D&D General "Red Orc" American Indians and "Yellow Orc" Mongolians in D&D

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

The banker race is involved in sinister cults and strange rituals? That is textbook Illuminati/NWO/Zion Elders conspiracy-level stuff.

Okay. I see the connection now. I don't think it's super obvious or that big of a deal, as I've never heard of an antisemetic conspiracy theory that believes that Jews worship a Great Old One-type entity, but that could still end up being a problem. And it is just one of the 13 clans that made a pact with the Daelkyr.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay. I see the connection now. I don't think it's super obvious or that big of a deal, as I've never heard of an antisemetic conspiracy theory that believes that Jews worship a Great Old One-type entity, but that could still end up being a problem. And it is just one of the 13 clans that made a pact with the Daelkyr.

That's the point. You don't see the connection, so it's not a problem for you. Plenty of other people dont see these connections (including people who are supposedly targeted), so it's not a problem for them.

 

[Hussar]

That's the point. You don't see the connection, so it's not a problem for you. Plenty of other people dont see these connections (including people who are supposedly targeted), so it's not a problem for them.

But, not seeing the connection doesn't somehow make it a non-issue. It just means that you, personally, (assuming whoever that "you" is who doesn't see the connection, just doesn't see it.

Now, when that same "you" insists that there is no connection, even after the connection is clearly explained, then there really is a problem.

Why is it that people jump all over the fact that one person of a given ethnicity doesn't see the problem, but, when lots of other people do, it's ignored? "Oh, well, this one person from this ethnicity doesn't think it's a problem, so, the problem doesn't exist" or, even worse, "I'M a person from this ethnicity and I don't see a problem therefore no problem exists" is just bizarre.

Note, many of the people who are pointing out the problems here are probably not directly affected by the problem. But, like the OP who did lots of research, clearly laid out the issues, people STILL insist that the elephant doesn't exist.

The mental knots that people turn themselves into to try to pretend that issues don't exist is truly breathtaking.

 

[Hussar]

He struck me as evoking specifically Arab stereotypical traits/caricature. Arabs are also a Semitic ethnicity and share a lot of historical and cultural background with Jews so there can be a lot of overlap but the prominence of the slave owning/trading and a desert street market context seems to point more at Arab. And the evil Arab is a trope.

But, even if this was true, that doesn't exactly make it any less racist does it?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

That's the point. You don't see the connection, so it's not a problem for you. Plenty of other people dont see these connections (including people who are supposedly targeted), so it's not a problem for them.

My reason for not seeing it was because there's not really any stereotypes of "Jews worship Cthulhu-like entities and get transplants from symbiotic alien creatures". That's not a common Jewish stereotype (if it is one at all). The "big nose", "greedy bankers", and the like, those are common Jewish stereotypes.

So, that's a false equivalency. I'm not Jewish, and I'm also not Native American or Mongolian, but I can see how the Harry Potter Goblins and Mystaran Red and Yellow Orcs have stereotypes of certain people. The Mystara example is a bit more explicit, but I also wouldn't compare the Harry Potter Goblin stereotypes to the "Elder God-worshipping Dwarves" from Eberron.

 

[Hussar]

But isn't that kinda the core of the issue with the Ferengi? If a lot of people think that, how do you satirise capitalism without coming across as anti-Semitic?

In Star Trek the Federation has evolved past most of our current societal issues, so to highlight those issues other civilisations are used. I have no doubt that with the Ferengi the intent of TNG writers was to satirise the greed of modern day humans in general and American capitalism in particular. Comparison to 'Yankee traders' is even spoken out loud in the show. Now this of course doesn't mean it couldn't come across as anti-Semitic despite them not intending that. But how could have that been avoided?

Well, let's see, how would you satirize capitalism without using Jewish stereotypes...

Well dressed, immaculately groomed individuals wearing expensive suits... Lex Luthor maybe as a good example? Less comic relief, clown buffoon, and more egomaniacal, pernicious, sociopathic evil who people actually stop and think might have a very good point?

It's not like evil capitalist doesn't already have lots of pretty good examples in genre fiction without resorting to imagery that is pretty much lifted wholesale from nazi propaganda.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But, not seeing the connection doesn't somehow make it a non-issue. It just means that you, personally, (assuming whoever that "you" is who doesn't see the connection, just doesn't see it.

Now, when that same "you" insists that there is no connection, even after the connection is clearly explained, then there really is a problem.

