Quote from: Omega;1083406Except with an added helping of segregation now with statements like "Only someone from (insert race or culture here) should be allowed to write about or do art for a product." Something to this degree was actually stated by people over on BGG.

Unfortunately, that is also finding its way into our hobby (or is already here, probably for a long time). I see lots of tweets about this lately from all kinds of minority groups who think only they themselves can do their own "culture" justice. They go on to damn every and all rpg products from the 80s and 90s as being "problematic" and "racist" etc. .
It's pretty ridiculous how those new groups come into the hobby and think they can just demand stuff. I mean sure, some products are pretty badly done...but if not for all those writers back then, there wouldn't be a hobby for them to join today.
So why don't you people just STFU and proof that you can do it better by just writing a cool supplement instead of trying to paint everyone else as a racist/what-have-you. It's easy to bitch about something, a lot harder to produce something.

Also, i find the notion of "I am from culture/background XYZ, therefore I know it and can write good stuff about it" moronic.
I would never claim that i could just write up a good supplement about my own culture. I'm pretty sure someone with an interest and amounts of research into the topic can produce a much better product, even if that person is from a totally different background.
Writing something with depth and quality is work, and it needs research...just being born and raised in a culture does normally not give you that.

Quote from: Xisiqomelir;1083616Absolute drivel on par with that proposed UK textbook that turned a few African legionnaires, a small minority in the Britannia garrison, into "the first humans in the British isles were black".

And of course, those "Africans" were from Mauritania, not sub-Saharan Africa, and looked a lot like modern Spaniards. But then, these are the same sorts who claim that ancient Egyptians were black because Egypt is in Africa. Where to begin when confronted with such impenetrable ignorance?

Some people see the ignorant and simplistic folly of bigots and decide that the best way to counter it is with another simplistic and foolish set of beliefs. And the adults in the room let them get away with it because they think 'well, at least they aren't as bad as those other guys.' Like you have to pick a side when confronted with two sets of foolish beliefs, instead of challenging them both.

Quote from: Haffrung;1084012And of course, those "Africans" were from Mauritania, not sub-Saharan Africa, and looked a lot like modern Spaniards. But then, these are the same sorts who claim that ancient Egyptians were black because Egypt is in Africa. Where to begin when confronted with such impenetrable ignorance?

Some people see the ignorant and simplistic folly of bigots and decide that the best way to counter it is with another simplistic and foolish set of beliefs. And the adults in the room let them get away with it because they think 'well, at least they aren't as bad as those other guys.' Like you have to pick a side when confronted with two sets of foolish beliefs, instead of challenging them both.

The world we live in hasn't always looked the way it does, now.  We definitely know that Nubians were sometimes the rules of Egypt, and they were definitely what we think of as 'black'.  We also know that light-skinned people from the middle east displaced folks in North Africa, so the people that live there now are not necessarily the same as people who lived their before.  And of course, I understand that the North Africans of recorded history were largely descended from the Phonecians - about 5000 years BEFORE the Arab invasion.  So, ultimately, trying to think of race as we define it today is simply anachronistic.  

It is MUCH easier to talk about cultural expansion rather than racial expansion.  It doesn't really matter whether the Greeks were white or swarthy; the impact they had on other cultures was significant REGARDLESS.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1084189We definitely know that Nubians were sometimes the rules of Egypt, and they were definitely what we think of as 'black'.  

I thought that too, but apparently DNA testing on ancient Nubian skeletons shows them as akin to modern Berbers - ie white - not to sub-Saharan Africans. I got schooled on this by black Youtuber 'Tree of Logic' - a former Nation of Islam member who rejected Afro-Centrism - and from what I could find, it checked out.

If you want to write a diverse cast because you genuinely want to (including as virtue signaling) rather than because your publisher mandates a diversity quota, then you should do that and don't listen to loony SJWs.

I have a huge problem with popular series like Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones being dominated by white characters and relegating non-white characters to supporting or antagonistic roles. So whenever I get the chance to specify the vital statistics of major characters in my fiction, I like to make them diverse in order to push back against the overwhelming homogeneity of popular fiction.

