• 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!

Cultural Appropriation in role-playing games (draft)

After time away I am writing new episodes for my video-podcast series on RPG reviews and issues. Here is a draft of the script for the next episode, which will probably be somewhat controversial.

----------------------------------------------

(Trigger warnings for; racism, religious persecution, sexism, genocide, slavery and related issues)

Greetings from a place of unexpected discomfort or possibly just social consternation.

This week we discuss cultural appropriation in role-playing games.

To paraphrase a column on cultural appropriation by Maisha Z. Johnson that appeared at the Everyday Feminism site;

“A deep understanding of cultural appropriation refers to a particular power dynamic in which members of a dominant culture take elements from a culture of people who have been systematically oppressed by that dominant group.”

Johnson also states;

“It’s also not the same as assimilation, when marginalized people adopt elements of the dominant culture in order to survive conditions that make life more of a struggle if they don’t."

Johnson asserts cultural appropriation trivializes violent historical oppression, it lets people show facile interest in a culture while remaining prejudiced against its actual people and spreads mass lies about the marginalized, among other problems.

The name of the Washington Red Skins is cultural appropriation, as are college black face parties and most of the music by Katty Perry. They are a sports team employing the pejorative name and warrior symbolism of a Native American tribe, college :):):):):):):)s acting like :):):):):):):)s and a rich white woman pop-musician assuming the musical traditions of minority groups. All without so much as a thank you.

To digress for a moment, communication always attempts to accomplish something, be it laying out an agenda for a business, a statement of emotion, persuasion to a new philosophy, to entertain at least one person or something similar. All “dialogue” – whatever their format – is about something and dialogue is frequently home to a conflict between the participants, in terms the form of the communication, the emotions employed, who is paying attention to what and so forth. Music is designed to elicit an emotional response, business meetings pursue profit and most conversations serve at a bare minimum as an effort to glen useful information if not an effort by one person to coerce another person into doing something. There is no such thing as “just talking” because all communication is about something and much of it is a contest of wills. The phrase “just talking” is meaningless; both denying the nature and purpose of communication and serving as a moral dodge, a phrase employed by people in an effort to avoid accountability for their message and means of communication. Asserting “you’re just talking” is like saying gravity may suddenly shut off.

The writing, art, design and composition of RPGs is a dialogue, is designed to communicate something, usually someone’s idea of a good time.

Cultural appropriation is hate speech. Cultural appropriation is hate speech against an ethnic minority group, spoken in the language of that ethnic minority. Cultural appropriation is done by gormless people who employ phrases like “just talking” when called on their bad behavior.

Cultural appropriation is a problem in role-playing games and even as racism and sexism is arguably getting better, if only incrementally, cultural appropriation is not improving in any meaningful way.

There two ways to go about representation, direct translation of a real people and culture and the pastiche, even if both may lead to some variant of blackface play.

According to Mirriam-Webster Dictionary, a pastiche is something – such as a piece of writing or music – that imitates the style of someone or something else. For example, Stephen King’s short story “Jerusalem’s Lot” is a pastiche of H.P. Lovecraft’s works, only better. Stephen Sondhheim has composed many tunes that function as pastiches of music originally composed in the 1920s and 1930s. A pastiche does not make the original a subject of ridicule, which would be a satire.

Direct translation of a real people and culture is exactly what it sounds like – an attempt to fictionalize a real world people, their culture and frequently their religion. Examples include White Wolf’s books that asserted the Rom people possessed actual magical powers and that Mexico City and Transylvania were home to most of the puerile evil in the world – which has an interesting subtext about the people living in Transylvania and Mexico City.

Aesthetic, according to Mirriam-Webster, is a set of principals underlying and guiding the work of a particular artist or movement and here – in terms RPGs – it refers to how cultural minorities, regions and the like might have a particular artistic style that may quickly be understood upon sight.

For example, a character from Piazo may wield a saber and wear a particular set of robes, so the audience understands she possesses a pseudo- Arabian Nights aesthetic. This is to say, she looks like Arabian… in a vaguely pop-culture manner, meaning she does not have to know the pillars of Islam.

