Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.

Games and Gaming: How settings, cultures and fantasy mix

Bottom of Page

1 to 80 of 81

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >
    •  
      CommentAuthoreruditus
    • CommentTimeJul 2nd 2007
     # 1
    So in this thread - Andy's mythic India card based minis game thread - Tim asks if this game would be something people are interested. Some of the answers were a little surprising. Those that said no were concerned that it trampled on some cultural issues.

    I had a few comments but didn't want to further muddy the topic at hand with them so I figured I would talk about them here.

    It was stated by several posts that a) the author should "know what they are talking about" and b) should probably be from the culture in question.

    To this I have three things to comment:
    1) Tim had a pretty darn good point in that no one here was raised in the culture in question (mythic india). I could see if there was a specific point in a cultures history that was getting misrepresented (like Fuedal Japan) but were talking about taking elements with an indian asthetic and making an action game out of them.

    2) So how would you know what culture someone is from before you read it? How do you know Tim's mom isn't Indian or his indian parents didn't adopt him? If someone were to have an indian affectation and change their name to reflect some bogus indian heritage would we assume his version of mythic india (read without knowing the author) was more accurate than Tim's. What of someone who is third or fourth generation indian and raised in a completely westernized manner. Would we assume they were knowledgeable on the subject? I think Tim has a point when he suggested that before raising this sort of concern, doesn't it make more sense to see the treatment first. Or maybe ask "hey, I know a little something about the genre do you mind me seeing it before it goes to the public to avoid some glaring cultural ideosyncracy or hurtful stereotype." I wouldn't say no.

    3) On accuracy. I watched a Pakistani horror film called Hell's Ground. Afterward the director and creator said a few words. There were certainly several people from his general culture in the theater. Someone asked "is there a reason you portrayed the kids (read victims) in the movie in such a westernized fashion?" And he answered "because that's how they act and dress." There are often similarities where we do not expect and interesting details we'd like to explore. If done to avoid really racially insensitive material I don't really see any harm in making something exciting and fanciful out of it. After all it's their perception of the material and really no right and wrong.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJosh Roby
    • CommentTimeJul 2nd 2007 edited
     # 2
    post removed to avoid stupid endless flamewars where nobody's mind will change
    •  
      CommentAuthorAndy
    • CommentTimeJul 2nd 2007
     # 3
    Hey man, it sounds like your questions/points are directed specifically towards Shreyas. Why not PM/email him instead?

    -Andy
    •  
      CommentAuthorpigeon
    • CommentTimeJul 2nd 2007
     # 4
    Posted By: eruditus1) Tim had a pretty darn good point in that no one here was raised in the culture in question (mythic india). I could see if there was a specific point in a cultures history that was getting misrepresented (like Fuedal Japan) but were talking about taking elements with an indian asthetic and making an action game out of them.


    I think this is totally absurd. Mythic India is not a magical separate entity from Actual India. People are, in fact, raised in India ALL THE TIME -- it's probably happening as we speak -- and believe it or not, they get raised on the myths and legends of their culture, just like we are here in America.

    "Taking elements with an Indian aesthetic and making an action game out of them" is a really concise and clear definition of cultural appropriation and I appreciate you providing it.
    • CommentAuthorMark W
    • CommentTimeJul 2nd 2007 edited
     # 5
    Posted By: pigeon
    "Taking elements with an Indian aesthetic and making an action game out of them" is a really concise and clear definition of cultural appropriation and I appreciate you providing it.

    Eh. It's cultural appropriation when you represent the product as somehow "authentic" and as a representation of the culture in question. If you're (as an outsider) saying "here is my response to my (outsider) perception" and presenting it as that... well, you're still in some deep waters, but I wouldn't call it appropriation. One thing we have to have clear in any discussion along these lines is that there is no "there" there - no true, authentic, authorized version - only interpretations which are all broken in various ways. The colonized's perceptions of their cultural heritage are messed up by colonization as much or more so as the colonizer's. (Which totally does NOT remove the obligation to give them primacy of respect).
    •  
      CommentAuthorJosh Roby
    • CommentTimeJul 2nd 2007
     # 6
    The Mountain Witch
    • CommentAuthortalysman
    • CommentTimeJul 2nd 2007
     # 7

    I think the whole argument, on both sides, is ridiculous. People who are not part of a culture can't argue that they have some kind of right to write about a culture, nor can people from that culture forbid outsiders from writing about their culture, especially when they themselves write about other cultures they don't belong to. That, right there, is a real false dichotomy between Self and Other. I reject it, and say it doesn't apply.

    Artists and other creative producers (which, presumably, includes game designers) take their experiences and express their thoughts and feelings about them, to communicate their viewpoint to other people. These experiences include cultural heritage, other cultures they've been directly exposed to, indirect exposure through the works of other artists, and fleeting fragments that may have echoes of some other culture, but no one remembers or recognizes the connection (there's more of the last than you think, because cultures are not neat little boxes, but interpenetrating, fluid concepts.)

    But what an artist creates is not something about a culture, it's something about the artist. It's a message, from me to you. Art is, ultimately, appropriation -- of everything the artist is exposed to. It was always this way, in every culture, in every time period. Artists are thieves, and proud of it.

    Now, an artist's message may be offensive to someone. If that offended person has an opportunity to say to the artist, "I am offended by what you said, and here is why..." the artist may hear the objections and change the message in some way... or the artist may decide the message is fine as it is, and say "thank you for expressing your concerns." And if the offended person doesn't like that response, there's always the possibility of answering art with art, in the form of a review, or an essay, or a creative work that answers the offending one. People can tell other people how offensive that work of art is, and if the other people agree, they won't listen to that artist.

    But dammit, people, be honest and own your opinions. Don't pretend an artist has broken some kind of moral code or gone against objective reality in some way. Your response to an artist, however brief, is itself art. Art without conviction convinces no one.

    •  
      CommentAuthornoclue
    • CommentTimeJul 2nd 2007
     # 8
    Nope. You are only allowed to write about your own culture. That is why I claim the right to write about fat bankers from California and will henceforth limit all my writing to that topic. I will also refuse to play any game that is not written by someone from the culture portrayed. So, only Ninja games written by Ninjas and Russian spy games from Russian spies.

    I mean, where will it all end? Before you know it some guy from England will write a story about merchant families way down in Venice. Absolute madness I tell you.
    • CommentAuthorKynn
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
     # 9
    Posted By: noclueNope. You are only allowed to write about your own culture.


    Now you're being ridiculous and not listening.

    Posted By: noclueBefore you know it some guy from England will write a story about merchant families way down in Venice.


    Yeah, and we know that could never result in offensive ethnic stereotyping, right?
    • CommentAuthorLord Minx
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
     # 10
    Posted By: talysmanBut dammit, people, behonestandown your opinions. Don't pretend an artist has broken some kind of moral code or gone against objective reality in some way. Your response to an artist, however brief, is itself art. Art without conviction convinces no one.
    Ehm, I'd love to add something but John already said prett ymuch anything I meant to say. So I'll just say that I believe in both the artists right to offend and the audiences right to be offended, especially as the latter doesn't have to be RIGHT, just as the former doesn't have to be WRONG.

    Aaron
    • CommentAuthorbankuei
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007 edited
     # 11
    I love the fact that any discussion of cultural appropriation always falls to the strawman argument that you can never write about other cultures.

    The reason it's cultural appropriation, instead of "sharing" or "participating", is that you're still not writing about the other culture, you're writing about a stereotype, an exotified other, a false image, etc. And it wouldn't be worse than say, Rifts or octaNe or any other wacky thing, if it weren't for the fact that it exists in a larger media environment promoting the same things absent any balancing images. (see Sambo imagery in Japan for one)

    Lately folks have been asking women and male ally feminists if things in their games are problematic. This is cool- if you don't know, check with someone who does. But when it comes to race*, more than once I've encountered folks who actually are trying to write something true to source, and seem clueless about authenticity.

    And I remind them they can check in with the group they're writing about. The internet makes it easy.

    Surprisingly, it's never occurred to them, because the default assumption is that the best way to check for authenticity is to either look at museums or read books written by other white folks.

    But you know, you can write whatever you want for a game. Just understand when you portray people as weird strange or silly things, and never as people, and that's ALL they see of themselves in media, maybe it's not so entertaining to them. And isn't that great- you made something for your entertainment at their expense. Funfunfun!

    *edit: and the reason I say race, and not culture here, is that white folks do have balancing images, whereas people of color do not. That and if you were inaccurate as a poc describing a white culture, no one would freak out about you getting checked on your innaccuracy- that would be fair criticism...
    • CommentAuthorcharlequin
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007 edited
     # 12
    I'm kind of irritated that this thread produced some wildly defensive "don't tell me what I can talk about!" responses.

    Art isn't some sort of carte blanche protection against consideration of the repercussions of your decisions. When someone has an important point to make, yes, sometimes it's going to offend people, and yet it's still important for the artist to express themselves -- but let's be honest. "D&D, but with maces and snake goddesses!" is not an important artistic statement whose inherent value overrides all consideration of others.

    The idea that anyone and everyone's culture is in open season -- that as a Western person it's one's inherent right to play around with, reinvent, and even misinterpret the history and mythology of other people -- is exactly what the people in the other thread were raising as a concern.

    A standard like "nothing an American ever writes about Asia is ever acceptable" isn't going to get anywhere, but there needs to be some give on both sides -- if you want to write about a culture that isn't your own, you really do have a much higher burden of responsibility than writing things you know firsthand.
    • CommentAuthorMark W
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
     # 13
    What Chris said. Listen.

    Whenever you do art that's not about YOUR OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCES, you have to ask yourself - and it's generally wise to ask other people who might have insights you don't - "Is my artistic/expressive purpose in creating this thing really worth the harm it might do?"

