WotC Dungeons & Dragons Fans Seek Removal of Oriental Adventures From Online Marketplace

[AbdulAlhazred]

My understanding of why pastiche European-inspired cultures are considered fine but pastiche Asian-inspired cultures in particular are not is thus:

• Many Asians living outside of Asia are either immigrants, children of immigrants, or otherwise desire a strong connection to the country their family hailed from. Most European Americans don't have that desire, having largely assimilated as "white". The former group cares more about the authenticity of their heritage than the latter (in general).
• Several Asian countries do not particularly get along well. Japan in particular pissed-off a lot of people during WWII, with the Rising Sun Imperial Flag considered by many as offensive as the Flag of Nazi Germany or the Confederate Flag (I am not an expert on this subject, but my understanding is that Japan has been less apologetic about its actions in WWII than Germany has). So mashing up cultural elements of Japan, a nation who is a former oppressor and occupier of China and Korea, doesn't go over particularly well.

Asian Americans are living as minorities in a society which largely doesn't share their ethnicity or cultural heritage. So, yeah, they identify more with their own than say Italians, who might only have been here the same length of time, but are much more likely to be identified as part of a majoritarian culture/ethnicity with which they share a lot of values.

Your second point is true too. I have Chinese people in my family. They MOST CERTAINLY do not have a good reaction to the symbols of Japanese Imperialism! OTOH they don't hate Japanese culture, and I suspect they'd be more concerned with the weirdness of mashing it up with theirs and the inauthenticity that results vs being insulted by it. That being said, I find that Chinese cultural attitudes often tend towards "we're the civilized ones, our culture is the standard to measure all others by", which probably pisses off people from other regions of Asia at times (and remembering that China spent several 1000 years expanding and spreading its culture from one river valley all over a vast area).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't think this is right. Well, not entirely right.

Edward Said wrote "Orientalism" in 1978 and it didn't come from nowhere. I think I could tell the back cover blurb was racist when I bought the book as a teenager.

In this thread peope are still using the Eurocentric phrase "Far East" although the history text I mentioned upthread, which informd my egagement with OA - East Asia: The Great Tradition, published in 1969 - explained clearly and simly why the phrase was objectionable.

If certain tropes have become triggering between 1985 and now, that could be a type of change in acceptability. But it's not clear that that is what is being argued.

Are you counterarguing that, because there existed a critique of Edward Said in some other scholarly publication, that everyone writing a D&D source book should have been aware of that criticism, surely not!

Beyond that, what other term does one use besides 'Far East', or its cognates such as 'Oriental' (well, that one can be more general, but you get my meaning)? I mean, sure, the Chinese call China "Middle Kingdom" and surely put it in the center of THEIR maps, and I suppose the Japanese did something similar. Still, the book was written primarily for a western audience. Calling it "Middle Kingdom Adventures" would have sounded pretty strange, and probably not moved the book off the shelves. While we can both agree that 'Far East' kind of implies a certain area is the 'center of the world', Europeans DO refer to Europe as 'The West', not "The Center", don't they? It seems to me that no relative geographically derived term is without potential to be interpreted as having unfortunate connotations.

I made the same point, about knives, quite a way upthread.

But depending what one thinks the complaint is against OA, it may not be relevant.

If the complaint is that only East Asian fantasy is taken to demand rules for using cutlery as weapons, then that point is answered.

If the complaint is that foregrounding chopsticks perpeutates a certain sort of objectionable conception of East Asian and East Asian-descended people, then the point is not answered.

I think the complaint is the second, although perhaps bits of the first are also coming through.

Again, what are you asking for here? That chopsticks, kuàizi (Chinese: 筷子) meaning 'fast sticks', from which the word 'chop' is derived, not be presented in the game? That they have a different name? It is a book about fantasy Asia, and the word 'chopstick' has a long (at least 400 year) etymology. Nor is the term considered offensive by Chinese people so far as I know (and I live with them, I assume they would have told me so if it was).

Anyway, the whole 'fighting with chopsticks' thing is a BIT silly, but it is actually drawn from Chinese sources, so it is hard to see why it should be source of complaint! It may be a bit cartoonish (IE based on a very unrealistic and non-serious cultural antecedent), but it is certainly true to the culture in some sense.

Also, I have watched a LOT of hours of Chinese pseudo-historical/fantastical drama (they churn the stuff out in vast quantities, and some of it is pretty entertaining). There is a very strong central theme in this sort of material of the 'master' who surely has the power to do something like pick up a set of chopsticks and wreak havoc with it. Of course this is not an attribute of every character, nor is it a super frequently repeated motif, but I have seen a couple scenes like this in various shows. It seems quite in keeping with the way OA presents it.

