Cultural Appropriation in role-playing games (draft)

[Guest 85555]

But, you live in a world where others do think it is valid, and has value. So, you're probably going to have to learn to live with it.

Sure people believe lots of things I think are misguided or counter productive. I am okay with that. Never said people had to agree with me or that I expect everyone to suddenly not find use in the concept. I am always happy to share space with people who disagree with me on things. That is one of the things that makes life interesting.

Yeah, but dude, if they don't at least occasionally bludgeon those in the privileged classes over the head, nothing *happens*. If folks are gentle, kind, appeasing to your sensibilities, there's little motive to change. I think history will show you that advancement on issues of racism, sexism, and other civil rights and equality always come at the price of someone feeling pretty darned uncomfortable.

I am all for real social justice Umbran. There are a lot of racial disparities in our culture that are very real and need to be remedied. I am not asking people to be sensitive to my sensibilities. And I am certainly not opposed to progress on social and racial issues. My point is I just don't believe Cultural Appropriation as a concept is a useful tool for improving any of this stuff. Certainly I don't think it is a useful tool for improving how cultures interact. Like I said before I think being culturally sensitive and avoiding things like stereotypes are all good. But CA is a much more esoteric concept and I think it clouds the issue.

I don't actually expect that point to get through, though. One of the major issues with such discussions is that, if someone is confronted with that which they don't believe, they usually dig in and double-down on their commitment. So, I don't actually expect you, personally, will accept a single thing I've said here. With this post, I'm no longer trying to convince you, and I owe it to you to be honest about that.

Some other reader, however, who isn't invested in the position, might see the point, and take it to heart.

I think this is an unhelpful tone. It is like you are here to enlighten me rather than have a discussion and it assumes I have no interest in listening to your arguments. As a poster I am pretty good about acknowledging when I am wrong if someone convinces me. Obviously this is an issue where people on both sides feel strongly, and we are therefore less likely to convince one another. But I approach these topics in good faith. I am happy to consider the possibility I am wrong (in every discussion I have, believe it or not, this is something I actively do and on this topic in particular I have regularly re-evaluated my position and sought input from people I know who come from other cultures). But I think it is fair for me to expect you to be as self reflective as well and genuinely consider the possibility that you are wrong.

When I said I believed this was divisive rather than unifying, I was serious and sincere in that concern. Now I could be wrong that this is where it leads, but further fragmenting and dividing of people in this world is a consquence I think we ought to weigh carefully as a potential outcome when we effectively make certain forms of cultural borrowing and sharing immoral by invoking a concept that is vague and connects things like someone in the present making use of a cultural artifact with colonialism and imperialism. I think we are better off the more people from different cultures interact and share with each other. My view is this concept makes people more hesitant to do that (the OP himself said some fences make for good neighbors). I don't want to live in a world with more fences and more walls. Maybe this isn't the case. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe Cultural Aproppropriation will open the door for more exchange or at least exchange that is more respectful. I can certainly see the case for that. And I can certainly see that your position is grounded in sincere concerns for potential harm done to people through cultural appropriation. But I have my doubts, and this is largely due to the fact that hate movements have begun to adopt the language of Cultural Appropriation to make an argument for things like white nationalism.

I don't think these issues are as black and white as people like to make them out to be. They certainly are not ones with easy solutions or conclusions in my view.

 

[Bawylie]

I don't think a single person here suggests otherwise. We simply disagree with what counts as "some amount".



Yes. Now, reread the thread, and note how that the only person who has suggested we take that idea flatly was Grumpy, and when we pointed out some of the problems, he changed it. Here you are seemingly trying to tell us we shouldn't discuss the topic, and here we are, using discussion of the topic to bring out some amount of moderation of an extreme position. Which of us is being more constructive?

There is a musical, "1776", in which one of the founding fathers (Stephen Hopkins, of Rhode Island) notes: "Well, in all my years I ain't never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about. " While the historical man may not have said those words, the sentiment has value. We can't even *talk* about it?