    The truth is, the world is not going to miss your really clever and brilliant game. No matter how really clever and brilliant it might be. If you have ANY concern - and you ought to take due diligence to discover areas of concern - that you're misusing something that somebody else cares about or taking advantage of your privilege to declare "what X is", check yourself.

    On the other hand...
    Posted By: charlequinThe idea that anyone and everyone's culture is in open season -- that as a Western person it's one's inherent right to play around with, reinvent, and even misinterpret the history and mythology of other people -- is exactly what the people in the other thread were raising as a concern.

    If you take out the goofy stuff about "inherent right" and the notion of Western people having some special and different position with regard to this, "play around with, reinvent, and even misinterpreting" symbols is what people do. It is one of the fundamental acts of being human. The trick is always how to do it in community, and in ways that are respectful. To pretend that "culture" is a thing-in-itself that can be fixed and bounded and owned by anyone, at any time and place, is to make an idol out of it. My culture is mine. Now, here. It is not my ancestors. It is not my neighbors. It is not any else's, and it will change as I change, as I collide with the world outside my skin. I am not my identity.
  14.  # 14
    Posted By: Mark W
    If you take out the goofy stuff about "inherent right" and the notion of Western people having some special and different position with regard to this, "play around with, reinvent, and even misinterpreting" symbols iswhat people do.


    I do actually agree with this! Recontextualization, collaging, reinvention -- this is at the core of great art and humanity's pretty remarkable ability to understand and invent new things.

    I do think that feeling entitled to do it is problematic because it implicitly disregards the responsibility involved. When anyone creates art, they're responsible for what that art does out in the world. If they use symbols they've plucked from somewhere else without consideration, and the result is to foster misunderstanding or prejudice -- "I was just being an artist!" isn't a great defense, in my eyes.

    "You should do everything within your reasonable ability to gain second- and first-hand knowledge of a real-world culture before you publish something about it" seems like a pretty fair starting standard to hold people to.

    I think we actually agree here, Mark, by and large? The deeper you dig into this issue the more fiddly and difficult it gets, but I mostly am interested in establishing respect as a baseline standard.
    • CommentAuthorJ. Walton
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007 edited
     # 15
    I thought the follow-up thread was supposed to be about how various games dealt with ethnicity and culture, and I was trying to prepare myself to talk about my conflicted feelings about 1001 Nights (though I kinda think I'd rather talk to Meg first before posting).

    This issue comes up all the time in anthropology. An outside researcher gets closely involved with another culture, lives with them, works with them, eats with them, plays with their children, learns their language, listens to their stories, etc. And then the researcher goes back to his home and writes about everything he's learned and publishes it for the whole world to see. But this kind of thing has real world consequences.

    For indigenous peoples, anthropological studies can be used as tools in conflicts with the US government (or other governments) over issues of sovereignty and land rights. They can be used to justify new policies by the Department of Indian Affairs or similar governing bureaus. Additionally, suppose the anthropologist, as a guest of his hosts, was allowed to experience certain rituals or other cultural artifacts that are normally closed to outsiders or even to large segments of their own people. What if they, say, take part in a sweat lodge reserved only for adult male members of the community and then publish all the details for everyone in the world to read. The community that welcomed the anthropologist to live and learn with them might now feel betrayed, used, and violated.

    The same thing happens in other kinds of academic studies. Take the research on Chinese religion that I have been doing and will continue to do over the next few years. Many Chinese religious groups are not legally recognized and have no protection under Chinese law. Additionally, law enforcement in China is often so arbitrary that people can be detained for months or years at a time with no charges (like Guantanamo). If I published certain details about research I was conducting, talking about dubiously legal things that certain groups were doing (things that were critical to understanding what was going on in contemporary Chinese religion), I could conceivably ruin people's lives. This happened recently with a NYTimes reporter, who interviewed some Chinese sectarian Christians and then wrote an article that was accused of making Americans less sympathetic to his interviewees, since he emphasized the heretical nature of their beliefs. Many of the people he interviewed risked arrests, beatings, torture, and death (for them and for their entire families/communities) to talk to him and felt that he hurt their cause rather than helping it.

    Granted, consequences this extreme are not likely to befall those working in roleplaying, though game designers could conceivably conduct fieldwork among indigenous peoples in preparation for writing a game or, alternately, I could choose to write a game about Chinese sectarianism. However, Chris has a powerful point when he suggests that spreading stereotypes and other disrespectful or blatantly inaccurate portrayals of other cultures can be actively harmful. It creates an environment that says that other people are not welcome in roleplaying because we do no respect them or their background. It helps perpetuate ignorance and bigotry.

    Human beings, I think, like to assume that everyone else is living in conditions more or less like themselves. The language may be different, the culture may be different, people's race and ethnicity may be different, but ultimately we all have to go to work and buy groceries and poop and all that stuff. And when I think about my life, it's hard to imagine how someone else could portray my life and my heritage in a roleplaying game in a way that would really make things worse for me on a day-to-day basis. I can imagine a portrayal that might annoy me a bit, but it wouldn't anything too bad. However, I am a white American male. There are other people who are in very different situations, where the portrayal of women or people of their race/ethnicity in a game could make their life, on a day-to-day basis, suck significantly more.

    Say I'm a Chinese D&D fan and on a D&D mailing list and OMG! Oriental Adventures comes out and the people on the mailing list are going off about samurai swords and ninja and kung fu wankery and fortune cookies and all that bullshit. And it gets rubbed in your face every day. You could choose to leave the mailing list, right, and be totally excluded and driven off from this hobby that you love. You could try to object to some of the characterizations people are making, but then you are forced to have conversations like the one in this thread over and over again, without much improvement of the situation. Every day you have to struggle to just get a fair hearing and not to be ridiculed. No good choices.

    It's nice to think of the artist, the game designer, as someone who is working with these abstract Platonic concepts that are divorced from the real world. That they are some kind of supreme flower arranger who just has to worry about putting the right selection of elements together in a way that makes something awesome and beautiful. But that's not how it is. Artists make things out of the components of real people's experiences and their work can have an effect on people's daily lives in a real way. Roleplaying may not be responsible for things on the scale of The Communist Manifesto, which change the world in big observable ways, but a game that you create could certainly make other people's lives totally suck. And I think that's something worth considering and worth taking responsibility for.
    • CommentAuthorJ. Walton
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007 edited
     # 16
    Shreyas just put it more eloquently than I ever would have:

    When you write about a subject, you endanger it. It's your responsibility to recognise and respond to this endangerment.

    When you write about yourself as a subject, or about a group of which you are a member, I trust you to write about it with care and grace and knowledge, knowing that your sense of self-responsibility motivates you to take appropriate precautions about what you're saying.

    When you write about something else, then to earn that trust, you have to assertively demonstrate that you are aware of the danger inherent in your expression, and you've taken appropriate and complete measures to protect your subject.
    •  
      CommentAuthoreruditus
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007 edited
     # 17
    Andy, my problem is not with Shreyas or anyone else specifically. More importantly I think these are very worthwhile topics that I think most people interested are exploring maturely. Unless that is your way of saying "please lets not go here" then I can completely respect that.

    Posted By: bankuei
    Lately folks have been asking women and male ally feminists if things in their games are problematic. This is cool- if you don't know, check with someone who does. But when it comes to race*, more than once I've encountered folks who actually are trying to write something true to source, and seem clueless about authenticity.

    And I remind them they can check in with the group they're writing about. The internet makes it easy.


    I, for one, am completely for this idea. I think there is a two way responsibility here. My point was that the responsibility lies in offering as well as asking. I don't mind people being concerned about such things. It's way important and one of the reasons I like you people :) I do mind people being negative about a project on the outset without giving the author the benefit of the doubt. Unless you know the guy personally it would be difficult in a forum such as this to tell what someone's background is (a point no one seemed to answer appropriately). If I were to write a game about American slavery and the underground railroad folks of the current mindset might say "that's not a good idea because you have no idea what your talking about and it could be insulting." Even those who have met me might wince. But I believe my degree in African American culture and race relations puts me in a pretty darn good position to speak about such things. As I would expect my buddy Drew would write an rpg based on hindism or japanese culture rather well (having a doctorate and living there). By no means can either of us say we know it better than a native scholar of the same level but we certainly can talk about the subjects with some authority and would avoid problem areas.

    I do understand, also,that different people have different sensibilities about such things and everyone is welcome to criticize and vocalize their issues, no doubt. But I can vocalize my displeasure also, and so on and so forth. I'm just pointing out that some of the comments would have been more constructive in a different form ("hey can I work on this with you to handle some cultural issues") or at a differnent time ("dude, I so didn't think that the sterotype you used for the naga was called for.")
    •  
      CommentAuthorjohnzo
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
     # 18
    Posted By: Jonathan WaltonShreyas just put it more eloquently than I ever would have:

    When you write about a subject, you endanger it. It's your responsibility to recognise and respond to this endangerment....when you write aboutyourselfas a subject, or about a group of which you are a member, I trust you to write about it with care and grace and knowledge, knowing that your sense of self-responsibility motivates you to take appropriate precautions about what you're saying.

    What are we to make of dangerous material that originates from within its own culture? Like Sin City, for instance, which reinforces the stereotype of Americans as violent, misogynist assholes? Or Urotskidoji, which suggests that the Japanese are pervy for tentacle sex? Both could be gateways introductions to their respective cultures -- Overfiend was one of the first anime movies I ever saw, and I was like, WTF?

    When you're making art that could be exported, and could shape the perspective that outsiders have of your own culture, what responsibilities do you have?
    • CommentAuthorbankuei
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
     # 19
    Hi Johnzo,

    In this day and age, anything can be exported.

