This is a valuable discussion to have. However it is quickly not becoming about magic. I am moving this to water cooler talk. I will continue to monitor the thread. Please keep it civil. - Kirin
See the thing is it's easy to overestimate the importance of a card game if you yourself spend a lot of time talking about it, playing it, and reading about it. When in all actuality it's just a card game.
I mean do people really think like this?:
"Oh wow that looks like a fun game, I should start playing it...but are they representing gays enough?"
No, most don't think like that. But the thing about the media is that it affects us without our conscious participation in it so a card game like MtG has a social affect beyond its surface. Pop culture is a very important driver in social attitudes and the communication of norms and even though it's just a card game, MtG plays a part (however small) in that. In that regard, representation of minorities in MtG is affecting to those who consume it.
The feeling of inclusiveness felt by minorities when represented in the media is relevant, even if that feeling is derived from a card game.
The feeling of inclusiveness felt by minorities when represented in the media is relevant, even if that feeling is derived from a card game.
I agree 100% with this, here's an example many may not know:
There was this game called "Myths and Legends" released widely on South America and then other places of the world, it was highly praised for the inclusion of pre-hispanic references/culture/...legends and myths, the main reason why it became so popular (more than Yu-Gi-Oh or MTG in some places) it was because it included many of the racial and cultural elements that are very overlooked in the media. Its a shame that by some business mistakes it went bankrupt, but this only serves as an example of how can a card game affect a whole demographic.
I am very much in support of this. For those of you who don't think representation of homosexual characters belongs in Magic, imagine this scenario: an African-American boy purchases a booster of Scars of Mirrodin, and pulls a Koth of the Hammer. He thinks to himself, "He has dark skin like me. He's a hero. I can be a hero." He can identify with the card. His identity is validated.
Now, a gay man or woman would read the flavor text of Guardians of Meletis and get the same feeling. "These characters are portrayed as gay lovers. I identify with that. Wizards recognizes that I exist and made a card that's like me."
This is the same reason that there are female characters in Magic - females play the game, and can identify with the female characters.
It's about validation and inclusion - nothing remotely related to progressive propaganda.
See the thing is it's easy to overestimate the importance of a card game if you yourself spend a lot of time talking about it, playing it, and reading about it. When in all actuality it's just a card game.
I mean do people really think like this?:
"Oh wow that looks like a fun game, I should start playing it...but are they representing gays enough?"
I'm going to guess that you are not part of a minority that is underrepresented in popular media, because I have a feeling that you would not ask that question otherwise. When a person feels hidden away or even vilified by popular culture (especially if the person is in their teen years) it can be incredibly confidence boosting to see people like them in something they love- to see that a thing that they consume sees them as a valid part of the "human" condition.
Go read comments about how wonderful people feel to see themselves represented in Batwoman or the Young Avengers comic books, or on Modern Family. Just because MTG serves a more niche audience does not make it any less powerful to be "normalized" by something you respect. I do not mean to say that you lack empathy, but I think perhaps you have not read or heard about how a minority population feel about positive representation in popular media.
I thought that this one was the first homosexual reference
Frankly, the "first one" sort of is the one white priest one that looks like the one guy is giving the other man a blow job. I forget the card, but with the flavor text and the like it goes a long way. It was in Tempest I believe, but overly "wrong."
Frankly, I would've liked to see the two men situated as legends so they could be played in Commander and a bit more overt. That and a gay planeswalker. That's when I'll see the game as fully evolved.
Homosexuality was in Greece, when Maro said they went deep with flavor they went deep.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Homosexuality was in Greece, when Maro said they went deep with flavor they went deep.
Homosexuality was everywhere, of course. But as far as Greece goes, it's actually kind of fitting that this card has the lovers being mistaken for something else. Homosexuality, in Classical myth and legend, was never about what we moderns would consider a healthy and stable relationship, a loving and committed partnership of equals. It was all about who was dominant and who was submissive. If true nature of the Guardians' relationship were known, basically everybody in their culture would just be debating which of them was the womanly one (and it goes without saying that they were wildly sexist as well). It's what they did with Achilles and Patroclus from the Iliad, after all. As for the Spartans' and Thebans' famous military homosexuality, it began with outright pederasty, and at least in the Spartans' case it was considered unseemly if it ever developed into anything more - the Thebans, to their minimal credit, did at least seem to hold up "love" as an ideal. Either way, it squicked out the other Greeks: Xenophon described the practice as "shameful". (Whether you should condemn Xenophon for homophobia or applaud him for speaking out against child molestation is a puzzle you're gonna have to figure out for yourself.)
The Classical Greeks were horrible people.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm going to guess that you are not part of a minority that is underrepresented in popular media, because I have a feeling that you would not ask that question otherwise. When a person feels hidden away or even vilified by popular culture (especially if the person is in their teen years) it can be incredibly confidence boosting to see people like them in something they love- to see that a thing that they consume sees them as a valid part of the "human" condition.
