Do orcs in gaming display parallels to colonialist propaganda?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
I guess it depends on what classof people you hang out with?

*shrug* Intentional fallacy works because you can use it to refer to multiple media for criticism. But hey, you do your thing.

I'm going to act as if your use of this word is not as dismissive and condescending as it comes across.

I ... can't even. Other than cherrypicking one single example, did you look at the people we are discussing? You know, the academy and the critics?

Or, for that matter, the difference between America (that you are dismissing, except when it is convenient to cite Ellison) and France (that you are using for later dates, except when you want to use America's civil rights movement).

It's not cherry-picking, it's using examples to make a point. And, apologies to the cultural differences between the U.S. and France, but globalism was a thing. You don't think the French weren't reading Ellison or Hurtson? Or that Americans weren't reading Barthes? Or that the French were unaware of the Civil Rights movement or in fact the broader global movement for racial justice, which was also, of course, happening in France?

Or that I didn't notice that The Verbal Icon was written by Americans?

Yes, racial animus did have a role to play; not always a great one.

That is the extent of my point, nothing more. I think where we may be disagreeing is to the degree.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Doug McCrae

Legend
Tolkien’s orcs are dark-skinned and “slant-eyed”.

"His broad flat face was swart, his eyes were like coals, and his tongue was red."​
"There were four goblin-soldiers of greater stature, swart, slant-eyed, with thick legs and large hands."​
"A grim dark band, four score at least of large, swart, slant-eyed Orcs."​

“Swart” is an archaic term for swarthy, meaning dark-skinned.

They are organised in tribes.

"Apparently the members of two or three quite different tribes were present, and they could not understand one another’s orc-speech."​
"And these creatures, being filled with malice, hating even their own kind, quickly developed as many barbarous dialects as there were groups or settlements of their race, so that their Orkish speech was of little use to them in intercourse between different tribes."​

Almost all beings described as swart or swarthy in The Lord of the Rings are evil, with one exception – the men of Lossarnach and Lebennin, which is part of Gondor. All tribal beings are evil.

Orcs in 1e AD&D are “brown or brownish green with a bluish sheen”, live in tribes, and have witch doctors. “Witch doctors are tribal cleric/magic-users.” Orcs are of lawful evil alignment and have intelligence of “average (low)”. “Orcs are cruel and hate living things in general... They take slaves for work, food, and entertainment (torture, etc.)” Half-orcs are described as “mongrels”, and it should be noted that this word isn’t used for half-elves. “Half-orcs tend to favor the orcish strain heavily.”

The term “witch doctor” was first used as an alternative for cunning man – a European folk healer and magician. However its coupling with the word “tribal” suggests that it instead refers to African witch doctors, a staple of colonial adventure fiction such as King Solomon’s Mines and Tarzan.

“Mongrel” is a pejorative term for someone who is biracial.

"It is scarcely necessary to cite the universal distrust, often contempt, that the half-breed between two sharply contrasted races inspires the world over. Belonging physically and spiritually to the lower race, but aspiring to recognition as one of the higher race, the unfortunate mongrel, in addition to a disharmonic physique, often inherits from one parent an unstable brain which is stimulated and at times overexcited by flashes of brilliancy from the other." - Madison Grant, The Passing of the Great Race (1916)​

"There must have been nearly a hundred mongrel celebrants in the throng… all proved to be men of a very low, mixed-blooded, and mentally aberrant type." - HP Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu (1928)​

Rudyard Kipling’s The White Man’s Burden (1899) describes Filipinos as “Half-devil and half-child.” This seems an apt description of orcs, given they are both evil and of low intelligence.

The following four quotes are all from Ben Kiernan’s Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide (2007).

'Men of “position” declared “that the blackfellow was not a human being and that there was no more guilt in shooting him than in shooting a native dog”.' This is in the context of the Bathurst War in Australia, 1824.​
'A juror called blacks “a set of monkies and the earlier they are exterminated from the face of the earth the better”.' Myall Creek Massacre, 1838.​
'Defending the Black Hills in 1876, Lakota warriors killed Custer and 225 of his soldiers at the Little Big Horn. The San Francisco Chronicle now urged “no treating or temporizing with the red brutes,” whose “fiendish atrocities” made them “worse than wild beasts.”'​
'Conservative Party spokesmen… described the Herero as “blood-thirsty beasts in the form of humans”.' German Southwest Africa, 1907.​

There are parallels with orcs here, both in their nature and in the way they are treated by PCs (and are expected to be treated.)
 
Last edited:

Hussar

Legend
I'd argue that Drow make for a perfect example of why we don't treat the author's intent as particularly important. Does anyone think Gygax was particularly misogynistic? I certainly don't. There's no evidence of it as far as I know. I imagine most people reading this probably don't think so either.

