This is unsupportable just on the basis of what has been presented in this thread. We have a letter written by JRRT in which he states unequivocally that the Orc is evocative of (looks like and therefor will be associated with by the human mind, as that is how it works) 'mongolians' (IE central or east Asian people). Next we have the geographical and geocultural parallels between Middle Earth and our world. Certainly JRRT was AWARE of these? Certainly it must, at some point in the 40+ years of his creative endeavors, have occurred to him that this parallel would be evocative? I hold it rather difficult to oppose that IT WAS EVOCATIVE TO HIM. Else why so many parallels exist?
Thus they MUST BE in LotR certainly stand-ins for exactly what they evoke! How could it not be thus???!!!! To say otherwise is ridiculous and in fact insulting to a man of considerable intellect and thoughtfulness. I further submit that he has TOLD US THIS WAS HIS INTENT when he stated this orc/Mongol association. He states it in terms of it being what we would call a 'trope' today. Mongolians are a horde of destructive, fecund, aggressive, civilization destroying, easterners and he is evoking all of these traits by describing orcs in the same fashion. This IS his intent! It cannot be otherwise. This is how literature (of any quality) must work! It paints a picture in the mind of the reader by evoking things, by drawing parallels which create associations in the minds of readers so as to bring this picture to life.
And I think this failure to understand this whole point taints your arguments in general to be honest. I understand, and even agree to a point, that Tolkien was probably not trying to say that actual Asian people are basically orcs. Nor necessarily saying that evil comes from the east, etc. He is however using these stereotypes to draw a picture. This alone is hurtful to the people so stereotyped. Cast yourself in the shoes of a person of color who is DAILY subjected to systematic and often particularized prejudice, and then consider how they should view literature which evokes the stereotypes used to model this oppression and justify it.
I mean, I am DEFINITELY not a disadvantaged minority here. I have been married to one, and am married to another, even that doesn't give me any license to explain the experience or claim I fully understand it.
@Tonguez I'm guessing does, but it is not their job to fill us all in on the nature of the experience. Still, I can say that my observation is that this sort of depiction is a real bummer, and its (lack of) deliberateness is not even really very relevant. People get really tired of looking at it.
Obviously the larger topic is pretty complicated, and culture is a huge mass of complicated stuff. So nobody can give simplistic answers to any of it. What do we do with legacy material? Should we change how we play D&D, and/or how it is written? Do we need to worry about it if we are all not people whom it would bother? What do I know? I'm just some guy. Personally I generally don't go in a lot for super stereotyped characters/NPCs/Races/whatever. OTOH I think
@pemerton is right in saying that a lot of the violence that is depicted in D&D can be seen as justifiable. It is more a question of who is standing in for whom? Think about what would go through your mind if the depiction of orcs sounded more like people from your home town...
I pick yours to reply to because I think it’s an accurate distillation of a lot of the counter views and also isnt just repeating points in a banal manner like I’ve not already critiqued them. (Yes, I get it, there were racially loaded terms used by people within that context, it doesn’t mean it’s representative of what they are. wait witch doctor? wasn’t this the same poster arguing that Orcs were clear Asian analogues?) almost like there’s nothing more than these tenuous links to bring to the discussion.
Firstly, as it’s only a brief, tangential aside, when it comes to imagining orcs sounding like people from your home town, I don’t have to. As I’ve already stated, one of the few types of orcs that are actually explicitly based on a sub group of people are the games workshop orcs. And it’s pretty hilarious. And on a more serious note, as a grandson of the last generation of Nevi Wesh Romani, having had their culture destroyed, being forced into council homes after WW2 “for their own good” (and having watched a contemporary film about “these poor gypsies”) and having that sense lost to me as an opportunity, I can relate to some degree to the pain aspect. Doesn’t mean that I agree with some of the ultimate conclusions drawn from this discussion.
Secondly, let’s stop pretending and presenting that this argument is only older white guys and bigots keen to preserve this racist status quo vs peoples of colour and their younger white allies arguing for the inevitable tide of progress. It’s dismissive and reductive of an opposing view. I’ve gamed with and am friends with and have watched talks of enough peoples of various age, ethnicities and various sub groups that also disagree with these conclusions, that it’s not as binary as that (also before others pile on, this is not an appeal to the “I’m not racist, some of my best friends are…” so don’t bother).
