RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
Just to be clear, I am not somehow exempt from privaledge. I just think the blanket statement of white privaledge is pretty ignorant. There is more to the story then that. And simply calling it white privaledge is more divisive then it needs to be.
How is it ignorant? It describes the privilege that comes from being white or perceived as white. Those articles address white privilege, and some list even more forms of privilege, but there are an inexhaustible number of possible privileges that can be at work in a given context. Being Greek and looking different from other white people is certainly a way that you differ from the average holder of white privilege. In this case we would be talking about you lacking something we could call Anglo privilege, or Germanic privilege, or whatever. I'm easily identified as white, and very pale. So I have an enhanced form of white privilege compared to you--no matter how tan I get, I doubt I would ever be construed as non-white, and strangers don't come up to me to ask what race I am (a common enough occurrence for people of somewhat indeterminable race, or American-Asians who are asked by random strangers, "What are you?" or "Where are you from? No, where are you really from?"). But to be more specific to your case: historical erasure is awful, yeah, but that's also part of white privilege: the presentation of history as the progress of almost exclusively white people, and they have to be the right kind of white people. Getting "randomly" selected at airport screenings for being not white enough sure seems like white privilege to me.
Pointing out white privilege doesn't have to be divisive. What would you prefer we call it? Should I explain the concept in full every time I see the need to talk about it? Should I print out articles about white privilege to hand to offended white people so they can fully understand what I'm talking about? I want people to understand it, but it feels like pulling teeth to get people to talk about it if they're unfamiliar with the concept. It's not my job or any non-white person's job to educate people about white privilege, and it sure as hell isn't my job to coddle white people who are offended by my pointing out that they benefit from a racist system, even if they have no direct hand in it.
People keep picking at this, and I think it's important to note that this observation is part of a brief preamble. The problem isn't in George's "argument," the problem is treating every bit of George's article with over-intense scrutiny. Here's what I read in that part: George goes to GenCon as a non-white person and sees two populations, the convention-goers and the convention staff. The racial make up of these two groups (and probably both are fairly large considering the popularity of the Con) is disproportionate, with a greater percentage of the people who have and act on their access to the Con being white and a greater percentage of the staff being non-white. All he says is that it makes him feel uncomfortable, and reminds him of "ye olde racist times." Feel free to (re?)visit the articles I posted about privilege, and consider how our racist past and present might contribute to this racial disparity.
But I think this is where Corriea's criticism of George's blog post is at its best. He explains quite well that the disparity isn't Gen Con's issue - and it really isn't. George was, as far as I can tell, reacting emotionally without trying to understand why there's this particular disparity and, frankly, that's kind of shallow.
Literally nowhere does he say GenCon is racist. He says there is a "Race Problem," and describes some ways in which he feels excluded.
I think you're being far too generous. What kind of response can George expect from Gen Con organizers or attendees if he says "There's a race problem here"? How can it not imply that he feels racism is at work at Gen Con and that Gen Con bears some responsibility for it?
But here's the real meat of the issue: it doesn't matter whether his article has "rational arguments" or is "too emotional." He identifies some things he didn't like and provides some suggestions of how to make GenCon more inclusive. He doesn't owe anyone a "logical" argument for inclusion. Part of white privilege is not seeing the discomfort of non-white groups who feel underrepresented in a given community. Having white privilege doesn't mean you're being evil and ignoring it, it means you literally don't see it. When George writes about feeling out of place at GenCon, the proper response shouldn't be, "Prove it!" There are a lot of people asking for more inclusion in the gaming community, and it's there if you look for it and listen to those voices. The burden of proof is not on George here.
Not so. As the person making the statement that there's a race problem as opposed to a racial disparity (not all disparities are truly problematic), he's got to show that there is a problem. And I'm not sure that one uncomfortable person, as far as we know, rises to the level of a problem. His experience is an anecdote and we don't have enough information on other people's experiences to know if he's having a common reaction to Gen Con or an outlying idiosyncratic reaction. If it's the former, then we may have a problem (and I think Corriea is right that a lot of game companies have come a long way on this topic - making games more attractive for American racial minorities and women) that can be addressed, but if it's the latter, the onus for finding a solution is on the blog poster alone.
I also disagree that white privilege means white people can't see the issues. It just means we aren't directly subject to them. A white (Irish-American) friend of mine can certainly see that her Portuguese-American husband gets stopped a lot more by traffic cops than she does and gets hassled by the cops more than she does. But having more white privilege than he has, she's not subject to the same treatment. She can see it just fine. It would be a misconception to say that people can't see their privilege (whatever flavor of privilege they have in a situation).
People keep picking at this, and I think it's important to note that this observation is part of a brief preamble. The problem isn't in George's "argument," the problem is treating every bit of George's article with over-intense scrutiny. Here's what I read in that part: George goes to GenCon as a non-white person and sees two populations, the convention-goers and the convention staff. The racial make up of these two groups (and probably both are fairly large considering the popularity of the Con) is disproportionate, with a greater percentage of the people who have and act on their access to the Con being white and a greater percentage of the staff being non-white. All he says is that it makes him feel uncomfortable, and reminds him of "ye olde racist times." Feel free to (re?)visit the articles I posted about privilege, and consider how our racist past and present might contribute to this racial disparity.
His preamble is so long and ridiculous that he becomes antagonistic to the people he is trying to convince there is a problem before even making a relevant claim about the convention. He is basically calling all the white people at the con slave masters, meanwhile he is trying to get them to take his claim that there is problem seriously.
He cites several examples of other gamers dismissing his concerns about race representation, and points out that the leadership and decision makers of the Con (and the people they choose to honor with awards, recognition, etc) are sorely lacking in the PoC department. This isn't racist in the KKK way or anything, but it is a symptom of PoC systematically being denied opportunities and voices in gaming culture.
