That's not how stories work and you know it, the characters involved are intentionally representative of a particular idea. That's just how it works, they convey ideas in form of social interactions between people. To elaborate further though, people do act in particular ways, cultural groups share many things, including- and most importantly- the manner in which they design and pursue (and therefore enforce) a hierarchy of value. There is something to be said for the analysis of how honor as a central value plays out on a societal scale, as contrasted to merchantile acquisition. Hence, why Klingons and Ferengai at large, are just as interesting as Hideyoshi and Carnegie are in particular.
A character can represent an idea without using words laden with negative stereotypes or slurs. A passage from a book I studied in Bates Hoffer’s ”Biblical Themes in Literature” back in 1986-87 was about a little boy whom the writer artfully compared to Satan as conceived by innumerable prior writers covering hundreds of years of literature and dozens of cultures…
without using a single slur or any profanity.
I'll ignore the racial subtext of what I will assume is a botched attempt at making cultural distinctions, after all part of this discussion is about the degree to which race and culture overlap, and answer the challenge it offers. The simple answer, is you didn't read. I specifically said the value of making an entire people into a character, is so that the individuals which compose it, may be contrasted. Though, regarding your claims of undermine the concept of the "other" I regret to inform you, that it is both a fact of nature, and art. Thus is nature of contrast and symmetry.
Of course “the other” is a fact of nature and art. I would be lying if I said otherwise. But so are dehumanization and demonization.
A saying that has been attributed to many cultures goes something like this: “The power to kill lies within a single word.” A powerful and succinct admonition agains both of those evils. Once you have convinced people that “the other” is not human (or demonic), it’s easy to start them killing in that belief.
And finally, this is where you really pull the ideological rabbit out of your analytical hat. "why would WotC choose a framework with a message with similar themes to racial supremecy?" Well I'm glad you asked.
I
didn’t ask. I don’t know where you got that…”quote”…but it wasn’t from me.
But since I’m in the neighborhood…
There is nothing wrong with telling stories involving themes of racial supremacy. Like a battery and its charge, there can be no drama without differences, and the greater the difference, the greater the charge (drama).
HOWEVER, unless you’re doing a period piece, you don’t need the language of real world racial supremacy to tell stories of fictional racial supremacy. It’s simply unnecessary. It is bad, lazy writing. If you are trying to write in a professional capacity and find yourself relying on such a crutch, then you’re probably not well suited to the profession and should find employment elsewhere,
The simplest answer is cause it works. It's an effective structure to communicate to people the details of a character which will be relevant to the drama by establishing the backdrop of a society against which they stand, or into which they blend. Both are novel.
“Because it works” is a TERRIBLE excuse for anything that hurts people.
It works because it’s a crutch. At this point in time, it’s the literary equivalent of using the same prerecorded cowbell, 808 drums, DJ scratch and horn samples as 20,000 other, previous EDM tunes when you record a song, or using AutoTune on all your recorded lyrics. It’s like using the Wilhelm scream every time someone gets hurt in a TV or movie.
If you can’t do better than that, you’re simply…
not a very good writer.
But the actual language of your statement gives away just what's rotten in the state of Denmark, a framework doesn't have a message, actually. It's a toolkit for conveying, generalizing, specifying, adjusting, or comparing messages. What you meant, is why would they use a framework which was used by racial supremacists to convey their own vile message. That argument gets dangerously close to the Hitler owned a dog side of things, though more specifically you might say "Bricks were used to build the ovens in Auschwitz" and then declaring bricks a stepping stone to the fourth Reich. And you know fair point, but you're really doing a disservice to intellectual discourse if that's where you stop your analysis.
Continuing the analogy, you might object to something as bland and flexible in utility as a brick; I wouldn't object, because it's precisely my claim that that's how general and of utility this form of storytelling is, but I digress. Perhaps you could claim that guns were used to order people into trains and intimidate and control them, and fair point. If you wanted to claim that stories were something akin to ideological weapons, you might be really onto something rather articulate there. However, guns were also used to fight the Nazis, and step one of Hitler taking control was to strip weapons from the hands of anyone he didn't control.
With this analogy, you’ve played yourself.
The “bricks “ we’re
actually discussing here are individual words, held together with “mortar” of punctuation and grammar, which can be used to build anything.
You’re defending the use of complete, prefabricated modular structures to be dropped into any old building. Because it’s
easier. Not better. Not even necessarily all that good.
We’re not asking for you to stop using bricks- your analogy- because Hitler used them. We’re asking you to stop putting Nazi-style gas chambers in your condos. We’re asking you- and others like you- to draw up your own plans, because the plans you’re using are fundamentally flawed, and will crumble with time. You’re asking permission to continue using prefabricated houses in the middle of tornado alley.
So, if you really do insist on bemoaning the ideological dangers of potentially abusing powerful techniques for crafting grand narratives, I suggest you take a good hard look as precisely the pros and cons of solving that problem by any means other than leaving it alone, and allowing everyone go arm themselves adequately so as to be defended against the encroachments of bad actors and tyrants.
If you insist on using the language of oppression, you become an oppressor.
If you wish to lambast the WotC as being wittingly or unwittingly participatory in the cultural equivalent of nuclear proliferation, then so be it. But first, if ask you count just how many wars nuclear arms have stopped, and just how many they've started. You'll find the score heavily on one side.
That is some truly purple prose, there.
I’ll just note that most of the world’s nuclear powers are reducing their stockpiles, and- AFAIK- even the Soviets decided not to mass produce and deploy Tsar Bomba.
And then from there, I would like you to speculate on the value of letting these things play out organically, and to grow detached and independent from their unpleasant roots, grow richer deeper ones, and become a pillar of our culture which holds it up against the rattlings of the world. Just how much good do you really expect to accomplish ripping these things up by their roots, and just how wide are you leaving the door open to unforseen and readily foreseen consequences alike”
If you eat of the fruit of the poisonous tree, you become poisoned.
Why plant oleander in your apple orchard if you don’t have to?