Go read comments about how wonderful people feel to see themselves represented in Batwoman or the Young Avengers comic books, or on Modern Family. Just because MTG serves a more niche audience does not make it any less powerful to be "normalized" by something you respect. I do not mean to say that you lack empathy, but I think perhaps you have not read or heard about how a minority population feel about positive representation in popular media.
Forgive me if I do not subscribe to the philosophy that every card game, board game, video game, any kind of game, or any kind of media should include a token gay character, black character, hispanic character, asian, character, whathaveyou character shoehorned in, in order to appear more progressive. If they want to include these characters because it makes sense in the story, that's fine. But we shouldn't chastise franchises for not being "multicultural" enough.
Now this goes both ways, it annoys me when movies about minorities have white characters in them for no reason, or have white actors playing their roles (looking at you Johnny Depp).
Forgive me if I do not subscribe to the philosophy that every card game, board game, video game, any kind of game, or any kind of media should include a token gay character, black character, hispanic character, asian, character, whathaveyou character shoehorned in, in order to appear more progressive. If they want to include these characters because it makes sense in the story, that's fine. But we shouldn't chastise franchises for not being "multicultural" enough.
Lets just say that the elements that populate the game should be somewhat mirror the society that is consuming the game. You're absolutely right that it should not be shoehorned in, but when you are creating a dynamic world where people have loving relationships then it should reflect that those relationships can be between two people of the same sex or of a different sex at the very least because that is an honest reflection of human relationships. It anchors the fantasy world.
Shoehorning is actually more insulting to the minority being represented most of the time. Take my previous example of comics- DC a while back decided that they needed a more mainstream gay character than what was already part of canon, so rather than honoring story they just up and made Green Lantern gay. It was clumsy, obvious, and insincere. In contrast Marvel took the story rout. It was slightly easier because they had invested in gay characters earlier, but even those were cliche and shallow at the time, so Marvel began to slowly punch them up. Now they have a book called Young Avengers that takes a group of super teens learning how to exist in society, and two of those characters (we think) happen to be in a gay relationship. It is honest, genuine, and reflects that chaos of emotions that real teens go through as they learn about their place in the world. Marvel is considered to be far more progressive than DC even though they both have gay characters, because Marvel has created real characters rather shoehorned gay onto characters.
Back to MTG- The reality is that life is naturally diverse, so any world that you build should contain diversity if it wants to be an honest creation. Having diversity in your foreground and background characters should never be shoehorning if you are creating a genuine world because they are naturally diverse in some way. Because it serves to engage the consumer better when your fantasy world is grounded somewhat in the same kinds of relationships that the consumer understands in the real world, showing that some sexual relationships are heterosexual, and some are homosexual within your world should just be a matter of common sense, not shoehorned.
I am very much in support of this. For those of you who don't think representation of homosexual characters belongs in Magic, imagine this scenario: an African-American boy purchases a booster of Scars of Mirrodin, and pulls a Koth of the Hammer. He thinks to himself, "He has dark skin like me. He's a hero. I can be a hero." He can identify with the card. His identity is validated.
This is reminiscient of tokenism and leads to one-dimensional characters. If your cast is just a checklist of minorities, it runs the risk of becoming stereotypical. I liked what Wizards did with Mirage, where just about everyone was black. It wouldn't make sense to have an Asian-looking character in Mirage, even though lots of Asian people play Magic. It's more rewarding to create memorable, thematically consistent worlds and explore other cultures in-depth rather than to try to recreate modern-day demographics every time.
In this case, since homosexuality was a big deal in Ancient Greece, it makes sense to have it here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
These days, some wizards are finding they have a little too much deck left at the end of their $$$.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
This is reminiscient of tokenism and leads to one-dimensional characters. If your cast is just a checklist of minorities, it runs the risk of becoming stereotypical.
I don't think anyone advocating visibility is in favor of tokenism. When a minority is represented in a shoehorned, insincere way, it ultimately defeats the purpose of increased visibility. People are less likely to feel inclusiveness when their inclusion is transparently disingenuous.
That said, representing minorities when a setting allows for it and there's no reason not to? That feels genuine and positive.
Warning: I type a lot, so you should skip over this post if you're more of a tl;dr person. It's not important.
Thank you mikeyG for your voice in this thread. It's been pleasant to see you speak up in such a calm, productive, and thoughtful way. You've represented most of the arguments I would have made myself.
There's something that should be pointed out, in my opinion. To my recollection, not a single person in this thread has complained strongly about wizards' lack of further representation. Everyone with a 'progressive' viewpoint has been happy about the card's inclusion. Some have thought it was a big deal, others haven't. Some have wishlisted a gay planeswalker, none have expressed anger over its absence. Even if one or two people have, they're in the vast minority in this thread.
On the flipside, most people who are arguing against homosexuality being thematically included keep talking about all of the people complaining about under-representation. That is not a dynamic taking place in this thread. It's easier to view people whose opinions differ from yours as being fundamentally unreasonable or negative. That really hasn't been the case here, so I think it's more useful to focus on the subject at hand rather than strawmen.
