• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Oriental Adventures, was it really that racist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Catching up on the thread, so, sorry if this was answered.

Electronic copies of books are certainly available at many libraries now. And, the fact that the publisher has stopped printing a given book has no impact on that.

As far as person to person, I don't think that's legal no matter what. Well, unless the publisher expressly allows it I suppose. But, if I buy an ePub of some novel, I'm not allowed to transfer that epub to other people.
I really would NOT be so sure about that! If you SELL me an ePub, the First Sale Doctrine would seem, ON THE FACE OF IT, to still apply. OTOH if you 'license' it to me, there are still serious questions. That is, if the licensing is essentially a sham, if the transaction has all the character of a sale, many courts have held that it "quacks like a duck" and again the same doctrine holds. That is far from universal, and what any given court would rule is difficult to foretell. Still, you can easily argue there's a CONTRACTUAL issue, but not a copyright violation, which is a lot easier to deal with. Also, what are the damages, $29.95? Trebled?! Wow!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

It blows my mind how many basic logic failures are embedded in posts like this.

Firstly - yes, emotional reactions can be wrong, because they emerge from cognitive biases, not so much raw experience, and routinely need to be reevaluated. It's much better to help people mature in that process rather than just enabling blind emotional reactions tied to victimhood-seeking. Doing the latter is a form of infantalization - i.e. what's actually racist.

Secondly, you are taking a 2010s pop culture thought paradigm as though it's just basic scientific fact, suggesting its moral superiority in a way that reeks of extreme elitism, and applying it to someone and something that happened a long time ago when people simply didn't have the same types of indoctrination they do today.

Lastly, archetypcal tropes and heightened beauty standards are common across all forms of fantasy. Western fantasy is also full of the same kinds of tropes. There's nothing particularly unique about Asian-influenced fantasy. Fundamentally, suggesting that OA is racist is extraordinarily pedantic, ridiculous, and rests entirely on the cognitive bias of the observer rather than on any objective evidence that might support such a claim.
So, you're going to tell me that there's no such thing as a particular sexual objectification and body image tropes/exoticism tropes (they're quite thoroughly mixed into one big hairball IMHO) about Asian women? Now who's biases are we talking about! See how that works?

I will be totally honest, your entire post reeks of an attempt to label things that threaten your personal worldview. Thirdly you're using another argument which effectively dismisses all historical crimes as just some passing phase. "Oh, we're over that now, its ancient history, get over it!" Yeah, politely HELL NO! I'd be careful of this path, because most of the people who tread it are not people you probably want to be associated with.
 

Why are people pretending that the comeliness thing is the sole criticism of the youtube series, ignoring the fact that they bring up several hours more of reactions, and then pretend that being wrong about this one thing somehow completely invalidates all of their thoughts?

Never minding that focusing on this one specific thing pretty much derails any conversation that has been going on about the larger context and issues surrounding the book?

Why is it, every single time we try to talk about this sort of thing - whether it's chainmail bikinis, or cultural expression or whatever - people want to endlessly myopically focus on one tiny little thing?

So, they were wrong about comeliness? Who cares? Why does that matter? Does having comeliness in the OA suddenly redeem it in your eyes?

"Oh, here I was thinking that a book that trivializes numerous cultures by presenting one single culture, with TONS of historical baggage" as the only culture of note was a bad thing, BUT, they have a comeliness stat so, I guess everything is okay?"

WTF?
It is just another rhetorical form of the old 'Motte & Bailey'. Once you adopt this position and we 'move on' they'll just surrender the bailey and go back to claiming there's 20 other things they have issue with, or "Its all just ridiculous" (and then circle right back to their first point again). The truth is the whole discussion has probably gone as far as it can go, MOST everyone has surrendered the basic ground of "Yeah, OA has issues." Any sort of agreement beyond that requires that someone update their world view and see things from another perspective. That will undermine some treasured cultural narrative, etc. and it ain't going to happen in a forum thread. I would posit that we are done here. Cheer up, 20 years ago you wouldn't even have been able to keep the thread open for 2 pages.
 

I think the issue can be that it's not always a simple as that, especially if you're within the groups targeted.

With Lovecraft, reading it in the UK in the early '90s, I was not warned about it being racist, like at all, and indeed the racism initially was so bizarre and extreme, I didn't even read it quite as racism, but as like, talking about beings that weren't human. It was only as I read more that I realized "Oh, he means like actual normal Black people, holy hell this is super-goddamn racist!". As I've mentioned before there's some stuff where even manages to be racist against Irish and Scottish people, which is pretty eye-popping.


