Quote from: Stackmaster J;564467Ettin isn't a good person. He's actually a 4channer, and is basically just trolling both SA and RPGnet. There's a 4chan related IRC called suptg that plans this shit. I was, sadly, a part of it, but then they started turning it into some weird social justice thing instead of just doing it for fun.

I can't disagree about Getting. He comes off as false and very two faced to me.

Quote from: Stackmaster J;564467Ettin isn't a good person. He's actually a 4channer, and is basically just trolling both SA and RPGnet. There's a 4chan related IRC called suptg that plans this shit. I was, sadly, a part of it, but then they started turning it into some weird social justice thing instead of just doing it for fun.

I can't disagree about Ettin. He comes off as false and very two faced to me.

Quote from: Bastetson;564441Please point out this "Keb Air" on this map or this wikia.

I believe in this case AIR means "as I recall."

Quote from: SneakyPete;563720I've read both the Inner Sea guides, and never once have any members of the five different Mwangi races been described at "spear chuckers in grass skirts." One of the most powerful and technologically advanced of the ancient empires, Shory, was Mwangi. One of the most powerful mages of all time was a Mwangi named Old-Mage Jatembe, and he's credited as helping save civilization from total destruction after the Earthfall. One of the oldest and most prestigious mage schools, Magaambya, is in the Expanse. The city of Osibu is a paradise on earth that is one of the few bastions of happiness in the entirety of Golarion. Call me funny but I'm just not seeing it here.

What the fuck is this "informed answer" bullshit? This has no place on the internet! This is the domain of knee-jerk hyper-reactionary freakouts and finger-pointing! Get it right!



-=Grim=-

Quote from: jhkimI think there is a huge difference between:

1a) Using analogs of real-world cultures that embrace the stereotypes used by old, racist stories.

1b) Using analogs of real-world cultures where you deliberately diverge from false old stereotypes and use stereotypes different than these for contrast.

Quote from: John Morrow;564489While I think there is a difference, I think the latter can wind up being just problematic as the former.  Attributing cannibalism (to use part of your example) to a culture that did not actually practice cannibalism could easily be interpreted as a libelous slander.  Sure, it may clash with both the "noble savage" and the "ignorant primitive" stereotypes but it saddles them with "bloodthirsty monster" who practices something which is an almost universal taboo.

Quote from: John Morrow;564489What's the actual problem?  That a stereotype used echoes a real world stereotype used for malicious purposes?  That the stereotype is false?  That the stereotype is negative?  That it's a stereotype at all?  Depending on who you talk to, any, all, or none of those things might be a problem.

This is dismissal based on supposed controversy, which I don't accept.  You're implying that because some people somewhere make different claims, that therefore there is nothing to the problem of racist stereotypes.  

That's bullshit, in my opinion.  Challenging preconceptions - especially false preconceptions - is flat-out good, and better than adopting old stereotypes from times of entrenched racism.  

For example, you have apparently assumed that the Iroquois did not practice cannibalism.  That's your preconception, and based on that you suggested that it was libel for me to say so.  In fact, the mass of historical evidence is that they did in fact practice cannibalism.  There are many reliable first-hand accounts.  Even the name "Mohawk" comes from the Narraganset word for man-eater.  While it is an ugly trait, I consider it good to include it and add to people's knowledge.  The general result is not tossing out everything you knew about the Iroquois and adopting a new "monster" stereotype.  It makes you think and question what you assume to incorporate the new information.  

The problem with old historical race stereotypes is that they become ingrained and expected, especially if people take to them as a harmless shortcut to make a movie, book, or RPG product more "accessible".

Quote from: technoextreme;564477God dam it.  I'm not Ettin.

What the hell? I didn't suggest that you were.

What I meant was: if Ettin's whole goal with the Golarion thread was to start a quote mill for the grogs.txt, then he didn't do nearly as good a job as Pundit did starting the thread here.

