Google alerts are an interesting thing. You get to read all kinds of things being written about you on the internet, and are never sure whether the authors are passively-aggressively intending you to find out or not.
And so it was this weekend, when somebody wrote a blog post decrying Yoon-Suin for *checks notes* being 'problematic and annoying' while also 'bland' and 'unimaginative'. This appears to stem from (as you may have guessed) something something postcolonial something something orientalist something something cultural appropriation something something. Apparently, I should be 'less defensive' and more 'inviting of discussion', which I think means that I ought to pay more attention to the views of dilettantes sorry, 'postcolonial scholars' on the internet.
This last point is where the mask slips, of course: what these people (I've encountered a number of them down the years) typically really want is to arrogate for themselves the freestanding and perpetual authority to declare what other people should or should not like, and to set themselves up in a position (preferably a nice university-level, highly paid sinecure, but failing that, a blog) from which to hand down their wisdom to the hoi polloi. You can easily tell this is the case, because 'postcolonial scholars' of this ilk never want to do the intellectual heavy lifting to reason through a coherent theory of what is, or is not, appropriate when it comes to the subject of cultural appropriation. Instead, what they want to do is to issue wishywashy announcements on a case-by-case basis - this is good, but that is bad - and thus, in the manner of a third-rate medieval hedgewitch, maintain themselves in perpetuity as a kind of arbiter of morality for the peasantry.
If only the rest of us would listen to them, which I strongly recommend you don't.
This is, however, a good opportunity to share some thoughts on Realistic Empire Building for Your D&D Setting, because empire is a concept about which everybody has a vague idea but which people rarely think about in any philosophical way.
An exception to this was Alexandre Kojeve, who reminds us that the fundamental quality of an empire is that it lacks a physical a priori in contradistinction to any other form of polity. A city-state is bounded by the city itself and its citizens; a nation state is bounded by geography and/or ethnicity; but an empire is unbounded - its a priori are conceptual. Ostensibly any location, and any ethnic group, and indeed any individual, can be made its subject; what matters to an empire (to paraphrase) is that it is imbued with an Idea. This could be religious (see: the Umayyads or the Russian Tsars); it could be political (see: Napoleon or Athens); it could be economic (see: Japan's 'co-prosperity sphere'); it could be racial (see: Nazi Germany); it is very often a mixture of some or all of these imperatives (see: Rome, France, Portugal). The point is that an empire is generally a manifestation of a philosophical concept of History in which there is an arc bending towards a final end. Kojeve directs our attention to the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten, who imagined an empire uniting all of the peoples under his rule in common worship of the sun-god Aten, but that basic pattern also informed the 'civilising mission' of the European empires and, in a sense, the conquest of the American West. This is the path down which empire-building generally travels - it is not about conquest or plunder for its own sake, but the realisation of some overarching vision.
What this means is that empires are very often the product of discourses which themselves construct a vision of the empire itself as good and necessary and the subjects of empire as deficient and in need of its intervention. Hence, the Spanish Empire imagined itself to be doing God's work, rescuing the peoples of the New World from their pagan debauchery and cruelty, and the corollary of that was that it was also necessary to imagine those peoples as sunk in 'savagery' and barbarism. This is basically what Edward Said was hitting upon with his influential concept of orientalism: it is just a worked example of the wider phenomenon, wherein the British and French imagined themselves to be imposing civilisation, virtue and order onto the chaotic, irrational, lazy and over-emotional 'Near East'. Even the hideous Nazi empire can be understood in this way, as a vision wherein the supreme race cleansed Europe of the 'unclean' on behalf of its weaker cousins.
What Said also noticed was that it is often through art and literature that these discourses find expression. It is not reason that motivates human beings to leave their families; cross oceans; risk death from war, disease or famine, but emotion, and the language of emotion is the arts. This is why 'orientalism' was an artistic and literary genre, and it is also why Akhenaten spent so much of his wealth on the creation of bas-reliefs and statues depicting his subject peoples kneeling before Aten. It is also why, in The Bridge on the Drina, Andric focuses on the symbolism of architecture in the empire-building efforts of the Ottomans. Human beings do not understand the world through perceiving it directly, in other words; they understand it through metaphor, and through symbols. And power governs through this language.
