When Fantasy Meets Africa

Status
Not open for further replies.
The roaring success of the recent Black Panther film is another sign that fantasy worlds are changing. The fictional African country of Wakanda as portrayed in Marvel comic books has been isolated and stagnant, a common problem with "Othering" of non-white cultures. The plot of the film addresses its isolationist past and in doing so, blazes a trail for other fantasy universes in how they portray African-like nations.

[h=3]Marvel Deals With its "Other"[/h]Othering is a process in which other cultures are viewed through a biased lens of exoticism and isolationism. These cultures are not integrated into the world but are rather static, often amalgamating a region's various cultures into one homogeneous mass. The culture may be portrayed as never having advanced beyond what defines it as exotic.

Any world creation will likely be influence by the beliefs of the time, and many fantasy worlds -- Marvel's superhero universe included -- paint different cultures with broad strokes for white audiences as a form of shorthand. This is how we got Wakanda as a technologically-advanced culture that never fully engaged with the horrors of war that have rocked the world at large. As Nate Jones puts it:

It refuses to trade with other nations, though as one line in the movie makes clear, Wakandans are still able to consume American memes. As we see in a Western television broadcast in the movie, Wakanda is able to get away with this by masquerading as an impoverished third-world country, and since the country’s leadership refuses to take international aid, the rest of the world doesn’t ask too many questions.


The plot of Black Panther addresses this isolationism -- a byproduct of "othering" Wakanda as a a fictional nation in Africa -- head on, and makes it clear that the Marvel Cinematic Universe plans to integrate Wakanda into its narrative like any other nation. It's a bold choice that will likely change the static nature of Wakanda forever. Role-playing games face a similar dilemma.
[h=3]RPGs and Africa[/h]There hasn't been a great track record in nuanced representation of African nations in tabletop role-playing games. G.A. Barber uses Rifts Africa by Palladium as an example:

...with a decided lack of POC in the art, and the entire continent serves as a place for non-Africans to adventure in. There are 67 interior pictures in Rifts Africa, of which 54 depict non-Africans or landscape, and 13 depict Africans. The first picture with Africans in it has them acting as porters for a white game hunter. Four of the pictures (just under 25% of the pictures depicting Africans) depict Africans as monsters. None of the pictures show Africans using modern or futuristic technology or weapons, none of them are of Africans fighting monsters or “looking cool”. In a single book, ostensibly about Africa, only 19% of the pictures show Africans (omission), and the few depictions of them make it clear they are there as set dressing and nothing more (stereotypes and limited roles).


Dungeons & Dragons
has slowly, steadily, been addressing this issue. Fifth Edition has made efforts to be more inclusive, and that reflects in the diversity of character art. The lead image for the human race in the Player's Handbook is of a black woman. And yet, D&D still struggles with its broad strokes representation of African nations, as the controversy over the depiction of Chult demonstrates in Tomb of Annihilation:

Its point of inspiration is a campaign setting that, for years, has been written off as tone-deaf. The new adventure draws on D&D co-creator Gary Gygax’s adventure Tomb of Horrors and combines that with source material detailing Chult, a jungle peninsula first conceived of in a 1992 novel called The Ring of Winter, in which an adventurer travels to Chult’s dinosaur-filled wilderness seeking the eponymous artifact...The canonical Chultan peninsula finally congealed in a 1993 campaign setting as a dinosaur-infested jungle where heat wiped out even the strongest adventurers and insects carried fatal diseases. Reptilian races and undead skeletons dominate the land and humans live in tribal clusters and clans. Its major city, Mezro, “rivals some of the most ‘civilized’ population centers in Faerun,” the setting reads. Slavery is mentioned about 40 times. In D&D’s 3rd edition, it’s written that Chultan priest-kings worship “strange deities” in the city of Mezro. In D&D’s 4th edition, Chult is located on what’s called the “Savage Coast.” It’s said there that the city of Port Nyanzaru is controlled by foreign traders who often must defend against pirates. Mezro has collapsed. It just sank into the abyss. What remains is this: “Human civilization is virtually nonexistent here, though an Amnian colony and a port sponsored by Baldur’s Gate cling to the northern coasts, and a few tribes—some noble savages, others depraved cannibals—roam the interior.”