And as Correia rightly points out, the reason there is lack of PoC in the leadership is because those are the people who have volunteered for multiple years. The only way to change that is to get PoC to volunteer, and the leadership has no real way of getting people to. Hell, if Gencon is like any other convention I have seen most of the volunteers are drafted/guilted from friends of current staff, and because our society is racially stratified you consistently get more of the same.
Similarly, Correia points out the exact same thing about the awards. The people who receive them have all been in the community for years.
Any community that starts out racially stratified through no fault of its own will have a difficult time getting diversification in upper echelons. The top tiers will lag behind the general community because early adopters will have had more time to get experience. You claim people are being denied opportunities, but fail to prove that to any convincing degree. There are more logical explanations that do not involve malice, but you're focusing on as malice as the most likely explanation.
Literally nowhere does he say GenCon is racist. He says there is a "Race Problem," and describes some ways in which he feels excluded. The thing about the Nazi cosplayer is definitely a weak example of this, but the article he links to about it also notes a booth that sells sexy Nazi pin-up art (which has problems on multiple fronts [dammit did I just make a WWII pun ugh]), which is disallowed by GenCon rules but the complaints seemingly went unheard. I think he also writes about things a little too generally, but he still provides specific instances of various gamers and gaming communities being an uncomfortable place for him as a PoC.
Any reasonable listener will hear "there is a race problem" and interpret that as racism. To claim otherwise is as disingenuous as saying Fox News doesn't racebait.
But here's the real meat of the issue: it doesn't matter whether his article has "rational arguments" or is "too emotional." He identifies some things he didn't like and provides some suggestions of how to make GenCon more inclusive. He doesn't owe anyone a "logical" argument for inclusion. Part of white privilege is not seeing the discomfort of non-white groups who feel underrepresented in a given community. Having white privilege doesn't mean you're being evil and ignoring it, it means you literally don't see it. When George writes about feeling out of place at GenCon, the proper response shouldn't be, "Prove it!" There are a lot of people asking for more inclusion in the gaming community, and it's there if you look for it and listen to those voices. The burden of proof is not on George here.
Yes it does matter. He is using disingenuous claims - like not being represented in artwork (easily disproven with links to the artwork), or not being able to create what he wants (in a world where you can create anything), to make the claim that the problem is with other people. He needs to be able to at least make a reasonable argument as to why he doesn't feel like he belongs.
He cites several examples of other gamers dismissing his concerns about race representation, and points out that the leadership and decision makers of the Con (and the people they choose to honor with awards, recognition, etc) are sorely lacking in the PoC department. This isn't racist in the KKK way or anything, but it is a symptom of PoC systematically being denied opportunities and voices in gaming culture.
I cant speak to his direct experiences obviously. But in terms of the con. If the overwhelming majority of gamers are white, and consequently the overwhelming majority of game writers/developers/artists are white, then the fact that the people being honored are mostly white is not a function of racism, but probability.
And this is the sort of argument that often gets people hackles up. Because of the idea that people who are not white must be forced into prominence or a given potision simply because they are currently absent. Gencon should honor people influencial in the gaming world. It shouldnt matter what the color of their skin is. When more people of color play games, more people of color will become influencial in the industry. That is the issue that needs addressing, not the choices Gencon made.
Literally nowhere does he say GenCon is racist. He says there is a "Race Problem," and describes some ways in which he feels excluded. The thing about the Nazi cosplayer is definitely a weak example of this, but the article he links to about it also notes a booth that sells sexy Nazi pin-up art (which has problems on multiple fronts [dammit did I just make a WWII pun ugh]), which is disallowed by GenCon rules but the complaints seemingly went unheard. I think he also writes about things a little too generally, but he still provides specific instances of various gamers and gaming communities being an uncomfortable place for him as a PoC.
The thing about the Nazi pinup art and cosplayer is probably the biggest problem with the article. When you say things like 'It reminds me of the old south, then describe a community of people, then identify effectively 2 of 50,000 people there as racist, you have associated the entire group with racism. You cant bookend the description of a cultural event with the slave south, and nazis and then say you arent calling them racist. You are.
But here's the real meat of the issue: it doesn't matter whether his article has "rational arguments" or is "too emotional." He identifies some things he didn't like and provides some suggestions of how to make GenCon more inclusive. He doesn't owe anyone a "logical" argument for inclusion. Part of white privilege is not seeing the discomfort of non-white groups who feel underrepresented in a given community. Having white privilege doesn't mean you're being evil and ignoring it, it means you literally don't see it. When George writes about feeling out of place at GenCon, the proper response shouldn't be, "Prove it!" There are a lot of people asking for more inclusion in the gaming community, and it's there if you look for it and listen to those voices. The burden of proof is not on George here.
When you publish something you open yourself to criticism. And whether you want to say it or not, he did call gencon, and the gaming community as a whole racist. If the article was about how to get more people of color into the hobby, Even Mr Correia agreed it was a good idea and he was on board. He even has the right to say he was uncomfortable, or felt underrepresented. He didnt do that though. He drew on imagry that is among the worst we can think of for racism in history.
He has the right to talk about how he felt, but he also is responsible for what he says and how he says it. And what he said, was insulting. Correia had a right to be insulted and to respond harshely to poorly chosen words that paint a community with a single thoughtless brush. Because that is the essence of prejudice.
I went to primarly african american schools growing up, I think there were 20 white kids in my entire Junior High of more then a thousand students. Most of my piers were african american, I'd say about 3/4ths of my teachers were african american. Most of those teachers and staff lived near my school, also a minority neighborhood.
