"Pygmies" as a Fictional Fantasy Race

[Meatboy]

I know I should probably be posting this in the "World Building" section but, after reading some news, I'm kind of reconsidering going through with what I have in mind.

I have been planning to add in "pygmies" to my roster of playable races for an upcoming RPG setting of my own. They are a fantasy all-male race that resemble halflings with tails but otherwise normal feet with a very bizarre reproductive cycle.

I know for a fact that Pygmies come from Greek Mythology and have appeared in various games like Dark Souls, Pathfinder (Vegepygmies) and Pocket God but, also being based on certain indigenous peoples, I'm kind of hesitant to use the name.

I've already spoken to some pygmoid folk about the idea and they don't seem all that offended but I'd like to ask any of our members find it offensive, especially if there are any pygmy or pygmoid people around here.

[Vekseid]

For my own setting, I went with the raw ancient Greek - pugmai.

It's not just about avoiding offense, but also to avoid any potential confusion.

[Meatboy]

I see, thank you.

[Skynet]

I know I should probably be posting this in the "World Building" section but, after reading some news, I'm kind of reconsidering going through with what I have in mind.

I have been planning to add in "pygmies" to my roster of playable races for an upcoming RPG setting of my own. They are a fantasy all-male race that resemble halflings with tails but otherwise normal feet with a very bizarre reproductive cycle.

I know for a fact that Pygmies come from Greek Mythology and have appeared in various games like Dark Souls, Pathfinder (Vegepygmies) and Pocket God but, also being based on certain indigenous peoples, I'm kind of hesitant to use the name.

I've already spoken to some pygmoid folk about the idea and they don't seem all that offended but I'd like to ask any of our members find it offensive, especially if there are any pygmy or pygmoid people around here.

Context of their role in your world matters as well. For instance, many people may not object to elves with Arabic and African names, but if you make orcs or an orc stand-in be based off of said cultures, you're inevitably going to cause offense. If they're playable I take it that they're not an antagonistic faction, but be aware of any real-world stereotypes which have been used to demonize and oppress said people.

As to the bold, you're already doing well beyond what many others have in this field. You should prioritize the thoughts and feelings of those who will be most directly impacted over possible offensive connotations as they will know the subject matter best.

[RedRose]

Yes. Some reproached Tolkien with Mordor's allies (Umbar?) being too close to Arabs and/or Africans. The Harkonnens were pretty German.. But we'll never know what was on purpose and what wasn't.

[midnightblack]

Yes. Some reproached Tolkien with Mordor's allies (Umbar?) being too close to Arabs and/or Africans. The Harkonnens were pretty German.. But we'll never know what was on purpose and what wasn't.

I believe people put way too much of their own prejudices and frustrations up when they look into these things. Apparently, it seems that

Frank Herbert wanted a harsh-sounding name for the antagonists of his novel, Dune. Herbert came across the name "Härkönen" in a California telephone book and thought that it sounded "Soviet" (it is in fact Finnish), which touched a nerve with Cold War-era readers.[2] In earlier drafts of his novel, the lead villain was called "Valdemar Hoskanner".[3]

So, if anything, he was actually going for the commies. 

[LisztesFerenc]

I believe people put way too much of their own prejudices and frustrations up when they look into these things.

  Its pretty hard to defend the LotR as being all about us and nothing on him. Elves, Rohan and Gondor are all based off white culture whilst none of the humans who fight for Mordor seem to be and the Southerners are explicitly called out as being dark skinned. I don't think Tolkien was trying to be rascist on purpose, but I do think he failed to consider the implications of a good vs. evil battle which also happened to look a lot like whites vs. non-whites.

[midnightblack]

I don't actually know too much about Tolkien's beliefs and couldn't say if whites vs. non-whites was even a thought to ever cross his mind in the universe of his every day life. I'd go out on a stretch and say he didn't give a damn about it, but maybe I'm wrong. Calling him out on this feels just about as weird as bashing his works for not giving more important roles to female characters, as I guess that feminism wasn't really a thing in his environment either.

An example that I do like to point out sometimes in these discussions is H.P. Lovecraft. He was a legit closet xenophobe and racist in real life. As blamable as some of his correspondence is when this subject arises,  at least he had a pretty classy way of phrasing things  . Anyhow, while he mostly kept these beliefs to himself or a circle of very close friends, they do transpire in some of his works. Particularly in his earlier days you get to read a lot about the white anglo-man that faces the cosmic horrors summoned by degenerate inbreeds from the southern regions of Europe. However, I think that rebutting his work for these facts completely misses out on the point of his writing. Yes, those references are pretty moronic, but his lasting contribution to literature has more to do with inconceivable realities looking down upon humanity with indifference or cruelty rather than the fact that he said all Portuguese are mongrel demon worshipers lol. I feel it would be pretty silly do dismiss a story like The Rats in the Walls just because the cat's name was Nigger Man. Or even feel offended by it in any way.