By comparison, any attempt at a direct representation of the Middle East and people of the Muslim faith should get that type of thing correct. Too often RPGs fail in this type of effort. Instead, they become efforts at just creating a pastiche, at just ripping off aesthetic, while pretending to be something more for the purposes of a game.

Both ultimately serve as examples of cultural appropriation, and while one may be worse than the other, that does not excuse the lesser. Class C Felonies might be more severe crimes than Class A Misdemeanors, but that does not excuse the misdemeanors.

RPG examples of settings functioning as at least pastiches include;
· Mazteca from TSR for Meso-America,
· Al-Qadim from TSR for Persia, the Middle East and North Africa,
· Nyambe from Atlas Games for Africa,
· Kara-Tur from TSR for East Asia,
· Rokugan from Alderac Entertainment Group also for East Asia,
· Osirion in Pathfinder and from Piazo for ancient Egypt,
· Galt in Pathfinder and from Piazo for Revolutionary France,
· Chelix in Pathfinder and from Piazo for Colonial or Post-Reconquista Spain,
· Katapesh in Pathfinder and from Piazo for North Africa,
· Qadira in Pathfinder and from Piazo for Persia,
· Ganakagok, from an independent publisher, for Artic peoples,

Examples of real world settings and even real world peoples, employed for role-playing games include;
· The Ravnos vampires from White Wolf Games for the Rom or Gypsies to use to more widely recognized term, though it is a pejorative,
· The Giovanni vampires from White Wolf Games for the Italians,
· The Followers of Set vampires from White Wolf Games for Egyptians,
· The Assamite vampires from White Wolf Games for Muslims,
· Masque of the Red Death from TSR and its representation of many places, including Eastern Europe,
· White Wolf and its representations of Mexico City and Eastern Europe as home to most of the puerile evil in the universe,
· The Dreamspeaker mages from White Wolf games for all the indigenous aboriginal magical forms ever as a single cohesive and coherent tradition,
· The Akashic Brotherhood mages from White Wolf games for most of the Eastern Asian martials arts and philosophical traditions ever as a single cohesive and coherent tradition,
· The Euthanitos mages from White Wolf as a group of mages from southern Asian who more or less worship death and frequently act as serial killers,
· The Uktena and the Windego from White Wolf as Native America werewolves
· Gypsies, from White Wolf, which was a book about how the Rom people possesses actual magic,
· Going Native Warpath, from an independent publisher, which makes a mélange of most of the Native American and Pacific Islander peoples,
· Far West, also from an independent publisher, for most of the Chinese people and cultures while erasing Native Americans,

There are more than those listed here but this column is not just a list of these things and so we shall move on.

Morally and ethically, intent counts for less than we might wish. Only God knows someone’s actual intent and he does not exist – the rest of us have to cope with the person’s excuses and mealy-mouthed assertions about the best of intentions.

We deal with a contemporary world out of our control produced by ante-contemporary people whose actions if performed today would be considered morally insane and functional adults never get to pretend we do not live day-to-day eye-ball deep in this legacy. That legacy includes express slavery, genocide and cultural genocide and a grab bag of lesser horrors.

This will never go away any more than gravity will go away.

When called upon to justify racism and slavery, at various times people asserted that Africans were undeveloped and unprepared for civilization and need slavery to domesticate them properly. Likewise, people with the power stripped Native Americans of their heritage, culture and language in an attempt to “civilize” them. While the appearance of minorities in RPG does not approach anything like the level of horrors of genocide, slavery and cultural annihilation, minority people understandably may view any bit of RPG material through a historical lens that includes of horrors of genocide, slavery and cultural annihilation… and entitled whites mealy mouthing stuff about the best of intentions.

This is exacerbated by decades – at least – of media representation of minorities, their cultures and religions that provide grossly distorted depictions of everything “other” as a kind of proverbial comfort food for privileged white people.

Randa Jarrar in a column written in 2014 for Salon asserts that when western women, white women, engage in belly dancing they are engaging in cultural appropriation. They don costumes and employing something from outside their culture – belly dancing, or Raqs Sharqi – for their own amusement. In this, they have stripped the dance of its original intent and make a self-satisfied game of pretending to be something they are not.