Homosexuality is not political. Acceptance of homosexuality may track similarly to political affiliation, but that does not make acknowledgment of homosexuality a political statement. Wizards didn't put out a PR statement projecting the guardians of meletis as the definitive couple and exemplars of all that is morally right. They made a card with a subtly homosexual couple and said nothing further about it. I'm glad they did, as positive or neutral representation in media does indeed have a strong positive effect on minority groups.
A last point, while I'm waxing preachy, is that 'why are we talking about it, that's counterproductive' is not a real thing. If you tell people that they shouldn't talk about racism or feminism or gay rights because they're drawing attention to an issue that shouldn't be an issue, you are part of the problem. You are arguing for the status quo. Silence will breed no change in our cultural norms. The current state still involves rampant discrimination against many sections of our societies. There are many ways to approach affecting a change in the way a group is perceived, to be sure; some people scream at the top of their lungs, others quietly try to influence institutionalized discrimination, and others engage in discussions in order to try to piece out what elements of our environment pass this prejudice from generation to generation. 'Stop talking about racism, we should live in a world where people don't even notice the color of your skin' is a politically correct way to quiet people who are trying to make things better. Most people who utter those words probably don't even think about what they come from, and almost certainly don't consider themselves racist. They probably aren't. But that doesn't stop them from being part of the problem.
The second. The first does not make sense in English; it would be "peace lovers".
You know, upon reading this, I decided to check out how the card in question is translated in different languages that I'm able to read/speak, to make sure that the flavor text means what it's supposed to mean.
The context apparently checks out in German and Spanish (and possibly French, but my French is lousy) as well, so I don't think we can say the language is in any way ambiguous, nor a mistake in printing. Translations are usually faithful if this was done intentionally on so many levels, and this evidence should counter any arguments that this was "unintentional" or that we're only "seeing what we want to see".
I'm personally not a homosexual, however I do have friends who are gay, and I like that Magic is branching out to an acceptance of diversity among people in a cultural manner through card references. It's a good step forward.
I participate yearly in a survival challenge in which I am dropped off in the wilderness with 1 days rations, a knife, and no other supplies, and have to find my way home. This is typically several weeks hiking from civilization.
I have personally killed several bears in the course of this challenge, with the use of snares and other traps.
re: Russia
Guys, it's not martial law here. Yes, anti-gay laws suck, but like 99% other laws here it's not really working: it just exists. No one in the goverment cares about card games or card shop owners.
re: Card
Oh, cool. I like "worldbuilding" cards. Flavor in this set is just perfect. And translation is good too.
Легенды рассказывают о двух враждующих правителях, после смерти которых люди воздвигли этот монумент в ознаменование окончания войны. На самом же деле это были миролюбивые влюбленные, чья история потерялась в глубине веков.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wizards can start putting booster packs inside dog poo and dog owners will still complain.
A last point, while I'm waxing preachy, is that 'why are we talking about it, that's counterproductive' is not a real thing. If you tell people that they shouldn't talk about racism or feminism or gay rights because they're drawing attention to an issue that shouldn't be an issue, you are part of the problem. You are arguing for the status quo. Silence will breed no change in our cultural norms. The current state still involves rampant discrimination against many sections of our societies. There are many ways to approach affecting a change in the way a group is perceived, to be sure; some people scream at the top of their lungs, others quietly try to influence institutionalized discrimination, and others engage in discussions in order to try to piece out what elements of our environment pass this prejudice from generation to generation. 'Stop talking about racism, we should live in a world where people don't even notice the color of your skin' is a politically correct way to quiet people who are trying to make things better. Most people who utter those words probably don't even think about what they come from, and almost certainly don't consider themselves racist. They probably aren't. But that doesn't stop them from being part of the problem.
I'm going to say that while you are right to a certain point, talking about racism, sadly, has in fact gotten out of hand in some cases.
I'm in the process of getting my Masters in History, so believe me I know very well about the horrible things that have happened in the U.S. and around the world, and the unfairness that still exists if you examine the uphill battle that minorities face sometimes. Don't get me wrong, all of these things should be discussed.
Yet there comes a certain point when if the subject of racism, for example, is brought up too often, it stops becoming productive. If all a black person ever hears is "white people are racist" then they're going to start thinking all white people are racist, except for the ones shouting about the racism (much the same way some people are convinced all blacks will steal your wallet). It turns into a situation where you are guilty until proven innocent. If you aren't one of the people shouting about racism then you must be one of the racists.
This leads to people like Al Sharpton who has made a fortune crying wolf, and situations like the Trayvon Martin trial where people were shouting racism even before knowing the facts, where NBC deliberately edited the audio from the 9-1-1 call in order to make Zimmerman sound more racist.
Now, I know that none of this may convince you, so I'm just going to leave you with this conversation that took place between Mike Wallace and Morgan Freeman:
Wallace: Black History Month you find...
Freeman: Ridiculous.
Wallace: Why?
Freeman: You’re going to relegate my history to a month?
Wallace: Oh come on?
Freeman: What do you do with yours? Which month is white history month?
Wallace: [pause] Well, I’m Jewish.
Freeman: Okay. Which month is Jewish history month?
Wallace: There isn’t one.
