It's somewhat difficult to know what to make of this one. Activision has come under fire, and now apologised for, perceived racist content in its dark and compelling western action game GUN. Essentially, the game kind of painted Native American people as being bloodthirsty savages back in the day when cowboys and Indians did cowboy and Indian stuff, like killing each other a lot. This really annoyed the native American community Stateside who, it must be said, can be a little touchy.
The Association for American Indian Development didn't like GUN one bit and launched an online petition urging people to avoid the game on ethical grounds.
"It has come to our attention that video game publisher, Activision, has released for Xbox 360, Xbox, Playstation , PS2 and PC, a new game set in the American West with some very disturbing racist and genocidal elements toward Native Americans. The game is called "Gun" and features a frontiersman hero named Colton White. One of his earliest tasks that the game player must complete before advancing to the next level is to slaughter, not once, but on an ongoing basis, Apache Indians. Not only slaughter (and this is the terminology used in the game) but to scalp (terminology also used in the game) them as well with a "scalping knife" that can be purchased as part of the many weapons offered to the hero of the game, Colton White."
Perhaps Colton White (which sounds a bit like Cotton White - not ideal) wasn't the best thought out character name, considering the subject matter and released into a country still deeply scarred by racial segregation and a dispicable history of racism...
With a head of steam, the AAID plays its trump card: "To create a game where one must slaughter members of a racial group in order to move forward promotes and condones the near genocide of Native Americans in this country. If a game were created that had its hero slaughter, say African Americans, Irish, Mexicans, or Jews, would there not be an outcry of extreme proportions? We're not talking about generic bandits or outlaws who could be any race - this is a game that specifies the slaughter of a living, breathing existing racial group of human beings. There is no indication of the complexities of the period, even as interviews with it's author, talk about how he was able to delve into the history of the period. Native people during this time were protecting their homeland, their way of life. Something that is instilled in good old American values."
And that's Activision over a barrel right there. As you'll know, publishers never apologise unless they really, really have to. "Activision does not condone or advocate any of the atrocities that occurred in the American West during the 1800s. GUN was designed to reflect the harshness of life on the American frontier at that time," said the publisher in a statement issued today. "It was not Activision’s intention to offend any race or ethnic group with GUN, and we apologise to any who might have been offended by the game’s depiction of historical events..."
And of course that would be an apology. However, the firm does wish to point out that it's not only GUN which uses Native Americans as cannon fodder, explaining that, "...not only through video games but through films, television programming, books and other media," have all given our firework-selling, casino-running friends a rough trot.
Activision was stupid to include the content it did. It's not difficult to imagine the (not Native American) developer excitedly outlining the storyboard and team of other (not Native American) developers agreeing that it sounded really great. This is because to white children growing up in any generation since 1492, Native Americans have only been portrayed as bloodthirsty savages, hampering the furtherment of a great continent with their bemoaning of land rights and such. The dispicable acts of the frontiersmen, the genocide, mass-starvation and downright spiteful way in which a greedy blight of white people forcefully colonised continental America, shipping in tortured slaves from Africa, doesn't really make for good telly - and even worse playground games.
It's a shame that Activision couldn't resist adding a disclaimer to its apology, as much as it's a shame that badly thought out videogame content garners more press than the endless racist mainstream media beamed into our homes and emblazened across the front of our newspapers every single day of the year.
Let us know what you think in the forum below.
The Association for American Indian Development didn't like GUN one bit and launched an online petition urging people to avoid the game on ethical grounds.
"It has come to our attention that video game publisher, Activision, has released for Xbox 360, Xbox, Playstation , PS2 and PC, a new game set in the American West with some very disturbing racist and genocidal elements toward Native Americans. The game is called "Gun" and features a frontiersman hero named Colton White. One of his earliest tasks that the game player must complete before advancing to the next level is to slaughter, not once, but on an ongoing basis, Apache Indians. Not only slaughter (and this is the terminology used in the game) but to scalp (terminology also used in the game) them as well with a "scalping knife" that can be purchased as part of the many weapons offered to the hero of the game, Colton White."
