Do orcs in gaming display parallels to colonialist propaganda?

[pemerton]

I am not saying only people with advanced degrees notice this stuff. I am saying it is primarily people with advanced degrees who make these observations (or people sufficiently practiced in the language of this topic that has filtered into online culture). I can't comment on the people you've met who say things. I am saying there is a real divide here, and I'm giving you my personal observations on the issue.

I'm giving my personal observations too. This has nothing to do with "online culture". I am talking about people who were children in the 1970s and 1980s and could recognise that "evil savage" tropes placed them in a different frame from the white people around them.

This is a real thing, and I don't understand why you will not acknowledge it.

But yes, I think seeing an orc as currently presented in say 5E as parallel colonialist propaganda, generally does require a good bit of knowledge to see. And even if it doesn't, I don't think it is one of these things that is so cut and dry. I am not saying you have to agree with me Pemerton. But your post does call my intentions into question.

Yes. Because you seem to think that I am obliged to honour and even accede to your "personal observations", but you appear to disregard mine. I hope you can appreciate why that makes it hard to accept your professions of sincerity.

 

[Sadras]

If the colour of a protagonist is never specified (is that the case for Hermoine? I believe that the author has said as much, but I've not read her books), then why would someone protest because that character - in a theatrical or movie versi - is cast as Black or otherwise non-white?

Maybe, and this is a complete guess on my part, because that person may believe Hermione to be white in the books due to the movies? Because maybe the movies established them as cannon in her mind. I really don't know. TBH I have not read the books myself. I have not read any Star Trek material, my preconception of things is based entirely on the movies and the series, so I was quite taken aback by the new monstrous (hands) Klingon look in Discovery.
I didn't care for it. I mind less now after watching a season and a half in.

I can't think of any reason that doesn't pertain to something in the neighbourhood (at least) of racism - eg an assumption that protagonists are, by default, white unless expressly called out otherwise.

In general I think we jump to that label to quick, having said that I think each case is different.

But in any event, I wasn't talking about casting: you said that this is a fictional universe with their own customs of what is good, and I am saying that if the customs that the author imagines in writing his/her fiction express, reflect, or correspond with racial tropes, then the author can hardly complain if some audience members notice and comment on this.

In general I agree with you and I'm certainly not here to defend JRRT, but the specific topic was about the blonde haired and blue eyed trope, which I believe, is much older than Nazism and probably pre-colonialism. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on this, I haven't really done any research on this, but the golden-haired child equating it to blonde hair is a common feature in somes stories, Goldilocks comes to mind.
It seems perfectly natural that JRRT equated this with his graceful/angelic elves. There are plenty of white people with dark hair, was JRRT being hairist in that regard? Because that is where the general conversation was going.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

I have not read any Star Trek material, my preconception of things is based entirely on the movies and the series, so I was quite taken aback by the new monstrous (hands) Klingon look in Discovery.
I didn't care for it. I mind less now after watching a season and a half in.

/snip

But, the appearance of Klingons has never been tied to any particular race. We've had actors of all colors playing Klingons over the years. Your preferences here are your own and there's no problem to be found.

OTOH, things like Tolkien's Elves and Orcs ARE problematic. In fact I can point to examples where it IS problematic. It's not a case of simple personal preference because the entire issue is indelibly linked to issues of race. You can't avoid it. And you certainly can't avoid it by saying, "Well, I like it, so, it's not problematic".

 

[Hussar]

/snip

also think it’s crazy when people act like your a bad personality if you don’t like the newest ghost busters).

/snip

But, like the old 4e edition wars, there's a difference between someone stating, "I really don't like the newest Ghostbusters" and someone who jumps into every single conversation screaming from the top of their lungs how the newest Ghostbusters has ruined their childhood, destroyed humanity and kicked puppies.

It's the difference between saying, "Hey, I don't like X" and making a seven hour Youtube video about how X is the worst thing ever.

It's the difference between saying "Hey, I don't like X" and doxxing some poor actor with thousands of death and rape threats.

Which, unfortunately, means that if you do say, "Hey, I don't like X" you are going to get painted with the same brush as those mouth breathing Neanderthals. Unfortunate, but true.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm giving my personal observations too. This has nothing to do with "online culture". I am talking about people who were children in the 1970s and 1980s and could recognise that "evil savage" tropes placed them in a different frame from the white people around them.