Tomb of Annihilation
works hard to create a more comprehensive African culture in Chult, but it may suffer from not enough nuance:

While many players I talked to enjoyed how the history and political structures of Chult were expanded in Tomb of Annihilation (and enjoyed the adventure’s plot generally), they were still unimpressed by its execution. Its setting is an amalgamation of African cultures, a trope frequent in 20th century media that flattens the dimensionality of human experiences on the continent, which contains hundreds of ethnic groups. There are nods to West African voodoo, Southern African click-based Khoisan languages, East African attire (like Kenyan kofia hats) and the jungle climate of Central Africa. Its fantasy setting dissolves “Africa” into an all-in-one cultural stew that comes off as a little detached, sources I interviewed said.


Is it possible to depict a more nuanced fantasy Africa? Nyambe: African Adventures for 3.5 D&D, by Christopher Dolunt, offers some hope:

My motivation for creating Nyambe was simple. Africa was a major part of the Earth that has little or no representation in fantasy literature, let alone RPGs. When it does appear, it usually follows the pulp fiction model: steaming jungles, bloodthirsty cannibals, and dark gods long forgotten by the civilized races. Of course, historical Africa was nothing like that, so my goal for Nyambe was to create a fantasy version of Africa based on the actual history and mythology of Africa, rather than previous fantasy depictions. So, I went about taking snippets of history or myth, and twisting them, adding fantasy elements or changing specifics to make them fit into an OGL world.

[h=3]Now What?[/h]Wizards of the Coast made considerable strides in increasing D&D's diverse representation and transitioning Chult from conquered land to fantasy nation, but there's still work to do. As more people of color play D&D, the game will need to change to accommodate its players' diverse views. With Black Panther leading the way, here's hoping future game designers will take note.

Mike "Talien" Tresca is a freelance game columnist, author, communicator, and a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to http://amazon.com. You can follow him at Patreon.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

In my view, respect for human life is a moral absolute and an absolute truth.

Humans create ideologies. No ideology can ever be more important than an other humans life.

Everything else is negotiations.

Well, it's very commendable that you value human life. Well done for that. It's impressive - thanks for letting us know! :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

You missed the part where I'm not advocating for moral relativism.

I didn't miss it. I just noted it as a disclaimer that couldn't be sustained based on the rest of what you said.

Also, the part where I said every opinion/experience is valid for that person.

What does that even mean? I mean I think we can agree that people have personal experiences unique from anyone else, and that those experiences are real and meaningful to us. And I think we can agree that there are some experiences that are while perhaps universal are still subjective, such as the experience of pleasure. But we rob valid of any meaning at all to say that all opinions and experiences are valid, and I don't think the qualifier "for that person" adds any sort of understanding or nuance to the statement.

So, you think that your opinions can represent some universal truth; I don't think either of our opinions can represent any kind of universal truth.

No, I think some of my beliefs aren't opinions. One of those beliefs that is not an opinion is that somethings are absolutely true.

This was the mistake that I made, by the way. I said "Nobody gets a claim on absolute, objective truth," when I meant "Nobody gets a claim on absolute, universal truth".

I don't think that the really clarifies anything. Things are objectively true precisely because they do not depend on a person's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and experiences. For that to be true, they must also be universally true, otherwise the individual perspective would matter.

And please don't site things like the elephant and the blind man. Each of the blind men in that did experience an objective truth that a non-blind observer could in fact validate. It's just that the truth was more complex than the blind men could perceive. I'm fully willing to concede many subjects are complex. I'm not willing to concede that there aren't absolutely true observations about them.

