Racist Magic: The Gathering cards banned, removed from database by publisher | Hacker News Reader

Racist Magic: The Gathering cards banned, removed from database by publisher

polygon.com

24 pointsgyosifov42 comments

Here's the actual article from Wizards of the Coast: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/depiction...

Here's a link showing the cards themselves: https://scryfall.com/search?q=Invoke+Prejudice+OR+%28%21Clea...

And here's an example of how they look now in Gatherer, the official card database: https://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/card/details.aspx?multive...

An interesting thing to note is that these cards are from before Wizards decided to stop referencing our world in the game and focus entirely on building their own fictional one. One of these cards is from 1999, the rest are from 1993-1994.

The article does hint that they're still investigating whether to remove more.

It seems to me that there are two distinct types of cards being banned here: cards that actually have real-world racist connatations (Invoke Prejudice, Jihad, Stone-Throwing devils, Pradesh Gypsies), and cards that have unfortunate wording when read by someone who doesn't play the game (Crusade, Cleanse).

I'm glad they're taking a stand on the former, but the latter seems rather silly. I'm no Magic expert, but black and white in the context of the game have literally nothing to do with the skin colour of humans, but are just a label representing the classic fantasy tropes of light and darkness.

That is, assuming I'm not missing something racist in the tiny thumbnails, which is very possible.

What is the racist connotation of Stone-Throwing devils?

Btw, if Pradesh Gypsies is racist, we better start torching a ton of Marvel comics - Dr. Doom is a gypsy and all the (often excellent) stories around his background use the exact same imagery, all the way to the cyberpunk Doom 2099.

The name and art for Pradesh Gypsies wasn't the problem. The card text was the issue -- it had an ability which could temporarily reduce the strength of an opponent's card, invoking the stereotype of a thieving gypsy.

Applying a negative modifier to opponents is “invoking stereotypes of thieving”...?

That modifier might as well come from outwitting or befuddling, particularly with a text that evokes mystery.

Sounds to me like this choice says more about the actual prejudices of whoever made it, rather than objective parameters.

The issue is using "Gypsies", period, when there's no need to do so.

If you replaced it with "Wanderers" nothing of value is lost.

Using a real group name is thr only reason your comment (and this one) exists.

It literally creates tension where none should be by its very existence. That's problematic.

The name IS problematic.

You're right, that's a fair point. I wouldn't be surprised if WotC had avoided "Romani" because it felt like a demonym which wouldn't exist in their universe. :/

Are there any great substitute terms which focus on the lifestyle commonly associated with the Romani? "Nomadic" (or "nomads") is associated more with peoples who live away from civilization; "travelers" is a little weak, as it can imply a temporary activity.

Vagabond, Wanderer, Wayfarer, Rover, Roamer, Drifter

I am not finding that much information on the Stone-Throwing devils, but I think it could be a reference to the Muslim tradition of "stoning of the devil" in which small rocks are thrown by pilgrims at a wall. People who are racist against Muslims might question who is the devil. That the card is part of the Arabian Nights expansion does not help the cause.

Given the age of the card, it's most likely a reference to the first intifada which was notable for widespread throwing of stones by the Palestinian.

Gypsy is a racist term for an ethnic group called the Roma or Romani, who have long suffered from prejudice in Europe, and whom the Nazi's killed in the Holocaust along with Jewish people and other groups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_genocide

> Gypsy is a racist term for an ethnic group called the Roma or Romani, who have long suffered from prejudice in Europe

It is an exonyme, so shouldn't be preferred but is not a racist term in itself. It wasn't coined as a slur and isn't in itself derogatory. It is built in the same way Roma is from a time people thought the ethnic group came from Egyptia (well most likely what was then called small Egyptia so Epirus in Greece). It also often tends to be used as a synonym for nomads with people referring to the Irish Travellers as gispies.

The card effect however seems to refer to the stereotype attached to Romani which is very much racist.

As an aside, it is a lot less clear to me as a foreigner why crusade and jihad are seen as racist cards. They refer to historical conflicts which were motivated by religion not ethnicity. It might be because my native language hasn't stretched the definition of the word racism as much as American English did. The world now seems to encompass any form of prejudice in America but confusingly to me sometimes strangely not things which would be considered extremely racist in my native language like applying the world race to humans. Sometimes I feel like a cultural gulf is opening between both sides of the Atlantic regarding what is and isn't appropriate.

It won't stop, bud. Everything must be sanitized.

Direct link to press release, which has 17 fewer trackers than Polygon per uBlock: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/depiction...

I can't figure out why Stone-Throwing Devils was banned. They look like garden-variety devils: https://img.scryfall.com/cards/normal/front/d/1/d1c387dd-134...

I personally found fairly "revolutionary" to have White players do Jihad. The illustration of Invoke Prejudice does look too Klan for comfort, and similarly Imprison, but the rest (particularly Cleanse) is just silly - you really have to squint very hard to find racist undertones into a color-targeting card during a color-based game.

I don't know, I still think people burning effigies and destroying art tend to be the bad guys. The road to hell is clearly going to be well-paved for the foreseeable future.

Over-applying lessons learned is a part of learning.

But symbolic/performative change in lieu of meaningful change is a way to dodge lessons.

This seems like both.

