Oriental Adventures, was it really that racist?

[Lyandelill]

Ah yes, KiA - home of the last dregs of gamergate. Such a burning trash fire.

 

[Hussar]

So, @GreyLord - if I'm parsing what you said correctly, your Japanese (Japanese American? I'm not sure) friends have no problems with Oriental Adventures and that makes it not racist?

Well, that's a take I suppose. But, considering that the entire problem with OA is that it pretty much wipes away all cultures from Asia, except Japanese culture and makes Japanese culture the primary culture of the setting, I'm not really sure that "doesn't offend Japanese people" is really the bar that we need to clear.

The question was asked, why is OA a problem. The question was answered. Whether or not is a problem for a specific person isn't really the question.

Frankly, "I have some Japanese friends who aren't offended" isn't really much of an argument.

 

[Professor Murder]

Two things:
We can certainly acknowledge that a work is progressive and racially sensitive for its time but also realize that today it does not meet current standards. Uncle Tom's Cabin was a massive work of advancing the issues of racial strife, especially in regards slavery, for it's time, and is in part directly credited as helping to bring about the Civil War. But as a teacher, I wouldn't assign it today.

Please remember that racism is persist and systemic. Intent to do harm isn't required. OA is racist in that it is just another brick in the wall. Is it the worst brick Asian people face in say the US? No. But it's in that wall. Fixating on someone or something being "racist" as a binary is a mistake. All of American society is soaking in racism and other bigotries. It touches everything. It also means it is contextual to a given society and experience. This can explain what a Korean's reaction and a Japanese American reaction to the work can be so different.

 

[Ixal]

So, @GreyLord - if I'm parsing what you said correctly, your Japanese (Japanese American? I'm not sure) friends have no problems with Oriental Adventures and that makes it not racist?

Well, that's a take I suppose. But, considering that the entire problem with OA is that it pretty much wipes away all cultures from Asia, except Japanese culture and makes Japanese culture the primary culture of the setting, I'm not really sure that "doesn't offend Japanese people" is really the bar that we need to clear.

The question was asked, why is OA a problem. The question was answered. Whether or not is a problem for a specific person isn't really the question.

Frankly, "I have some Japanese friends who aren't offended" isn't really much of an argument.

And yet strangely people have no problem with using the term "Asia-American" for everyone coming from India to the Fiji (and beyond?).
Not to mention that this is done basically everywhere. Africa gets generalized, Europe, America, the Middle East,...

 

[Umbran]

These tend to be discussions about discussions (about discussions and sometimes yes about discussions).

There is very little reference to the actual text...whatever it might be.

Hey, TerraDave, I understand you find references to the original work lacking. But maybe you'd like t contribute something constructive to the discussion beyond that observation?

 

[Jer]

Anyone who'd like to have actual answers to this question should go check out the Asians Represent YouTube channel and watch their series where they go page by page through OA and comment on the stereotypes they find in there and what they think about them.

You may or may not agree with their takes after you hear them, but informing yourself about what actual people who have actual issues with the text think are problems is the first step towards, you know, thinking about the issue from a perspective that isn't your own.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I am not so sure that cultural mashups--that are clearly fantasy--are such a problem. Its an industry in Japan, consumed in much of the rest of Asia. Even some Koreans might be ok with it.

Well, you can always find people that are OK with things like this. Candace Owens and Clarence Thomas exist after all. But rather than look at an individual's opinion, look at the general impacted population's feedback.

It would be like if Indigenous American culture was depicted wearing western clothing and speaking English as part of their culture. Considering the US government tried to eliminate indigenous culture and forced the native peoples to do just that (while also brutalizing them), I'm sure how you can see how that would be offensive to Indigenous Americans to depict them as such. Which is exactly what the Japanese tried to do to the Koreans. At least twice in history, and as recently as less than 100 years ago.

* For the record, I have nothing against the Japanese just like I have nothing against most Americans these days for what their respective governments did in that past. Only illustrating how mix-mashing cultures can be a a really, really bad idea depending on what happened to one culture in recent history.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Anyone who'd like to have actual answers to this question should go check out the Asians Represent YouTube channel and watch their series where they go page by page through OA and comment on the stereotypes they find in there and what they think about them.

You may or may not agree with their takes after you hear them, but informing yourself about what actual people who have actual issues with the text think are problems is the first step towards, you know, thinking about the issue from a perspective that isn't your own.

