Entertainment re-writes history?

Since I read this post from Wonderland last week I've been mulling over how and whether to expand on Alice's original ideas concerning Microsoft's apparent "re-writing" of history in the latest release of Age of Empires.

The crux is that the Native Americans in AoE III "are not so much a peoples to be exploited and killed off with pox-infected blankets as they are partners in your war against the other countries," according to Kotaku.

Alice argues that this kind of revisionism is wrong with a capital W, based upon the Serious Games premise that games teach. From the post:

I have a quote in my head that I read, probably in Edge years ago, that goes along the lines of, "the majority of kids in the U.S. who know what a 'trebuchet' is learned it from Age of Empires". Can't dig it up, of course (grr), but .. if this revisionism is true - and it's only reported at the moment - I'd say that this could do a lot of harm.

With the snowballing of interest in Serious Games and governmental support for the development of games in the classroom, should this be an issue that is seriously debated in development houses? According to Bruce Shelley, game designer of AoE,

"Q: How much actual historical value do you think there is in Age of Empires?

A: Bill Gates asked me the same question. Our answer to him and the answer I always give is that we're in the entertainment business and not the educational business... I think Microsoft as a publisher loves that."

here Wonderland

Intersting, particularly because the first AoE has frequently been used in classroom contexts to inspire interest in pre- and medieval history.

I seem to recall that this debate flared up in Hollywood circles a few years back, and then promptly disappeared. Still, the it continues, including this thoughtful comment from Dan:

There are plenty of examples of indigenous Americans allying themselves with Europeans, from the Spanish conquest of the Aztec empire through the final closing of the frontier. When accusing folks of revising history, it hel[ps [sic] to actually know said history; maybe reviewers should stick to the review and leave out the political commentary.

(adapted from by Jen via )