Also D&D rules are pretty clumsy when it comes to weapons. Obviously, realistically, using a chopstick would be marginal, but probably could serve to some advantage in a life-and-death fight. D&D generally has only a coarse kind of rules where the least added effect of something would be a point of extra damage. In the context of ordinary people fighting (1d6 hit point 0-level humans) that's a fairly significant advantage, though not overwhelming. Beyond that the game doesn't really have a way to describe situational advantage. Fisticuffs will not be improved by a chopstick, but rolling around on the floor gouging the other guy's face might be. All D&D can do is give an overall blanket combat advantage to something, and that has to be large enough to incentivize the item's actually use to make it meaningful in a game sense. Thus such marginal weapons become inflated into being something you can use all the time in a substantial way. The reverse happens too, daggers for example are quite underrated in D&D in many respects.

 

[Aldarc]

Sure, but a 'Pastiche' is not automatically derogatory or racist. It is simply a type of treatment of a subject. So, I agree with the fundamental assertion @Bedrockgames is making here, that there's nothing wrong with Pastiches, nor with 'mixing culture'.

while you didn't mention the term 'Cultural Appropriation', I think it is sort of lurking here, and others have stated it. I find that term utterly poisonous and toxic. It is certainly true that someone outside a culture who wants to belittle it and insult it, will have to appropriate its terms, etc. in order to do so. It isn't the appropriation which is the problem, it is the denigration!
Culture does not belong to anyone. Martial arts are not 'owned' by people with a gene that produces an epicanthic fold on the eyelid. To assume otherwise is preposterous and rapidly degenerates into the ridiculous. All the culture we have today is the result of a vast process of differentiation, amalgamation, borrowing, etc. repeated again and again over a period extending far back into prehistory. Culture is the common heritage of all mankind. Zeb Cook had as much right to create OA as any other person on Earth has to do something like that. Given that he took that up, then there is a responsibility to be a decent human being and treat this culture in a fair way, to the best of his ability. But he wasn't obligated to portray it in a perfectly accurate way, or not omit parts, or not combine it with some western values, or whatever. Again, the 'appropriation' is not, and should not, and CANNOT be the issue. The only issue can be the taste with which the treatment was done, and the quality of the results.

You may find "cultural appropriation" a toxic term, but it's the appropriate one. The fact that you think that it's toxic as a term is ridiculous and demonstrates a lack of understanding of its usage. It's about like complaining about the term "toxic masculinity" and then saying that "masculinity" is fine, when the point is how the term exists in usage as a unit: i.e., toxic masculinity. However, if you are looking for something more neutral about the ebb and flow of culture, ideologies, etc., then the term you are looking for is "cultural diffusion" or sometimes "trans-cultural diffusion." Cultural diffusion =! cultural appropriation.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You may find "cultural appropriation" a toxic term, but it's the appropriate one. The fact that you think that it's toxic as a term is ridiculous and demonstrates a lack of understanding of its usage. It's about like complaining about the term "toxic masculinity" and then saying that "masculinity" is fine, when the point is how the term exists in usage as a unit: i.e., toxic masculinity. However, if you are looking for something more neutral about the ebb and flow of culture, ideologies, etc., then the term you are looking for is "cultural diffusion" or sometimes "trans-cultural diffusion." Cultural diffusion =! cultural appropriation.

I think you would need to be a lot more precise. If you can describe a criteria for where to draw a line, and what the differences are, why they matter, etc. then I would have something to discuss. I have encountered MANY uses of 'cultural appropriation', often by people who put themselves forward as culture authorities which wouldn't appear to pass your test, not even close. So don't leap to calling it ridiculous so fast, the term is out there being used in ways that are NOT GOOD all the time, and by people who SHOULD KNOW BETTER.

And really, a discussion on the finer points is one I do welcome. It seems to germane to the general topic here, but feel free to take it elsewhere too.

 

[Aldarc]

I think you would need to be a lot more precise. If you can describe a criteria for where to draw a line, and what the differences are, why they matter, etc. then I would have something to discuss. I have encountered MANY uses of 'cultural appropriation', often by people who put themselves forward as culture authorities which wouldn't appear to pass your test, not even close. So don't leap to calling it ridiculous so fast, the term is out there being used in ways that are NOT GOOD all the time, and by people who SHOULD KNOW BETTER.

And really, a discussion on the finer points is one I do welcome. It seems to germane to the general topic here, but feel free to take it elsewhere too.

Trying to find a fixed set of a criteria for where to draw the line - whether about this or anything else really - is a fool's errand that is constructed precisely for stonewalling debate, and I don't find it a constructive way to engage in a discussion. My suggestion would be to read up about it, and it's not my job to correct you. Google is your friend. Yes, "cultural appropriation" has been criticized as a term - typically by those in positions of privilege who want to do it and see no harm in what they do - but the term is not without merit and hardly no more toxic as a term than anything else that has picked up greater colloquial use among the general public.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Trying to find a fixed set of a criteria for where to draw the line - whether about this or anything else really - is a fool's errand that is constructed precisely for stonewalling debate, and I don't find it a constructive way to engage in a discussion. My suggestion would be to read up about it, and it's not my job to correct you. Google is your friend. Yes, "cultural appropriation" has been criticized as a term - typically by those in positions of privilege who want to do it and see no harm in what they do - but the term is not without merit and hardly no more toxic as a term than anything else that has picked up greater colloquial use among the general public.

