When we first landed, we were obligated to pick how we would approach the natives. When we first stepped off the ship we had to decide w
hether we wanted to build our relationship based off of love, or aggression. After a long debate, we unanimously decided to use force. If we wanted to gain respect from the natives, we needed to first receive all the resources we possibly could. From then on, we decided to also show them we care about them, and that we weren't total monsters.
I recently took a voyage across the sea. I landed on an island where I was instructed to bring back a profit of resources. My team mates and I made it. We survived the erratic weather conditions, and the hostility from the natives. We were able to get in, get the job done, and get out. Not only did we survive, but we made it home with a surplus of resource- meaning profit for all.
When we first landed, we were obligated to pick how we would approach the natives. When we first stepped off the ship we had to decide whether we wanted to build our relationship based off of love, or aggression. After a long debate, we unanimously decided to use force. If we wanted to gain respect from the natives, we needed to first receive all the resources we possibly could. From then on, we decided to also show them we care about them, and that we weren't total monsters.
Many factors influenced my groups decision to switch back and forth between being peaceful (and not taking action against the natives to gain resources) and using force to gain resources rather than continuously using force against the natives. Our first decision to use force to begin with a surplus of recourses affected our next decision. We decided to be kind and show our gentle side. From then on we switched back and forth from being aggressive and being kind. Violence was necessary to make a profit, but gentleness was also necessary for survival. We couldn't have natives trying to kill us or sabotage our resources could we?
The most important question we kept in the back of our minds was "do we have a profit at this point in time?" If the answer was no, then that would be the reason we would use force. If the answer to our question was yes, then there would not be a reason to be forceful, and we would present our peaceful side to the natives. We kept a surplus so that environmental conditions would not put us in debt. If we were ever running low on resources we would choose to be a bit violent.
I feel confident we made all of the right moves and choices.
So now back to reality. Was the game a realistic reflection of colonialism? Certain aspects of the game we played in lit class were realistic, but not all. Having to decide when to use violence was one of the more realistic aspects of the game. When living a colonial experience violence is necessary whether we like it or not. Another realistic aspect was having to deal with environmental conditions. The spontaneous card picking accurately represented the random and unpredictable weather changes.
I am hesitant on whether the goodwill or hostility card picking was a realistic representation, however. It does not seem likely that after using the amount of force on the natives that we used, they would still be relatively happy with us.
This game forced me to understand that even though I despise violence, it is necessary for colonization. No matter how much I hoped for a peaceful game, I was forced to use violence in order to survive, but mainly to gain profit.
Many factors influenced my groups decision to switch back and forth between being peaceful (and not taking action against the natives to gain resources) and using force to gain resources rather than continuously using force against the natives. Our first decision to use force to begin with a surplus of recourses affected our next decision. We decided to be kind and show our gentle side. From then on we switched back and forth from being aggressive and being kind. Violence was necessary to make a profit, but gentleness was also necessary for survival. We couldn't have natives trying to kill us or sabotage our resources could we?
The most important question we kept in the back of our minds was "do we have a profit at this point in time?" If the answer was no, then that would be the reason we would use force. If the answer to our question was yes, then there would not be a reason to be forceful, and we would present our peaceful side to the natives. We kept a surplus so that environmental conditions would not put us in debt. If we were ever running low on resources we would choose to be a bit violent.
I feel confident we made all of the right moves and choices.
So now back to reality. Was the game a realistic reflection of colonialism? Certain aspects of the game we played in lit class were realistic, but not all. Having to decide when to use violence was one of the more realistic aspects of the game. When living a colonial experience violence is necessary whether we like it or not. Another realistic aspect was having to deal with environmental conditions. The spontaneous card picking accurately represented the random and unpredictable weather changes.
I am hesitant on whether the goodwill or hostility card picking was a realistic representation, however. It does not seem likely that after using the amount of force on the natives that we used, they would still be relatively happy with us.
This game forced me to understand that even though I despise violence, it is necessary for colonization. No matter how much I hoped for a peaceful game, I was forced to use violence in order to survive, but mainly to gain profit.