Okay. Fine. You don't think it has value. We got that.

But, you live in a world where others do think it is valid, and has value. So, you're probably going to have to learn to live with it.



The only freezing of the dialog I've seen has come from your attempt to reject the term. The rest of us seemed to be doing just fine. Grumpy came here looking for feedback, we gave it, and he actually took some of it. Not all, but some. That's not "frozen". That motion. You're the only one stuck in place.



Yeah, but dude, if they don't at least occasionally bludgeon those in the privileged classes over the head, nothing *happens*. If folks are gentle, kind, appeasing to your sensibilities, there's little motive to change. I think history will show you that advancement on issues of racism, sexism, and other civil rights and equality always come at the price of someone feeling pretty darned uncomfortable.

Monte Cook didn't find a good way to present his content until he was bludgeoned over the head with the error. Betcha he won't make that mistake again!

So, yes, we get bludgeoned with it. We are made to feel guilty, ashamed, put upon when we feel we are innocent. Guess what? If we are worth what we think we are, we can handle it. A bit of humble pie can be good for us.



Interestingly, apple pie and fried chicken are *not* American. You can find them in Italian 15th century cookbooks, among other European sources, with virtually the same recipes. What we think of apple pie today is really... German, brought by the Pennsylvania Dutch.



Tell that to Apple. They have active look and feel suits going over cellphone design as we speak.

Mind you, I must say (again, and so I put it in big letters so that I'm clear): I WAS NOT SUGGESTING WE LITERALLY USE COPYRIGHT LAW FOR THIS.

It was merely the handy example of, "someone else created it, and you took it, and we already accept that can be problematic". That's all. That's as far as it goes. You have spent many paragraphs (stalling the conversation, btw) on a strawman.

I don't actually expect that point to get through, though. One of the major issues with such discussions is that, if someone is confronted with that which they don't believe, they usually dig in and double-down on their commitment. So, I don't actually expect you, personally, will accept a single thing I've said here. With this post, I'm no longer trying to convince you, and I owe it to you to be honest about that.

Some other reader, however, who isn't invested in the position, might see the point, and take it to heart.

I think I reach an unfavorable conclusion, overall. I'm fine discussing anything, and any idea deserves a good airing out.

This particular idea, though, seems intended to be used as a cudgel. And that's how I see it applied when it crops up in discussions, at museums, on forums, etc. Whatever its merits, (and there are some), the effect seems to me to be chilling. "You're privileged, you've taken what doesn't belong to you. This is morally indistinct from imperial colonizers who ruined other cultures."

And whatever discussion we might have about what's adaptation, what's appropriation, what's imitation, all happens under an implicit accusation. A charge that some wrong must necessarily have been committed, a wrong that disqualifies one party from discourse (at best) and demands capitulation and redress (at worst).

That's maybe not fair for this essay. And there's definitely a more charitable read. But that's not where I am just this moment.

 

[Guest 85555]

Yes. Now, reread the thread, and note how that the only person who has suggested we take that idea flatly was Grumpy, and when we pointed out some of the problems, he changed it. Here you are seemingly trying to tell us we shouldn't discuss the topic, and here we are, using discussion of the topic to bring out some amount of moderation of an extreme position. Which of us is being more constructive?
.

I am not saying people shouldn't discuss it. I am critiquing the concept that the essay is built upon. Any full conversation on the topic is going to need to include arguments against the premise itself. I haven't said to anyone here that the should stop talking about it or that they have to take my side. I am just giving my honest assessment of Cultural Appropriation as a concept, since it is the subject the OP raised and one that I think would be counter productive for designers to rely upon. I get that you may find it a helpful concept, and others may as well, but criticism of it isn't that unusual. It isn't a universally embraced idea and there are lots of people who feel it does more harm than good.