    I think the bigger key is asking yourself what place you're putting your work in the larger media landscape. That is- I could write a game about suburban cultists, and it's not going affect how folks in the suburbs are treated, etc. I could write a game about latino gangsters, and that would feed right into a lot of stereotypes that already exist. Could I still do the game in a way that doesn't feed on that? Sure, but it would take a deep understanding and deft hand.

    The problem is not that an individual artist makes a problmatic or offensive piece, the problem is what happens when that becomes the majority or entire movement in regards to shaping people's perspectives? And more importantly, what happens when that is really hurtful?

    A key question I find myself asking people more and more with any art, game or product is this: Why are you so interested in this group, and are you interested enough to actually listen and interact with them? And if not, if you want their "stuff" (physically or culturally) but not them, how is that really different than colonialism or exploitation?
    • CommentAuthorcharlequin
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007 edited
     # 20
    Posted By: bankuei
    I think the bigger key is asking yourself what place you're putting your work in the larger media landscape. That is- I could write a game about suburban cultists, and it's not going affect how folks in the suburbs are treated, etc. I could write a game about latino gangsters, and that would feed right into a lot of stereotypes that already exist.


    This is, I think, at the heart of the issue, and it's very difficult to address without digging into the guts of oppression and identity. American suburbanites are, by virtue of their role in American and global society, simply not as vulnerable to negative media depictions as inner-city latino gangsters.
    • CommentAuthorBill_White
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007 edited
     # 21
    Posted By: bankuei. . . if you want their "stuff" (physically or culturally) but not them, how is that really different than colonialism or exploitation?


    I agree with everything that led up to this, but I'd argue that there's a difference between physical stuff (i.e., material goods, artifacts, land, and resources) and cultural stuff (i.e., ideas and modes of expression). The defining feature of intellectual property is that giving it away doesn't deprive me of access to it (though it may of course prevent me from what the economists I think call accruing rent from it). Lumping physical and cultural appropriation together ignores the syncretic quality of culture: when you gaze into someone else's abyss, it gazes back at you.

    I wonder if the unspoken point of division in this debate is around power (cultural or otherwise): at some point, does "cultural appropriation" become "bricolage"? And is that point the one at which we imagine the artist not to be some kind of sociocultural demiurge but instead a tiny point of articulation for all the various cultural influences and social forces that act on and through him or her?

    None of that, of course, frees the artist -- or writer of games! -- from an obligation to respond to the interests of cultural stakeholders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJosh Roby
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
     # 22
    Chris, would you apply this principle to non-ethnic identities as well? Does this apply to goths? Does it apply to gays? Does it apply to Christians?
    • CommentAuthorJ. Walton
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
     # 23
    The defining feature of intellectual property is that giving it away doesn't deprive me of access to it.


    What if the property is tainted by later developments, such that the original knowledge or tradition is crippled or loses most of its initial power? Say I'm a hardcore Original Transformers fan in a world in which Michael Bay's Transformers is the hot hotness. Or say I'm Bob Kane or Bill Finger, the creators of Batman, who have no control over their own creation thanks to shitty contacts they signed when the character wasn't worth anything. Or, more apt, say I'm someone who wants to write a "realistic," culturally aware game about ninjas or Shaolin monks. Sometimes ideas accumulate intellectual baggage and refuse, such that they aren't what they once were.
    •  
      CommentAuthornoclue
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
     # 24
    Posted By: Kynn
    Now you're being ridiculous and not listening


    I was going for sarcasm, but ridiculous will work.

    Yeah, and we knowthat could never result in offensive ethnic stereotyping, right?


    I'll grant you that point. I'm not arguing that stereotyping does not occur and should not be denounced when seen. Judging Shakespeare on the basis of the images he used in his artistic expression is fair game. As a Jew (a Jewish banker no less), the Shylock character is particularly offensive to me. But, the fact that he had a Jew in his play was not offensive. It was the way he did it.

    My point is that authors of works of fiction have the entire world open as subject matter from which to draw inspiration. I reserve the right to challenge them on what they do with their subjects, but not the right to declare subjects off-limits to them based on their race, creed or color.

    I will agree with Shreyas' post that you have to recognize the power and responsibility you have as an artist. But, you are judged by what you do with, and to, your subject, not by the color of your skin or your religious beliefs, or those of your parents.

    Anyway, that's how I see stuff.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJosh Roby
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007 edited
     # 25
    Jonathan, if you're an OG Transformers fan, other people liking Camaro Bumblebee does not diminish your experience of OG Transformers.

    If you signed away your rights to publish material that you created, well, don't sign stupid contracts.

    If you want to write a realistic game of Shaolin monks, dude, go right ahead. Do your research, playtest rigorously, and make it a good game. The fact that a lot of people in the world think Kung Fu: the Legend Continues is realistic does not impinge on your ability to make a good game that is fun to play. It does not impinge on you making a game that is meaningful to you. It does impinge on your ability to make a game that is meaningful to other people, or to make large amounts of money selling that game, but you have no right to other people's meaningful experiences or to their cash unless they want you to.

    I don't see what damage the cultural pollution does to you -- I see you not having people agree with you, and that's... not something that you can claim a right to. The best I've heard yet is Chris' very justified fears of violence against and reduced opportunities for ethnicities.

    Edit: added 'reduced opportunities for' and removed snarky last bit.
    •  
      CommentAuthorjohnzo
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
     # 26
    Posted By: Jonathan WaltonOr, more apt, say I'm someone who wants to write a "realistic," culturally aware game about ninjas or Shaolin monks. Sometimes ideas accumulate intellectual baggage and refuse, such that they aren't what they once were.

    Yeah, but deromanticization can be potent too. Look at the Western, for instance -- after years and years of making nothing but dumb cowboy-shooting-Indian movies, Hollywood gave us Unforgiven and Deadwood.
  27.  # 27
    Posted By: Jonathan Walton
    The defining feature of intellectual property is that giving it away doesn't deprive me of access to it.


    What if the property is tainted by later developments, such that the original knowledge or tradition is crippled or loses most of its initial power? Say I'm a hardcore Original Transformers fan in a world in which Michael Bay's Transformers is the hot hotness. Or say I'm Bob Kane or Bill Finger, the creators of Batman, who have no control over their own creation thanks to shitty contacts they signed when the character wasn't worth anything. Or, more apt, say I'm someone who wants to write a "realistic," culturally aware game about ninjas or Shaolin monks. Sometimes ideas accumulate intellectual baggage and refuse, such that they aren't what they once were.


    I'm not sure. How do you assign "rights" to an idea in each case? Why does the Original Transformers fan have any more authentic interest in them than Michael Bay? Why do you have any more legitimate right to your understanding of ninjas or Shaolin monks than anyone else? What makes Kane and Finger's contracts an injustice?

    Real questions, not rhetorical.
    • CommentAuthortalysman
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
     # 28

    You guys are still talking about groups of people. I don't believe in groups of people. I only believe in individuals.

    I have no objection to what Chris and Jonathan say about considering the repercussions of your actions, except for the part about obligation. There is no obligation for an artist to do anything. However, if you are claiming your art as an authentic representation of a culture and you don't take the steps Chris and Jonathan describe, you wind up looking pretty foolish.

    But then, as you can probably tell from the games I have chosen to concentrate on, I'm not interested in cataloging other cultures. Creating a catalog of another culture as a game artifact seems like bad art to me, because it doesn't delve into what the artist sees as the core experience of that culture. After watching, reading and listening to many '40s and '50s-style retro-SF space patrol stories, I have gained an impression of what a retro-SF space patrol story is about: stuff about heroes with very blunt, simple a moral code of conduct tossed into rapidly-shifting conflicts, and the latter not having much of an overall rationale, but being driven more by dramatic necessity. I am taking this internalized experience and developing it into a game. I could just as well take experiences of some culture in the traditional sense, sum up what I perceive as the essential nature of that culture, and comment on that.

    Other artists have done this. Take, for example, the fictional culture of Rolisica described in the film Mothra (1961), which I'm using because I recently saw it again. Rolisica is an amalgam of the U.S. and U.S.S.R, reduced to a stereotype of a greedy, pushy culture trampling on human rights. You could look at this and say "Oh, the Japanese have done it, too, so that makes it OK for Americans to stereotype other cultures, too." But that's not what I'm saying. Or you could argue that stereotypes like this have harmed America, but that's nonsense, too. This isn't about what "the Japanese" (as some kind of multi-limbed monstrosity) has done to another multi-limbed monstrosity, nor is it about imaginary "cultural harm". It's about one artist, the screenwriter, making a statement about his personal experiences, what he thinks about the world around him. He is under no obligation to alter his expression to match the expectations of an audience; he does what he wants to do, in response to his feelings and opinions. And no group is hurt by anything he says, although individuals may feel offended, or maybe just regard it as a clumsy portrayal or bad art. And these individuals may respond themselves, as artists, telling others how they felt when they saw that portrayal of something they identified with.

    You could bring up all manner of other issues about this, like the differential of power between post-war Japan and the U.S., or the fact that one negative portrayal of U.S. culture would be washed out in a tide of positive portrayals produced by Hollywood. But all of those objections are garbage, because it's still talking about groups, not individuals. "Hollywood" doesn't exist, individual actors, writers, and directors exist. Cultures aren't oppressed or colonized, individual people feel oppressed or colonized. Thinking in terms of groups dehumanizes people. Maybe it's just easier for me to see this, because I'm not a member of a group, I'm a person of mixed heritage living on the fringes of mainstream America. To me, people saying mean things about white Americans isn't oppressive; people talking in terms of groups is oppressive. And I am not an offended group, I am an offended individual, and I speak out in opposition to this group-think.

    • CommentAuthorJ. Walton
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
     # 29
    The Transformers thing was a metaphor and a bad one at that, so let's drop it, no? Comparing Bumblebee to someone's cultural heritage is not really cool. Do people see how the cultural pollution of someone's identity would be vastly more painful than what Michael Bay's doing to the Autobots?