What is the lesson here, though, for DMs who want to think a bit more deeply about the RPG settings they are creating? Clearly, it means that it is important to get away from the idea that empires are simply big versions of other types of polity that happen to spend their time expanding through force. There is more to it than that, and once one begins to think of empires as being based on conceptual rather than physical a priori, a very different vista opens up. What kind of ideas would animate an empire of orcs, an empire of elves, an empire of dwarves, an empire of dragons - or, for that matter, an empire of humans subjecting non-human peoples? What purposes would they imagine, and what destination would they consider the arc of History to be bending towards? Moreover, how would they give effect to all of this through their art, music, architecture and so on? Considering these questions leads to much richer depictions of fantasy worlds, and the people who inhabit them.
Lovely post. I wasn't expecting 'gameable' from this response but in a minor numinous moment, that's what we have here.
ReplyDeleteI came across the Yoon Suin piece in question a few days ago. It genuinely tanked my mood (I sometimes feel as of any given random feed, is attacking the things I hold dear... that it's become personal...a slowly developing digital antagonist). Thoroughly depressing. Still, at least it repelled me from the internet for a few days.
Glad to read this.
Yeah, I know what you mean. A good reason for just avoiding the internet in general and retreating into the monastery of the mind!
DeleteThis is really thought provoking. This will help me with something I'm working on right now and hopefully inform my creation.
ReplyDeleteGlad you liked it!
DeleteInteresting post but you really need to link the original other blog post that kicked it off, for the popcorn eaters among us.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI understand your feelings but I suspect that getting hits was a big part of the reason the entire post was written, and I don't really want to play that game.
DeleteNo worries, I found it. They appear to have no sense of humour and also misspelled Aladdin in their Orientalism rant. Oof. I'm also baffled as to what games people are supposed to play and write depending on their "heritage". I identify as white as a label, so does that mean I can only play/write quasi-medieval white European settings?
DeleteProblem is, if we dig deeper, I may be 'white' but I have spent 31 years as a child, adolescent and adult living in East Asia, South-East Asia and the Middle East, and have recently discovered I am actually 1/8 indigenous Australian after our family found our late grandmother was adopted from the Stolen Generation after she passed away. What am I allowed to write, play or enjoy as an RPG?
The correct answer should be, whatever you want as long as you and your fellow players are having fun, but it appears we need to be constantly second-guessing ourselves all the time, to make sure we're doing things properly, which is not why I joined the hobby. I joined it initially to escape issues at school, and kept going because it was and still is fun. There are many far far worse and bigger problems happening right now than a bunch of elf games.
Yes, the coherence thing is a big problem and what I was getting at when I said nobody ever wants to come up with a coherent theory of what is and is not appropriate to appropriate, as it were. Our identities are complicated and fluid, so what exactly is and is not 'our' culture? I'm 'British' but both my parents were of Irish descent, one being Scots-Irish, though he had a Welsh traveller for a mother, and I grew up in the North West of England but now live in the North East, but also spent a long time in Japan and have half-Japanese children. So what is 'my culture' exactly? The moment you think about these issues for a moment you realise that policing this stuff is a fool's errand even if it was justified in the first place (which it isn't).
DeleteThe answer to these questions is always something that boil down to 'whatever is most politically useful to the person trying to police you'. People will scream about white 'appropriating' foreign cuisine but if you tell them black people need to stop eating bread, suddenly its 'different'. Both are completely farcical statements, especially since sharing a love for food is one of the most universal and beloved way of sharing culture.
DeleteThe truth is they just want power over people and silence then. Nothing else. All they desire is constant misery and fear from you and everyone else, as fearful people who have the ideology live rent free in their head mean they gain power over you.
The author's main gripe appears to be that Yoon Suin is boring because it's about investigating mysteries, fighting monsters, and faction diplomacy.
ReplyDeleteIn writing your RPG you somehow forgot to "reinvent" and "deconstruct" the entire medium. How could you be so shortsighted?? What a damn shame
I know - how dare I make something that people will just enjoy using?
DeleteThat's so clever I'm having a hard time saying how clever I find it. Will definitely be using this in the future!
ReplyDeleteHaha, well, thanks.
DeleteI think another part of what makes an Empire is the distinction between the Imperial Core and the Periphery. Without that distinction it become more of just a very big polity.
