How to Play:

National Trauma Game

Game Setup

1. Each player receives a Country Card (Israel, Palestine, France, Germany, or USA)

2. Shuffle the National Footprint Cards and place 5-7 face-up in the center

3. Each player gets access to AI research tools on their device

Round Structure

Phase 1: Research & Preparation

When players receive their Country Card, they use AI to research their assigned nation's trauma narrative:

AI Research Prompts for Players:

• "What was the founding trauma of [country]? How is it remembered today?"

• "How does [country] commemorate its historical trauma through holidays, monuments, or rituals?"

• "What groups control the narrative about [country]'s traumatic history?"

• "How has [country]'s trauma influenced its constitution or legal system?"

Phase 2: Claiming Cards

• Players take turns claiming National Footprint Cards they believe connect to their country's trauma response

• When claiming a card, players must explain the connection using both their research and reasoning

• Other players can challenge claims, leading to mini-debates

Phase 3: Challenge Round

A Challenge Card is drawn asking questions like:

• "Who tells the story?" - Explain which groups shape your country's trauma narrative

• "What's the cost?" - Describe negative consequences of your country's trauma response

• "How do you remember?" - Detail specific rituals, monuments, or practices

AI Integration for Challenge Rounds: Players can use AI for real-time fact-checking and deeper analysis:

• "Help me analyze how [specific group] influences [country]'s historical narrative"

• "What are counterarguments to the dominant story about [event] in [country]?"

• "Compare how [country A] and [country B] remember similar types of trauma"

Phase 4: Reflection & Scoring

• Players vote on most insightful explanations

• Group discusses patterns and differences across countries

• AI can help generate reflection questions: "What surprised you about how different countries handle similar traumas?"

AI as Learning Partner

During Gameplay:

• Players use AI to verify historical facts and explore multiple perspectives

• AI helps generate thoughtful questions about complex issues

• Players can ask AI to help them understand opposing viewpoints

Example AI Interactions:

• "I'm playing Germany. Help me understand how Holocaust memory shapes current immigration policy"

• "As Palestine, how can I explain the role of diaspora communities in maintaining trauma narrative?"

• "Playing France - what's the connection between colonial trauma and current secularism laws?"

This integration transforms AI from a simple information source into a collaborative thinking partner that enhances rather than replaces critical analysis, perfectly embodying the cyborg classroom philosophy of human-AI collaboration in learning. The game also enables information triangulation as players research the same events from different national perspectives, while role-playing different national identities creates opportunities for embodied understanding of diverse viewpoints.

With more players—whether individuals or groups representing different countries—we multiply perspectives and create richer opportunities for dialogue, learning, and mutual understanding. The game becomes a space where participants can recognize both similarities in how nations process trauma and differences in their responses, fostering the kind of nuanced thinking essential for navigating our interconnected yet divided world. Each additional voice adds layers of complexity that prevent oversimplification while building capacity for generous interpretation across difference.

based on :

Alexander, J. C. (2004). Toward a Theory of Cultural Trauma. In J. C. Alexander, R. Eyerman, B. Giesen, N. J. Smelser, & P. Sztompka (Eds.), Cultural Trauma and Collective Identity (pp. 1–30). University of California Press.

Yair, Gad, (2023). "Trauma and constitution: Precursors of political traditions and collective identities," European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology, Col. 11(1): 44-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/23254823.2023.2219334