    John: Your denial of group-ness makes it really difficult for me to feel like I can communicate with you on this topic, though it did remind me of this -- "I was taught to see racism only in individual acts of meanness, not in invisible systems conferring dominance on my group" -- which Matt Wilson linked me to a while back.
    • CommentAuthorbankuei
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
     # 30
    Bill,

    Can you see that there's something problematic with the idea of, "I want to participate/celebrate this culture BUT I do not want to interact with the people who created it?" Even if the effects are not the same as physical colonization, the root attitude IS.

    Joshua,

    I'd say to a degree, we're seeing it with mainstream media and gay folks right now. Queer Eye for the Straight Guy is helpful in the sense we have gay folks on tv, it's unhelpful in the fact that they're playing a sort of minstrel role.

    John,

    Thinking in terms of groups dehumanizes people.

    I don't think so, I think misapplication of thinking about groups does.

    No one seems to have a problem about thinking about group dynamics when it comes to things like education ("What do students need to learn?"), marketing ("How does our customer base act?"), military ("The enemy uses hit and run tactics"), or even roleplaying games ("Dogs in the Vineyard makes intense games"). The problem is when you a) assume that is the end-all definer for each and every individual and b) apply generalizations outside of their context.

    If I see a problem that 90% of the time has the same common feature, does it make sense that I should look closer at what is the relationship between that feature and the problem or should I just tell myself that it's a coincidence that keeps popping up of isolated incidents?

    If you did that in science, medicine, or even game design people would look at you crazy.
    • CommentAuthorcharlequin
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007 edited
     # 31
    Posted By: talysman

    You guys are still talking about groups of people. I don't believe in groups of people. I only believe in individuals.



    The more privileged categories someone falls into, the more free they are to define their identity without regard to the categories and groups which they appear within. As gender roles are traditionally defined, a man has access to a wide variety of roles while a woman is relegated to the position of caregiver; a white person in America is seen as being able to fill almost any role, while an immigrant is likely to be seen as having a social role based on their ethnicity. A person who belongs to a marginalized category can speak with authority about effects upon their group because they are seen and judged within society based solely on the appearance of association with said group.

    The unique lone artist is a nice idea, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Any piece of artistic work that portrays people in non-privileged groups in a way that emphasizes stereotypes or oppressive views, and isn't counteracted by a similarly "legitimate" piece that debunks those stereotypes, will actually have a real effect of increasing the belief in those stereotypes -- because that's a factual quality of the way media sources shape culture and perception. I'm not really interested in seeing that ignored in favor of a blanket principle about artistic integrity.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAndy
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007 edited
     # 32
    Posted By: Jonathan Walton"I was taught to see racism only in individual acts of meanness, not in invisible systems conferring dominance on my group"-- which Matt Wilson linked me to a while back.


    That's a really hot link, Jonathan. Thanks for posting that.

    1) I'm hoping that, well at least here anyway, we can foster a culture where someone can aim for writing or creating works about another culture. ("I want to write an Africa RPG! Fierce animals, multilingual PCs, fictive kinship and spellcasting griots!")
    2) That author can be challenged by the community ("You want to write an "Africa" RPG? What exactly do you mean by that? Also, did you do any research?").
    3) They can find support and perhaps direction from the community ("If you're writing about West Africa, you'll want to see Reference X, Y, Z, and also talk to the following communities with your ideas: A, B and C. I'll help introduce you to them.")
    4) Then, if they pull off their creation, and it's cool (well thought out, respectful, and fun), then they get props.
    5) If the creation is decidedly not cool (especially given the above), they can be savagely ("Graham style") criticized. Being helpful with criticism at this stage is *nice*, but at that point if it looks like the author was just being a doofus, or doing the kewlness cultural imperialism thing, then a simple righteous ass-kicking is satisfactory as well.
    EDIT: 6) If you receive criticism and challenges all along the way, and dismiss them with "Art doesn't have to answer to anyone!", then don't be surprised if we jump straight to Step 5 on you.

    But in the above, as a participant here, I'd prefer to see that Step #2 be a challenge, and not just a lockdown or smug dismissal. Jonathan's post about how he remains skeptical of Chinese scholars is pretty much spot on with how I feel about Japanese social scholars... And yet, I'm asking for people to muster enough trust deep down to ask those questions and challenge the author in Step #2 (hey, if you must then ask harsh questions, or challenge them severely), rather than just dismiss the effort outright. If they're posting here, then more likely than not they are with the program.

    Are those steps 1-5 above fair? Do people think they might be able to live with them here?

    Side Note:
    Tim mentioned chariot races and arrows, "kill them and take away their wickedness". I blew past that because I felt it was just a statement of geeky enthusiasm, and not as a glimpse of the final product (I was withholding my judgment until I saw more about it), but I can totally see, and agree with, how that could set someone off (how are we to know if that's the author's final goal, or just a statement of geeky enthusiasm*). Still, I say, here I'd like people to please ask questions. Challenge the author.

    -Andy

    * When I was working on Tenra Bansho at first and talking about it, my enthusiasm took over. Instead of "theatrical-style roleplay", "relationship and motive-driven characters", I was jumping around singing "Awesome ninjas! Awesome gem-studded emo Hulk-samurai! Awesome Buddhism! Awesome Shinto NSA Shadow-Government! Awesome robotic tree geisha!" It wasn't until I saw a post on a Japanese LJ from some fans of the game about my description of the game that I realized I had my enthusiasm turned a little too high for some people's comfort.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAndy
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007 edited
     # 33
    Posted By: bankueiNo one seems to have a problem about thinking about group dynamics when it comes to things like education ("What do students need to learn?"), marketing ("How does our customer base act?"), military ("The enemy uses hit and run tactics"), or even roleplaying games ("Dogs in the Vineyard makes intense games"). The problem is when you a) assume that is the end-all definer for each and every individual and b) apply generalizations outside of their context.

    If I see a problem that 90% of the time has the same common feature, does it make sense that I should look closer at what is the relationship between that feature and the problem or should I just tell myself that it's a coincidence that keeps popping up of isolated incidents?


    That's pretty damn telling, too.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJosh Roby
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
     # 34
    Posted By: bankueiI want to participate/celebrate this culture BUT I do not want to interact with the people who created it?


    Chris, did you create chinese culture? This is the thing that keeps cropping up and I don't quite know how to underscore it. You didn't create the culture you grew up in, it created you. I don't see how that gives you any sort of privileged rights to that culture. I can see how it's part of your identity and therefore it is important to you. I can see how, because it's part of your identity, you may be something of an expert. I just don't see how you are important to it, or that you are some kind of authority.
    •  
      CommentAuthorjhkim
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
     # 35
    Posted By: talysmanIt's about one artist, the screenwriter, making a statement about his personal experiences, what he thinks about the world around him. He is under no obligation to alter his expression to match the expectations of an audience; he does what he wants to do, in response to his feelings and opinions. And no group is hurt by anything he says, although individuals may feel offended, or maybe just regard it as a clumsy portrayal or bad art. And these individuals may respond themselves, as artists, telling others how they felt when they saw that portrayal of something they identified with.

    This seems like a very different view of the problem. In my mind, the problem of misrepresentation isn't in the people who are offended -- it's the people who are not offended. For example, the problem with Birth of a Nation wasn't solely that black people who watched it were offended and hurt. The problem was that many white people watched it and were not offended, and in fact it drove membership in the Klu Klux Klan. KKK recruiters would show the film before signing people up.

    I believe the artist can and should do what he wants to. However, critics of him should also be free to judge him on this basis.

    Art has a social influence. While ideally for some people, art might just be pure aesthetics -- in reality people's worldviews are often based on art. Most people's view of many topics distant from them -- like war or fascism -- comes more from movies and novels than textbooks.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAndy
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007 edited
     # 36
    JBR: Not sure what you're trying to say there?

    I'm pretty sure Chris is referring to the phenomena of:

    White dudes wanting to play awesome black Haitian voodoo badasses...

    ...But without having to muddy things up by learning anything about voodoo, Haiti, or black people. Not even so much a wikipedia search.

    Just take a white guy, paint him black, give him a stick with some chicken bones on it, a gun, and speak with a Jamaican accent.

    I see that sometimes in tabletop roleplay. I see it a lot in console games, and just about all the fucking time in manga*. I'm not even a POC and it makes me really uncomfortable sometimes.

    Then again, the same person who knows his stuff about voodoo (dunno, read a book or two, perhaps mythology is his hobby), made an attempt to learn about Haiti (perhaps in the effort to make the characterization more 'realistic', and stumbling across and learning from their pretty fucked up history), and playing the same character minus the accent, plus some more cultural respect, can be awesome.

    -Andy

    * I think "Reggie" (the baseball manga) is the only Japanese manga I've ever been able to read, that featured a black person that didn't make me wince or just stop reading. EDIT: Forgot to mention the one that appeared recently in Afternoon, which was all about a black Southern blues guitarist in the early 1900s who makes a deal with the devil. That was well researched, respectful, and totally badass to boot.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJosh Roby
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007 edited
     # 37
    Andy, I like your reading, and that's my method of operation. Chris, if that's what you're saying, then I'm on board. I like reputable sources. The descendents of the 'primary sources,' though, are not necessarily reputable sources themselves, and are rather likely to have their own biases, to boot. Which Brand already said on one of these threads somewhere.
    • CommentAuthorJ. Walton
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
     # 38
    Joshua:

    Chris is a participant in Chinese culture, creating and altering it with the things he chooses to do and not do. This is true even as an American living in the US.

    I am not a participant in Chinese culture. Even if I'm living in China and trying to take part in Chinese practices, I'm not really a participant, but an outsider or a guest.

    Not all cultures have as strict rules about boundaries and who is and isn't a participant as many Chinese communities do. And if I married a Chinese women and had a Chinese kid who I raised in China to speak Chinese, I might be allowed to be more of a participant.

