Oriental Adventures, was it really that racist?

[Irlo]

I saw and/or listened to only a few hours of the 26-hour series, skipping around a lot and sometimes not paying attention as I washed dishes or cooked dinner, so I don't have a full picture. The point of the show, I thought, was to voice their impressions of the OA books from a few different perspectives. No one pretended to speak with one voice for all Asians, did they? (Maybe I missed something.) For me, it was an opportunity to hear some ideas about books that I enjoyed and recognized as sketchy.

 

[gamerprinter]

While this it was created for Pathfinder, specifically, and not D&D - I still say it's "in the D&D sphere". Rite Publishinng, who published my Kaidan setting, also published Heroes of the Jade Oath, with a China analog map, and cleaves closer to China history/mythology than OA. You might not count Pathfinder settings as "D&D sphere" but I do.

 

[Deset Gled]

But what are your thoughs...was it that bad back in ye olden times?

I'm going back to the OP to bring up a point that I think people have lost sight of in the past few pages. Specifically, the concept of "ye olden times".

The first OA was published in 1985, which was 37 years ago. By contrast, 37 years before 1985 was 1948.

1948 was just post WWII, and pre-equal rights movement. In 1985, that was recent enough that people who lived through those events were still alive, but an entire epoch of racial awareness had taken place in between. I am confident the writers of the original OA felt like they were not being racist. At the very least, they could compare themselves to people who wrote about Asian fantasy/culture in 1948 and say "we did better". I am also confident that if we tried to re-write OA today, we could do better. 37 years from now, I hope authors can do better than us.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Here's how I personally see the issue:

1. There's a staggering amount of racism in the U.S. against asian, or asian-american, people. (And the following line of reasoning applies to all other groups facing discrimination, ethnic or otherwise.)

I am in agreement that racism is bad. And I think most others are. People probably disagree on the degree and where exactly the problems lie, but things like the violent attacks on asian people in the US are a big concern to me. Where I might disagree with you is what causes this, whether something like an RPG is part of the problem (and whether altering tropes, or putting warnings on old products will change that). I do think this is a problem. And it is one I am personally quite concerned about.

2. So called "positive" stereotypes (e.g., asians are good at math) seem harmless, or even beneficial, but all stereotypes support the (false) notion that there are correlations between ethnicities and genetic proclivities, and that belief is dangerous. E.g., if you are willing to believe that asians are genetically good at math, you're also more likely to believe they are genetically not creative. (My 8th grade history teacher, Mrs. Hosman....1921-2005...actually said that "the Japanese are like monkeys: they are really good at copying others." I was not sufficiently shocked at the time.)

Two things on this one. I think positive stereotypes can be an issue, but I don't think they are always one...at least they aren't the same as negative stereotypes. My dad's side of the family is Jewish and when that has come up I haven't minded people saying "Oh so you must be really smart then". It is a stereotype. But I feel different about that than someone saying something like "You are tricky" (which I have encountered once). The issue of genetics is another topic too. I don't think of these things as genetic, I can see cultural reasons for these things. I think most people my age, because a lot of the racism that remained when we were kids was based on old racialist theories and so much of the bad history around stuff like the holocaust was rooted in things like eugenics, we tend to really be wary of genetic claims to cultural differences. I see any differences that do exist as cultural, not a product of blood or genes.

What your teacher said would have shocked me (even as a kid in the 80s). That is pretty awful.

3. There are a number of elements of OA which propagate stereotypes, including the "exotic" trope.

I agree there are stereotypical things in OA. I am not saying it is perfect. There were some criticisms of it in the prior discussion I agreed with. I also think it was, in many ways, ahead of its time, while also a product of it. Like a lot of older things it also used language or made assumptions you wouldn't see today. I think the way to handle that is to understand when you look at books from the past, those things are going to be present. But I also think it is a lot more complicated than many of the criticisms made it out to be (as posters like @Snarf Zagyg have pointed out). And it was a significant book. It is an important part of D&D history. As well as being a very well made one in my opinion (it may have flaws, especially through a lens brought by people living today, but is also have a lot of value: I would like to continue to be able to see it in its entirety---and think people should have access to it. Now obviously the end result was not its removal, but that wasn't clear as an outcome when this conversation first started.

On exotic. I am not as moved by that particular argument. I think it can very much go overboard. But exotic is just something that is unfamiliar or foreign and novel to your experience. One of the appeals of French cinema for instance if you are American is it feels exotic at first. Now that fades with time. But it is a legitimate feeling one has. Trying to depict a setting as exotic compared to the standard expectations in fantasy, that doesn't trouble me. But I do think with exposure, things just do feel less exotic the more familiar they become to people.

