Oriental Adventures, was it really that racist?

[Dire Bare]

I don't agree. I think any critique of OA that doesn't take into account the influence Japanese media on Americans is faulty.

As has been pointed out multiple times, no one claims that Oriental Adventures is racist in intent, but it is problematic (insensitive or racist) in effect.

Japanese media has a huge influence on American culture, more so than other Asian cultures, and when Americans conflate all Asians as "the same", that stereotype is largely Japanese flavored. Your point explains WHY a pan-Asian D&D setting relies so heavily on Japanese tropes. In that sense, you are not wrong.

But it doesn't change the insensitive/racist effect of the book. It doesn't make it less offensive to those of Asian descent. It doesn't reduce the harm.

 

[MGibster]

As has been pointed out multiple times, no one claims that Oriental Adventures is racist in intent, but it is problematic (insensitive or racist) in effect.

I get that. I really do. I even agree with many people on the elements that are problematic.

But it doesn't change the insensitive/racist effect of the book. It doesn't make it less offensive to those of Asian descent. It doesn't reduce the harm.

Okay. So I think we've gotten some things mixed up over the course of the thread. I'm pushing back on the idea that the samurai are negative stereotypes as viewed through western eyes. I think the way samurai are presented can be explained by the Japanese material Americans consumed. I agree with you that it's not cool to superimpose Japan over the whole of Asia.

 

[Mordhau]

No one should have an issue with people that are passionate about something.

I think that the issue that some of us have is that people are repeatedly told, "Oh, you have to watch this in order to have an opinion." Of course, this happens to be 26 hours.

Then, if you do watch it (or try, in good faith, to watch significant portions of it because ... again, 26 hours) and you don't agree with it uncritically, you are dismissed- not on the basis of analyzing their points (good, bad, and incorrect), but only because you don't agree with everything that is in there.

This thread (and prior ones) should show that reasonable people can disagree with some of the issues raised. Of course, unreasonable people can too, but that's a different issue entirely.

There's nothing wrong with them doing what they do. But their medium and method are very poor for getting a clear message across.

I've watched some of their videos and they're all over the place. They're thinking through things as they go which means they get things wrong and leap to conclusions. Now they do say that's because they're just giving their impressions as they go, so that's fine, but it does make it a poor source for anyone really wanting to understand the real issues - unless perhaps one watches the whole thing which is interminably wrong.

It would be really helpful if someone involved, after having done all that reading and discussing and thinking out loud about their conclusions would actually write up the summation of the critique in essay form. (Writing remains a vastly superior form of superior anaylsis as it can be checked, edited and corrected and others can quote it and review it directly rather than say, inaccuratley mischaracterising something that someone may have said one hour into a youtube video). They're under no obligation to to do that if they don't want to - but it would certainly help to have a better discussion.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yes, but what you call cheap rhetorical techniques are what others, at least me, considers normal debating techniques. You go after someone's premises and that's especially true when they're weak and inconsistent.

Maybe that's the difference.

I think the right response is to say, "There seems to be a contradiction here: can you explain X?"

But, yes, some people will take that opening to "go after" their "opponent." "Ha! You contradicted yourself with X. Obviously your premises are weak."

I guess it depends on your goals.

 

[MGibster]

But, yes, some people will take that opening to "go after" their "opponent." "Ha! You contradicted yourself with X. Obviously your premises are weak."

And to be fair, I do think you have a valid point. There are people who use those techniques to be disruptive rather than generate discussion.

 

[Dire Bare]

I get that. I really do. I even agree with many people on the elements that are problematic.


Okay. So I think we've gotten some things mixed up over the course of the thread. I'm pushing back on the idea that the samurai are negative stereotypes as viewed through western eyes. I think the way samurai are presented can be explained by the Japanese material Americans consumed. I agree with you that it's not cool to superimpose Japan over the whole of Asia.

Using samurai to represent non-Japanese characters (in a pseudo-historical setting like Kara-Tur) is a different issue than the existence of the stereotype itself. Sure.

The samurai isn't (in my experience) a NEGATIVE stereotype, but it is a reductive and historical inaccurate stereotype. How much that bothers you depends on your knowledge of the historical samurai, awareness of the stereotype, and your own personal experience with appropriation. The fact remains, for at least some of Asian-descent, it's problematic.

Is it the worst offense in Oriental Adventures? Are there other, larger issues that are more impactful? Maybe, but not my point. It is but ONE example of the problematic elements in the product line.

Reductive stereotypes, even if "positive", can be harmful. The stereotype of African-American men being stronger, faster, and better athletes than other groups is a good example. How harmful is the stereotype of the samurai? Just a teeny bit? A whole bunch? I'm don't feel qualified to comment on that, but I do try to listen to those who feel it does carry baggage with it.

