Re read the Orcs of Thar to see the OP points. From a modern point of view, he is 100% right. From an 80s point of view, it is highly debatable that it was solely depictions of or real world ethnicities.
I'm not sure what distinction you're making here. Yes, 1980s TSR was a different context than 2020s Wizards. Yet I honestly don't see what "debate" could be had about whether GAZ10 depicts real world ethnicities...when the book itself says so.
"These names are often found in Yellow Orkian and Hobgobland Tribes. Names with a vaguely Mongol ring will do fine here." -PG, p.41
"Hutai is a middle-aged hobgoblin with Asian features." -DMB, p.12
In GAZ10 are several references to the "red orcs" being similar to the Atruaghin Clans. See the "red orcs" section of my
original research post. In
GAZ14: The Atruaghin Clans, p.3 states:
"Much of the information presented in this book is based on the culture of the various tribes of Indians that lived throughout North and Central America prior to the invasions and exploitations of European colonists."
I focus on the "red orcs" and "yellow orcs" because those terms are based on real-world racial slurs. Yet, to thoroughly respond to your assertion, GAZ10 also states that the humanoids learned
"Norse culture" (DMB p.4) and that the Ogremoorians have names which are
"vaguely reminiscent of India." (PG p.41)
If TSR explicitly states that those game cultures are inspired by real world ethnicities, how can that be "highly debatable"?
It is clearly stated that the orcs try to emulate their most successful and nobler foes, but failing to succeed in that respect. If the red orcs are trying to emulate the nobler and more successful humans it does mean that the author were respecting the nation the orcs were trying to emulate...
The orcs here are a parody and has always been. But it is clear that they fail to emulate more nobler and successful nations.
Helldritch, I totally understand the line of thinking that you and Glen are offering. Yet, as
another poster said: the in-world fictional context is not the primary concern here.
No matter what in-world justification is "clearly stated," that does not give the designer a carte blanche to use real-world racial epithets, and to then entwine those with buffoonish misappropriations and mischaracterizations. To go back to my example of "Nigoro Black Orcs"; how does it sound if we plug that into your hypothesis?:
"It is clearly stated that the Nigoro Black Orcs (who follow Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben of the chiefly line of Frederick Droolass and Sojourner Doof, and who love chicken, chittlins, and watermelon, and who have the option of taking the Black Minstrel, Mammy, and Gangsta character classes, and who will try to "put a cap in yo be-hind", just like the Red Orcs will try to "scalp" outsiders)...if theses Black Orcs are trying to emulate their most successful and nobler foes—in this case the African-inspired Tanagoro peoples of the Divinarchy of Yavdlom—but the Black Orcs are failing to succeed in that respect...If these Nigoros are trying to emulate the nobler and more successful Tanagoro humans it does not mean that the author was disrespecting the real-world nation the orcs were trying to emulate, in this case, African culture."
This line of argument seems to be strangely unaware that orcs are fictional, and that whatever real-world racial epithets are presented in the book were written by a real-world author. That is the primary context. The in-world fictional context is secondary.
But it can lead to confusion and that is understandable.
Who's confused here?
For me, that book never was such a good one as one paragraph [of disclaimer] does not justify the amount of parodies we can see and that [disclaimer] paragraph can easily be passed over or forgotten. A clear warning is/would've been much better in that case.
I appreciate that we agree on this.
