Hey everyone! I know the article was kind of long but what did you guys think? So in the article Bigelow talks about how Oregon Trail and Oregon Trail II are "sexist, racist, culturally insensitive, and contemptuous of the earth." When I first read the introduction to see what the atricle was going to be about I thought this guy must be crazy to think such things of our favorite childhood computer game. Then I started reading and was actually stunned by what Bigelow suggests.
Bigelow talks about when we play the game it is always from a white man's perspective. He says eventhough there probably the same amount of women on the trail as men you never actually see the game from the women's perspective of how life was really like on the actual trail. It is the same way with the Indians and with the Afican Americans. Being that the game was probaby trying to show equality as best as possible do you think it is better for kids to play the game as it is right now or do you think the game should really show what happend in on the real Trail? Today since we always try to teach our kids that racism is bad and to treat everyone as equals do you think it would be bad or good to change the game to where you could play it as a woman on the trail, or as an Indian, or an African American? Would it be helpful or hurtful for kids to experierience the hurtfulness these people acutally suffered while going on the trail? Also, how do you feel after reading the article about how accurate the actual game is? Do you even think kids are learning anything from actually playing the game? Do you think if someone wanted to write a book about the Oregon Trail they would be able to write the book just based on the game? If not, then is the game even worth playing for educational purposes?
I hope you all found the article at least a little interesting, I know for me it kind of took me back to the days when we would go to the computer lab and try to make it to the end of the Trail. I hope everyone has a wonderful weekend!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I thought this article was interesting. I honestly don't think that we should make Oregon Trail like the real trail. Remembering back, I think I was like 7 or 8 when I played this game with my brothers. I think that if we were to portray what really happened, such as people being killed etc, it would be too much. However, I thought some of his ideas at the of the article were goods ones . He mentions giving people the option to decide what race you want to be. This way the player can experience all aspects of the trail from the different perspectives involved. For instance, if you choose to be Native American you would experience things from their point of view. I think this is a good idea with any time of game whether it be a video game or computer game. Ultimately, I think that we could do things to make it a little more equal when it comes to the different races and sexes in the game, but I don't necessarily think we should go so far as to depict the extremely graphic things that occurred because the majority of the people who play this game are younger kids. It is important for them to learn about these things, but I don't really know for sure if I think the game should be made that way. What do you guys think?
When I was younger and would go to the computer lab to play that game, it would be the highlight of my week. I'd also like to make the point that I was like 9 years old. So Bigelow makes many statements as to why the game is racist, sexist and culturally wrong. I read them and I guess looking at it now I can agree and see why he says those things. However, I think that game is meant for younger people who are just learning how to play and are getting used to computers and how they work. I don't think that they need to know about people dying along the way, and the indians fighting the white men and the slaves doing whatever. I think they should teach the kids in History class about the Trail and give them an inclination as to what happened to some people, but I don't think details and graphics need to be added to the game. I'm not saying that the white man's perspective is the only way to go, but maybe allow the kids to choose what race/gender they would like to be.
I actually thought the Oregon Trail article was pretty interesting. I remember playing the game when I was little but I don't remember any of the details...it would be really interesting to go back and play the game now that I've read the article.
Even though I have never played Oregon Trail II, the author made some really good observations that I probably never would have realized if I had played it.
I don't know how I feel about the game being re-made to make it more realistic for children...I think the truth may be too much for them at the age when they are learning about that stuff in school. I do, however, feel like they should be taught about what life was like for the Native Americans on that land and the role of the woman, but perhaps by a teacher that could explain better then a game would be able to.
In my opinion (imho??) I think this article is completely absurd. First off, the Oregon Trail games are created with the best intent, to teach kids about history, math, science, health, etc. The fact that someone would rag on it this bad appals me. Second, IT'S A FREAKIN' VIDEO GAME!!! IT'S JUST A GAME!!
It is stated in the article that women's lifes aren't portrayed in Oregon Trail...but the author goes on to say that women's lives consisted of gossip with other settelers, cooking, cleaning, keeping moral high and sewing American flags. I think it's MORE sexists to include the woman's life of that time...serisouly, does the author want them to give us the option and play as the woman, just cooking and sorting out family problems.
Another thing, about all the "racism and cultural bias," as well as "politics": Like I said, this game was created for kids, and I'm happy it doesn't dive deep into slavery and the Native American's issues of the time. The object of the game is to get to the Oregon Territory...it doesn't need to be this complicated.
In closing, I want to say that the author seems to want us to teach kids all about the politics of that timeframe...yet I remember playing Oregon Trail in, what, 1st and 2nd grade? I didn't know what "politics" were until middle school. The author has a point, but I think we need to be less critical of games that have already been made and more critical about the future of games.
I thought this article made some really good points about the inaccuracies of the game. I never played Oregon Trail, but the descriptions of the game made it very clear. I really agree with what the author was saying we should do about the problem with these simulation games. It doesn't help to just remake the game because there will always be biases and problems. But it's not that productive to not play the games either because they do have someting to offer. Teachers should bring up the biases in class and discuss how they could be more realistic, and so forth?
It was pretty surprising how many discrepencies there were between the game and history. One could definately view the game as rewriting history, in a way. They always say that history is written by the victors, and that's meaningful in this instance in two aspects. 1) the game was written by white Americcan guys, the victors over the Native Americans, and 2)because it's technology writing the history game. Both slant the history, toward americans and toward scientific sensibilities(unaccurately conserving resources/mother earth).
