The games we play (and the consequences they hold) — part III

The classic game Monopoly has spawned countless variations — everything from children's versions to commemorative boards. The origins of the game may have been economic, but it and its copycats have become an American pastime, played around the fireplace or at family events.

One such spin-off, released in 2003, generated a fair share of controversy. Titled "Ghettopoly," the game is intended to show the same economic mechanisms at work — but in a caricature of the American ghetto. Properties for sale include liquor stores, a peep show and a pawn shop. Property owners can build projects and crack houses. Players navigate the board as a basketball, a machine gun, a marijuana leaf, a 40 oz. beer, a crack rock, a pimp or a "ho."

The original game box read:

Buying stolen properties, pimpin hoes, building crack houses and projects, paying protection fees and getting car jacked are some of the elements of the game. Not dope enough?...If you don't have the money that you owe to the loan shark you might just land yourself in da Emergency Room.

The game immediately incited backlash upon its release. Hasbro was upset because their copyright was being violated. Others, including the NAACP, were outraged at the racist implications of the game.

David Chang, the game's creator, argued that "It draws on stereotypes not as a means to degrade, but as a medium to bring together in laughter. If we can't laugh at ourselves ... we'll continue to live in blame and bitterness."

It was hard for activists to see his point of view. From their perspective, the game was only serving to perpetuate stereotypes about the lifestyle and economic activities of an entire race. The game's objective was explained as "become the richest playa through stealing, cheating and fencing stolen properties." Doesn't exactly sound like an ethically sound way to go, now does it?

Urban Outfitters, the retailer responsible for selling the game, immediately pulled it from its shelves. But the debate didn't end just because explicit sales did. It was clearly established that young children playing the game would be given the wrong message about how to achieve success in life, but what about the message the game conveyed about society? It seemed to say that certain economic truths were inevitable; that certain groups would never rise above the pawn shops or peep shows, and thus, were destined to live the life so crudely depicted.

In psychology, the concept of self-fullfilling prophecies has been proven true time and time again. Ghettopoly surfaces that type of worry, that children will see this game and assume that the world can be no different than it is. That change is not only difficult, but impossible.

So while Ghettopoly does not necessarily bring up the same concerns about economic legitimacy and capitalistic take-over as regular Monopoly, it generates worries of its own. Can we as a society change and grow to benefit all involved? Or is the future of our country like the toy aisle, with some destined to play the prestigious game of Monopoly and others confined to the game of Ghettopoly? Both games preserve economic liberties: players are granted property rights for the goods they attain. But that does not mean both games are fair in the sense of their implications.