Why? Because everybody gets a claim on what is absolute, objective truth for them.

No, they don't. And again, this isn't even possible, much less valid.

For instance, if you say something that causes to harm to me, that harm is objectively true for me whatever outcome you actually intended.

And I can tell you that your experience of harm is subjective and not objective fact. I can acknowledge your distress without agreeing you have any objective right to be distressed. No one is under any obligation to respect the claim alone that they have been harmed. That way lies madness. It leads to a society where everyone takes pride in their own thin skin, their own desire for vengeance, their own willingness to hold grudges, their own lack of tolerance, and their own venomous and poisonous hatred. I don't for example have to acknowledge that some angry road raging driver hurling curses, trying to run people off the road, and so forth actually has a valid objective right their anger or that just because they are angry any harm was actually done to them by anyone other than themselves.

You can choose to ignore or disbelieve me when I say I experienced harm, but you don't get to invalidate me or my experiences.

I have no idea what you mean by that, but I certainly don't have any obligation to validate your experiences either. I can tell you your claim of harm is utterly invalid, ludicrous, narcissism, and unworkable in a civil and functioning society. I can even acknowledge that you are under distress, and tell you that it is passive aggressive BS and to get over it.

Moreover, as a matter of practical reality, you can take me to court and they can either affirm your harm is in fact objective, or the judge can through your claims out as baseless and tell you to not only get over it, but that you owe me damages for making a baseless claim of harm that had no basis in objective fact.
 

Just so I'm cited in an appropriate way.

1. I think it's a good idea whenever debating truth to allow yourself some goal posts for sanity's sake as well as to allow for an adequate benchmark for the end of the discussion such that you can get some value out of it.

2. While it is certainly true that measures of observation change all the time and the nature of peer-reviewed absolute truth is by association mutable, it's not a good idea to ignore the current state of science so you can make the argument that there are no absolutes. You'll never get anything done that way. The argument is best left in the philosophical space where it's most effective and least likely to be refuted successfully.

The nature of point in time absolute truth based on repeatable scientific measures must exist for there to be the baseline to continually question the data and change the observation point. Otherwise, again, nothing meaningful ever gets done and you end up with the chaos argument. "Why accept or do anything if everything is wrong" Bad precedent.

While Gradine is definitely reading me the right way, I don't want to come off as non-science.

Be well
KB

There are all fair points. I have a tendency get over-excited in conversations such as these and as a result sometimes misrepresent my points. I definitely agree with you on the value of the current basis of scientific research and study. It's also not entirely relevant to the main conversation.

Philosophically, I've found that the best way to approach life is to take people at face value and accept their experience as valid unless they've given me cause to distrust them, personally, as an individual. There is a tendency to inherently distrust whole swaths of people whose experiences run counter to one's personal or political views, but I feel that that's an entirely unfair position to take, regardless of what point of those spectrums you're coming from.

There's also a tendency to misunderstand the relationship between intent and impact. When I say intent is irrelevant, I mean in relationship to the impact you have on other people. If you accidentally bump into a person and they fall down and hurt themselves, you don't stand there and act defensive and shout "Well I didn't mean so it shouldn't bother you!" at the person; you apologize, even if you didn't intend to hurt them. The difference is that unintentionally hurting people doesn't make you a bad person. If you bump into somebody and knock them down and hurt them, you're not a bad person. Now, if you continue to not pay attention to other people and where you're going and the space your body takes up, and you continue to exhibit a pattern of "accidentally" bumping into people and knocking them down, your refusal to change begins to reflect more and more upon your character.

Intentionally doing harm is a different thing; and I would argue that ignoring or disbelieving those who claim you are doing them harm and refusing to make any changes in the you behave/act/speak is a form of intentionality, though I'd classify that more as callous rather than truly directly hateful as some of the more directly intentional forms of harm.
 