ReplyDeleteneed the response to the Orientalism conversation be so dismissive, and so empty? any artist is bound to defend their work, and I wouldn't wish to take that away, but this is happening for a reason: Yoon-Suin sits at an interesting nexus of eras and individuals in RPG culture. it takes on the burden of being synechdoche. attitudes, and not just of the hall-monitors you imagine but also those of your own audience, have changed so sharply that the meaning of the work also shifts in response. you do yourself a disservice when you try to place yourself above all that
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the comment and you may be right about Yoon-Suin in that respect, but I think placing oneself above things that one thinks to be fundamentally negative is important.
DeleteThe point about the orientalism thing is that it is intellectually lazy and barren, and is all-too frequently just deployed as part of a status-seeking game in which certain loud voices set themselves up as spokespeople for Truth and Justice, who everybody else is supposed to listen to, and thus get to bask in the glory of occupying the moral high ground at no real personal cost. This seems patently obvious to me and I don't know why other people fail to see it.
It also feels to me to be a tool of narcissism and navel-gazing, by which the only legitimate sphere of anybody's attention is gradually narrowed down to themselves. If 'cultural appropriation' is a sin then taken to its logical conclusion nobody can really show an interest in anything other than their own tiny field of personal experience, and this is totally destructive of art and literature and also diametrically opposed to the curiosity and wonder that are the natural emotions any human being should display towards the amazingly rich world in which they find themselves.
In summary, the whole internet cultural appropriation/orientalism concern-trolling thing should be rejected wholeheartedly for the small-minded nonsense that it is.
The wider point about Yoon-Suin sitting at an interesting nexus of eras and individuals, as you put it, is correct - and I agree that does give the original book a kind of second meaning, as it were. That is food for thought. But I think the idea that the book is somehow 'orientalist' is the absolute least interesting comment one could make about that.
there are some who are content to use the term 'orientalism' as a sticker to be slapped onto products with bad vibes. there are also many who engage with it on a deeper level, and some who get part of the way there. I often remind myself that this is something of a youth movement (which tends to lead to loud voices making incomplete arguments), and communicating about it requires speaking across a massive generational divide. but this is a genuine way in which people engage with art and culture, and not cynical politics. And anyway, it is a happier exercise to engage with the best version of a question, even if it was not the version asked.
Deleteas an example, the traditional concept of orientalism involves the western 'fantasy' of Asia-- such that for a western work of written fantasy to depict it should tautologically be orientalism. it involves, necessarily, a distorted and symbolic rendition of its subject. and so, the question becomes one of how elements of culture should be distorted, how they should be symbolized, so that in the end our imagination becomes fuller, so we enhance rather than stifle the imagination that we ultimately rely on.
it should be no controversy that we can do this better than much of the media that precedes us. those cliches are erosive and boring. does Yoon-Suin do better? I would say so, but perhaps not by as much as we should hope. part of that, I suspect, was the nature of filling a lacuna in gaming culture's collective imagination. Could you foster a stronger type of imagination now, if you wrote another such setting?
Forgive me for pestering you on this.
No problem - I appreciate the sensible comments/questions.
DeleteI think the issue here is that a number of things are being conflated. 'Orientalism' as Said was using the term referred to the actual construction of real-world Middle Eastern peoples as irrational, decadent, etc. through art and literature. This is one thing. Creating fantasy worlds which are just inspired by the 'furniture', let's call of it, of real world places, myths, legends and so on is something entirely different in substance, and to claim that they are the same is just, in my view, fundamentally mistaken. To claim that they have the same ends, or the same effects - to perpetuate imperialism or colonialism - is tendentious at best, and disingenuous at worst. I'm not accusing you of this - just the people who tend to bandy this kind of theorising around!
The second related conflation is the idea that being inspired by real world cultures is the same thing as trying to create a 'realistic' (whatever that means) rendition of the subject, or that the former should ideally achieve the latter. I don't really accept that conflation. But more basically, I don't really accept that one can either: a) not be inspired by the real world in creating fantasy, since the real world is all we know; and b) create a 'realistic' rendition of a culture. By definition, all of us have individualised, partial views on any given culture - its contents and its boundaries. 'Distortion', as you put it, is inevitable even if one is aiming to create a faithful rendition of the subject (for example, creating an RPG setting which purports to be realistic imagining of Mameluk Egypt or whatever).
The third conflation is 'orientalism' with 'cliche'. These two things are bad, but bad for different reasons. As I've explained above, I don't think one can in good faith accuse Yoon-Suin of 'orientalism' - that would be a category error. It might be cliched - I hope not - but that is a separate question.