Freeman: Oh, Oh. Why not? Do you want one?
Wallace: No.
Freeman: Right. I don’t either. I don’t want a Black History Month. Black history is American history.
Wallace: How are you going to get rid of racism?
Freeman: Stop talking about it. I’m going to stop calling you a white man. And, I’m going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace and you know me as Morgan Freeman. You don’t say, "Well, ahem! This white guy named Mike Wallace." You don’t say it.
I'm going to say that while you are right to a certain point, talking about racism, sadly, has in fact gotten out of hand in some cases.
I'm in the process of getting my Masters in History, so believe me I know very well about the horrible things that have happened in the U.S. and around the world, and the unfairness that still exists if you examine the uphill battle that minorities face sometimes. Don't get me wrong, all of these things should be discussed.
Yet there comes a certain point when if the subject of racism, for example, is brought up too often, it stops becoming productive. If all a black person ever hears is "white people are racist" then they're going to start thinking all white people are racist, except for the ones shouting about the racism (much the same way some people are convinced all blacks will steal your wallet). It turns into a situation where you are guilty until proven innocent. If you aren't one of the people shouting about racism then you must be one of the racists.
This leads to people like Al Sharpton who has made a fortune crying wolf, and situations like the Trayvon Martin trial where people were shouting racism even before knowing the facts, where NBC deliberately edited the audio from the 9-1-1 call in order to make Zimmerman sound more racist.
Now, I know that none of this may convince you, so I'm just going to leave you with this conversation that took place between Mike Wallace and Morgan Freeman:
Wallace: Black History Month you find...
Freeman: Ridiculous.
Wallace: Why?
Freeman: You’re going to relegate my history to a month?
Wallace: Oh come on?
Freeman: What do you do with yours? Which month is white history month?
Wallace: [pause] Well, I’m Jewish.
Freeman: Okay. Which month is Jewish history month?
Wallace: There isn’t one.
Freeman: Oh, Oh. Why not? Do you want one?
Wallace: No.
Freeman: Right. I don’t either. I don’t want a Black History Month. Black history is American history.
Wallace: How are you going to get rid of racism?
Freeman: Stop talking about it. I’m going to stop calling you a white man. And, I’m going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace and you know me as Morgan Freeman. You don’t say, "Well, ahem! This white guy named Mike Wallace." You don’t say it.
With all due respect for Mr. Freeman's opinion, I just don't agree. Education an communication are the best tools to fight ignorance and bigotry of any kind. The problem is that white Americans are very reluctant to take a stand against bigotry for any number of reasons, but in part because it does not affect them, as evidenced by a 2009 Yale study.
Now, it is true that the way we talk about bigotry and racism is important too. I am not an educator but I would suspect that the conversation needs to be normalized, substantive, and with as much an effort as possible to making one side feel defensive. I have friends/family members/co-workers that belong to a wide variety of cultures, and 90% of our conversations have nothing to do with our cultural differences, but we do not shy away from the 10% that do.
I think that your hyperbolic statements like "If all a black person ever hears is "white people are racist"..." is just a strawman because I don't think that kind of monolithic opinion is what people face in real life with the exception of statistical outliers. Using it as the basis of your theory that we talk too much about racism puts your theory on shaky footing.
The fact is we have never progressed socially without an open national dialog over time. Basic human rights, public representation, and normal opportunities for LGBT folks, women, racial minorities, religious minorities, and any other relevant population is not going to get better by not talking about it openly, honestly, and often.
You're seeing what you want to. Who says the rulers were both men or both women? It just says rulers. Also from the picture it's hard to tell if they're the same gender or not.
This is probably the set to do it nonetheless. Grecians were notorious for their bi-sexuality.
The bare torsos usually indicate a male in Magic art.
It's not so much that the Greeks were unique in this regard, but the resonance is there.
Let's not compare vague representation of a same-sex couple to the perception of a card's art depicting sexualized violence against women. You may want to draw comparisons based on both situations being talking points for social issues, but the two situations are quite different.
Is it weird that I don't see it as sexualized violence? If anything, first, Liliana has the upper hand in that art (She's about to cast a spell on Garruk, and she can always knee him in the groin.); secondly, the flavor text makes it clear it's not sexualized violence; and third, Triumph of Cruelty shows Liliana over a dying Garruk, and no one cares.
If anything, the interpretation used is sexist.
(BTW, the word is "cue", not "trigger". Per psychiatrists, as opposed to Tumblr.)
God... even people complain about WOTC not using the word Goddess in the new God cards.
Nobody cares about dame or lady. I think with "goddess" it might have to do with the myth of a myth of a monotheistic goddess who was supposedly universally revered before those ancient Indo-Europeans/Middle Eastern monotheists/whoever. Which not only isn't the case, but stories of ancient matriarchy were a strawman levied against gender equality in the ancient world...by the misogynists of that era.
Honestly, I think everything about WotC's performance lately indicates that's not how they think. At the very least insofar as race is concerned. They've made significant efforts to be more inclusive of races other than caucasian.
Shards of Alara had one plane that was vaguely East African and another that was vaguely Mesoamerican.