Perhaps Colton White (which sounds a bit like Cotton White - not ideal) wasn't the best thought out character name, considering the subject matter and released into a country still deeply scarred by racial segregation and a dispicable history of racism...
With a head of steam, the AAID plays its trump card: "To create a game where one must slaughter members of a racial group in order to move forward promotes and condones the near genocide of Native Americans in this country. If a game were created that had its hero slaughter, say African Americans, Irish, Mexicans, or Jews, would there not be an outcry of extreme proportions? We're not talking about generic bandits or outlaws who could be any race - this is a game that specifies the slaughter of a living, breathing existing racial group of human beings. There is no indication of the complexities of the period, even as interviews with it's author, talk about how he was able to delve into the history of the period. Native people during this time were protecting their homeland, their way of life. Something that is instilled in good old American values."
And that's Activision over a barrel right there. As you'll know, publishers never apologise unless they really, really have to. "Activision does not condone or advocate any of the atrocities that occurred in the American West during the 1800s. GUN was designed to reflect the harshness of life on the American frontier at that time," said the publisher in a statement issued today. "It was not Activision’s intention to offend any race or ethnic group with GUN, and we apologise to any who might have been offended by the game’s depiction of historical events..."
And of course that would be an apology. However, the firm does wish to point out that it's not only GUN which uses Native Americans as cannon fodder, explaining that, "...not only through video games but through films, television programming, books and other media," have all given our firework-selling, casino-running friends a rough trot.
Activision was stupid to include the content it did. It's not difficult to imagine the (not Native American) developer excitedly outlining the storyboard and team of other (not Native American) developers agreeing that it sounded really great. This is because to white children growing up in any generation since 1492, Native Americans have only been portrayed as bloodthirsty savages, hampering the furtherment of a great continent with their bemoaning of land rights and such. The dispicable acts of the frontiersmen, the genocide, mass-starvation and downright spiteful way in which a greedy blight of white people forcefully colonised continental America, shipping in tortured slaves from Africa, doesn't really make for good telly - and even worse playground games.
It's a shame that Activision couldn't resist adding a disclaimer to its apology, as much as it's a shame that badly thought out videogame content garners more press than the endless racist mainstream media beamed into our homes and emblazened across the front of our newspapers every single day of the year.
Let us know what you think in the forum below.
Read More Like This
Comments
Funky 3 Feb 2006 10:58
1/18
That'll teach Activision to make a game based on history.
Now, let's fire up some lawsuits against EA for making those awful Medal of Honor game portraying Nazis as bad people.
Now, let's fire up some lawsuits against EA for making those awful Medal of Honor game portraying Nazis as bad people.
Scramble 3 Feb 2006 11:03
2/18
As I remember you were friends with a group of Indians and you had to kill the others to help them.
Scalping wasn't reserved for for any race, you bought the scalping knife from a trader and were free to go nuts with it.
S**t, I'd like to see The Rotarians and the RSL's all over the world band together and put another suit on San Andreas for the murder of innocent Senior Citizens.
Scalping wasn't reserved for for any race, you bought the scalping knife from a trader and were free to go nuts with it.
S**t, I'd like to see The Rotarians and the RSL's all over the world band together and put another suit on San Andreas for the murder of innocent Senior Citizens.
more comments below our sponsor's message
thane_jaw 3 Feb 2006 12:14
3/18
well there was a large kerfuffle about the use of hare krishnas in the first gta, but I'd have to take that as any publicity is good publicity. Before GTA my sheltered life meant that Gouranga never registered on my radar. After I was more then happy to donate some money to the Hare Krishnas after I'd learnt about what services they provide in central london. they used to have a soup kitchen where the homeless could go and get free/ extremely discounted food. plus they made me smile when I went down to oxford street and they were having a parade.