Would I make mistakes? Almost certainly and I would own up to them when confronted and strive to do better in the future. It is better to make a lot of progress with some flaws than no progress at all or only some progress that has too many flaws.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1084240I have a huge problem with popular series like Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones being dominated by white characters and relegating non-white characters to supporting or antagonistic roles. .

Why?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1084189The world we live in hasn't always looked the way it does, now.  We definitely know that Nubians were sometimes the rules of Egypt, and they were definitely what we think of as 'black'.  

The classical world was certainly well-traveled, and there were people (individuals) of all kinds of races traversing it.

But the efforts of modern historians to grossly exaggerate minor examples for the sake of Virtue Signalling is idiotic and serves no good purpose, it only makes them look ridiculous.  It reminds me in some ways of the "Aryanist" archeologists during Nazi Germany who desperately tried to find nonsensical "evidence" of there having once been a super-advanced Aryan civilization, rather than just shit-covered bearded barbarians living in the woods.

Case in point, trying to use the ONE Nubian dynasty, who were invaders to Egypt, didn't last very long, and were despised, as "proof" that the ancient Egyptians were black is just idiotic.

Quote from: Haffrung;1084245Why?

Because it's lazy.

Although historical fiction is limited in its ability to depict diverse casts (I'm not going to agree exactly how much since that's contentious), fantasy fiction is not.

It is very easy to devise a fantasy history that allows diverse characters to interact.

Using Game of Thrones as an example, it seems plausible to me that the First Men could have been written as being the same "race" as real world Inuits. Ned Stark could have been described this way, with his children being mixed-race as a result of their mother being Andalese. The Valyrians could have been described as Arabic, Asian, etc.

For that matter, you could invent new "races" with features that aren't found in real populations. Fullmetal Alchemist includes an ethnic group called the Ishvalans, who are characterized by darker complexion, white hair, and red eyes. Another ethnic group, the Xerxesians, have golden hair, golden eyes and variable complexion.

The world of Avatar: The Last Airbender intentionally features a non-white cast.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1084240I have a huge problem with popular series like Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones being dominated by white characters and relegating non-white characters to supporting or antagonistic roles.

Because God forbid the populations of fantasy Britain/Europe be dominated by white characters.

Game of Thrones is essentially a fantastic version of The War of the Roses (Lancaster/Lannister vs. York/Stark) set in a scaled up England (complete with a great wall to keep the northern barbarians out).

There were also plenty of non-white characters... in Essos.

Further, the First Men couldn't be Inuit in Game of Thrones because they immigrated from the same place the Andals did, just several thousand years earlier. It's like saying "I think the Picts should be portrayed as Inuits because they were in Great Britain before the Angles/Andals showed up from basically the same place."

That's moronic.

Seriously, the obsession with skin pigmentation is ridiculous. I have more culturally in common with the blacks in my church than I do the pasty white Seattle SJWs.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1084392Because it's lazy.

Although historical fiction is limited in its ability to depict diverse casts (I'm not going to agree exactly how much since that's contentious), fantasy fiction is not.

It is very easy to devise a fantasy history that allows diverse characters to interact.

Then do it yourself.

Seriously, I write stories for a living. The characters in a story always depend on the peculiarities of this story. One of the stories I collaborated on (a movie) was featuring an all-arabian cast. Guess what: there were no Whites in that story... probably because it all happened in an african desert. Do you think I have been non diverse enough in my rewriting of that story (it was a script doctor gig) ? Do you have any idea how much that line of thought is non-sensical to me ?

And the most revealing part of this litte anecdote: before reading your post, and thinking about an answer, I swear it had never occured to me to think of that story in the way your post frame it ; I had not even realized there were no white men nor any other particular ethnicity "missing" in that piece.

I've got nothing against you, BoxCrayonTales, and I even enjoy some of your posts for their head-scratching value: it's just that you're obsessed with diversity, sexism, and various unhealthy aspects of society, and that I'm not. It does not make me a lesser or better person than you are, but it just makes my life easier.

Peace.

Quote from: Chris24601;1084400Because God forbid the populations of fantasy Britain/Europe be dominated by white characters.

Game of Thrones is essentially a fantastic version of The War of the Roses (Lancaster/Lannister vs. York/Stark) set in a scaled up England (complete with a great wall to keep the northern barbarians out).

There were also plenty of non-white characters... in Essos.

