D&D and the whole "It is racist to observe race" mentality

[Twisted Crow]

So I was debating with some people on Facebook on some Dungeons & Dragons stuff. It degenerated from "Does Dungeons & Dragons (or do roleplaying games in general) encourage racism in the real world?" to a mentality that has always annoyed me.... simply for the bad social/psychological precedents being set by it. It generally goes something like this:

"If (one of/the first thing(s)) you notice about another person is a race different from your own... then you are (automatically) racist."

See... some problems I have with this logic and might be willing to vent/discuss them after sharing a bit with you good folk:

1. I feel that it is natural for human beings to notice contrast. I feel that these are innocent observations in the mind and nothing more on their own (if, indeed, it stops there):

- "I love any music that speaks to me with a sense of lyrical brilliance (be it Eminem, Red Hot Chilli Peppers or The Who). [I notice that] my chick friend likes male singers and boy bands with great voices and sexy hooks to compliment a nice/catchy rhythm.

- "I think Baldur's Gate is the greatest roleplaying video game of all time. [I notice] that my cousin says Final Fantasy VII is the greatest. [I notice that] my brother says that Witcher III has them all beat by leaps and bounds."

- "I am noticing that dude passing me by on the road in the inbound lane... he's driving a brand new Chevy, red pick up truck. I am driving a dirty, older Ford ranger pick up with faded gold paint."

- "I am noticing that woman has a baby blue phone case/cover/protector thingy with flower stickers on it. I have a clear, plastic cover protector thingy."

2. It sets a bad precedent, I think, to discourage these obsverations before they even go in any sort of direction mentally. It potentially creates a ground for useless misunderstanding and I would say it even attempts to oppress another human being's mind with undue moral connotation before any action (if any at all) should take place based on that observation alone.

    - I first notice a lot of police officers in the area. If that is the first thing I notice, does that make me a criminal with something to hide? Or might I simply be curious or concerned if something bad happened in the area that I want to know about... like a robbery, murder or some tragic accident?

    - The first thing I am noticing about this person in front of me is that she is a woman. Does that make me a sexist? Or, again... is this purely observation?

3. I think it is dangerous to "antagonize" or confuse... maybe something like this:

    - "That young man is of hispanic heritage. His jeans and boots are caked with mud and he has this lingering, "pipe yard" smell. This is a convenience store. He looks like he is picking stuff up for his lunch break at at nearby contract job somewhere."

   ... with something this (and then suggest that they are both  one in the same)...

    - "That young man is of hispanic heritage. Meh... probably an illegal alien from mexico."

4. I would even go as far to say that it fundamentally discourages one to mentally gather their social surroundings, creating potential for being incivil, cold and callous to others when circumstances could clearly be very different for someone else.

    - For example. If, indeed, it is "wrong" to notice contrast... there is a potential unspoken message in washing other people's problems or physiology and expecting an unreasonable "human is human" standard: I am not "allowed to notice" that man over there is handicapped with no working legs, but he is human -- how is one expected to be courteous of him based on the unforgiving (and rather unreasonable) contingencies of this mindset and others just like it? It just seems to go too far, in my eyes.



What frustrates me is that I feel that observing contrast is very natural. We are taught colors and shapes as early as Kindergarten. From contrast, we can learn and understand things about each other. The life that a fast-paced city dweller leads can be a totally different world for a farmer living out in the quiet country. Sometimes people find different things to be interesting to them. Sometimes that contrast is a trigger for hostility or animosity... and sometimes it is simply just innocuous observation.

These examples might be sordid comparisons on the surface ( I am not always the best at articulating my thoughts and feelings), but... does any of this make sense to anyone but me? Does anyone understand why I might find worry in that this definition of racism (among the many subjective definitions of it) might endanger our ability or human right to freely think by simply coming full stop at observation; entrapping us in some fugitive mind when sometimes a guy wearing a red shirt is clearly different from my camouflage?

Hmmm. I just find these particular "If x, then racism/sexism" reasonings to be socially (and perhaps even cognitively) corrosive when we take them this far.

Food for thought, I guess. I mostly felt like venting myself of such concerns. I don't mind discussing this more if/when I have time.

