Mana, Shamans, and the Cultural Misappropriation behind Fantasy Terms

[Sepulchrave II]

I'm not sure why you are adopting the Bill Gates/Mark Zuckerberg level of confusion here where simple words become suddenly unclear. Generic as in any type of tribesman from any era and any location.

“Tribe” is a nonsense word.

The problem is that the words "tribe" "tribal" "tribalism" are themselves an aspect of the debate over ethnicity. It’s why anthropologists typically use terms like "ethnic group" nowadays. "Tribe" was originally used to translate two Ancient Hebrew words (šēveṭ and maṭṭeh) and its application outside of this context always connotes a value judgment of “archaic” and “less civilization”; where “tribe” has been reclaimed as a self-identifier, it is usually both in translation and in defiance of prevailing power structures.

Culture is not your friend, as Terence McKenna – himself a great appropriator of various shamanic practices – once noted, and I tend to agree. Inasmuch as the maxim points to all culture being an obstacle to realizing our shared humanity. But that’s not what these conversations are ever about. They are more:

Thoughtful Gamer: Hey, why not show some sensitivity to [insert: ethnos, culture, sexuality, gender identity etc.]

Aging Reactionary White Male Cisgendered Heteronormative Anglophone Monoglot Gamer: Wah! But muh hegemony!

I mean, however it’s dressed up, this is the usual argument. An infantile scream at a perceived loss of power.

 

[Hussar]

Hiya!

/snip
That would be considered "cultural misappropriation", would it not?
/snip

Umm, nope. Are the Japanese McDonald's pretending that they invented the concept of hamburger? (Little hint, this month in Japan's McDonald's, you can eat the Original American Big Mac) Is their adding an egg to the burger (which is freaking AWESOME by the way) in some way condescending or insulting American cultural tastes? I'd say not.

When we're talking about cultural misappropriation, it's a BAD THING. It's Elvis fans pretending that Elvis invented all that music and refusing to play black artists on the radio until you get Motown in the 70's. Or, in this case, it's taking the notion that tribal people are LESS INTELLIGENT than commoners and that shaman traditions only apply to those less intelligent people. Is that really the message we want to send? Are we so sure of our position that we can categorically state that tribal people are less intelligent than civilized people? Seriously?

Is anyone actually defending this? Or are you just trying to throw up enough smoke and mirrors to hide the actual issue?

 

[Olrox17]

You know, I do like pineapple on my pizza. Hawaiian Pizzas taste good, and I will eat one once in a while. Does mean I have multi-classed?

I had a chance to chaperone a HS trip to Italy, and while in Rome we were served a Caesars Salad. I'm now sceptical of the authenticity of both recipes (US and Roman). If Caesar was really eating the same salad we were served, his cook was ripping him off ! (One student said the lettuce had been replaced with garden weeds.)

Caesar Salad isn’t really a thing in Italy. If you go to Italy and you find it in the menu, you are probably in a tourist trap restaurant (or the owner is just savvy about american culture).

Italian salad can vary tremendously in ingredients, but the only condiments used (usually) are olive oil and vinegar.

 

[Sadras]

“Tribe” is a nonsense word.
The problem is that the words "tribe" "tribal" "tribalism" are themselves an aspect of the debate over ethnicity. It’s why anthropologists typically use terms like "ethnic group" nowadays. "Tribe" was originally used to translate two Ancient Hebrew words (šēveṭ and maṭṭeh) and its application outside of this context always connotes a value judgment of “archaic” and “less civilization”; where “tribe” has been reclaimed as a self-identifier, it is usually both in translation and in defiance of prevailing power structures.

Ethnic group works great for historical and anthropological work.
What do you suggest we then re-label the tribesman stat in D&D if we do not use the word tribesman? barbarian?
Personally I feel barbarian does the same for me as tribesman in terms of the implying "archaic" and "less civilised"

Culture is not your friend, as Terence McKenna – himself a great appropriator of various shamanic practices – once noted, and I tend to agree. Inasmuch as the maxim points to all culture being an obstacle to realizing our shared humanity. But that’s not what these conversations are ever about.

If I'm understanding you correctly here, you're implying culture is a method of separating us (humanity). This is an interesting avenue of conversation, I'm not so sure these boards cater for it, but it is indeed VERY interesting (to me at least). I would think one would have to determine the value of culture - would the loss of it hurt an ethnic group, who would benefit and how by its removal. We'd also have to define then what culture is. These are not easy questions.

