No. I think it's 3 with a hidden 2 - entertainment with a polemic agenda you seem blissfully unaware of!

In terms of (2) the specific game in question is not thematically anti-colonialism as I pointed out with the "unrest rule"- unless you think that it is pro-colonialism in the present day ... ?

Thinking more broadly: upon posting it did immediately strike me that (1), (2), (3) may have some overlap - thank you for pointing that out. A historical game I suppose can be entertaining and also polemical. I am very biased on this point because I do not like the two processes to mix.

Post scriptum: In the methodology of academic history, however, I think that the processes of (1), (2), (3) are always separate.

Yeah, l mean, Germany keeps all its extensive swastika-themed memorabilia in museums under lock and key. They don't leave that stuff out on the street and if they did - hell - it should be removed.

This leads me to think: would I redesign a Nazi board game? Hell no. That's one step too far :lol:

This leads me to think: would I redesign a Nazi board game? — BigThoughtDropper

How about Lt. Aldo Raines did it in the basement with a Bowie Knife?

In terms of (2) the specific game in question is not thematically anti-colonialism as I pointed out with the "unrest rule"- unless you think that it is pro-colonialism in the present day ... ? — BigThoughtDropper

I haven't played it, but I read a little about it, and just the choice of era is polemic. It speaks to a wider anti-western left wing agenda, to single out the West as conquerors and slavers - which is not entirely untrue, but wasn't everybody until Western civilisation developed more enlightened ideals? It's bizarre that values developed by the West toward the end of the period, 1492 to 1797, are used against the West, to criticise its pre-history!

How about Lt. Aldo Raines did it in the basement with a Bowie Knife?

Had to Google that - and :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Yes, that is a redesign we can all get behind

I will address both the narrow and broad issues in your comment.

On the narrower issue of this specific game - I think the designers, German, did not quite appreciate how colonialism is viewed in other countries - such as the USA and UK. This is possibly because the Nazi legacy of Germany far far overshadows its colonial legacy. Needless to say, such a theme would fall at the first hurdle in the UK or in the USA. So despite what is says on the box this game really glosses over some horrid history and is not "leftist" as you say.

The broader issue, I think, is the familiar argument that Western countries get too much stick for their expansionary foreign policy in the 19th century

"expansionary foreign policy", by the way, is a diplomatic phrase. The "leftists", as you name them, would prefer the term "ruthless exploitation".

We can argue until we are blue in the face about historicism and whether we should moralise about events that took place at a time when morals were entirely different to the present day.

What is incontrovertible is that the riches reaped by our ancestors -

(well, not mine - they were Polish and under the heel of the Russian Tsars for the entire 19th century. But I identify as British and thus feel subject to the proverbial "white guilt" over the British Empire)

- will echo far into the 21st century. Albeit that British colonies seem to have done better than others.

NB. notwithstanding the brutal methods employed by the British, ref: the Mau Mau, ref: second Boer war, ref: Bengal famine, ref: opium wars, ref: Amritsar, ad infinitum.

But take for example the tragic case of the Congo. Gutted, eviscerated, disembowelled by Belgium. Is it merely a coincidence that the Congo has been for many years a chronically war torn region?

ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State

The legacy of the 19th century is with us today. Our wealth is built upon the backs of the world's poor.

The legacy of the 19th century is with us today. Our wealth is built upon the backs of the world's poor. — BigThoughtDropper

At last, your values become clear. And the problem with your values is that they're poised between a truism, and being utterly false. They're false because by far the larger part of the wealth created by western civilisation is a consequence of the scientific revolution, than it is slave labour. Yet at the same time, what wealth isn't built upon exploitation of some kind? Even planting crops requires disturbing the natural order, and exploiting the fertility of the soil for "our greedy, selfish ends!" I don't condone the excesses of Empire, but the world is dynamic, and people have been moving about, conquering and exploiting each other for the entirety of human history. We wiped the Neanderthals out altogether. In terms of historic injustices - I'd start there!

They're false because by far the larger part of the wealth created by western civilisation is a consequence of the scientific revolution

Technology is the means and not the ends. Please see the below:

(apologies for using Wiki but Google Books never links correctly/ has the books I want)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_British_Empire

If you have an argument to make, I have no objection to you quoting wikipedia, and posting a link, but you have to explain what your argument is - and quote a relevant passage. This one liner and a link is unacceptable, and I won't be responding further. Thanks for your lack of effort!

Thanks for your lack of effort! — counterpunch

Good grief, there's no need to be so bloody rude.

Good grief, there's no need to be so bloody rude. — BigThoughtDropper

So it's not rude to point a giant spotlight at the origins of western civilisation, and criticise particularly and relentlessly in terms of modern day moral values - values that Western civilisation only latterly developed, and then when challenged on this, melt down and start listing real world colonial atrocities - like the rabid commie dog you are? I think that is rude - to all who have struggled to create civilisation from the brutality of a state of nature, and false to the far greater good that has been achieved.