The scalping thing, it serves no purpose in the game. Its not counted as a statistic, not used to complete missions and appears only to be something in there to titilate our demand for increasingly violent video games. Also ***spoiler warning*** the main character turns out to be a native american about 4 hours in. It appears that the pressure group either heard about the game or only played the first hour or so (although to be fair if I was playing a generic white man hunter 3, I'd probably be too pissed off to continue playing). I'm not trying to defend the content, the game simply isn't good or tongue in cheek enough to defend on the basis of satire, ala Vice City and the infamous "kill the haitians" mission, where arguable much of the storyline was a mickey take of various ethnic groups and cultural references.
As to it being based on history, it is kinda - but it completely removes any historical accuracy with the story, side missions, dynamite strapped to arrows, gatling guns and auto-loading cannons. Its a shame that activision are being so bullish on this, if inclusion of the native americans had been done with more sensitivity and explored more (although to be fair much of the game content isn't really developed more then it needs to be) there would be a better case for their non-apolagy. As it is, they're just spouting marketing rubbish and getting ready to cancel the sequel.
The scalping thing, it serves no purpose in the game. Its not counted as a statistic, not used to complete missions and appears only to be something in there to titilate our demand for increasingly violent video games. Also ***spoiler warning*** the main character turns out to be a native american about 4 hours in. It appears that the pressure group either heard about the game or only played the first hour or so (although to be fair if I was playing a generic white man hunter 3, I'd probably be too pissed off to continue playing). I'm not trying to defend the content, the game simply isn't good or tongue in cheek enough to defend on the basis of satire, ala Vice City and the infamous "kill the haitians" mission, where arguable much of the storyline was a mickey take of various ethnic groups and cultural references.
As to it being based on history, it is kinda - but it completely removes any historical accuracy with the story, side missions, dynamite strapped to arrows, gatling guns and auto-loading cannons. Its a shame that activision are being so bullish on this, if inclusion of the native americans had been done with more sensitivity and explored more (although to be fair much of the game content isn't really developed more then it needs to be) there would be a better case for their non-apolagy. As it is, they're just spouting marketing rubbish and getting ready to cancel the sequel.
majin dboy 3 Feb 2006 12:59
4/18
The AAID are wrong....GUN is out for the Gamecube aswell.
realvictory 3 Feb 2006 13:01
5/18
Scramble wrote:
As I remember you were friends with a group of Indians and you had to kill the others to help them.
Scalping wasn't reserved for for any race, you bought the scalping knife from a trader and were free to go nuts with it.
S**t, I'd like to see The Rotarians and the RSL's all over the world band together and put another suit on San Andreas for the murder of innocent Senior Citizens.
Scalping wasn't reserved for for any race, you bought the scalping knife from a trader and were free to go nuts with it.
S**t, I'd like to see The Rotarians and the RSL's all over the world band together and put another suit on San Andreas for the murder of innocent Senior Citizens.
The thing is, in reality, it's only a game! It's the responsibility of the player, in my opinion, whether they decide to believe/copy what they see in the game or not. It's obvious that it's not real, and people who don't realise that are the ones with the problem.
It doesn't have to be politically correct, because it's a game, an art form, not a documentary or a religion. It never claimed to be politically correct, so why should it have to be? Movies, books, and even real life isn't fair, so why start picking on games first?
The other thing is, people might believe something you disagree with. That is their right - they don't have to agree with you!
ghostinfo 3 Feb 2006 13:18
6/18
Good points well made.
but it smells like a made up PR job to me
but it smells like a made up PR job to me
Zayne 3 Feb 2006 14:06
7/18
Well, I for one am completely outraged. They forgot to mention GUN was also on Gamecube. Damn their heretic eyes. Etc.
emperorsamoth 3 Feb 2006 14:22
8/18
Funky wrote:
That'll teach Activision to make a game based on history.
