I’m a firm believer that interactive media can elicit stronger emotional effects than just reading a book or watching a movie.
But can playing video games change someone’s perspective on war and the refugee crisis?
Many video games feature war or armed conflict as a central inclusion to their story arc. War facilitates a reason to shoot people, defend a base, or just kick some ass.
And you’ll almost always be completing your objectives as part of the in-game military or government.
This War of Mine: The Little Ones uniquely puts you in control of those most vulnerable during war, the civilians.
Without much instruction, the game thrusts you into an abandoned house, one where you and your randomly selected group of survivors must hunker down until a ceasefire.
The problem is, you don’t know when that day will come.
Through my three playthroughs thus far, none of the groups I was given made it to the end.
The difficulty spikes in the game come from the unexpected nature of every encounter.
One night may be completely calm and routine, but following the next day, half of your group could be lethally wounded by raiders that also stole most of your supplies.
The setting of This War of Mine is all too real.
Gameplay from This War Of Mine: The Little Ones.
It’s inspiration comes from the Siege of Sarajevo, a battle for the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina that represented the longest siege of a capital in modern history.
Lasting for 1,425 days between 1992 and 1995, the siege claimed the lives of more than 10,000 people.
This War of Mine recreates the danger the Bosnian war presented by blocking off previously loot filled areas with fights and sniper fire.
The Little Ones add-on even subjects children to these perils.
The horrifically recognizable sniper alley of the Siege of Sarajevo manifests itself in “sniper junction” an in-game scavenger location, and tragic odes to the real-world travesty are seen everywhere in the game.
While slightly underutilized, the inclusion of children into the game hammers home one of the game’s central selling points; “In war kids are still kids”.
I often used their inclusion in the game to warrant the atrocities I committed. I didn’t want to add to the bodies littering the city, but I soon realized I had to kill in order to live.
I found no joy in robbing an elderly couple in order to feed my group of survivors. I tried to morally justify it by saying that they had lived a long life and that my group was still young.
I often risked too much for a simple set of bandages or basic crafting supplies, and got my best scavenger killed in the process.
I gathered toys for the children instead of feeding my group for the day, causing one of the adults to become immobile from starvation for several days.
I chose not to intervene when a soldier was attempting to rape a woman.
I decided the supplies were more important and the risk of being shot was too great.
And those were the choices I had the most control over.
I didn’t get to choose who would attack me on sight.
I made no decision as to whether I would be raided multiple nights in a row.
I especially had no choice when my first playthrough ended because my final survivor killed himself.
Gameplay from This War of Mine: The Little Ones
This War of Mine: The Little Ones is not a fun, light-hearted romp.
It is a grossly realistic look into the human element of war, including the often forgotten or downplayed numbers of civilians trapped by shelling and snipers.
While the Siege of Sarajevo took place more than 20 years ago, present day wars still ravage humanity in places like Aleppo, Syria.
Video games existed two decades ago, but their arguably mainstream appeal today would allow games like This War of Mine: The Little Ones to have a widespread impact on our collective thinking.
Will one game alter the perspectives of everyone who plays it?
I doubt it.
But games like This War of Mine have created a new entry point to dialogues on touchy subjects such as the refugee crisis.
You can’t solve a problem without first addressing its existence and I see video games as a way to shine light on the iniquitous pieces of humanity, whether they dwell in the past, present or future.
This story was originally published on ThePolyglot.net.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
Photo Credits: 11 bit studios
What Do You Think?
-
Lorde Just Released Her First New Song In Three Years
Any thoughts?
What Do You Think?
-
Should Obama Pardon Edward Snowden Before He Leaves Office?
By Chidera O. Nwosu
A Tale of Two Cities (1859), a novel fashioned by Charles Dickens, encapsulates the motif of duality (as Dickens puts it best “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times”) in veneration of French Aristocracy.
The essential matter of this tale could also be likened to modern times of Edward Snowden – a man belligerently hailed as both snitch and martyr here in the United States for releasing gen on governmental surveillance.
It is this duality that pegs the eminent question: should President Obama pardon Edward Snowden before he leaves office?
Background
Snowden infamously known as the man who disclosed classified information of governmental surveillance abetted by the National Security Agency (NSA), is also a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee and contractor to the United States government and has an uncanny proficiency in computers.
Snowden utilized his dexterity in computers to duplicate and later leak classified governmental information without sanction.
Nonetheless, on May 20, 2013, Snowden took a leave of absence to Hong Kong to complete a duty he obstinately believes was for the good of the public.
In completing this duty, he willfully released thousands of NSA documents to journalists, which inevitably lead to the material being published by a sundry of newspaper stands on an international platitude.
It was June 21,2013 when the U.S Department of Justice criminally charged Snowden of theft of government property, illegal communication of national defense information, violation of the Espionage Act and deliberate communication of classified intel.
Currently
Snowden persistently seeks asylum after his treacherous disclosure of sensitive information relating to the inner-workings of American intelligence gathering.
According to wikileaks, Snowden had initially applied to 21 countries for asylum. Currently, he lives in Russia after the United States annulled his passport – and has been living there for the past 3 years.
Many in the United States have called for the return of Snowden to face pending criminal indictment.
Snowden finds that it is only necessary for President Obama to employ his presidential pardon in wake of his immediate crisis – since his 3 years asylum is almost up.
Amnesty international has called on the US government to drop the charges against Snowden, or to guarantee him a public interest defense in the event of his case going to trial.