Well, we are all limited to our own identities, but I still think people can make informed attempts to understand other points of view and other experiences. In terms of not being targeted, maybe not in the case of the OA book, but in many other instances I had in mind for historical readings, I was certainly among the groups targeted. It is hard to read old books and not encounter someone with negative feelings or even hatred towards who you are at some point. Which is my point. And some of that may be having a history background. Where when I encounter something like that, my impulse is curiosity.

That is one of the reasons I brought up Lovecraft. And the Irish and Scottish stuff is no accident. It is one of the reasons people need to take a more nuanced lens to Lovecraft's attitudes on race (I am not defending his views on race, just pointing out it is a different kind of racism than people are accustomed to thinking about). Now I should say, it has been about ten years since I have done heavy reading of Lovecraft (I read him almost religiously in high school and into my 20s). More recently I've been fonder of Howard (I just like Conan stories a lot for some reason). I am hoping to go back and read all of Lovecraft again when I have time to do so. So my breakdown here might be mixing up details I am remembering. I am going by what I remember (the most recent re-read of Lovecraft for me was Herbert West about a year ago when I rewatched the re-animator).

His racism, and I think he is too big a topic to really get into in this thread but I want to address it, is uniquely patrician New England form of racism. And that is an easily misread form of racism. It isn't like the racism of say the segregated south, where the emphasis is on the dividing line between white and black. It is more like a continuum and grounded in xenophobia and concern about bloodlines I think. It is a type of racism that is very specific about what it likes: English Blood (and specifically people in New England with bloodlines that can be traced back to the very early days of the first settlers). The term we used to use her for that is a Yankee. That word means other things in other parts of the country, and even in New England today its largely lost the meaning I am using here. But when I was a kid when my grandfather talked about yankees, he wasn't talking about him and I, he was talking about New England patricians). I am Italian, Jewish and Irish: as far as I can tell from reading his stories and some of the things he has said, Lovecraft had misgivings about all of those groups (though he did marry a Jewish woman, so his feelings clearly complicated). And I believe it was the Irish he held in the lowest regard among the three (I could be wrong on that). My point here is just that, if you are not English, there is a good chance that Lovecraft's xenophobia and racism are targeted at you (some more than others obviously). Because it is about ethnic purity, and the Anglo-heritage of New England, versus the melting pot and new immigrant groups breathing life into the culture. And that kind of thinking is something I remember encountering still in New England as a kid. Again it had mostly faded but there were traces of it. In my grandfather's generation (he was born in the 20s) it was a lot more common. He told me for example the Italian from the brickyard (a section of Lynn where the italians used to live) weren't allowed to go into the Diamond District. I don't think this was an official decree. I doubt there was an ordinance against it, but it was known he couldn't go there freely (unless he was helping build a wall or something).

I do think it is also just a complicated topic with Lovecraft and race, and I am not refreshed enough on his writing to comment deeply. But I think in terms of when and where he lived, that viewpoint wasn't all that uncommon (I even remember bumping into it in the 80s here). And he was a very complicated person. In these discussions I think we often get a very simplified presentation from ether the 'he was not a racist' or 'he was a racist' camp, and the reality is pretty messy and evolves over time (and seems to change in different contexts).

What I will say is I think we sometimes make the mistake of reading everything he wrote through the lens of his racism. Or misapplying exactly what races he has in mind. There are a number of stories I remember where you have these old new england communities and I actually read the racial stuff in some of those as being more about inbred New England patricians in places like Marblehead (but I have seen others interpret them as other groups). I've also read plenty of stories where I don't think race was really a big concern in his mind and people have projected that onto the tales. I am not saying my interpretations are the correct ones, this is just how I reacted to some of those stories when I first read them (and I think being from this region helped inform that intrepration). The race thing is there for sure in places (and it is often directed at everything from black people to Italians), but I think we are so conscious of it now it is becoming our primary lens for reading Lovecraft and lovecraft was a deep horror writer who wasn't soley about race.
 


I think it absolutely is, and honestly I see where your generation is coming from in a lot of ways (I mean I'm presuming you're slightly older than me, I'm 43), because the politicians of the Gen X era were very, very keen on trying to ban everything media-wise, with heavy metal, D&D, video games, sexy music (the Satanic Panic is sort of a few degrees to the side of this as it never really penetrated government above a fairly low level) and so on. It's certainly enough to make one pretty concerned about that kind of thing.

I think it's one of those pendulum things though and maybe Gen X is perhaps, overprotective of some perceived attempts to shut down "free speech" from younger generations and that the definition of free speech is sometimes stretched a tad widely - hence the whole "cancel culture" vs "consequences culture" discourse (is it "against free speech" to decide not to buy a thing from someone you think is a jerk and to say so?). The big difference being that in the '80s and '90s, the shutdowns were all from governments and related authorities, whereas in the '10s, it's more individuals saying "No thanks" en masse (not even "protesting" in most cases).