[Twisted Crow]

I should stress that (even though I think I made it clear)... I am having a problem embracing/ accepting this is "mode" of logic, itself. Not so much about it being "racist/etc." rather it being too absolutely "If... then..."

Hopefully this makes as much sense to you folk as it does all around my head, anyway. ::)

[Skynet]

Dungeons & Dragons, and by extension fantasy and sic-fi literature as a whole, define "race" as wholly separate species. Dragons are as much a race as humans, so we're using different definitions than those used in the real world.

The phrase "observing race makes you the real racist" in wider political thought as a logical fallacy based off of Morgan Freeman's long-disavowed statement that the only way to overcome racial animosity is the pretend the concept of race doesn't exist. This "colorblind" attitude has not worked on account that many forms of racial prejudice are based on subconscious reactions as well as dog-whistle politics and plausible deniability. It is a diversionary tactic ideologues use when people start to notice that laws, policies, and rhetoric which overwhelmingly harm one group. A good example is North Carolina's Voter ID laws, which were touted by right-wing conservatives as a means of fighting voter fraud but the courts found that they were specifically researching ways African-Americans voted and targeted their preferences with surgical precision in order to curtail their voting power:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/15/528457693/supreme-court-declines-republican-bid-to-revive-north-carolina-voter-id-law


I should also note that the observation/skin color definition of race is a relatively limited phenomenon in the history of the world. People were aware of physical differences between some ethnic groups, but it wasn't the end-all be-all of a person's cultural group. Your phrase of "hispanic heritage" as something you can ID like a physical feature is actually not so easy. Many non-hispanic Americans presume that Hispanic people are those whose skin tone is in between pale and dark brown and who do not share facial features associated with African-Americans. "Dark, but not too dark" is perhaps the likeliest line of thought.

This Chilean male model...



...and this Black Cuban...



...are both equally Hispanic.

This, combined with the increased rates of interracial marriages and families, means that immediate assumptions on a racial basis ("This person is black, this person is white, etc") is actually getting less and less accurate in the USA than it was in the 50s and 60s. It is still in use, particularly because we're still living with the aftereffects of using that as our primary racial grouping along with the rise of ethnic nationalism, but it's not as ironclad as it was before so there are people who may object to its use on account that it is pop-science at best.

[Skynet]

PS Another possibility is the groupings of different ethnicities into an umbrella term, or making confusion, can be seen as ignorant or racist. Mistaking a Chinese person for Japanese, and vice versa, is a faux pas in several circles.

[Twisted Crow]

Heh, was kinda waiting for you on the one, Sky. :)

Your phrase of "hispanic heritage" as something you can ID like a physical feature is actually not so easy.

You are quite right, in truth. The "hispanic man observation" example is one to fall in that sordid category I mentioned. :/ The attempted gist was "Oh, okay. [Guy with different racial features from me] is just picking up stuff at convenience store" versus "Pfft. [Guy with different racial features from me]."

On the colorblind thing, I agree. I don't feel like it is realistic to pretend that we are "not different from each other as humans". I mean, an actual blind person might be able to say that don't notice these sorts of things for obvious reasons. But I tend to argue that different skin color is something people tend to notice and it can be good, bad or just something we notice.

I should also note that the observation/skin color definition of race is a relatively limited phenomenon in the history of the world.

I believe that this is likely true at the moment. I certainly hope so. Yet, my fear is how elements like social media might breed this sort of thinking, and why I felt desire to discourage it. There are many things we can perhaps slap around and call it for the bigotry that it is ("supreme race", "women are _____", men are _____", et. al).

The argument just got me heated (and afraid) because it seemed to blend all too well with some examples of political correctness that I believe go too far. To a point where people are discouraged their freedom to speak and share ideas (or in this case, even think them). Even if they are ignorant to something crucial, the only way ignorance can be corrected is through educating, not shaming.

PS Another possibility is the groupings of different ethnicities into an umbrella term, or making confusion, can be seen as ignorant or racist. Mistaking a Chinese person for Japanese, and vice versa, is a faux pas in several circles.

Yeah, I get peeved when some do that. I try telling others that it is like putting whites and anyone with light skin under one umbrella. I.e., "Germans, Polish, Irish, Swedish, etc."

