Do orcs in gaming display parallels to colonialist propaganda?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Then there are peculiarities that are distinctive to D&D, like Gygax's Monster Manual describing dwarves as brown but nearly all D&D art depicting them as white.

Well, whitewashed art in D&D products were all too common for far too long. Remember these?
View attachment 101953

View attachment 101952

 

[wingsandsword]

The idea of a hostile, primitive, uncivilized outsider people just beyond the borders of your land, ready to do you harm. . .is pretty much as old as civilization itself.

The very term "barbarian" comes from ancient Rome and their term for non-Roman peoples they considered unable to interact with them in a civilized fashion (which usually meant the Germanic peoples of central and western Europe).

The same concept of "We're civilized and peaceful, but those people over there are hostile, brutal, uncivilized and barely even count as people" appears in the Old Testament, it appears in the histories of pretty much all the known ancient civilizations. Similar concepts appear everywhere from the Roman Empire to China and Japan, and everywhere in between.

It's hardly "colonialist", more like it's a very, very longstanding trend in how humans view outsider groups.

Orcs exist as a narrative device, a metaphor, a way of embodying that hostile, uncivilized, not-quite-human way that humans have of interpreting outsiders.

After all, you COULD tell just about every D&D story that involves orcs by substituting in some made-up in-story foreign ethnicity. . .but "orc" is a great shorthand for it that sidesteps issues of human race/ethnicity/nationality and substitutes in a completely non-human one and lets players know "these are the bad guys, or at least ones everyone generally presumes to be bad guys".

 

[pemerton]

View attachment 101952

Where's this one from?

 

[pemerton]

The idea of a hostile, primitive, uncivilized outsider people just beyond the borders of your land, ready to do you harm. . .is pretty much as old as civilization itself.

<snip>

It's hardly "colonialist", more like it's a very, very longstanding trend in how humans view outsider groups.

Supposing your first sentence to be true, that doesn't support your second sentence. Because rests on a xenophobic view of "outsiders" doesn't entail not part of a colonialist outlook.

Orcs exist as a narrative device, a metaphor, a way of embodying that hostile, uncivilized, not-quite-human way that humans have of interpreting outsiders.

<snip>

"orc" is a great shorthand for it that sidesteps issues of human race/ethnicity/nationality and substitutes in a completely non-human one and lets players know "these are the bad guys, or at least ones everyone generally presumes to be bad guys".

When orcs (as in JRRT) are dark-skinned, wield scimitars, and have "bandy" legs, they don't sidestep issues of human race/ethnicity/nationality. They instantiate a particular stereotype in respect of such things.

At the time of Tolkien writing, terms that we would consider pretty pejorative, such as, "squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes; in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types" today were not particularly analyzed. However, several decades later, well, when your evil race looks like ugly northern Asians, it's quite possible to ruffle some feathers.

And, really, it's so indicative of the general tone of early to mid 20th century Spec Fic. The casual racism of the day bleeds into the text. And, when we draw from those texts, it can be pretty off putting if we're not very, very careful.

I certainly agree about casual racism bleeding into pulp literature and related genres. I don't quite agree that the racist language was "not particularly analysed" - people of colour at the time often noticed what was going on!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Where's this one from?

As I recall, it’s the splash page introducing 2Ed’s Egyptian pantheon in Legend & Lore. Could be wrong about the particular book- it’s been a while since I looked at that piece in context.

 

[wingsandsword]

Supposing your first sentence to be true, that doesn't support your second sentence. Because rests on a xenophobic view of "outsiders" doesn't entail not part of a colonialist outlook.

Except that "colonialist" is entirely a modern 20th/21st century pejorative referring to modern politics.

If you can point to the ancient world and see the exact same mindset and attitudes there, that's pretty much conclusive proof that it isn't something whipped up within the last century or so.

 

[pemerton]

Except that "colonialist" is entirely a modern 20th/21st century pejorative referring to modern politics.

If you can point to the ancient world and see the exact same mindset and attitudes there, that's pretty much conclusive proof that it isn't something whipped up within the last century or so.

