WotC bans racist cards

[Aetherium Slinky]

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/depictions-racism-magic-2020-06-10

How do we feel about the topic?

I'm a little torn on this. Thus far WotC has managed to make the matter worse:

• The price on the cards has spiked and will likely remain high due to them being effectively on the restricted list.
• A lot of people didn't know about the cards...but now they do. This could have been a silent edit. Virtue signalling much?
• It's a bit of a slippery slope in terms of values. In some ways they're now saying racism is worse than (mass) murder. I mean if a layman took a look at Invoke Prejudice and said it's racist then surely that same person would see Murder as pro-murder? Or something like Kindred Dominance being very genocide-friendly. Anyway they're now pitting society's values against each other and saying one is better than another.

I have no idea how they're going to dig themselves out of this. I feel angry at them for doing it this way. I'm sure they're trying to be more inclusive but this just feels like someone started panicking at the office and they started banning cards and even promised they'll ban some more...instead of actually thinking about the ramifications of doing so.

[Slyvester12]

On the surface, this looks like an incredibly silly move. If they were actually interested in doing this, wouldn't it make sense to just print functional reprints of the cards with different names and art, then explain why the old versions were considered banned cards? They basically just removed cards from people's collections, some of which have been talked about for literal years, without compensating players in any way for a mistake they've known about for a long time.

EDIT: Not to mention, are they going to do this to old cards depicting sexism? They've moved away from the women in skimpy clothing fantasy art style in recent sets, but what about old cards? Are they going to ban Gwendlyn Di Corci because she's essentially a half-naked woman who tempts men with sex and then kills them? What about cards like Elvish Ranger, who's literally a tan lady in a leather bikini?

I think they should either accept that their game has a long history, parts of which might not be particularly flattering, or make an effort to actually go back and work on past cards that could be offensive. I don't know. This just seems like they tried to do something before people started calling out MtG.

[CleanBelwas]

Personally I'm all for the change.

I think the ramifications of the effect on peoples collections and the price of the cards is secondary to a much more important issue.

These specific cards are above and beyond normal gameplay pieces and have connotations that can cause genuine offense and upset to people. As a white person that hasn't experienced systemic racism my whole life, it would be very easy for me to say it's just a game and the whole thing is being blown out of proportion, but I think here it is important to listen to those affected by this.

There is a good twitter thread that contextualises each card in turn and highlights why it is problematic compared to other similar cards:

https://mobile.twitter.com/MerfolkMagic/status/1270874078836998146

Cards like Crusade and Cleanse use language widely associated with white supremacist groups, which is why they are a problem compared to cards like Mass Calcify. In a vacuum, the cards are fine, but when we take a look at the bigger picture and contextualise them within our society and the connotations and allegory that come with them, they start to appear as more than just game pieces.

While WotC are entirely doing this as a response to a media backlash, I think any action that attempts to oppose or steer away from racism, no matter how unintentional or deliberate, is worth taking.

I think in time it would be fair to offer some sort of compensation for collectors along the lines of a trade in or amnesty, but for now, given the wider political climate across the world, being seen to be standing against racism is a good start. The effect on peoples collections can be addressed later, but it is not what is important right now.

[BoBWiz]

Hello,

MerfolkMagic tweeds some interesting stuff.

For Invoke Prejudice especially I totally agree. All the other cards too.
This Gypsie word for instance become non-pc a while after the card was designed but today it is the same like the N-word.
For cards like Jihad, I wonder that nobody upsets before. (Hope some remember Charlie Hebdo.)

I think it is totally right to ban this special cards for the reasons MerfolkMagic explained. They can easily print some functional cards.

Exept for Invoke Prejudice I won't burn the cards from my collection.
 
I am an educated male white german. What do I know about racism and how it feels?

[Aetherium Slinky]

Invoke Prejudice is worth over $100. But ok. My point was that the price spike means these cards have more demand now which - I think - is the exact opposite of what WotC tried to achieve.

Just to be clear about this: I think these cards are problematic and the underlying cause is important. Problematic cards don't really belong in Magic in my opinion. It's just the way they went about this that irks me somehow.