This was further validated by Salil Shetty, Secretary General of Amnesty international who stated the following: “It is ironic that it is Snowden who is being treated like a spy when his act of courage drew attention to the fact that the US and UK governments were illegally spying on millions of people without their consent”.
And I have to agree, privacy is a primary constituent of Human Rights which paradoxically was violated by governments who pride themselves in being vanguards of Human Rights policies.
Shetty ends her statement by saying “It will be a deep stain on President Obama’s legacy if he leaves office with Snowden still in exile in Russia, separated from his family and treated like an enemy of the state”.
Also in agreement is Edward Snowden’s attorney Ben Wizner, whom believes that the function of presidential pardons may be applied in this case and as a society we should be extending our gratitude to Snowden for such whistle-blowing gallantry.
Currently, Snowden is left at the brinks of President Obama’s clemency.
Answer
Once more, I state the following: Dickens puts it best “it was the best of times, it was the worst of times”.
It is fair to say that Snowden cultivated societal awareness of governmental surveillance but in doing so engendered ruin not only in the Obama’s administration but in the overall national interest.
Edward Snowden risked national security as he retreated to other countries cowering away from criminal charges for 3 years.
On the same token other whistleblowers have faced the music – so to speak.
For example, Thomas Andrews Drake – a former senior executive of the U.S. NSA was also a proclaimed whistleblower who was charged with ten violations of the Espionage Act.
Thomas Tamm, a public defender from Maryland, was threatened to be barred from practicing law simply because he disclosed information about NSA surveillance.
What makes Edward Snowden any different than prior whistleblowers?
American law necessitates Snowden’s return as it is only fair he receives consequences for his actions.
Furthermore, although Snowden exposed the United States for defilements against human rights, he poignantly bolstered other corrupt regimes who molest the paradigm of human rights such as Russia.
It is this duality of Edward Snowden that makes the question quite difficult to answer.
Will Obama bury the Snowden issue until his release from Presidency?
Truly, the answer lies with President Obama and his individual verdict for Edward Snowden.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
Cover Photo Credit: AK Rockefeller/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
What Do You Think?
-
Pres. Power Expert: Trump Would Be American “Strong Man” Who Ignores The Constitution
Donald Trump is running a presidential campaign that often seems to be more about projecting strength than it is about specific policy positions.
Trump presents himself to voters as a “strong man” type who would deport more than 10 million people currently living in the United States, bar Muslims from entering the country, shut down mosques, and perhaps set up a national database to track Muslims.
Given that Trump is now the presumptive Republican nominee, it’s worth considering how his “strong man” approach would play out in office.
Some are skeptical of his rhetoric, arguing that Trump, if elected, would have to contend with the reality that presidents generally cannot act alone.
The Constitution divides most powers between the President and Congress: presidents cannot go to war unilaterally, they cannot make unilateral decisions about most matters involving national security.
The constitutional system of separation of powers uses checks and balances to make sure no one branch of government has concentrated power.
That is certainly correct, in theory.
In practice, however, recent presidents have shown a willingness and ability to write Congress out of the equation.
A President Trump who determined to act without Congress would have recent precedent to draw on—most notoriously, the unitary executive theory relied on by the Bush administration.
The unitary executive theory rejects the idea of checks and balances, claiming unchecked power for the president, even the power to set aside criminal laws.
As political scientist Jim Pfiffner observes, this theory assigns presidents “powers once asserted by kings.”
The Bush administration invoked the unitary executive theory to justify torture and warrantless surveillance prohibited by criminal law, and to claim complete power over decisions to use military force.
It is well worth finding out what Trump—and other candidates, for that matter—think of the unitary executive theory.
During the 2008 election, reporter Charlie Savage surveyed the presidential candidates to ask specific questions about the scope and limits of executive power. Of course, getting candidates on the record is not enough—President Obama has not adhered to the limits on power he acknowledged when answering Savage’s questions as a candidate. But it is a useful starting point to ask Trump and other candidates whether they acknowledge constitutional limits on presidential power.
Some of Trump’s public statements suggest he believes that constitutional limits would not bind him. For instance, during a debate, Trump said that President Obama lacked the “courage” to use military force against the Assad regime in Syria in 2013.
In reality, President Obama lacked constitutional authority to act alone against Syria—he needed congressional authorization, which Trump seemed to dismiss.
Trump has also said that he would order the military to carry out torture, declaring that they would follow his orders, whether lawful or not. Trump seemed to later backtrack when he said he would “stay within the laws” in responding to ISIS—but his new position does not immediately make sense.
Trump said he’d like to change the law to allow waterboarding. But waterboarding is torture.
Torture, by definition, is illegal—both under U.S. law and international law. The U.S. has signed a treaty prohibiting torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
Would Trump have the United States withdraw from the treaty? If Congress did not support him, would he act anyway?
Candidate Trump has proposed a number of radical, dangerous ideas. He is running a campaign based in large part on the promise that he would be a strong leader who would take actions other presidents have been unwilling or unable to carry out.
The U.S. constitutional system has checks in place that, in theory, can set limits on presidential power. But those checks have not functioned well during times of crisis, including in the years since 9/11—especially when Congress is passive or deferential.
It’s essential to consider what a President Trump could do to deliver on his promise to rule as a strong leader. The answer is that it could largely depend on how far he is willing to go.
Chris Edelson is an assistant professor of government in American University’s School of Public Affairs. His book, Power Without Constraint: The Post 9/11 Presidency and National Security, will be published in spring 2016 by the University of Wisconsin Press.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in public affairs. You can write for us.
Cover Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
What Do You Think?