    But this is what Bill was getting at when he talked about "cultural stakeholders." I have no stake in Chinese culture. If major shifts go on in Chinese culture, it doesn't necessarily affect me and the expectations others have for me.

    Andy:

    Most of that sounds pretty good, except that I worry about the perception that women and minorities are responsible for coming forward helping folks "fix their games." People posting their work for criticism is all well and good, but expecting others to come help you make something less offensive seems... weird. Especially if the author has not done much background work to ensure that they're at least on the right track, there may be issues with fundamental aspects of the game and its portrayal of others. I mean, if someone came forward and wanted to make a version of, say, Ninja Burger that was more aware of these kinds of issues, where would you start? The whole premise of the game is based on a stereotype. So criticism at the level of basic premise is not totally uncalled for, no?
    • CommentAuthorJ. Walton
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
     # 39
    Joshua, it's not just that insiders have valuable insights that outsiders don't have, it's that they are the ones who will be directly affected by whatever you publish. Which is a good reason to run it by them, descendents schmendents.
    • CommentAuthorTim Gray
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
     # 40
    Posted By: Andy1) I'm hoping that, well at least here anyway, we can foster a culture where someone can aim for writing or creating works about another culture. ("I want to write an Africa RPG! Fierce animals, multilingual PCs, fictive kinship and spellcasting griots!")
    2) That author can be challenged by the community ("You want to write an "Africa" RPG? Whatexactlydo you mean by that? Also, did you do any research?").

    Or the process could be just as long as these two steps, and the project is never seen here again. Depends on how it's approached.


    And yet, I'm asking for people to muster enough trust deep down to ask those questions and challenge the author in Step #2 (askharshquestions, challenge themseverely)

    I see. Sounds a bit macho to me. How about insightful and illuminating questions and challenging people politely, you got any of that?


    Tim mentioned chariot races and arrows, "kill them and take away their wickedness". I blew past that because I felt it was just a statement of geeky enthusiasm, and not as a glimpse of the final product (I was withholding my judgment until I saw more about it), but I can totally see, and agree with, how that could set someone off (how are we to know if that's the author's final goal, or just a statement of geeky enthusiasm*).

    You're saying that sounds bad to you? Perhaps you'd post to the other thread and elaborate why.

    I suspect I know the underlying, general answer, which would be a bit of a misjudgement on my part.
    • CommentAuthortalysman
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
     # 41

    Chris:

    No one seems to have a problem about thinking about group dynamics when it comes to things like education ("What do students need to learn?"), marketing ("How does our customer base act?"), military ("The enemy uses hit and run tactics"), or even roleplaying games ("Dogs in the Vineyard makes intense games"). The problem is when you a) assume that is the end-all definer for each and every individual and b) apply generalizations outside of their context.

    I have a problem with the first two, and can't really speak one way or the other on the last two. But looking at it closely, I think you can see a difference between the way teachers treat students as a group, for example, and the way we're discussing cultures as groups. Students form a temporary group, by virtue of what they do; they are not always "students", but are sometimes filling other roles. And, even when they are a group, they are still individuals. Teachers have to take into account that, when teaching a given subject, some of their students may already know that subject, others may pick it up quickly or read ahead, and others may need more time. Teachers have to balance the needs of the individuals, to ensure that the advanced students are challenged and not bored, but that the other students have the proper attention needed to learn. And the same principle applies to the other areas as well. And also to cultures, which aren't monolithic stereotypes, but amalgamations of individuals with varied experiences, in different contexts. There are people of mixed heritage, people who are mistaken for other ethnic groups, people living in enclaves with slightly different views (positive or negative) towards their culture than the mainstream's views, people who reject some or all of their culture, or incorporate elements of another culture into their own... each person is an individual with unique experiences, which change as they move form place to place or interact in different ways.

    Talking about culture, race, or other such groups makes sense when you are only talking about overall trends. Like, when discussing government, corporations, or other institutions. But when you argue from the general to the specific, I have a problem with that. It leads to mistakes like Joshua's statement: "Any piece of artistic work that portrays people in non-privileged groups in a way that emphasizes stereotypes or oppressive views, and isn't counteracted by a similarly "legitimate" piece that debunks those stereotypes, will actually have a real effect of increasing the belief in those stereotypes -- because that's a factual quality of the way media sources shape culture and perception." That's obviously false, because:

    • it treats all artistic acts as having equal relevance, when in reality some works of art are ignored, criticized, or openly reviled;
    • it treats the content of artistic acts as disconnected from their message;
    • it ignores the on-going artistic dialog, in which artists have been debunking those stereotypes, all along;
    • it treats the audience as a unified mass, controlled by mass media, as opposed to an amalgamation of individuals with different reactions;
    • it treats those affected by stereotypes as a unified mass, facing identical effects and reacting in identical ways.

    I've said already that, if people are offended by something, they should say "I am offended by that, and here's why". My hardcore rejection of groups and devotion to individuals means that I am entirely in favor of individual people explain how they were offended by individual acts. But I am offended by people pretending to speak for a group about hypothetical acts based on hypothetical offenses. Andy has a point: rather than attacking someone for something they haven't even done yet (and, worse, pretending it's not you doing the attacking, but some impersonal moral force,) people should respond to actual actions. If you have concerns about an unfinished project, at least phrase your concerns in terms of your past experiences ("I was offended when I saw X, and don't want to see that repeated.")

    (Because of the cross-posting, I'll just add that I agree with John Kim. Especially the part about people criticizing a work of art. It's that very process that explains why Birth of a Nation isn't respected today, and in fact why Griffith felt a need to respond to critics of the movie with another movie, Intolerance, which I understand wasn't a very good response to the critics.)

    •  
      CommentAuthorAndy
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007 edited
     # 42
    Posted By: Tim Gray
    I see. Sounds a bit macho to me. How about insightful and illuminating questions and challenging people politely, you got any of that?


    Ah, I edited the original and forgot to reinforce what I meant.

    What I was getting at is this:

    A) Please ask insightful and illuminating questions, and challenge them politely.
    B) If You Must (because you are really angry, upset, etc) then if nothing else, at least just do A with more passion. Increase the pressure: Ask them challenging questions. Strongly worded critique.
    C) But in the end, please do not just piss on another person's work or give it a smug dismissal and walk away, or pass judgments on someone's character, until you or someone else has at least done A or B first.

    -Andy
    •  
      CommentAuthorJosh Roby
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
     # 43
    Heya, Jonathan.

    I submit to you that Chris is a participant in modern, Chinese-American or global Chinese culture, which is a pretty different animal than, I dunno, Han Dynasty Chinese culture. I am sure Chris is an authority on the cultures he participates in. Outside of a time machine, I don't think he's a participant in historical Chinese cultures.

    (Cause, tangent and all, saying 'China' and thinking that it's one monolithic culture is kind of, well, stupid.)

    If I was going to write a game about Chinese-Americans, I'd totally shoot Chris an email. If I was going to do some game involving Canada, I'd totally talk to Mo. They're certainly participants in those cultures, and I would no doubt find their perspectives helpful.

    However, there's a difference between a participant and an authority. It's quite possible to be a participant in something and not be an authority. If Mo was all jingoistic about Canada being the bestest place in the whole wide world and morally superior to any other nation, her perceptions of the culture that she participates in on a daily basis may not be the only perspective I need in order to get a good, well-rounded picture of Canada. For that I might go to somebody with a different perspective -- somebody who's an almost-participant-sort-of-guest (like, say, Brand), or somebody who hasn't lived in Canada but has studied them -- whoever mans the Canada desk at the CIA, to use an excessive example.

    And lastly, yeah, the current participants are most likely to be affected by whatever I publish, and I might approach them if I thought my product was going to be big enough to actually affect them. But if I did talk with them, I would be approaching them in a very different way than if I sought them out as factual authorities. The question would not be, "Is this correct?" The question would be, "Is this potentially dangerous?" Not everything that I could publish that is dangerous is necessarily incorrect; not everything that is incorrect is potentially dangerous.

    And here's the big point: if a participant says I got something wrong, I might still publish it. If an authority says I got something wrong, I might still publish it. If someone who might be affected said I had something potentially dangerous, I might still publish it. None of these folks have veto power over my publishing, and in some cases I might be publishing something specifically because it might cause some change that somebody in the world may disapprove of.

    Now, I should certainly consult most or all of these people before I publish, to the best of my ability as a small-press publisher. I shouldn't publish blindly. But I don't think anyone on this board is suggesting that publishing blindly is a good idea, either.
    • CommentAuthorcharlequin
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007 edited
     # 44
    Posted By: talysman
    • it treats all artistic acts as having equal relevance, when in reality some works of art are ignored, criticized, or openly reviled;
    • it treats the content of artistic acts as disconnected from their message;
    • it ignores the on-going artistic dialog, in which artistshave been debunkingthose stereotypes, all along;
    • it treats the audience as a unified mass, controlled by mass media, as opposed to an amalgamation of individuals with different reactions;
    • it treats those affected by stereotypes as a unified mass, facing identical effects and reacting in identical ways.


    I agree that my sentence doesn't really account for the size of the audience or overall level of respect a given work has, but I strongly disagree with the claim that broad effects aren't relevant because the way they actually manifest is in the reactions of individuals. I don't deny this, or the idea that individuals can critically examine and reject messages provided by media sources.

    However, the effects that are being criticized here manifest in the form of broad trends. As Chris brought up recently (somewhere? I guess not in this thread), the film A Girl Like Me examines the cultural effects of cultural depiction on black American women. Media isn't the sole source of the stereotypes and cultural forces that create those problems, but it's definitely central to their propagation -- because individual people see and read and hear stories that are supposed to only be about individuals, but (subconsciously or not) transform them into generalizations about categories of people. This disjoint relationship between individuals (who aren't controlled by media) and broad trends (which can often be related directly to media, communications, and specific cultural events) is how advertising and propaganda and oppression all function -- any given person might choose from a wide variety of possible responses, but (when successful) they create a social trend in a certain direction.

