So, despite the fact that I live under a cozy little rock with minimal exposure to a lot of things, I have long been aware of the fact that video games are often very brutal; I know they contain much gratuitous violence, some of the fantastically-grotesque-slaughter variety, what with monsters & demons & such, & also some of the disgustingly realistic, morally bereft sort involving humans. Many are replete with misogyny & other social ills, & I could carry on about this for a long time & talk about many things (such as if they’re going make games of killing things, why don’t they blast cancer cells into oblivion??) but what I really wanted to mention was one particular game has now disgusted me in a different, new way; it’s not the usual gory, visceral shock, but rather, something more theoretical.
You see, I had the misfortune of seeing a commercial (multiple times, alas) on the television for ‘Age of Empires III: The New World’. Immediately I was rather upset by this depiction of armies fighting each other to conquer regions of the world (which are represented on ‘archaic’-looking maps, which look like something you made in junior high Social Studies, spilling tea & singeing the edges with a lighter for that ‘old’ look). You have these various countries from the ‘Age of Exploration’, ‘The Colonial Age’ and ‘The Imperial Age’ & you create a little army of battling colonizers to fight other ‘world powers’ to ‘claim your dominion’ over North and South America. So, essentially a piece of European colonial nostalgia – let’s fight other monarchies for land that isn’t even ours!
It would be one thing to relive European wars between European powers fought on that continent; it would be glorifying wars, yes, but somehow it seems less ideologically abhorrent that ‘taking over’ land in the Americas. Land that is not theirs! Land that cannot even be ‘owned’ according to the worldviews/ philosophies of people who live on it! But no, we’ve got regions like ‘Patagonia’ and ‘The Rockies’, named & packaged up especially for the French, the Portuguese, the English, the Ottomans (?!) to fight over – in a way that is not historically accurate, yet all too realistic.
I am wondering how indigenous peoples are represented in this game, if at all. They aren’t one of the eight or so ‘Powers’ with armies, of course. Are they conveniently wiped off the map by handing out smallpox blankets, hmm? How’s that for historical accuracy? Or are they ignored completely, or pushed into the background just for local flavour? Mind you, they’re all ‘close to nature’ – these savages are ‘part of the land’, remember? Thus, they can be taken over quite easily! Maybe you get extra bonus points for forcing them into situations where all they can do to survive is sign your treaty! Super!
This just truly upsets me on so many levels. I haven’t seen the game played, granted, but what I know of it does not equal good. Why are we reliving the patterns of colonial history, romanticizing it? Glorifying it? I think this is really irresponsible. What is it going to teach children who sit around fantasizing about the exploits of their fictitious-yet-all-too-realistic British armies instead of reading their new Social Studies textbook*?. I worry that people will be even less likely to learn about just how destructive & devastating colonialism has been, and how terrible the aftermath continues to be for many people. It’s ‘over’ but it has left so much impact that cannot be ignored. Many of its structures are deep-rooted & still evident in the attitudes & actions of governments & citizens. But I suppose children playing this on their plasma-screens in their suburban basements don’t know much about exploitation, racism, poverty & marginalization, & likely can’t connect it to the ripples of their ancestors’ actions... Bah. I’d rather that they blow up some zombies...
* Alberta’s new curriculum is actually supposed to have greater Aboriginal Canadian content & representation, which is promising...
* * *
I had a really good conversation* with Sharon on Thursday morning about toponymy & colonization. I learned that the village of Nestow, Alberta, comes from Cree neestao, brother-in-law, and Atim Creek (near Big Lake & my Aunt & Uncle’s house) is Dog Creek. The Sturgeon River is actually Red Willow Creek, Miko’oopow. There are so many forgotten names.
Also, while reading a book by Chase Hensel (Telling Our Selves: Ethnicity and Discourse in Southwestern Alaska) I came across a quote that quite powerfully echoes a lot of my feelings about the colonization of naming, & how the process works:
“That wilderness, “terra incognita” is unconnected land – a place that lacks “knowers”, or those whose knowledge is officially recognized. That is why Lewis & Clark could still “explore” even though they depended on native guides, and why colonial powers could “claim” land already owned [sic] and occupied... wilderness is both created and destroyed by Euro-American culture... [& it is] every bit as real & violent [as physical destruction]. Destroying the knowledge & ties that aboriginal inhabitants have with the land creates wilderness. Only then can wilderness be explored; those who know it intimately must first be removed from the scene. Generally geographic features are renamed to mark this change. For example, the mountain that Tanaina Athapaskans called [sic] Denaali was (re)named McKinley.” (p. 50-51)
This has really made me think about the way I conceptualize the land. There is no place on Earth where we can really say we are in the ‘middle of nowhere’; almost every place (save Antarctica & maybe a few islands, some ice floes in the North) has been inhabited by humans for thousands & thousands of years. Sometimes when I’m wandering around in the bush with my dad, I think of the forest as a place no one has ever been, I sometimes thoughtlessly speak of being in the ‘middle of nowhere’. But even in the stretches of boreal forest where we fish, off the roads past forgotten oil wells, we are somewhere. It has once been someone’s somewhere. Other fishing grounds, trap-lines, camp-sites – it’s silly of me to be even so subconsciously so self-centered, to think I have discovered anything, that this could be ‘nowhere’. There are probably indigenous stories linking creeks & trails, stories I don’t know. There is no untouched wilderness, everywhere is, or has been, somewhere to someone. & we should be careful not to strip the land, its geography, of its stories & knowledge. To do so is a remnant of the colonial mindset.
* I had forgotten that I really like Labrador tea (ledum groenlandicum). It made me feel all heavy & calm. I’m told that it’s good for twitchy people.
***
And, lastly:
http://earth.google.com/
Google Earth, how I love thee!
This can engage me for hours. Really. I discovered it at work, but I have it on my computer now, & am in the process of a little project; I am reuniting Alberta places with their original names... It is quite satisfying.
I think I was a cartographer in a past life (a life where I could draw better & was good at math). Also, I love tilting the perspective & zooming in as I approach mountains, like a bird. I get such thrills from turning the map, looking down over the braided Lymnytsia River to Nebyliw, or retracing my hikes over South Kananaskis Pass. Then I shut my eyes later & feel like I’m still moving. "Maps, they are like the drugs to me!"
No comments:
Post a Comment