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

[Justice and Rule]

You're really not proving the point that you seem to think you're proving lol.

Wow, it looks like a map of colonizat- Oh. Oh.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You can see how the development of the formerly occupied areas of germany was leaps and bounds ahead of the free german territories for centuries to come even after rome retreated and ultimately fell.

Oh and back on this, I dunno as much about the Roman conquest of Germany, but with Britain, there's a very good reason for that and it's not "The Romans were great!".

It's "The Romans picked the places which were already the richest and most densely populated and built their cities there". As time went on, they naturally expanded. Had the Romans never invaded, Britain was already in the process of importing a lot of Roman goods and some Roman practices (i.e. the ones it found useful, not just the ones forced on it later). It's impossible to say exactly what would have happened, because it would have been so different, but certainly one cannot say the Romans genuinely improved matters aside from engineering.

A good example of how the Romans wiped out a superior practice in Britain is agriculture. Before the Romans took over, Britain was using a much smarter system of crop rotation, and was incredibly productive because of it (literally that form of crop rotation wasn't beaten until the 1940s using fertilizer and so on). The Romans didn't do this form of crop rotation. In fact, they barely did intentional crop rotation at all. They didn't understand it. So they wiped the practice out. Farm yields drastically decreased.

They sure knew how to build an aqueduct or a sewer, no-one is denying that, but the idea that their culture was "better" at anything but some forms of engineering and killing people? Not well demonstrated archaeologically. And most of their engineering was, ironically, lost until the renaissance.

 

[billd91]

So are we mansplai... er, Anglo-splaining to someone how they should view their own history now?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Pulled is pulled. Unavailable is unavailable. It doesn't actually matter why.

I'm not seeing how it's "let them eat cake" for me to point out that I can't watch my show (The Amazing Race) any more than you can't watch your show (The Mighty Boosh). If anything, it's "let us eat bread together". We're both in the same situation. "Let them eat cake" implies I don't care if you get it, but if you don't care I can't watch The Amazing Race, that's equally "let them eat cake" of you!

Why can't we be bread-brothers, moaning together that we don't get to watch everything we want on streaming, and some things always have to be sourced more elaborately?

In another time, it was generally considered that some things would be unavailable. Because production costs money, and there are such things in economics as scarcity. If you didn't buy a book when it was available, you might have no opportunity to ever read it (or would have to seek it out in a limited number of locations). If you didn't see a movie when it was out, you might never see it. And so on.

Now, for the most part, the actual cost of providing these products to the consumer is close to 0 (not exactly zero- electricity, servers, etc., but close enough). The only thing that matter is ... rights. That's it. Which is why pretty much everything is available, subject to rights. The ubiquity of streaming services and lack of physical media has both beneficial aspects (you can pretty much get anything, any time, provided you have paid for the specific rights-holding service to allow you to get it) as well as exceptionally negative effects (specifically, that because we don't have ownership of these things, for the most part, we end up with situations like Amazon removing books or 'updating' books from a Kindle, or services that remove episodes or scenes from movies or TV shows).

Now, there are different ways to approach this. Some might say, "Well, it's just a product of the modern age. Consider yourself lucky you get anything at all! Back in my day, we had to swim across the Atlantic if we wanted to watch any Beeb shows that weren't on PBS!" Yeah, it's true- there is a lot more availability now, but that doesn't mean that we should blithely accept bowdlerization of media just because there's more of it.

More importantly, when we are discussing availability, we are looking at companies that are making decisions based on money. Is the controversy worth the money? If they aren't the rights holder, and they have plenty of other stuff, the usual answer is "Nope." That's why companies like Netflix often just remove whole shows - in an easy example, carrying Little Britain for the remaining period of time wasn't worth the hassle. The calculus often changes for rights-holders, however. The Simpsons is valuable! So when Disney+ (the IP holder) makes decisions, it's not going to jettison the whole series. But they do make decisions!

Some of them are small and barely noticeable (for example, they remove the word "Catholic" from "the Catholic Church" in one episode). Some are much more noticeable (the Michael Jackson episode they removed was the season opener of S3, so ... it just opens with E2). Others are region-specific (yeah, you don't get to see the "Tiananmen" episode in Hong Kong). But you could keep going with Disney+ and with other properties- of course Disney has Splash on their streaming service, and of course they digitally edited to add more hair because you don't want people thinking Darryl Hannah doesn't have clothes.

The point here is twofold-
1. Yes, profits matter. Which means that it is not "fearmongering" when people are concerned about the remedies requested by the OP. I think that the OP was correct in his analysis (and I think that there are additional problematic elements that he didn't cover, due to the focus on American Indian issues). But I also don't think that any company wants to engage in an iterative process regarding all of their legacy product that doesn't make them much money. There's a big difference between the amount of money a streaming property can get you, as opposed to the amount of money the .pdfs of old TTRPG products can get you- especially when they aren't even part of the core.

