Mana, Shamans, and the Cultural Misappropriation behind Fantasy Terms

[Hussar]

Yeah. Sorry about that folks. Was chasing my own tail there. It's so easy to get wrapped up in pointless minutia and lose sight of the primary issues. My bad.

 

[Aldarc]

Regarding the whole "but it comes from a verb" line of argument for the etymology of "shaman": We actually see this fairly regularly with a lot of nouns, including nouns for religious titles both in English and other languages, such as Hebrew. One word, in particular, that I have I have in mind here is "seer". It is a title for a religious/spiritual functionary, but it clearly comes from the verb "to see." The use of verb-derived nouns for religious functionaries is arguably clearer in the Hebrew texts of the Bible, and we can see it (no pun intended) likewise with its use of "seer".

1 Sam 9,9: (Formerly in Israel, anyone who went to inquire of God would say, “Come, let us go to the seer”; for the one who is now called a prophet was formerly called a seer.)

The title of ro'eh (seer) derives from the Hebrew verb ra'ah (to see), but it serves as Samuel's official title, though he is also a kohen (i.e., priest).

Spoiler

There is also a lovely bit of irony in 1 Samuel 16, which is the story of Samuel's anointing of David as king. Samuel is a seer who fails to see appropriately, with God telling Samuel that he fails to see properly because he sees as mortals do (i.e., to/with the eyes) and not as God does (to the heart). So even though Samuel serves as the divine functionary of a "seer," his humanity still limits the capacity of his sight.

Likewise the title/function of kohen (priest) likely derives from the verb the older verb kahan (to be/serve as a priest). In this case, however, the noun shaped how the verb likely developed from its original sense: e.g., to mediate in religious services.

With both of these words, you can see a similar transformation from the standard verbal root in the Qal stem XaXaX to its masculine singular participle form XoXeX. But this is not always the verb to noun transformation that takes place.

We commonly understand the Hebrew word nabi' to mean "prophet" (from the Greek προφήτης : one who foretells [pro-phemi-tes])* as a result of the Septuagint translation. This carries a lot of assumptions about what a nabi' does. However, it actually means "one who proclaims, calls," which derives from the verb naba' (to call, proclaim). To be a "prophet" (nabi') in the Hebrew Bible is not to "foretell" the future, but, rather, to proclaim on behalf/for God. (There are other terms/titles/offices for divining the future.)

* Here also noting that "προφήτης" is a noun that derives from a verb.

This is all to say, that depending upon the language, the idea of a nouns deriving from verbs is hardly so far-fetched that this observation should serve as the basis of dismissing a word's use as a cultural title or religious function. The idea that saman/shaman may derive from a verb seems less like an argument and more like a trite observation that deserves scribbling "So what?" with red ink in the margins of the assignment.

Thank you both for making me go read more on it! It's probably outdated in parts, but was interesting reading the view from 1917 - https://www.jstor.org/stable/660223 .

Neat. Other sources I have read also is skeptical of its meaning of "one who knows," and instead thinks that its meaning/etymology derives instead from dancing, jumping, and motion.

All that said, just because shaman was appropriated from the Tungusic peoples does not mean that it cannot be used by scholars to describe the pertinent phenomenon. However, the main issues that I have amounts to (1) the scholarly (and subsequently lay) indiscriminate misapplication of the term to various contemporaneous and historic cultures and (2) the hierarchical presumptions and judgments that frames it as a more primitive/lesser form of religious expression. These are really the more relevant issues when it comes to our hobby anyway.

 

[aramis erak]

Let's also be crystal clear here. Lovecraft was not an author who happened to be racist. He authored fiction embedded with his own racist fears. Robert E. Howard called him out for doing so.

Robert Howard himself isn't a great example of avoiding racist tropes in his own works; it's this which highlights why HPL is so problematic: he's sufficiently advocating for racism that it caused the relatively racist by modern standards REH to make negative commentary which is known 4 score years later.