Now, let's fire up some lawsuits against EA for making those awful Medal of Honor game portraying Nazis as bad people.
Now, let's fire up some lawsuits against EA for making those awful Medal of Honor game portraying Nazis as bad people.
Now lookee here... Nazis were purposely killing people and taking names, so it would be right to portray them as bad people. What did the American Indians did was to defend their land. They did not invade f**king England or France to expand their Tribes.
I love America as a whole (North, Center and South) but I compare the conquistadors and colonists to the same Nazis you talked about earlier. They came here to take a land that was already populated by Mayas, Incas, Cherokees, Apaches and many other societies... Just so they can kill them and oppress a whole race for centuries almost to the point of extinction in some cases.
emperorsamoth 3 Feb 2006 14:26
9/18
Zayne wrote:
Well, I for one am completely outraged. They forgot to mention GUN was also on Gamecube. Damn their heretic eyes. Etc.
They still make games for that thing?
vault 13 3 Feb 2006 21:07
10/18
You can't just make a game about whatever you want. Plain and simple. You people try making a game about Nazis killing jews and see how long it takes for the s**tstorm to brew. I'm not saying that GUN is bad or wrong or immoral, I have not played it. I was just commenting on a previous post. Also, the native americans were not and never were savages. We, the ones of Eurpoean descent, drove them to fight and drove them to little patches of land where we could buy cigarettes cheap and gamble freely.
realvictory 3 Feb 2006 23:44
11/18
Why can't you make a game about whatever you want? It's art, and you should be allowed to say what you want. Who are you representing with the game? You're representing yourself, therefore you should be able to say what you want in a game.
Of course people are going to disagree, because not everyone believes the same thing. Well, that's just tough s**t, and it's the consequence of expressing yourself.
Don't compromise your art just because people disagree, because you're never going to please everybody at the same time.
On the other hand, people who make inane art and s**t games are rubbish. But those are matters of opinion.
Of course people are going to disagree, because not everyone believes the same thing. Well, that's just tough s**t, and it's the consequence of expressing yourself.
Don't compromise your art just because people disagree, because you're never going to please everybody at the same time.
On the other hand, people who make inane art and s**t games are rubbish. But those are matters of opinion.
Joji 3 Feb 2006 23:51
12/18
I think there's a bit of an over reaction in this. True the native american folk were cheated out of their land and aren't evil or anything. But if you look at Gun in the sense of a period drama, while it may not be totally accurate back then these kinds of 'injuns are the enemy' attitudes existed'.
And yes many were killed for no reason at all, lots of them were killed by the ol' yankee army, the same one that's currently doing the same in Iraq (what a strange coincidence).
Have you folks ever watched Dances with Wolves or Deadwood tv series? Both have the same kind of goings on with native americans, being called names and generally killed brutally. To attack Activision for Gun you'd also have to include these too. Where will it end then?
Being a person of colour myself, I don't go around waving banners because of the spanish used to rely on african ancestors as slaves. Ofcourse I don't agree with it, that is history and we must learn from it and treat people better. A film like Amistad is there to help us learn to be better people as well as to teach a recorded moment in history, no matter how painful.
I didn't see the japanese complaining about Medal of Honour: Rising Sun, when it was released in japan either, and sold pretty well. Sure, they could have complained, but they know it's just historical and in no way supposed to affend he japanese.
And yes many were killed for no reason at all, lots of them were killed by the ol' yankee army, the same one that's currently doing the same in Iraq (what a strange coincidence).
Have you folks ever watched Dances with Wolves or Deadwood tv series? Both have the same kind of goings on with native americans, being called names and generally killed brutally. To attack Activision for Gun you'd also have to include these too. Where will it end then?
Being a person of colour myself, I don't go around waving banners because of the spanish used to rely on african ancestors as slaves. Ofcourse I don't agree with it, that is history and we must learn from it and treat people better. A film like Amistad is there to help us learn to be better people as well as to teach a recorded moment in history, no matter how painful.
