I downloaded a new game last month on Steam... it's called "Pride of Nations" by Paradox Entertainment, a Swedish design group I've been following for years now. I've played Europa Universalis III with a college professor and other friends, and also the Hearts of Iron series as a solo game... for hundreds of hours.
Interesting point about "gamers"... we don't talk politics. Usually. I mean, everyone is entitled to their opinions and their own pursuits, and I have to thank all my gamer friends who have tolerated my participation over the decades. Like West Point graduates of the mid-1800's,, we know and respect each other.
These games are "epic scale", encompassing the entire Earth: Europa Universalis begins in 1399 and proceeds as far as the early 1800s. Hearts of Iron begins in 1936 and lasts until the end of an eventual World War Two. If anyone wants to understand the expansion of "western civilization" over the world, these two games provide interesting models to consider.
But this latest game, Pride of Nations, just gave me the heebie-jeebies. The game begins in 1850 and ends in 1920. Think of that. Just 70 years-- The "Victorian Age", the beginning of modern warfare. The Age of Imperialism; the Age of Industrialism. The Forge of the Modern Age.
I clicked on United States to begin a solo campaign-- and I just stared at it for a second, a minute, ten minutes... and I had to turn away. Shut down! NO WAY. I can't deal with this.
The US begins the game barely "controlling" the eastern part of what we now call America. The Spanish, the English, the Austrians.. you name it... and the "indigenous peoples" who would eventually be displaced and exterminated like so many Ukranians... I can't handle this "model". It's too real.
But that's the fact of history.. the fact of reality, a fact of "Sovereignty". Serously, what would YOUR foreign policy be in 1850 as the US player?
I have always, for over 30 years, been anti-war, anti-draft, anti-imperialism; yet I have always been drawn to games where the martial arts are involved. The Art of War defines any claim to Sovereignty. This has been true since the first campfires of civilization lit the night sky.
Those who seek Peace should prepare for War. There is no alternative, no reasonable Excuse: "Pandora will shit you out with zero warning."
And I quote Avatar here because, quite frankly it has been the most unquoted film of all time, in spite of it's epic success and acclaim. When YOU seek to establish your personal "foreign policy", you really should resolve the issues presented in Avatar... from both perspectives.
I've tried, but I'm still thinking.
Is there a way to extend "sovereignty" without violating human rights? I think there is. But seriously, I'm looking for input here. Please speak your mind in the comment section below.
It's been some time since I posted this blog, and I haven't posted anything since. Frankly, I had to stand back, way back, and take a look at a bigger picture. I still haven't resolved anything specific, but here are some observations.
ReplyDelete1. America First was a conservative movement of pre-WW2, so it is no strange policy to see Ron Paul advocate isolationism as a conservative policy.
2. I felt completely betrayed by Pres. Obama in the Libya campaign. We were told that it was a humanitarian mission. It was not. Quite the opposite.
3. Leaving the entire continent of Africa without any protection for human rights is morally wrong. Encouraging colonial control is also morally wrong.
4. Immigration policy is an issue of hatred. If you hate people, you're probably against immigration and want a closed door policy with fences, moats and machine gun towers.
I'm still considering my positions on things. Any comments are welcome.