At this point of the year, I customarily give book recommendations from my previous year's reading.
And while I did manage to wrestle my way through all or most of some very good works, a recent news item has coincided with a far less noble way I pass the time: playing video games, either solo or with friends.
I'm referencing of course the recent dust up between the Poundmaker Cree Nation and Sid Meier's Civilization franchise, now in its sixth reiteration.
I've been playing "Civ" for nearly two decades, starting with Civ 2.
The graphics were pathetically bad, even for the time, but the concept of founding a capital and expanding as a given civilization was incredibly addictive: who could resist correcting other leaders' mistakes by seizing the reins themselves, or charting a new course on an earth with a different geography, climate and resource allotment? There were even historical scenarios to play through.
It was not until Civ 3 that the possibility of playing a North American Aboriginal group was available, and then only as the Huron.
It was at this point in the game's evolution that Civs began to have custom units and talents that lent them to a particular style of gameplay: your choice of civilization became a crucial decision in how you would decide to play the game - quick and aggressive or slow and methodical?
A victory by sword, words or technology?
I don't remember there being any protest over the portrayal of the Huron's Hiawatha, their talents, or custom unit - a mounted warrior who was very effective in early game combat. Of course Civ 3 came out in 2001, a few years before the outrage industry completely took off.
I've played Civ 6, and it has a great rebalancing of the first three games' emphasis on physical capital and the latter two games tweaking of socio-economic structures via policies.
I'd assume that playing as Chief Poundmaker is essentially the same as playing any other Civ, with the obvious caveats of talents, buildings and units. After the game has loaded, one would found the capital, begin exploring the map, and charting a course of expansion towards victory.
Which begs the question, why is Sid Meier answerable to Poundmaker's descendants at all? He has nothing to do with "historic mistreatment."
On the question of misrepresentation, neither the digital artists' rendering of the chief as young and strong rather than "emaciated by Canadian government policies," nor the game design's expansionist theme running at odds with aboriginal advocates' myth of our aboriginal paradise lost can be construed as degrading.
I'm not embarrassed to admit that my people did make war on others - some of those people were Poundmaker's forebears and vice versa. Also, when technology from the white man made my people's lives easier, they took it up: the horse, the rifle, steel blades, and iron kettles made life so much better for my buffalo-chasing ancestors, it resulted in a renaissance of culture, a fact the archaeological record bears out regardless of ideological bias. Look it up.
I don't own my ancestors' image or reputation per se anymore than I can be called to account for their past actions, an argument that ought to hold just as much water when uttered by non-aboriginal Canadians.
I'm certainly not going to form my opinion of the Cree based on a character from a computer game, but I'm definitely not seeing the greatness of Poundmaker in the successors at his nation who have succumbed to childish pettiness to make a political point.
And so we come to the climax of every pseudo-outrage induced headline: all of our time has been wasted, no lessons have been learned and nothing will change. But thankfully, I can still kick back and relax with a great computer game that now happens to include a Canadian aboriginal leader from history named Poundmaker.
I hope it brings him some more recognition.