I remember one time, someone I know wanted to do a set based on plains Indian mythology, and had trouble thinking of U elements. And I was thinking shapeshifters, tricksters, birds...
That said, I'd be more concerned about the "Chakotay syndrome". To wit:
Chakotay is an alien whose ancestors came from ancient Mexico.
Despite the Mexican affiliation, Chakotay's people practice vision quests...
...which even thirtysomething women can be involved in, despite it being a male puberty ceremony...
...which they did wrong anyway. You see, it's normally four days, fasting, not whatever the hell they were doing.
Chakotay has an odd pseudo-Polynesian tattoo, too.
And "sky gods".
And he's a vegetarian randomly. (Indians have a long history of conflict with animal rights activists.) Which, is that even possible when Star Trek has replicators and other nonsensoleum?
Naturally, Chakotay and Seven bond over dreamcatchers, rather than, say, both being former Borg.
But don't you know? It's an honor.
(Say, remember when Sulu fantasized about being D'Artagnan? In the V'ger days he'd be Sun Wukong or nothing.)
The one Indian-derived monster in Magic I can think of off the top of my head, Wiitigo, is in the wrong color. (It's supposed to possess people and turn them into cannibals. Sounds black more than anything.)
Pretty sure nickelodeon even has tv shows with gay characters.
TeenNick anyway. You can expect fundamentalist types to make a big deal about Degrassi: The Next Generation's token gay characters and say these are "the main characters".
Then you aren't looking. There's been a lot of outcry over the past several years for better racial and sexual representation in the media. Geena Davis' work on female representation in the media has opened a lot of eyes and racial visibility has become a hot topic as well after instances like Idris Elba cast as Heimdall in Thor, the Girls controversy, and the casting rumors for Johnny Storm in the Fantastic Four reboot.
What's funny about the Heimdall manufactroversy is that the Norse were no more ethnocentric than anyone else, IRL, and Marvel's version of Asgard is more inclusive than the racists would want already, and, oh yeah, a whole bunch of Marvel writers are Jewish. Watching racists get their panties in a twist over Thor is hilarious for that reason alone.
Oh, there's an even better reason in that case: WotC is already doing an amazing job at representing those minorities when the setting is appropriate. Obviously we won't see Inuit on Theros, but they've been doing really well on representing non-Caucasian races in art that it's not surprising there isn't an outcry for more. WotC is already doing it when the setting is appropriate for it.
I would love to see a Yup'ik represented anywhere. Just so people would stop thinking all Eskimos are Inuit. LOL That said, they might have some reference to Hyperborea.
(Also note that Inuit is masculine and plural, so if you say "an Inuit woman", you're so wrong, I don't even know where to begin.)
Same goes for women. Positive female representation in the game (as in, not just fanservice) has steadily been getting better and better so it's no surprise that there isn't a vocal push for me. Again, WotC is already doing it and doing it rather well.
And it's no longer the "strong female character" mould. We now see characters like Elspeth, who are anything but "strong". And that's what makes them likable, the realism.
Homosexuality is a theme in a lot of Greek myth, it makes sense for it to be included in the set. Regardless of any other modern day factors.
Herakles and Iolaos, Achilles and Patroklos, Zeus and Ganymede. (You'll even note that, yes, one of the Jovian moons is named after Ganymede.) There's also the poetry of Sappho. Indeed, you can find plenty of examples.
And yes, Achilles goes nuts when Patroklos dies, but that's a common tragic flaw in Greek mythology, loving too much.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
(Also note that Inuit is masculine and plural, so if you say "an Inuit woman", you're so wrong, I don't even know where to begin.)
You could begin by educating us rather than seeming to berate us by saying "you're so wrong", so that we do not continue to make the same mistake. It is a widely used term, and the tribe are very isolated in an mostly unpopulated region, so there is little chance for people to get this information other than from popular media. I had no idea that Inuit was not the appropriate term.
And it's no longer the "strong female character" mould. We now see characters like Elspeth, who are anything but "strong". And that's what makes them likable, the realism.
Elspeth has PTSD.
I think it could be argued that Elspeth is suffering from something akin to PTSD, but I am not sure where you get that she is not a strong character. I have not thoroughly read all about her, but I have read some and she has never struck me as particularly weak in character.
Kirin's Skyfire Help Desk
Trading Post
No, most don't think like that. But the thing about the media is that it affects us without our conscious participation in it so a card game like MtG has a social affect beyond its surface. Pop culture is a very important driver in social attitudes and the communication of norms and even though it's just a card game, MtG plays a part (however small) in that. In that regard, representation of minorities in MtG is affecting to those who consume it.
The feeling of inclusiveness felt by minorities when represented in the media is relevant, even if that feeling is derived from a card game.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
I agree 100% with this, here's an example many may not know:
There was this game called "Myths and Legends" released widely on South America and then other places of the world, it was highly praised for the inclusion of pre-hispanic references/culture/...legends and myths, the main reason why it became so popular (more than Yu-Gi-Oh or MTG in some places) it was because it included many of the racial and cultural elements that are very overlooked in the media. Its a shame that by some business mistakes it went bankrupt, but this only serves as an example of how can a card game affect a whole demographic.