As for the D&D thing, I probably should have elaborated before I went off on the rails on this "Racism/Sexism by Obsering Contrast" thing. It was spurned by some "study" article (one I am still looking for for this topic) that attempted to identify  Dungeons & Dragons as "a white man's game" and otherwise tried to pair racial relations with different physiology and culture in a fictional setting (ex. "Elves and Dwarves not trusting each other" is just "another indulgance of white supremacy"... or something.) with real world issues and an "indulgance of white privilege" because of the long past demographic of the game. It is dumb, but enough for people like me to get upset, as I see it as a game of storytelling with fictional characters and nothing more.

[Twisted Crow]

Even if they are ignorant to something crucial, the only way ignorance can be corrected is through educating, not shaming.

By the way, I am also aware that this... expectation can only go so far. But if the ignorant cannot even reveal their ignorance, it has no chance of being appropriately corrected. And thus, it perpetuates.

If I am ignorant of the fact that Africa is, in fact, a continent of several countries... then one may correct my ignorance if I am, afterall, free to voice what I know (or lack knowledge of). It is the only way, I feel, that we as humans can learn from each other... for better or worse. :/

[Skynet]

Heh, was kinda waiting for you on the one, Sky. :)

Am I already that famous? ;D

As for the D&D thing, I probably should have elaborated before I went off on the rails on this "Racism/Sexism by Obsering Contrast" thing. It was spurned by some "study" article (one I am still looking for for this topic) that attempted to identify  Dungeons & Dragons as "a white man's game" and otherwise tried to pair racial relations with different physiology and culture in a fictional setting (ex. "Elves and Dwarves not trusting each other" is just "another indulgance of white supremacy"... or something.) with real world issues and an "indulgance of white privilege" because of the long past demographic of the game. It is dumb, but enough for people like me to get upset, as I see it as a game of storytelling with fictional characters and nothing more.

Was this the article by chance?

[TheGlyphstone]

That article is weird. It seems to be all about 'how to write an RPG that fascists won't want to play', and I wonder what the point is. The facist/gamer overlap market is already covered by RaHoWa, they won't care about new entries to the genre.

[Skynet]

That article is weird. It seems to be all about 'how to write an RPG that fascists won't want to play', and I wonder what the point is. The facist/gamer overlap market is already covered by RaHoWa, they won't care about new entries to the genre.

Eh, fashy goons have learned since the GamerGate era that they can give their ideologies better mainstream appeal by passing themselves off as "protectors of culture" against political correctness gone mad/feminism/censorship/etc. They tried the same thing with punk subculture in the 80s.

The article is still quite flawed. Far-right types aren't the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree and gravitate even to games which are taking the piss out of their ideology (look at Warhammer 40k and "God-Emperor Trump" memes). Granted, they're more likely to be attracted to a game which has right-wing themes than left-wing ones, but even the lefty RPG Eclipse Phase (the only game to list "Gender Identity" as a character option) had a problem with misogynistic "Men's Rights" types in their fandom several years ago.

[Twisted Crow]

Nah, that's not the article I read. Mine was more of the "SJW-themed" flavor. Still looking for it.

[TheLionKing]

Pretending race does not exist is an illogical fallacy. My girlfriend is Hispanic- to be more define her heritage comes from Costa Rica. Humans notice contrast. It's innate. If we did not notice differences then we would be on the ground from being poisoned by plants that look the same but are inherently different.  When I first met her I remember distinctly thinking, " Wow her dark brown hair is gorgeous. Her body has been kissed by the sun."   Not once did I think " Illegal immigrant"  cause one she's an AMERICAN. She was born here LEGALLY. Did I ask her if she was born here legally? UH no, cause rude. And it never came to my mind. While I noticed her race I did not think anything of it other than I took in her beauty. I never dated someone who was a different color than me before. Was it a deciding factor? Not really, she won me over with her personality and how inviting she was as a person.

[Twisted Crow]

This is what got me there.

Standford University Professor Antero Garcia argues in an academic journal article that the popular game Dungeons and Dragons perpetuates systems of privilege.