“Many white women who presently practice belly dance are continuing this century-old tradition of appropriation, whether they are willing to view their practice this way or not.”

This has been going on for a century or more, however, that long history does not make it morally acceptable for bored white women to wear the trappings of a minority, particularly when they can walk away at anytime while actual women in the Arab world cannot walk away from how society views them, their society and their religion.

Time does not make such practices acceptable.

According to Nayyirah Waheed, in his essay “Cultural Consent is Not a Strange Concept,” modern Western society and its history over the last few centuries “has convinced us that no peoples have agency over their individual expressions of life. That this is a free market, that peoples’ cultures are created for sale, and everyone is free to take what they want, when, how, with no thought to the violence this causes.”

Waheed is correct. At the same time a business in the Western world makes a buck off sexy version of the hib-jab for Halloween, exhibiting abiding disrespect for the faith of Islam, it also makes sexy versions of nun’s habits for Halloween, exhibiting the same contempt for Catholicism as it does for Islam and Native Americans for the matter, all for the same juvenile sexual reasons. The point being, in modern Western Civilization, no one is special, no wounds are worth consideration and everyone and everything exists to be exploited and discarded.

Waheed also asserts that “no,” or refusal is not limited to an individual, but “…peoples also have a right to say no. …we have to check our privilege.”

Waheed – and RPG blogger Christopher Chinn, aka Bankeui – also discuss cultural consent, or that members of one cultural should be consulted by members of another culture, should grant permission for the use of some aspects of their culture in a certain context. This is not a bad idea, but it falls apart – at least somewhat – in application.

Who do we seek permission from when and how we may use something from another culture? How many members of that culture are required to grant permission? What ratio of consenting voices, as compared to objecting voices, is required to proceed on such an effort?

This might seem like snide quibbling, but it is not and this is going somewhere.

In 2014 Monte Cook Games released a product, intended to be a romp, titled “the Strange.” The Strange of the title referred to the phenomena of a series of small, alternate Earths or dimensions – each with a particular theme, such as Roman World, Science Fiction World and so on. One such world, the Thunder Plains, in a section composed by Bruce Cordell, focused on the upper mid-west plains the Native Americans there prior to colonial contact.

Cordell asserts he possessed the best of intentions, is related to Native Americans and that he consulted with Native Americans he knew about the product, that he researched the real background before composing the Thunder Plains.

However, there was sufficient backlash from Native Americans, who blogged about their issues with the product and how it represented them. Some Native Americans created a petition against the product and at first Monte Cook Games attempted to avoid the issue, though eventually they would reach out and make a compromise to work with Native Americans on the issue.

Cordell is likely quite sincere in his statements that he meant well, that he attempted to research the subject matter and consulted with Native Americans… and this proved to be insufficient for a number of reasons.

While Cordell and everyone else at Monte Cook Games is making a sincere effort to correct the errors and do a good job now, it would have been better for all parties if they had made such an effort in the first place. The fact they thought and probably still think that they had all along amounts to little.

A term employed in feminist and minority critiques of all kinds of media is agency. According to Mirriam-Webster Dictionary, agency is the capacity, condition or state of exerting power. It is about the capacity of a character, or characters, to make decisions and pursue those decisions. Stories where a white dude becomes a part of some “minority” group is not about the agency of those people. The Last Samurai is not about the agency of the traditional Japanese samurai – it is about the agency of Cruise’s character fulfilling some Japanophile power fantasy. The same is true of Dances with Wolves and Kevin Coster.

Players and game masters running games set in a minority culture, be it a pastiche or a direct translation, are not actually granting that culture or its people agency. They are fulfilling a power fantasy, complete with otherising, the appeal of the exotic and quite probably brown-face or a variant of brown face play.

Representation does in fact matter but white people have historically failed to adequately represent anyone but white people. Why should white people be granted an infinite series of mulligans to screw-ups allowing then try again? Why should the minorities accept this as a non-negotiable fact of life, like gravity?

This is not to encourage or condone erasure – the disappearance of minorities from gaming, either as players or as characters. However, perhaps such work is best left in the hands of people from the cultures represented. For example, the game Ehdrigor draws heavily from Native American cultures, its themes and motifs. It is also written and composed by Allan Turner, a black Indian and the setting is probably not something a non-Indian could have composed.