    I also think it's inaccurate to say that artistic criticism drove the disapproval of things like Birth of a Nation. That film is seen disapprovingly because societal attitudes towards race have changed, not because it was seen at the time as being "bad." It, and many other works of art that supported viewpoints that seem ghastly today, was widely supported and did a great deal to strengthen the ideals it represented at the time it was made.
    • CommentAuthorJ. Walton
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
     # 45
    Joshua, I agree with most of what you wrote, though I'm kinda annoyed that you seem to be waving the "no censorship" flag. I don't think anyone's talking about veto power or anything like this, just taking responsibility for your creative works.

    I also worry about assuming that you can determine what is and isn't potentially dangerous about your work without asking anyone. Clearly, people from different backgrounds are going to experience the same work differently and authors especially are often blind to issues or flaws within their own creations.

    Additionally, I honestly don't see how you can separate out "saying something about Chinese people during the Han Dynasty" from "saying something about 21st century Chinese-Americans." When a 21st century American makes a piece of art about Chinese people, their audience will relate it to the Chinese people they see around them every day, even when you're really talking about their ancestors. That's just the reality. And people will assume all of China is one big monolithic thing unless you demonstrate to them otherwise, stupid or not.

    I'm not saying you should assume your audience is a bunch of bigoted morons, but you shouldn't assume that they lack very common misconceptions and stereotypes. Most of us have more than a few of those rattling around upstairs.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJosh Roby
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
     # 46
    Jonathan, I'm not trying to gauge potential danger on my own; I'm saying I'm deciding what potential danger is acceptable. There are simple cases such as what we're talking about here and not presenting populations of people as simple caricatures. There are far more complicated cases such as the World of Animals reader that I'm editing right now, which has me doing a tightrope walk on how much evolution I can get away with including -- because part of my intent here is very much to publish something dangerous to the Intelligent Design circles of the Rabid Right culture. And I'm saying: the simple case and the complicated case are two examples of the same kind of decision. Much like how Vincent showed Dogs to his family, knowing and intending the game to be a criticism of religion in general and LDS in specific. If you're publishing something and it's not 'dangerous' to somebody, one wonders why you're going to the trouble of publishing it.

    As to the second point, you're conflating two very different things:
    1) Consulting Chinese-Americans on the effects of a publication about Han Dynasty Chinese: yes, totally right there with you, on board.
    2) Consulting Chinese-Americans on the accuracy of a publication about Han Dynasty Chinese: not a necessary step, assuming there's some check on the accuracy by some sort of authority on Han Dynasty Chinese, who may or may not be of Chinese heritage himself.
    •  
      CommentAuthornoclue
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007 edited
     # 47
    Edited away as an annoying comment that probably amused only me.
    • CommentAuthorJ. Walton
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
     # 48
    I don't think I'm conflating those things, Josh. Or at least, I haven't been meaning to. I suspect we agree on everything you just posted (well, besides finding Dogs to be a reaffirmation of the value of religion, more often than not, but to each their own).
    •  
      CommentAuthorJosh Roby
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
     # 49
    Come play Dogs with me, sometime. ;)

    But more to the point: even if it gets to the point where it becomes a reaffirmation of religion, or faith, or whatever, Dogs usually gets there through territory that is highly problematic. Criticism need not be damning; there is such a thing as constructive criticism, too. Criticism just upsets preconceptions and makes the audience ask questions -- even if the status quo is reaffirmed, it is reaffirmed on a different basis, sans preconceptions, than it stood on before.
    •  
      CommentAuthornoclue
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
     # 50
    I've played Dog's with you, Josh.

    On that note, I have to say that much as I like the game (and I really really do), I have been surprised by the lack of controversy it seems to kick up. Paramilitary teenage horsemen with guns and the power to use em, riding through the Utah desert stomping out sinners. Its a little bit "The Sound of Music" isn't it?
    •  
      CommentAuthorJosh Roby
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
     # 51
    There was controversy. I'm sure some good google-fu or RPGnet searches can turn it up pretty easily. In the end, though, Dogs has proved itself to be a valid criticism of the topics that it addresses. Much like people don't bitch about The Awakening anymore, either.
    • CommentAuthorbankuei
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
     # 52
    John,

    I'm not sure where you're disagreeing with me in terms of thinking about groups except in that you don't believe a group can feel oppressed, but I really feel it's a false distinction between 90% of this group feels this way vs. the right to say, "This group feels this way". We look at things historically and can call out trends ("1800's England was a sexist place") without magicallly losing the ability to recognize that there exists exceptions to that trend. The fact that all these individuals may have played a part is not a useful way to look at, analyze, nor deal with it as a whole, especially when we're talking about social behaviors.
    • CommentAuthorKynn
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
     # 53
    Dogs, though, was written from the standpoint of someone who is an insider, culturally, or at least who was able to communicate the insider's point of view (by virtue of having lived it).

    I've gone through this kind of thing myself, with regards to Bone White, Blood Red, which is an outsider's view of the world of the Pueblo Revolt, which specifically tries to evoke an insider's mindset from the POV of the Pueblo peoples of New Mexico.

    Does it succeed in this? I'm not sure yet, especially as the game itself is still going through some evolution and editing. I've identified a few people to speak to who are Pueblo peoples, but haven't contacted them yet. (There are tribal politics to be considered, something that I've become aware of through a few years of studying the subject.)

    I did get in a very public and loud argument with a friend who said that the very act of making a roleplaying game about another culture was a racist deed of cultural imperialism; he seemed to be a living embodiment of the strawmen that some (such as Joshua) are providing, which sadly means that they're not all straw. It seems to be a minority view, however, even among people of color -- most of whom would agree with what Shreyas wrote:

    When you write about something else, then to earn that trust, you have to assertively demonstrate that you are aware of the danger inherent in your expression, and you've taken appropriate and complete measures to protect your subject.


    You do need to take measures to protect your subject. As Andy suggests above, you should expect to be challenged, and to provide an accounting for what you've done to make sure that you're not being unfair or ignorant, and unintentionally contributing to a pattern of cultural harm.

    That's different than "only make games about your own culture, white boy."
    • CommentAuthorbankuei
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
     # 54
    Joshua,

    Yeah, I'm not arguing for magic DNA based cultural authority, I'm saying go talk to the people who are involved in that group/culture.

    I'm thinking of examples like:
    - A yoga retreat in India, where Indians cannot participate (not only by cost, but by rule) It's "authentic" but "safe" (from the scary authentic people)
    - Yoshi's, a famous jazz club here in Oakland, where they released a "best of" CD and did not include a single black jazz artist
    - "Hiphop parties" at college campuses where everyone decides to "dress hiphop" and never invite anyone who actually does participate in the hiphop scene or community

    My particular frustration with roleplaying games in particular is that the same publishers who I'll see research arcanities such as 13th century French economics will then turn around and make "Voodoo Vampires!", etc. I have to ask, why was it so important to research one thing and so hard to get in contact with a living community in another?

    It's completely fair to say I'm not an authority on Chinese culture (because I'm not), but I can say I'm getting to be an authority on American stereotypes. Is it wrong for me to apply that knowledge in criticism there?
    •  
      CommentAuthorJosh Roby
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
     # 55
    Didn't say don't criticize, just pointing out that offense does not equate to badness. As with anything else in art, doing something for a reason is almost always preferable to doing something inadvertently.

    Curious: what do you take issue with regarding the hiphop-themed party where no hiphop participants attend? It gets me wondering. Is that the same as a "China-themed" party with no Chinese in attendance? Or a "Roman-themed" party with no Romans?
  56.  # 56
    Posted By: bankuei- A yoga retreat in India, where Indians cannot participate (not only by cost, but by rule) It's "authentic" but "safe" (from the scary authentic people)
    - Yoshi's, a famous jazz club here in Oakland, where they released a "best of" CD and did not include a single black jazz artist
    - "Hiphop parties" at college campuses where everyone decides to "dress hiphop" and never invite anyone who actually does participate in the hiphop scene or community
    The first two look like simple racism to me. There's no reason for Indians to be excluded from, I dunno, a billiards workshop. The fact that it's yoga seems irrelevant to me. Similarly, to deliberately ignore all white contributions to jazz would be racist, but if you were putting a CD together, it would be hard to say whether it was deliberate. The greater contribution of black artists to jazz just makes the racism obvious. I'm with JBR on the last one. It's just dressing up.

    My 2c is that whatever you produce on any subject is your reaction to it, and should be read as such. Often it says more about you than about the subject. I agree that artists have a responsibility to think about how their work will effect the world. But if I create something about my reaction to Han dynasty China, and people take that as a reflection on modern-day people living in London, it seems to me that the reason is that they are racists who lump all "Chinese" people together in their mind. How much are artists supposed to allow for the potential stupidity of the people who might view their work?

    And I'm very fond of well-researched efforts towards authenticity. But suppose I put out a silly, cartoony game about "Mythic India" that's full of anachronisms and misunderstandings, and obviously wrong. Whereas a right-wing Hindu supremacist puts out a less distorted and (to outside eyes) far more "authentic" game whose purpose is to appropriate "true Indian" identity for Hindus alone. Who is actually doing more harm in the world? The latter, it appears to me.
    • CommentAuthorbankuei
    • CommentTimeJul 4th 2007 edited
     # 57
    Joshua:

    I don't know of any Roman parties based on current, living Rome. No one seems to confuse living Romans for folks who do wild orgies or conquer outlying nations, either.

    But really, let's cut the bullshit- it's usually a party where white people dress up with what they THINK black people dress like and use it to mock them. (also conflating black American culture as media hiphop).