Paraphrasing, Cleanse removes all black creatures, including foul beats etc

This seems to point at a bigger issue where the black creatures are considered foul?

In this case black refers to the card type, and the black type is associated with necromancy and the demonic. I assume that is what foul is referring to?

Black creatures are "death" creatures, and are things like "Demonic Tutor", "Dark Ritual", "Rune-Scarred Demon"...

Demons and vampires and zombies and things like that.

The use of "Black" as a stand-in for nefarious things is its own problem, but it does not refer the the color of skin in any way in MTG.

I don’t play Magic, my co-workers do. But seems a little pedantic? I suppose they’re trying to be more inclusive, maybe focus on outreach and getting the game out to other communities.

I am willing to bet they just did not want to hear about these cards anymore, and this is as far as they can go since they do not have a magic lamp to wish them all a way.

The cards mentioned above are NOT good in play, they are only notable for their content.

Personally, I think the art for Imprison is gorgeous, but depicting violence against people of color is dehumanizing and problematic, so I understand and support the decision.

I think this is more of black = Night and night=scary.

But it could be seen as tone deaf right now.

as another commenter responded, that is not as universal as you would thing! :)

White is the color of death in (tribal) Africa, because people are afro-Africans and skeletons are caucasian-colored.

>This seems to point at a bigger issue where the black creatures are considered foul?

Likely in part due to J.R.R. Tolkien's influence on Western fantasy archetypes. Almost invariably, his books equate light skin with purity, civilization and goodness, and dark skin with corruption, barbarism and evil. Not to say that he was racist in the same way as H.P. Lovecraft was when writing about fish-men from Innsmouth as a thinly veiled metaphor for race-mixing, but rather that given Tolkien's Colonial British upbringing, he may have been blind to his own cultural prejudice.

Over the decades this has sort of become a trope that has seeped into a lot of fantasy and even science fiction.

I think you hit the nail here. Racism is broad term, and there is the direct individual Lovecraft style racism, and there is the other which is not as overt but has merit. An example is that idea that black is often time given connotations of brutish, evil, selfish, ...

While white is described as representing "morality, order, community, civilization, ..."

Are they the same, of course not, but we also can't say it has no significance either, as it does to always have those associations.

I dunno, maybe because many things turn black when they rot? Doctors and scientists dress in white or very light colors simply because it makes stains very visible, and it makes it easy to keep clean. I even asked a gay man why do they like white panties and socks so much and he said just that - it's a visible testament of hygiene.

Does anyone else feel like maybe corporations should just do this if they want and not make a big corporate statement about it; I feel like it's detracting from the issues at hand, which are frankly much large than luke-warm conceits of micro-aggressions. Macro-aggressions are occurring, let's stay focused on that and not derail the conversation. By all means do it, but maybe don't release a slew of PR about it.

Tournament rule changes demand an announcement; silence is not an option.

None of these cards seem racist to me. It's almost as if people are on a mission where they want to find racism and cultural offense where none exists. And then whatever they label as "racist" ends up getting banned.

This is basically a book-burning.

How is this happening in a society based on free speech? Why do most of the people in this thread seem to be okay with it?

1994 conservatives: "Magic is Satanic"

2020 liberals: "Magic is Racist"

I guess "protection from black" is the next /s https://scryfall.com/search?as=grid&order=name&q=oracle%3A%2...

no one is saying the game is racist, just that a tiny subselection of cards that are a byproduct of less aware times

The title of this submission indicates.to me that people are saying the game is racist.

Political correctness keeps finding new old, trivial things to retroactively demonize as "racist." At this rate, because one person maybe offended somewhere, all art must be destroyed, and making or possessing art will be punishable by death. "No singing either! Burn the racist heretic!" Has anyone ever surveyed actual gypsies to ask them if they find art in a card game fictional universe to negatively portray them?

Meanwhile, what are the same busybody zealots doing about grotesque socioeconomic apartheid (including criminal justice, disproportionately incarcerating precious minority brothers and sisters for a little weed), neocolonial pan-militarism, inverted totalitarian klepto-plutocracy corruption of democracies by rent-seeking, feudal billionaires, or the origins and prevalence of all types of mass shootings in the US? No, the Redskins need to change their name right now because reasons. [0]

People need to take a stand to reinforce that the social contract is implicit and doesn't need someone else's arbitrary Code of Conduct pseudo-legalese foisted onto every group or else you're somehow signaling that you're a terrible bigot because you don't do what others demand immediately. Oh, and apologize now, tomorrow, and the day after.. and defenestrate your worthless self properly or else!

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_contr...

I'm not entirely convinced that these highly-debatable "micro-aggression" corporate PR articles coming out are written in good faith. There is obvious, systemic aggression occurring. Articles like these seem to be planted to create comments like yours, which detract from the real issue at hand.

I don't think it's about a single person being wildly offended or something, rather it's an internal decision by WOTC to about remove unnecessary references to what are easily taken as or explicitly are hateful depictions of groups of people. I don't think this is really any different than removing Confederate statues from public venues.

this is a stupid slippery slope move.

but it wont make any diff to anything anyway, the cards were not in big use. literally no one will notice it.

How is it either stupid or a slippery slope if it won't make a difference and no one will notice it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com