 

[Dire Bare]

Maybe that's the difference.

I think the right response is to say, "There seems to be a contradiction here: can you explain X?"

But, yes, some people will take that opening to "go after" their "opponent." "Ha! You contradicted yourself with X. Obviously your premises are weak."

I guess it depends on your goals.

"Debate techniques" . . . at least the ones I'm familiar with . . . are adversarial and the purpose is to "win" the debate, not come to a consensus or to uncover truth.

 

[Dire Bare]

There's nothing wrong with them doing what they do. But their medium and method are very poor for getting a clear message across.

I've watched some of their videos and they're all over the place. They're thinking through things as they go which means they get things wrong and leap to conclusions. Now they do say that's because they're just giving their impressions as they go, so that's fine, but it does make it a poor source for anyone really wanting to understand the real issues - unless perhaps one watches the whole thing which is interminably wrong.

It would be really helpful if someone involved, after having done all that reading and discussing and thinking out loud about their conclusions would actually write up the summation of the critique in essay form. (Writing remains a vastly superior form of superior anaylsis as it can be checked, edited and corrected and others can quote it and review it directly rather than say, inaccuratley mischaracterising something that someone may have said one hour into a youtube video). They're under no obligation to to do that if they don't want to - but it would certainly help to have a better discussion.

A few of us do keep recommending the Asians Represent podcast, true. But the podcast shouldn't be seen as the definitive resource on what is or isn't wrong with Oriental Adventures . . . but it is a good start, it is informative, and it's a good way to start getting a feel for how some in the Asian community view these types of work.

And . . . there's not a lot of other resources out there to point you towards. At least, not that I'm aware of. Doesn't mean it's just the folks of Asians Represent that have issues with OA, they're just the first to do a detailed analysis of it. Again, to my knowledge.

It would be nice if someone did a summary of the points they raise in each episode . . . . but until some enterprising blogger does so, we've got the podcast itself.

Each episode is long, close to 2 hours. They only get through a few pages each episode. Their conversation wanders, they aren't very focused, not all of them are familiar with D&D (not to the level many super-fans on ENWorld are), and some of the panelists do tend to jump to conclusions. It's a messy podcast, but the issue is messy and complex itself, so . . . .

This isn't an issue where you'll find easy, black-and-white answers. I get less upset with folks who disagree over how severely problematic OA is, than I do with folks who just outright dismiss the experiences and voices of those who do see it as a severely flawed work.

 

[Ixal]

Using samurai to represent non-Japanese characters (in a pseudo-historical setting like Kara-Tur) is a different issue than the existence of the stereotype itself. Sure.

The samurai isn't (in my experience) a NEGATIVE stereotype, but it is a reductive and historical inaccurate stereotype. How much that bothers you depends on your knowledge of the historical samurai, awareness of the stereotype, and your own personal experience with appropriation. The fact remains, for at least some of Asian-descent, it's problematic.

Is it the worst offense in Oriental Adventures? Are there other, larger issues that are more impactful? Maybe, but not my point. It is but ONE example of the problematic elements in the product line.

Reductive stereotypes, even if "positive", can be harmful. The stereotype of African-American men being stronger, faster, and better athletes than other groups is a good example. How harmful is the stereotype of the samurai? Just a teeny bit? A whole bunch? I'm don't feel qualified to comment on that, but I do try to listen to those who feel it does carry baggage with it.

Oh please.
No one except studied historians (and probably not even them) do not have a reductive view of the past. Especially in entertainment our view of Samurai, Ninja, Mongols, Vikings, Knights, Romans, druids, nobles, medieval peasants, and so on is reductive. If that is the benchmark you set then everyone talking about anything historic is racist.

 

[Hussar]

I get that. I really do. I even agree with many people on the elements that are problematic.


Okay. So I think we've gotten some things mixed up over the course of the thread. I'm pushing back on the idea that the samurai are negative stereotypes as viewed through western eyes. I think the way samurai are presented can be explained by the Japanese material Americans consumed. I agree with you that it's not cool to superimpose Japan over the whole of Asia.

Sorry, I may have missed it, but, who is saying that the depictions of Samurai is, in itself, a negative stereotype? I certainly haven't. As far as it goes, it's a pretty decent depiction of samurai. It's not disrespectful, it hits the main points, and does so pretty well. I certainly have no problem with the samurai as a character class. Arguements for historical accuracy aren't really all that valid IMO, simply because D&D has never tried for historically accuracy.

Samurai are no more or less accurate than druids or pretty much any other class.

The issue isn't samurai, AFAIK. The issue is that samurai are used to represent "elite warrior" for all East Asian cultures. Again, it's the fact that the book basically over writes every other culture and replaces it with samurai, kensai, yakuza and a host of other elements and then claims that it's representing all of East Asia.