Quote from: jhkim on May 23, 2024, 09:46:01 PMYou say that the stories are irrelevant because they're not Howard's real-life views

No, I literally did not. In fact the only thing relevant to the editorial in question and this discussion are the Conan stories.

Quote from: jhkim on May 23, 2024, 09:46:01 PMbut if I had only quoted from his personal letters, then I'm sure that posters would have shot back that it was irrelevant.

Which would be fair as it absolutely was.

Quote from: jhkim on May 23, 2024, 09:46:01 PM"Birth of a Nation" (1915) is a fictional movie - but the KKK would hold screenings of it at their recruitment drives in the 1920s, because it expresses a racist point of view that they wanted to instill.

But did the director share those views I ask rhetorically.

Quote from: jhkim on May 23, 2024, 09:46:01 PMI'm claiming that "The Last White Man" is itself racist.

Which again is irrelevant in a discussion about Conan.

Quote from: jhkim on May 23, 2024, 09:46:01 PMI'd like to understand why so many posters insist that there is no racism here, when it seems very obvious and clear to me.

I suspect part of it is simply a reaction to how you conducted yourself here.

Quote from: KindaMeh on May 24, 2024, 10:18:33 AMI noted he came from a time with greater racism, and that he had written both personally and professionally things with racial messaging supporting essentialism.

This is no excuse, and plenty of folks during that time were far less racists.

Dude, I hate racial essentialism. As well as any discrimination on the basis of any born identity. REH's thoughts on racial essentialism are not my own nor do I condone them. So I guess we're in agreement on that.

I only put that in there because jhkim was saying I didn't think he or his works were influenced by that kind of thought, which is to say biological essentialist racism. I thought I made it pretty clear. Apparently not.

Quote from: KindaMeh on May 24, 2024, 10:18:33 AMAs regards myopia, I gave I feel a very clear argument as to what I felt was myopic thought within the context of the analysis of historical achievements. As well as with respect to the analysis of modern society. At no point therein did I talk about you specifically or even quote your posts, so whether you felt attacked or not by my reasoning has very little to do with me.

I didn't mean to say you attacked me. I tried to ask as a question, to clarify where you stood compared to myself and others in the thread.

The prior conversation had been that I said that "The Last White Man" and Howard as its author showed evidence of racism. Others pointedly disagreed with me. I wasn't clear about where you stood.

I don't want to dwell on a single phrase of yours, but it seemed to me that you have consciously avoided using "racism" to describe either Howard or his stories. You instead used other descriptions like that he was a "race essentialist from a more racist time", and that two of his stories were "racially charged".

I want to understand if this means that you think it is wrong to apply the term "racism" here.

Quote from: KindaMeh on May 24, 2024, 10:18:33 AMIf you wish to discuss my reasoning and arguments regarding myopic historical or modern analysis and the like, therefore, let's just get into that directly. Or if you disagree with my last little paragraph, the one about D&D criticism within the context of that, identity politics, and discrimination on the basis of innate traits, maybe we can talk directly about that in an expanded manner, within the relevant context of the topic of this thread.

Broadly speaking, I think that the most strident political voices are bad at any sort of analysis.

I think that D&D and other fantasy often does make statements about real-world races, but it isn't as simplistic as many partisans often make it out to be. Tolkien's dwarves, for example, are a parallel to Jewish people. Tolkien explicitly said so in an interview, and it's clear from how he based their language on Hebrew as well as other aspects that he explicitly named. On the other hand, Tolkien's orcs are not a parallel for black people. They are first and foremost a symbol of industrialization, but as such, they are also a stand-in for the urban lower class, and there is an element of classism in them.

Going further, though, both dwarves and orcs aren't the same in later adaptations as they are in Tolkien's work. For example, dwarves were re-interpreted as more Scottish rather than Jewish. Orcs have lost their industrial aspect.

So it's complicated, and there's room for disagreement - as is always true in literary interpretation. It's not right to say that fantasy races always mean nothing with respect to real-world races. That doesn't mean that they are inherently white supremacy or biological essentialism, either, though. Like with any analysis, it takes going into more specifics.

---

But the elephant in the room is that if we can't even agree that there is racism in Howard's "The Last White Man", then that's a huge roadblock to any sort of more in-depth analysis.

I feel like I'm either not communicating well or not being heard. I've given 3 responses to that question that I do not feel were unclear. The most recent in the post right above the one you just gave. I've used the terms racial essentialism, biological essentialist racism, racist times, and more, in reference to multiple of the strains within his writings and thought. Including Black Canaan and The Last White Man specifically. I also have made it clear, especially in my post right after Anon's, where I stood with respect to racial essentialism, (edit: I obviously hate it and don't approve of or appreciate discrimination based on inborn physical traits, just to be sure you get this.) though I had previously assumed that went unsaid. So I feel like there is no elephant in the room, and had never been.