I don't think that any kind of references pertaining to racism or discriminating behavior towards any group should ever be present in public dialogues and policies, but at the same time it feels awkward to nitpick about them in works of fiction, especially when their subject completely transcends reality.

[LisztesFerenc]

I don't actually know too much about Tolkien's beliefs and couldn't say if whites vs. non-whites was even a thought to ever cross his mind in the universe of his every day life. I'd go out on a stretch and say he didn't give a damn about it, but maybe I'm wrong. Calling him out on this feels just about as weird as bashing his works for not giving more important roles to female characters, as I guess that feminism wasn't really a thing in his environment either.

  As I said, I don'tr think Tolkien was conscously doing it either, but the thing about accidentally being racist is that its still being racist. Its not as big a problem as being deliberatly racist, but you cannot expects others to focus entierly on the "accidental" part and ignore the the rest. To me at least, pointing the unfortunate racial divide of good and evil in LotR isn't to the end goal of demonizing Tolkien, but rather just an idea that if you want to emulate LotR, try recreating the lore and sense of depth and scale the world had, and maybe tweak/update the racial demographs.

[Regina Minx]

I don't actually know too much about Tolkien's beliefs and couldn't say if whites vs. non-whites was even a thought to ever cross his mind in the universe of his every day life.

The issue of racism; explicit or implicit in the works of Tolkien is complicated and not the least of which because of the notion of 'fair for its day.'. Tolkien made two statements outside the Legendarium which I think are racially charged, but they don't relate to 'white' or 'black'.

In one of his letters, Tolkien described Orcs as "...squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes; in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types." "Mongol-types" is a bit insensitive, but there's an important qualifier which is that Tolkien appeared to recognize that cultural bias played a part in the perception of Mongols as degraded and repulsive.

The second quote Tolkien made was a bit more off the cuff, but in this interview, Tolkien said, "The dwarves of course are quite obviously - wouldn't you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews? Their words are Semitic obviously, constructed to be Semitic." Tolkien also said in another letter that the similarities between Dwarves and Jews was not limited to the similarities between the Dwarven language and Semitic languages: "at once natives and aliens in their habitations, speaking the languages of the country, but with an accent due to their own private tongue…" The most troubling implication is that the characteristic weakness of the dwarves was their greed for gold and other riches, amplified by the Seven Rings. This is bothersome given the stereotype of the 'greedy Jew'.

Now that being said, Tolkien was very clear in speaking out against the overt and violent forms of racism of his day, from Nazism to apartheid. A few choice quotes:

"There was a solemn article in the local paper seriously advocating systematic exterminating of the entire German nation as the only proper course after military victory: because, if you please, they are rattlesnakes, and don't know the difference between good and evil! (What of the writer?) The Germans have just as much right to declare the Poles and Jews exterminable vermin, subhuman, as we have to select the Germans: in other words, no right, whatever they have done."

"I have the hatred of apartheid in my bones; and most of all I detest the segregation or separation of Language and Literature. I do not care which of them you think White."

"As for what you say or hint of ‘local’ conditions: I knew of them. I don't think they have much changed (even for the worse). I used to hear them discussed by my mother; and have ever since taken a special interest in that part of the world. The treatment of colour nearly always horrifies anyone going out from Britain, & not only in South Africa. Unfort[unately], not many retain that generous sentiment for long."

[lillisa]

  As I said, I don'tr think Tolkien was conscously doing it either, but the thing about accidentally being racist is that its still being racist. Its not as big a problem as being deliberatly racist, but you cannot expects others to focus entierly on the "accidental" part and ignore the the rest. To me at least, pointing the unfortunate racial divide of good and evil in LotR isn't to the end goal of demonizing Tolkien, but rather just an idea that if you want to emulate LotR, try recreating the lore and sense of depth and scale the world had, and maybe tweak/update the racial demographs.

Can't have that. Before you know it, people will start putting extra elves in the Hobbit to create a strong female character. The whole thing will be ruined. RUINED, Ruined....

