Teaching about Genocide in a New Millennium.

It was the beginning of the fall semester, and almost all of our 900 college freshmen sat in the auditorium on the second day of academic orientation. One of the students volunteered to go up on stage and demonstrate the "Darfur is Dying" computer-based simulation that had been projected onto a large screen. (1) She selected one of the eight members of a family in Darfur portrayed in the simulation to "forage for water." As the student used the computer keys to help the female animated character, "Sittina," race across the desolate wasteland in search of water, the audience cheered wildly. They shrieked as the Janjaweed truck came creeping closer, roared approval as the character ran to evade the militia, and booed at her inevitable capture. At this point, the simulation queried if we would like a chance to try again. The audience clamored, "Yes!" and so another family member was selected, this time a child named "Abok." This cartoon figure was much faster, and glided across the screen, to the delight of the crowd, but ultimately met the same fate as Sittina. As the simulation ended, students applauded enthusiastically. ********** I sat in my chair, disturbed, questions racing through my head: Is this the way to teach issues such as genocide in a new millennium characterized by new technologies? Is this how we reach students who have grown up playing video and computer games? Do these technologies provide a new opportunity for activism and understanding? It may be that the answer to all of these questions is "yes," but ethical questions do arise. Is it acceptable to trivialize a tragedy (of a massive scale) through a game so that awareness is increased? Should we make the study of history more game-like? What are the limits of simulations? The "Darfur is Dying" website was the winning entry of a contest called Darfur Digital Activist, launched by MTV's 24-hour college network (mtvU). The competition was initiated in partnership with Reebok Human Rights Foundation and the International Crisis Group. The site describes the winning game as "a narrative-based simulation where the user ... negotiates forces that threaten the survival of his or her refugee camp. It offers a faint glimpse of what it's like for the more than 2.5 million who have been internally displaced by the crisis in Sudan." (2) I do not at all doubt the intentions of those who developed the game. I believe their intentions were decent and that their ultimate goal is to raise awareness that leads to action to improve the tragic situation faced by those in Darfur. However, I do wonder about the level and nature of their consciousness. By contrast to the simulation, in modest and reverential ways, I regularly work to help university students and practicing teachers better understand the Holocaust and other genocides. I use the word "modest," because there is so much information available--there are so many difficult histories and so many legitimate voices--that I can only access a portion during a single course. I use the word "reverential," because after listening to a victim of genocide discuss a personal history, most students are spiritually impacted and recognize the need for a solemn and respectful response. As a result, I seldom use simulations or advocate their use when so many meaningful experiences are readily available. Thus, it was with great interest that I approached the topics of this fall's academic orientation for our new freshmen, which included the overlapping study of two horrific episodes: the Rwandan genocide of 1994 and the current genocide in Darfur, Sudan. Over the summer, all freshmen were asked to read An Ordinary Man, the memoir by Paul Rusesabagina (whose heroic deeds were portrayed in the film Hotel Rwanda). They also were asked to consider the computer simulation, "Darfur is Dying." On our orientation website, freshmen were asked, "... how effective is this game in conveying the political and human tragedy of Darfur? …