    Picking at examples doesn't negate the basic point, which is being demonstrated in this very thread:

    Removing the context of power (based in whatever hierarchy, race, gender, heteronormative, etc.) is a great way to mask the what is going on and why it's cultural appropriation and not sharing.

    When you remove the context of power, you might as well say that a five year old punching an adult is the same as an adult punching a five year old. Even though both cases involve punching ("cultural sharing"), the intent and results are very different ("defining the public view of a group of people").

    I'm done.

    Anyone who might seriously want to educate themselves, might want to check out some links:

    A relevant thread of Desi folks talking about Cultural Appropriation
    A lightly snarky but accurate Racism FAQ
    How to be a real Nice Guy
    Uprooting Racism, an excellent book on the power analysis

    Edit: Africa in Advertising a great analysis of media affecting POC lives.
    • CommentAuthorTim Gray
    • CommentTimeJul 4th 2007 edited
     # 58
    Jargon point: I just guessed what POC means, where I hadn't before. That should tell you something. Be wary of assuming that any groundrules, baselines and terminology that might be common knowledge in the US will be understood or adopted elsewhere.

    In the UK, for instance... if I recall from when I was working for the local Inter Faith Council, the favoured term was Black and Ethnic Minorities. It's probably changed again in the last three years.
  59.  # 59
    The second link that Chris posted also struck me as full of US-centric assumptions, as well as some good points. I felt like I was learning very little about racism, but a good deal about a particular strand of thought in American society. She says quite clearly elsewhere on her blog that white people are simply less caring, more lazy than black people. I disagree. Most people on this planet are racist. The question is whether you live in a place where your "race" is a minority, or a majority.
  60.  # 60
    BankueiBill,

    Can you see that there's something problematic with the idea of, "I want to participate/celebrate this culture BUT I do not want to interact with the people who created it?" Even if the effects are not the same as physical colonization, the root attitude IS.


    Absolutely I agree. I'm just not sure what its practical implications are, for me personally in terms of my own game design.

    So I have this game, Ganakagok. It's a fantasy, set on an enormous iceberg in a world of eternal night. The characters belong to the Nitu people: they live in ice-brick houses, hunt with harpoons, and practice a kind of shamanistic religion. Pretty obviously, they evoke the Inuit and other Native American peoples of Greenland, Alaska, and Canada, including what is now Nunavut. The trappings of the game include a deck of tarot-like playing cards that include public-domain or licensed imagery (i.e., clip art) from Alaskan, Canadian, and Pacific Northwestern Native American cultures. Let's stipulate that I have legally appropriated images and motifs from Native American culture to create Ganakagok. And, to be clear, I'm not myself Native American.

    Now, I think the game produces phenomenal play that, yes, celebrates Native American culture; people who play find it gripping and powerful, creating "authentic" and tragic folk tales with real resonance. And by no stretch of the imagination are the characters cigar-store Eskimos: they are among the most human RPG characters I have encountered, in terms of being fully fleshed out as fictional characters. If anything, Ganakagok reclaims and reforms the stereotype of the Eskimo in a profound way.

    But I recognize that there's a counter-argument: that what I've created is a pastiche that unethically (if not illegally) appropriates images and motifs from Inuit and other cultures. How do I make that judgment, though? In the act of appropriation or in its effect? Or do I defer to someone else's judgment? And, if so, who? And what if I disagree with them?

    More specifically: at this point, having written Ganakagok, what's my ethical obligation?
    •  
      CommentAuthorJosh Roby
    • CommentTimeJul 4th 2007 edited
     # 61
    Posted By: bankueidefining the public view of a group of people


    Why is what 'white people' think the "public view"? Especially since there are different kinds of 'white people' -- italians being one of many.
    •  
      CommentAuthornoclue
    • CommentTimeJul 4th 2007
     # 62
    Posted By: Bill_White

    Now, I think the game produces phenomenal play that, yes, celebrates Native American culture; people who play find it gripping and powerful, creating "authentic" and tragic folk tales with real resonance. And by no stretch of the imagination are the characters cigar-store Eskimos: they are among the mosthumanRPG characters I have encountered, in terms of being fully fleshed out as fictional characters. If anything,Ganakagokreclaims and reformsthe stereotype of the Eskimo in a profound way.

    But I recognize that there's a counter-argument: that what I've created is a pastiche thatunethically(if not illegally) appropriates images and motifs from Inuit and other cultures. How do I make that judgment, though? In the act of appropriation or in its effect? Or do I defer to someone else's judgment? And, if so, who? And what if I disagree with them?

    More specifically: at this point, having writtenGanakagok, what's my ethical obligation?


    I think your ethical obligation might be to seek understanding of the impact of your art on members of the Inuit and other Native American cultures. Does the content offend? Does it offend a majority? Does it offend an unreasonable majority? etc. You can try editing the work to make sure it is reaching your desired goal visa vis gameplay and social impact, which I assume is "phenomenal play that celebrates Native American culture." Once you have some indication of the effect, you can weigh that effect against your purpose as an artist and your artistic freedom of expression and make a decision, based on your personal ethics, about the statement you want to make and the impact you want to have on others.

    By doing so, you try to release a game that achieves your goal of "phenomenal play" while limiting any offense you cause to the people you were ultimately okay with offending. Those people may, or may not, criticize you and your work on that basis. You respond, and then, of course, everything ends up in a massive flame-war.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBen Lehman
    • CommentTimeJul 4th 2007
     # 63
    Hey, Bill:

    Consider it not in the sense of laws "Am I allowed to do this?"

    Consider it as accepting the consequences of your actions.

    yrs--
    --Ben
    • CommentAuthortalysman
    • CommentTimeJul 5th 2007
     # 64

    Chris:

    Where I'm disagreeing is that analyzing groups is great for analyzing general trends, but one person's work of art is not a general trend. The obligation of individuals is to other individuals. This is important for two reasons: because communication between two individuals should be on a personal level ("I don't like the way you represented my cultural heritage" instead of "outsiders shouldn't depict cultures they are not part of";) and because I see racism, sexism, classism, and the like as arising from thinking of people as groups instead of individuals.

    This is why I said at the very beginning that I disagreed with both sides arguing about this issue. I'm not going to defend bad artists saying foolish or hurtful things about other people, but I see the opposite side as perpetuating the roots of racism, instead of actually undermining it.

    I completely back Ben's last statement. "Consider it as accepting the consequences of your actions." With the proviso that it has to be your actions, not the actions of a group.

    Joshua (charlequin):

    Take my response to Chris as a response to your general points, also. I figure this conversation is pretty much reached its end, and Ben's statement is a good summary of all sides, something we can agree on.

    On the specific issue of Birth of a Nation:

    [...] the racism riled black and liberal viewers. There were riots in New York, Boston, and Chicago; city fathers demanded cuts; and Jane Addams and the president of Harvard, among others, wrote chiding letters. All the brouhaha did, though, was (a) incite Griffith, himself the son of a Kentucky colonel, to counterattack, first with pamphlets and then with Intolerance -- in his opinion proof positive that he, at least, was free from prejudice; (b) suggest to anybody who'd managed to keep his cool just how inflammatory this new medium could be; and (c) fuel the movie's publicity and box-office operations.

    This is from Judy Jones and William Wilson's An Incomplete Education, which I'm mainly citing because it happens to be a handy reference to actual events surrounding the original release of Birth of a Nation. There was, in fact, substantial criticism of the film at that time. There were also people who ignored the criticism and believed the premise of the film. Arguing about whether it was the criticism of the film that eroded its acceptance or the changing attitudes towards racism is pointless, because it ultimately depends on knowledge of the motives of real people over a 92-year period. But we must acknowledge that there was substantial criticism of the film, substantial enough that Griffith went on the defensive. Otherwise, why did he do what he did?

    •  
      CommentAuthorpigeon
    • CommentTimeJul 5th 2007
     # 65
    Posted By: talysman

    Chris:

    Where I'm disagreeing is that analyzing groups is great for analyzing general trends, but one person's work of art is not a general trend. The obligation of individuals is to other individuals.



    Please note that Shreyas's first post was "I am not comfortable with this." That sure got him a long way, hm?

    • CommentAuthortalysman
    • CommentTimeJul 5th 2007
     # 66

    William:

    And please note that my first post to this thread was "I think the whole argument, on both sides, is ridiculous." Which I reiterated in the post you replied to: "This is why I said at the very beginning that I disagreed with both sides arguing about this issue."

    That sure got me a long way, hmm?

    But if you wanted to honestly analyze that previous thread, the immediate response to Shreyas wasn't hostile, but a discussion on what Shreyas meant by "exotify". Things didn't become accusatory or hostile until later -- predictably, at the point where people stopped talking to each other as individuals, and started talking about people as groups.

    It would have been better if everyone had stuck to asking Shreyas why he felt uncomfortable and what things he felt comfortable with, or asking Tim what he proposed to do, why he had to do things that particular way, how he felt about the discomfort Shreyas felt, and what he felt comfortable in changing.

    •  
      CommentAuthorBen Lehman
    • CommentTimeJul 5th 2007
     # 67
    Take this for general "me" and "you"

    My discomfort is not an attack on you.

    yrs--
    --Ben
    •  
      CommentAuthorpigeon
    • CommentTimeJul 5th 2007
     # 68
    Posted By: talysman

    William:

    And please note that my first post to this thread was "I think the whole argument, on both sides, is ridiculous."



    Shreyas: "I feel uncomfortable with this."
    John: "I think that's ridiculous."


    ...

    Okay, noted.

    Posted By: talysmanBut if you wanted to honestly analyze that previous thread, the immediate response to Shreyas wasn't hostile, but a discussion on what Shreyas meant by "exotify".