But, that doesn't change the fact that the only matriarchy described in D&D is a bunch of men enslaving women in BDSM outfits who worship, and this is a pretty key symbol, not a just spider goddess, but a specifically black widow spider, complete with hourglass symbol. The symbology here is pretty blatant.

IOW, is it really much of a stretch to look at drow and see misogyny? By adding in authorial intent, now we start making excuses - oh, it's not really a black widow symbol, but, an empowering symbol of female strength because female spiders are bigger than male spiders.

While that's true, it's kinda missing the bigger picture here.
 

IOW, is it really much of a stretch to look at drow and see misogyny? By adding in authorial intent, now we start making excuses - oh, it's not really a black widow symbol, but, an empowering symbol of female strength because female spiders are bigger than male spiders.

I don't know the intent Gygax had with Drow, and I am hazy on the development of Drow mythology in the game (I am pretty sure it wasn't that fleshed out from the outset but I could be wrong). My feeling is the authors intent should still be considered here. It doesn't have to be the only thing that gets weighed. But we should at least be able to consider what the author was trying to achieve (we always have the option of saying the author failed to achieve that, or that the times have changed so much the message is lost on most readers). But I think if we can't even attempt to see things from the author's point of view we miss out on a huge aspect of it (and again, I am offering no conclusions on what Gygax intended here). I think an approach where you only weigh the author's intent is limiting, but so is one where we only weigh our own reactions. I am particularly concerned about the latter because I think it starts to limit our ability to handle media and text from other times and cultures.
 


pemerton

Legend
Author's intent presumably matters to whether or not we judge an author to be morally flawed.

But I take [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] to be talking about the meaning of the work. What tropes does it embody and express? What ideas does it draw upon, and evoke? And what is the political/moral significance of these things?

I don't know what JRRT had in mind when he wrote the passages that [MENTION=21169]Doug McCrae[/MENTION] has quoted just upthread. And I don't really care. Those are questions about his biography. But this thread is about the significance of those passages, and similar ideas, as they have been received into fantasy RPGing. And frankly I think they speak for themselves.
 

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
I am particularly concerned about the latter because I think it starts to limit our ability to handle media and text from other times and cultures.

One caveat to this is that it is very, very easy to fall into the trap of excusing attitudes or beliefs as being just a "product of the culture" or that "everyone was like that back then." This erases large swaths of people who may or may not have been "ahead of their time" but were/are certainly fighting for justice and raising a stink about it, regardless of their numbers or overall impact.

Context is, of course, always important, but it's important not to shy away from or give a free pass to individuals for holding harmful beliefs or engaging in harmful behaviors.
 

One caveat to this is that it is very, very easy to fall into the trap of excusing attitudes or beliefs as being just a "product of the culture" or that "everyone was like that back then." This erases large swaths of people who may or may not have been "ahead of their time" but were/are certainly fighting for justice and raising a stink about it, regardless of their numbers or overall impact.

Context is, of course, always important, but it's important not to shy away from or give a free pass to individuals for holding harmful beliefs or engaging in harmful behaviors.

I understand that. But I also think what the writer actually believes does matter. Of course context is important. You shouldn't strip out context either. I just think there is an emerging lack of worldliness around this, where people can't seem to handle media that comes from perspectives that are out of step with our present culture. I am not saying folks need to accept all the messaging. It just reminds me of the the way for example, many Christian thinkers used to have a lot of difficulty reconciling their Christian culture with the texts of the classical world. To me there is a big difference between someone who is deliberately advocating for misogyny and someone who uses a trope people later regard as misogynistic, but who doesn't hold misogynistic.

I think we also have to ask ourselves, if we get rid of this stuff, what we might be losing in the process. A lot of art doesn't hold to the values of later eras. This is particularly true if intent is ignored. But erasing it, or eliminating aspects of it we consider problematic strikes me as somewhat iconoclastic in the very old fashioned sense of the word. I mainly just encouraging some amount of caution here.
 

Hussar

Legend
It’s not about erasing anything though. It’s about taking those ideas and pulling out the good stuff.

So we get Cthulhu mythos stuff which is good without the rampant racism which is bad.

We get a broader drow culture which is far more nuanced which is good instead of a product of the times which is bad.

We get orcs which are less “kill on sight because it’s evil” and so on.

It’s not about erasing. It’s about redeeming.
 

It’s not about erasing anything though. It’s about taking those ideas and pulling out the good stuff.

So we get Cthulhu mythos stuff which is good without the rampant racism which is bad.

We get a broader drow culture which is far more nuanced which is good instead of a product of the times which is bad.

We get orcs which are less “kill on sight because it’s evil” and so on.

It’s not about erasing. It’s about redeeming.

But you are still necessarily taking things out. Those things are being erased. Right? I think in the case of D&D it is a bit different because, we are really talking about evolution of a concept over time. But what if WOTC re-releases some of the original material again? Do we need to make changes to it for it to be safe for consumption?

Redemptive language like that, makes me very uneasy where art and expression are concerned.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top