I didn't see the japanese complaining about Medal of Honour: Rising Sun, when it was released in japan either, and sold pretty well. Sure, they could have complained, but they know it's just historical and in no way supposed to affend he japanese.
thane_jaw 4 Feb 2006 01:39
13/18
Comparing a game enacting the atrocities of ww2 to GUN is a slight over generalisation. The reason that the germans and Japanese are able to buy and enjoy these games is the complete cultural stigma attached to the Nazis and Japanese actions during WW2 (Germany and France are the other countries cited by Google, aside from China, where the Goverment has asked for restrictions. In this case on access to Nazi websites. Chinese gamers are petitioning a japanese MMO over the non-reference to atrocities carried out in china during and pre WW2). Also most of these WW2 games don't make such a big deal out of it. In WW2 fighter (as in aeroplanes) games, sure you can play as the Nazis, they'll just take out the nasty, dubious moral bits. I'm not trying to defend anything, I'm just saying that occasionally (for right or wrong) people enjoy the simulation of war - never mind who's side their on or the ideology. A game where Nazis killed jews wouldn't happen (except in a sick dungeon keeper kind of way. see I don't even approve of the idea of this game but I can see how it would be designed) because of the sensitivity of the subject.
Talking about racial stereotyping in games, I'm suprized no ones sued the U.S. army over America's Army. A game where you're constantly fighting "insurgents" who happen to look like middle eastern terrorists. BF2, again a middle eastern bunch of terrorists. C&C Generals - GLA are basically arab terrorists.
I understand that previously oppressed minorities need to fight for what is theirs a lot of the time. However I do feel they screw it up for other disadvantaged groups by over-zealously going after these goals. This case of activision being reprimanded by a group who appear to have not even played the game fully is, in my opinion, utterly stupid. There is questionable content within GUN, but none so near as "kill the haitians". What story there is in GUN, goes as far as possible (in aproximately 20/30 minutes of cutscenes. I must confess to skipping a couple, I'm an impatient gamer) to present, by the end, native americans in a positive light, whilst greedy white men in a poor light. Poor poor poor attack on the game, but because the layman doesn't play games I can see activision getting screwed unfairly on this, people losing interest in cases like these in general, whilst those deserving of interest (like that stupid game where the object is to Ariel Sharon as the last boss. Something to do with cleansing the streets of New York from the non-pure) will fall by the wayside.
Ugh, sorry for the long winded post.
Talking about racial stereotyping in games, I'm suprized no ones sued the U.S. army over America's Army. A game where you're constantly fighting "insurgents" who happen to look like middle eastern terrorists. BF2, again a middle eastern bunch of terrorists. C&C Generals - GLA are basically arab terrorists.
I understand that previously oppressed minorities need to fight for what is theirs a lot of the time. However I do feel they screw it up for other disadvantaged groups by over-zealously going after these goals. This case of activision being reprimanded by a group who appear to have not even played the game fully is, in my opinion, utterly stupid. There is questionable content within GUN, but none so near as "kill the haitians". What story there is in GUN, goes as far as possible (in aproximately 20/30 minutes of cutscenes. I must confess to skipping a couple, I'm an impatient gamer) to present, by the end, native americans in a positive light, whilst greedy white men in a poor light. Poor poor poor attack on the game, but because the layman doesn't play games I can see activision getting screwed unfairly on this, people losing interest in cases like these in general, whilst those deserving of interest (like that stupid game where the object is to Ariel Sharon as the last boss. Something to do with cleansing the streets of New York from the non-pure) will fall by the wayside.
Ugh, sorry for the long winded post.
Trace 4 Feb 2006 18:39
14/18
A lot of you people are missing the point here. Scalping in Native American religion meant that the person's soul couldn't enter the afterlife. So in effect, it's the biggest possible offense that could be committed against a Native American and it's justified that people are more then a little pissed off.