So it's not rude to point a giant spotlight at the origins of western civilisation, and criticise particularly and relentlessly in terms of modern day moral values - values that Western civilisation only latterly developed — counterpunch

I tend to agree that it doesn't make sense to single out Westerners for criticism. Slavery, for example, existed for many centuries in Ancient Egypt, and other parts of Africa, Asia and the Americas before it became widespread in the Roman Empire and its European successors.

If we condemn something we should condemn all perpetrators not just Europeans. So, it does look like there is a political and potentially racist agenda here.

Thanks for the thoughts - I would refer you to my reply above to [counterpunch] — BigThoughtDropper

No problemo!

I tend to agree that it doesn't make sense to single out Westerners for criticism. Slavery, for example, existed for many centuries in Ancient Egypt, and other parts of Africa, Asia and the Americas before it became widespread in the Roman Empire and its European successors. If we condemn something we should condemn all perpetrators not just Europeans. So, it does look like there is a political and potentially racist agenda here. — Apollodorus

BigPantsDropper needs to realise that slavery is what happens in absence of the philosophies, politics and economics of capitalism. It's the market mechanism that allows for the production and distribution of goods and services without overarching political control - thus allowing for personal and political freedom. Relative to slavery, the invisible hand is a miracle - and there's almost no-one pointing this out in face of an increasingly screechy - anti western, anti capitalist, politically correct, neo-marxist agenda.

My particular interest is sustainability - which may seem like a bit of a digression, but isn't. The left have dominated discussion of the climate and ecological crisis for decades, and have very successfully fed anti-capitalist assumptions into the collective consciousness via the green agenda - even while political correctness constructs authoritarian politics. The woke are sleep walking into a trap.

People should try playing these types of games. Many people go around thinking they are morally perfect, but when playing a game where winning means utilizing concepts like slavery, occupation and terror it might put the assumptions of morality the player have into a thought experiment.

It's more or less like reading a story about an SS soldier's perspective and justifications, you don't do that to agree, but to broaden understanding and testing your own moral values.

If people won't dissect their own moral values, their ideas, and only shield themselves by ignoring everything around them that is in a collision course with those ideals, then how do you truly know yourself?

BigPantsDropper — counterpunch

I told someone once that all every man ever wanted was for her to drop her pants. :lol:

BigPantsDropper needs to realise that slavery is what happens in absence of the philosophies, politics and economics of capitalism. — counterpunch

I think there is little chance of him (or her) realizing that. But I agree that the left have been dominating discussion on climate and ecology and have been feeding anti-capitalist assumptions into the collective consciousness via the green and other agendas.

In fact, every single issue these days tends to serve as a stick to beat capitalism. Even racial equality movements are now openly campaigning against "capitalism", "patriarchy" and anything they see as representing western, i.e., white culture.

At the same time, the appalling crimes committed by tyrannical regimes in China or Africa and other places are totally overlooked or covered up and so are cultural elements involving FGM or the suppression of women's rights in non-western societies. They conveniently forget that slavery is still practiced by natives in Africa, Asia and elsewhere.

So, yes, it looks like the woke are digging their own grave (and everybody else's) like the Russian radicals who supported the revolution only to be liquidated by Lenin and Stalin after the event. I'm not sure if Lenin actually used the phrase but "useful idiots" seems like an apt description.

The question is whether the anti-capitalist, anti-western and anti-white left acts on its own or with the collaboration and support of rogue elements within the capitalist camp who share the left's agenda to monopolize financial, economic, and political power and abolish democracy.

The question is whether the anti-capitalist, anti-western and anti-white left acts on its own or with the collaboration and support of rogue elements within the capitalist camp who share the left's agenda to monopolize financial, economic, and political power and abolish democracy. — Apollodorus

Difficult post to respond to. With most people, I usually have much to disagree with!

The reason sustainability is such an important issue - politically, is that if the left were correct, capitalism must inevitably fail. And because the left have dominated the green agenda for decades, they wrote the book - convincing everyone of a limits to growth approach, that relates in turn to Malthusian pessimism.

Malthus wrote his Essay on Population in 1798. It was enormously influential, even while fundamentally mistaken. His premise was that because population growth is geometric: 2,4,8,16,32, etc - while agricultural land can only be created arithmetically: 1,2,3,4,5,6 etc, population must inevitably outstrip food supply and there will be mass starvation. He was proven utterly and outrageously wrong. We invented tractors and fertilizers, and food production easily outpaced population growth, even doing so with less agricultural labour.

Malthus didn't take account of the fact that human beings are inventive and productive problem solvers, less yet the role of science and technology. Nonetheless, we see this same conceptual framework in the seminal 1972 Limits To Growth (Club of Rome discussion paper) by Meadows, Meadows, Randers and Behrens.

"The Limits to Growth (LTG) is a 1972 report on the exponential economic and population growth with a finite supply of resources, studied by computer simulation."