Quote from: jhkim;564526This is dismissal based on supposed controversy, which I don't accept.  You're implying that because some people somewhere make different claims, that therefore there is nothing to the problem of racist stereotypes.

What, exactly, is the problem, then?  

My point is that I see several different answers to that question whenever these issues are discussed, not only in role-playing games but in other media and even in non-fiction.  Even when the problem is that the stereotype is false, there is often an argument to be made that the stereotype has basis in fact.  I'm not denying there is a problem.  I'm saying that the boundaries and root of the problem are not clear or consistent.  

Quote from: jhkim;564526That's bullshit, in my opinion.  Challenging preconceptions - especially false preconceptions - is flat-out good, and better than adopting old stereotypes from times of entrenched racism.

While I agree that challenging false racist preconceptions is good, I don't think challenging legitimate or harmless preconceptions is necessarily a desirable thing for a role-playing game setting, particularly one aimed at a large general audience.  One of S. John Ross' Five Elements of a Commercially Viable RPG Setting is Cliché:

"The value of cliché – the use of stock imagery and other familiar elements – is accessibility and mutual understanding. If the Game Master tells you the new campaign is to be set in the "Duchy of Crows" and concerns an evil priest gathering the Hill Ogres to his cause, that may sound a bit threadbare, but it also provides a reliable common ground. Everyone can jump right in and focus on what the game is really about: the PCs and their adventures. If, by contrast, the GM tells you the new campaign takes place in the Shining Tertiary Plane of Tsalvanithra, a science-fantasy blend of Mayan mythology, Depression-era satire, 16th-century French politics and Japanese courtly manners, you're in for some research before you dare put a mark on the character sheet. The most popular games rely on stock images as a language for skipping to the good parts (and for sharing in a celebration of things gamers enjoy celebrating). Games that make a point of shunning cliché tend to be more niche."

Quote from: jhkim;564526For example, you have apparently assumed that the Iroquois did not practice cannibalism.  That's your preconception, and based on that you suggested that it was libel for me to say so.  In fact, the mass of historical evidence is that they did in fact practice cannibalism.  There are many reliable first-hand accounts.  Even the name "Mohawk" comes from the Narraganset word for man-eater.  While it is an ugly trait, I consider it good to include it and add to people's knowledge.  The general result is not tossing out everything you knew about the Iroquois and adopting a new "monster" stereotype.  It makes you think and question what you assume to incorporate the new information.

To be honest, I didn't bother to look up whether the Iroquois practiced cannibalism or not because if they did, they were covered by my point about portraying cultures warts and all.  If they didn't, then it raised an additional possibility that I hadn't considered, which was attributing a negative cultural trait to a race or ethnicity that didn't actually have that trait in an effort to mix things up or make them more interesting.  And I also know that there are people who doubt all (or nearly all) charges of cannibalism for reasons relevant to this discussion.

In his book The Man-Eating Myth William Arens argued that the assumption that various cultures practiced cannibalism rarely came from firsthand accounts and could often be explained by a desire to denigrate another culture, exactly the sort of inaccurate racist stereotype that you are condemning.  For example, the Narraganset may have called the Iroquois "Mohawk" as a means to denigrate their enemies and emphasize their otherness, much as the Arawaks warned Columbus to steer clear of their enemies, the Caribs, because they ate human flesh.  In fact, Arens even argued that the Iroquois didn't practice cannibalism during historical times.  

In the case of the Iroquois, we both might agree that the evidence supports the position that they did practice cannibalism, but the real issue is, I think, why Arens was challenging the idea that various historical cultures practiced cannibalism, which is that it makes the cultures that practiced it look very bad.  It's a very effective negative stereotype used to encourage loathing of a culture.  In this article about the controversy over cannibalism among the Anasazi, the author starts out:

"Archaeologists call it 'the C-word.'"

"It's a word so dirty, so divisive, that a recent scientific symposium about it was evasively titled 'Multidisciplinary Approaches to Social Violence in the Prehispanic American Southwest.' But it was really about the C-word: cannibalism."