I hope that makes sense to you. I agree that there is a generational divide here, but I think it is the job of mature adults to tell young people when they are jumping in at the deep end, just as it's the job of young people to get energised and passionate about things they don't fully understand.
A great essay, and some thoughtful comments.
DeleteI think your point about the difference between depicting a culture in a certain way to advance a certain (negative) portrayal, and simply using the furniture, is key.
In the last decade or so, I've definitely noticed trends in fantasy writing that either a) depict cultures and characters that are only superficially different from ours, while having the "correct" values, under the hood, or b) depict cultures that feel as though they are trying too hard to avoid anything at all that bears a resemblance to an Earth culture, the result being incoherence.
That said, cultural appropriation should be considered in relation to cultural "power". Japanese or Chinese culture has plenty of power and voice. South Asian cultures perhaps less so, but that feels like it's changing (RIP Zedeck Siew's ATTI).
I'm appropriating this argument from the film critic Jesse Wente, but I'm very persuaded by the idea that cultures ought to have first dibs on depictions of their culture and stories. Not least to ensure the money flows into the right pockets. If Hollywood wants to make a fantasy movie about, say, Inuit myth, the production should be led by Inuit film makers. Disney's Moana and Raya were decent attempts to get this right (although I'm not sure about where the money went).
In 2023, another Western-authored RPG supplement with quasi-oriental furniture isn't taking money out of the pocket of an Asian-born creator's work. I'd have no qualms about buying that.
I would think twice about buying a Western-authored bestiary of Inuit-themed D&D monsters, though.
Haven't seen Raya. Moana was a decent attempt to get the cultural element of things right, but I just think the story isn't very good.
DeleteI have no issue about people picking and choosing what they want to buy. Just don't lecture the rest of us.
But how else will the precariat accrue the status heretofore denied them by elite overproduction? At least the niche blog/Substack grind constrains and directs their meddling impulse toward ephemera where their Baby's First Opinions can't do any real harm.
DeleteObserving your gradual awakening as to the useless and perfidious nature of the OSR's would-be moral-busibodies has been a delight, and a beacon of hope.
ReplyDeleteYour third paragraph is a killshot and really should be written down on a scroll and nailed to the door of whatever public bathroom the purple OSR is using as an HQ these days.
I think I'm just getting old and less willing to be diplomatic.
DeletePeople are not stupid. If after several years of sincere interaction it becomes clear that these types of discussions are based on entirely subjective criteria, are used exclusively for nefarious purposes, are never applied consistently and have disastrous results, then a mental rotation of the concepts takes place. The reader is no longer fooled by the appearance of sincerity, and no longer automatically assumes there is a common frame of reference. The pretense of conversation is dropped and the interaction is simply a war of words.
DeleteImagine if you will, an empty mind, which manipulates words but has no clear cognizance, no awareness, of their underlying meaning or reality. The words are ordered and manipulated, their meanings extended or narrowed in a way to gain a material advantage. But nothing real is being discussed. There is no understanding.
The complaint about it being "just" a dnd product with monsters and plothooks was so weird to me. That's clearly what the book sets out to be, complaining that it's not "more" than that is just bizarre, like going to see an adaption of Pride and Prejudice and complaining that it's only a regency era romance and hasn't even tried to be a raunchy sex comedy, or going to the fish and chip shop and complaining they don't sell cupcakes.
ReplyDeleteBut I should have written the book that this person wanted me to write!
DeleteBack at university I had this one dude sitting in some of the lectures I attended (cultural anthropology). He had the same complaint about every text we ever talked about, be it a travelogue or a description of a tribe on the American Northwest coast, a recipe for food probably woould have triggered the same response: "This text doesn't go far anough for me because it doesn't demand for the destruction of the capitalist system." Every. Single. Time.
DeleteI found the article in question laughable as a piece of criticism. It reads like a bingo board of buzzwords catering to the "orcs are racist" branch of the osr. The guy is obviously a clout chaser
ReplyDeleteThis is a very good reminder; nobody is evil in their own mind. Those "animating impulses" and values for your setting's expansionist empire(s) are probably the first question you should be answering.
ReplyDeleteYes, although this raises the interesting question as to whether 'evil' beings are evil in their own minds?
DeleteThat's probably what makes demons/devils/etc monsters, they know they're evil and they seek to spread it. But even that can have echoes of human motivations...if the devil can corrupt someone else, maybe that makes his own nature less bad somehow, more normal? In D&D settings there will be a real difference between polities ruled by devils, versus polities who just try to make deals.