About the the specific bans: some cards (reference to "gypsies", for example) were designed in a time where they were completely ok and I feel like retroactively saying they're not ok is just hypocrisy. They should have said "these cards aren't ok" and leave it at that instead of trying to say they were wrong all along and apologise for something that used to be ok. It's like they're admitting to being racist on purpose which is probably worse than being racist by accident since it implies malicious intent.

Furthermore there's an important question to be asked about politics in Magic. I say the cards and arts shouldn't be political or religious in any way but on the other hand I definitely understand some of the historical references. For example Crusade doesn't have to be racist, it could also just be a depiction of what went on in the past without implying whether it was right or wrong. Wrath of God is a card name I've always disliked but I understand it's a pretty common Judeo-Christian based reference so I would let it pass as a historical reference and not as religious propaganda.

What I'm saying is that it's ok to talk about issues and depict them in art, practising such acts is not. I guess the line between historical references, negative connotation "-isms" and politics is sometimes very ambiguous. Such a line does exist, though, because I'm sure most people would burn straight up white supremacist propaganda and wouldn't burn a history book that talks about white supremacist propaganda as a historical fact.

---

I'm going to use some words most people find disturbing. Please read at your own discretion.

BoBWiz (and everyone else, too): "nigger" is a very offensive word but there's no reason to omit that if you're talking about the word itself and its impact. If you talk about the word "gypsy" in a similar fashion and you think it's about as bad as "nigger" but you omit it as "the N-word" you should probably reconsider omitting "gypsy" as "the G-word", too. Same goes for "eskimo" which I rarely see referred to as "the E-word". We're not going to get very far if we keep omitting words we just don't happen to like. Plus, none of these are the most offensive words in the English language - yet we rarely talk about "the C-word" i.e. "cunt" which happens to be the most offensive word in the English language.

Sorry I'm a little touchy on the subject but I just hate it when talking about a subject is so taboo that you're not allowed to use words to describe it. I think that in this context it's necessary to talk about the word "gypsy" since it's a derogatory word that is in the title of a card. You literally couldn't explain the card or the problem with it without using the word itself.

As a final note: all the aforementioned words are very ugly and nobody should ever call anyone by those names. I really hope this disclaimer is unnecessary.

[Slyvester12]

My point was not that the cards should be allowed to remain. Of course, Invoke Prejudice is obviously offensive. My point is, why not make a card with the same effect, call it Prismatic Barrier or something, and make the art a rainbow wall. The effect isn't the problem, and people who want it could play it without needing to deal with the racism inherent to the original. WotC should address this in a better way.

[CleanBelwas]

I completely agree that WotC handling of the situation has been shitty.

The big point on this is that people have been complaining about these cards for years, and only now when there is a particular focus on racism do they feel the need to address it. That is a poor show.

If we are giving them then benefit of the doubt, then it probably comes from a place that many of us will have experienced (myself included) of it simply not registering as we haven't been on the receiving end of the prejudices that make these cards offensive. As has been reported, a vast majority of WotC is made up of white Americans. I doubt very much that most, if any, of them are racists or white supremacists or anything of the sort, just that the connotations don't jump out at them because their own life experiences haven't been inline with what causes these cards to offend. The same is certainly true of myself. A couple of the cards on the list required me to take a second look or do a bit of research as to why it was problematic as I couldn't see it at first glance.

These cards were particularly problematic because of their real world connotations, but also specifically because of all of the elements of the card as a whole. The name of the card, the art, the effect, the flavour text all contribute to this. The card Cleanse would be fine if had a different name. Or a different effect. Even a card with a name like Invoke Prejudice could be fine with appropriate design and art.

Similarly, I think cards like Wrath of God have been fine as they are clearly referencing in game lore and effects and nothing else. Wrath of God has only ever depicted in Universe Gods (such as Heliod) or a generic "deity in the sky". Had it depicted a specific God from a real world religion, it could be seen as problematic. I think that distinction is the important part. Nomenclature isn't inherently the problem, but when it combines to make real world references to things that caused people to suffer, it is a problem.

Time will only tell if WotC decide to create functional reprints with more acceptable design for those effected by these. I suspect not. The cards aren't prevalent in any formats and that requires effort on their part without the promise of making a lot of money so they probably wont bother. I'd like it if they did, but I can't see it happening.