Further, I don't think he has moderated his position all that much (nor do I think he ought to, if he doesn't wish to). I think he has changed how he expressed it. I certainly think it is a positive thing that he has asked for feedback here and is taking it seriously. I also admire his bravery for being willing to post an article like that and ask for feedback (knowing it is going to provoke lots of different kinds of reactions). And I actually am a fan of his reviews. But the fundamental position seems to remain in place as far as I can tell. I could certainly focus my energies on trying to help him say the same thing in a more agreeable way, but that wouldn't be honest. I want to give my honest opinion to the OP. I am fine with him not agreeing with me. He seems to be taking that kind of negative feedback in stride and incorporating it. I doubt I will change his opinion. What I hope to do is to give him a sense that there are people out there who question the core assumption behind his post and try to explain the reasons why.

 

[Bagpuss]

Yes. Now, reread the thread, and note how that the only person who has suggested we take that idea flatly was Grumpy, and when we pointed out some of the problems, he changed it.

Not in any significant way.

I think the only significant change I saw was from "Cultural Appropriation is hate speech." to "Cultural Appropriation can be a kind of hate speech."

But there was no indication in the article of when he thinks, CA is hate speech, and when it is either okay, or just short of hate speech.

 

[Guest 85555]

Monte Cook didn't find a good way to present his content until he was bludgeoned over the head with the error. Betcha he won't make that mistake again!

So, yes, we get bludgeoned with it. We are made to feel guilty, ashamed, put upon when we feel we are innocent. Guess what? If we are worth what we think we are, we can handle it. A bit of humble pie can be good for us.
t.

My memory of events may be hazy but my impression wasn't that they made changes in response to people shaming them or bludgeoning them, in fact they were very careful in their public statements to indicate they were responding to people who came to them in good faith and with an interest in dialogue. I can't speak for them though, so maybe someone closer to monte cook games can weigh in. I think this was a complex event. I don't think it was as simple as someone invoking cultural appropriation, being rude about it, and getting results because they shamed monte (in fact, in the initial days some oft hostile social media posts had the opposite effect). The turning point I think was when Shanna went on the radio podcast and talked to two native Americans who had concerns. If you listen to that discussion it is the furthest thing from bludgeoning or shaming. It was a great dialogue in my view. I think what persuaded them was talking to people who were willing to engage and coming to the conclusion that they were handling crude stereotypes and that it wasn't as sensitive to native american culture as it could have been. You don't need cultural appropriation as a concept to reach that conclusion. You just need to be mindful of stereotypes and be sensitive to Native American culture. I didn't see change arise when people were shouting. I saw change begin when folks stopped shouting and started talking with one another.

I know not everyone shares this view, but I feel that bludgeoning, shaming and guilting people is generally not the most effective way to convince them. Sometimes it may certainly be called for. There are things happening in the world today that certainly require strong responses. But I think in most cases, an open and respectful dialogue is the best path to change and increased empathy. Yes, people can handle it. It doesn't really affect me all that much if someone tries to bludgeon me in a debate. The point isn't that it does irreparable harm or anything. The point is it doesn't facilitate communication. This is something you can observe in real time in conversations with people. It is just rudimentary that if you begin a disagreement with your friend or your spouse by browbeating and shaming them, it isn't going to produce good results. Why would it produce better results in a conversation about games?

 

[Umbran]

I think this is an unhelpful tone.

This particular idea, though, seems intended to be used as a cudgel.

Gentlemen, I'm sorry, but you are guilty of a logical fallacy - the "tone argument" (also known as "tone policing") in which a position is dismissed based on its presentation. It is a variant of the more formal "Appeal to Emotion".

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argument
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

The logical content of the idea is *separate* from how it is used. You can't dismiss the concept of cultural appropriation because it is used as a bludgeon, any more than you can outlaw kitchen knives because they occasionally cut people - veggies still need to be chopped, and all. Quite simply - the fact that it is used to make you feel bad does not mean it is inaccurate or incorrect!