DeleteSome people are evil in their own minds, actually. The "pleasure" (if it can be called that) of destruction, perversion, and domination is a real motivator of action, and sometimes people don't even feel the need to justify themselves.
DeleteThere are probably people who are like that, you're right. Like that Pazuzu Algarad fellow. But it's hard to know at what point that kind of impulse is genuine and at what point it derives from a serious mental disorder.
DeleteIn a morally acceptable RPG setting, all institutions must be inherently good, EXCEPT for very rare institutions that are specific analogues to 21st century institutions deemed bad by the progressive consensus.
ReplyDeleteI'm not being facetious, this is the real criteria these moral arbiter types are using. This is the point of contention, not turbans and hookahs.
I am utterly disinterested in reading an ideological critique of Yoon-Suin. It would be far more interesting and valuable for such ideologues to write and publish RPG products "done right". But perhaps they can't.
ReplyDeleteThis is often the heart of the matter, I'm afraid.
DeleteWhen I saw that blog post the other day, mildly criticizing your Yoon-Suin, your OGL Dungeons & Dragons setting book, I figured that you would respond. Moralizing about cultural products is your blog’s fascinating specialty, so it’s interesting to see you address another doing something similar when yours is the work criticized.
ReplyDeleteIt’s the same rumination going on among fantasy enthusiasts generally who don’t know how to feel about representation and "appropriation." It offers no solutions, somewhere between “D&D is pretty cool” and “Stay in your lane because colonialism sucked,” over the lumpy bed of “I still like D&D despite it all.” I’d have preferred more constructive criticism than “I’m slightly offended” (which is, really, as negative as it got). But your response seems thin-skinned and reactive.
I think your misfire is that you go low from the high horse. (Your commentators mostly follow in the same derisory spirit.) For example, you liken the other poster to “a third-rate medieval hedgewitch, maintain[ing] themselves in perpetuity as a kind of arbiter of morality for the peasantry.” Someone mean-spirited could easily reapply that to your blog without changing a word. No blogger writes more about the moral crises perceived to be swirling around D&D than you. Your response here is furthermore anti-intellectual. Why deride professional scholars and teachers? Aren’t you one, too?
One of your comments above suggests that the post was written mostly to get hits. This looks embarrassingly like self-flattery on your part. Let’s be real: it's a blog post reflecting on your OGL D&D book of setting tables. There are much easier ways to get hits if that is the goal. The post was a sincere attempt to explain why the author, personally, kinda sorta doesn’t like Yoon-Suin. It’s not part of a popularity contest. You impugn your own motive in responding. Just looking for hits, noisms, or reassurance? That wouldn’t be nice of me to suggest, but it would match your spirit here.
Why feel stung when someone says Yoon-Suin is orientalist? Slug-men aside, you lifted a lot of Asiatic references straight from the real world without even changing the names: Sughd, the Syr Darya, Druk-Yul, fakirs, nawabs, and so on. Yoon-Suin is an expression of orientalism by any serious definition. And so is the Hyborian Age, the planet Mongo, big chunks of Star Wars, and on and on. Orientalism is everywhere in Fantasy (the genre) because orientalism is a creation of fantasy (the act), propagated by the imagination dressing up a distant and fragmentary framework of facts (the real-world basis you and I agree about) into something enchanting and repulsive by turns. It’s a trivial thing to point out orientalism. By focusing on that, you missed the author’s understated point. The blog post excuses Yoon-Suin’s orientalism. Ultimately it’s about your tone. Oddly, your response here may prove that particular point.
You blame the other blogger for not expressing a coherent theory about cultural appropriation. I’m with you. You don’t offer one, either. But then you come back with “Empires are formed from an Idea.” That’s not a coherent theory, either. Kojève? Come on. There is an actual field of study about empires and their formation. No, it’s not philosophy. The Big Idea theory of empire formation doesn’t feature anywhere for actual historians of empires. On the other hand, it may work well for worldbuilding with a fantasy empire, your final point, but that’s fantasy. (The blog post prompting your reaction never mentions empires directly, by the way.)
I think your brief explanation of Said’s orientalism is fair, but folks should understand that that book came out in 1978. We’re in 2023. The field has moved on far beyond the points that Said, an English professor, had to make. If anybody wants readings, I’m ready to make suggestions.