I get what you are saying. I am not suggesting you are making stuff up. I grew up in the late 70s and early 80s as well, so I know what you are referring to. I do think there is a difference though between the state of 70s and 80s media and today. And while I can certainly see that often times groups were depicted as the savage. I don't think that means the savage trope needs to be taken off the table. And I think we can handle media that contains things that make us a bit uncomfortable or that we have to look at closely to make a determination about what its message is. My only real point here is I do think it is a mistake to take out intention completely as a factor because what it seems to be leading to is a situation where people assume the worst possible case regardless of what the author was trying to do (and I think that really does matter, because it colors the rest of the work and shades the meaning of the trope). I just feel like we are losing some nuance here. And I think we are losing out ability to separate content from message. Those are not always the same thing, and in this conversation there seems to be a mindset that 'if something can be X, then it must be X". I just don't think that is correct. I think we have to take these things on a case by case basis. And if we don't, I do believe that leads to pablum.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Sean P Harvey, Ideas of Race in Early America (2016):

“Charges of human sacrifice and cannibalism, which Catholic and Protestant invaders leveled against numerous inhabitants of the Americas, were especially damning.”​

“Summing up an expansive view of savagery, one colonist [the English cleric, Samuel Purchas] described, ‘so good a Countrey, so bad people, having little of Humanitie but shape, ignorant of Civilitie, of Arts, of Religion; more brutish than the beasts they hunt, more wild and unmanly than the unmanned wild Countrey, which they range rather than inhabite; captivated also to Satans tyranny in foolish pieties, mad impieties, wicked idlenesse, busie and bloudy wickednesse.’”​

“President Andrew Jackson defended Indian removal in a message to Congress by calling attention to the ‘monuments and fortifications … the memorials of a once powerful race, which was exterminated or has disappeared to make room for the existing savage tribes.’”​

Columbus Day video posted on the DailyWire’s website in 2017. It presents Native Americans as primitive cannibals and claims all technological innovations were due to Europeans.

Except where noted the following quotes are all from the 5e D&D Monster Manual.

Cannibalism, humanoid sacrifice, “Satans tyranny” and “mad impieties”:

“The yuan-ti were once humans who thrived in the earliest days of civilization and worshiped serpents as totem animals… The yuan-ti religion grew more fanatical in its devotion. Cults bound themselves to the worship of the serpent gods and imitated their ways, indulging in cannibalism and humanoid sacrifice.”​

“Lizard folk are omnivorous, but they have a taste for humanoid flesh. Prisoners are often taken back to their camps to become the centerpieces of great feasts and rites involving dancing, storytelling, and ritual combat. Victims are either cooked and eaten by the tribe, or are sacrificed to Semuanya, the lizardfolk god.”​

“When an orc slays an elf in Gruumsh's name and offers the corpse of its foe as a sacrifice to the god of slaughter, an aspect of the god might appear.”​

"Bloodthirsty marauders and cannibals, orcs venerate Gruumsh and thereby delight in slaughter and destruction." - 4e D&D Monster Manual​

“They range rather than inhabite”, “wicked idlenesse”, they do not build but use the creations of others, technologically backward:

“They [orcs] seldom settle permanently, instead converting ruins, cavern complexes, and defeated foes' villages into fortified camps and strongholds.”​

“Orcs don’t build settlements of their own, instead improving existing shelters with crude fortifications. They prefer to settle in natural caves or structures abandoned by other, more skillful races. Orcs can manage simple ironwork and stonework, but they are lazy and grasping, preferring to take by force the tools, weapons, and goods other folk make.” - 4e D&D Monster Manual​

“Goblins are lazy and undisciplined”​

“They [bullywugs] wear crude armor and wield simple weapons”​

“They [hobgoblins] protect their strongholds with... crude catapults”​

“Lizardfolk are primitive reptilian humanoids”​

 

[generic]

Oops! Double post.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Which, unfortunately, means that if you do say, "Hey, I don't like X" you are going to get painted with the same brush as those mouth breathing Neanderthals. Unfortunate, but true.

Can you see how that isn't good for media or for society? Heck I waited six months to watch the new star wars so I wouldn't be affected by all the online discussion about it when I saw it (and I am very glad I did). I honestly didn't understand the reactions from anyone when I actually saw the thing.

 

[Sadras]

I'm not about to start playing mind reading games. The fact that Tolkien wrote the elves as fair skinned and orcs as dark is grounded in pretty racist ideas. This has been shown with more than a few quotes from the books. This isn't something that people have just made up. It's right there in the books.

I'm not denying that JRRT injected some racial thinking in his works. I repeat, I'm not denying that JRRT injected some racial thinking in his works, but the purity trope of blonde hair is an old one and it does not need skin colour to be exclusionary.

Pretending that simple taste issues (whether I like 4e or not, or Timothy Dalton as Bond) is whitewashing the issue and again, really dismissive.

No, you have misunderstood me. It is not taste issues, it is about internally established cannon. Many people do not like change.

Are you seriously saying that all the criticisms of the play had nothing to do with racism? Not a single person who raised the issue had a single racist bone in their body? That the Twitter storm over casting black actors as elves has absolutely nothing to do with racism? Not a single person complained because of racism?

