Oriental Adventures, was it really that racist?

[Justice and Rule]

This isn't about reasonableness. It's about listening. There are probably a ton of things out there that I would never consider racist myself, and would be surprised to learn they are. But rather than continue to argue my uninformed opinion, I listen to the people who are affected by it, and that is how we learn.

Yeah, I listened to the Asians React series on L5R and found it somewhat useful in getting a different perspective. It's easy to miss stuff when you don't live it every day.

Is there anything offensive enough for someone to deserve to be deplatformed ever?

I mean, there's plenty. Platforming isn't a right, after all.

This,is the more incorrect thing I have read in this thread.

Context matters. This is such a simple point I can’t believe I have to say it. But a person from a group can use a slur and have it be empowering (reclaim it) or a word can have different meanings depending on time and location (UK as opposed to American, for instance).

I see a lot of demand to listen, but precious little actual discussion.

I mean, this is a really bad-faith take on what they were saying. They're talking about the historical context, and how something being acceptable at the time doesn't negate the fact that it was and still is racist. Talking about term reclamation doesn't really touch on this.

I don't think there is wide consensus. I think there is a lot of disagreement over how much of a problem it is. You can call it wishy washy, but it isn't like OA is some kind of racist manifesto. People are going to have different responses to how the tropes are handled. And again, even among the people who are saying it has problems there is clearly a difference between those labeling problematic, stereotypical and racist.

There's wide enough consensus that even you have conceded the problems with the title. Just because there is disagreement about specifics doesn't mean that we can't form a general consensus that the book is problematic at the least.

"Cancel culture" is a term that's gotten so weaponized I don't think its a useful term; the term is applied when other people do it, ignored when people you agree with do.

The issue is, however, that brigading is absolutely a thing, and it isn't limited to one particular political philosophy or position. And once it gets rolling, it can be enough of a problem that if you're in a position it can get aimed at you, you, again, absolutely have a reason to be concerned because there are too many people out there who, once they decide you're on the wrong side of things, won't show a lot of restraint on what they'll go do. It doesn't take a whole lot of cases of doxing or other harassment before some serious chilling effect sets in.

"Cancel culture" is indeed useless, largely because it's often used when people are simply expressing disapproval with what someone has done. Approval isn't a right, and when you do stupid things people can call you out on that stuff.

Stuff like brigading is generally different, and most often its with more powerful people using their platform to harm people who can't fight back. It's punching down using one's fanbase and clout against someone who lacks it. That's... generally not applicable to what we are talking about.

 

[Dire Bare]

Was 'Oriental' considered racist when the book was written?

Yes.

Certainly, words change meanings and connotations. Including the word "oriental". But back in 1988? Yes. Awareness of that wasn't as widespread as it is today, and it's not on the same level as some other slurs. But again, do we need to determine the relative offensiveness of the term to agree it is offensive?

However, I'm more concerned with today. It doesn't matter if the word "oriental" was considered racist back in 1988 (although again, it was) . . . no one is advocating to jump into a time machine and take out baby Zeb Cook before he can write Oriental Adventures. No one is even calling for Zeb Cook and the late 1980s TSR team to be "canceled" or any such nonsense.

We are discussing the problems with Oriental Adventures because many of those problems still exist in D&D today. And we need to know what those problems are, so that we can continue to improve D&D and do better.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If I accidentally step on someone's toes and they tell me it hurts, is it my place to argue whether their injury is real or not?

If they sue you and you think they are faking: yes. But I think this is a bad example because you the premise is you stepped on their toes, presumably you did hurt them. I do think you always have a responsibility to push back if you feel a person's response is either out of proportion to what you've done, or if you feel they misunderstand what you are doing. If you step on someone's toes and they punch you in the face, I think you can tell them to chill, for example.

 

[Gradine]

That‘s insane.

Seriously - we have to get rid of Uncle Tom’s Cabin? The Invisible Man? Anything that isn’t up to your standards?

Where... where did I say any of that? Works have merit, especially literary works such as these (though I did write a thesis on "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and dear lord is the writing saccharine and melodramatic). I have never once advocated for "getting rid of" anything, not even OA.

It's just that OA is so far beyond relevant at this point that relitigating it (one way OR THE OTHER) is a waste of everyone's time and effort.

 

[Dire Bare]

Again, are we going to ignore Requires Hate's victims because most (but not all) of them were in fiction rather than the RPG field? Most of them didn't even have anything particularly obvious to apologize for.

Again? What? I have no idea what you are talking about here, so give me a moment to google . . . . .

Okay, so this is hardly a cut-and-dried example of fantasy/sci-fi "brigading" . . . . "Requires Hate" (Benjanun Sriduangkaew) is a Thai fantasy/sci-fi author who created the anonymous online persona, "Requires Hate" and began a series of critiques of other fantasy/sci-fi works for their racist and sexist themes (from her point of view, of course) using insulting . . . and to some, threatening . . . language. From my brief research, her behavior was awful and rightfully condemned. And also, her critiques arguably had merit, if you remove the insulting/threatening language they were delivered in. And I haven't found any evidence she was successful at "canceling" anyone . . . . but I just did a light dive into the controversy surrounding this author.