That blogger was explicitly reacting to the condescension in your writing. You are reacting with more condescension. You’re a scholar, too. You can handle critical reviews. Your ideas are better when devoid of put-downs.
Anti-intellectual, condescending, moralizing, thin-skinned, going low from a high horse...and yet you keep reading my blog and commenting! This suggests it's at least not boring. :)
DeleteYou're right. No other blogger talks about RPGs with such urgency about morality and philosophy. I may disagree with you a lot of the time, but I really enjoy reading what you write. And I thank you for putting up with my comments, too.
DeleteThe sort of intellectualism that "grapples with appropriation" is midwit narcissisism. Said's concept of orientalism is is one of many intellectual failures that have divorced the humanities from elevating the human condition, and turned it into jockeying for rhetorical advantage in the gutters of culture.
Delete"Thinkers" of the sort you ineptly ape deserve contempt, not consideration. They are why academic aesthetics are ever more irrelevant, and why their death will be unmourned by anyone who cares about creation, beauty and understanding.
That blog post was not a work of scholarship.
DeleteSomeone like Harrari would point out that the ability to organise and galvanise disparate peoples across a vast area boils down to getting them to believe in and agree to participate in a unifying idea. (the methods of achieving that agreement, Harari also acknowledges)
DeleteSo it may not be the way historians of empires agree to talk about empires. But it is a way some scholars find useful to understand empires or what gave people the fundamental means to organise people into such an endeavour.
I think Tom Van Winkle has a point about thin skins and tone of replies. I think the complainant blogger has a point about inviting vs dismissing. And yet the complainant blogger has also loaded their critique with an antagonistic tone- the word choice in the 2nd paragraph sets the stage. The kind of one step removed passive aggression of- oh I'm _not_ saying these are _completely _outright slurs or insidious or offensive... - but I'm just using these words in association with your work to insinuate the reader should make the association anyway and that they _partly_ are.
Cultures appropriate from each other constantly. Follow the path of Buddism and see how something like the Naga evolves from South Asia, into Malay cultures and Thailand and Vietnam. Or how Buddhism itself is appropriated and reimagined along the way, blended with local beliefs and animism etc. Or a million other examples.
Humans, borrow, steal, re-invent. That is how culture is formed and driven and evolves. If Koreans want to create films in the 3 act format I say have at it and enjoy their fruits. If Koreans make a film I dislike which includes representations of westerners and am offended by their portrayals- I still say have at it.
Unexplored takeaways are why must an author be at pains to airbrush negative aspects of a culture they mishmash into D&D? Should anyone making a quasi mediterranean/North African ancient era game feel compelled to not represent slavery in their game? It seems the complainant bloggers main issue, the one they didn't put behind sensible paramaters of equivocation, is to do with simplistic or insensitive representation of a caste system.
Which again is weird, because D&D deals a lot with completely insensitive and inaccurate portrayals of European caste systems...
Unpleasant parts of society and culture provide much of the dramatic grist for the mill of gaming. Fight the slave lords. Prevent the horrors of war affecting X town. Or just loot tombs and desecrate the graves of fallen cultures for pure greed. That's D&D. Don't criticise a D&D supplement for doing D&D.
Don't ask authors to stick their head in the sand about uncomfortable aspects of history by excluding them from publication. And don't expect my D&D supplements to be the place I go for nuanced, realistic representation of complex social ideas. Nor do I think the author should avoid confronting or potentially complex social themes in his work.
I think the complainant blogger is cognisant of all that and so instead of criticising the inclusion of said topics. Instead says they are offensive because they are lazy.
Very notably without offering his own, non lazy creative representation of the idea, or suggestions for improvements thereof...
Nobody can write at length about so little as a 2e fan. This is what a steady diet of Ed Greenwood does to a man. Contaminated.
DeleteSaid's critique is not 'midwit narcissism' and there is nothing invalid in subjecting any historical phenomenon to critique. That is after all a way to do things differently.
DeleteI appreciate Tom Van Winkle and Reason's comments. I don't have a very thin skin - I just have a low level of toleration for the snide, passive-aggressive way of interacting that so many internet RPG 'personalities' deploy. I recognise it from the old rpg.net and G+ days and I find it totally loathsome, and the original post to which this one responds to is redolent of it.
