Racially diverse artwork in D&D...does it influence you?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Considering one of the knights of the round table, Sir Morien, is a black man... yes, yes it is.

Morien was not an actual Knight of the Round Table (it ain't hereditary), and is such a peripheral character in any case that his absence from the majority of Arthurian movies is to be expected. Suggesting that his absence is due to racism is rather silly.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yeah, I was a little off the mark there now that I look into him again. But I don't think I'll reconsider my stance. His presence in the myth means that black characters wouldn't be anachronistic. Perhaps not common, but certainly not uncalled for. Which really means there's not much need to say "Okay, all white people... and... go!" other than specifically excluding black actors. Just my take on it, though.
 

Including a token "Moor" in a Dark/Middle Ages movie is as silly as prohibiting them under claims that it's not "realistic".

And hey, Morgan Freeman was the best thing in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves! ;)
 

There was also Sir Palomides and his 3 (?) brothers. All Saracens. All good guys, despite being Muslim. (and yes, I know that they all realised the 'error' of their ways and were Christian at heart; I can't apologise for Mallory, this was written in the middle ages after all.)

S'mon: I do realise that the folks I mentioned as living in Al Andalus were in fact all Caucasian peoples. (ie: Jews, Berbers, Visigoths and Arabs.) What I meant to imply was that there where all these cultures mixing there in the middle ages, not just Northern European. (The theme of the thread at that time was heavily focussed on Northern Euorpean being default mediaeval.) I'm not aware of any mediaeval cultures in which significant numbers of Northern Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans mixed so wasn't able to present a real world example of that.
 

Considering one of the knights of the round table, Sir Morien, is a black man... yes, yes it is.
You may or may not have noticed that I mentioned the tendency of medieval romances to include a Moor or two, but what qualified as a Blackamoor to medieval Europeans was a Saracen of North African or Arab descent, not a sub-Saharan African -- that is, not what we would now call a black man.

There's obviously nothing odd about including a few Saracens in a medieval romance, either as exotic good guys (Sir Palomides) or as the enemy (Song of Roland, Orlando Furioso).

Anyway, my point was not that all non-whites should be expunged from quasi-medieval fantasies, just that it would be silly to include 21st-century American demographics in such a setting.
 

Anyway, my point was not that all non-whites should be expunged from quasi-medieval fantasies, just that it would be silly to include 21st-century American demographics in such a setting.

Agreed.

If you look at the practice of slavery, for instance, you'll find evidence that slaves- and by deduction, former slaves, indentured servants, and escapees- from northern Europe were found in Arab and African nations, and vice versa.

That's enough of a hook to add some tincture to any campaign.
 

If you look at the practice of slavery, for instance, you'll find evidence that slaves- and by deduction, former slaves, indentured servants, and escapees- from northern Europe were found in Arab and African nations, and vice versa.
The Spanish saying for "the coast is clear" is "no hay moros en la costa" -- because Muslim slavers were so feared:
Combing through the historical sources, he concludes that there were about 35,000 enslaved Christians on the Barbary Coast at any one time. He then sets about estimating attrition rates. Slave numbers declined through four causes: death, escape, redemption (i.e. by ransom), and conversion to Islam. Davis gets annual rates from these causes of 17 percent, 1 percent, 2-3 percent, and 4 percent, respectively. This implies a total number of slaves, from the early 1500s to the late 1700s, of one to one and a quarter million. This is an astonishing number, implying that well into the 17th century, the Mediterranean slave trade was out-producing the Atlantic one. Numbers fell off thereafter, while the transatlantic trade increased; but in its time, the enslavement of European Christians by Muslim North Africans was the main kind of enslavement going on in the world.

Christians were captured by two methods. First, there was the seizing of ships by straightforward piracy. The ship itself became a prize along with its crew and passengers. Second, there were raids on the coasts of European countries. Spain, France, and Italy were worst affected, but the pirates sometimes ventured further afield. In 1627 they kidnapped 400 men and women from Iceland.