4. OA also, as has been mentioned repeatedly in just this thread, simultaneously bases Kara Tur off of all of Asia, and inserts Japanese culture into the entirety. Given that much of the 20th century involved Japan trying to do exactly that, often very brutally, and that there are many people who have first hand memory of those atrocities, and even more people whose parents and grandparents were affected, this is...shockingly insensitive.

This really seems like a reach to me. I can sort of understand complaints that it is a pastiche of asian culture (I think those complaints are misguided as pastiche, in my view, is perfectly acceptable aesthetic) but to argue that by prioritizing Japanese tropes, it was perpetuating Japanese Imperialism from earlier in the century.....that really makes no sense. I don't think anyone in their right mind would read Oriental Adventures and see it as an endorsement of Japanese occupation of Korea or China for example. This is the kind of argument that you really have to squint hard to see. By the time you get to the 80s, the reason the book is using so much Japanese material is because Japanese martial arts tropes were everywhere in the culture (there was the ninja craze, the Shogun Miniseries, karate was everywhere, etc).

5. While quite a few people of Asian descent think this all is shrug-worthy, there are also a number of people who seem genuinely bothered by this, and feel that it demonstrates a generally dismissive/disrespectful attitude toward their experience.

I don't disagree with this point. But I don't think people within group A disagreeing over whether X is a problem, means it is automatically a problem (see the point about mafia tropes in my other post). And I don't think anyone is saying none of the criticisms are valid. But not everyone agrees with the critical lens that has been applied here, and importantly some think the solutions proposed can do more harm than good

6. In general I think it's more noble to try to not do/say/write hurtful things, and I also am all for making as many people as possible feel welcome in gaming.

I don't think we should be hurtful or hateful towards anyone. But I also think we've developed so many nuanced rules around these kinds of issues, that it has reached a point where people don't even know what words they can use and how to speak. It has gone from "be respectful" to "you must follow this elaborate code of etiquette to not offend" or you literally have to hire people to edit your material for offensive content (sensitivity readers). I don't think that is a real open and honest exchange of ideas or a good way to go about making art, literary works or games. Don't be a jerk, for sure, but also fairly judge whether someone is being a jerk, or if they just inadvertently crossed an invisible line. To me it feels more like we are stifling creativity than we are actually combating racism.

7. Although I think I care about these problems, in general I don't do much about it if it involves personal sacrifice. I don't send my kids to public school. I just bought a house in a town where housing costs are a serious problem, just because I thought it would be fun to live here. I would vote to increase taxes on my income bracket, but in the meantime I'm not giving away that money. And so on. I feel a little uneasy about some of my choices, but honestly I'm most focused on giving my own kids as many advantages as possible.

One thing to keep in mind is many of us are not coming from the place you are here. Many of us are not in that kind of financial position at all. And I think that colors these conversations a lot

In terms of sacrifice. I don't know what to make of this comment without seeing what you are specifically talking about sacrificing.

8. But here are people asking me to sacrifice something utterly negligible: they are asking me to not support the kind of stereotypes presented in OA. (And to re-think orcs and drow, and frown on chainmail bikinis, etc.). I don't really know that any of this will make any difference, but my response is, "Ok, fine. If the sacrifice you are asking is that I very slightly adjust my make-believe game about elves and dragons, THAT I can do." And I'm kind of ashamed that's all I'm really doing.

The stuff with drow, the stuff with orcs, even the stuff with OA, it isn't support of stereotypes. A lot of the criticisms by posters on the other side of the discussion are more about: are orcs really a stand in for black people, are drow really a for black people, are chainmail bikinis so awful we shouldn't ever see them, etc. Again a lot of us lived through the whole PMRC thing in the 80s, and lived through the moral panic of the satanic panic. Our point of view is probably shaped by an understanding that people frequently misunderstand art, frequently read only surface level when it comes to tropes, and often fail to understand things like irony in these discussions. And we prioritize things like artistic and creative freedom (while also not liking racism). A lot of these kinds of arguments have been made before to file off the rough edges of things. But I do believe that filing tends to make things a lot less interesting on the whole. And when it comes to OA, we are talking about how we see and what we do with a historic book (not a new edition of OA coming out next week).