If someone is pursuing writing about real world minority cultures, then there are bare minimum factors of which they need to be aware and which they should pursue. First, the intentions of the writers, artists and other creators involved are at best invisible and at worst irrelevant. Seek out as many people from the culture you are attempting to represent and get their permission for the endeavor, be patient, be willing to walk away from the project if it is not working out – the minorities owe the majority nothing, except at best obeying the letter of the law. Also, as you did in when working math in school, show your work. Set aside space in the publication to discuss the goals and process of the publication.

If you are uncomfortable with the idea, then do no go there, do not do the deed – write the game or play the character – in the first place. Walking away from something which makes you uncomfortable is your right.

Sometimes it can feel like we are morally and ethically standing on a sandy beach and the waves are eroding the foundation out from under us, meaning we move or fall. The technical term for this is life and your choices are only noteworthy if you get them wrong and fall down.

Consider Wil Wheaton’s Law; Don’t be an dick. You are not the only person who gets to determine if you are being a dick and your supposed intent counts for little. The people you are speaking to, for and about have more of the final word about you being a dick than you do.

Sometimes good fences make for good neighbors not so much because it keeps them out of your yard but because it keeps you out of theirs.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Celebrim

Legend
I find the term 'cultural appropriation' to be decidedly vague. In general, cultures - if we can think of them as being something like memes - generally want to trade ideas with other cultures. It's usually a fairly healthy activity for a culture to engage in, leading to greater depth and sophistication. Strong claims that you ought to control how your culture is borrowed or utilized typically marginalizes your own culture unless it is ignored - which it usually is. I'm inclined to think with a smirk about the French governments obsession with stopping the French people from appropriating words and ideas from other cultures, and really how little the English culture is offended when ideas are appropriated from it. English culture is quite happy generally to colonize other cultures idea space and language, forming various sorts of pidgin languages and sprinkling itself into dialects as varied as Spanish, Arabic, and Mandarin Chinese.

Likewise, English is a famously aggressive borrower of words from other languages, amassing a vocabulary of loan words several times larger than many other entire languages. I suppose there might be some ignorant idiot out there that thinks English has too many foreign words in it, but if you robbed English of all the words it has borrowed from Latin, Greek, French, Spainish, Arabic, Japanese, and so forth, we'd quickly be reduced to the pathetic state of the French government and always having to invent new 'English' neologisms to keep our language 'pure' - inventions which half the time the French people ignore anyway and just say things like 'la blue jeans'.

I can't recall a single time I was afraid of my culture being appropriated, even when it wasn't done in a manner I particularly approved of - as for example the wholesale appropriation of the iconography of angels and devils into Japanese manga and anime. I suppose we are to conclude that the Japanese are still being acted on and still without agency when they reinterpret western culture and ideas for their own purposes? If so, then it's going to get really confusing determining with say First Nations Rock N Roll is empowering or just another sort of minstrel show.

And there is your 'trigger words', and were I really think this gets real. 'Cultural Appropriation' is a really terrible name for what is really wrong with the things that we ought to object to. The problem wasn't that culture was getting appropriated. To the extent that culture really was being appropriated, it was an entirely subversive thing guaranteed to taint the supposed cultural purity of the bigots that were trying to protect it. The problem wasn't that culture was being appropriated. The problem was that culture was being deliberately subverted and mocked, by a group that lacked the standing to subvert and mock back or sufficiently protect its own cultural legacy with economic and media power. The problem wasn't that the larger culture was infatuated with the real culture of the minority, which is a rather good and powerful thing on the whole, greatly to the advantage of the minority. The problem was that the larger culture wanted to impose a sham of the real culture on the minority as an act of oppression, making its lies and belittlement become a sort of reality or at least the illusion of reality.

That was a terrible act.

But 'cultural appropriation' generally? It's about as dangerous to anyone that wants to be a racial supremist as say interracial marriage.