Some African american students attempted at times to pick on me because I was white. I was at many times uncomfortable because I did not conform to the culture that prevaled at my school.
This is experience is very similar at least in a vaccume to George's Gencon experience. Do you think it would be reasonable for me to say it shows a race problem among the african american people of new york not being inclusive enough to white students? The idea is literally laughable. But the evidence is the same as what George gives. But it requires ignoring a whole host of other factors that are the primary cause of my discomfort and the absents of people I identify with in the community in question.
I can accept the idea of white privaledge, though I do think the idea of intersectionality is more accurate. I do however think one needs to consider the context of the situation before they write something like that article.
Just to be clear, I am not somehow exempt from privaledge. I just think the blanket statement of white privaledge is pretty ignorant. There is more to the story then that. And simply calling it white privaledge is more divisive then it needs to be.How is it ignorant? It describes the privilege that comes from being white or perceived as white. Those articles address white privilege, and some list even more forms of privilege, but there are an inexhaustible number of possible privileges that can be at work in a given context. Being Greek and looking different from other white people is certainly a way that you differ from the average holder of white privilege. In this case we would be talking about you lacking something we could call Anglo privilege, or Germanic privilege, or whatever. I'm easily identified as white, and very pale. So I have an enhanced form of white privilege compared to you--no matter how tan I get, I doubt I would ever be construed as non-white, and strangers don't come up to me to ask what race I am (a common enough occurrence for people of somewhat indeterminable race, or American-Asians who are asked by random strangers, "What are you?" or "Where are you from? No, where are you really from?"). But to be more specific to your case: historical erasure is awful, yeah, but that's also part of white privilege: the presentation of history as the progress of almost exclusively white people, and they have to be the right kind of white people. Getting "randomly" selected at airport screenings for being not white enough sure seems like white privilege to me.
My point is there are lots of degrees of privaledge. And the idea that there is a single unified 'white' is ignorant. The articles you stated talked about things like seeing people 'like you' in magazines/movies, or learning about 'your history' in school. Unless you are Straight Male White Anglo Saxon Protestant and wealthy, you dont enjoy all of perceived privaledges. There are different degrees of privaledge. So calling it 'White' Privaledge is ignorant.
And my brother, doesnt get stopped by airport security for 'random' screenings. He gets stopped because he looks middle eastern, but has a European Sounding Name. He doesnt get the presumption of 'white' from a very important section of law enforcement agents. Thats one of I think the more important aspects of white privaledge is it not?
Pointing out white privilege doesn't have to be divisive. What would you prefer we call it? Should I explain the concept in full every time I see the need to talk about it? Should I print out articles about white privilege to hand to offended white people so they can fully understand what I'm talking about? I want people to understand it, but it feels like pulling teeth to get people to talk about it if they're unfamiliar with the concept. It's not my job or any non-white person's job to educate people about white privilege, and it sure as hell isn't my job to coddle white people who are offended by my pointing out that they benefit from a racist system, even if they have no direct hand in it.
Until its common knowledge, yes you have to explain it. No its not your job to educate people. But you also cant expect people who dont understand it to respond positively when its mentioned without the explanation. As you say, the biggest aspect of white privaledge is that you dont see it. The only way it will change is if more people become aware of it and act accordingly. So if you want things to change, then yes, its your job to explain it to people. You cant expect people who by definition dont know a thing exists to learn about it on their own.
The grammatical syntax he used
Sheesh. We're being judged on 'grammatical syntax' now?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Further comments on this topic. First off, interesting post from the OP. I'm glad to see Pathfinder getting some props for the iconics - minimal though it was. I like most of them and I lay that as much about the stories they have developed for the characters as the what the characters look like - and it doesn't hurt that Wayne Reynolds does an awesome job for each one.
As for the article and Correia's response. I read the intent of the article as attempting to point that there exists racial problems in RPG/table-top gaming - be it in content and/or the people who participate in it. Whether he choose Gen-con because he was there or given it's size as representative of the industry, I cannot say. This is not a new subject - there's many an article on the disparity of video games in terms of racial and gender roles that's banding about right now. However, the problem becomes that what starts off as an assessment of what he saw at Gen-Con delves into to personal issues of self-esteem and race without adding anything of fact.
If he had this much concern, then why not go to the convention center office and ask for hard numbers about the staffing process. If you have concerns about how Gen-Con is run, then go talk with them. If the point of the article to advocate change, then focus on that at the convention itself. Because at the end, there is a disconnect in your message between personal drama, racial shaming and arguing for diversity in a constructive way.
And that disconnect between factual and emotional sympathy that George mixes in is where Correia's points are valid in questioning him. Correia's tone is sarcastic to the point of condescending and somewhat mean at times. I don't agree with this guy on all his points. But in questioning George's notion that somehow he is "unique" in his racial isolation when it comes to gaming is spot on. From Correia's own experience he can make that argument and it doesn't make it any less valid a point.
And that is why the article is weak. To dredge up personal history or experience with as your only barometer defaults the experiences of any other minority gamer as implying it's "wrong if it isn't similar." And if you are advocating change, that does alienate the people you need to help make those changes.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Kolokotroni: I put "random" in quotes to indicate that it wasn't actually random.
Anyway, as I said before:
I'd love to discuss this more, but y'all don't really seem super receptive to it.
I feel like I'm not really being met halfway here, and I just don't have the energy to keep going on this topic. I'm not calling anyone out specifically here or anything, I just feel like I'm not really getting anywhere.
I'll leave you all with this, though:
-Racism doesn't require active malice to be racism.
