I pick yours to reply to because I think it’s an accurate distillation of a lot of the counter views and also isnt just repeating points in a banal manner like I’ve not already critiqued them. (Yes, I get it, there were racially loaded terms used by people within that context, it doesn’t mean it’s representative of what they are. wait witch doctor? wasn’t this the same poster arguing that Orcs were clear Asian analogues?) almost like there’s nothing more than these tenuous links to bring to the discussion.
People often 'sin' in ways that they may not even comprehend. A guy once lambasted me for using the word 'Oriental' in a geographical sense and was absolutely adamant that the word is utterly poison in every possible context and is an epithet, always. I still politely disagree, but to a degree it isn't our place to categorize and approve or disapprove of the reactions of other people. So, we may all use words in ways that bother someone else. We should try not to.
Firstly, as it’s only a brief, tangential aside, when it comes to imagining orcs sounding like people from your home town, I don’t have to. As I’ve already stated, one of the few types of orcs that are actually explicitly based on a sub group of people are the games workshop orcs. And it’s pretty hilarious. And on a more serious note, as a grandson of the last generation of Nevi Wesh Romani, having had their culture destroyed, being forced into council homes after WW2 “for their own good” (and having watched a contemporary film about “these poor gypsies”) and having that sense lost to me as an opportunity, I can relate to some degree to the pain aspect. Doesn’t mean that I agree with some of the ultimate conclusions drawn from this discussion.
Fair enough. I think that is amusing too (the orcs, obviously not the Romani).
Secondly, let’s stop pretending and presenting that this argument is only older white guys and bigots keen to preserve this racist status quo vs peoples of colour and their younger white allies arguing for the inevitable tide of progress. It’s dismissive and reductive of an opposing view. I’ve gamed with and am friends with and have watched talks of enough peoples of various age, ethnicities and various sub groups that also disagree with these conclusions, that it’s not as binary as that (also before others pile on, this is not an appeal to the “I’m not racist, some of my best friends are…” so don’t bother).
Oh, there's no pretending anything on my part. I am PRETTY SURE I qualify as an 'older white guy' and I would make no bones about that. Put it this way, Dr King was marching around the south when I was a kid, though a bit young to really understand the whole thing at the time. I don't see this as generational, and I would not simplify it down to some group vs some other group. I've seen the complexity with my own eyes, though I freely admit I have never experienced racial prejudice against my own person. And you are correct, no group can be pigeonholed on any side of this.
Thirdly, indeed you are right, there are parallels and evocations that can be drawn from stereotypes and imagery, this is how fiction works. Am I meant to be shocked at the revelation that western man from the early 20th century with a keen understanding and passion for historical cultures, who set out in his works to create an English based mythos (to fill the void that was created when the potential was stolen by Norman cultural subjugation) wrote from a early 20th century western perspective?
No, and let me be clear. My FIRST MEMORIES are of listening to my Mother read The Hobbit. I LEARNED TO READ when I was FOUR YEARS OLD so I could read it myself (and I did too, cover to cover believe it or not). The teacher threw me out in the hall at the age of 6 for hiding a copy of The Fellowship of the Ring behind the 'Spot and Jane' reader that the rest of the class was cumbersomely wading through. I must have read that series of books 10 times, at least, as well as a good fraction of all the other stuff that was published posthumously and EVERY other fantasy/folklore story that Tolkien wrote. I am a fan. I can still appreciate that there are real and significant racist connotations buried within his work. I agree that these are, judging by the totality of what we know of the man, probably not intended to convey a message of racial prejudice. But, as I said above, it is neither up to me to decide what is offensive to others, nor to dismiss the significance of these elements as a part of the author's legacy.
So we can agree that Tolkien was not saying actual Asian people are Orcs? So can we stop making that claim citing that letter? Yes it was unacceptably crude, yes it’s an appeal to othering from a then early 20th century European perspective. The othering was the point.
The othering was the point, and it is an othering OF ACTUAL PEOPLE. So, yes, I believe that Tolkien did not (consciously at the very least) ascribe 'orc-like characteristics' to Asians. OTOH he did knowingly exploit those associations in order to convey that these traits were associated with orcs. So, I cannot hold him really blameless in that sense.
An othering of a monstrous creature is, in and of itself, not a bad thing. Again, this has been done for time across all cultures’ mythos. A creature like us, our potential for the best or worst of humanity (regardless of ethnicity, all humanity) as well as unlike us, to measure ourselves against (to be looked up to, in the case of the elves, or to be feared in the case of Orcs). The “mistake” in Tolkien’s othering from a modern perspective was to utilise phenotypical characteristics to do so. But it’s almost like society progresses and changes, and in a globalised society, the idea of the other has changed, I’ll not condemn his works for it, again, context is king. But again, despite this mode of othering, an Orc is an Orc, not a stand in for any particular group and should not be used as such or claims made that it is representative of such.
And I'm not so much condemning HIS WORKS as I am pointing out that these elements do 'taint' other derived uses, such as D&D's use of orcs. As you pointed out, GW created a very different and, IMHO, more acceptable stereotype of orcs as 'football hoolies'. Even that might offend someone though! lol. Still, they obviously saw the issue and thought about it, which is clever.
Now to D&D specifically and what to do with it. It circled back to my original point on genetic fallacy. You’re right that culture is complicated, and there are many issues. D&D is game built root and stem on all these tropes, based on fiction and myth. That’s is raison detre It seems not to represent specific cultures, but a whole group of “what’s cool” mashed together in a blender. For example, lots of various European cultures and folklore mashed together (which is why the critique of oriental adventures misses the point, it doesn’t seek to accurately detail a specific culture). These are as much a gross distortion and mash up of culture as any other. It’s not seeking to replicate any individual, it’s not looking to be representative in that aspect.
