Mana, Shamans, and the Cultural Misappropriation behind Fantasy Terms

Maxperson said:

That's the biggest issue I have with connecting things in D&D to the real world. There really isn't the connection that some people think is there.

Click to expand...

I completely agree.

Shamans in 1e and 5e (A)D&D don't look anything like real world shamans. They look like the racist and colonialist depiction of shamans in Robert E Howard's Conan.
Lizard man/lizardfolk 'cannibalism' in OD&D and 5e doesn't look anything like real world cannibalism. It looks like the racist and colonialist depiction of cannibalism (and 'cannibalism') in the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs.

Doug McCrae said:

I completely agree.

Shamans in 1e and 5e (A)D&D don't look anything like real world shamans. They look like the racist and colonialist depiction of shamans in Robert E Howard's Conan.
Lizard man/lizardfolk 'cannibalism' in OD&D and 5e doesn't look anything like real world cannibalism. It looks like the racist and colonialist depiction of cannibalism (and 'cannibalism') in the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs.

Click to expand...

I find myself wondering: where is the line between meat to eat and meat to meet (aka people)? Are only homo sapiens people? Or Genus Homo? Or Subfamily homininae? or family Hominidae?

It's one of those lines that, when combined with the subject matter of names and behaviors of fictional groups, affects how one reacts, especially when confronted with REH and that generation's casual racism...

aramis erak said:

I find myself wondering: where is the line between meat to eat and meat to meet (aka people)? Are only homo sapiens people? Or Genus Homo? Or Subfamily homininae? or family Hominidae?

Click to expand...

MaxPerson (I think) pointed out that chimpanzees were on the brink of extinction because of hunting. It is sold as bushmeat, it's legal and tasty for humans to eat members of the same family and subfamily (of the genus Pan). We no longer have an opportunity to taste other members of the genus Homo, but at the time this was a possibility, cannibalism was practiced within the Homo sapiens population, so it would be unlikely that we had reluctance to eat an Homo Neandertalensis. I consider a fantasy intelligent, bipedal lizard species to be at least as far evolutionary removed from fantasy human than real life humans are from real life chimpanzees.

The depiction of cannibalism by real-life colonial authors associated it to a deeply disturbing behaviour because:
a) they had no understanding of cultural relativism and thought that because in their culture it is taboo to eat your own kind, it must be evil (and not simply different) to eat your own kind
b) they were prejudiced against the native cultures because one of their goals was to spread christianity, so they demonized every part of the native culture (who actually did only practice cannibalism to a very limited extent) in order to emphasize the need to convert them and force them to adopt their (in their mind) superior values;
c) they were genuinely shocked because, due to lack of relevant knowledge, they probably had never imagined people could eat people as part of a cultural activity and not due to extraordinary circumstances like famine.

Nowadays, we have none of these handicaps and I don't understand them resurfacing when speaking of a saurian fantasy culture while we'd have no problem if we met a human cannibalistic society in an unexplored part of the world. Up until very recently it was supposed that the Andaman North Sentinel residents were cannibals and we didn't go out of our way to fight them nor did we consider them evil.

Galandris said:

MaxPerson (I think) pointed out that chimpanzees were on the brink of extinction because of hunting. It is sold as bushmeat, it's legal and tasty for humans to eat members of the same family and subfamily (of the genus Pan). We no longer have an opportunity to taste other members of the genus Homo, but at the time this was a possibility, cannibalism was practiced within the Homo sapiens population, so it would be unlikely that we had reluctance to eat an Homo Neandertalensis. I consider a fantasy intelligent, bipedal lizard species to be at least as far evolutionary removed from fantasy human than real life humans are from real life chimpanzees.

Click to expand...

It wasn't me!

Doug McCrae said:

I completely agree.

Shamans in 1e and 5e (A)D&D don't look anything like real world shamans. They look like the racist and colonialist depiction of shamans in Robert E Howard's Conan.
Lizard man/lizardfolk 'cannibalism' in OD&D and 5e doesn't look anything like real world cannibalism. It looks like the racist and colonialist depiction of cannibalism (and 'cannibalism') in the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs.

Click to expand...

If you take inspiration from somewhere else, but aren't taking for things like racism and colonialism, then they don't go with you. If I decide to add the fish people from Cthulhu that Hussar mentioned as being based on mixed race humans, but I decide that they are not based on mixed race humans, but are rather just fish people from beyond space and time, then none of his racism is in my game. Even if I use the same name and description for said fish people.

Shamans in D&D don't have Robert E Howard's racist and colonialist baggage, because they aren't the same, even if he inspired the D&D Shamans. Lizard people are not racist or colonialist in D&D, because they are just lizard people. Gygax didn't bring over the baggage.

pemerton said:

But I don't think I would include these works in a recommended reading list, as opposed to (say) a scholarly bibliography.

Click to expand...

How about Appendix E of the 5e PHB?

Hussar said:

How about Appendix E of the 5e PHB?

Click to expand...

I would not. If you feel it necessary because of all the Lovecraftian and pulp elements embedded into the game (and there is a lot) I think a warning about its use of racist tropes would be the bare minimum that I would expect.

Hussar said:

How about Appendix E of the 5e PHB?

Click to expand...

I don't have a 5e PHB, but from your account of it this seems more like a recommended reading list (like Appendix N in the original DMG) rather than a list of influences for scholarly-type purposes.

I also think that D&D is in a very different position from a smaller RPG self-consciously catering to a smaller audience who are either (i) more familiar with the issues, or (ii) won't be put-off by a gloss or commentary on the listed works.

Campbell said:

I would not. If you feel it necessary because of all the Lovecraftian and pulp elements embedded into the game (and there is a lot) I think a warning about its use of racist tropes would be the bare minimum that I would expect.

Click to expand...

To elaborate on what I've said just above to Hussar: Burning Wheel has a bibliography that supports explanation/commentary which could include this sort of thing. So do Prince Valiant and Pendrgaon. But D&D is presented as a mass-market thing and also as "complete" or "total" in a way that smaller games are not - smaller games are in more of a self-conscious conversation with their audiences.

So if I looked at a D&D reading list, as a first-time purchaser/player, and saw a gloss like that I think I would be asking "Why"? Just don't include them! It's not like new players can't find their way to HPL and HPL commentary on their own if they want to.

It seems to me the simpler solution is to simply not include the name in the "recommended reading" list. I mean, sure, back in 1976, I wouldn't have expected anything different. But, in 2015? An "Inspirational Reading" list of fantasy that includes H. P. Lovecraft but, not J. K. Rowlings? I will admit, that I'm much more of a SF reader than fantasy, but, ignoring the biggest fantasy writer in history seems something of an oversight.

And, before anyone says it's about exposure - I'd point out that the list in page 312 in the PHB includes authors like Tolkien and Stephen King. Not exactly unknown names.

You can be recommended to read something without agreeing with the things inside. When I was recommended to read Heart of Darkness it wasn’t because my dad was trying to make me a racist. It was because the book is amazing at conveying the oppression of environment and being out of your comfort zone.

Acting as if people... even young people can’t recognize and sort racism in books is incredibly patronizing. Filter out the casual BS then enjoy the amazing stories and influences that have shaped modern storytelling. If you don’t want to read the classics I understand that, but there’s a reason a lot of these books are on pretty much every 100 best books list.