 Does that clear things up on what you were asking?

 Also, did you have direct comment related to what I specifically wrote, with respect to the wandering off into Dwarves and Orcs and the like? (I do applaud Tolkien on having tried to be anti-prejudiced against Jewish folks, and disagree that orcs are emblematic of the lower class, but I don't really see the relevance here.) If so, could you perhaps phrase the connection specifically?

Quote from: jhkim on May 23, 2024, 09:46:01 PMYou say that the stories are irrelevant because they're not Howard's real-life views

Are you even able to differentiate fantasy from reality?

Quote from: KindaMeh on May 24, 2024, 02:01:58 PMI feel like I'm either not communicating well or not being heard. I've given 3 responses to that question that I do not feel were unclear.

This is what he does all the damn time.

Quote from: jhkim on May 24, 2024, 01:51:49 PMBut the elephant in the room is that if we can't even agree that there is racism in Howard's "The Last White Man", then that's a huge roadblock to any sort of more in-depth analysis.

No, the elephant in the room is that you have proven to be incapable of in-depth analysis.  You start with a conclusion, then cherry-pick and nit-pick towards it thereafter.

The article we are speaking about states the following:

QuoteThe other great influence on D&D's world-building, Robert E. Howard, especially his Conan works, held no appeal for me whatsoever, as there was no beauty, no grace, no romance—just blood, brutality, butchery, and overt racism.

Do you agree that REH's works, especially Conan, have no beauty, grace, romance?  That they have only blood, brutality, butchery, and overt racism?  That is the "analysis" of this author.  Now, I'm sure you want to go down the rabbit hole of what the other members of this board think about racism, et al. (because that is a convenient way to derail this examination), but it is irrelevant to the evaluation of Daniel Justice's analysis.  You are normally the person here who objects to gross generalizations and reductive statements, yet suddenly this quote is accurate and acceptable?

Were there passages in REH works that would be considered racist today?  Yes.  Were they all that was in the works?  Were they even an appreciable part of the works?  Most certainly not.  As someone pointed out above, such "analysis" is so simplistic it would be like declaring Huckleberry Finn a thoroughly racist book because it has the n-word in it.

Were you actually capable of "in-depth" literary analysis, you would recognize that one of the, if not the, most important elements in understand a work of fiction is the theme.  You conjure The Birth of a Nation as an example in your posts above.  Well, that film can easily be said to have at its core a very racial (and racist) theme.  To define it by that theme is neither inappropriate nor reductive.  But the Conan stories?  Their themes are far different, primarily dealing with the decadence and duplicity of civilization.  Conan is often the more moral character, not because of some racist theme or trope, but because he chooses an ethic based in personal responsibility and loyalty (see the famous courtroom scene in Queen of the Black Coast). Asserting a consistent theme of racism in Conan is both wrong and reductive.

So, Daniel Justice's "analysis" of the Conan stories is superficial and reductive.  It cherry-picks a few elements, ignoring the overarching themes, and is the kind of thing one would expect from a first year lit student.  I.e., it's garbage "analysis."

Now, do you agree?

Also, on the topic of Conan and civilization, and Daniel Justice and D&D...

Hopefully this is topic relevant and not taking things down a weird rabbit hole, but how does the article author's alleged savage vs civilized D&D theme with the latter as the "good guys" map onto traditionally lawful evil groups? Like, devils and hobgoblins have a very rigid and hierarchical society. And lawful is part of the name. Even ignoring the organizational predilections of specific species and whatnot, how does lawful evil or chaotic good map at all?

Quote from: KindaMeh on May 24, 2024, 05:39:10 PMAlso, on the topic of Conan and civilization, and Daniel Justice and D&D...

Hopefully this is topic relevant and not taking things down a weird rabbit hole, but how does the article author's alleged savage vs civilized D&D theme with the latter as the "good guys" map onto traditionally lawful evil groups? Like, devils and hobgoblins have a very rigid and hierarchical society. And lawful is part of the name. Even ignoring the organizational predilections of specific species and whatnot, how does lawful evil or chaotic good map at all?

I think civilization vs. savage is rather independent of alignment or at least not quite aligned on the law vs. chaos axis particularly cleanly.

A chaotic good barbarian village is likely less savage than a lawful evil hobgoblin military fort.

Savagery really is just a synonym for "evil" in much of the D&D context... rule by the whims of the strong. By contrast Civilization generally implies some limit on the capriciousness of the rulers... it may not be "good" but it is probably safer for the weak than under savagery.