Because, as we all know... if a Professor starts saying this shit... his or her word is infallible on the matter! ::)

It just frustrates me that progressive left silliness is picking up right where the radical bible-thumping Right left it years ago with Dungeons & Dragons and just putting a different, moral subtle spin on the whole "D&D is bad" bandwagon. I mean, let's go back in time for a minute...

"If you play Dungeons & Dragons, you worship Satan and will burn in hell. You will lose your mind and just straight-up start killing random motherfuckers with swords and shit." said pretty much every Right-wing bible-thumper in the 1970s, 80s and 90s. Let's even double down on media and even get Tom Hanks to make a movie about how D&D is bad and it kills people and stuff. Although... to be fair, for people that took the game too far? It kinda did kill people.



Meanwhile... in our time:

"Dungeons and Dragons perpetuates privilege! And... and it was a "white man's game" about 40 years ago! But now in 2010's era... you have more variety of people playing the game than ever before (and other roleplaying games just like it). But it is STILL not good enough." - says Obvious Progressive Leftist Professor.

I am sorry, but in truth... it never will be "good enough". What is stopping people from playing Dungeons & Dragons in 2018? Besides not having the time, the social connections or on rare occasion... various jackasses somehow shoehorning partisan politics or religious silliness?

The cost of a Player's Handbook, a set of dice, pencil, freaking  paper. Phase two, walk into nearist comic book store that doesn't have "Whites Only" signs at the front (there are a lot these days that don't have those); make some new friends.

Can kinda be pricey, I will admit that. But... it really ain't jack shit compared to dropping $500~ on a brand new video game system, plus buying NBA2KFIFACopyPasteLastYearsGameLULz Deluxe Edition for $99+ plus microtransactions (which people still pour a colossal cauldron of cash into every goddamn year), going to bars/clubs/strip clubs every night, the list goes on. ::)

I am sure there are a few weird "Whites Only, White Power" Dungeons & Dragons groups out there in the crazy corners of the country, but if I met such a group these days?... Fuck it, I am buying a lottery ticket. ::)

I don't really see much (in this generation) exclusively barring some people from playing Dungeons & Dragons anymore... aside from just a lack of interest, just not being able to find a group that suits one's playstyle or... just not knowing enough people that play it. Probably because it is still being stigmatized as "evil" or "wrong" in some political form or fashion. ::)

[Twisted Crow]

I also apologize that seems a bit too ranty. I am trying for a bit of satire.  ^-^

[Twisted Crow]

Bah, also... I can't seem to actually get the original that triggered me. Presumably thr source material that my browser won't load. But I have said my peace. Apologies for people is I went too far but... seeing as this is a Role Playing site, one might understand why stuff like this could strike a chord and perhaps... hit close to home.

[Skynet]

Bah, also... I can't seem to actually get the original that triggered me. Presumably thr source material that my browser won't load. But I have said my peace. Apologies for people is I went too far but... seeing as this is a Role Playing site, one might understand why stuff like this could strike a chord and perhaps... hit close to home.

The source in question I cannot access as it is not a free site. Do you (or someone else reading) have access to it?

I would caution against using Breitbart as a source,  especially as an "Absolute Equality & Compassion Advocate" given that ideologically speaking they are anything but that or a reasoned middle.

Professor Garcia doesn’t stop there. He bemoans the fact that Dungeons & Dragons began as a “white man’s” hobby. He argues that wargaming communities are “male-dominated,” even though this wasn’t the intention of the game’s designer, who initially tested the tabletop game out on his daughter.

Garcia’s 16-page article focuses on the representation of women in the game. According to Garica’s research, by 2014, more than half of the game’s depicted characters are female.

According to the article, Garcia’s ultimate wish is to see Dungeons & Dragons move beyond its problematic past into a more diverse and inclusive future.

And Breitbard cannot even cite quotes. Given their past record of propaganda and hoaxes, they are tapping into your emotions to get you riled up.



Dungeons & Dragons historically has had a mostly white playerbase. This is not entirely the fault of D&D itself given the broader RPG/wargame sphere at the time was the same demographic, but the game has had its own trends which have not been welcoming to those outside. The 2004 Unearthed Arcana sourcebook listed transgenderism as a mental illness you gain due to trauma and thus could be "cured" by magical healing. Gary Gygax was infamously a biological determinist who wasn't fond of the idea of courting women gamers. Biological determinism, by the way, is the belief that all personality traits were formed by genetics at birth and not the result of upbringing. And nobody at the time called him out for it, as many D&D nerds did not want to be seen as the guy who "got into a fight with Gary Gygax."