@Anonymous of 07:42: As I wrote, Said’s book appeared in 1978. It’s a terribly problematic book, more for its reception than for what it actually says. What it says is not competent to cover the issues it was assumed to be addressing. Now, we are in 2023. It’s not relevant anymore except as a symbol, or for the history of a problem, the only reasons it’s cited today by actual scholars. The discussion has moved on. There are other books you can read. My impression from your vitriol is that you have not read much real humanistic scholarship, and that's connected with your misconstruing the purpose of the humanities. You sound like the man who says navigation is a worthless thing to learn because his ship ran aground.
Delete@Anonymous of 09:17: Agreed. That was part of my point. So, a scholar singling out “scholars” as the problem in response to a single author’s blog opinion, however well informed it was or wasn’t, is to miss the mark. It also invites ignorant people to bash scholars, as it has here. Now we will hear from the guy who got chicken pox despite his vaccination against it and so says vaccines are worthless and doctors are evil.
@Reason: I agree with much of what you wrote, but just a comment. Harari is not an expert on premodern empires. Historians of empire look at many factors, not monocausal theories. Usually the ideology is the cart that follows the horse of success, not the instigator.
@noisms: Yes, I was trying to say just that one need not respond in a snide, passive-aggressive way. That feeds the fire. Also, is that blogger an internet RPG personality? I never participated in those forums you mention, so I wouldn’t know. Again, reading that blog post makes it clear that the author merely has some misgivings, mostly about your tone. That’s not harsh criticism. It’s extremely mild by the prevailing standards of those who review modules without every playing or using them. Usually, if it’s not from a friend, the reviewer says negative things, often with cruelty. You got off easy, given the review culture.
Having found the referenced blog post, I was surprised to find how mild it is.
DeleteI've deleted some comments that I felt indicated a bun fight was going to start. This blog is not the place for bun fights.
DeleteThis has been one of the more interesting non-gaming conversations I've seen/had in the OSR for a while. Plenty of thoughtful ideas without overt rancour. (bit spicy, sure, but sane)
DeleteI noticed this as a problem/lack for Star Trek's Romulan & Klingon empires, especially when compared to the Federation with its well-worked-out telos. In recent years I've seen some efforts to address this, but their presentation tends to remain more reminiscent of nation-states than true empires.
ReplyDeleteThe presentation of both empires over the decades has been one of continual decline. The telos of the original klingon empire is explored in such episodes as 'Errand of Mercy.' The Romulans are more akin to ancient Romans; cunning, ruthless but also honorable. Their TNG counterparts have regressed into a muddled feudal-system carcicature and a sombre band of tricksters respectively. The original ideas are passed on with each new panel of writers. Only the most obvious, stereotypical traits survive this game of telephone.
DeleteBy the time of the modern star-trek (say, the appropriately termed STD), nothing remains but a wrapper of memes, stereotypes, pop-culture references.
Does the Federation have a well-worked out telos? The interesting thing about the Federation is that it seems to perfectly track recieved wisdom of what you might call the New York Times reading public of the era in which the respective series is being made.
DeleteI haven't watched an episode of any Star Trek series, though, since roughly the first series of Voyager. So I am a bit out of the loop with the later stuff. I can't imagine a much worse use of my time than sitting down to watch STD - why do nerds do this to themselves? You've got one life and you spend it watching mediocre SF series written by people who despise you.
Well I think the New York Times has a well worked out Telos for the American empire, certainly compared to most fictional empires! The Federation has a fairly coherent expansionist ideology that can absorb large numbers of alien (well, forehead-alien) species and add them to the Collective, I mean the Federation. You never see a non-Romulan on a Romulan ship, very different from the actual Roman empire. The Klingon & Romulan empires seem to be slave empires that make very little use of conquered peoples. The Federation is one of very few real empires in the setting.
DeleteYes - what I meant by that was that the New York TImes' telos for America varies by decade. It's not very consistent!
DeletePS Am I not right in saying that Star Trek does imply that the Klingon and Romulan empire are multi-species like the Federation? I am sure I have seen or heard reference to subject peoples or vassals of the Klingons and/or Romulans.
Delete"What kind of ideas would animate an empire of orcs, an empire of elves, an empire of dwarves, an empire of dragons - or, for that matter, an empire of humans subjecting non-human peoples?"
ReplyDeleteThe teleos of an empire of orcs seems to depend on which version of orcs we choose to believe in. Same for elves and dragons.
We can somewhat say what the teleos of a human empire over non-human peoples would be -- the negation of the teleos of the non-humans, along with bending their efforts and lives towards human goals; which are quite varied, as we can see from the real world.