The distinction is also just kinda "off" in relation to Conan in particular as much of the underlying themes are how civilization leads to decadence while the "savage" Conan is how life should be lived (in this case it's more "strength enough to live free" vs. oppression of those weaker)... which is basically the opposite of the article author's claims (again pointing out that he's just spouting Lefty talking points and hasn't actually read any Conan).

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on May 23, 2024, 06:36:48 PMhow every response keeps denying/excusing the obvious racism.

I was just gonna let this go, but figured I really can't.

This is a fucking messageboard devoted to discussing nerdy elf games. REH, in my opinion, is the best pulp writer ever, and if you know anything about the origins of D&D, you know how much pulp influenced its creation. Hence, REH is an important figure when discussing nerdy elf games. His alleged racism, real or nonexistent, is entirely immaterial to any discussion about fucking nerdy elf games. Bringing it up all the time is akin to sitting in a military history class and whenever the Gallic Wars are discussed the same jackass in the back of the class talks about how "problematic" the topic is because Caesar was a slave owner. I could make the argument that even if you were doing a literary analysis of REH, the "racism" crap is functionally irrelevant simply because, unless you're directly addressing a theme of one of his stories, his personal beliefs aren't germane. Unfortunately, a lot of fucktard self-stylized "intellectuals" feel the need to deconstruct everything in an effort to destroy Western culture because they're nothing more than Marxist sycophants. They hate everything about Western morality, ideals, accomplishments, etc., because THEY are incapable of producing anything of value. They're critics because they suck at making art.

So basically, fuck them and if you think it's tiresome that people are saying REH's racism doesn't matter, maybe start with the root cause and kill all the commies; the problems would magically disappear.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on May 24, 2024, 01:31:33 PM

Quote from: jhkim on May 23, 2024, 09:46:01 PMI'd like to understand why so many posters insist that there is no racism here, when it seems very obvious and clear to me.

I suspect part of it is simply a reaction to how you conducted yourself here.

People were already discussing Howard and saying that there was no evidence of racism on his part before I jumped into the conversation with my reply to Krazz. It's why I jumped in.

And yes, I did bluntly tell people they were wrong about something obvious. Yes, I know that's going to ruffle some feathers. But theRPGsite isn't a fucking tea party -- it's Mos Eisley. Sometimes feathers deserve to be ruffled.

---

Quote from: KindaMeh on May 24, 2024, 02:01:58 PMI've given 3 responses to that question that I do not feel were unclear. The most recent in the post right above the one you just gave. I've used the terms racial essentialism, biological essentialist racism, racist times, and more, in reference to multiple of the strains within his writings and thought. Including Black Canaan and The Last White Man specifically. I also have made it clear, especially in my post right after Anon's, where I stood with respect to racial essentialism, (edit: I obviously hate it and don't approve of or appreciate discrimination based on inborn physical traits, just to be sure you get this.) though I had previously assumed that went unsaid. So I feel like there is no elephant in the room, and had never been.

 Does that clear things up on what you were asking?

Yes, that does clarify, thanks. Also, my comment about "the elephant in the room" wasn't about you - and I'm sorry if I implied it was. There are several other posters who explicitly disagreed that "The Last White Man" showed any racism on the part of Howard. That's a huge gulf of disagreement, bigger than any subtle issue of literary interpretation. That gulf is what I'm calling the elephant in the room.

I find it tricky to talk about more subtle issues with you, when at the same time, I'm trying to argue with those posters who disagree that "The Last White Man" demonstrates racism.

Quote from: KindaMeh on May 24, 2024, 02:01:58 PMAlso, did you have direct comment related to what I specifically wrote, with respect to the wandering off into Dwarves and Orcs and the like? (I do applaud Tolkien on having tried to be anti-prejudiced against Jewish folks, and disagree that orcs are emblematic of the lower class, but I don't really see the relevance here.) If so, could you perhaps phrase the connection specifically?

There, I was trying to relate some of my disagreements with the Rascal article. I was not trying to imply anything about your positions. I was trying to state my positions about fantasy races and racism to show where I am at, and see if there was any discussion to be had over those.

OK, quick obvious questions.

Can a story be racist? No, but the characters in the story can be and sometimes must be in order to have an effective story.

If characters in a story are racist, does that mean the author is racist? No, because that same logic would indicate that any horror writer must be a murderous sociopath since they write about them. Mark Twain is not racist because he wrote Huckleberry Finn and Harper Lee is not a racist because he wrote To Kill A Mockingbird Thus Robert E Howard was not a racist for writing The Last White Man .