Thirdly, indeed you are right, there are parallels and evocations that can be drawn from stereotypes and imagery, this is how fiction works. Am I meant to be shocked at the revelation that western man from the early 20th century with a keen understanding and passion for historical cultures, who set out in his works to create an English based mythos (to fill the void that was created when the potential was stolen by Norman cultural subjugation) wrote from a early 20th century western perspective?
So we can agree that Tolkien was not saying actual Asian people are Orcs? So can we stop making that claim citing that letter? Yes it was unacceptably crude, yes it’s an appeal to othering from a then early 20th century European perspective. The othering was the point.
An othering of a monstrous creature is, in and of itself, not a bad thing. Again, this has been done for time across all cultures’ mythos. A creature like us, our potential for the best or worst of humanity (regardless of ethnicity, all humanity) as well as unlike us, to measure ourselves against (to be looked up to, in the case of the elves, or to be feared in the case of Orcs). The “mistake” in Tolkien’s othering from a modern perspective was to utilise phenotypical characteristics to do so. But it’s almost like society progresses and changes, and in a globalised society, the idea of the other has changed, I’ll not condemn his works for it, again, context is king. But again, despite this mode of othering, an Orc is an Orc, not a stand in for any particular group and should not be used as such or claims made that it is representative of such.
Now to D&D specifically and what to do with it. It circled back to my original point on genetic fallacy. You’re right that culture is complicated, and there are many issues. D&D is game built root and stem on all these tropes, based on fiction and myth. That’s is raison detre It seems not to represent specific cultures, but a whole group of “what’s cool” mashed together in a blender. For example, lots of various European cultures and folklore mashed together (which is why the critique of oriental adventures misses the point, it doesn’t seek to accurately detail a specific culture). These are as much a gross distortion and mash up of culture as any other. It’s not seeking to replicate any individual, it’s not looking to be representative in that aspect.
Trying to “fix” different aspects based on these tropes leads to a non game. If we are to determine that fiction and mythos it is problematic (because, regardless of cultural source, pretty much all sources have problematic elements regardless of where they are from in the world, that’s just the way humans have been regardless of ethnicity) then you are left with very little. And what is not a problem today , may become a problem tomorrow, you are left rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship (because you’ve removed these elements from the vessel). You yourself have identified this problem when you commented earlier about concerns with swapping out the orc is effectively a palette swap (my paraphrasing).
The way to approach this should be in avoiding the genetic fallacy, we recognise the game for what it is, a collection of tropes to enjoy a fantasy romp in, and ignore what we perceive to be problematic origins of tropes as they have no basis or relevance in how those tropes are delayed in the game.
For example, D&D’s idea of race is based on a defunct Victorian model. It’s not advocating for retaining it, it’s just utilising within the context of legacy of an old game. It means nothing more beyond its meanings within the game itself.
We recognise the tropes of finding a lost temple in the jungle and robbing it of its treasures for what they are. But again, within the game, there is no advocating of this beyond what it means within the game itself.
An Orc in the game. Let’s pretend that you know nothing about orcs. D&D is your first exposure to it. There is nothing within the writing of the game itself that makes allusions to certain ethnicities. Words like “savage” or “bestial” to describe them are quite apt and are not loaded words in and of themselves. Now of course, you’ve read, you have context. You know that these words have been applied to various ethnicities before. This is the effects of reader upon works in action (and again, no this isn’t an appeal to “no you’re the racist for pointing out”…so again don’t bother). There has to be recognition that that’s what you’re bringing to the game, to the reading. So it’s down to you to decide if you can put that aside and enjoy orcs for what they are, or if your understanding of context means that you’d prefer an alternative.
Finally, none of this, none of what I’ve said is an argument against progress, nor that we should say, “well, this is just a tangled, complicated mess so why bother”. I find calls of people advocating for these changes of the game that state, “well the world is changing, youll be left behind”, or accusations that I’m trying to keep an old, white dominated world insulting and arrogant, a sense that their argument is automatically right.
We can and will do better. Already, we are seeing much better human interpretations within gaming (see for example Paizo’s new Mwangi book and compare with older writing on the area) as well as better depictions of humans across the spectrum. I applaud this, I value this.
What I object to is the statement as fact of “monsters as people”, when it is not fact. It is opinion. A well meaning one, but one that in my view is asinine and demeaning.
I’ve already repeated aspects now multiple times across posts which suggests we have reached a point where views are entrenched and there’s nothing more that can be added to the conversation. Regardless of differing of opinion, I wish all happy gaming and a continuing of being excellent to one another.