 

[Hussar]

Ethnic group works great for historical and anthropological work.
What do you suggest we then re-label the tribesman stat in D&D if we do not use the word tribesman? barbarian?
Personally I feel barbarian does the same for me as tribesman in terms of the implying "archaic" and "less civilised"



If I'm understanding you correctly here, you're implying culture is a method of separating us (humanity). This is an interesting avenue of conversation, I'm not so sure these boards cater for it, but it is indeed VERY interesting (to me at least). I would think one would have to determine the value of culture - would the loss of it hurt an ethnic group, who would benefit and how by its removal. We'd also have to define then what culture is. These are not easy questions.

Ok, so, we use the word tribesperson. For people who live in tribes, are probably less technologically advanced than other groups. Fair enough. Tribal works.

Should we keep them as being less intelligent than baseline commoners?

 

[Sadras]

Ok, so, we use the word tribesperson. For people who live in tribes, are probably less technologically advanced than other groups. Fair enough. Tribal works.

Should we keep them as being less intelligent than baseline commoners?

Nope, make them 10 intelligence.
I suspect, perhaps wrongly, that the reason for the intelligence dip of 8 was due to the tribesmen's lack of understanding of technology, not necessarily their inability to learn. I'm certainly not going to defend the 8, but like I said it is also not something I would have paid attention to.

 

[Hussar]

Nope, make them 10 intelligence.
I suspect, perhaps wrongly, that the reason for the intelligence dip of 8 was due to the tribesmen's lack of understanding of technology, not necessarily their inability to learn. I'm certainly not going to defend the 8, but like I said it is also not something I would have paid attention to.

See, and I mean absolutely no insult here, but, that's generally what people mean when they talk about privilege. We have the privilege of being able to ignore these things and not notice them. So, shaman are tied to tribal peoples, who are defined as less intelligent (and among the lowest wisdom of all the NPC's) than commoners. Or, Shaman are tied to violent, backward, and frankly evil groups as well. It's all tied together.

 

[Sadras]

See, and I mean absolutely no insult here, but, that's generally what people mean when they talk about privilege. We have the privilege of being able to ignore these things and not notice them.

I'm not sure this specific example is about privilege.
Firstly, we are talking about INT, the dump stat of D&D.
Secondly, we are talking about INT on a "monster" where INT does not matter in the great scheme of things. Only the physical stats matter for To hit bonuses, Damage, Hit Points and AC.
Thirdly, my perception is pretty low.

So, shaman are tied to tribal peoples, who are defined as less intelligent (and among the lowest wisdom of all the NPC's) than commoners. Or, Shaman are tied to violent, backward, and frankly evil groups as well. It's all tied together.

Vikings have Shamans and everybody loves Vikings. So I think on this specific issue we are reaching.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Regional cultures are nowhere as pronounced and important as they were 50 years ago, or 100 years ago: radio, TV, and rising literacy among the population all contributed to a gradual homogenization.

Yeah this is happening here too. We used to have very strong regional identities, not just the kingdoms, but also subregions in them with violently different identities. You call a Northerner by the wrong Northern region and he'd have probably had an aneurysm, for example. That's fading due to the homogenization you're discussing. You still have say, a strong "Yorkshire" identity (think of it as the Texas of Britain, yeah you heard me Yorkshiremen, I went there!), but it's nowhere near what it was 50 years ago.

London identity isn't declining currently, interestingly, in part because it's not about being born here (unlike a lot of regional identities), it's about adopting the identity, which is fairly easy to do. Of course, barring big changes, I'm pretty sure housing prices will kill it in the next century or so (if climate change doesn't!), as the same people who mostly strongly have the identity are gradually being forced out of London into the edges and suburbs, but that's another story.

But trust me on this: regional cultures here are still alive and well. Slightly more than 150 years of unity under Italy's flag...not enough time to kill them yet.

Oh I definitely believe you, but I think part of it is that no conscious attempt has been made to kill them (AFAIK), and there's been no exciting new identity to replace them. My feeling, from both life and reading history (and indeed archaeological evidence) is that a cultural identity can change massively in just decades sometimes. Maybe had ol' Musso got his faux-Rome he'd have culturally painted that all over Italy and attempted to erase local cultures (authoritarians tend to dislike local cultures because they stand in opposition to centralization of power).

 

[Olrox17]

Maybe had ol' Musso got his faux-Rome he'd have culturally painted that all over Italy and attempted to erase local cultures (authoritarians tend to dislike local cultures because they stand in opposition to centralization of power).

Probably. In the 20 years he remained in power, he went after the local cultures that were perceived as "non-italian" pretty hard. Given enough time, he might've tried to wipe out other regional cultures, as well.