-Do some of your own research into the intersection of race and gaming. Some of you seem very hesitant to believe anecdotal evidence of racism. There are a lot of people with anecdotal experience of racism; how many does it take for it to become "statistics"? This is mean to be less of a zen koan along the lines of "How many grains of rice does it take to be a pile?" and more of an encouragement to seek out this accounts on your own. When you find them, please take them seriously. And if you find yourself objecting to things that are said on the grounds that they are "not really racist," or getting offended that something you do is considered racist, please take a minute to consider those social privileges you possess. Give them the benefit of the doubt. Do more research.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to suggest that if he didn't discover he was Latino until probably 2009, it's probably not a real major part of his life experience. The cynical part of me suggests he might just be using it as a dig at liberals who might challenge him.Ding, ding, ding.
Of course, he didn't discover he was Latino, anyway. I know that's your point, but I REALLY want this clarified, because this really cuts to the core of why this guy, and his article, are really terrible. He's as white as he ever was - but now he gets to use an obvious error by the DOL to glibly steal that term with no regard for how people who actually ARE Latino are treated.
Yeah...given the way in which he brings that up, I really don't think that's what's going on. Like at all.
It has more to do with his dislike (mentioned in other things he wrote on that blog) of pigeonholing people based on categories. Which is definitely a potential problem, and one he sees as endemic of the left (I disagree with that last bit, by the way, at least partially).
And from what I've been reading, that seems about the level this guy is on. Reading over a few more of his articles it seems like he takes every suggestion that sci-fi writers and fans consider other races, genders, or sexualities as evil thought police insisting we're not allowed to write about straight, white males any more.
Uh...you have clearly never read his work. Which, in fact, includes people of most of the minority groups you just listed as protagonists being awesome (I'm not 100% positive he's written anything with people of other sexualities as the main characters, though he's definitely recommended works featuring them as protagonists on that very blog). So...this is deeply and profoundly not what he's saying. Kinda definitionally.
His objection appears to be to what he refers to as 'message fic'...which is to say, works of fiction that put a higher priority on their message than on telling a good story. Such as by pushing all people who write to push a particular social agenda. I'm not sure I entirely agree with him but that's a very different argument from the one you seem to be putting in his mouth.
Now, in the post he made that I read dealing with this, he also demonstrated a fair amount of ignorance about trans* issues (and the distinctions between sex, gender, and gender roles), but he also specifically said (and I believe him based on context) that he had absolutely nothing against trans* people...so that's ignorance, not malice, and rather specific ignorance at that, given that he doesn't seem especially ignorant about racism, sexism, or homophobia.
Convenient how he used that opportunity to mock it, but then uses it in this article, without so much as an allusion to the irregularity, to lend credence to his point. It just makes an already rubbish article that much worse.
I strongly disagree that mentioning in passing that he counts as Latino as part of a point about how things aren't always as simple as they first look is necessarily this kind of thing.
And my God, how people are eager to defend him and attack the tor.com writer. The fact alone that so much more scrutiny has been heaped upon the minority person - and that they have so far been the only one to face any allegations of actual racism in this thread - is so very, very telling. Sad, but very telling.
I could not care less about the writer being from tor.com. Seriously. I'm a libertarian, but in the normal run of things I get along much better (and have more beliefs in common with...on social stuff like this anyway) liberals than conservatives. I have no problem with the term privilege, or with the fact that institutional and subconscious racism, sexism, and so on are very real problems in our society. I had a long discussion yesterday with a friend of mine yesterday trying to inform him about rape culture, both what it is and how it's a problem.
In short, I disagree with Larry Correia on quite a bit of stuff. On the other hand...he seems like a pretty decent guy who's been dealing with active personal attacks from tor.com among other sites for quite a while now, and stumbled upon an article there that even I thought was seriously asinine. Under the circumstances, while I feel like his reaction may've been excessive, I also feel it's perfectly understandable and not something horrifying, sinister, or even racist.
I honestly find the way people are objecting to his blog post (mostly the borderline personal attacks and insinuations of being a dishonest manipulator...y'know, like the one you mentioned above) to be the most telling thing here. Imputing subtle social engineering tricks to a post as blunt as that one is really reaching, and in a highly insulting and unsubstantiated way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-Do some of your own research into the intersection of race and gaming. Some of you seem very hesitant to believe anecdotal evidence of racism. There are a lot of people with anecdotal experience of racism; how many does it take for it to become "statistics"? This is mean to be less of a zen koan along the lines of "How many grains of rice does it take to be a pile?" and more of an encouragement to seek out this accounts on your own. When you find them, please take them seriously. And if you find yourself objecting to things that are said on the grounds that they are "not really racist," or getting offended that something you do is considered racist, please take a minute to consider those social privileges you possess. Give them the benefit of the doubt. Do more research.
The fact that people have had experiences in gaming that are affected by racism doesn't necessarily make the assertion that there is a racial problem at Gen Con true. Taking George at face value in his blog post, he clearly has had a problem with racism in his gaming life. If he can't play a black character, or a character of any ethnicity or race under the game's sun, he's clearly experiencing a problem. And, just as clearly, for those of us familiar with the Rashomon Effect, those experiences will affect his perceptions of the reality around him - including his Gen Con experience.
But the perceptions of one person don't necessarily mean there's a problem that can or needs to be addressed. To shift to another psychological lexicon, he may be projecting his own problematic view on a situation that doesn't warrant it.
My comment relates only to Adams assumption that Hama is white so that auto = privilege.
Ask the Japanese about their privilege over the Anu or resident Koreans, or any non Han Chinese or the Hutu and Tutsi, or Fijians and Indians, or Brahmin and Dalit.
hold up man, I think you got my roll in this confused with EnterisShadow. I did no assigning. I told Enteris to stop assigning.
Edit: Oh wait, you already noticed that. My bad for jumping the gun while catching up on the thread.
