Put minorities in your pocket
Quartets and obscure themes go together like the devil and holy water. They attract each other magically. In the Minorities Quartet by ‘Zeitschrift – das Magazin’, you have to pit marginalised groups against each other to win. If you prefer political correctness, you should put this satire game aside right away.
Note: This article first appeared in 2010 on zuspieler.de.
The background to the game was an attempt to extend the 3rd paragraph of Article 3 of the Basic Law (colloquially known as the Anti-Discrimination Act) to include “sexual identity”. The expert commissioned by the CDU/CSU, Prof. Dr. Winfried Kluth, saw in this request an “obstacle to the integration of Muslims” in Germany, since their “[…] tolerance towards the group of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual and intersex people is still poorly developed […]”. This reasoning served as real-satirical inspiration for the Minorities Quartet. “Pitting minorities against each other is part of the daily political business when enforcing majority interests,” say Max Minus and Michel Goldmann, the authors of the card game.
Gay magazine is outraged
After the right-wing news portal Altermedia recommended the quartet in a “game tip for long winter evenings”, user comments initially expressed approval. Soon after, one commentator sparked a politically motivated tirade by stating: “Clearly an absolutely Jewish game! Made by Jews for Jews. Just look at the attributes on the cards – anyone who knows the rules knows that the Jewish card almost always wins! Not to mention: what halfway educated person thinks that Black people and Muslims are more intelligent than ‘Nazis’? Absolutely unrealistic values!”
Queer.de, the largest news portal for gay and lesbian people, whose rights the creators of the quartet wanted to champion, was anything but pleased that gay and lesbian people appear alongside Nazis in a quartet. Queer.de wrote: “By equating people who are subject to prejudice, […] the satirical quartet unfortunately sinks even below the level of the Union’s expert Winfried Kluth.” Robert Scholz from endstation-rechts.de, on the other hand, wrote: “[…] the prize for the crudest satire seems certain. Yet the background to the game is quite serious.”
Whether the game is good satire is therefore for each person to decide. Here’s another note: Jesko Friedrich, author of the satire programme Extra 3, writes in a very good article on ndr.de.
Satire is primarily directed against something, namely against a reality perceived as flawed and bad, in the form of people, institutions and mindsets. […] Accordingly, the central question for any satirical work, regardless of the medium, should be: “Who is the enemy?” Or, if that sounds too martial: “Who is responsible for a (changeable) bad situation?” […] Fundamentally, everyone has the right to satirical criticism. Christians, Jews, Muslims, disabled and non-disabled people, women, men, intersex people – they can all be the enemy if they exhibit corresponding misconduct. […] I establish a satirical taboo for myself. Satire does not kick downwards. The poor sausage is not the enemy. Even more aggravating in this context is the forced ridicule of the weaker, carried out solely for the purpose of amusement, which masquerades as satire.
Jesko Friedrich, Autor der Satire-Sendung Extra 3
Off to battle
But back to the Minorities Quartet. At the start, each player receives two random minority cards and one action card, called an AGB card. The dumbest player begins. They choose one of their minority cards and select a category in which to play it against any opponent. The categories to choose from are population share, education level, wealth, homogeneity, social acceptance and sense of shame. Each minority can score a maximum of five stars in any category. The player places their chosen card face down on the table.
The attacked player now selects a second category with which one of their minorities will defend. They place the chosen card on the table, and both cards are turned over. The minority that has the higher total value (adding the stars from both categories) wins the round for its owner. At least in theory. However, if one card is a trump over another, it always wins the duel. Nazis beat Jews and Black people, for example, paedophiles have more leverage than the minority of children, and people in a coma have sex more often than feminists.
Federal government steps in
Before the fight is decided, both players can still play action cards. The rule is to get in your opponent’s way in good time. In each round, a maximum of one AG card or two B cards may be played. Whoever slaps their action cards on the table first also lands a blow on their opponent. The action card “The federal government steps in”, for example, can be played by either player after a fight. “Every minority has selfish demands and interests. In the interest of the majority society, these must be suppressed. Play the needs of the minorities off against each other by proving that their goals are mutually exclusive,” it says. The reasons given can be as absurd as you like, even completely made up. Doesn’t matter. The federal government always wins. The player who wins the fight after playing the action cards takes both minorities and places them on their victory point pile. Each player then draws cards until they have three in their hand again. The round is over and the next player may send a minority into the race.
