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

[Charlaquin]

I used to be on the fence about the Washington name until I saw a television commercial of all things. It showed various scenes of Native Americans going about their daily lives with the narrator saying, "We go by many names. Lakota, Pima, Navajo, and Utes." Then the scene switched to children on a playground and the narrator asked, "Would you call them red****?" And I thought to myself, "Hell, no." (I'm pretty sure I have the specific nations mentioned in the ad wrong. It's been a while. On the other hand, maybe the ad ended with "What would you call them?" It seems less likely that they would have used the word themselves.)

I used to think maybe the name wasn't offensive at the time it was given. However, I ran across another football team in the 20s/30s with an Indian motif named the Savages. Which kind of disabused my notion that they wouldn't deliberately name a football team after something they believed was offensive.

Also, like… Whatever word you use, it’s pretty dehumanizing to use a real group of people as a mascot. Would “the Washington First Nations People” or “the Washington Nacotchtank (Anacostan)” be better? I guess not being a slur makes it technically an improvement, but still seems pretty inappropriate.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yes, but this turns into a sticky wicket, since "Native American" is an umbrella term representing hundreds of tribes, with many different languages and cultures, whose subjugation happened in different ways, by different European groups, at different time periods. Add to the mix that they didn't all get along with each other, and it gets pretty complicated. I think Zardinar (?) mentioned that the Crow and Sioux were enemies back in the 1870s and that the Sioux army had invaded their land. That's true--the Crow were allied with the US Cavalry (they served as scouts), and the Little Bighorn Battlefield is currently on their Reservation in Montana--that's where the Sioux set a trap for Custer, and wiped him out.

This doesn't diminish the tragedy experienced by Native Americans, or make mocking them right at all. But IMHO, the basic oppressor-oppressed narrative isn't always adequate to explain the complexities of history, once you start taking a deep dive into it.

I didn't go there that's not on me.

I treat old material RPG or otherwise in the context of the time it was written. Doesn't mean I believe in it or think it's right.

Mostly because it helps make sense as to why it was created.

This is mostly because I read a lot of history. Why stuff happened to me is just as important as to what happened (good or bad).

Lots of 80'saterisl is problematic but it's not like you can destroy it (or should?).

And you shouldn't cherry pick things either eg Dances With Wolves to represent what things were actually like if you didn't live through those times.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To add to your post about how people wouldn't have made much of a ruckus about this back then, I think there's some more context to it.

This product came out at a time when people didn't protest this stuff publicly much. A lot of US Boomers had turned 30, had a mortgage and kids, and stopped being hippie protesters and had turned conservative. Boomers of the time, liberal and conservative, still strongly disapproved of racism, and would oppose hate crimes, but on a personal level. They would not go out and "make a statement" or protest, unless something really egregious happened.

It was a different time because they didn't have communications technology: there was no social media. If you read "Orcs of Thar" in a bookstore and found it offensive, you might tell a friend in person, refuse to buy it for your kid (the most likely result) or write TSR directly, but there was no internet to reach a wider audience. There was no twitter to use as a personal megaphone to raise awareness, almost no email, and no quick way to organize groups of like minded people. You needed to contact a dedicated protest group by landline or snail mail to organize something. It's easy for us now, but back then, you needed lots of money and energy to organize a boycott.

That's a major reason people in the 80s didn't protest this--most had no clue it existed and unless you really cared about it, it wasn't worth the sacrifices to money and family you'd have to make.

Definitely.

Mystara was never even on my radar. I didn’t grab it, and neither did anyone I gamed with. So a lot of the stuff it did wrong is entirely new to me.

 

[cowpie]

I didn't go there that's not on me.

I treat old material RPG or otherwise in the context of the time it was written. Doesn't mean I believe in it or think it's right.

Mostly because it helps make sense as to why it was created.

This is mostly because I read a lot of history. Why stuff happened to me is just as important as to what happened (good or bad).

Lots of 80'saterisl is problematic but it's not like you can destroy it (or should?).

Whoops, sorry!

I also believe that it's important to look objectively at things from history (including stuff that's no longer considered socially acceptable), because that's how you learn about history.

I'm opposed to destroying things that I find offensive -- I find that too often people who do this are doing it because they either a) have problems and have a penchant for violence, or b) think destroying bad things will magically make evil go away. Making bad words/ideas/things go away doesn't make them go away, it just makes it impossible to think about them. That leaves people unprepared to fight them when they happen again in the future.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Some of these terms fall in and out of fashion. The most visible radical indigenous protest movement of the 70s was "AIM" -- the American Indian Movement, and that was founded by indigenous people, so they picked the name. In 10 years, the preferred name will probably evolve into something new.

Or not. See the NAACP.

 

[cowpie]

Or not. See the NAACP.

NAACP has remained remarkably consistent. Maybe it's because it's a storied name, and everybody recognizes it.

 

[MGibster]

Also, like… Whatever word you use, it’s pretty dehumanizing to use a real group of people as a mascot. Would “the Washington First Nations People” or “the Washington Nacotchtank (Anacostan)” be better? I guess not being a slur makes it technically an improvement, but still seems pretty inappropriate.

You mean like the Vikings, the Cowboys, or the 49ers? Okay, let's find a better example. Florida State are known as the Seminoles and a guy dressed as Chief Osceola rides an appaloosa named Renegade onto the field during every home game. But Florida State went to the Seminoles in the 1970s and got the blessing of the tribal council to use that name
as well as their assistance with selecting what their school symbol, Chief Osceola, wears and how he's depicted. Now it's true that they refer to Chief Osceola as a symbol and not a mascot, but, well, for all intents and purposes he's essentially a mascot.

Washington missed a golden opportunity to build up a lot of goodwill when they dug in their heels and refused to change their name. They should have issued a statement that they understood the contentious nature of their name, but that they would like to work with Native American groups on coming up with a name and symbol (or mascot) that everyone could be proud of.

 

[cowpie]

You mean like the Vikings, the Cowboys, or the 49ers? Okay, let's find a better example. Florida State are known as the Seminoles and a guy dressed as Chief Osceola rides an appaloosa named Renegade onto the field during every home game. But Florida State went to the Seminoles in the 1970s and got the blessing of the tribal council to use that name
as well as their assistance with selecting what their school symbol, Chief Osceola, wears and how he's depicted. Now it's true that they refer to Chief Osceola as a symbol and not a mascot, but, well, for all intents and purposes he's essentially a mascot.

Washington missed a golden opportunity to build up a lot of goodwill when they dug in their heels and refused to change their name. They should have issued a statement that they understood the contentious nature of their name, but that they would like to work with Native American groups on coming up with a name and symbol (or mascot) that everyone could be proud of.

Yeah, they should have contacted some Native American tribal groups, apologized, and asked them to vote on a new name for the team. Of course, then you'd have to pick and choose which groups to contact, so that could end up backfiring, but yeah--that was the most embarrassing name in football.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There’s a difference between editing offensive terminology from old documents and educating people about those terms so that people don’t use them going forward.

A decade or so ago, a publishing company made the decision to edit the offensive terms out of Mark Twain. We (re)bought new copies to ensure we still had access to the original works.

 

[cowpie]

There’s a difference between editing offensive terminology from old documents and educating people about those terms so that people don’t use them going forward.

A decade or so ago, a publishing company made the decision to edit the offensive terms out of Mark Twain. We (re)bought new copies to ensure we still had access to the original works.

Agreed -- editing the terms can be used to insert new messaging, change the meaning of works, or rewrite history--and in the worst case, attempt to control what people can say or think. That's not about educating people anymore--it's about control.