Ultimately, this is one of those danged if you do, danged if you don't things. If you do, then it's 'appropriation'. If you don't, then you aren't promoting 'diversity'. And mostly, when it is brought up, it really is about power plays. It's about claiming to be a representative priesthood, with veto rights to censor whatever isn't liked. And the obvious proof of that is that I don't have the right to say these things. I have to link to some guy with the right birthright whose says the same darn things on youtube, so that the racist insults can be hurled at him by the priesthoods.
 
Last edited:

"I was reading a book (about interjections, oddly enough) yesterday which included the phrase “In these days of political correctness…” talking about no longer making jokes that denigrated people for their culture or for the colour of their skin. And I thought, “That’s not actually anything to do with ‘political correctness’. That’s just treating other people with respect.”

Which made me oddly happy. I started imagining a world in which we replaced the phrase “politically correct” wherever we could with “treating other people with respect”, and it made me smile.

You should try it. It’s peculiarly enlightening.

I know what you’re thinking now. You’re thinking “Oh my god, that’s treating other people with respect gone mad!”
-Neil Gaiman
 


billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Wow. Same post and pretty much the same follow-up post too as on the Paizo boards. While I can understand posting the original for broader response than he'd get on just one website, I'm wondering if the follow-up isn't just being a bit of a troll.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Do you welcome more picky feedback?

A "dialogue" is an *exchange* between two or more parties, a conversation back and forth. The writing, art, design and composition of RPGs is a monologue - one party speaking to another (the reader, in this case). Unless the person who buys the RPG then communicates to the authors and artists, and they then communicate back again, it isn't a dialogue.

I think referring to all cultural appropriation as hate speech at that early point of the piece is *risky*. You are stepping up the emotional challenge there, instead of the intellectual challenge, and could lose large chunks of your audience to it. Especially because you haven't laid the groundwork for it to be seen as accurate. In law, hate speech is, "any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group."

Katy Perry is not inciting violence or prejudicial action with her music, nor is she intimidating anyone, or disparaging. She may be showing disrespect, but if we are going to the point of saying disrespect is hate speech... well, then there's a whole lot of hate speech on EN World sometimes. To have that not come across as hyperbole, you need to show more reasoning there. Not having a distinction between greedy thoughtlessness and hate is problematic.

It may be telling that (at least, as I understand it) the original term was "cultural misappropriation" - which admits there are ways of accepting things from other cultures that are okay, and ways that aren't. By dropping the "mis-", it implies there is *no* acceptable way for cultures to exchange, and I find that questionable, unrealistic, and again problematic.
 
Last edited:


Celebrim

Legend
I am going to try to follow Umbran's inspiring example of tact and understanding.

Here is a video of a man who agrees with me on this issue probably 99% of the time. We may quibble over a few tiny points, but based on his video essay, I think we are on the same page, and even where I disagree I do understand where he is coming from. Fair warning, he uses strong language to make his point forcefully.


Now, I don't believe as I do because this guy convinced me. And I didn't get his permission to believe what I believe. And he didn't ask my permission to come to his conclusions. That would be I think we would agree, pretty ridiculous. In fact, if he needed to ask my permission to believe what he believes, I think we'd agree that there was a serious problem here. But that's not the situation that prevails. Happily, we are allowed to come to our own conclusions.

So this is touched on in a lot of ways in the video, but one of the problems with asking a group for permission is that it's not at all clear who we would ask. A lot of people were asking 'the1janitor' for his permission, but as he pointed out, he's no more entitled to wear dreadlocks as an 'authentic' dreadlock wearer than the people asking his permission. The very fact that he is seen as somehow an 'authentic' voice merely because of his skin color, and the mere fact that the majority society sees the minority group as having a uniform opinion is itself evidence of a destructive and condescending racism, as if an entire race of individuals was somehow stamped out of a single mold and so tribal in its essence that a few selected spokespersons could speak for the whole group. This is 19th century stuff.

So who gets to decide who the authentic spokesperson is for a racial group? Do minority racial groups hold elections and nominate cultural spokespersons who represent them? Why does no one ever think this about white people - especially well, other white people? And even if they did hold such elections (which I would note would be inherently racist institutions), why would anyone in that racial group feel he was necessarily being represented as if his primary identity was always the color of his skin as if everyone of the same color was just one uniform tribe with a uniform set of opinions? Aren't people allowed to disagree? Or do they need to get permission for that?