Obviously, it is rather difficult to tell people to watch a 26 hour series of youtube videos in order to comment; they'd save a lot of time looking at previous threads here to see the main flashpoints of contention.

I am loathe to re-enter this conversation given that this was thoroughly hashed out before. However, I think that it is important to note several of the overarching criticisms of OA used in the series were .... shall we say exceptionally similar to the 2016 article in Analog Game Studios. And as @Alzrius and others pointed out, many of the specific criticisms in that article that were later used in the Asians Represent series were pointed out to be incorrect at that time (in 2016). Flagrantly so.

The most famous example is, of course, comeliness. This was not some attempt to "exoticize" the other or make Asian men seem effeminate (??), instead it was a new statistic that was driven by Gygax and previously included in Unearthed Arcana to be applicable to all D&D games. Another is the inclusion on "NWPs," which, far from being some type of "othering" mechanic, was an introduction to a use that Zeb Cook would expand upon in 2e.

More importantly, many of the criticisms seem bizarre, and under the "heads I win, tails you lose," category. Almost everything is seen as being negative because it either portrays Asian culture as barbaric, or too mannered & civilized; these are, of course, incompatible criticisms. Now, that doesn't mean that you can't have conflicting analyses (offensive stereotypes don't have to be logically consistent), but the "close reading" of the text is overly inclusive in terms of finding things that are a normal part of "D&D" and labeling them offensive.

All that said, if someone wants to take offense at something, they can. The term "oriental" is widely considered offensive now. While a specific time period is hard to pin down, usually the 90s is seen as when that word became a serious issue - of course, you can always go back to Said in 1978, and prior examples, but there wasn't any widespread concept.

I also think that both the front cover and, definitely, the back cover (with it's exoticizing language) is certainly problematic.

The most important issues, IMO, when it comes to how offensive you believe the book to be really come down to a few things-
a. The swirling of distinct Asian cultures into a pan-Asian, but mostly Japan with a little bit of China and a very little bit of Korea, thrown in.
b. The "gamifying" of aspects of Asian culture in the same manner that had been used elsewhere- such as Deities & Demigods (giving real-world religions and gods stats and hit points) or the base AD&D books.
c. The mix of real-world history, from different periods, with a heavy influence of media portrayals - a book that takes inspiration from both actual history as well as genre works that feature ninjas, samurai, and kung fu warriors.
d. Those issues that are specific to being Asian-American* in the West. I know that at the time and going forward, the book was very popular with many Asian-Americans as it provided representation that was previously missing from the game; on the other hand, I also knew people who were disappointed that the book was more about specific countries and genre conventions, and did not feature examples from the very rich tapestry of other countries, such as Thailand, or the Philippines, or any number of other cultures (which I am using the shorthand of the country to refer to) that are not present in the book.

It's an interesting question; I know that given the paucity of material at that time, and the introduction of OA, caused a generation of people (including me) to get more involved in the actual history of Asia, and to start consuming more media that was made there. But for OA, I might not have started seeking out the productions from Hong Kong and Japan that became a staple of my viewing. I probably would not have traveled to Asia in the 90s. My life would have been a lot poorer, due to lack of exposure.

None of this is said to excuse anyone's pain; obviously, my personal experiences and travel doesn't outweigh the pain it might have caused. But I think that tolerance and understanding often come first from exposure and knowledge, and while OA is not up to the standards of today, I would assert that given the standards of that time it certainly did more good than harm.

IMO, YMMV, etc.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think we have to accept that there is a lower bar for historical accuracy in a product for entertainment than in an academic work.

It’s not, in my mind, about historical accuracy in general, but about which bits get messed up. Again to use a context we all know, a game about America that presented Benjamin Franklin as the first President would be funny. A game that portrayed the “happy slave” myth would not be acceptable.

I don’t know Asian history well enough (nor have I read OA since the 80’s) so I have to defer to those who do.

 

[Gradine]

Asked and answered. The answer, btw, is unequivocally YES. This does not mean there are not well meaning folx who disagree with assessment, all experiences are subjective, but to belabor the point is to disrespect those who've put them out there, knowingly exposing themselves to ridicule and abuse (at a minimum) to share how they've been harmed.

Advice for the future: stay as far away from r/KotakuInAction as you can. Further than that. It is a toxic cesspool that spends a lot of effort going out of their way to find things to be offended about, particularly for a group of people who purport to be against that exact sort of thing.