What about the strains of sex and violence throughout D&D? The fantasy women in the chain mail bikinis.

GG: It’s the same in comic books and on the front of the lurid covers of the old pulp magazines. Gaming in general is a male thing. It isn’t that gaming is designed to exclude women. Everybody who’s tried to design a game to interest a large female audience has failed. And I think that has to do with the different thinking processes of men and women.

Here's another source on Gygax's stances on gender:

Well Darn!

Here i thought that most everybody knew that the first two play-testers for the D&D game were my son Ernie and my daughter Elise. They played the first dungeon adventurte, were joined the next day by Don Kaye and Rob Kuntz.

Elise played for a few months, then lost interest. Her younger sisters, Heidi and Cindy, got into D&D later on. those two used to make Luke DM for them when he was very young, tell him what treasure that they found. When he complained to me about that I set him straight, and shortly after that his sisters quit playing, the greedy power gamers 

As I have often said, I am a biological determinist, and there is no question that male and female brains are different. It is apparent to me that by and large females do not derrive the same inner satisfaction from playing games as a hobby that males do. It isn't that females can't play games well, it is just that it isn't a compelling activity to them as is the case for males.

Cheers,
Gary

One of the creation mythologies for drow elves is that their skin was cursed black for their evil ways and in Forgotten Realms drow who turned their backs on Lolth gained new skin tones. There are definitely many more women and minority gamers than in the past, but these earlier examples did not help.

I should also note that while there are few "White Gamers Only" examples, racism is rarely overt. There are exclusionary gaming tables, but they often "allow anyone" but pick on and harass the wrong sort of gamers in driving them away. The /r/rpghorrorstories subreddit is a pretty good example of this, particularly of players and DMs acting like creeps to women players.

I'd like to point out that the preponderance of women artwork in 2014 is the authors making a conscious effort to improve upon these past failures. Looking around and not seeing Klansman-style flamethrowers is not a sign of progress; in fact, it's subscribing to the same mode of colorblind post-racialism which you find so repugnant.

[Skynet]

PS to expand on the last sentence, I meant that racism (and sexism, and other isms) in the United States are rarely the overt segregation kind anymore. In spite of the increase of white nationalist violence, there's still a social stigma against such expressions so they mask their unwelcoming natures, which ironically takes advantage of "racially colorblind" advocates.

[Twisted Crow]

*sigh*

Considering that a linked Facebook post from a Roleplaying Games group directed me to it, I should have perhaps ignored it like I do most of the junk that is on there now. But yeah, as a D&D player I suppose it was easy to clickbait me in this case. The only social group that seems relatively "safe"  from most of that seems to be the Critical Role fanbase.... and well, you know... here. ^-^

I... also did not know that about ol' Gygax.

[HannibalBarca]

Our childhood role models rarely survive into our adulthood.  They are as human as all the rest of us.

Playing AD&D in the 80s as a military brat, I had friends who were not white who loved the game.  No one made a big deal if my African-American friend wanted to play a black dwarf, or my friend with a Japanese mother wanted to play a samurai.  The setting in those days was typically Medieval European, but we ran campaigns in Pre-Columbian America, China, and Persia/Babylon.  Owing to the game design, it was Eurocentric, but nothing stopped you from basing a campaign in other cultures if you wished.

Right around the time Gygax and Arneson published the original Dungeons and Dragons, TSR--the company that also published D&D--released a game called Empire of the Petal Throne, by Professor Muhammad Abd-al-Rahman Barker.  It was a tabletop RPG just like D&D, set in a more South Asian/Middle Eastern fantasy culture.  The rules were a bit less polished, but the game world was much more filled in, especially the history of the setting.  Much like Tolkien, Barker had written thousands of pages of background, created complete languages, and delved into culture deeply.  It didn't succeed commercially, which is sad, because it was an amazing RPG...which again leads to questions of why it failed commercially.