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/trading-post/details/805-w-underground-sea-h-revised-lands
Now, a gay man or woman would read the flavor text of Guardians of Meletis and get the same feeling. "These characters are portrayed as gay lovers. I identify with that. Wizards recognizes that I exist and made a card that's like me."
This is the same reason that there are female characters in Magic - females play the game, and can identify with the female characters.
It's about validation and inclusion - nothing remotely related to progressive propaganda.
There's plenty of those in the cards, actually...
Go read comments about how wonderful people feel to see themselves represented in Batwoman or the Young Avengers comic books, or on Modern Family. Just because MTG serves a more niche audience does not make it any less powerful to be "normalized" by something you respect. I do not mean to say that you lack empathy, but I think perhaps you have not read or heard about how a minority population feel about positive representation in popular media.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
Frankly, the "first one" sort of is the one white priest one that looks like the one guy is giving the other man a blow job. I forget the card, but with the flavor text and the like it goes a long way. It was in Tempest I believe, but overly "wrong."
Frankly, I would've liked to see the two men situated as legends so they could be played in Commander and a bit more overt. That and a gay planeswalker. That's when I'll see the game as fully evolved.
Homosexuality was in Greece, when Maro said they went deep with flavor they went deep.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
We ugly people aren't just villains, and I would like that portrayed in the cards at a rate closer to reality.
Homosexuality was everywhere, of course. But as far as Greece goes, it's actually kind of fitting that this card has the lovers being mistaken for something else. Homosexuality, in Classical myth and legend, was never about what we moderns would consider a healthy and stable relationship, a loving and committed partnership of equals. It was all about who was dominant and who was submissive. If true nature of the Guardians' relationship were known, basically everybody in their culture would just be debating which of them was the womanly one (and it goes without saying that they were wildly sexist as well). It's what they did with Achilles and Patroclus from the Iliad, after all. As for the Spartans' and Thebans' famous military homosexuality, it began with outright pederasty, and at least in the Spartans' case it was considered unseemly if it ever developed into anything more - the Thebans, to their minimal credit, did at least seem to hold up "love" as an ideal. Either way, it squicked out the other Greeks: Xenophon described the practice as "shameful". (Whether you should condemn Xenophon for homophobia or applaud him for speaking out against child molestation is a puzzle you're gonna have to figure out for yourself.)
The Classical Greeks were horrible people.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
or
Peaceful Lovers: A couple who love each other AND are peaceful
?
Forgive me if I do not subscribe to the philosophy that every card game, board game, video game, any kind of game, or any kind of media should include a token gay character, black character, hispanic character, asian, character, whathaveyou character shoehorned in, in order to appear more progressive. If they want to include these characters because it makes sense in the story, that's fine. But we shouldn't chastise franchises for not being "multicultural" enough.
Now this goes both ways, it annoys me when movies about minorities have white characters in them for no reason, or have white actors playing their roles (looking at you Johnny Depp).
Shoehorning is actually more insulting to the minority being represented most of the time. Take my previous example of comics- DC a while back decided that they needed a more mainstream gay character than what was already part of canon, so rather than honoring story they just up and made Green Lantern gay. It was clumsy, obvious, and insincere. In contrast Marvel took the story rout. It was slightly easier because they had invested in gay characters earlier, but even those were cliche and shallow at the time, so Marvel began to slowly punch them up. Now they have a book called Young Avengers that takes a group of super teens learning how to exist in society, and two of those characters (we think) happen to be in a gay relationship. It is honest, genuine, and reflects that chaos of emotions that real teens go through as they learn about their place in the world. Marvel is considered to be far more progressive than DC even though they both have gay characters, because Marvel has created real characters rather shoehorned gay onto characters.
Back to MTG- The reality is that life is naturally diverse, so any world that you build should contain diversity if it wants to be an honest creation. Having diversity in your foreground and background characters should never be shoehorning if you are creating a genuine world because they are naturally diverse in some way. Because it serves to engage the consumer better when your fantasy world is grounded somewhat in the same kinds of relationships that the consumer understands in the real world, showing that some sexual relationships are heterosexual, and some are homosexual within your world should just be a matter of common sense, not shoehorned.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
This is reminiscient of tokenism and leads to one-dimensional characters. If your cast is just a checklist of minorities, it runs the risk of becoming stereotypical. I liked what Wizards did with Mirage, where just about everyone was black. It wouldn't make sense to have an Asian-looking character in Mirage, even though lots of Asian people play Magic. It's more rewarding to create memorable, thematically consistent worlds and explore other cultures in-depth rather than to try to recreate modern-day demographics every time.
In this case, since homosexuality was a big deal in Ancient Greece, it makes sense to have it here.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
The second. The first does not make sense in English; it would be "peace lovers".
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I don't think anyone advocating visibility is in favor of tokenism. When a minority is represented in a shoehorned, insincere way, it ultimately defeats the purpose of increased visibility. People are less likely to feel inclusiveness when their inclusion is transparently disingenuous.