Further, the First Men couldn't be Inuit in Game of Thrones because they immigrated from the same place the Andals did, just several thousand years earlier. It's like saying "I think the Picts should be portrayed as Inuits because they were in Great Britain before the Angles/Andals showed up from basically the same place."

That's moronic.

Seriously, the obsession with skin pigmentation is ridiculous. I have more culturally in common with the blacks in my church than I do the pasty white Seattle SJWs.

Greetings!

I agree. All of this pearl-clutching obsession over skin colour and embracing "diversity" is BS. Why is it so fucking important in every work, movie, or book that there fucking MUST be lots of different racial characters, ESPECIALLY Black people? Even when such films or books are particularly set within a quasi-European environment, where everyone is White?

To get some perspective on how myopic and ideologically pathetic all of this SJW obesession with "diversity" is--it's rather illuminating that noone else is obsessed with fucking "diversity" like White American SJW's are. Watch/or read films/books in Africa--all of the characters are Black Africans; Stuff made in Hispanic countries--all of the characters are Hispanic; stuff made over in China and Japan--again, all of the characters are Asian.

In none of these environments are there people whining and screeching about "diversity". In most cases, expecting or demanding such characters and "representation" would be laughed at and such people viewed as fucking morons. And rightfully so.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1084392Because it's lazy.

Although historical fiction is limited in its ability to depict diverse casts (I'm not going to agree exactly how much since that's contentious), fantasy fiction is not.

But some fantasy hews very close to historical fiction. Game of Thrones is one of them. Westeros is analogous to Western Europe. Martin took decades of keen interest in the real world of Medieval Europe and tweaked it a bit into a fantasy world. Is that badwrongfun now? Would a fantasy setting based on the Three Kingdoms era of China be badwrongfun if it featured mostly Asian-looking characters?

If people want to make wholly original fantasy worlds with their own races and cultures, then fine. The more the merrier. But there's a place for fantasy fiction that hews very close to historical reality. If some people don't like it, they don't have to read or watch it.

Oh, and on the subject of Game of Thrones, about the only wrong note the showrunners have made in the first two episodes of SE08 is the hate-filled stares the northern peasants give Missandei and Grey Worm. It's clearly meant to be a "racism is bad!" moment. But if these northerners have never seen black people before (and there's no reason to believe they would have - the same bumpkins were gawping at the exotic Lannisters in SE01), they may have stared, but why would glare with hate? It doesn't make sense. There's no reason to think Missandei and Grey Worm would be regarded any differently than two pasty northerners walking through a village in the Summer Isles. The assumption that the northerners in Westeros would be racist is fucking idiotic.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1084392The world of Avatar: The Last Airbender intentionally features a non-white cast.

Yep. But so what? It was a great show because of the writing, characterization, and artwork. Not because it checked off a bunch of diversity boxes.

Despite the intensity with which some people have embraced it as a sacred cause, racial diversity in entertainment is value neutral. A creative work that features many cultures or people of varied appearances is no better than a work that features more homogeneous cultures.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1084392Because it's lazy.

No. Lazy is thinking skin color can substitute for genuine diversity of characterization.

You cite Avatar; but what made it such a strong story was the characters. Aang, Katara, Sokka, Toph and Zuko would have been equally compelling even if their skin, hair and eyes were identical in color. You could tell them apart just from their mannerisms and voice acting and the choices they made even if you replaced the characters on screen with stick figures.

And that exact same diversity didn't save Legend of Korra from being a flaming pile of garbage.

Quote from: Haffrung;1084416Despite the intensity with which some people have embraced it as a sacred cause, racial diversity in entertainment is value neutral. A creative work that features many cultures or people of varied appearances is no better than a work that features more homogeneous cultures.

In practice, though, race is not taken as value neutral by either conservatives or liberals. Conservatives tend to claim that there is bias against white people now, and they will often have complaints of media with less white characters - saying that it is a result of this bias. Conversely, liberals tend to claim that bias against racial minorities exists, and they will often have complaints about media that features with less minority characters, saying it is a result of this bias.

Quote from: Haffrung;1084416Would a fantasy setting based on the Three Kingdoms era of China be badwrongfun if it featured mostly Asian-looking characters?

It might be if it featured only white characters.