Look, you don't have to create some iron-clad definition that works in absolutely every case, but you criticized the use of the term and then left it entirely open, so the criticism falls flat. I'm not operating in a vacuum of ignorance here either, but who can engage in a discussion if effectively the other side of the conversion is "you're just wrong!" with nothing to indicate what the objection is.
I also feel that you are engaging in a rather loaded type of conversational ploy when you say that my statement is typically employed by people who warrant cultural opprobrium. If you are going to cast those sorts of attacks at people, then I feel like you are obligated to give them the means to defend themselves.

 

[MGibster]

You may find "cultural appropriation" a toxic term, but it's the appropriate one. The fact that you think that it's toxic as a term is ridiculous and demonstrates a lack of understanding of its usage. It's about like complaining about the term "toxic masculinity" and then saying that "masculinity" is fine, when the point is how the term exists in usage as a unit: i.e., toxic masculinity. However, if you are looking for something more neutral about the ebb and flow of culture, ideologies, etc., then the term you are looking for is "cultural diffusion" or sometimes "trans-cultural diffusion." Cultural diffusion =! cultural appropriation.

That's an interesting point. Where's the line between diffusion and appropriation? Since the 1950s at least, Chinese and Japanese production companies have been keen to export their movies to the United States. Many Americans my age and older can fondly remember watching movies like Five Deadly Venoms, One Armed Boxer, and Enter the Dragon on the Sunday movie matinee on television. You may be too young to remember, but in the 70s and 80s, the United States experienced a ninja craze as all things martial arts became very popular giving is Black Belt Jones, American Ninja, and Jean-Claude Van Damme's Bloodsport! Without these movies there never would have been a Wu-Tang Clan!

So why is it appropriation instead of diffusion? China and Japan are willing participants who gain something by exchanging media with the United States. They're not victims here. If anything, we have seen an increase in the amount of media Asia sends over to the United States. But you know what? Nobody's appropriating anything from Asian Americans. What we're seeing here is a mutually beneficial arrangement between multiple countries.

 

[Aldarc]

Look, you don't have to create some iron-clad definition that works in absolutely every case, but you criticized the use of the term and then left it entirely open, so the criticism falls flat. I'm not operating in a vacuum of ignorance here either, but who can engage in a discussion if effectively the other side of the conversion is "you're just wrong!" with nothing to indicate what the objection is.

You criticized the term, calling it toxic and poisonous. I criticized how you seemed to misuse and treat the term as a rote function of its individual parts rather than its collective sense, which typically does contain a sense of cultural denigration. I even provided you with a more helpful term (i.e. trans-cultural diffusion) to describe the less harmful sort of cultural transmission of ideas, materials, etc. But I will be perfectly honest, I'm dead tired - and I suspect that I am not alone in this matter - who is tired of having to catch people up on 60+ pages of discussion here and elsewhere about the topic of cultural appropriation or the problematic racism (whether intentional or not) of OA.

I also feel that you are engaging in a rather loaded type of conversational ploy when you say that my statement is typically employed by people who warrant cultural opprobrium. If you are going to cast those sorts of attacks at people, then I feel like you are obligated to give them the means to defend themselves.

Since you think that chopsticks are a perfectly valid thing to include in the OA weapon list, then you should find chopsticks to be more than sufficient for defending yourself from any perceived attacks.

That's an interesting point. Where's the line between diffusion and appropriation? Since the 1950s at least, Chinese and Japanese production companies have been keen to export their movies to the United States. Many Americans my age and older can fondly remember watching movies like Five Deadly Venoms, One Armed Boxer, and Enter the Dragon on the Sunday movie matinee on television. You may be too young to remember, but in the 70s and 80s, the United States experienced a ninja craze as all things martial arts became very popular giving is Black Belt Jones, American Ninja, and Jean-Claude Van Damme's Bloodsport! Without these movies there never would have been a Wu-Tang Clan!

So why is it appropriation instead of diffusion? China and Japan are willing participants who gain something by exchanging media with the United States. They're not victims here. If anything, we have seen an increase in the amount of media Asia sends over to the United States. But you know what? Nobody's appropriating anything from Asian Americans. What we're seeing here is a mutually beneficial arrangement between multiple countries.

It seems like you are begging the question here. Would you like to ask this again in earnest, but maybe without presuming your own answer this time?

 

[bmfrosty]

Very late to the conversation here, but I think removing the product just gives it heightened status, and people who want it will just find it elsewhere.

Demonitizing it might be a good direction, or putting all proceeds to a relevant charity might be another.

 

[MGibster]

It seems like you are begging the question here. Would you like to ask this again in earnest, but maybe without presuming your own answer this time?

Sure. Why isn't OA an example of diffusion instead of appropriation? It seems to me that China and Japan have eagerly sent their media to the United States for consumption to the point where Kung-Fu warriors and samurai have literally been part of the entertainment landscape my entire life.