That said, representing minorities when a setting allows for it and there's no reason not to? That feels genuine and positive.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Thank you mikeyG for your voice in this thread. It's been pleasant to see you speak up in such a calm, productive, and thoughtful way. You've represented most of the arguments I would have made myself.
There's something that should be pointed out, in my opinion. To my recollection, not a single person in this thread has complained strongly about wizards' lack of further representation. Everyone with a 'progressive' viewpoint has been happy about the card's inclusion. Some have thought it was a big deal, others haven't. Some have wishlisted a gay planeswalker, none have expressed anger over its absence. Even if one or two people have, they're in the vast minority in this thread.
On the flipside, most people who are arguing against homosexuality being thematically included keep talking about all of the people complaining about under-representation. That is not a dynamic taking place in this thread. It's easier to view people whose opinions differ from yours as being fundamentally unreasonable or negative. That really hasn't been the case here, so I think it's more useful to focus on the subject at hand rather than strawmen.
Homosexuality is not political. Acceptance of homosexuality may track similarly to political affiliation, but that does not make acknowledgment of homosexuality a political statement. Wizards didn't put out a PR statement projecting the guardians of meletis as the definitive couple and exemplars of all that is morally right. They made a card with a subtly homosexual couple and said nothing further about it. I'm glad they did, as positive or neutral representation in media does indeed have a strong positive effect on minority groups.
A last point, while I'm waxing preachy, is that 'why are we talking about it, that's counterproductive' is not a real thing. If you tell people that they shouldn't talk about racism or feminism or gay rights because they're drawing attention to an issue that shouldn't be an issue, you are part of the problem. You are arguing for the status quo. Silence will breed no change in our cultural norms. The current state still involves rampant discrimination against many sections of our societies. There are many ways to approach affecting a change in the way a group is perceived, to be sure; some people scream at the top of their lungs, others quietly try to influence institutionalized discrimination, and others engage in discussions in order to try to piece out what elements of our environment pass this prejudice from generation to generation. 'Stop talking about racism, we should live in a world where people don't even notice the color of your skin' is a politically correct way to quiet people who are trying to make things better. Most people who utter those words probably don't even think about what they come from, and almost certainly don't consider themselves racist. They probably aren't. But that doesn't stop them from being part of the problem.
You know, upon reading this, I decided to check out how the card in question is translated in different languages that I'm able to read/speak, to make sure that the flavor text means what it's supposed to mean.
The context apparently checks out in German and Spanish (and possibly French, but my French is lousy) as well, so I don't think we can say the language is in any way ambiguous, nor a mistake in printing. Translations are usually faithful if this was done intentionally on so many levels, and this evidence should counter any arguments that this was "unintentional" or that we're only "seeing what we want to see".
Proof? German version. Spanish version. French version. Anyone who can understand these languages/are native speakers, please feel free to verify.
I'm personally not a homosexual, however I do have friends who are gay, and I like that Magic is branching out to an acceptance of diversity among people in a cultural manner through card references. It's a good step forward.
How well do you do against one?
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Guys, it's not martial law here. Yes, anti-gay laws suck, but like 99% other laws here it's not really working: it just exists. No one in the goverment cares about card games or card shop owners.
re: Card
Oh, cool. I like "worldbuilding" cards. Flavor in this set is just perfect. And translation is good too.
Легенды рассказывают о двух враждующих правителях, после смерти которых люди воздвигли этот монумент в ознаменование окончания войны. На самом же деле это были миролюбивые влюбленные, чья история потерялась в глубине веков.
I agree. I'm super happy about this card. I'm going to try and collect a playset!
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
I'm going to say that while you are right to a certain point, talking about racism, sadly, has in fact gotten out of hand in some cases.
I'm in the process of getting my Masters in History, so believe me I know very well about the horrible things that have happened in the U.S. and around the world, and the unfairness that still exists if you examine the uphill battle that minorities face sometimes. Don't get me wrong, all of these things should be discussed.
Yet there comes a certain point when if the subject of racism, for example, is brought up too often, it stops becoming productive. If all a black person ever hears is "white people are racist" then they're going to start thinking all white people are racist, except for the ones shouting about the racism (much the same way some people are convinced all blacks will steal your wallet). It turns into a situation where you are guilty until proven innocent. If you aren't one of the people shouting about racism then you must be one of the racists.
This leads to people like Al Sharpton who has made a fortune crying wolf, and situations like the Trayvon Martin trial where people were shouting racism even before knowing the facts, where NBC deliberately edited the audio from the 9-1-1 call in order to make Zimmerman sound more racist.
Now, I know that none of this may convince you, so I'm just going to leave you with this conversation that took place between Mike Wallace and Morgan Freeman:
Wallace: Black History Month you find...
Freeman: Ridiculous.
Wallace: Why?
Freeman: You’re going to relegate my history to a month?
Wallace: Oh come on?
Freeman: What do you do with yours? Which month is white history month?
Wallace: [pause] Well, I’m Jewish.
Freeman: Okay. Which month is Jewish history month?
