It is a simple matter of fact that many people have a certain default response to people of colour, especially Black people. Therefore one shortcut for "lazy worldbuilding" is to trade on that default response.
This doesn't show that such worldbuilding is not racist. In fact it seems to admit the point!
But I think you need more than that to assign the word "racism." You can't just see yellow and think red (to use my color analogy).
For example, if a world-builder is creating a tropical jungle culture, and the inhabitants happen to be dark-skinned (which makes sense, as they are equatorial), it doesn't automatically mean that they are a stand-in for real world Amazonians or Africans or Papua New Guineans. Or if a tribe of plains warriors rides horses and wears feathers, it doesn't mean the author is "really talking about" Lakota people. But it might mean that they made an association as a starting point, which is understandable.
I think there's also the "kewl" factor. Ed Greenwood presumably included Mulhorand as Egypt because, well, ancient Egypt was really cool. This isn't as much lazy or even convenient as it is saying, "I dig me some ancient Egypt." Now is it then his responsibility to make Mulhorand as accurate to Egypt as possible (and whose version of Egypt? as it was remembered by the Greeks or a modern Afrocentric interpretation or perhaps the indigenous esoterica of Abd'El Hakim Awyan?
Or can Greenwood just take Egypt as his basic inspiration and make of it what he will, for the purpose of a fun setting for D&D?
Of course it can perpetuate that function. Ideologies don't spontaneously emerge in individual's minds. They are generated via social processes, primarily the sharing of certain ideas in certain normatively-shaped ways.
If someone's only, or primary, exposure to Black people was their representation in REH or HPL stories, and if those were presented with an imprimatur of "approval" or normalcy, then that might well contribute to the perpetuation of racist ideology and hence subordination.
Sure, but I can't imagine that this would ever be the case, except for perhaps a brief moment in time. There are (thankfully) far more influences that a young person will encounter over the course of their early lives.
This is a complex question of fact. But it might be a reason, for instance, for a public library to catalogue some works under something like a "historical literature" category than, say, a "juvenile fiction" category, on the premise - that even if false as a matter of fact is hard to deny as an organising principle in a democracy - that discerning adults are better able to control their idea formation than impressionable children.
I personally would prefer this stay to the purview of parents. I just see too much of a slippery slope problem occurring. And of course, different parents have different ideas as to how, or to what degree, their children should be protected. I would also put more emphasis on proving the quality of education so that, even if parents consciously or subconsciously try to perpetuate their own biases (whatever they are), a child will be exposed to a wide range of ideas through their education, and gradually learn to think for themselves.
I haven't used the word "problematic" and given that it can carry various connotations I'm not sure that I want to use it. I will stick to "racist".
I read REH Conan stories, but don't share the general view that Queen of the Black Coast is one of the best. I have told my children that they should only read the stories that I permit them to. I wouldn't want them to be hurt by encountering REH's racism, let alone HPL's references to "mongrels" and the like. I think it was
@AbdulAlhazred upthread who said that people don't need this stuff ("microaggressions" is one word for it, though REH and HPL maybe don't fit the "micro" label) in their lives.
On the other hand, these are also potentially valuable learning opportunities. But I hear you, at least for younger children. By the time they get to high school age, I personally think more open attitude is warranted.
JRRT is less horrible at the surface level - but my partner and I did notice that the only people of colour in Peter Jackson's LotR films are baddies. It stands out.
Don't forget that Middle-earth was essentially pre-historic Europe and iirc, orcs were varied in appearance. I don't want to re-litigate Tolkien, but I think some differentiation is needed. To whatever degree racism existed in his work, it was far less than Lovecraft or Howard, and I think "less horrible" overly emphasizes the degree to which racism
did exist in his works.
That said, I agree that Jackson probably shouldn't have only or mostly used Maori actors for his orcs.
