So this a point of order, rather than attempt to continue the debate as I think both sides are established. An attempt to cross or at least define the divide here.
This encapsulates the “arrogance” I was talking about. Not the opinion itself but in the way it’s worded here. You and yours on “your side of the debate” associate this and equate it with the just struggle for proper equality. The struggle for equality, equity and general love is absolutely a cause I support and stand for as part of a minority myself (lgbt- I appreciate it’s not racially specific but I hope I am making my firm belief in The message and the cause clear).
what I find distasteful is this almost inbuilt assumption in the argument that this is purely factual and correct, the patronising (whether intentioned or not “ you’re not incapable of of change, you seem to realise..” etc).
Well, obviously we are having a relatively polite conversation. I am not actually trying to put us on different 'sides', because I expect we have pretty much the same goals and whatnot. Frankly, years ago, I probably reacted a bit like you are now, but I have come to see that I can go further and own the effects of whatever I do in the world, at the very least, completely and without reservations. Always hoping that I will also be met with a tolerant attitude as well.
The divide here for myself and many others others (though of course, I don’t speak for all) on “my side” of the argument is that we don’t see fictional races as part of the struggle. In fact, it’s certainly my perception that it is counter productive and to be honest, down right offensive to equate fictional monsters with real world ethnicities. And that is what I find asinine.
I'm just saying. People have used fictional races, often, to stand in for and comment on other people. I think some examples beyond JRRT were presented earlier in the thread which were rather more explicit than orcs. So, the use of fiction (and fantasy in particular) in an ethnically charged way is not new. Also I don't think this has to do with a 'struggle'. It has to do with simply people wanting to be free of bad images of creatures that are clearly associated with traits their ethnicities or other identities are associated with. It pigeonholes them, and it implicitly denigrates them. Nobody needs to be going out of their way to do it on purpose. It is just that, say you sit down to play D&D with your buds and a monster that is a caricature of YOU shows up? Its a bad guy. Suppose this sort of pigeonholing is constant, you start to get pretty tired of it. I know this happened to people in my family, so I know how tiring it got. When it ALSO shows up in your D&D game? That is a real bummer. Intentionality isn't really germane, nor is some complex history. That's all.
Again, he is missing the point. When you are a BIPOC person, to use the category he chooses to address, you most certainly ARE aware that Orcs, as a D&D race, share a bunch of features which are also commonly attributed to BIPOC people! All the other stuff he says is simply irrelevant! There need not be some master plan or long history of explicit use of Orcs in D&D as such for racist purposes. The associations are preexisting and not something that has to be explicit within the game itself. Just like JRRT didn't have to explicitly draw the connections in his work, or in the letter cited earlier.
No, Orcs Aren't Racist
And in particulate to those who use literature to build a case to critique, there’s a great book called how to read with a few poignant passage
"... one must not only be a
responsive_but also a __responsible_ listener. You are responsive to the extent that you follow what has been said and note the intention that prompts it. But you also have the responsibility of taking a position. When you take it, it is yours, not the author's. To regard anyone except yourself as responsible for your judgement is to be a slave, not a free man. It is from the fact that the liberal arts acquire their name."
Sure, but again, when an author incorporates symbology that has been used for questionable purposes doesn't he have to expect what will come? If you put swastikas into your game and depicted them as insignia for some organization in that game, are you not saying something? If that group is glorified, and if it exhibits any characteristics that might associate it with the obviously evoked real-world group's ideology, don't you think that would have some causal connection to people actually responding in the predictable fashion as a result? I think the case for Orcs is clearly a bit less blatant, but surely you can see how "the reader is responsible" cannot possibly be some sort of absolute response. The writer is ALSO responsible! Communication is 2-way.
"You must make your own assumptions explicit. You must know what your prejudices---that is, your prejudgments---are. Otherwise you are not likely to admit that your opponent may be equally entitled to different assumptions. Good controversy should not be a quarrel about assumptions. If an author, for example, explicitly asks you to take something for granted, the fact that the opposite can also be taken for granted should not prevent you from honouring his request. If your prejudices lie on the opposite side, and if you do not acknowledge them to be prejudices, you cannot give the author's case a fair hearing."
I don't think we're arguing about assumptions here. If you want to ask for license, that's fine you are entitled to do that IMHO. You should do so prudently and with good reason. Nor is he obliged not to tell you "I think your thing would be better if you didn't take this license." Nor are we really discussing PREJUDICES of the reader, we are discussing ways in which readers are not interested in seeing this portrayed which very often correspond with ways other people portray THEM. Portrayal is different from prejudice too, they are distinct. Again, nobody need be guilty of active prejudice to carry around and use its symbology. If you carry a sign, you should probably know what is written on it.
I hope that to you, I have at least made my objections clear, and made the divide clearer, whether or not you choose to agree with the position.I actually feel that on many things, our opinions differ very little
As I said, I’m not interested in continuing the debate, just an attempt to actually clarify it. As an aside, I did find a really interesting article from all this, especially building on notions of memetic legacy:
Sure, we will leave it at I think you will find that your position is one that will be harder to defend over time. I suspect games are going to have to find ways to avoid offending a lot of people who have gotten very sick and tired of being on the receiving end, often for countless generations. It isn't really going to matter what conclusion you and I reach, we are small parts of the world.
This is a Euhemerism. So, I literally read a whole article the other day about how 19th Century Euhemerism is tied together with various racist ideologies, and even relating it to things like Tolkien, etc. Maybe it was linked here, my memory can be pretty crappy. Anyway, it also ties in with the whitewashing of ideology about Rome pretty cleanly. I think there's a sad truth that European intellectuals over the last few centuries have tainted a lot of our cultural heritage with racist and other ideological baggage that we're now going to have to deal with.