Wallace: There isn’t one.
Freeman: Oh, Oh. Why not? Do you want one?
Wallace: No.
Freeman: Right. I don’t either. I don’t want a Black History Month. Black history is American history.
Wallace: How are you going to get rid of racism?
Freeman: Stop talking about it. I’m going to stop calling you a white man. And, I’m going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace and you know me as Morgan Freeman. You don’t say, "Well, ahem! This white guy named Mike Wallace." You don’t say it.
With all due respect for Mr. Freeman's opinion, I just don't agree. Education an communication are the best tools to fight ignorance and bigotry of any kind. The problem is that white Americans are very reluctant to take a stand against bigotry for any number of reasons, but in part because it does not affect them, as evidenced by a 2009 Yale study.
Now, it is true that the way we talk about bigotry and racism is important too. I am not an educator but I would suspect that the conversation needs to be normalized, substantive, and with as much an effort as possible to making one side feel defensive. I have friends/family members/co-workers that belong to a wide variety of cultures, and 90% of our conversations have nothing to do with our cultural differences, but we do not shy away from the 10% that do.
I think that your hyperbolic statements like "If all a black person ever hears is "white people are racist"..." is just a strawman because I don't think that kind of monolithic opinion is what people face in real life with the exception of statistical outliers. Using it as the basis of your theory that we talk too much about racism puts your theory on shaky footing.
The fact is we have never progressed socially without an open national dialog over time. Basic human rights, public representation, and normal opportunities for LGBT folks, women, racial minorities, religious minorities, and any other relevant population is not going to get better by not talking about it openly, honestly, and often.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
The bare torsos usually indicate a male in Magic art.
It's not so much that the Greeks were unique in this regard, but the resonance is there.
"But angels are asexual!" "But Kaoru is unaware of the implications of love for humans!" "But to attach a sexual meaning to their love is just wrong!"
That's the Evangelion version.
Is it weird that I don't see it as sexualized violence? If anything, first, Liliana has the upper hand in that art (She's about to cast a spell on Garruk, and she can always knee him in the groin.); secondly, the flavor text makes it clear it's not sexualized violence; and third, Triumph of Cruelty shows Liliana over a dying Garruk, and no one cares.
If anything, the interpretation used is sexist.
(BTW, the word is "cue", not "trigger". Per psychiatrists, as opposed to Tumblr.)
Nobody cares about dame or lady. I think with "goddess" it might have to do with the myth of a myth of a monotheistic goddess who was supposedly universally revered before those ancient Indo-Europeans/Middle Eastern monotheists/whoever. Which not only isn't the case, but stories of ancient matriarchy were a strawman levied against gender equality in the ancient world...by the misogynists of that era.
Shards of Alara had one plane that was vaguely East African and another that was vaguely Mesoamerican.
I remember one time, someone I know wanted to do a set based on plains Indian mythology, and had trouble thinking of U elements. And I was thinking shapeshifters, tricksters, birds...
That said, I'd be more concerned about the "Chakotay syndrome". To wit:
But don't you know? It's an honor.
(Say, remember when Sulu fantasized about being D'Artagnan? In the V'ger days he'd be Sun Wukong or nothing.)
The one Indian-derived monster in Magic I can think of off the top of my head, Wiitigo, is in the wrong color. (It's supposed to possess people and turn them into cannibals. Sounds black more than anything.)
Actually, anal sex was highly taboo in ancient Greece. They celebrated love between men, but not anal sex.
TeenNick anyway. You can expect fundamentalist types to make a big deal about Degrassi: The Next Generation's token gay characters and say these are "the main characters".
And it's all of three sentences on the blog. (And hashtags, which, being that this is Doug Beyer, take longer than the article.)
What's funny about the Heimdall manufactroversy is that the Norse were no more ethnocentric than anyone else, IRL, and Marvel's version of Asgard is more inclusive than the racists would want already, and, oh yeah, a whole bunch of Marvel writers are Jewish. Watching racists get their panties in a twist over Thor is hilarious for that reason alone.
I would love to see a Yup'ik represented anywhere. Just so people would stop thinking all Eskimos are Inuit. LOL That said, they might have some reference to Hyperborea.
(Also note that Inuit is masculine and plural, so if you say "an Inuit woman", you're so wrong, I don't even know where to begin.)
And it's no longer the "strong female character" mould. We now see characters like Elspeth, who are anything but "strong". And that's what makes them likable, the realism.
Elspeth has PTSD. While not "people" (in the sense of being a cat), Ajani has only one eye.
Herakles and Iolaos, Achilles and Patroklos, Zeus and Ganymede. (You'll even note that, yes, one of the Jovian moons is named after Ganymede.) There's also the poetry of Sappho. Indeed, you can find plenty of examples.
And yes, Achilles goes nuts when Patroklos dies, but that's a common tragic flaw in Greek mythology, loving too much.
On phasing:
I think it could be argued that Elspeth is suffering from something akin to PTSD, but I am not sure where you get that she is not a strong character. I have not thoroughly read all about her, but I have read some and she has never struck me as particularly weak in character.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!