuShips]

One thought about racism is that blood is always the same color. Funny thing, that. :idea:

 

[xeoran]

One thought about racism is that blood is always the same color. Funny thing, that. :idea:

If that isnt a famous quote it should be.

Hands up, twas me who said the above. However I'm very reassured now Matt says the resoning was not to complicate things (previously I was thinking along the lines that if MEA militia can have different colour trousers in a unit then the USMC can have black and hispanic guys.) I don't know jack 'bout the technical matters so I cede to Matt.

To put this in context I was also bemoaning good guy/bad guy matters and national views, ultramodern gaming in general, the lack of a fully political game and a few bits and bobs. I do realise its a game but my years of being trained in philosophy and ethics took over.

To answer Mr Evil my consideration is not ethnic groups being on table but historical accuracy: more than 50% of the USMC is black/hispanic. In the whole discussion I didn't mention adding ethnic groups to for example the British because I know the low numbers enlisted and that Ghurkas were being made. Middle Class white boy...born in Hackney I'll have you know!

To answer something Poko said (and I know I'm stirring the pot but I do love debates). If the militia are to provide variety in the original starting releases how come the other 3 units were professional base troops? And I have no trouble with the Euros being white, only with the USMC.

To answer Soulman: nope. Try playing a Falklands (sorry, Los Malvinas!) game with Argies. Boy will they get pissed! :lol: I don't mind the ultramodern period as such, just its portrayal.

To answer Ben: in Afghanistan they would wear that strange hat thingy (boy does that technical phrase lower my credibility). Iraqi militias are of course supplemented by Iraqi Army and Police units. Militias in Lebanon and Palestine though are more likely to be bareheaded or in balaclavas. Iran may have trained militias but they are hardly the mainstay of the army. Assuming btw that any western power can crush a middle eastern one removes the basis of the MEA's backround (after all, if that where the case all you'd have is a militia army.) My problem is that any alliance would obviously have to be based around mobile forces such as professional armies. Militias are often too tied down to the local area (though I understand their inclusion). Theming as you say seems the way though I understand Matts devotion to making a game rather than something 100% accurate.

To answer Britneyfan: yup, but every time I see pictures of a militia crowd it seems bare heads make up the largest majority. Only in Saudi Arabia do you get near everyone wearing them. Of course I don't mind that they are there but I'd like a mix of shemaghs and similar (or possibly themed militia boxes: Somali, Iraqi, Palestinian etc.).

The full thing can be found here: http://www.conf-federation.org.uk/Board/index.php?topic=8298.0 (If Matt and the mods don't want the link then please do remove it guys.)

Another quote from the discussion is:

Indeed. I feel the trouble is that 80% of the Ultramodern market is in the US and 20% in the UK and that it is almost entirely funded by ex-army or army wannbes (walts?). This of course leads to an assumtion of national and moral superiority. Indeed most of the time that I see folks like the Taliban or the like bandied about the word baddies often crops up. And of course TAG, the biggest manufactorer still, had its first line called..."American Hero's". There is no reflection of the reality where most armies are "the good guys" with only political aims differing between them. And of course those aims differ according more to real politik than morality (remember Tony Blair's "ethical foreign policy" over Maggie and the Tories "pragmatic" one? Under Blair we've gone in Sierra Leone, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Under Maggie and Major we were attacked in the Falklands. Thats 4 vs 1. And Blairs have all been pro-active (though one can argue they were, aside from Iraq, for relatively good causes.).

But hey, c'est le guerre. If I get my Frog-ese right.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Okay guys, I deleted a thread earlier because nationalism was making its way in, and this one will be locked - I'll explain why.

We can understand that a certain sort of person might approach this game with racist or, more likely, nationalist views. What you do around your own gaming tables is your own business.

Personally, I believe that if people get into this game, they may start reading and exploring the wider issues behind today's conflicts. If so, great.

However, the game itself is not inherently racist, nor is it the job of a games company to bear the moral responsibility of others. We have produced a game that is fun to play with enough 'unrealism' in the background to sufficiently separate it from the real world (a truly united European Federation within 15 years? Hah!). What we are concentrating on is the hardware alone.

So, we will be monitoring this forum very carefully. Any hint of nationalism will be deleted - believe me, it is for the best. Talk about the game, talk about the models, the hardware, even the 'politics' of the game world. Leave the real world politics, the racism and especially the nationalism (we all have it somewhere inside us, but it can be restrained) behind.