Well, this thread went exactly how I would've expected. Touchy subjects like this often don't get anyhwere, at least not quickly.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People keep picking at this, and I think it's important to note that this observation is part of a brief preamble. The problem isn't in George's "argument," the problem is treating every bit of George's article with over-intense scrutiny. Here's what I read in that part: George goes to GenCon as a non-white person and sees two populations, the convention-goers and the convention staff. The racial make up of these two groups (and probably both are fairly large considering the popularity of the Con) is disproportionate, with a greater percentage of the people who have and act on their access to the Con being white and a greater percentage of the staff being non-white. All he says is that it makes him feel uncomfortable, and reminds him of "ye olde racist times." Feel free to (re?)visit the articles I posted about privilege, and consider how our racist past and present might contribute to this racial disparity.
Except let's look at the article for a moment - he starts by describing his discomfort, and immediately proceeds to quote Scott Woods on explaining how racism is so sinister because we all have it. Now, maybe I know far less about writing than I think I do, but generally speaking when you talk about A and then proceed to talk about B, that means that the two are connected somehow. So, the writer connects his personal discomfort with a universal accusation of all encompassing racism from "the whites".
This is precisely the kind of jump from emotional to rational I have been accusing him of. I can understand and sympathize with the feelings he describes, but to go from there to claiming the problem is with everybody else is extreme. Logic won't support it.
But here's the real meat of the issue: it doesn't matter whether his article has "rational arguments" or is "too emotional." He identifies some things he didn't like and provides some suggestions of how to make GenCon more inclusive. He doesn't owe anyone a "logical" argument for inclusion. Part of white privilege is not seeing the discomfort of non-white groups who feel underrepresented in a given community. Having white privilege doesn't mean you're being evil and ignoring it, it means you literally don't see it. When George writes about feeling out of place at GenCon, the proper response shouldn't be, "Prove it!" There are a lot of people asking for more inclusion in the gaming community, and it's there if you look for it and listen to those voices. The burden of proof is not on George here.
Burden of proof is always on the accuser, I'm afraid. You see the thing is, if most of the white gamers "don't see race", meaning they don't care about the race of those they play with or buy their products or whatever, then why isn't gaming inclusive? There is literally nothing specific about gaming that would prevent anyone from playing because of their race. George wasn't only writing about feeling out of place in gencon (which would be fine and as you say wouldn't need any proof or anything, because that's a personal, emotional dialog), he was also writing about how the problem is with the white gamers who are not doing enough. And how they are all racists without even knowing it. He basically secluded gaming and judged it in a vacuum, when his issue is with cultural trends in America.
Let me give you an experiment to mull over - type "NFL art" in google pictures. What will you see? you will see that most art of football players is of black football players. According to Wikipedia, about 57% of all NFL players are non whites, despite whites being 72% of American population. The presence of so many non whites also means that non whites probably win much more prizes and awards in the field than whites do, proportionally. Clearly, then, whites are underrepresented in football. It is not inclusive enough and white people have a hard time getting to play football, right? Basically we are seeing black privilege that no black person could ever understand.
Or maybe not?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thejeff, are you saying that minorities who are targets of racism cannot be racist themselves?
And, yes, people seing racism everywhere are usually racist too.
It doesn't mean that they are not right to an extent. I'm sure that there were racist people at Gencon, after all, as much as we wouldn't want tgem to exist, they do. But to see things and immediately conclude the worst is irrational. And unfair.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow! Things have been happening in here. So, I was kind of expecting one or two people who also read his books to pop in and '+1, thanks for the share.' not thought out and sincere discussion of racism, gaming, and more for almost two hundred posts now. I appreciate and want to thank everyone for an entertaining, and surprisingly enlightening, read. I have learned things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He is basically calling all the white people at the con slave mastersThis is where I lose it. How do you get that out of the post?
It was a surreal experience and it felt like I had stepped into an ugly part of a bygone era, one in which whites were waited upon by minority servants.
If the minorities were servants, the whites are masters. It is passive-aggressive and makes pretty much everyone who doesn't agree with him roll their eyes and tune out the rest of his article. Because if he is going to open with crap, why bother reading the rest.
You can call it a rhetorical flourish and not part of his argument if you want, but it is the very first point he makes after describing what Gencon is. He follows it up with an accusation that the gaming community actively excludes people of color
Gaming has a race problem. For all its creativity and imagination, for all its acceptance of those who find it hard to be themselves in mainstream society, gaming has made little room for people of color.
emphasis added
If some white people are going to be that sensitive, how can they ever be reached?
By not starting with an accusation that they are actively excluding people. You lose everyone who disagrees with that statement before you can possibly get them to understand the actual problems.
You want to see someone do this well:
Ted Talk Danger of a Single Story
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
When he says "racism is everywhere", he really isn't saying that all whites are KKK members. That shows a gross misunderstanding of the quote and what he was getting at. What he was saying was that this is a deeply rooted, subconscious social problem. That we've done things for so long a certain way that we don't even realize we're doing them. For most people, the default is a white male because that's just the way things have been. This isn't malicious and that's why it is so terrible. It's because we don't realize it that it is so pervasive.
In the Diversity in Fantasy panel that paizo did at Gencon, they talked about how they had someone actually count out the spread of ethnicities and genders because they would skew towards white males by default. This is a problem that can only be fixed when you take an introspective look and realize that everyone has it, white or not.
servant <> slaveHe is basically calling all the white people at the con slave mastersThis is where I lose it. How do you get that out of the post?
It was a surreal experience and it felt like I had stepped into an ugly part of a bygone era, one in which whites were waited upon by minority servants.If the minorities were servants, the whites are masters. It is passive-aggressive and makes pretty much everyone who doesn't agree with him roll their eyes and tune out the rest of his article. Because if he is going to open with crap, why bother reading the rest.