[midnightblack]

To me at least, pointing the unfortunate racial divide of good and evil in LotR isn't to the end goal of demonizing Tolkien, but rather just an idea that if you want to emulate LotR, try recreating the lore and sense of depth and scale the world had, and maybe tweak/update the racial demographs.

I'm afraid I can't really find a way to agree with that. If people will want to point out the flaws of a work of fiction as seen from their particular standpoint, they'll do it anyway, so corrupting a creative process out of fear of dissatisfying certain groups doesn't really achieve anything aside of crippling your work. I don't know, I could complain that Bram Stoker's Dracula gets Transylvanian realities wrong and puts gypsies in a bad light, but with it being a seminal piece of gothic horror, it would feel a bit silly. 

[LisztesFerenc]

I'm afraid I can't really find a way to agree with that. If people will want to point out the flaws of a work of fiction as seen from their particular standpoint, they'll do it anyway, so corrupting a creative process out of fear of dissatisfying certain groups doesn't really achieve anything aside of crippling your work.

  I don't think its "corrupting the creative process" and "crippling your own work" to ensure that your story avoids having all white kingdoms/nations as the good guys and all non-whites as the bad guys.

[midnightblack]

The point that I'm trying to make is that an author shouldn't care about that at all and just go wherever imagination and creativity lead. But that's just me. 

[LisztesFerenc]

The point that I'm trying to make is that an author shouldn't care about that at all and just go wherever imagination and creativity lead. But that's just me. 

  I don't agree with that as a blanket statement. An author should certainly have determination and trust and value their ideas as a general rule, but not always 100% of the time. I think an author should absolutly stop and consider "Does the story I'm trying to tell really need all white groups to be good and all non-white groups to be bad? Could I change the demograph there without compromising the story".

[QuackKing]

I think it's silly for an author to self-police his work in order to appeal to certain sensitivities.

A story is not meant to be something political and allegorical, it's just meant to be something that's interesting to read. Introspection of a work for the purpose of making it friendlier to interpretation is unneeded and can implicitly create a political message somewhere where it does not need to be.

The factions and races in Tolkien's world are inspired on mythology and real history, but that doesn't mean they are stand-ins for real world ethnic groups/populations. It was a fantasy story about good and evil fighting told from a specific perspective. You can write a story in which orcs are the good guys, but you should not write a story where someone must be of a certain race and be good and create some racially charged allegory. No matter how hard you try you'll never appease everyone.

[LisztesFerenc]

I think it's silly for an author to self-police his work in order to appeal to certain sensitivities.

  How about realistic world building then? How realistic is it that the good vs. evil battle just happened to also fall along ethic white and non-white lines?

[Regina Minx]

QuackKing, I have to disagree with you on several points here.

I think it's silly for an author to self-police his work in order to appeal to certain sensitivities.

Self-policing your own words and tone of voice is something we do in face-to-face interaction to avoid giving offense. I don't see how it's 'silly' to do the same with your written word, especially if you're writing for publication where you will not be available to answer the question of 'Wait, are you saying that Dwarves are Jews and therefore greedy?'

A story is not meant to be something political and allegorical, it's just meant to be something that's interesting to read.

Possible but not necessarily true. You can't seriously read, say, The Grapes of Wrath or Upton Sinclair's The Jungle and say that those works do not contain a political agenda.

The factions and races in Tolkien's world are inspired on mythology and real history, but that doesn't mean they are stand-ins for real world ethnic groups/populations. It was a fantasy story about good and evil fighting told from a specific perspective. You can write a story in which orcs are the good guys, but you should not write a story where someone must be of a certain race and be good and create some racially charged allegory. No matter how hard you try you'll never appease everyone.

What is myth, though? Radcliffe Edmonds's work on the subject leads to the three basic 'rules of myth, of which the first two are key here:

1) A mythic story is a seemingly straightforward account of something that happened, yet its content and structure are carefully arranged to convey a deeper meaning than the superficial narrative might suggest.

2) This is accomplished using symbols familiar to the audience (keywords, ironies, allusions, double entendres, etc.), relying on a known database of cultural, literary, religious, grammatical and other facts.

A story based on myth has allegory 'baked into it', since allegorical meaning is key to the definition of what it means to be a myth in the first place.

[QuackKing]

QuackKing, I have to disagree with you on several points here.

Self-policing your own words and tone of voice is something we do in face-to-face interaction to avoid giving offense. I don't see how it's 'silly' to do the same with your written word, especially if you're writing for publication where you will not be available to answer the question of 'Wait, are you saying that Dwarves are Jews and therefore greedy?'