Quote from: jeff37923 on May 25, 2024, 03:43:32 PMCan a story be racist? No, but the characters in the story can be and sometimes must be in order to have an effective story.

If characters in a story are racist, does that mean the author is racist? No, because that same logic would indicate that any horror writer must be a murderous sociopath since they write about them. Mark Twain is not racist because he wrote Huckleberry Finn and Harper Lee is not a racist because he wrote To Kill A Mockingbird . Thus Robert E Howard was not a racist for writing The Last White Man .

I agree that the presence of a racist character doesn't make a story racist. But stories do have a message that is different than the views of any single character.

For example, in "Birth of a Nation" (1915), pure black characters are portrayed as all simple, stupid, and superstitious. Black characters can even be heroic - like the beefy enslaved house maid who defends her lady against raping Union soldiers with her fists. But they are ultimately shown as simple-minded and in need of firm control, like the early scene when a black man sees the main character who accidentally has a white sheet over him and runs away for fear of a ghost. This becomes the inspiration for the white robes and hoods of the KKK, who in the end heroically keep superstitious black people away from the voting polls.

The film portrays these as an objective (camera-eye) view of events, not just the point of view of an individual racist character.

Likewise, in Howard's "The Last White Man", the world history describes that the negroes in Africa ally with the Orientals to invade Europe and wipe out the hated white men, continuing until there is only one white man left. That's not portrayed as a delusion of the titular character. It's portrayed as events that happened. The offensive part about that isn't the use of the n-word. It's that the people of Africa are portrayed as intent and acting on wholesale racial slaughter.

It doesn't matter whether the titular character is racist or not. It's a question of how the events reflect on the races.

---

To be clear, there are some stories with unreliable narrators. For example, the film "Rashomon" (1950) is famous for having three characters describe events that are then filmed, but they are all contradictory. Even though things appear on film, they might or might not have actually happened. But the existence of "Rashomon" doesn't mean that we can say "Birth of a Nation" isn't racist because maybe the camera's point of view isn't what really happened. There is nothing in "Birth of a Nation" to suggest that the camera view is unreliable.

Likewise, there is nothing in "The Last White Man" to say that the world events described are a delusion.

Quote from: jhkim on May 25, 2024, 08:50:33 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on May 25, 2024, 03:43:32 PMCan a story be racist? No, but the characters in the story can be and sometimes must be in order to have an effective story.

If characters in a story are racist, does that mean the author is racist? No, because that same logic would indicate that any horror writer must be a murderous sociopath since they write about them. Mark Twain is not racist because he wrote Huckleberry Finn and Harper Lee is not a racist because he wrote To Kill A Mockingbird . Thus Robert E Howard was not a racist for writing The Last White Man .

I agree that the presence of a racist character doesn't make a story racist. But stories do have a message that is different than the views of any single character.

For example, in "Birth of a Nation" (1915), pure black characters are portrayed as all simple, stupid, and superstitious. Black characters can even be heroic - like the beefy enslaved house maid who defends her lady against raping Union soldiers with her fists. But they are ultimately shown as simple-minded and in need of firm control, like the early scene when a black man sees the main character who accidentally has a white sheet over him and runs away for fear of a ghost. This becomes the inspiration for the white robes and hoods of the KKK, who in the end heroically keep superstitious black people away from the voting polls.

The film portrays these as an objective (camera-eye) view of events, not just the point of view of an individual racist character.

Likewise, in Howard's "The Last White Man", the world history describes that the negroes in Africa ally with the Orientals to invade Europe and wipe out the hated white men, continuing until there is only one white man left. That's not portrayed as a delusion of the titular character. It's portrayed as events that happened. The offensive part about that isn't the use of the n-word. It's that the people of Africa are portrayed as intent and acting on wholesale racial slaughter.

It doesn't matter whether the titular character is racist or not. It's a question of how the events reflect on the races.

---

To be clear, there are some stories with unreliable narrators. For example, the film "Rashomon" (1950) is famous for having three characters describe events that are then filmed, but they are all contradictory. Even though things appear on film, they might or might not have actually happened. But the existence of "Rashomon" doesn't mean that we can say "Birth of a Nation" isn't racist because maybe the camera's point of view isn't what really happened. There is nothing in "Birth of a Nation" to suggest that the camera view is unreliable.

Likewise, there is nothing in "The Last White Man" to say that the world events described are a delusion.