DoctorDee 5 Feb 2006 13:40
15/18
realvictory wrote:
It doesn't have to be politically correct, because it's a game, an art form, not a documentary or a religion. It never claimed to be politically correct, so why should it have to be? Movies, books, and even real life isn't fair, so why start picking on games first?
But we live in a world where many young people "learn" 96% of all they are ever going to know aboug the world from movies, games and things written on bathroom walls.
These people deserve our protection.
PresidentEvil 5 Feb 2006 13:52
16/18
vault 13 wrote:
We, the ones of Eurpoean descent, drove them to fight and drove them to little patches of land where we could buy cigarettes cheap and gamble freely.
I think you'll find we didn't "drive" anyone anywhere, all this happened long before Gerry Ford inventerated the automobile. And anyhow, we would not want their dust feet or smelly buck-skins in our nice new Studebakers.
The near eliminization of the Red, or if you will Native American, Indian was a simple matter of market forces. When they offered nothing to the market their success deminished. When they realised that they could offer cheap cigarettes, gambling-without-going-to-Vegas and fireworks convenience to the community, they began to prosper.
As for them being forced to live on small areas of land, that's bull-crap. They are free to travel to whatever part of the United States they wish to in order to take up minimum wage manual labour. The thing is, we're back to the free market again, because Hispanishic and negroid people have aready identified and exploited that market need. Red American Natives will have to competitivize agressiviley in the sub-minimum wage marketspace if they hope to offer a market benefit to companies wishing to fire Hispanic and Black-colored people.
But instead, they prefer to remain on their reserves, running casinos and driving Mercedes Bens and laying around drinking all day. And that is their god given right, and it keeps them away from the nice golf clubs. Gobless Merka.
tg0006 5 Feb 2006 15:17
17/18
I dont see an arguement here. Some tribes of native american tribes were known for killing without mercy and some were friendly
thane_jaw 5 Feb 2006 23:06
18/18
tg0006 wrote:
I dont see an arguement here. Some tribes of native american tribes were known for killing without mercy and some were friendly
Bad choice of logic there. Do the descendants of those tribes sue Microsoft over the fact that there are no bloody thirsty natives in Age of Empires 3? In particular if you're subscribing to the differing camps of indians pov, then surely you'd expect some attempt to address the balance within a video game - instead of either good or bad?
Trace wrote:
A lot of you people are missing the point here. Scalping in Native American religion meant that the person's soul couldn't enter the afterlife. So in effect, it's the biggest possible offense that could be committed against a Native American and it's justified that people are more then a little pissed off.
If they were so concerned about that aspect of scalping they would have referred to it explicitly in their petition. They're more concerned with the genocide aspect of GUN. Scalping is mentioned twice as an example of the violence you can perform on indians during the game, nothing more.
In particular they do have some valid points. The character does regret letting some "injuns" get away (Gotta catch them all!) and apparently the official strat guide makes light of all the bloodshed caused by Cotton, by refering to a "karmic cleansing" (!) when he rescues the "injuns" from a train.
I have since revised my opinion of this issue from previous postings and upon replaying of the game. There is an element of flippancy to the whole treatment of native americans in the game. In spite of discovering your roots later on, it doesn't go out of its way to explain why your earlier actions were so regretable. Instead the developers sweep that under the carpet and you're suddenly allied with the indians and no more is said. Some of the AAID's arguments are similar to those denouncing violence in video games because the impressionable kids might get at it, but there is blatant stereotyping of racial prejudices which isn't done with nearly the same amount of humour and fun as that other game GTA.
It just could all have been done a bit more tactfully, maybe consultation with tribes would have helped (I mean it was released on 4 systems, so I'm guessing it wasn't just a game you whack out because its christmas. Although...) - however the game is so short that its not known whether this could have been achieved in a game with a greater amount of content.