In a very basic way, if you (meaning dominant culture, not you personally) have been walking roughshod over others, the defense, "But you should be *nice* to me!" carries darned little weight. You (we, really) get bludgeoned in large part because we are responsible* for making things better, and are generally falling down on the job.

Now, we can have a discussion of tone, in terms of what strategies are best for reaching an audience. I made some comments to just that early in the thread, in my feedback to Grumpy. However, that doesn't touch the basic validity (or lack thereof) of the position. To conflate them is basically saying, 'I don't think we should talk about that topic, as it makes me uncomfortable." As I noted before - there *will* be unpleasant feelings here. This is hard, and a big humble pill we need to swallow. But the side effects to us are not the central issue.




*In saying this, I note the difference between being "responsible" and being "accountable". We, as individuals, may be largely innocent of the major sins, but it falls in our laps to help make things better, regardless.

 

[Jim Jenkins]

I don't know if the problem is so much the "bludgeoning" but the selective judgment in the theory in the first place. It's another manifestation of Tumblr Social Justice Theory: Life as anyone but a straight white cis male is fraught with microaggressions that need to be constantly called out. The result is a litany of double standards that, when called out, are met with "check your privilege."

No one cared about cultural appropriation as long as the group being appropriated wasn't seen as "oppressed." The tremendous irony in this is the fantasy genre borrows from mythology prolifically. As a result, EVERY culture appropriated (which isn't a bad thing; yay appropriation!) has at various points of history been both oppressor and oppressed.

This is why Tumblr Social Justice Theory simultaneously overcomplicates and oversimplifies everything by interpreting all of it through the lens of oppression (often with appallingly inaccurate understanding of oppression throughout human history). Mocking anyone's culture and heritage is bad. Simple, but treated as if it's complicated. Honoring anyone's culture and heritage is good. Still simple, but treated as if it's complicated. How oppression and privilege have played roles in anyone's culture and heritage? Really really complicated, but treated as if it's simple.

If the Mwangi had been so thoroughly researched that you'd actually learn something about African history through playing one, it would STILL be treated as a microagression because you're still appropriating, and this is just... dumb.

 

[billd91]

Gentlemen, I'm sorry, but you are guilty of a logical fallacy - the "tone argument" (also known as "tone policing") in which a position is dismissed based on its presentation. It is a variant of the more formal "Appeal to Emotion".

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argument
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

The logical content of the idea is *separate* from how it is used. You can't dismiss the concept of cultural appropriation because it is used as a bludgeon, any more than you can outlaw kitchen knives because they occasionally cut people - veggies still need to be chopped, and all. Quite simply - the fact that it is used to make you feel bad does not mean it is inaccurate or incorrect!

I'm going to disagree on the cudgel argument, at least in part. The terms of the debate, the definitions of cultural appropriation and assimilation, are political in nature, designed to be rhetorical weapons usable by only one side against the other. I think they are fundamentally flawed as a result and I don't think that is improved because they are intended to be used "punching up" at privileged groups rather than "punching down" at underprivileged groups.

 

[Jim Jenkins]

I'm going to disagree on the cudgel argument, at least in part. The terms of the debate, the definitions of cultural appropriation and assimilation, are political in nature, designed to be rhetorical weapons usable by only one side against the other. I think they are fundamentally flawed as a result and I don't think that is improved because they are intended to be used "punching up" at privileged groups rather than "punching down" at underprivileged groups.

There's a good point here. "Tone" is an inherent point of the argument being made, in that the argument is basically "Stop being bad white cis males and be a good little ally." There is an accusation implicit in the argument and therefore it's nearly impossible to rebut it without tone policing. After all, one of the strongest and most legitimate counterarguments is "Who are you to tell others how to refer to adapt elements of various cultures?"

 

[Bagpuss]

Gentlemen, I'm sorry, but you are guilty of a logical fallacy - the "tone argument" (also known as "tone policing") in which a position is dismissed based on its presentation.

I'm not seeing it dismissed because of the tone, they are just saying the tone it is unhelpful for debate.