So, once again you invoke The Birth of a Nation, but ignore the objections to equate it with Conan.  I'll repeat it all for you, since you have obviously ignored it (so as to continue your derailing...):

Quote from: Eirikrautha on May 24, 2024, 04:54:13 PMThe article we are speaking about states the following:

QuoteThe other great influence on D&D's world-building, Robert E. Howard, especially his Conan works, held no appeal for me whatsoever, as there was no beauty, no grace, no romance—just blood, brutality, butchery, and overt racism.

Do you agree that REH's works, especially Conan, have no beauty, grace, romance?  That they have only blood, brutality, butchery, and overt racism?  That is the "analysis" of this author.  Now, I'm sure you want to go down the rabbit hole of what the other members of this board think about racism, et al. (because that is a convenient way to derail this examination), but it is irrelevant to the evaluation of Daniel Justice's analysis.  You are normally the person here who objects to gross generalizations and reductive statements, yet suddenly this quote is accurate and acceptable?

Were there passages in REH works that would be considered racist today?  Yes.  Were they all that was in the works?  Were they even an appreciable part of the works?  Most certainly not.  As someone pointed out above, such "analysis" is so simplistic it would be like declaring Huckleberry Finn a thoroughly racist book because it has the n-word in it.

Were you actually capable of "in-depth" literary analysis, you would recognize that one of the, if not the, most important elements in understand a work of fiction is the theme.  You conjure The Birth of a Nation as an example in your posts above.  Well, that film can easily be said to have at its core a very racial (and racist) theme.  To define it by that theme is neither inappropriate nor reductive.  But the Conan stories?  Their themes are far different, primarily dealing with the decadence and duplicity of civilization.  Conan is often the more moral character, not because of some racist theme or trope, but because he chooses an ethic based in personal responsibility and loyalty (see the famous courtroom scene in Queen of the Black Coast). Asserting a consistent theme of racism in Conan is both wrong and reductive.

So, Daniel Justice's "analysis" of the Conan stories is superficial and reductive.  It cherry-picks a few elements, ignoring the overarching themes, and is the kind of thing one would expect from a first year lit student.  I.e., it's garbage "analysis."

Now, do you agree?

Quote from: jhkim on May 25, 2024, 08:50:33 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on May 25, 2024, 03:43:32 PMCan a story be racist? No, but the characters in the story can be and sometimes must be in order to have an effective story.

If characters in a story are racist, does that mean the author is racist? No, because that same logic would indicate that any horror writer must be a murderous sociopath since they write about them. Mark Twain is not racist because he wrote Huckleberry Finn and Harper Lee is not a racist because he wrote To Kill A Mockingbird . Thus Robert E Howard was not a racist for writing The Last White Man .

I agree that the presence of a racist character doesn't make a story racist. But stories do have a message that is different than the views of any single character.

For example, in "Birth of a Nation" (1915), pure black characters are portrayed as all simple, stupid, and superstitious. Black characters can even be heroic - like the beefy enslaved house maid who defends her lady against raping Union soldiers with her fists. But they are ultimately shown as simple-minded and in need of firm control, like the early scene when a black man sees the main character who accidentally has a white sheet over him and runs away for fear of a ghost. This becomes the inspiration for the white robes and hoods of the KKK, who in the end heroically keep superstitious black people away from the voting polls.

The film portrays these as an objective (camera-eye) view of events, not just the point of view of an individual racist character.

As soon as you brought up the film Birth of a Nation, I knew that this was just another attempt by you to mislead people.

Quote from: jhkim on May 25, 2024, 08:50:33 PMLikewise, in Howard's "The Last White Man", the world history describes that the negroes in Africa ally with the Orientals to invade Europe and wipe out the hated white men, continuing until there is only one white man left. That's not portrayed as a delusion of the titular character. It's portrayed as events that happened. The offensive part about that isn't the use of the n-word. It's that the people of Africa are portrayed as intent and acting on wholesale racial slaughter.

Events in South Africa of white farmers being murdered for their land show that this is indeed possible.

Quote from: jhkim on May 25, 2024, 08:50:33 PMIt doesn't matter whether the titular character is racist or not. It's a question of how the events reflect on the races.

---

To be clear, there are some stories with unreliable narrators. For example, the film "Rashomon" (1950) is famous for having three characters describe events that are then filmed, but they are all contradictory. Even though things appear on film, they might or might not have actually happened. But the existence of "Rashomon" doesn't mean that we can say "Birth of a Nation" isn't racist because maybe the camera's point of view isn't what really happened. There is nothing in "Birth of a Nation" to suggest that the camera view is unreliable.

Likewise, there is nothing in "The Last White Man" to say that the world events described are a delusion.

So what?

And what does this have to do with Conan, anyways?

Quit trying to gaslight people and instead try to argue the premise. Or do you believe that all literary authors are their works of fiction?