D&D General "Red Orc" American Indians and "Yellow Orc" Mongolians in D&D

[MGibster]

Generally a bad idea to use real life cultures in games extinct ones are kinda safe (Egypt, Greece, Rome etc).

A lot of modern Egyptians and Greeks don't really appreciate it. I certainly didn't expect Egyptians to have strong feelings about their ancient past but I was surprised to learn that they really do. And I also understand that some Greeks have some feelings about how their stories are told.

 

[Jaegermonstrous]

The fact that the study of indigenous cultures is still called that in the US is in itself a problem.

Speaking as a mixed-race Ojibwe, there's layers to this. Many Native Americans (including myself) I know have little to no issue with the term "American Indian" as a catch-all for the indigenous cultures of the American continent. It's not terribly accurate, but it's a term lots of people know and recognize. Others view it as racist, and that's a legit view too. And others are working on reclaiming the name as a symbol of identity and pride. Most of the folks I know would rather be referred to by the names of our nations, but that takes a while if you're talking about lots of groups and sometimes brevity is called for. I think the most important thing you can do is ask the peoples themselves what they'd like to be called and do what they ask.

And there are bigger hills to die on, like the fact that the "Washington Red*****" was a team name until last year, or that oil pipelines are being driven through our lands where they inevitably leak and poison our water. I could go on for a distressing amount of time.

 

[BookTenTiger]

To add to your post about how people wouldn't have made much of a ruckus about this back then, I think there's some more context to it.

This product came out at a time when people didn't protest this stuff publicly much. A lot of US Boomers had turned 30, had a mortgage and kids, and stopped being hippie protesters and had turned conservative. Boomers of the time, liberal and conservative, still strongly disapproved of racism, and would oppose hate crimes, but on a personal level. They would not go out and "make a statement" or protest, unless something really egregious happened.

It was a different time because they didn't have communications technology: there was no social media. If you read "Orcs of Thar" in a bookstore and found it offensive, you might tell a friend in person, refuse to buy it for your kid (the most likely result) or write TSR directly, but there was no internet to reach a wider audience. There was no twitter to use as a personal megaphone to raise awareness, almost no email, and no quick way to organize groups of like minded people. You needed to contact a dedicated protest group by landline or snail mail to organize something. It's easy for us now, but back then, you needed lots of money and energy to organize a boycott.

That's a major reason people in the 80s didn't protest this--most had no clue it existed and unless you really cared about it, it wasn't worth the sacrifices to money and family you'd have to make.

To add to this, the Native Americans the book is mocking were (and are) oppressed, meaning their voices had been subjugated for centuries. So when folks say "no one cared," what they're really saying is "no one with power cared."

 

[cowpie]

The fact that the study of indigenous cultures is still called that in the US is in itself a problem.

Some of these terms fall in and out of fashion. The most visible radical indigenous protest movement of the 70s was "AIM" -- the American Indian Movement, and that was founded by indigenous people, so they picked the name. In 10 years, the preferred name will probably evolve into something new.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Some of these terms fall in and out of fashion. The most visible radical indigenous protest movement of the 70s was "AIM" -- the American Indian Movement, and that was founded by indigenous people, so they picked the name. In 10 years, the preferred name will probably evolve into something new.

Also remember that any term folks use encompasses a wide variety of cultures. In a class on teaching Native American History, I learned from the native speakers and representatives that each group of folks have their own preference, so you just have to ask what they want to be called.

 

[MGibster]

That's a major reason people in the 80s didn't protest this--most had no clue it existed and unless you really cared about it, it wasn't worth the sacrifices to money and family you'd have to make.

I played AD&D a whole lot in the 80s and purchased a bunch of books and adventures and I'm completely unfamiliar with this product. I only know Mystara by name having never purchased a single book or looked into it. And I was a fan of AD&D. Yeah, it was pretty easy to miss stuff back then.

 

[cowpie]

To add to this, the Native Americans the book is mocking were (and are) oppressed, meaning their voices had been subjugated for centuries. So when folks say "no one cared," what they're really saying is "no one with power cared."

Yes, but this turns into a sticky wicket, since "Native American" is an umbrella term representing hundreds of tribes, with many different languages and cultures, whose subjugation happened in different ways, by different European groups, at different time periods. Add to the mix that they didn't all get along with each other, and it gets pretty complicated. I think Zardinar (?) mentioned that the Crow and Sioux were enemies back in the 1870s and that the Sioux army had invaded their land. That's true--the Crow were allied with the US Cavalry (they served as scouts), and the Little Bighorn Battlefield is currently on their Reservation in Montana--that's where the Sioux set a trap for Custer, and wiped him out.

This doesn't diminish the tragedy experienced by Native Americans, or make mocking them right at all. But IMHO, the basic oppressor-oppressed narrative isn't always adequate to explain the complexities of history, once you start taking a deep dive into it.

 

[MGibster]

And there are bigger hills to die on, like the fact that the "Washington Red*****" was a team name until last year, or that oil pipelines are being driven through our lands where they inevitably leak and poison our water. I could go on for a distressing amount of time.

I used to be on the fence about the Washington name until I saw a television commercial of all things. It showed various scenes of Native Americans going about their daily lives with the narrator saying, "We go by many names. Lakota, Pima, Navajo, and Utes." Then the scene switched to children on a playground and the narrator asked, "Would you call them red****?" And I thought to myself, "Hell, no." (I'm pretty sure I have the specific nations mentioned in the ad wrong. It's been a while. On the other hand, maybe the ad ended with "What would you call them?" It seems less likely that they would have used the word themselves.)

I used to think maybe the name wasn't offensive at the time it was given. However, I ran across another football team in the 20s/30s with an Indian motif named the Savages. Which kind of disabused my notion that they wouldn't deliberately name a football team after something they believed was offensive.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

is it a cool hammer?

I don’t know if is cool, but it is bon.

That’s right, I have a bon hammer.

 

[Zardnaar]

A lot of modern Egyptians and Greeks don't really appreciate it. I certainly didn't expect Egyptians to have strong feelings about their ancient past but I was surprised to learn that they really do. And I also understand that some Greeks have some feelings about how their stories are told.

Well people on these forums loved Therod but I wouldn't be surprised if a few Greeks hated it.

But people here don't seem to care about that.

Modern Egyptians are twice removed from ancient Egypt in terms of religion and different culture as well (they invaded).