I have no first hand knowledge of Oregon Trail since I've never played it. Strictly going from the article though, it does sound like the game is discriminatory. There are obviously groups of people left out of the storyline and the way in which those groups is left out as well. I do wonder though, what would happen if the game was accurate? If the game showed women collecting firewood and caring for children I'm willing to bet people would be enraged that the game was sexist and was teaching children that is what women are supposed to do. Same situation with the African Americans. If the game showed them as slaves, people would be furious about it. According to the article, if you entered the Native American Village and talked to a woman, she did mention that the white people brought disease to them. The article also talkes about how it is made known that thousands of trees were cut down as the people crossed. This is an accurate representation. I don't really think that the makers of the game were trying to make a game that is "sexist, racist, culturally insensitive, and contemptuous of the earth" I really believe the makers thought that by not including the racism and sexism of the day, they were trying to not enrage people and not giving people a reason to say they were racist and sexist and were teaching kids these values. It seems the makers were screwed either way.
I understand Bigelow's points, and they all make plenty of sense. The game didnt allow you to play a as women, indians or african americans; It only showed the white males point of view. However, I dont think the game was created with intent of being that in depth. It was ment for younger kids who didnt care about the background or its political correctness. But in Bigelow's defense, if an oregon trail 3 came out, I would expect it to show the point of view from every race, religion and gender.
First of all, I don’t think that the article was that long, not that it matters. Anyway I don’t think that the game’s intent was to show equality as best as possible. I think that maybe there should be some adjustments made to the game to make it more politically correct. It is impossible to have all of the exact details of the real Trail portrayed in a computer game. However, it seems like, according to history, that the Indians and other issues were a big part of the Trail experience that was not a part of the game. When I played Oregon Trail back in the day, I never thought about the issues that Bigelow brings up.
I think that it would be a good idea to give people options of who they want to “be” in the game. But what about the games out there that don’t allow you to choose who you want to “be.” Are those games racist or sexist? There should be a way that the makers of the game can update it to show the players the suffrage and social problems of the real trail without “hurting” the kids.
After reading the article I feel like I learned more about the history of the Oregon Trail then I did in the game. However, I am now 20 years old and can understand the history better. I think that the game is a great simulation of the Oregon Trail even though it does not include all of the detailed facts. The game allows students to learn a lot about the Trail. I think that it is a great idea for an instructor to use the game as an aid to help teach about the Trail. They should use extra materials to teach the things that the game does not include. The game is worth playing for educational purposes because it gives you a first person view of what kind of obstacles the travelers faced on their journey on the Trail.
Before this article was discussed in class, I felt Bigelow was a bit of a psycho and took things to an unnecessary extreme. I did not disagree that what he said was true, but I felt that the game would no longer be fun and may even turn a bit scary if the adjustments were made to make the game historically accurate. However, after I began thinking about white privilege and the intense influence things in our culture have on the mindset we develop about history and society, I agreed with Bigelow and was even upset by the game.
If our society could make movies, television shows, games, etc. historically and depicting our and others’ societies in an accurate manner, maybe we would have completely different mindsets. Maybe we could eliminate prejudice of all kinds, racism, sexism, heterosexism, ageism etc. by simply presenting the facts of history and of life as we know it to society. It may at least prohibit ignorance to flourish which may have a far greater effect than we are willing to realize. The small changes in our world make the biggest differences.
What I thought when I read this article was that the guy just over analyzed the game. Sure blacks, women, and native americans were left out or misrepresented. But I don't think that it was done on purpose. When people create games or movies or really whatever they don't try to be historically correct the majority of the time. They just try to create a fun interesting game that will sell many copies so they can ultimately make a profit. Thats what the creators of Oregon Trail set out to do. The game was never an educational tool for me. My teacher would let us play the game if we finished our homework early and that was it. She didn't use it to teach us the ways of traveling across the United States. It was just a reward that was offered for students who finished their homework. I know that I didn't learn anything from that game except the fact that some one always dies from malaria and that hunting is really easy, and fun.
I don't think that Oregon Trail should be changed or creates stereotypes or any of that crap, especially not for the kids who play it in like 3rd grade. I agree with stoopud when he talks about how absurd this article is. I mean, if we look into this game as much as the author wants us to. What's next, not letting our kids play cowboys and indians? I kicked the crap out of them damn cowboys when I was a kid, and all I had was a bow and arrow and a hatchet. I wouldn't todays children to have to be so politically correct to where everything would be boring.
After writing a three paragraph reaction to this article and then having the library's server lose its connection, resulting in my lost work, i am now back at square one. Basically I think Bigelow is taking his agrument much too far. I think the misrepresentation of blacks, hispanics, women and native americans was not actually intentional. I think the gaming programmers were only representing what in fact was really happening to some degree. Women didn't have a say in much throughout most of our early american history, why should they plan a significant role in this depiction of a real event? And god forbid, Oregon Trail included a "mexican looking" man who had an accent? I just think the article went too far. Lastly, I hated how Bigelow listed suggestions for making the issue right, more specifically suggesting role playing. I think this is a horrible way to address the issue to students, if a teachers wishes to do so. I have never learned anything about the events from history by acting out what happened.. I swear my first response was better, now I am just grumpy!
Post a Comment