No, but it is where most people will assume you are going.
Black people playing a mostly servant role to wealthier whites lasted long after slavery ended. It's still not uncommon, at least in some settings and parts of the country - though now that few people have house servants it's more common at expensive hotels and other event type things. It really is disturbing when you notice it. At least for me.
But it's very much an emotional thing and I think it's a good way to start. I don't think it says anything in particular about the whites in the picture, other than possibly that they're oblivious to it, probably because they're focused on the gaming.
It is a terrible way to start. It assigns responsibility for this discrepancy on the Gencon attendees.
As I've said all along, I don't think this is far more a reflection of systemic racism in society than it is GenCon's fault. I'm not even sure it's gaming's fault, though there are things gaming can do to encourage more minority participation. I'd read "gaming has made little room for people of color" as "as done little to actively encourage minority participation", rather than "actively excludes".This is what I meant earlier about having to take everything he wrote in the worst possible light.
I ask again, if every discussion of race issues in the US has be phrased to make sure there is absolutely no blame ever laid on white people and that no white people are made uncomfortable by it, then how are we every going to get anywhere?
The first step in any conversation is making sure the other person is willing to listen to you. Starting with an accusation turns them off. Using charged language like "privilege" turns them off. If you want to actually affect change, you need to discuss the issue in a way that you don't alienate your audience. Otherwise, you just turn a potential ally into an enemy. The Tor article fails miserably at this.
To quote Correia
And here we are at the end, after insinuating gamers are all racists, game companies are racists, and GenCon management loves Nazis, George gets to the useful part about actually getting more people from different backgrounds into our hobby. Way to go, buddy.
When he says "racism is everywhere", he really isn't saying that all whites are KKK members. That shows a gross misunderstanding of the quote and what he was getting at. What he was saying was that this is a deeply rooted, subconscious social problem. That we've done things for so long a certain way that we don't even realize we're doing them. For most people, the default is a white male because that's just the way things have been. This isn't malicious and that's why it is so terrible. It's because we don't realize it that it is so pervasive.
In the Diversity in Fantasy panel that paizo did at Gencon, they talked about how they had someone actually count out the spread of ethnicities and genders because they would skew towards white males by default. This is a problem that can only be fixed when you take an introspective look and realize that everyone has it, white or not.
When someone uses a phrase like "racism is everywhere", they may be what trying to say that, but that is not what the audience is hearing. It is shows a complete lack of knowledge about the target audience and how to effectively communicate with them. Most people don't have the vocabulary to discuss the issue the way they are wanting to. As was pointed out upthread, most people do not consider not getting harassed by cops a privilege. Instead of actually discussing it on a level that will engage them, it immediately turns the audience off. No amount of berating them about ignoring an issue will ever bring them back.
It is a great way to turn potential allies into enemies.
When someone uses a phrase like "racism is everywhere", they may be what trying to say that, but that is not what the audience is hearing. It is shows a complete lack of knowledge about the target audience and how to effectively communicate with them. Most people don't have the vocabulary to discuss the issue the way they are wanting to. As was pointed out upthread, most people do not consider not getting harassed by cops a privilege. Instead of actually discussing it on a level that will engage them, it immediately turns the audience off. No amount of berating them about ignoring an issue will ever bring them back.
It is a great way to turn potential allies into enemies.
Honestly, I think that's a problematic attitude. You're telling potentially disenfranchised minorities to play on the majority's terms. Instead of going "Wait, I'm not racist! Stop accusing me of racism!", why don't people just listen and accept that maybe they aren't perfect angels.
For reference, my only claim to being a minority is being bisexual, so a lot of this comes from personal introspection and trying to improve myself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's some pretty unpleasant undercurrents going on in the criticism of Larry Corriea. The fact that he passes for white makes him no less Hispanic. His criticism of the EEOC forms, was exactly the fact that the ethnic diversity of Latinos vs. Hispanics is not being recognized. It was sarcasm. When he says he. "Discovered he was Latino," what he means is that he's Hispanic, not Latino.
The fact that a couple of posters here have used that, combined with the fact he "passes as white" to minimize his position is pretty darn racist. You don't get to choose his ethnicity to minimize his arguments.
There are criticisms of his response that are valid. Increasing diversity is important in our hobby. I've had some heartfelt conversations on here with folks like Freehold DM and others about direct and indirect racism that can and does exist in the gaming community, but we don't fix that by calling a child of Portuguese immigrants white.
I'll leave you with a quote from the very article some people are criticizing which makes me wonder how those using this tactic could have missed it.
I get that. I truly do. I grew up in a Portuguese culture in a really poor dairy farming town, where the men were manly men, problems were solved with fists and the problems that couldn’t be solved with fists were dulled with beer, reading books was a waste of time that could better be spent milking cows, and D&D was for worshipping the devil...
In my school, half of us could speak English. Half of those could read.
When he says "racism is everywhere", he really isn't saying that all whites are KKK members. That shows a gross misunderstanding of the quote and what he was getting at. What he was saying was that this is a deeply rooted, subconscious social problem. That we've done things for so long a certain way that we don't even realize we're doing them. For most people, the default is a white male because that's just the way things have been. This isn't malicious and that's why it is so terrible. It's because we don't realize it that it is so pervasive.
In the Diversity in Fantasy panel that paizo did at Gencon, they talked about how they had someone actually count out the spread of ethnicities and genders because they would skew towards white males by default. This is a problem that can only be fixed when you take an introspective look and realize that everyone has it, white or not.