The game ends when no more fights are possible. Each minority card won counts as one victory point. If a player has collected all minorities in a group, they get bonus points; any unused AG or B cards left in hand count as minus one point. A remaining minority card counts as nothing.
Fictional test round with Sarrazin, Künast and Yogeshwar
Since we haven’t played Minority Quartet ourselves, we’re publishing a fictional test game here, as described by the publisher in the game’s instructions. Present are Thilo Sarrazin, Renate Künast, Ranga Yogeshwar and “Beckmann”.
Round 1, The game begins: After an argument about who in the round is the stupidest, “Beckmann” has had enough. True to his role as moderator, he tries to mediate: “Children, stop bickering! If you can’t agree, then the dad will start. Come on Ranga, I challenge you. And in the category… let’s say: education level.” and places his card face down on the table.
Now Ranga is under pressure. He must defend himself in a different category, starts to think and looks at his hand: autistic people, Hartz IV recipients and a society card. “Let me think: minorities that are particularly well-educated usually have low values in the shame category. My Hartz IV recipients have the top score of 5 stars there, but an education level of 0; could be close. The autistic people, on the other hand, are a bit smarter with 2.5 stars and are ashamed of their disability with 4 stars. That could work!” thinks Ranga and pulls the card from his hand with a confident smile. But what the calculating science presenter doesn’t know is that “Beckmann” is playing the Feminists card.
Feminists are naturally equipped with a very low self-esteem, for which they loudly and proudly feel ashamed with the opposite sign at every opportunity.
Now both cards are face up on the table and the values are added.
The Feminists score 3.5 stars each in education level and shame, giving a total combat value of 7 stars, while the autistic people only manage a total of 6.5. A narrow victory on points for “Beckmann”, but even though it was so close, he unfairly twists the knife: “Mr Yogeshwar, a question. I’m curious now; let me ask: what’s it like when you’re so thoroughly beaten by such a good-looking moderator? How does that feel? And don’t try to get out of it by saying you’re half-Indian – that card doesn’t exist!”
But things can also get really heated, as another example shows: Round 2, Thilo’s turn: “Actually, I don’t want to provoke anyone here. So please understand it as satire if I now challenge you, Ms Künast!” “I’ll give it a try. Hahahahö-grunz,” she says, laughing a bit too loudly.
Thilo Sarrazin plays the Jews card in the wealth category. Renate Künast plays the Nazis in the homogeneity category. Ranga Yogeshwar speaks up, “Beckmann” takes him: “Let me add up the stars, after all I’m fully clued up on science and stuff. Let’s see: the Jews 5 + 4, hmm… and the Nazis count… 9 : 5.5. Thilo wins.”
“Great.” Just as Thilo is about to reach for the cards, Künast suddenly blurts out, sparks flying: “HOLD ON! Not so fast, buddy. Jews may be better than Nazis, but my card is trump. It says: Nazis beat Jews and Black people, so I win! In your face Sarrazin, in your face!!”
Künast grins mischievously at her own cleverness and greedily grabs for the cards. But Thilo wouldn’t be Sarrazin if he didn’t have an ace up his sleeve – in this case, an action card. “I play the card: The federal government steps in,” he says and casually slides it onto the table.
Renate explodes: “You can’t be SERIOUS now, can you?! How are you going to talk your way out of this one?! Watch what you say!”
“Well, it’s like this: criticising the Jews, say for – let’s say settlement building, um… you can’t do that in Germany without risking being suspected of being a Nazi. Because then you immediately get those left-eyed blind reflexes that shut you up for socio-romantic reasons, so you don’t disturb the imaginary multicultural peace. And being called a ‘thought criminal’ wouldn’t be so ‘double plus good’ for your career, would it, Ms Künast?” Renate Künast’s face falls. That hit home and finally silenced her. Two points for Thilo: he gets to assimilate the minorities into his community of values.
Out of respect for the different thinking cultures of our test players, we won’t reveal who won the game after counting the collected cards. After all, all people are equal!