Cannibalism is hardly the only case of that.  Lawrence Keeley's book War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage was written to address the lengths to which archaeologists and anthropologists would go through to deny prehistoric violence and warfare.  On a an even more general level, there is a concern over the "Othering" effect of attributing alien, troubling, or negative traits to other cultures, regardless of whether they are true or not.  The net result is that there are people who will react strongly and negatively to such negative traits being applied to a people, whether you (or any reasonable person) might conclude the evidence proves the application is warranted.  This really happens, not only in the realm of the critique of fantasy settings in role-playing games or literature but in anthropology, archaeology, and history.  

Quote from: jhkim;564526The problem with old historical race stereotypes is that they become ingrained and expected, especially if people take to them as a harmless shortcut to make a movie, book, or RPG product more "accessible".

I'll ask less rhetorically this time...

So what's wrong with old historical race stereotypes? (This question is intended to identify the problem or problems, not claim that there is no problem.)

I don't think that being ingrained and expected is a problem.  As the quote from S. John Ross argues above, I think that's often a feature, not a bug.  But is that really your primary problem?

Is the problem that they are false?  Then is it OK to use them if one can show they are totally true?  Mostly true?

Is the problem that they were historically used to encourage bigotry, hatred, or genocide?  Then is it wrong to use them even if they were true or had some truth to them?

The reason I'm asking is that the right thing to do is very different, depending on how that question is answered.  In fact, they can be diametrically opposed.

You may consider this a hypothetical argument but I don't, because I've seen these issues raised about role-playing settings, the portrayal of monstrous humanoids in role-playing games (see this 1863 reply thread), and concerning fictional works such as movies, television shows, and novels.  I've also seen it come up in anthropology, archaeology, and history.

(I know I'm going to regret this, but...)

Quote from: John Morrow;564541For example, the Narraganset may have called the Iroquois "Mohawk" as a means to denigrate their enemies and emphasize their otherness,

It's a good example. And on point, as accusations of racism do the same thing. And, while real racists should be called out on it, promiscuously applying the label is an underhanded and repulsive tactic, meant to smear, demean, and silence those so labeled.

It's meant to mark them as outcasts, as unclean, as the Other. To dehumanize them. To mark them and their opinions as utterly repugnant, beyond the pale of civil discourse.

Ultimately, to try and push them out of civil discourse. To silence them.

It is the tactic of a bully and a thug. That it is verbal and social, not physical or a matter of law, makes no difference.

It is thuggery, the rhetorical equivalent of a mugging. And Activist Swine (to borrow another's term) are clearly engaging in it, with results.

Quote from: nitril;564347Sorry I don't see it? Why is using parts of africas rich history as basis for your fantasy cultures racist? It seems to me that Golarion have taken parts of the history from that part of the world and built upon that to try to make something interesting. Every country / culture have their differences. Its not like all so called vikings were marauders out to rape and pillage poor irish priests and monks where they? No they had farmers and fishermen and woodsmen and all kinds of variation. Just as the people in africa had their bushmen and traders and so on. Why go away from showing that diversity when it can bring much more depth to a setting. But again as so many others have stated in this thread if you want to find something wrong you can.

The thing is, I don't really "care" about the obvious racism. Pigeon holding "the darkies" to being primitive is something that falls beneath the "insult" radar for most people (that associate them with it and that aren't thinking of the implications) and its not something you have to "look" for. Now it wouldn't be so "racist" had they positied what changes would be made to the culture based on the world they live in considering that specific gods or other higher beings actually exist, you don't have empire building foreigners stomping out their culture, and they have access to something that would catapult their society out of the grass hut era (IE magic), o if they had high lighted some of the African culture that wasn't just being primitive (Egypt existed!).They did not because they were LAZY. No effort was taken to build anything unique or highlight the rich African culture. They chose to highlight how primitive it was. Sure you can dress it up as nicely as you want but it'll only fool the people who don't care. Effort to "build" anything wasn't taken. Holding the dark people and the native american people to grass huts as part of their cultural description is pretty damn racist. Its more racist when their description of primitive hunter/gatherers has to go against Taldians who pride themselves on lon reaching cultural influence and high standards of education, Tian who have a very long very rich history and culture and value family, and Ulfren are hardened northern men who value honor.
I mean the Mwangi DO have a culture its just primitive and unrefined. There are sprinkles in the text about how there might have been evidence of Mwangi having a more advanced culture but its all in ruins. So Dark skinned people have grass huts and possible cannabalists while lighter toned people have culture and influence just as our stereotypes tell us.