Bold emphasis mine.
Can you see how you phrase the argument. My wife sometimes does this when we disagree - she uses words like always, never and ever.

I'm saying many of these issues are because people have internally established cannon.
For instance - there is a vast difference between elves as presented by Tolkien and elves as presented in Mystara (which is one of my favourite settings probably due to nostalgia). In Mystara elves are shorter than humans, on average, weaker and considered lazy/fickle and there are so many many more differences. It took me a while, when I read the the Kingdom of Alfheim Gazetteer to accept that for the elves of one of my favourite settings, because that is not how I was originally introduced to elves. It still bothers me.

You definitely have racist trolls out there [AND I"M NOT HERE DEFENDING THEM] but many other protests, are because of what they see as canonical changes.

I completely dislike who they selected as Lois Lane in the movies because Amy Adams does not fit the look of Lois Lane I personally envision, and one of those reasons is the hair. I grew up with the dark-haired Teri Hatcher which is more the look I'm acquainted for her character and those of the comic. Dean Cain on the other hand was ok, but his look is no Christopher Reeves. Tall, strong jaw, more masculine looking etc - as depicted in the comics.
On the other hand I completely love Samuel L Jackson as Nick Fury, but I never had much exposure to him in the comics so it was never an issue for me. That isn't just taste it's about how our preconceptions were enforced by our exposure to things originally.

Playing the "badwrongfun" card doesn't excuse using racist tropes in your game. I'm sure people have fun with it. Bully for them. Just because they enjoy it doesn't suddenly make it not racist.

I'm going to ask this question, are you saying WoTC are defending racist tropes in D&D? I'm not sure which racists tropes you are referring to? If someone plays in the LotR setting are they defending racist tropes if they stick to cannon in terms of race description? Or are we talking about Orcs in general, like if you don't roleplay them like elves (free will) then you're suddenly defending a racist trope? Personally I think that is pretty harsh blanket of judgement.

Finally, you know if it weren't for these roleplaying boards I would have never made the historical connection between orcs and racial tropes even though I have read plenty of orc descriptions over the years. I'm not saying this to discount what you and others have said, I'm just stating that, those ideas have never entered my mind.
In one way i see it as a good thing, I've learned something which I was otherwise oblivious to. In another way, I'm thinking it is sad to have made that connection because I cannot undo what I have learned. I'm now forever going to look at the orc entry and think racial stereotypes, which brings an ugly into my favourite hobby.

EDIT: Hussar I just saw your other post, I'm not going to respond to it as I feel I might be retreading ground I have already covered here being the issue of established cannon. Just to reiterate some protesters on these social media sites might not want darker skinned elves because of established canon not because of JRRT's influences/biases. They're purists not racist, kinda like the issue I had with the Klingons.

I do not believe anyone here is defending racists.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think that means the savage trope needs to be taken off the table.

I haven't said it should be taken off the table. I have said that it carries a certain meaning. If you're playing with that trope, and you're aware of that meaning, or have it drawn to your attention, presumably you think you have some reason to play with it nevertheless.

I think that what I've just said is similar to what Hussar has said:

things like Tolkien's Elves and Orcs ARE problematic. In fact I can point to examples where it IS problematic. It's not a case of simple personal preference because the entire issue is indelibly linked to issues of race. You can't avoid it. And you certainly can't avoid it by saying, "Well, I like it, so, it's not problematic".

And, if someone chooses to defend concepts that are pretty clearly racist, they cannot escape criticism. Sorry, but, that's the way it is. Playing the "badwrongfun" card doesn't excuse using racist tropes in your game. I'm sure people have fun with it. Bully for them. Just because they enjoy it doesn't suddenly make it not racist.

I do believe that leads to pablum.

But to build on what Hussar said, this isn't a reason to doubt that JRRT is drawing on racist tropes; to doubt that D&D "evil humanoids" draw on tropes of "evil, brutish savages" who threaten "civilisation".

If your argument is that, in fact, it is impossible to create interesting fantasy fiction without entertaining racially-laden tropes, then come out and say it! If that's not your argument, then why keep raising this red herring?

I think we can handle media that contains things that make us a bit uncomfortable or that we have to look at closely to make a determination about what its message is.

<snip>

I think we have to take these things on a case by case basis.

Upthred you complained about "fine tooth combs", but here you seem to be advocating for them.

What makes you think I haven't looked closely at the cases I'm referring to? What's your actual reason for thinking the message is different?

You continued repetation of this point, while not actually engaging with the close reading that [MENTION=21169]Doug McCrae[/MENTION] in particular has put forward, comes across as a debating tactic rather than sincere engagement with others' posts.