Go with what your heart desires, you can’t please everyone. Besides, there is a market for everything. (Trying to be informative? Don’t smite me please.) I just think The Jackson Era was an intresting but vague as we don’t get much into it minus the Bank War and Indian Removal Act. (That’s most of what I retained from a few months back, gotta love US History taught with opposing views.)
I…don’t think I would play this game. I don’t particularly admire Andrew Jackson, but even if I did I don’t think a biographical story game works.
I’d read a book about him, or watch a documentary, maybe even play a more traditional linear video game, but in a choicecript the choices are the gameplay. Playing as an historical figure seems like not only would it limit your ability to customize your character (physically, emotionally, spiritually etc…) but it seems like it would also limit your choices about the character’s actions.
Maybe a game about a fictional character in Andrew Jackson’s life would be more appealing for a choicertain game.
The only thing I want from Jackson is his mug off the 20 dollar bill!
I think a better historical figure might be Harriette Tubman!
My preferences would veer more to Norman Thomas, Eugen V. Debs or even Franklin D. Roosevelt, but if it really must be a woman, why not take the woman behind Roosevelt?
Given the total Republican dominance in the incoming administration this may be more likely though:
Of course if it were totally up to me our own Euro’s would feature my favourite male models/actors/singers
(Before I say anything I’d like to clarify that I am not Native American and if I cause any offense to anyone who is, I sincerely apologize in advance)
I’ve been eyeballing this thread for a while now trying to figure out whether or not I should really say anything. First of all, my initial thought when I first found this thread was honestly “YIKES”. You’re treading on some very very thin ice with this idea and saying that it’s controversial is only the very tip of the iceberg. I’ll be putting my thoughts under a cut because this ended up a lot longer than I intended it to be
[details=Summary]There are the points that Laguz brought up. How would his racism and the genocide that he created be framed? The majority of Western history is written from a very white lens. A lot gets brushed off as “a big deal but not THAT big a deal” or erased or the facts are just plain wrong because the writer is biased, whether its because they just are blatantly racist or it’s because they personally don’t want to feel as guilty
And if, for example, you end up deciding to write the genocide from the side of a Native American character? That in itself would be very difficult unless you’re Native American yourself simply because you don’t have the perspective that someone who is Native American would and you could easily fall into the internalized biases I explained earlier or otherwise get the facts wrong
I decided to speak up about this because when I was in high school my english class had a unit based around the book The Things They Carried by Tim O’Brien. I never talked about this back then but doing that unit made me extremely uncomfortable. I’m Vietnamese American and, while I don’t know any family members that directly took part in the war, the majority of my family emigrated from Vietnam as a direct result of it. The book and the related readings and documentaries my English teacher showed during the unit were nearly all from a white perspective, like what I said earlier about the majority of history being written from a white perspective. The country and the people were treated as abstract or as a backdrop. The few Vietnamese people that were in the book weren’t named (probably because the book was an autobiography and the writer just didn’t know the names, but the people were written felt more like they were props than they were people). The horrors of the war were shown on mostly on the American side while the effects on Vietnam was limited to only the death count. This was at a poorly funded high school so the focus would obviously on the American side of the war but it would only be respectful to at least summarize the affects that the war had on Vietnam itself. Of the few writings or other pieces of American media that have Vietnamese characters affected by the war, most of them treat them as sad monoliths or, again, backdrops to white characters
Obviously the Vietnam War was much more recent at 40 years compared to Andrew Jackson’s 200 or so, but it’s piece of history and its effects can still be felt today no matter how subtly. There could be a respectful way to approach it but I don’t think a fictional account in the form of an interactive game would be one[/details]
I’m not quite sure you or @Havenstone are entirely understanding here.
This isn’t about a feeling of disgust, and by describing it like that, although I know it is likely not either of your intentions, I feel like my concerns as well as the concerns of others in this thread are being diminished. This is about making a fictionalized game starring a real person that supported genocide, during a horrific event that, despite being 2 centuries ago, is still being repeated not just worldwide, but in this very country through the colonization of the Americas’ indigenous peoples. As Havenstone said, the intentions may be pure but I can guarantee that they will not end up becoming pure actions. Even Lolita was grossly misinterpreted, and there are many people to this day that believe the narrator was entirely in the right.
What Jackson did is immediately trivialized when it’s turned into a video game choice. The 2,000-6,000 people that died during the Trail of Tears become justified because in the game some mean Native hurt the protagonist’s feelings. It turns them into a joke in the same way that playing an evil character in a video game is considered a joke.
What you describe is very much possible. That doesn’t mean it is a good idea to do with a historical person.
The problem is that such a narrative is seducing. Breaking bad is good, yes. (And ultimately I have a weak spot for villain protagonist, só how could I not like it), and I am all for anything which can make people aware of their own moral compass, but the thing is. Stories are seductive. Our brain loves narratives, so if a story just made the first first natives bad, so we sympathise with the controversial man. Then it doesn’t matter if the natives are universially bad. They can be 100 procent in the right even those bad formitative years experiences, and readers will still read the Natives as evil because the Native came off as unlikeable to the MC who the reader is likely to identify with, espically when the player can control him.
What I say is that this story is going be very difficult to write without accidentily seducing the player into justifying this person atrocities.
Narratives are seducing. If a story like this need to be told, I do think it needs to (learn from history and all that, beaware that humans can very much be monsterous to each other) I am not sure letting us control the controversial person is the best option to go. It is much better be the people affected on by this man. In this I would suggest different mcs on the same playthrough.