In my view, respect for human life is a moral absolute and an absolute truth.

Humans create ideologies. No ideology can ever be more important than an other humans life.

Everything else is negotiations.

Agreed, but I feel compelled to reply with "the greatest good for the greatest number of people" allows for the loss of life under specific circumstances where failure to take a life costs a greater number of lives.

Bowing out of this conversation now. Be well folks
KB
 

I have a right to critique my own cultures, and I have a right to critique other cultures. We are all human.

So, in the context of North Africa, the history of Islamicization saturates with crimes against humanity − from genocide, to slave trafficking, to oppression of women, to tyranny, to oppression of religions, to silencing of dissent, and so on. These crimes are happening today as much as ever.

In the rush to dignify other nations, it would be unethical to turn a blind eye to such crimes.

A sympathetic, albeit critical and reasoned, approach helps most.

Holding other people responsible for their actions, both positive and negative − that people have free will to choose how they interact with others − is the best dignity that one human can bestow on an other human.
 

But doesn't that run the risk of cultural appropriation?

Should we be using other people's cultures to flavour our roleplaying games?

Are only Africans allowed to write about Africa? Are only Swedes allowed to write about Sweden?

It seems that creating fantasy is running the risk of being smashed between two noble concerns.

As a publisher, I have to be aware of how my product is received, but as a DM at my table, if I love Tarzan stories, I might get inspired by them for my DnD game and that's okay, as long as everyone at my table has not objection and no one is offended.

I worry that "cultural appropriation" risks becoming something that can be used for racism.
 

Wolfgang and Ben did what feels like a good representation in Southlands by Kobold Press. I attended a panel at GenCon where he talked about it and he had been doing quite a bit of research into African lore and history for another game system that they ended up deciding that it wouldn't be a good fit for.

While I'm aware of their existence, I'm not terribly familiar with Nyambe or the Southlands. I've heard good things about both, that both have attempted to represent African-based fantasy fairly . . . but I'm curious, does either project have any African or African-American authors on the team?

I don't think an African-inspired project necessarily HAS to have African representation on the writing/development team . . . . and it's no guarantee of accuracy, fairness, or quality . . . . but I would LOVE to see that. Just like Black Panther had heavy African involvement with the writing, and the cast and crew of the movie.

Our hobby is predominately white, but I am 98% certain WotC or another company could find some interested African-American authors to participate in such a project. Maybe even some fantasy authors who don't (yet) have RPG credits.
 

I don't for example have to acknowledge that some angry road raging driver hurling curses, trying to run people off the road, and so forth actually has a valid objective right their anger or that just because they are angry any harm was actually done to them by anyone other than themselves.

I wasn't going to respond to any specific point of this, but I did want to address this point. There is a difference between somebody's objective experiences and the way to decide to behave as a result of those experiences. What I am saying is valid is that person's anger. What nobody has to validate is somebody's destructive actions as a result of said experiences. If somebody's being an :):):):):):):), feel absolutely free to call them out for being an :):):):):):):). All I'm saying is that they're probably acting that way for a reason, and that reason is perfectly valid to them, but that maybe there are better, less harmful ways to get what they want and/or need.

Look, it's plainly obvious, as has been established not only here but in multiple other threads on this board, that you and I see absolutely do not see eye to eye at all with regards to the proper and appropriate ways to treat other human beings with respect. Your particular worldview allows you to dismiss as valid the shared experiences of (many, many) others; mine does not. Your particular worldview allows to assume the invalidation of experiences that do not match your own personal experiences or beliefs; mine does not. My worldview requires me to acknowledge the pain and suffering that others insist that they are experiencing, and find ways to deconstruct those experiences and find ways to correct them; yours allows you to dismiss or ignore that pain and suffering if the source does not conform to your own worldview. It is my belief that in your way lies a great deal of unnecessary divisiveness, disrespect, pain, and harm. I happen think that's a horrible way to go through life, though I can imagine why it wouldn't feel that way. It's certainly an easier way to get through life.