However, all dwarves are the same: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurDwarvesAreAllTheSame
As such, we can definitively say that the only suitable teleos for a dwarven empire is to finish Creation by turning the raw stuff of the world into worked, useful, productive, crafted objects. The dwarven imperial teleos is economic, raised to the status of the religious.
I like this. Maybe what acts as a natural limit on dwarven empires is their exhaustion of critical resources through the creation of vanity projects - a bit like the Easter Islanders chopping down all the trees so they can build statues, and turning their home into a desert, or (in a different way) the Soviet Union diverting the waters of the Aral Sea into irrigation projects and thus destroying a way of life for fishermen. Maybe all dwarf empires have these self-destructive tendencies.
DeleteYes!
DeleteThat's really two ends, I think:
+ turning such large parts of their available section of the biosphere into worked objects (i.e., sources of legitimacy) that they have no biosphere left to fulfill basic needs -- the aftermath of this is a desert
+ using up all easily-available non-renewable resources (water, wood, coal, whatever) within a fairly short period of time, creating extremely impressive ruins that they then lack the ability to maintain or use
I'd propose a third: reaching high enough gdp per capita that their growth in gdp per capita slows down, which would piss off the dwarves enough for them to do a revolution about it, which would likely cause instability and/or division
Obviously, dwarves know that these are their failure states, and do their best to avoid them. But how?
I really like this idea - will write a post about it I think.
DeleteA very interesting couple of posts, as is usual here. Much has been said already, but I'll add this FWIW. One of the best blessings I received was about a half dozen years I spent living among Eastern Orthodox Christian communities. A completely different world. Eastern Orthodoxy is not, as pop culture often suggests, merely 'Catholicism without a pope.' It is a world and culture apart. I learned from them that much of our modern 'post-colonial post-imperial post-privilege conquest' narrative is actually quite ethnocentric around a distinctly Western POV. It might be anti-Western, but it is uniquely Western nonetheless. For instance, in our neck of the woods (the USA), a growing movement of 'guilt by six degrees of association' is all the rage. I recently read that some are calling for a memorial to Paul Revere to be removed, due to slavery. He's the fellow who informed us that the British were, in fact, coming. He didn't own slaves that anyone knows. Why the guilt? Because some of his customers did, and therefore he still benefited from the institution of slavery. He therefore should be punished by eradication. And that's one of many. With this view, it shouldn't be surprising that those who took more active roles in such practices will receive no mercy at all.
ReplyDeleteSo in the last many years, there is an official push here in the States to eradicate Christopher Columbus. During one rally in my neck of the woods, American Indian activists said Columbus symbolized the 'beginning of the Age of Imperialism.' One of the Orthodox members I knew at that same time said the activist is wrong. From the Orthodox POV, the Age of Imperialism was already going strong by the time Europe jumped on board. That is, Ottoman Imperialism, which many in the Orthodox world see as the main catalyst for everything that came after and the cause of many modern woes in the world (the fall of the Byzantine Empire ranks much higher in their histories than in most of our Western history texts). Not that they let the West off the hook. They simply understand its actions in a broader context. And, ironically, they note that those who don't account for the heavy roll of Ottoman imperialism in subsequent historical events, frequently don't account for views outside of a very narrow Western perspective. I think if we wish to grapple with such topics, perhaps the first order of business is making sure we are grappling with such topics, and not pigeon holing them into very narrow perspectives centered on ourselves. Perspectives that seem to make even an RPG take on the topic seem broad and credible by comparison.
Yes, the levels of historical ignorance are so high one sometimes wonders if it's sheer disingenuousness.
Delete"What kind of idea would animate... an empire of humans subjecting non-human peoples?"
ReplyDeleteThe Glory of Zarus, of course!
Reading the comments here, something that comes to mind: out of interest, do you know the setting of the Sci-fi RPG Traveller? That's a very good example of a setting that depicts its factions in a "morally neutral" stance, whereby each is explored in its own terms as well as serving as an antagonist or complication to the traditional protagonist faction. That is to say, you could easily play a campaign from the perspective of any of the traditional "enemy" nations and make the standard protagonists the obstacle/rival/problem/mysterious Other. This isn't some pat moral relativism, it's an exploration of different and internally consistent moral structures, and the setting greatly benefits from it.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think that's the ideal, really.
Delete