Again though, this is YOUR PERSPECTIVE. I'm not especially disagreeing with it. I don't particularly find OA offensive. OTOH if you go read a thread on it from a couple years ago on RPG.net you will find out that A VERY LARGE CONTINGENT OF PEOPLE do find it horribly offensive, bigoted, and utterly uacceptable, right down to the title of the book, which some of them equate to calling a book about African Adventures by as * Adventures where the epithet is truly unrepeatable (and should be). I found that to be a bit over the top myself, but it isn't my call to make, their offense cannot be seen as anything but genuine. If some European people want to be offended by some element of their folklore, for whatever reason, that is their prerogative as well. Just like it is the prerogative of certain mothers to be offended by the inclusion of the term 'devil' in the monster manual. I know we consider that later thing silly, but are you implying that their offense is merely a pretense? Maybe in some cases it is, but who am I to judge that??!!
Trying to “fix” different aspects based on these tropes leads to a non game. If we are to determine that fiction and mythos it is problematic (because, regardless of cultural source, pretty much all sources have problematic elements regardless of where they are from in the world, that’s just the way humans have been regardless of ethnicity) then you are left with very little. And what is not a problem today , may become a problem tomorrow, you are left rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship (because you’ve removed these elements from the vessel). You yourself have identified this problem when you commented earlier about concerns with swapping out the orc is effectively a palette swap (my paraphrasing).
I am sorry, but this smacks of trying to say that perfection is impossible, that we cannot succeed 100% so the effort is worthless. The perfect cannot be the enemy of the good. If I reimagine orcs in a less problematic way, yes it may complicate the story telling task in some cases, or require that I invent some other 2-dimensional non-human monster to be a stock bad guy (but D&D has a huge repertoire there to choose from, is this so hard). No solution is perfect. I only live to be better tomorrow than today. I may not even succeed at that, but I am sure going to try it.
The way to approach this should be in avoiding the genetic fallacy, we recognise the game for what it is, a collection of tropes to enjoy a fantasy romp in, and ignore what we perceive to be problematic origins of tropes as they have no basis or relevance in how those tropes are delayed in the game.
For example, D&D’s idea of race is based on a defunct Victorian model. It’s not advocating for retaining it, it’s just utilising within the context of legacy of an old game. It means nothing more beyond its meanings within the game itself.
We recognise the tropes of finding a lost temple in the jungle and robbing it of its treasures for what they are. But again, within the game, there is no advocating of this beyond what it means within the game itself.
This whole talk of 'genetic fallacy' is simply going to fail as an approach. There's no 'fallacy' here. WE CHOOSE how to make our games. D&D is not some object cast in stone. It wasn't carved by the hand of E. Gary Gygax in marble. It is ours, we are a living culture of people and we can pick and choose how to go forward and what to do with the things given to us by the past. I mean, you wouldn't argue that a statue of Jefferson Davis has to be left standing simply because someone in 1901 saw fit to erect it, do you?
An Orc in the game. Let’s pretend that you know nothing about orcs. D&D is your first exposure to it. There is nothing within the writing of the game itself that makes allusions to certain ethnicities. Words like “savage” or “bestial” to describe them are quite apt and are not loaded words in and of themselves. Now of course, you’ve read, you have context. You know that these words have been applied to various ethnicities before. This is the effects of reader upon works in action (and again, no this isn’t an appeal to “no you’re the racist for pointing out”…so again don’t bother). There has to be recognition that that’s what you’re bringing to the game, to the reading. So it’s down to you to decide if you can put that aside and enjoy orcs for what they are, or if your understanding of context means that you’d prefer an alternative.
You are putting the blame for prejudice on the victim here. I can never accept this logic. It is fundamentally unjust.
Finally, none of this, none of what I’ve said is an argument against progress, nor that we should say, “well, this is just a tangled, complicated mess so why bother”. I find calls of people advocating for these changes of the game that state, “well the world is changing, youll be left behind”, or accusations that I’m trying to keep an old, white dominated world insulting and arrogant, a sense that their argument is automatically right.
We can and will do better. Already, we are seeing much better human interpretations within gaming (see for example Paizo’s new Mwangi book and compare with older writing on the area) as well as better depictions of humans across the spectrum. I applaud this, I value this.
What I object to is the statement as fact of “monsters as people”, when it is not fact. It is opinion. A well meaning one, but one that in my view is asinine and demeaning.
I’ve already repeated aspects now multiple times across posts which suggests we have reached a point where views are entrenched and there’s nothing more that can be added to the conversation. Regardless of differing of opinion, I wish all happy gaming and a continuing of being excellent to one another.
Some of this confuses me a bit, you first talk about 'genetic fallacy' which sounds exactly like "the source we draw from is irrelevant" and then you talk about a 'mess', and that you aren't arguing against 'progress', but then you claim those who point out that you're sticking with a racially charged sort of depiction of things and might be left behind 'insulting'. Do you want to move forward or not? You are actually sending mixed messages.
And you are fundamentally calling people's reactions, THEIR FEELINGS AND THOUGHTS, 'asinine', 'demeaning', 'insulting', and 'arrogant'. I'm guessing this is more likely to land you in Ernie Gygax territory than it is to land you in a good place. I don't think that you're incapable of change, and you seem to realize that there's a genuine reason for it, some of the time. Yet you, like a LOT of people, have not fully internalized that and completely understood it. Its hard. I believe Camus once said that "The world's problems will not be solved until each and every one of us takes complete personal responsibility for them." Now, maybe I'm butchering Camus, or maybe it was another writer, but I think the sentiment is apropos.