The victims in either case would be taken back to one of the Barbary ports — the main ones were Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli — and sold in a slave market, by auction. They ended up either as the domestic slaves of private persons, or as slaves owned by the state, to be put to work rowing galleys, or constructing public works. The first of these two fates was usually preferable, as there was some chance of humanity from a private owner. Prof. Davis’s account of the lives of galley slaves is hard to read, and state slaves employed on public works were not much better off. There was no large-scale private-enterprise slavery as in the plantations of the Old South. The North African states had little commercial culture.

The effect on the European coastal populations was dramatic. Entire areas were depopulated. The author even sketches out an argument that the culture of baroque Italy was determined in part by a turning inward from the terrors of coastal life — from the “fear of the horizon” that afflicted all the regions subject to slave raiding. He tells us (he is professor of Italian Social History at Ohio State University, by the way) that to this day there is an idiom in Sicilian dialect to express the general idea of being caught by surprise: pigliato dai turchi — “taken by the Turks.”​

If you want to read about a fascinating historical figure, read about Abram Petrovich Gannibal:
Major-General Abram Petrovich Gannibal, also Hannibal or Ganibal or Ibrahim Hannibal or Abram Petrov, (1696 – 14 May[1]1781) was an African slave who was brought to Russia by Peter the Great and became major-general, military engineer and governor of Reval. He is perhaps best known today as the great-grandfather of Alexander Pushkin, who wrote an unfinished novel about him, Peter the Great's Negro.​
 
Last edited:

Including a token "Moor" in a Dark/Middle Ages movie is as silly as prohibiting them under claims that it's not "realistic".

And hey, Morgan Freeman was the best thing in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves! ;)

I have to disagree, not with Morgan being the best part of that movies, which he was, but with your opinion that a token moor is as silly as pretending that folks with African skin colors are native to regions north of the equator.

Morgan Freeman as a Moor was infinately more plausable than pretending that there were scads of folks who looked ethnically like Morgan Freeman running around as the native population of 11th century England. That's nonsensical utter counterintuitive to anyone with a basic knowldege of Dark Age Europe.

The moor as a traveler makes sense, handwaving that Morgan Freeman's people were as native to England as Locksley's kin would be absurd. It would be absurd unless there was the assumption of a migration of tropical people to England in bygone days. If so, fine. But the handwaving of things for the sake of an artificial diversity isn't diversity at all.

To note, it would be equally unnatural to have Kevin Costner's character running aound in Ethiopia and claiming that he and his kin were actual natives to the place. If there was a migration of northern peoples, this is possible, if there was not, there is no way pale skinned people are native to those climes.

We both know there is a geographical and climatalogical reason for different skin colors and I see no reason to pretend that those realities aren't part of anything but the most absurd fantasies.


Wyrmshadows
 

I have to disagree, not with Morgan being the best part of that movies, which he was, but with your opinion that a token moor is as silly as pretending that folks with African skin colors are native to regions north of the equator.

Morgan Freeman as a Moor was infinately more plausable than pretending that there were scads of folks who looked ethnically like Morgan Freeman running around as the native population of 11th century England. That's nonsensical utter counterintuitive to anyone with a basic knowldege of Dark Age Europe.

The moor as a traveler makes sense, handwaving that Morgan Freeman's people were as native to England as Locksley's kin would be absurd. It would be absurd unless there was the assumption of a migration of tropical people to England in bygone days. If so, fine. But the handwaving of things for the sake of an artificial diversity isn't diversity at all.

To note, it would be equally unnatural to have Kevin Costner's character running aound in Ethiopia and claiming that he and his kin were actual natives to the place. If there was a migration of northern peoples, this is possible, if there was not, there is no way pale skinned people are native to those climes.

We both know there is a geographical and climatalogical reason for different skin colors and I see no reason to pretend that those realities aren't part of anything but the most absurd fantasies.


Wyrmshadows
Er... but I do agree with you on all accounts! I even said earlier in the thread that one way to increase ethnical variety would be to increase geographical variety.
 

Nice post, mmadsen!

In a similar vein, one of my college buddies went on an archaeological trip in North Africa and mentioned that the Prof in charge actually found something he believed was viking hacksilver. I don't recall, though, what era the dig was an exemplar of, though.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top