When someone uses a phrase like "racism is everywhere", they may be what trying to say that, but that is not what the audience is hearing. It is shows a complete lack of knowledge about the target audience and how to effectively communicate with them. Most people don't have the vocabulary to discuss the issue the way they are wanting to. As was pointed out upthread, most people do not consider not getting harassed by cops a privilege. Instead of actually discussing it on a level that will engage them, it immediately turns the audience off. No amount of berating them about ignoring an issue will ever bring them back.
It is a great way to turn potential allies into enemies.
It's funny because the term "privilege" was introduced in order to do exactly that: Talk about the pervasive racism without accusing white people of racism.
And they chose a word with a lot of other connotations that don't make sense to their target audience.
When someone uses a phrase like "racism is everywhere", they may be what trying to say that, but that is not what the audience is hearing. It is shows a complete lack of knowledge about the target audience and how to effectively communicate with them. Most people don't have the vocabulary to discuss the issue the way they are wanting to. As was pointed out upthread, most people do not consider not getting harassed by cops a privilege. Instead of actually discussing it on a level that will engage them, it immediately turns the audience off. No amount of berating them about ignoring an issue will ever bring them back.
It is a great way to turn potential allies into enemies.
Honestly, I think that's a problematic attitude. You're telling potentially disenfranchised minorities to play on the majority's terms. Instead of going "Wait, I'm not racist! Stop accusing me of racism!", why don't people just listen and accept that maybe they aren't perfect angels.
For reference, my only claim to being a minority is being bisexual, so a lot of this comes from personal introspection and trying to improve myself.
But it is reality. You don't get to make other people listen to your arguments, and you don't get to dictate how they respond to them. The only thing you can do is design your argument in a way that brings people to the table willingly and guides them to the conclusions that you want.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
servant <> slaveHe is basically calling all the white people at the con slave mastersThis is where I lose it. How do you get that out of the post?
It was a surreal experience and it felt like I had stepped into an ugly part of a bygone era, one in which whites were waited upon by minority servants.If the minorities were servants, the whites are masters. It is passive-aggressive and makes pretty much everyone who doesn't agree with him roll their eyes and tune out the rest of his article. Because if he is going to open with crap, why bother reading the rest.No, but it is where most people will assume you are going.
That, itself, is making assumptions. I didn't take it that way, neither did thejeff or mechapoet, and even the people who are actually participating in this thread area small sample of all people on the Paizo messageboards, let alone the general population.
Black people playing a mostly servant role to wealthier whites lasted long after slavery ended. It's still not uncommon, at least in some settings and parts of the country - though now that few people have house servants it's more common at expensive hotels and other event type things. It really is disturbing when you notice it. At least for me.
But it's very much an emotional thing and I think it's a good way to start. I don't think it says anything in particular about the whites in the picture, other than possibly that they're oblivious to it, probably because they're focused on the gaming.
It is a terrible way to start. It assigns responsibility for this discrepancy on the Gencon attendees.
We are all responsible. Businesses reflect their consumer base - not perfectly, but predictably. No, in the grand scheme of things they do not have the power to change that dynamic everywhere. But something cold be done to change it here.
The first step in any conversation is making sure the other person is willing to listen to you. Starting with an accusation turns them off. Using charged language like "privilege" turns them off. If you want to actually affect change, you need to discuss the issue in a way that you don't alienate your audience. Otherwise, you just turn a potential ally into an enemy. The Tor article fails miserably at this.As I've said all along, I don't think this is far more a reflection of systemic racism in society than it is GenCon's fault. I'm not even sure it's gaming's fault, though there are things gaming can do to encourage more minority participation. I'd read "gaming has made little room for people of color" as "as done little to actively encourage minority participation", rather than "actively excludes".
This is what I meant earlier about having to take everything he wrote in the worst possible light.
I ask again, if every discussion of race issues in the US has be phrased to make sure there is absolutely no blame ever laid on white people and that no white people are made uncomfortable by it, then how are we every going to get anywhere
OK, this is a bit of a tangent, but that attitude irks me. Going beyond GenCon, just overall, this irks the hell out of me. For one thing, it assumes white America cares about what is happening to minorities. (One look at the overwhelming disparity in response to the shooting of an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson illuminates nicely that, on the whole, they really don't.) Your advice actually is great in the context of an actual dialogue between two parties in a disagreement. But that's not the context we're speaking of.
But the really bothersome part is that it's ultimately saying that the onus is on those people who have historically been oppressed. (Again, not just black people but women, LGBTQ people, immigrants, Muslims, Native Americans, and so on.) After years and years and years, how could people who have had no wrong done to them and - even if they'd not personally contributed, silently benefited from the system that perpetuated it - have the unmitigated gall to say, "Now I'll listen, but only if you watch your tone"?!
These are difficult things to hear, and I understand the resistance. But it's our responsibility to get over that. Just like the "privilege" you used - Growing up poor, my first response to white privilege was, "That's a load of crap! I haven't had ANYTHING easy!" Of course, when I actually read what was actually meant by white privilege and how it applied, it's indisputably true. Sorry if the language isn't dressed up enough not to offend, but we're not talking about a term that says all white people think this way or act that way. Just a term that means being born white in America comes with certain unfair advantages, which it does.
EDIT: Whoops, kind of got ninja'd on that one. Took WAYYY to much time getting the quote brackets right.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Go slow. Be nice and respectful and eventually the man will give you want you want. Go slow. Don't ask for too much. Don't let him know you're hurt and angry.
Except that isn't what my argument at all. I said you have to make them care. Mass protests make people care, if for no other reason than they want you to shut up. Whiny articles on social justice sites don't. Tor is mostly a circle jerk for people to talk to others who already agree with them and for their opponents to occasionally stumble upon and start a flame war.