I do appreciate you engaging this part of what I said and seeing where I am coming from. One thing to keep in mind though is this wasn't strictly from the government down. We had a lot of grass roots support for those things in general. We often talk about the culture war now, but there was one in the 80s too in the US, between the parents who came down on different sides of the 60s and Vietnam. And we were living in the wake of all that.

On the cancel culture thing, that is too big a topic for here I think. I tend to agree with people like Jon Stewart on this, where I think engagement is very important, and engagement is something we are losing the ability to do. And I think people are misguided putting their faith in platforms controlled by powerful corporations and misguided to think that this is simply people saying 'no thanks' en masse. My view is there is obviously, as there was in the 80s, grass roots support for some of these sentiments. People are saying no thanks. I can understand why people want to do things that pressure speech they dislike off of platforms. But I think that is shortsighted (eventually those tools get used by people on the other side to stop you from speaking too), and it empowers corporations who are going to be more than happy to have a lever they can pull to stifle information and speech that ought to be seen and heard (I don't trust that facebook, twitter, youtube, or whatever the platform is suddenly doing things out of the goodness of their heart, nor do I think they are not going to warp the sentiments you are describing and use them to their advantage to cloud the material harm they do in the world----another reason I think distinguishing between physical and non-physical harm is important). Again, this may be generational. But that is how life is: the way I was raised, what I experienced, makes me value freedom of expression tremendously. And I think it is something that is really hard to get back once you lose it (and it isn't only threatened by powerful governments, it can be threatened by corporations and oligarchs-----it can even be threatened by the majority without institutional or government power if they are committed enough to stopping an idea they don't like).
 

As for "it was acceptable in the '80s" I think the issue is that some of this stuff wasn't even then. OA was though. Indeed, I would argue OA (specifically) is actually less racist than a lot of stuff and less problematic than a lot of '90s stuff - but the difference I think is that the '90s stuff was raising a ton more eyebrows at the time. Like, World of Darkness: Gypsies pretty much immediately started getting called out for it's crude attempt to "flip racism" which ended up just being SUPER-racist.

Certainly, this is true. And a lot of the discussion around content that hasn't aged so well is going to be 'just how acceptable was this at that time' (not always an easy question to answer). At the very least though, the bar being set in a different place, was usually something that allowed the thing in question to arise (it may be a problem for people even in the time it was made, but you likely had more people openly saying that thing). The gypsies guide is something that I think was not as immediately controversial in the states (I didn't learn there was controversy around that book until the mid-2000s because I saw people talking about it on the internet). In the 90s, in the US, gypsies were having a renaissance in horror and RPGs I think (for a lot of reasons). But I think one of the big ones was they represented a bohemian ideal of freedom to a lot of generation X at the time. So I just remember seeing a lot of gypsy tropes, and thinking those tropes were positive (I haven't read the WoW gypsies book so no idea what I would have thought of that had I done so). Most Americans knew very little about Roma (but my impression is there is a lot more direct awareness in Europe). I never even encountered Roma until I went to Venice right before 9/11. The only other exposure I had was once, when I was a kid, some Roma passed through our area and it was in the news. But I think we had very little cultural awareness of them here.
 

Irlo

Hero
I think it does convey WotC's determination of the book's faults. It doesn't list them all in a comprehensive manner, but anyone who wants to purchase OA will read the disclaimer and understand there's some content in that does not align with modern sensibilities.


It's not directed at you personally it's directed at anyone who purchases books or pays to see a movie.


Okay. How is that any more helpful than their current disclaimer?
So, I'm just wrong.

I thought the disclaimer was applied to all the legacy products on for sale on-line, and that contributed to my impression that it wasn't pointing to any particular book's fault but was so broadly applied as to be meaningless.

That's the not the case.

My apologies for the error.

Carry on.
 

It is certainly not the case that the suppression was mostly from state action (aka, government) in the 80s and 90s. Just like today, sporadic attempts to get state action involved would almost always get shot down by the courts.* Instead, it was continual fighting regarding pressuring private actors to suppress speech.

This is important and this is where a lot of these groups succeeded. Going after bookstore chains and music store chains was a big part of their strategy (and it sometimes worked----and its one of the reasons you often have two versions of a CD)
 

Of course, back then the primary pressures were aimed at keeping "harmful" speech away from people and punishing private entities that facilitated that speech- you know, "harmful" speech that might tell them that being gay wasn't bad (in the 80s, trans issues were barely on the radar). Or (in the case of D&D) that playing D&D wasn't immoral or satanic. Or that explicit music or "rap" wasn't the downfall of civilization.

This is true, but it wasn't all this. The PMRC also raised concerns about sexualization of women and objectification of women. The 80s movement against freedom of expression was a coalition of right leaning religious groups and left leaning groups. You had both rightwing and leftwing speech concerns mixed in there.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top