NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 8023072" data-attributes="member: 59082">You don't need to convince me that the linkage is there between the depiction of orcs and racist stereotypes - I get that. I can't speak for anyone else, but that isn't where my viewpoint differs from the Linkage People. It is that this linkage automatically leads to "orcs are mockeries of real ethnic groups, so we need to change orcs." Asserting that requires a second linkage, which is tying them to real ethnic groups, when in actuality all that is factual is that orcs share certains traits with stereotypes, not with the groups themselves (i.e. there is no orcish Aunt Jemima, no Fu Manchu).That said, I don't mind changing orcs if the change comes about as broadening the definition of "orc," while still retaining the traditional type ("evil and brutish") as one approach, both because I think broadening is generally good, and because a seemingly large enough percentage of the community wants it.And yes, I do think that some of the proposed problems don't really solve the problem, and may even perpetuate them further. This is why I have emphasized, again and again, that the problem is not in the link between orcs and certain traits (racists stereotypes), but between orcs and real world ethnic groups, which actually gives credence to the veracity of those stereotypes. If you sever that connection, then you are left with an imaginary race that is evil, which isn't inherently problematic on its own, except perhaps in a philosophical sense.I read one of the long articles from James Mendez Hodes and while he provides a comprehensive argument, and is obviously deeply fluent in his own ideological language, my issue with it is very locked into a specific interpretive framework. Meaning, it is a clear instance of the adage, "If the only tool you have in your toolbox is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." At the very least, I'd like to see us broaden the scope and look at the issue from different perspectives - not just the one Mendez Hodes is coming from. The Linkage People seem very resistant to this idea, invalidating or largely ignoring other pespectives.So where you see Non-Linkage People "attacking the legitimacy" of those who take offense, I see them trying to bring a different perspective to the table. Some of us are even saying, "I see what you're saying, but I don't interpret it the same way; and furthermore, I think there are other and better ways to accomplish the same goals without radically changing D&D ideas" (if the goal is to increase inclusivity).Racism is obviously a very volatile subject. Even the definition is under debate. I do think that we need to clearly differentiate, at least, between ideological/behavioral racism and institutional racism, and that some of the problems--on both sides--come from a conflation of the two.In a way, the more interesting discussion for me is not "D&D heritage vs. inclusivity," but "free use  of imagination in the context of fantasy vs. sub-conscious socio-cultural assumptions," which is why i suggested a "Thematic Toolbox" book in another thread that plays with the underlying assumptions of the game, disentangling it from the colonialist narrative and opening it up to other thematic approaches, while still retaining the mythic qualities and free imaginative experience that we all cherish.I would also suggest that we take a step away from racism and focus on the inclusivity part. My sense is that many people are using this context as a proxy to debate real world racism, when the more concrete problem in the TTRPG community is one of inclusivity (which may or may not be an expression of racism). If for no other reason, let's try to solve the problem that we can solve--making D&D inclusive for all....even those who hold different perspectives than our own.</blockquote>

Verification