I don't think it was done intentionally or with a malicious heart. Its just being lazy and thus not that big a deal. Oh and the spear wielding tribal tattoed man as the representative picture right above the well dressed white dude below him is just icing on the cake.

Quote from: Benoist;563866That however I'm going to answer to. Assuming some people would take that shit seriously (I'm not talking about you, Rum, but some asshole who might read this and think to himself "YEAH, DAMN RIGHT!"), let me put it that way.

I'm French. Not Quebec-French. I'm French-French, from the motherfucking Homeland of the French. The Froglands.

I have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with what RPG Pundit did with France in his Dark Albion setting. ACTUALLY, it completely makes sense from a crazy fantasy version of the prejudices the British had against the French, and vice versa, ESPECIALLY when we are talking about the time frame where a little something occured that's called the motherfucking ONE HUNDRED YEAR WAR.

It's a parody. It's a carricature. And I think it's a damn cool carricature because you also have this idea that the Frogmen took over the country and stuff, that there are collaborators who help them control the lands, which means... there also could be a Resistance out there... you see where this is going? Well, I'm feeling it and want to run with it so much in fact that I'm going to spin this into its own thing.

There's also the Burgundians, who are a human territory ruled over by a guy everyone considers a total bastard, but who despises the Frogs even more than the Anglemen (and lately has been much better at actually kicking their asses).

RPGPundit

I'll remind everyone again the parameters of the discussion permitted on this thread: It is for talking about whether Golarion is racist, and what proofs there are as to whether it is or not, and the recent accusations made against it.

It is NOT for talking about the wider issue of racism outside of the gaming-related subject.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;564572There's also the Burgundians, who are a human territory ruled over by a guy everyone considers a total bastard, but who despises the Frogs even more than the Anglemen (and lately has been much better at actually kicking their asses).

RPGPundit

Yup, totally not forgetting these guys.

And what are your thoughts about Dark Albion being racist against the French?

Quote from: Benoist;564580Yup, totally not forgetting these guys.

And what are your thoughts about Dark Albion being racist against the French?

Fuck the French.

Or, to be more diplomatic, a Frenchman can feel free, if he doesn't like Albion, to make his own dark fantasy setting where fantasy-England is full of some kind of uncouth monsters who cook terrible food and are still somehow much better empire-builders than they are.

RPGPundit

For the record, we're 30 pages in, and I know that theRPGsite is probably not the most concentrated place to find Golarion-experts, but I have yet to see a single serious post presenting either decent textual examples that support the idea of Golarion being racist, or refute the same claim.

RPGPundit

Quote from: danskmacabre;564175Seeing as it sounds like you actually work in the RPG industry as opposed to me not at all (It's just a hobby for me) I wonder if you have a point.
I only speak form my experience in my social circle and cannot (or can't be bothered) validate this view when considering the greater circle of the internet RPG community .

I suppose many of the smaller companies that make RPGs depend more on online opinions and could be affected more by petitions and witchhunts etc..

Still, rpg.net is a nightmare to navigate and threads drop off the dial really quickly, it has 100s of people viewing and posting at the same time.
That and it's not the most stable website in the world, it has frequent crashes and the mods there can have very strong extreme left wing views.
 
It doesn't take that much for a forum/website to drop on popularity if it just becomes unreliable or just not fun anymore as experience has shown with other social sites.

One can only hope.

JG