Gamers, in my experience, are a receptive group for arguments of disenfranchisement, so you don't have to start with forcibly getting people's attention. You have to focus on making arguments that they will listen to. you have to make them understand the things bothering you, and if you can propose solutions that they can actually help bring about. That is why the Tor article is junk. It starts with a receptive audience and spends the first half driving them away with accusations and then proposes solutions that are honestly fairly laughable and contradictory.
for example:
Hire people of color and make them prominent but don't use them in advertising and don't hire a token minority.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its been a while since I read the piece, but I think it was our glorious International Lord of Hate Larry Correria or maybe John C. Wright (who's title in the league of evil escapes me) who made the implication that guys like George basically have a catch-22 on this sort of thing. Attempts to meet his irrational demands are 'tokenism,' and failure to rise to his specious challenges are 'racism.'
He also falls prey to not really defining his terms. As Larry points out, George's definition of racism encompasses pretty much everything or "everything is insidious racism somehow." Conscious and unconscious, like with Freud's oedipal complex but instead of mother love we apparently deep down have deep seated urges to beat down on the sneetches that have more stars on their bellies then us.
Larry, like an adult, actually defined the terms he was arguing from and in fact used what's essentially the dictionary definition of racism (I think he might have actually used the dictionary for this). Which makes George's claims seem even more out there.
Since Gencon and its attendees don't demonstrate a hatred of other races, or posit a philosophy of racial superiority and rulership, and don't represent a system designed to foster such feelings (I imagine the average gamer would blanch at the thought of actively proposing his race's superiority over another aside from fictional elf-dwarf funsie stuff), I think Larry is making a pretty good claim that George's claims of racism are spurious.
Larry himself indicates the primary issue in why more people of his own particular group haven't shown up as much was almost entirely economic (Larry cites LBJ's 'Great Society' as a potential cause), and as a guy who shells out a lot of cash for games its a justifiable explanation. Sure the stuff is available online, but why would I pick up the hobby whole cloth if not introduced? Hell, I only got into D&D because I saw a copy of the 2e Complete Book of Elves in a comic book store and bought it out of curiousity.
Larry himself says was from a poor area and was brought into the hobby by the vistas he saw in books he managed to stumble across. And like Larry I find George's angsting over people playing racial types besides themselves to be of that kind of dumb comment that makes me smile at the responses it will spawn, such as the following:
George: I could be white.
LC: Whoop de fricking doo. I could be a half-orc.
From my own perspective, George's sampling methods are a bit off. Maybe due to economic issues the appropriate races he wishes to attend cannot, or are in their own basements playing orcs and elves, or are like me who has never attended a large gaming convention due to distance, or dislike of travel, or unavailable time off. Maybe at future cons even fewer of the people George wants to show up won't be there because he's harped on about systemic racism and how they don't belong there because dot dot dot.
I just read the article on the Nazis. I'm surprised the Nazi pinups wasn't a complaint about the card game Barbarossa.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
We are all responsible.
No. No we are not. I am responsible for things that I have control over, things I have done. I am not responsible for the demographics of gencon. A person may be rude toward me for things I have not done, but I don't have to listen to them. A person is not responsible for the actions of their parents, or their racial group, or their state.
I just read the article on the Nazis. I'm surprised the Nazi pinups wasn't a complaint about the card game Barbarossa.
Did not know that was a thing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we stop using the word 'privilege' and use a different word, then pretty soon THAT word will become the emotionally charged one that Caineach and those coming from the same position will be advising us not to use because it turns people off.
To hell with that. The reason people become uncomfortable with being told they bear a share of responsibility for a state of racial, gender, or similar inequality in society, insofar as they benefit from it in ways that minorities cannot, is because they are scared, subconsciously, that their privileges are going to be taken away. White people are scared of having more trouble getting jobs because they don't have a built in advantage over everyone else when being hired. Men are scared of having a harder time getting laid because they have to acquire enthusiastic consent before having sex with a woman. Christians are scared of having their children being taught that other religions, and nonreligiousness are the legal and logical equals of Christianity, because it may make it harder to keep their children in the faith when they know that there are other options.
These are not conscious fears, but they are one of the reasons why people get defensive and upset when you discuss their privileges.
If we stop using the word 'privilege' and use a different word, then pretty soon THAT word will become the emotionally charged one that Caineach and those coming from the same position will be advising us not to use because it turns people off.
To hell with that. The reason people become uncomfortable with being told they bear a share of responsibility for a state of racial, gender, or similar inequality in society, insofar as they benefit from it in ways that minorities cannot, is because they are scared, subconsciously, that their privileges are going to be taken away. White people are scared of having more trouble getting jobs because they don't have a built in advantage over everyone else when being hired. Men are scared of having a harder time getting laid because they have to acquire enthusiastic consent before having sex with a woman. Christians are scared of having their children being taught that other religions, and nonreligiousness are the legal and logical equals of Christianity, because it may make it harder to keep their children in the faith when they know that there are other options.
These are not conscious fears, but they are one of the reasons why people get defensive and upset when you discuss their privileges.
It depends on what word you use. Privilege has connotations from before it became the goto word. It had a meaning, and then another was added on top of it, and then you complain because people don't understand you new meaning, when the only people using it in that context are people actively discussing it.
Well what should we do, make up a whole new word? No word we choose that isn't made up from whole cloth will lack existing connotations. We're doomed to explain it every time we bring it up with someone who hasn't heard the usage before, regardless, until such time as the usage becomes common parlance.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Australia we had a radio shock jock tell some people weren't dark enough to be Aboriginal - he was convicted of racial vilification.
Dismissing the authors Latino heritage is not on, especially when you are highlighting racism. Maybe you need to step back and take a look at yours.