I personally don't buy anything labeled with the Cthulhu mythos, but have received some as well meaning but unwelcome gifts. I don't worry so much personally about 2nd or 3rd order removals (L5R, WH40K) myself... but I'd really rather 5E didn't include it (nor REH, nor ERB) in the recommended reading, specifically because they are all writing fiction where racism is front-and-center.

Howard's Conan stories (not others, just REH's) are casually racist in the same way as most other authors of his era. Recommending them blanket for an appendix most likely to be used by Teens is, in my professional opinion as a former educator, irresponsible. I feel much the same about ERB's John Carter.

Now, I have paid for, read, and enjoyed REH's Conan, Kull, and Solomon Kane stories - but not when I was in the still impressionable Under 16 crowd. And I don't think them appropriate for my 16 YO, nor should they be in school libraries general circulation.

HPL, however, is another whole level of bad. Individual derivatives may or may not have merit as literature, but as a general rule, I don't think encouraging reading the originals to be meritorious.

Add to that that, having tried several times to read HPL, so as to be able to make an informed opinion, I found the lack of actual skill as a writer to be sufficiently annoying that I couldn't finish the works. Having seen sufficient excerpts of his more racist elements, and having seen sufficient academic, peer, and other reviews pointing out the overt racism, xenophobia, and dismal worldview, I can say that I've seen nothing of merit in what I've seen of his works, and seen nothing indicating I'd find it elsewhere in his works

@Umbran I was primarily responding to why people would boycott HPL and derivatives. While I wish more would boycott HPL and things labeled as being with the Mythos' various key IP elements, I'm not personally advocating for that level of boycott.

So, the inclusion of Cthulhu in the PHB is fine without comment?

I don't think so. I don't think Howard or Boroughs should be, either. Most especially because of the claims of inclusivity within the PHB. It's a logical inconsistency that a game advocating equality is recommending books with pretty heavy sexual and racial inequality in their texts. I will say that Boroughs is just across the line I'd draw, but was still more forward looking than the rest of the era. He did have strong women in some of his works. Thuvia, Deja, and a few others. But the Barsoom politics are inherently rampantly racist between the red and white Martians; the question of "is it racism if they're clearly another species" doesn't really make it any the less racist.

I could see listing Howard and Boroughs with a "These works contain racist and genderist themes, and being listed here as inspirations is not endorsement of their worldview."

HPL should have an even more strongly worded disclaimer if used, but logical consistency isn't a hallmark of reading list selection even in most educators' lists for their students.

so, exactly what can we no longer properly remember if we forgot about Lovecraft?

And, note, I am not suggesting a boycott of all Lovecraft's writing and derivative works. I'm sorry if I implied that. I'm suggesting that perhaps, IN D&D, we could pull out direct references to Lovecraft so that I don't have to explain why we are using material from a raging bigot in our game that is supposed to be welcoming to everyone. The point is rather well made that if we are serious about the game being welcoming to everyone, then perhaps it's a good time to eject some historical baggage that really does have some rather brutal origins.

See, since we're talking about context, let's delve a bit more into the notion of "if you don't like it, don't read it." Because, I agree, context matters. A lot.

If I say, "I don't really like Tolkien, it's not my bag. I find it boring to read", well, that's an opinion and you can pretty much take it or leave it. And, in that context, "don't read it then" is probably perfectly fine to say.

However, "I don't like the Mythos in my hobby because the writer of the Mythos considers my children to be worthless degenerates who should be strangled at birth" is a bit of a different context. Is it equal to tell me, "Just don't read it then"?

QFT

 

[TheSword]

Robert Howard himself isn't a great example of avoiding racist tropes in his own works; it's this which highlights why HPL is so problematic: he's sufficiently advocating for racism that it caused the relatively racist by modern standards REH to make negative commentary which is known 4 score years later.

I personally don't buy anything labeled with the Cthulhu mythos, but have received some as well meaning but unwelcome gifts. I don't worry so much personally about 2nd or 3rd order removals (L5R, WH40K) myself... but I'd really rather 5E didn't include it (nor REH, nor ERB) in the recommended reading, specifically because they are all writing fiction where racism is front-and-center.