One person, posting awful stuff about other people on the internet isn't "brigading" or "canceling". It's also hardly "chilling" to creators who'd like to include cultural themes in their works they don't have a direct connection too. Unless there's more to the story of "Requires Hate" you can enlighten us on . . . .

 

[Thomas Shey]

Stuff like brigading is generally different, and most often its with more powerful people using their platform to harm people who can't fight back. It's punching down using one's fanbase and clout against someone who lacks it. That's... generally not applicable to what we are talking about.

I don't see why not; I've given an example of someone who used it to strike at writers twice now. And that's what I've been talking about, how chilling this can become and how it can end up easily instead of just stopping racist or appropriational material, it ends up creating a climate where people will simply steer clear of the topics entirely. People have dismissed that when it comes up, and I think they're being way too blithe.

 

[FrogReaver]

Uh, the poverty levels for blacks in Flint, Michigan, is 43.8%. The poverty rate for blacks in Benton Harbor, Michigan, is 50.7%. The poverty rate for blacks in Detroit, Michigan, is 37.7%.

Yes.

Why would you use a specific poverty rate for one and then reference the national poverty rate?

Why wouldn't I? The comparison clearly shows that whites from high poverty areas in the country experience more poverty than blacks from low poverty areas. That seems a pretty important point if we are going to talk white privilege.

You compare like to like. For example, the national white poverty rate is 9.1% in 2019. Notice the difference?

Sure, and there's important information to be gleaned from that comparison as well. But that's not the only valid comparison.

I mean, statistically speaking being black and in a city makes you way more likely to be in poverty compared to Harlan, Kentucky.

See, you get how this works

A better point for you is that 46.8% of blacks in Harlan KY are in poverty. Which is quite a bit higher than that of the white population of Harlan KY.

I think we can acknowledge both points - that blacks on average experience higher poverty when compared to whites from the same locations and that whites in some locations experience much higher poverty than blacks from other locations. Do you agree with this? If so what does that mean to you in relation to white privelege?

 

[Gradine]

If they sue you and you think they are faking: yes. But I think this is a bad example because you the premise is you stepped on their toes, presumably you did hurt them. I do think you always have a responsibility to push back if you feel a person's response is either out of proportion to what you've done, or if you feel they misunderstand what you are doing. If you step on someone's toes and they punch you in the face, I think you can tell them to chill, for example.

I find this a cynical way of approaching the world and other people. I do think, if your intent is misconstrued or misinterpreted in a given situation, there's a natural impulse to attempt to explain. But again, intent is hardly relevant; whatever I intended, if I hurt someone I ought to apologize and maybe learn to be more careful about such things.

But to approach every person's declaration of pain with skepticism at whether they are "faking it" or not is absolutely bleak to me, and unfair to humanity writ large

 

[Thomas Shey]

Again? What? I have no idea what you are talking about here, so give me a moment to google . . . . .

Okay, so this is hardly a cut-and-dried example of fantasy/sci-fi "brigading" . . . . "Requires Hate" (Benjanun Sriduangkaew) is a Thai fantasy/sci-fi author who created the anonymous online persona, "Requires Hate" and began a series of critiques of other fantasy/sci-fi works for their racist and sexist themes (from her point of view, of course) using insulting . . . and to some, threatening . . . language. From my brief research, her behavior was awful and rightfully condemned. And also, her critiques arguably had merit, if you remove the insulting/threatening language they were delivered in. And I haven't found any evidence she was successful at "canceling" anyone . . . . but I just did a light dive into the controversy surrounding this author.

There have been people who outright bailed out of writing because of her. And it should be noted most of her targets were women, POC, trans or some combination of the three. So even being within the cultures at hand was no protection. She's almost the poster child for misuse of her own status to go after people who's work she disliked for one reason or another. And she didn't do it alone; she had a following and they were effectively her internet posse in many cases. Its just easier to isolate the attacks she made in one of her various identities but that's always true with a brigading situation.

One person, posting awful stuff about other people on the internet isn't "brigading" or "canceling". It's also hardly "chilling" to creators who'd like to include cultural themes in their works they don't have a direct connection too. Unless there's more to the story of "Requires Hate" you can enlighten us on . . . .

It didn't stop with Requires Hate. She had a following that she sicc'd on people. It absoltuely was brigading, and as noted it was often directed at other subaltern groups. So, yeah, I'd do more research on the history there before you shrug it off.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Where... where did I say any of that? Works have merit, especially literary works such as these (though I did write a thesis on "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and dear lord is the writing saccharine and melodramatic). I have never once advocated for "getting rid of" anything, not even OA.

It's just that OA is so far beyond relevant at this point that relitigating it (one way OR THE OTHER) is a waste of everyone's time and effort.

That‘s the exact point- you don’t get to determine what is relevant.

Uncle Tom’s Cabin is cruddy as literature, but if someone read it without understanding it’s historical context, they would be offended. Should we just listen to the offense and the harm, or … does context matter?

OA is important in a lot of ways to the evolution of D&D~ especially because it has some of the ideas that Cook would later expand on in 2e, as well as having the first credited Asian contributors to a TSR product. I think it’s relevant, and I think that while it’s fine to critique issues in it, it’s really annoying that people assume it’s not relevant.

If you don’t want to re-litigate it, that’s fine by me. Stop telling me what I have to think and I won’t keep litigating.