I've always found the Warner Bros. handling of topics such as this to be graceful and appropriate. They have a disclaimer before some of their older films which I will share below. Personally, I feel like adding this kind of disclaimer to the cards, while still preserving their record on Gatherer and the like, would probably have been the best. Blanking over their existence doesn't help anyone. Frankly, it looks incredibly dishonest. It's akin to people who idolise Churchill for his war efforts without also acknowledging his bigotry and racism. You have to have the whole picture. Erasing history serves no purpose for anyone other than the people who are erasing it, and usually it's because they want to paint themselves in a better light.


----
Edits for spelling and grammar.
----

[Bonethor]

There is a good twitter thread that contextualises each card in turn and highlights why it is problematic compared to other similar cards:

https://mobile.twitter.com/MerfolkMagic/status/1270874078836998146

The mentioned Invoke Prejudice is a clear cut case.. everything else is somewhat debatable and this seems like a slippery slope. MerfolkMagic makes a case for Crusade being a racially insensitive card but claims that Honor of the Pure is ok. Personally I could see the purity aspect in HotP misconstrued as racial purity and thus being majorly more offensive than Crusade for example.

Who's to say what's offensive enough to deserve a ban and whether or not a ban is even necessary. As has been suggested I think that reprinting and changing the flavor texts around and maybe banning certain depictions of the card would be fine if something has to be banned. There are always going to be people who are trying to find certain meanings within the cards but as long as the original design doesn't heavily hint at something nefarious I think it should be left alone.

There are plenty of cards that may be considered offensive in their own right like Village Cannibals , Virtue's Ruin or Extinction

[BoBWiz]

I totally agree of what WotC did. It's a pity that it didn't happen before.

@MustaKotka
OK I see your point but english is not my native language. For instance I never mentioned this "c-word" thing. Here in germany swear words aren'd restricted but non-pc words. (Of course you don't say bad words to kids!)
I'm guessing nobody understand what "G-Word" stands for. It's no excuse just an explanation. I am sorry.

@Invoke Prejudice:
If it's right that the card's painter is at least a sympathizer of white pride ideology relating to this artwork and this old reference number (1488) and the code it stands for, then it should be burned.
A lot of bad stuff get prizy cause of being bad once it starts being bad. Unfortunately, we humans are predisposed that way.

In general I think the respective minority has to decide whether something is politically correct or not.
regards

[CleanBelwas]

I completely agree that there is an amount of interpretation to any card. However I do feel that there are some key differences between the ones actually banned and the ones highlighted as potentials.

Crusade is a problem because the Crusades were a thing that actually happened. A long period of history of war founded in religion and racism that "had the objective of recovering the Holy Land from Islamic rule". The Crusades are something that a lot of white supremacists call for reenacting. It is a real part of their end goal.

Every card that was banned has some real world connotation that sets it apart from simple game mechanics.

I do agree that Honor of the Pure could easily fall into this list. "Purity" is a key part of the rhetoric of a lot of the groups that advocate these kinds of things. For me it has the same merit for banning as Cleanse. The effect and the use of language prevalent from the supremacist's rhetoric are applicable to both cards in my opinion. Village Cannibals, Virtue's Ruin and Extinction fall less into this category for me. While they each have some real world undertones, they are far less specific to a particular event or type of person. There is only really one aspect of each card that could be seen as problematic as opposed to the others where the name of the card and the effect (and often the art) contribute to its negativity.

Like you say though, it is all subjective. Those opinions are my own. I think what is particularly relevant is that the cards that have been banned all have a history of complaints against them. I personally think the correct way to handle such matters would be to sincerely listen to peoples complaints about the cards and judge each one individually, and based on the list of cards that have actually been banned, it seems like that is roughly what has happened.

Personally I don't see it as a slippery slope so long as WotC engage in appropriate discourse. Sure, there is the argument that this sets a precedent that people can abuse. They could complain about a card that they don't like even though to a wider audience the card is fine with the hope that it gets banned. By listening to the people directly effected by these prejudices and considering their point of view before making any decisions, WotC could easily avoid this getting out of hand.