2. I think we need to be more observant over the very real problems involved in sanitizing things that make us uncomfortable. I know that is not what the OP asked for, instead asking for amends, and money paid to charity, and a specific and detailed apology based on the actual wrongs as opposed to the disclaimer, but corporations always find it easier to remove or sanitize than to grapple with real issues. What, do you think Disney+ is going to have Song of the South available on Disney+ with a full disclaimer? I don't think so. And this gets to the even more uncomfortable issue of judgment- I can completely agree with the OP, I can believe that he is right, and I can still worry that this is similar to what happened with the Simpsons Tiananmen episode- in other words, I tend to error on the side of critiquing (sunlight is the best disinfectant) than on removing because I think it is important to have history intact, warts and all. And I have a real worry that it would be much easier for these products, which are not profit centers for the company, to simply be removed.

Anyway, I'm ending this digression here. As I wrote, the OP did an excellent and in-depth analysis, which is always appreciated. I disagree strongly with the OP's proposed remedies.

 

[Umbran]

And, folks, let us be clear about something - Roman occupation of these places isn't analogous to the issues highlighted in this thread. Because the Romans left those places, and didn't massively displace the native population. It is entirely reasonable for a modern German or Brit to view ancient Roman occupation differently, because, well, the Germans and people of the British Isles are still the majority populations in their spaces. The Native Americans... aren't.

So, maybe rethink whether this argument has much relevance?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yeah, it's true- there is a lot more availability now, but that doesn't mean that we should blithely accept bowdlerization of media just because there's more of it.

I guess for me, I find the focus on bowlederization, which seems to be no more common than previously, aside from a brief outburst in 2020, to be disingenuous if we're discussing media generally as you were. It doesn't seem to be responsible for any significant amount of stuff becoming/being unavailable, rather that stuff not being profitable enough does. Even, when, as you note, it would cost near-zero to make this stuff available.

 

[Yaarel]

Just a question that popped into my head. We do not sanitize religious texts which pretty much are supposed to imprint one's core-beliefs, why is there a push to sanitize historical RPG books? The evolution of the game already provides updated correctness on many troublesome issues.

Tropes and memes have a way of unconsciously reincarnating into future products, in new ways. Especially when future content creators seek inspiration from the earlier sources.

It takes effort to call attention to what the problems are.

Also, a perma-linked Dragon+ article about the ethnic misappropriation sounds interesting in its own right. I know I would make a point to read it.

 

[Justice and Rule]

So are we mansplai... er, Anglo-splaining to someone how they should view their own history now?

Fetishizing Rome is a historical problem that affects the understanding of history. This is not a new thing.

And, folks, let us be clear about something - Roman occupation of these places isn't analogous to the issues highlighted in this thread. Because the Romans left those places, and didn't massively displace the native population. It is entirely reasonable for a modern German or Brit to view ancient Roman occupation differently, because, well, the Germans and people of the British Isles are still the majority populations in their spaces. The Native Americans... aren't.

So, maybe rethink whether this argument has much relevance?

I just took offense to the idea that they brought civilization. All the conquered peoples Rome defeated had civilization. The idea that they didn't is part of the great justification for colonialism, particularly in the 19th Century.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Because the Romans left those places, and didn't massively displace the native population. It is entirely reasonable for a modern German or Brit to view ancient Roman occupation differently, because, well, the Germans and people of the British Isles are still the majority populations in their spaces. The Native Americans... aren't.

Sure, but there's a direct link between the Romans and the logic involved in defending/supporting the Roman conquests and the colonial conquests, which started in the renaissance, and did displace populations and leave them "occupied" and so on. And I would question any idea that this is just "how it always is with empires", because a lot of pre-Roman empires had pretty different approaches to empire.

The propaganda is that "We're improving their lives by destroying their traditions and making them like us!". The Romans really started that propaganda machine, not actually to use on the victims of their conquests (though they did eventually), but actually to deal with other Romans who were like "Maybe we should stop invading all these places, especially the ones already allied to us, huh?". Further, it's pretty applicable here because the contempt for non-white traditions grows very much out of that line of thinking (even though the Romans had no idea about "white"). Everyone else is either funny dumb barbarians, effete debauched guys whose civilization is barely worth the term, or they're baby-eating monsters whose civilization needs to be destroyed. That was very much the attitude which evolved in Rome (I would agree with the argument that it stemmed in part from the early Romans basically being "bullied" by some semi-nomadic tribes who were obviously not big on architecture or the like but way better at fighting than the Romans of that era).

It's the propaganda element and attitudes that surround that that I think make it relevant here.

(Also just as an aside, the people who lived in the British Isles in the Roman Era are not the majority population now, because the Saxon invaders displaced them to such a degree (though recent DNA evidence, rather than debunked Dutch studies from the early 2000s, does suggest that there's a lot more sign of the Roman-era British peoples in the southern peninsula, Wales and parts of Scotland). I am aware this is technically pedantry and take your point (though relevant to me personally)).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So are we mansplai... er, Anglo-splaining to someone how they should view their own history now?

This is pretty funny (I mean that genuinely, made me smile) given the sheer amount of Scandi-splaining some Scandinavian people like to do online re: British history (and even the English language). I've told an awful lot of things about how to view British history, particularly from about 867 to like 1100. Some of them were even right! Some not so much.

But as Justice says, this particular issue was widespread and originates with the Romans themselves creating this propaganda, and the renaissance reinforcing it and using it as an excuse for stuff.