Howard's Conan stories (not others, just REH's) are casually racist in the same way as most other authors of his era. Recommending them blanket for an appendix most likely to be used by Teens is, in my professional opinion as a former educator, irresponsible. I feel much the same about ERB's John Carter.

Now, I have paid for, read, and enjoyed REH's Conan, Kull, and Solomon Kane stories - but not when I was in the still impressionable Under 16 crowd. And I don't think them appropriate for my 16 YO, nor should they be in school libraries general circulation.

HPL, however, is another whole level of bad. Individual derivatives may or may not have merit as literature, but as a general rule, I don't think encouraging reading the originals to be meritorious.

Add to that that, having tried several times to read HPL, so as to be able to make an informed opinion, I found the lack of actual skill as a writer to be sufficiently annoying that I couldn't finish the works. Having seen sufficient excerpts of his more racist elements, and having seen sufficient academic, peer, and other reviews pointing out the overt racism, xenophobia, and dismal worldview, I can say that I've seen nothing of merit in what I've seen of his works, and seen nothing indicating I'd find it elsewhere in his works

@Umbran I was primarily responding to why people would boycott HPL and derivatives. While I wish more would boycott HPL and things labeled as being with the Mythos' various key IP elements, I'm not personally advocating for that level of boycott.


I don't think so. I don't think Howard or Boroughs should be, either. Most especially because of the claims of inclusivity within the PHB. It's a logical inconsistency that a game advocating equality is recommending books with pretty heavy sexual and racial inequality in their texts. I will say that Boroughs is just across the line I'd draw, but was still more forward looking than the rest of the era. He did have strong women in some of his works. Thuvia, Deja, and a few others. But the Barsoom politics are inherently rampantly racist between the red and white Martians; the question of "is it racism if they're clearly another species" doesn't really make it any the less racist.

I could see listing Howard and Boroughs with a "These works contain racist and genderist themes, and being listed here as inspirations is not endorsement of their worldview."

HPL should have an even more strongly worded disclaimer if used, but logical consistency isn't a hallmark of reading list selection even in most educators' lists for their students.


QFT

If you cut out the views of people you don’t agree with you miss out on a great deal.

Heart of Darkness, Robinson Crusoe and Moby Dick are all quite shocking in parts now. However I can recognize these elements and yet still see why the books are consistently in lists of the best 100 books ever.

When something is a product of its time I think you just have to accept that there will be elements you don’t agree with. Understand it and move on. There is an argument that Lovecraft was worse than his time, but at that point it’s all relative.

 

[Aldarc]

When something is a product of its time I think you just have to accept that there will be elements you don’t agree with. Understand it and move on. There is an argument that Lovecraft was worse than his time, but at that point it’s all relative.

I doubt many of his contemporaries were writing poetry imagining a derogatory origin of black people.

 

[TheSword]

I doubt many of his contemporaries were writing poetry imagining a derogatory origin of black people.

I think he was a very sick man in many different way that ways. It almost certainly contributed to his ideas, good and bad.

His obvious social disfunction and the means in which he was being published - letter and magazines rather than a reputable publisher - didn’t help with the dog doop that mixes in which some of the stuff he wrote.

To be clear, I suspect a number of people imagined it, they just didn’t write it down and release it to the public.

His pretty horrible upbringing doesn’t justify these ideas but it helps understand why was so out of touch with the times.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think so. I don't think Howard or Boroughs should be, either. Most especially because of the claims of inclusivity within the PHB. It's a logical inconsistency that a game advocating equality is recommending books with pretty heavy sexual and racial inequality in their texts. I will say that Boroughs is just across the line I'd draw, but was still more forward looking than the rest of the era. He did have strong women in some of his works. Thuvia, Deja, and a few others. But the Barsoom politics are inherently rampantly racist between the red and white Martians; the question of "is it racism if they're clearly another species" doesn't really make it any the less racist.

And yet they included the Greek, Norse and Celtic deities in the PHB, despite those cultures owning slaves and mistreating women. Further, there are even stories of some of those gods chasing down and raping women.