Why is it that people jump all over the fact that one person of a given ethnicity doesn't see the problem, but, when lots of other people do, it's ignored? "Oh, well, this one person from this ethnicity doesn't think it's a problem, so, the problem doesn't exist" or, even worse, "I'M a person from this ethnicity and I don't see a problem therefore no problem exists" is just bizarre.

Note, many of the people who are pointing out the problems here are probably not directly affected by the problem. But, like the OP who did lots of research, clearly laid out the issues, people STILL insist that the elephant doesn't exist.

The mental knots that people turn themselves into to try to pretend that issues don't exist is truly breathtaking.

I have reached the point where what I want is for people to just tell us, specifically, what they want D&D to look like lore-wise moving forward. So many arguments about whether or not some piece is acceptable, but no specific call for action beyond removing "problematic" content. What do you actually want to replace it with? What do you want to actually be in the books, once all the "bad" stuff is gone? That's what matters here. I assume we all still want to play the game.

 

[Hussar]

My reason for not seeing it was because there's not really any stereotypes of "Jews worship Cthulhu-like entities and get transplants from symbiotic alien creatures". That's not a common Jewish stereotype (if it is one at all). The "big nose", "greedy bankers", and the like, those are common Jewish stereotypes.

So, that's a false equivalency. I'm not Jewish, and I'm also not Native American or Mongolian, but I can see how the Harry Potter Goblins and Mystaran Red and Yellow Orcs have stereotypes of certain people. The Mystara example is a bit more explicit, but I also wouldn't compare the Harry Potter Goblin stereotypes to the "Elder God-worshipping Dwarves" from Eberron.

And, just to add to that, people keep assuming that identifying a problem is for the purpose of punishment or calling out bad behavior or things like that. That's not the point. That's not why it's being called out. It's being called out because, for a very long time, particularly in our genre of choice, these things were never acknowledged and were perpetuated, unquestioningly.

Ferengi came out of the 1980's. It's not like anti-semitism was a secret back then. People knew exactly what it was. But, because the writers could do it, they did it and did not receive any push-back because of it until years later. Early Star Trek TNG is full of incredibly racist episodes - watch Code of Honor and tell me that there's no racism there.

Did that mean that the writers were all closet KKK members? Nope. It was just acceptable at the time.

 

[Irlo]

And, just to add to that, people keep assuming that identifying a problem is for the purpose of punishment or calling out bad behavior or things like that. That's not the point. That's not why it's being called out. It's being called out because, for a very long time, particularly in our genre of choice, these things were never acknowledged and were perpetuated, unquestioningly.

This.

When we write and publish and play our games, let's be thoughful and aware. It makes for better writing and for better games.

 

[Voranzovin]

Sure. I can see how the various elements make it easy for you to see that. For me, intent matters more than coincidental design. I'm not going to be offended by something that incidentally resembles something that is antisemitic.

That is a major area where we differ. I wouldn't go so far as to say that intent doesn't matter, but it's not the primary criteria I'd use for whether or not something is, for want of a better term (and I really do hate this one), "problematic." It's easy enough to say things you didn't intend to say.

There are of course gradations to these things. While I do think that the Harry Potter goblins and earlier depictions of the Ferangi have uncomfortable connotations, I don't think they rise to the level where an apology is necessary, especially since Star Trek already did better with the Ferangi later on. They're not "Chief Sitting Drool." That doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss the connotations they do have.

I don't quite understand how DS9 made up for it. There are more sympathetic Ferengi, sure (as should be expected when they're main/recurring characters) but the general traits remain unchanged.

This probably deserves a longer post, and is maybe too much of a tangent. I don't know quite how to answer it succinctly.

The point of adding the qualifier “identity as” is to illustrate the fact that who qualifies as “Jewish” - whether by maternal inheritance, conversion, cultural affiliation or religious induction - is dependent on tradition (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or Liberal) and is not as clear-cut as some might have you believe.

My observation is that @Maxperson has recently been using the ethnoreligious appelative of “Jewish” to assert primacy in arguments in an attempt to quash dissent.

Fair enough. There are complexities, and I'm not here to gatekeep "Jewishness."

I agree that one's ethnic background shouldn't be used as a rhetorical bludgeon, but that's not what @Maxperson was doing. Bringing up his ethnicity was a completely relevant point, because it says "this is an issue that personally effects me--I'm not discussing this in purely theoretical terms." That doesn't make him automatically right, and should not be used to end all discussion, but it also means that his point of view cannot be discarded out of hand because "he just doesn't understand." Which is what I read your post as doing.