In any case, I really don't see any point in either of us rehashing any of this again. It's kind gotten even further off-topic to the original discussion than it started.
 

^^^^^ That right there is a huge reason why Africa has such a rough go and mediocre results as an inspirational source in gaming, and in science fiction and fantasy in general. Aside from being factually and historically inaccurate, it shows how profoundly little people know, and how much they assume, about Africa. I mean, even a quick glance at Wikipedia shows that there were dozens of active kingdoms and empires active and thriving in Sub-Saharan Africa through the middle ages, Renaissance, and into the modern age. All this post really shows is how profoundly grounded in a narrow, colonial POV the concepts of Africa are in the popular imagination. Equally problematic is the adherence to a limited idea of "what" makes a civilization or culture "successful".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kingdoms_in_pre-colonial_Africa

http://africanhistory.oxfordre.com/...90277734.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277734-e-68

https://aeon.co/essays/yacob-and-amo-africas-precursors-to-locke-hume-and-kant

https://hssonline.org/resources/teaching/teaching_nonwestern/teaching_nonwestern_africa/

https://www.publicmedievalist.com/recovering-medieval-africa/

https://www.publicmedievalist.com/who-built-africa/

http://www.businessinsider.com/mansa-musa-the-richest-person-in-history-2016-2

https://www.publicmedievalist.com/uncovering-african/

I'm going to be charitable and assume that you are really a first time poster that has come out of lurking and wants to make your voice heard, and not sock puppet created by some long time poster that wants to get out of line without consequences.

My general response to you is that your own links support my narrative more strongly than the do your own. For example, the link to the oxford African history cite will give you a long treatise that is most notable in its admission to the lack of native narrative and documentary sources for the majority of the African continent, and the fact that the historian is almost entirely indebted to Arabic and Portugese traders for any documentation at all - however sparse - to the politics and history of pre-Colonial Africa. I would notice also that there isn't a single city in all of sub-Saharan Africa that has been inhabited continuously for as long as Paris, Rome, or London, so that not only is there no historical evidence owing to the lack of widespread literacy but there is virtually no archaeological evidence. The number of unknowns in the document vastly exceeds what is known, and the comparison of the non-existent texts to the 10's and 100's of thousands that survive in Europe and China from similar periods is instructive. What you actually present evidence for is a very large number (1500?) of comparatively small linguistically and culturally isolated tribal kingdoms, who traded with their neighbors and they with their neighbors and so forth in what is continental wide trade. But to imagine that is unusual is to be completely ignorant of the normal behavior of human tribes world wide throughout all of prehistory.

Likewise the link to 'recovering medieval Africa' does nothing of the sort. It discusses pervasive racism and the presence of non-European cultural traditions, mostly ironically ones outside of Africa. But it does nothing to really enlarge the readers sense of what native African culture was like, and indeed one of the few mentions it makes of culture within Africa is in terms of the introduction of post-Islamic post-Arab colonialist thought. Telling us the Moghuls of India or the Safavids of Peria where engaged in civilized pursuits tells us really nothing about Africa. The whole article sadly ends up discussing things outside of Africa more than Africa, in a sort of 'Europe vs. the World' duality that ironically ends up doing disservice to Africa.

And so forth.

I think you are making a mistake in assuming that I haven't read everything I could get a hold of on the Yoruba people, or Mansu Musa, or Ethiopia or 'Great Zimbabwe' or what not. I'd be happy to discuss the introduction of a native literary tradition into Ethiopia, or the religious traditions of East Africa, or what is known about Sub-Saharan tribal migration in whatever depth you'd like.
 

I think the current iterations of both Chult and the Southlands are excellent representations of Africa-LIKE regions of the fantasy worlds they inhabit. Now... back to playing my fantasy game, with an emphasis on FANTASY​.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top