And honestly I don’t know necessarily how to go about an attack on them we can play as Jackson’s family being his parents. I gotta see if his cousins survived he grew up with them. I could do something really crazy and you can have a rotating in a different perspective of different people let’s see him at different moments of his life. Who plays Jackson as you get older and you get in the different positions of life you can see the repercussions of your actions are different people’s perspectives as a player. So if you did something good or unsavory it’s never trivialize. And as monstrous as a person he is he has many moments in this life that makes him sympathetic and tragic least on the personal level.
We recently learned about him in APUSH, and I actually really liked him and most of what he did. The only thing he did that I didn’t like or agree with was getting rid of the National Bank and covering up abolitionist propaganda at one point. But that was after his youth, and I find the first part of his life very interesting. We all know what he did after that time, but not much about before, so I think a guide so to speak would be interesting and educational. But then again, I’m also the person who watches the documentaries on the History Channel for fun, soooo xD
As for his evolution, later on in life after his wife died, he was a very angry bitter man for most of his presidency effectively convincing himself Henry Clay indirectly killed his wife with the spread of the rumor about her marrying Jackson before she divorced her husband(it was certainly more colorful than this but the details escape me), even if she did’t mean to as the post was super slow. So I feel it is plausible that his early life could have effectively changed him for worse later on in his life
His treatment of others definitely was terrible, there is no doubt, but for the times he was exactly what Rogar describes him to be. A hero to the people. He was a hero for demonizing Indians, he was a hero for killing them. The people loved him for his humble roots, for his violent climb to the top after fighting in wars. It’s all history, awful history, but history nonetheless. And I’m not advocating his violence in anyway, but he wouldn’t be who is remembered as if he didn’t do those things, so how could it be cut out or forgotten because it offends the ancestors of those he wronged? That’s like an extremely religious person constantly telling the astronomy teacher they are wrong about the cosmos. It is your belief, but it is culturally shaping and we can’t just ignore it’s significance, even if we wanted to. It’s like trying to act like slavery never happened. The abolition of slaves crippled the deep south to the point where they had to make Black Codes. As awful as it is the history of most great civilizations were built on the backs of others. The outing of different people. Jackson is the same. His legacy was built on the mistreatment of others, and we need to appreciate the horridness of it all, and remember it.
I agree, especially with the treatment of Indians. The Trail of tears definitely was a monstrous thing, but so was his hate for indians even before that, such as when fighting indians in the south he ordered his men to completely massacre this village and not accept surrender. Something earlier on in his life must have made him this way, if it turns into a bit of historical fiction, i don’t see why we couldn’t play him and see him devolve into his adult self.
As long as you mention the fact he ate 2 year old cheese because it was stinking up the house and didnt’ want to waste it.
Here in Thailand Jackson was remember as the first presidnt who established the relationship between the two country, which happen to be the first country in Asia that ever had any treaty with US, so he was look on in better light. And despite I know about the Trail of Tear, I would say I still held Jackson in a more favor side for that as well; not that what he did wasn’t horrible, of course
Wow I did not even known that is something new![quote=“Arasia_Valentia, post:61, topic:23174, full:true”]
I agree, especially with the treatment of Indians. The Trial of tears definitely was a monstrous thing, but so was his hate for indians even before that, such as when fighting indians in the south he ordered his men to completely massacre this village and not accept surrender. Something earlier on in his life must have made him this way, if it turns into a bit of historical fiction, i don’t see why we couldn’t play him and see him devolve into his adult self.
Several I think go into where he grew his mother the era he grew up in, and seeing end result of The Fort Mims Massacre. That during brutal campaign t again the Creeks he adopted boy from there tribe. Scorched Earth Tactic was to smoke the Creek out as fast possible. Jackson most like view it as retribution for Fort Mims.
Many American do not relived he was most dominating forces of President, there entire period call Jacksonian Democracy/era of Common Man, for how long his presences was felt through out American Politics.
That thing about Jackson is both a Monstrous figure and Heroic one, it all depend on how is action affected you. His life as rise is stuff American Legend and folklore. That is fact whatever we like it or not.
Stinkier the cheese the better. I myself am partial to goat cheese. Mmm
Don’t forget that shot in the shoulder.
I’ll be sure to check it out
The one he didn’t take out for years lol. He got into a gentlemens dual and let the dude shoot him before shooting him dead in the heart xD gotta love some things about the man. He had like 3billion lives. Once, some guy tried to assassinate him for the death of his father(Jackson probably did kill him let’s be honest) and both the the guns didn’t fire so Jackson just walked off.xD
To be fair, if you lived in an era without anesthetics, you’d probably leave the bullet in you too…
That bullet literal poison him. Lead in it had terrible ravaging affect on his body, that just made his already naturally explosive temper even worst. I do wonder if gone through with duel. I wonder how different been if he never took the bullet. He have dealt the tribes more peacefully…maybe.
I believe he had 3 gentlemens duals and he won them all so, he killed three people. He got the bullet removed later in life, but I’m pretty sure by that point the death of his wife made him too bitter to make a difference.
Now, I’m pretty sure he was rebellious by nature, considering he eloped with his wife before she divorced her husband. But, you never know.
(I’ll have you know I’m thoroughly enjoying this conversation xD it’s not often I can be a history nerd)