The biggest problem I have with your essay is that it violates one of the wisest rules for living anyone ever said to me, and that is (edited for EnWorld), "Don't 'complain' about something, unless you are going to do something about it." Specifically, it's easy to be negative about things (and I should know), but if you are going to be negative and critical and call people - specific individuals like Bruce Cordell, Kevin Costner, Monte Cook, and Katy Perry and not just hypothetical persons - as well as entire groups of people "gormless" and purveyors of hate speech, you have to be able to offer up a reasonable remedy for people if they wish to repent of this sin they are doing. Because you are really being unfair to people if you accuse them of being moral reprobates (the Hebrew word here would be 'Raca'), especially if you are going to say that their intentions don't matter and that they can be in this state of degeneracy even if they don't mean to be, if you don't offer them some way to become reconciled with the universe and straighten their lives up.

And you don't offer any coherent plan for that. Your essay continually contradicts itself by offering up a conclusion, and then negating the value and the worth of that conclusion later. So ultimately you are left with no standard that people can abide by to know what ethical behavior ought to be. The only rule you ultimately offer is that you have to get permission.. from someone... not clearly specified.

Because this whole plan to ask permission before you act and think is going to run up against several hard problems. First, you are giving up your own agency in this. Making your own judgment would be "hate speech" if it disagreed with one or more offended persons. Second, you are going to be beholden to the person who is most outraged and to be frank most hateful. And third, you are inevitably going to have contrasting opinions. I mean sure, it's a great thing - and a wise thing - to go and ask advice of people who might have a different perspective and honestly listen to them and consider what they have to say, but that is a very different thing than asking permission. When you seek advice, you are having a dialogue and things get communicated, and you can make your own informed decision. But when you seek permission, you are just getting dictated to. And who are you going to choose to be the rightful dictator? Who really has the lawful authority here? Who is legitimate? Who in other words is 'authentic'?

Who are you to decide that their voice and their opinion is more legitimate than someone else's, so that not only do you concede to be dictated to by them, but that everyone else must also be dictated to? More to the point, who are they to decide?

It comes down to this; we need to be treating people like we want to be treated. We need to treat them with respect. We need to try to not act like dicks. And when we can't agree on what is respectful, because something always offends everyone, we have to just stay tolerant and keep on trying to treat people like we would want to be treated.

When people disagree with particular strictures or theories of 'political correctness', often as not it is because they feel those theories advocate for treating people in disrespectful ways and not because they feel that they are just trying to be kind and respectful.
 
Last edited:

I spent many years in cultural anthropology grad school in the late 80s. The whole "cultural appropriation" thing was just starting to gain some traction back then, and I remember having a lot of classroom discussions about it. My ex-wife (we were married at the time) was a sociology graduate student, so I was familiar with the thinking on that subject within that discipline as well.

The reality is that almost every human culture is largely made up of ideas, technologies, beliefs, rituals, etc. appropriated from other cultures, current and past. The Romans did a ton of "appropriating" from the Greeks, for example, as is evident from the writings they left. It isn't necessarily a bad or destructive thing. When you start talking about "cultural appropriation" as a bad thing, you enter into a vast minefield of grey areas, exceptions, and more. It is particularly problematic when the discussion originates with people who aren't members of the culture in question.

It isn't unknown for there to be long arguments at universities, in periodicals, and (today) on online forums about particular issues that most members of the cultures in question don't really care about. Academic fury (including things like "trigger warnings") often have little to do with life outside the circles that like to debate such things.

There are certain aspects to any culture or subculture that those involved will tend to view as important to their group identity. There are even more aspects that most people in a culture under consideration don't really feel are part of what binds them together, or that are exclusive to them. There are no hard-and-fast rules or black-and-white definitions when it comes to this topic.
 
Last edited:

I agree with a number of your points, but I need to make it more express in the column. Specifically I see it all as a snare, or maybe multiple snares, and there is no happy resolution.

Sometimes the only way to win is by not playing.
I am going to try to follow Umbran's inspiring example of tact and understanding.
...
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top