 

[pemerton]

Howard's Conan stories (not others, just REH's) are casually racist in the same way as most other authors of his era.

I think REH is pretty awful in this respect - the Vale of Lost Women is one low point, Beyond the Black River another.

I have paid for, read, and enjoyed REH's Conan, Kull, and Solomon Kane stories - but not when I was in the still impressionable Under 16 crowd. And I don't think them appropriate for my 16 YO, nor should they be in school libraries general circulation.

I've also purchased REH works, the Patrice Louinet critical editions. I've got a copy of HPL stories also, with an introduction by Joyce Carol Oates.

I wouldn't be keen on my younger daughter reading them. Maybe my teenager, if she wanted to, though I think I would have to give her a warning in advance.

HPL, however, is another whole level of bad. Individual derivatives may or may not have merit as literature, but as a general rule, I don't think encouraging reading the originals to be meritorious.

Add to that that, having tried several times to read HPL, so as to be able to make an informed opinion, I found the lack of actual skill as a writer to be sufficiently annoying that I couldn't finish the works.

I agree that he is, on the whole, not a very good writer. There is a contrast here with REH, whose work is pretty readable.

Some of HPL's ideas and tropes are interesting, like the dream-influence of Cthulhu and Atlantis rising again as a source of terror rather than redemption. But the "cosmic horror" seems to rest on two main bases: being disconcerted by relativity, and being disconcerted by cosmopolitan modernity. The latter is where the personal racism feeds into the fiction, using language or tropes of "race science"; the central idea seems to be that cultural contact and interaction will inevitably drag modern people down to an imputed "lowest level". Neither seems very compelling to me, which means that I can't move beyond the interest in the tropes to any actual sense of fear or dread.

I'm in a mixed marriage and my children are of mixed heritage. According to Lovecraft, I'm a race traitor and my children should have been strangled at birth. So, how exactly am I supposed to introduce Call of Cthulhu to my kids? "Oh, hey, honey, here's this really cool game with really cool monsters and horror elements. Let's play, but, you have to promise me that you won't read the source material for this game because then you'll realize that those fish people we met at Innsmouth are actually supposed to be you."

Basically, you're saying that because he had cool ideas, we're supposed to just ignore the context of those ideas. Ignore the fact that people still make considerable amounts of money from that context.

Or, as an alternative, we could let him fade into history like so many other genre authors of the time.

I can relate very much to this, and it informs my preference about my children reading HPL and REH.

In both cases, though, I think I might be more willing than you to prise the ideas of the context. That's not any sort of critical judgement of your approach, just an account of mine.

But I don't think I would include these works in a recommended reading list, as opposed to (say) a scholarly bibliography.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

And yet they included the Greek, Norse and Celtic deities in the PHB, despite those cultures owning slaves and mistreating women. Further, there are even stories of some of those gods chasing down and raping women.

I agree with your main point that art shouldn't be forgotten because you object to the values held by the culture or individual producing the art, but the gods you mention in the PHB are accompanied by a bizarre warning: "They include deities that are most appropriate for use in a D&D game, divorced from their historical context in the real world and united into pantheons that serve the needs of the game". So basically, they just lift names and portfolio and transplant them into the game, with no "real life connection". I suppose that's how they can paint Apollo as an (objectively) Good god.

 

[Maxperson]

I agree with your main point that art shouldn't be forgotten because you object to the values held by the culture or individual producing the art, but the gods you mention in the PHB are accompanied by a bizarre warning: "They include deities that are most appropriate for use in a D&D game, divorced from their historical context in the real world and united into pantheons that serve the needs of the game". So basically, they just lift names and portfolio and transplant them into the game, with no "real life connection". I suppose that's how they can paint Apollo as an (objectively) Good god.

Yes. They divorce pretty much everything that they use, though. Medusa contains no such warning, but it's not as if the MM Medusa was punished by Athena for the temerity of having been raped in one of her temples by another god. That's the biggest issue I have with connecting things in D&D to the real world. There really isn't the connection that some people think is there.