What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Mesero]

That definition kind of dilutes the concept of "Native Americans", but also you avoid the question: Are you asserting that African-Americans have no stereotypes based on their African ancestry?

What exactly do you mean with stereotypes and what do they have to do with being qualified to write about a culture?

 

[Justice and Rule]

What exactly do you mean with stereotypes

I feel like I shouldn't need to explain what stereotypes are to you. It also feels like you are still avoiding the question.

and what do they have to do with being qualified to write about a culture?

Because writing often involves tropes, some of which may be offensive but also not immediately visible to those who are not affected by them.

 

[Imaro]

Which is why this attitude will ultimately lead to less content, which is a loss for the consumer. Making a strong effort and doing your best to be respectful within your means should be enough.

What exactly do you mean with stereotypes and what do they have to do with being qualified to write about a culture?

The problem is that, at least in America, there is a history of so called experts and historians who were supposedly knowledgeable in their field and used their position to advance racist stereotypes and narratives that allowed for the justification of the mis-treatment of non-whites. I think some of you all don't get it, this is a reaction, at least for black people as I can only speak to my race, to actions that have already taken place... it is a deep seated distrust that to be fair has been earned. For a more known example... the black community has a deep seated distrust of the medical field in America because of things like the Tuskegee experiment, or anesthesia use disparities when it comes to black women. This distrust is foundational because it has been bred by so-called educated professional who couldn't ( and some still can't) look beyond their own biases.

So I'm sorry we've give the chance for a "strong effort and doing your best to be respectful within your means..." to be enough and it hasn't worked out for us... and honestly this type of thing when presented without the context of history feels dangerously close to gaslighting and if not gaslighting, then willfully choosing to ignore actual history.

 

[Justice and Rule]

The problem is that, at least in America, there is a history of so called experts and historians who were supposedly knowledgeable in their field and used their position to advance racist stereotypes and narratives that allowed for the justification of the mis-treatment of non-whites. I think some of you all don't get it, this is a reaction, at least for black people as I can only speak to my race, to actions that have already taken place... it is a deep seated distrust that to be fair has been earned. For a more known example... the black community has a deep seated distrust of the medical field in America because of things like the Tuskegee experiment, or anesthesia use disparities when it comes to black women. This distrust is foundational because it has been bred by so-called educated professional who couldn't ( and some still can't) look beyond their own biases.

So I'm sorry we've give the chance for a "strong effort and doing your best to be respectful within your means..." to be enough and it hasn't worked out for us... and honestly this type of thing when presented without the context of history feels dangerously close to gaslighting and if not gaslighting, then willfully choosing to ignore actual history.

Charles A. Murray comes to mind.

 

[MGibster]

Were there some displays the museum powers that be just decided they couldn't do it well enough to pursue?

Only from a practical standpoint. We weren't going to have an exhibit on anything where we didn't have the artifacts to put on display. i.e. We didn't have any artifacts from the American Revolution, so we didn't have any exhibits from the time period. Here's a dirty little museum secret: We put on exhibits for things the staff have no expert knowledge in all the time. I once put on an exhibit about the U.S. expedition into Mexico to capture Poncho Villa. I knew next to nothing about the Mexican Revolution or Poncho Villa before I started but I had to learn real quick if I wanted to write the exhibit and answer visitor's questions.

 

[mythago]

Yes, but that concept cuts both ways. You can use it to say what can be there as easily as you can say what can't.

Er, yes? What I'm not following is the assertion that since fantasy is just made-up, we can put slavery or bigotry or whatever in our fantasy worlds and it doesn't matter. I hope I'm misunderstanding, because "none of this matters, it's all make-believe" is a pretty startling claim coming from people in the TTRPG community. Stories are important and they mean things and that's part of why we play these games, no?

 

[mythago]

Specifically, no. I do remember an announcement about a fantasy game based on Africa from a few years back and a poster specifically saying he wouldn't buy it because no POC was involved in its production. He didn't voice any concerns about what qualifications the creators might have to write such an RPG, only what race they were.

So was this guy's objection that the people creating the game couldn't possibly know anything about the subject matter? Or was it something else, like the specific way the subject matter was being handled? Or were they instead complaining that the people writing the game were a group of white people whose interest in African history and those impacted by it stopped at the idea of involving any actual persons of African descent in the game development? Or some combination of all of these? I don't know the specific example you're referring to, but 'one guy a few years ago said he wouldn't buy this game' without more isn't really evidence that subject matter experts are being snubbed unless they're Black.

Also, game material gets criticized all the time for reasons ranging from the thoughtful to the less so. When Brandon Leon-Gambetta came out with the ashcan for Pasión de las Pasiones, one reviewer slammed it not because it was a bad game but because, in their view, this was just going to end up with white people who didn't get telenovelas barging in and playing the game thoughtlessly (essentially, hipster cred dressed up as concern about Columbusing).

 

[Umbran]

Which is why this attitude will ultimately lead to less content, which is a loss for the consumer.

I don't find the consumer to be the highest priority for consideration on the matter.

 

[Mesero]

I feel like I shouldn't need to explain what stereotypes are to you. It also feels like you are still avoiding the question.



Because writing often involves tropes, some of which may be offensive but also not immediately visible to those who are not affected by them.

I am "avoiding" it because I have no idea whats your point is.
The question is who can write about a culture. What have stereotypes have to do with it? Which stereotypes do you mean anyway? The stereotypes "white" Americans have about African-Americans? The stereotypes (African-)Americans have about, for example, Nigerians? The Stereotypes Nigerians have about (African-)Americans? The stereotype Europans have about any of those groups?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Are you asserting that African-Americans have no stereotypes based on their African ancestry?

Sure we do!

But we’re probably less likely than the average non-black to be willing to cement negative ones in a piece of intellectual property we’re creating.