[Judaspriester]

For me this is just a cheap way for getting some positive PR.
I agree on prejudice, be ready to talk about jihad, but the others? Err nope.

While I understand  that some people have  a problem with certain cards, words (or whatever else), but if we want something  everyone agrees with, we ending up in hello kitty  magic. Wait, even hello kitty is meant to be sexist.

I have a big problem with discrimination  and racism, but I think there is often a small but very loud part that claims all rights for themselves and everyone not agreeing with them is a racist/sexist etc.
The best example for this,  at least  here in Germany,  is saying  something  against  Israel  or their policies. It is damn hard to argue that there is a difference between  what happened  in ww2 to Jews and what the Israeli government  does today. Usually you get branded  very fast as antisemite and/or nazi.

At some point we have to agree that there is a history  and not every  part is that fine in the light of current events. We can't  nuke everything  unpleasant  out, unless we want to end up with a department  of truth  like  Orwell described in 1984.

[Bonethor]

There were several crusades and some of those crusades went North towards Germany, the Baltic states and Finland for example. Granted the first ones aimed at Jerusalem are the biggest and most famous ones. The iconography has been adopted to a certain extent by right wing extremists but the same is true for much of Viking culture. Just personally just because something bad happened doesn't mean that everything linked to it is polluted and I feel these extremist groups are given more power if we begin shunning things they try to appropriate. Crusades were also directed against "my people" but I feel the term is a fairly generic one, depicting an act of "just" war by an ideology towards people not subscribed to that ideology.

Anyhow as we established it's not about subjective views but about how it's generally perceived. I still think that this could've been handled better and hope that they don't get overzealous (pun intended) with the bans. Good discussion in general!

[robort]

I could list a whole boat load of cards that could be racists, sexists, religious, and so forth.  I am playing a game where I am casting spells.
I don't look at the art much or read into the interpretation of the wording of the cards much. I just want to know what the spell does in this fantasy game. I will put an example which this particular card was brought to my attention as racist. God-Eternal Oketra is one of my commander decks. A white creature that puts out and controls black creatures. Yet as playing this spell I just see it as a god sending out a zombie horde in a fantasy world. I could go as far as saying that the zombies believe in this diety which then is religious and can be considered wrong.

Again I just want to enjoy this fantasy of a game as simplistic as possible without bringing reality into such fantasy

[CleanBelwas]

Your point about crusades is totally fair. I guess that ultimately the cards chosen should come as no surprise to us given that the action was only taken as a direct result of the social and political pressure of the world currently. It will be interesting to see if they do perform a full review of their cards as they have promised and if any other cards are removed as a result, and if so, what reasons they give to justify it. I think that will be telling as to whether or not they are trying to remove cards that people find genuinely offensive or if they are pandering to social pressures.

[WizardSpartan]

I can see both sides.

As people have said, Invoke Prejudice definitely should be removed and acknowledged as racist, not right, etc. I can see how people would want to, out of respect, remove certain obviously racist cards, especially now.

That said, somebody did link the Warner Bros disclaimer, and I prefer that way of handling it over this way. They acknowledged their stuff as racist, but the most important thing they did was say that if they got rid of the racist parts, that would be akin to claiming these horrible prejudices never actually happened.

I do want to discuss one card in particular: Cleanse. I really dislike that they included this card. The art obviously shows a bunch of demonic type figures being "cleansed" by light. I have a hunch that the combination of the name and what it does (destroy black creatures) made them ban this card. That pisses me off, though. It's very obvious that black creatures, in this context (as it is in most contexts) means literally black creatures (demons, shades, skeletons, etc.), and I don't see how that would be likened to ethnic cleansing. There are so many cards in Magic's history that destroy a specific color of creature. Are we going to ban all of them? I would honestly hope not, as color rivalries are a core part of Magic and are most definitely not tied into racist beliefs. White and black in Magic are about good vs. evil, yin and yang, etc. It's not some hidden poke at a very serious topic.

Otherwise, I agree with the cards they banned, even if I disagree with the execution. Like others have said, WotC calling attention to these cards have jacked their price up and will make them highly desirable for any white nationalists, etc. in the MTG community.