I don't think you can look at the ancient world and see the exact same "mindset and attitudes" as nineteenth century racism of the sort found in pulp and other modern fantasy writings.

But even if you could, that wouldn't be any reason to suppose that those mindsets and attitudes, in the nineteenth century and since, aren't components of, and/or causes of, and/or ideological underpinnings of, colonialist ideas.

 

[pemerton]

As I recall, it’s the splash page introducing 2Ed’s Egyptian pantheon in Legend & Lore. Could be wrong about the particular book- it’s been a while since I looked at that piece in context.

I don't think I've ever seen 2nd ed L&L in it's full "glory" (I have an electronic text version that I'm pretty sure was a legal download from the TSR/WotC webpage years ago). Which explains why I don't recognise it.

 

[Hussar]

The idea of a hostile, primitive, uncivilized outsider people just beyond the borders of your land, ready to do you harm. . .is pretty much as old as civilization itself.

The very term "barbarian" comes from ancient Rome and their term for non-Roman peoples they considered unable to interact with them in a civilized fashion (which usually meant the Germanic peoples of central and western Europe).

The same concept of "We're civilized and peaceful, but those people over there are hostile, brutal, uncivilized and barely even count as people" appears in the Old Testament, it appears in the histories of pretty much all the known ancient civilizations. Similar concepts appear everywhere from the Roman Empire to China and Japan, and everywhere in between.

It's hardly "colonialist", more like it's a very, very longstanding trend in how humans view outsider groups.

Orcs exist as a narrative device, a metaphor, a way of embodying that hostile, uncivilized, not-quite-human way that humans have of interpreting outsiders.

After all, you COULD tell just about every D&D story that involves orcs by substituting in some made-up in-story foreign ethnicity. . .but "orc" is a great shorthand for it that sidesteps issues of human race/ethnicity/nationality and substitutes in a completely non-human one and lets players know "these are the bad guys, or at least ones everyone generally presumes to be bad guys".

Except there is one key issue that you're leaving out here - that every good race is white and every bad race isn't. I mean, how often are the "barbarians" described as beautiful? The civilized race as ugly?

Look, I'm trying to tread REALLY lightly here because it is a very short step from "I interpret it this way" to "Your interpretation is an attack on me". I don't doubt that there are certainly valid interpretations of orc as "these are the bad guys". Fair enough.

But, in the same way, you have to recognize that this isn't the only interpretation, nor is it the "right" one. There ISN'T a "right" interpretation. There are all sorts of interpretations and they are ALL valid, so long as you can support them with the text. And, again, even if we want to leave Tolkien out of the discussion, there are MANY examples of far more egregious works in the genre.

5e D&D, for example, has taken a HUGE step forward by making alignment largely simply descriptive. There's almost no mechanics associated with alignment. Saying a race is good or evil doesn't really mean a whole lot on 5e and you can easily swap out other descriptions. The concept of Orc in D&D varies HUGELY depending on the setting. I mean, Forgotten Realms now has a civilized orc nation.

 

[S'mon]

Mongol, in early 20th century English, didn't really refer to Ghengis Khan, unless you were specifically talking about history. Mongol in the vernacular tends to be a pretty negative term for Asians - thus we get terms like Mongoloid as a perjorative for those with Down's Syndrome. The description certainly isn't flattering.

And, again, we have to be careful in interpretations not to be dismissive of those who might view things differently. This is literature. There are very, very few "correct" interpretations. So long as you can support the interpretation in the text, then the interpretation, while different, is valid. Simply brushing off criticisms of racism in Tolkien because he's not talking about 12th century Mongols isn't really going to get anywhere.

At the time of Tolkien writing, terms that we would consider pretty pejorative, such as, "squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes; in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types" today were not particularly analyzed. However, several decades later, well, when your evil race looks like ugly northern Asians, it's quite possible to ruffle some feathers.

And, really, it's so indicative of the general tone of early to mid 20th century Spec Fic. The casual racism of the day bleeds into the text. And, when we draw from those texts, it can be pretty off putting if we're not very, very careful.

I don't think "colonialist" should be used as a synonym for "racist".