People are always going to find certain meaning in an author's work that the author didn't necessarily intend. If you sacrifice a vision to plan ahead for possible criticism about characterization, world-building, or whatever, you can too easily harm the cohesion of your novel. No one is going to like the book more because the goblins have light skin instead of dark green skin. Besides, a novel shouldn't be considered indicative of aspects regarding a writer's character.

Possible but not necessarily true. You can't seriously read, say, The Grapes of Wrath or Upton Sinclair's The Jungle and say that those works do not contain a political agenda.

I should have specified it to stories purely dedicated to narrative. Allegorical stories can of course be written with politics or messages in mind, but fiction for the sake of fiction should not carry political weight. Harry Potter books shouldn't be expected to dedicate time addressing themes you might see in an Ayn Rand novel.

What is myth, though? Radcliffe Edmonds's work on the subject leads to the three basic 'rules of myth, of which the first two are key here:

1) A mythic story is a seemingly straightforward account of something that happened, yet its content and structure are carefully arranged to convey a deeper meaning than the superficial narrative might suggest.

2) This is accomplished using symbols familiar to the audience (keywords, ironies, allusions, double entendres, etc.), relying on a known database of cultural, literary, religious, grammatical and other facts.

A story based on myth has allegory 'baked into it', since allegorical meaning is key to the definition of what it means to be a myth in the first place.

Tolkien's races are only tangentially connected to their real life mythical counterparts, sharing relatively few characteristics apart from physical features and almost entirely disconnected from real world mythic tales and legends. It is because of this disconnect that they hold little of their initial symbolism and just serve as another part of Tolkien's world.

[Deamonbane]

I should have specified it to stories purely dedicated to narrative. Allegorical stories can of course be written with politics or messages in mind, but fiction for the sake of fiction should not carry political weight. Harry Potter books shouldn't be expected to dedicate time addressing themes you might see in an Ayn Rand novel.

I don't know. Kids fighting against a government establishment that is ignoring a growing evil that is killing them and kids like them seems pretty politically relevant these days. But I'm sure I'm just reading into something that Rowling didn't intend.

[QuackKing]

I don't know. Kids fighting against a government establishment that is ignoring a growing evil that is killing them and kids like them seems pretty politically relevant these days. But I'm sure I'm just reading into something that Rowling didn't intend.

Oh geez please don't bring up that cringe-fest of Buzzfeed level literary analysis.

[Deamonbane]

Why not?

[LisztesFerenc]

Oh geez please don't bring up that cringe-fest of Buzzfeed level literary analysis.

  Sure that's the stance you want to stick with?

  When asked about the politics and message in Harry Potter, Rowling explained, "I wanted Harry to leave our world and find exactly the same problems in the wizarding world. So you have the intent to impose a hierarchy, you have bigotry, and this notion of purity, which is this great fallacy, but it crops up all over the world. People like to think themselves superior and that if they can pride themselves in nothing else they can pride themselves on perceived purity. [...]. It wasn't really exclusively that. I think you can see in the Ministry even before it's taken over, there are parallels to regimes we all know and love."

[RedRose]

I think reading from certain time periods, there WILL be racism, or at least what is considered racism nowadays. Jules Verne has some pretty disturbing descriptions, possibly only in the less famous ones… But I know someone who is trying to read the whole of it and reposts the "best" quotes. Frankly some of it would NEVER work today. There's still a difference between this and hatred, and between period typical cr@p and Nazi theories. Lovecraft isn't banned in my country. Neither is Ten Little N*ggers. But say, some of Céline's productions are. And until recently, Hitler's was too (you needed to prove you are working on a thesis or whatever to be allowed to access it legally).
I did roll my eyes about the evil Captain Ruskof (!) in The Last Ship. In France it's only recently that "the baddie" switched from a Germanic type to an Arabic type in that context. But watch even the rather "recent" Rabbi Jacob, in 2018 everyone (Jews, Muslims, Catholics etc) would be up in arms.

[QuackKing]

Besides the fact that "DRUMPFV = VOLDEBORT" has less critical thinking applied to it than that theory where all the Ed, Edd, n Eddy kids are actually in purgatory, Rowling's story is by no means a political one. It is a children's novel about children that team up to fight a bad guy that wants to harm others. It is because the series has such little political complexity that it is so easy for it to be compared to politics of varying eras. Either way, it doesn't really matter what Rowling says on the matter, if we're to be analyzing her work.