This same idea of sustainability within finite means is the entire justification for the pay more/have less, carbon tax this/stop that, wind/solar approach to a battery powered future, accepted by left and right. Yet it's utterly and outrageously false.

The left have dominated the field so long, the right seem completely unaware of how false this limits to growth idea is, and are mired in climate change denial - and perhaps therefore, unable to examine the question of whether capitalism is sustainable. And as it turns out, capitalism is sustainable, so why allow the left to park the tanks on the lawn?

Scientifically and technologically, it's possible to sustain capitalism because - as a matter of physical fact, resources are a consequence of the energy available to create them, and the energy is available: right beneath our feet, a virtually limitless source of high grade, constant clean energy. Are there reasons some capitalists would not want to exploit this free energy resource?

No, because that would imply the operation of an illegitimate cartel! So clearly not! They just don't know any better than commit to wind and solar - which will cost an absolute fortune, barely take the edge of carbon emissions, last 25 years then cost an absolute fortune to replace, and always require a parallel fossil fuel generating capacity as back up!

No, because that would imply the operation of an illegitimate cartel! So clearly not! — counterpunch

I can see your point. However, personally, I would tend to be less sure.

True, capitalism is about free enterprise and plurality of business interests. But that is only the rule and every rule has exceptions. The great exception in capitalism is monopolism, the tendency to accumulate and concentrate capital and, along with it, financial, economic and political power. This is why Marx believed that capitalism will eventually bring about its own downfall.

However, the leaders of capitalism, the big industrial and financial interests, realized that in order to preserve their power they had to maintain the illusion of a free, capitalist society by allowing some plurality of business interests while dominating finance, economy and politics from behind the scenes. This has been described in detail in The Anglo-American Establishment by C Quigley

The same capitalist interests have also been behind the environment and other movements used by the left to undermine capitalism in an effort to give the impression that they are in favor of a more democratic society and sustainable economy.

I can see your point. However, personally, I would tend to be less sure. — Apollodorus

I'm being less sure on purpose. I don't want to get tangled up in illuminati type conspiracy theories about the operations of capital, I don't even pretend to understand. Political philosophy is a very different branch of knowledge from high finance. I have no idea who's got all the dough IRL!

My principle concern is the viability of a sustainable future, and in my view, the only way it works out is with limitless amounts of clean energy from magma, to power carbon capture and storage, desalination and irrigation, and recycling - using hydrogen as a fuel and storage medium, and on that basis positively building a sustainable relationship with the natural world going forward.

Sustainability is not viable as increasingly authoritarian government imposing ever greater fuel poverty, to protect natural resources from the starving masses. That's the power mad, anti-capitalist future the left seem to want - and the window to avoid this terrible fate is closing fast, as Biden et al commit $6trn or something like that, to windmill building, (surely believing entirely that's the right thing to do, advised by a field dominated by left wing anti capitalist thought for decades.)

But if we create a sub-optimal technological infrastructure we will be locked into a sub-optimal future, and the politics and economics then unfolds toward economic, political and environmental catastrophe. It won't work! See Energy and Entropy - on page one of your physics textbooks! We need massively more energy to strike that balance between human welfare and environmental sustainability. Not less! Less energy is a disaster! By comparison, I don't care in the least who's got all the dough IRL!

Political philosophy is a very different branch of knowledge from high finance. — counterpunch

I'm sure it is. However, I think it is rather difficult to imagine politics without finance. Indeed, one of political leaders' primary concern is how to finance their political programs and how to persuade the leaders of finance and industry to support their projects. And this is where politics and finance necessarily intersect or converge. But I agree that not everyone finds this a topic of interest.

I'm sure it is. However, I think it is rather difficult to imagine politics without finance. Indeed, one of political leaders' primary concern is how to finance their political programs and how to persuade the leaders of finance and industry to support their projects. And this is where politics and finance necessarily intersect or converge. But I agree that not everyone finds this a topic of interest. — Apollodorus

One can only do so much. If I have shown that it's possible to secure a prosperous sustainable future by sustaining capitalism with limitless amounts of clean energy; accounting for its externalities - not by internalising them to the economy, but by internalising them within a bubble of clean energy from magma as large as our ambitions can make it, I trust people will make the right decisions. The only alternatives are horrendous. I do think this is the right move for our species - and that employing and sustaining the infrastructure of capitalism is the only realistic means of applying the necessary technology in short order, with minimal disruption.

it's been two years since I abandoned this forum out of embarrassment for having broken the proverbial "poker face" while debating philosophy. I am back, Barbara Streisand style, and I was going to write a message of apology to "Counterpunch" and others, notwithstanding their questionable behaviour (I notice that the Mad Fool has been since banned); but it would appear you are the only one who is still active on the forum. Thank you for your thoughtful response (belated I know) which has given me quite a bit of food for thought. Perhaps I will debate this question again on the forum in a wiser and more mature way. and if I do I certainly hope you will drop in and offer your perspective :)