 

[gamerprinter]

My connection to Japan's escapades in northern China, prior WW2. My great, grandfather was an elite physician - our family were doctors (commoners) who served the the house of the daimyo in Matsue, Japan (sea of Japan side) for 700 years. He owned a farm, 3 houses, and his family residence. When the "heroes" were coming home from Manchuria, the Japanese government promised each veteran a plot of land and a home as payment. However, the Japanese government didn't own any land to give. Officials came to my great grand father's house and other people like him, and told him they were seizing his farm, and 3 other homes. He could keep his residence and his medical clinic/office. In exchange, all his 6 sons were exempt from military service to Japan. My youngest great uncle, his son, said "the hell with that" and joined the Japanese army as a physician and was killed at Iwo Jima. None of the rest of my family, including my grandfather fought in WW2. None fought in China.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Long post, so I'm just going to pull out a couple of things...

Two things on this one. I think positive stereotypes can be an issue, but I don't think they are always one...at least they aren't the same as negative stereotypes. My dad's side of the family is Jewish and when that has come up I haven't minded people saying "Oh so you must be really smart then". It is a stereotype. But I feel different about that than someone saying something like "You are tricky"

I guess you feel differently, but where I come out is that if it's ok to say Jews are smart, it is opening the door to "all Jews are X" being logically valid. And X won't always be positive.

So, no, I don't think positive stereotypes are positive. I mean, sure, I'd rather be called smart than lazy, but I don't want either label simply because of my ethnicity.

On exotic. I am not as moved by that particular argument. I think it can very much go overboard. But exotic is just something that is unfamiliar or foreign and novel to your experience.

Even when I was in college in the 80's, asian women I was friends with would describe to me how they were objectified as sex objects and the challenges that created to being taken seriously in academia and business, but in a way that differed from a similar experience of western women. 'Exotic' is the closest word they had to explain the difference.

A lot of the criticisms by posters on the other side of the discussion are more about: are orcs really a stand in for black people, are drow really a for black people,

Maybe you are seeing different posts than I am, but what I have seen is that people defending traditional D&D portrayal keep saying "orcs aren't a stand in for black people", and those on the other side saying, "No, you don't get it. It's not about them being a stand-in for black people, it's about the language being used to describe them, and being used to justify slaughtering them and taking their stuff, is the same language that was used to justify enslaving black people (and killing indigenous people, etc.)"

And yet, somehow, the first group still keeps coming back to the same red herring argument, endlessly. I don't get it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Long post, so I'm just going to pull out a couple of things...


I guess you feel differently, but where I come out is that if it's ok to say Jews are smart, it is opening the door to "all Jews are X" being logically valid. And X won't always be positive.

So, no, I don't think positive stereotypes are positive. I mean, sure, I'd rather be called smart than lazy, but I don't want either label simply because of my ethnicity.

I am not saying it is good. I am saying it is not my biggest priority compared with negative stereotypes, and that it is complicated (in the case of the people saying "you must be smart" in some instances it was well-intentioned and an attempt to be friendly or polite.....but someone calling you tricky, that gets into much more concerning and bigoted territory: I do agree people can move from positive to negative, it does open a door.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Even when I was in college in the 80's, asian women I was friends with would describe to me how they were objectified as sex objects and the challenges that created to being taken seriously in academia and business, but in a way that differed from a similar experience of western women. 'Exotic' is the closest word they had to explain the difference.

i very much agree with there being a problem when it comes to how a lot of American guys view Asian women. And I think that is probably too large a conversation for this thread. Like I said, saying things are exotic can be an issue, but most of the time we are talking about meanings like "this architecture is interesting and unfamiliar". That is a lot different, and a genuine response to something new.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Maybe you are seeing different posts than I am, but what I have seen is that people defending traditional D&D portrayal keep saying "orcs aren't a stand in for black people", and those on the other side saying, "No, you don't get it. It's not about them being a stand-in for black people, it's about the language being used to describe them, and being used to justify slaughtering them and taking their stuff, is the same language that was used to justify enslaving black people (and killing indigenous people, etc.)"

And yet, somehow, the first group still keeps coming back to the same red herring argument, endlessly. I don't get it.

I don't want to relitigate this, but my point was people heard your argument but just didnt' agree with the conclusions you were drawing. Like you are making a straight line between killing orcs and the killing of indigenous people, and the posters on the other side were essentially saying they felt there really wasn't a connection there (other than people pointing to a linguistic pattern that had little to do with killing orcs in a game of D&D)

 

[Irlo]

Like you are making a straight line between killing orcs and the killing of indigenous people,

No, that wasn't the argument.