To: Mark Rosewater & Whomsoever Else It May Concern
About the response to "Depictions of Racism" in Magic: the Gathering -- An Open Letter
Regarding the recent announcement, there may be many complicated feelings. Certainly, it is good to attempt to move forward without real racism. However, I also feel that the actions taken were the wrong response, and represent a myopic knee-jerk reaction that undermines confidence in the integrity of the game.
I can understand, to an extent, removing the image of "Invoke Prejudice" from the online Gatherer database, and especially scourging or reassigning a Multiverse ID so as to avoid the unfortunate confluence that occurred. That said, Magic: the Gathering is no stranger to disturbing iconography. The card "Crusade" has been banned and delisted for what I can only assume to be its mechanics since its art, over many printings including the modern-frame Duel Deck printing, is essentially tame, or else its name. This is strange when "Tivadar's Crusade", which contains the crusade concept in its name and depicts in its art the crucifixion of a humanoid being found 'undesirable' by a species-motivated mob, remains untouched. Imprison, similarly, is among those cast out while "Enslave" (and with it, a variety of other similarly-flavored effects such as "Slave of Bolas", "Cabal Slaver", "Cateran Slaver", and "Enslaved Scout") remains. And this does not even begin to approach the innumerable depictions of murder (including the card with that name), torture (again, including a card with that name), ritualistic sacrifice, cannibalism, gore, and numerous other human and inhuman evils as fits a game centered around conflict in an often dark fantasy world. I find it difficult to imagine that someone would be horrified or offended at the existence of "Crusade" and not "Famine" or "Village Cannibals". This makes most of the selected targets, all except perhaps "Invoke Prejudice" for its art and "Pradesh Gypsies" for its name, somewhat questionable as individuals singled out of a massive and diverse game depicting a vast spectrum of acts both fair and foul.
But, in a sense, I digress. To my main point, it does not really matter which cards were selected to become ghosts, stricken from record, nor precisely how many. The act itself represents an extremely poor response for the health and sanctity of the game as a whole.
I am reminded, somewhat, of the problem that Demons had early in the history of the game. From after Fifth Edition, until their return in Onslaught, the Demon type was forbidden. The reasoning for that then was essentially similar to the reasoning for this now, that there was a group of people, some subset of everyone that Magic: the Gathering might reach, that would or could be offended by the presence of such material. Because of that, no new demons were printed in the period where such thought held and unless I am badly mistaken old ones were not reprinted, with monsters that might have been demons presented instead as beasts or horrors. Wizards of the Coast poked fun at that decision in Unglued and eventually reversed it. But, I would argue, it was a more proper response than the one being taken now. In the period of no demons, "Lord of the Pit" was not forbidden, its existence denied, its status as a game piece revoked. New values were written in new tablets, and the game moved forward with a direction that was viewed as more acceptable. In every sense, the past was left in the past. It was neither carried onward nor expunged.
In this recent action though, a bad precedent is set that the game is to be shaped not by the concerns of the game, but rather by the political whims of those who make noise in social media. That, I feel, is a very bad approach. None of the seven cards banned in this action were banned because they were bad for gameplay. Their status in the game was redetermined by factors outside the game that should not be allowed to decide what would be done with them. Previous classes of black-border card lost to the otherwise eternal Commander and Vintage, such as Manual Dexterity, Ante, and Subgame (all one subgame card) were banished because of what they were as game pieces, not what an influencer took them to be as statements. With this latest move allowing the court of opinion rather than the health of the game to determine the state of the game, a frankly shocking lack of integrity in the management of the game has been shown.
Thus, I personally find that as long as politics and not gameplay should decide what belongs in Magic: the Gathering, censuring and censoring what has already been made in obeisance to arbitrary mob demands, I cannot conscience myself being a continuing supporter. I am aware, somewhat, of both the irony and futility of this statement. It is ironic in that I am myself attempting to advise change as a nobody on the internet when I say that such influences should not create game policy reaching backwards, and this I acknowledge and answer with the hope that my arguments up to this point have been well-reasoned. It is futile, in that I know I am not personally worth particularly much to Wizards of the Coast. For most of my life I have attended tournaments, but only a hand full each year, and as an adult I do regularly purchase sealed product, including booster boxes, but only on the level of an individual who collects and builds a few decks now and again, not en masse.
I know it is also futile because it is likely to be dismissed out of hand. Even if this letter finds its intended recipients, and is read, I suspect that judgment will have been made as of the first paragraph. All subsequent arguments, regarding the arbitrary nature of the targets, the tone of the game as a whole, and the integrity of game rules independent of political issues, are highly likely to be disregarded by many readers. These are my full and honest opinions, but I am crushingly aware that they may not be taken as such, and that I may, by the expression of a final conclusion opposed to the recent action, be painted with an unflattering brush and easily dismissed as not being of value.
But whether or not the unlikely event that this letter should be carefully considered occurs, I feel that it is important to put my money where my mouth is, so to speak, and that it lends what little what I have to my statements to append that I intend to cease attending sanctioned tournaments and cease purchasing sealed product. And as this letter is also to be presented in the open wilds of the internet, I would encourage others who feel that the wrong thing has been done here to do the same.
Thank you for your time.
I like this, and would agree with it.