    Sure, let's "honestly" analyze the thread.
    Shreyas: "This makes me uncomfortable."
    Sydney: "I don't understand why."
    Tim: "I'm pretty sure he just didn't understand what we're talking about."

  69.  # 69
    William,

    Having re-read the thread (again), that seems a less than charitable reading.

    I get that you're unhappy about the way these discussions have gone, but I'm not convinced that snark is the answer.
    •  
      CommentAuthorpigeon
    • CommentTimeJul 5th 2007
     # 70
    You're going to have to hold my hand through this, Dave, because I barely even changed the words. The very next thing that happens, after Brand makes a good post, is that Tim pretty violently redirects the conversation AWAY from Shreyas's opinion.

    Look, I'm not saying that Shreyas is the nicest or most diplomatic person either, because that would be a huge and obvious lie, and frankly, if I were him, I'd've made a more conciliatory opening post. But I think the apparent claim that people were receptive towards his expressed concern is patently absurd.
    •  
      CommentAuthormisuba
    • CommentTimeJul 5th 2007
     # 71
    Many of us who are receptive to Shreyas' concerns have spent more time sadly shaking our heads reading this thread than we have posting in it. In retrospect, this may have been a mistake.
    • CommentAuthortalysman
    • CommentTimeJul 5th 2007
     # 72

    It's not only an uncharitable and inaccurate reading of what I said, it's an uncharitable and inaccurate reading of what Tim said. Tim wasn't referring to what Shreyas said, he was responding to what William said.

    And, noticing this, I can see what William is up to. Sorry, I don't want to play that game.

    To end my participation on a positive note, I will add that I agree with Ben's second comment on this thread. "My discomfort is not an attack on you." That's wise. If you can't accept my viewpoint on the danger of thinking of people as groups, at least accept Ben's statement, because it's a good principle.

    • CommentAuthorTim Gray
    • CommentTimeJul 5th 2007 edited
     # 73
    Posted By: pigeonSure, let's "honestly" analyze the thread.
    Shreyas: "This makes me uncomfortable."
    Sydney: "I don't understand why."
    Tim: "I'm pretty sure he just didn't understand what we're talking about."

    What I *said* was that I thought he didn't understand the idea-chain. As nobody asked for further explanation I didn't give any, but I meant the sequence of inspiration from actual Indian mythology to big Indian TV series about Indian mythology to stuff in my head. In other words, that I was working off an extensive Indian interpretation of Indian culture. Mind you, I've said that several times now and people have been too busy waving flags to hear it.

    Characterising the prior discussion as putting legitimate concerns forward in a clear and reasonable way is a bit misleading. Raking it up is also threadcrapping in this thread, and mea culpa so over and out.
    • CommentAuthorEric
    • CommentTimeJul 5th 2007 edited
     # 74
    You know what being white means to me right now? It means getting to casually dismiss this whole thread as unimportant to me - both in its particulars and in general - or to hop in with pointless comments, and seriously not care thirty seconds later. Hell, I could even write lengthy posts debating whether or not I have the right to do whatever I felt like doing anyway, and do it just for kicks rather than emotional investment. It's pretty awesome.

    That's not sarcasm, by the way - it seriously is awesome to get to choose whether or not I care about any of these topics on the basis of whim.

    So, yeah, whatever, write a crazy nonsensical version of whatever culture you want, or not. Odds are you've already won at pretty much everything by virtue of your nationality if you're reading this post, and, depending on your particular heritage, you might have already won super-hardcore before even being born - which means that nobody's in a position to stop you. Your government probably has a substantial body of law to prevent people from even trying. Do what makes you happy. That may or may not include trying to improve humanity's condition, making someone else's situation better, or whatever else you can think of. Whatever. That things are set up in such a fashion may not be fair, or sensible, or even sane, but that's the reality, so go nuts.
  75.  # 75
    Posted By: pigeonYou're going to have to hold my hand through this, Dave, because I barely even changed the words. The very next thing that happens, after Brand makes a good post, is that Tim pretty violently redirects the conversation AWAY from Shreyas's opinion
    I agree with Tim's point that discussing the old thread is not on topic in this one, so I'll be brief here. Sydney said that he could see the point you were making in principle, but not how it should apply in this particular case. (You didn't respond to him.) Tim said he *suspected* (not "was pretty sure") there had been a misunderstanding, and was quite ambiguous about who had misunderstood what. He's clarified a bit now, but you seemed happy to assume the worst.

    It's not an easy thread to read. I'm receptive to Shreyas' (and others') concerns about a Disney-fied (or whatever) setting, but I'm very uncomfortable with some of the opinions expressed in support of it, both bluntly (in Shreyas' case) and in a more nuanced, lengthy way (in Jonathan's case). If you want to talk about that further, whisper me. I don't think it belongs here.

    To get back to the more general question, I agree with Ben's comments about accepting responsibility for your work, including the consequences, whether intended or not. But I think it's a mistake to only value portrayals of culture (whether in the large, as nations/religions, or the smaller, such as doctors or roleplayers) that come from "insiders". IMO, insiders and outsiders have different things to offer: both are potentially valuable. To exclude either at the expense of the other is actually to weaken the culture itself. It's not good when popular perception of a culture is dominated by inaccurate portrayals by outsiders. But in the long term, none of us can do without the mirror held up in front of us, either at a personal or a cultural level, even if we are fed up with being caricatured. To take the example of RPG culture, since we're all familiar with it, I think we all know that a lot of what is written about roleplayers is nonsense. And there are certainly some aspects of roleplaying that can only be understood by people who have actually done some. On the other hand, I can well imagine that if a trained anthropologist were to spend some time studying roleplayers, they would come up with some interesting stuff that no roleplayer is currently aware of. And since "trained" is a relative term, and anthropologists have no exclusive claim on truth, I conclude that I do indeed value the opinions of outsiders about "my" culture, even if I have yet to see any actual opinions that increase my understanding.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBen Lehman
    • CommentTimeJul 6th 2007
     # 76
    Posted By: talysman

    It's not only an uncharitable and inaccurate reading of what I said, it's an uncharitable and inaccurate reading of what Tim said. Tim wasn't referring to what Shreyas said, he was responding to whatWilliamsaid.

    And, noticing this, I can see what William is up to. Sorry, I don't want to play that game.

    To end my participation on a positive note, I will add that I agree with Ben'ssecondcomment on this thread. "My discomfort is not an attack on you." That's wise. If you can't accept my viewpoint on the danger of thinking of people as groups, at least accept Ben's statement, because it's a good principle.



    My statement is more directed at you than Liam.

    Liam gets this. Liam is feeling attacked because he's being told that he's a liar. It seems that you and Tim are feeling attacked because what you wrote might have made someone uncomfortable.

    See the difference?

    yrs--
    --Ben
    • CommentAuthorTim Gray
    • CommentTimeJul 6th 2007
     # 77
    Posted By: Ben LehmanLiam gets this. Liam is feeling attacked becausehe's being told that he's a liar.It seems that you and Tim are feeling attacked becausewhat you wrote might have made someone uncomfortable.


    Ah, non. I have no idea who Liam is, nor William who someone thought I was responding to, but I'm feeling attacked because I started talking about an idea and people jumped up and effectively said, "I don't know anything about your background, I don't know what you're actually planning to do, but it's bad and wrong, you're a bad person for even considering it, and we will now proceed to criticise you roundly in long and obtuse ways that are hard to get a handle on if you're not used to this forum's language game." So pretty much because I was in fact being attacked, really.
  78.  # 78
    I think John (Kim) already said everything that I would say, except for one interesting tidbit.

    John (Laviolette), are you aware that your view on individuals versus groups is exactly an expression of our cultural upbringing? Ontological individualism, or Atomism, is the very core of Western liberalism (going all the way back to authoritarian but also proto-liberal Thomas Hobbes). It's not a coincidence that you feel this way. Charles Taylor's essay, appropriately titled "Atomism," is very enlightening on this subject. By rejecting to view groups and instead seeing humans only as independent individuals, you are actually making value statements based on your cultural background. Fascinating, huh? :)
  79.  # 79
    I just wanted to say that I agree absolutely and completely with this particular thing that Shreyas said:

    Posted By: ShreyasWhen you write about a subject, you endanger it. It's your responsibility to recognise and respond to this endangerment.

    When you write about yourself as a subject, or about a group of which you are a member, I trust you to write about it with care and grace and knowledge, knowing that your sense of self-responsibility motivates you to take appropriate precautions about what you're saying.

    When you write about something else, then to earn that trust, you have to assertively demonstrate that you are aware of the danger inherent in your expression, and you've taken appropriate and complete measures to protect your subject.
    •  
      CommentAuthorjhkim
    • CommentTimeJul 6th 2007
     # 80
    Regarding Birth of a Nation:

    Posted By: talysman

    There was, in fact, substantial criticism of the filmat that time. There were also people who ignored the criticism and believed the premise of the film. Arguing about whether it was the criticism of the film that eroded its acceptance or the changing attitudes towards racism is pointless, because it ultimately depends on knowledge of the motives of real people over a 92-year period. But we must acknowledge that there was substantial criticism of the film, substantial enough that Griffith went on the defensive. Otherwise, why did he do what he did?


    I don't think that anyone claimed that there wasn't some protest and criticism of the movie at the time. However, there were also many people who lauded it -- both for its art and its message. My point in bringing the film up was that the problem of racial stereotypes in fiction is that it reinforces a racially-biased culture -- not just offending. The problem with Birth of a Nation wasn't that the blacks who saw it had their feelings hurt.

    I say this because it seems that some people treat offending minorities as the primary problem. i.e. Hypothetically, someone produces a game about East Asia and thinks "Well, I should try not to offend sensitive Asian players." I think if Asian players are offended, it can be a useful test of the work -- but that doesn't mean it is the primary problem of having stereotypes.

1 to 80 of 81

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >