Anything can be evocative.
We know that it wasn’t mean to be racist. But they have deleted it, with an apology.
Yep.
But the background was unnecessary and problematic today. so they deleted it.
All I’ll say outside the Pit is that that is not capering.
And that isn’t the minstrel image I’ve linked to more than once, now, the one that way more closely resembles the Hadozee pose.
Not minstelsy, not an ounce of caper in her.:
Not a brute:
Not the chicken thief criminal trope:
You have no fucking clue what the “magical Negro” trope actually is, do you? It’s not “Black magic user”.
Nothing trope-y about this guy:
Yes, it is.
Showing Black people same as White characters in D’nD - powerful, heroic, competent, not caricatures.
And when those have ties to centuries of racist depictions, you’d have a point…
Let me ask you - if DnD came up with a race of rat-people, and their backstory was about how they were devout followers of a single god, were forced to leave their homeland by a conquering empire, spread throughout that empire and survived by moneylending, barely survived several genocide attempts, and now are secretly running the world through financial power, would you find that maybe a little racist? And if they are depicted a bit like, but plausibly distant from, this?:
I mean, c’mon, it’s not like he’s wearing a Magen David, right? Totally different symbol. And skullcaps were all the rage in the Renaissance. Probably just a coincidence…
@Odesio: do you see what I mean now, about pushing back?
…wow.
At no point in putting this post together did it occur to you how grotesquely off-base it was?
Chronos, it’s coming across like you’re defending your honor more than you’re thinking carefully about what folks are saying. Maybe I’m wrong, but this post is just – wow.
You may want to think carefully about what folks are saying.
@MrDibble, that was an excellent post, and said pretty much everything I’d want to say, only better. The rat-person analogy is 100% on point, and makes me realize I’d better think real carefully about my wererats-as-secret-powers-of-the-kingdom plot.
Makes me glad my wererats are usually semi-joke monsters and never of importance. I might lean a little heavy on wheels of cheese.
5e seems to have them mostly as Halflings now. So that seems pretty safe. Glad they’re not Gnomes or Dwarves.
Yes.
We’re not. I took the time to give you a sourced post explaining (or at least trying to explain - maybe I did it badly) the importance of context and nuance in relation to historical stereotypes and you attacked several strawmen instead.
That’s pretty disappointing. Disagree with my ideas all you want, but at least read 'em first.
I think it’s all in how you handle it - if the back story is way different, and they don’t display all the bad tropes, then being a secret power isn’t a problem.
I have a soft spot for wererats because of that cheesy Mickey Mouse ears wererat disguise cartoon in the 1st ed DMG
I am unable to view the image you have linked. I was not aware that it was different from the minstrel image that shows up a couple of times upthread. Other posters may be having this same issue, rather than being deliberately obtuse about whether the depicted minstrel is capering or has one foot off the ground. Could you source your image a different way?
Updated to add: Aha! Switching to my tablet with a different browser, I see an image that depicts a male and a female minstrel with sheet music for The Coal Black Rose.
Is this better?
It’s also in the article I originally linked to, as a Twitter insert.
Then they could have said so.
I couldn’t say so until I realized what the issue is.
I was under the mistaken assumption that you were linking to the same image Johnny_Bravo was using. Never assume! 
Charitably, perhaps others are unaware they are in the same boat that I was in. Disagreements over whether minstrels have shoes or sandals, or whether they do or do not have a foot in the air, evaporate once you can actually see that there is more than one image being discussed.
If you redraw that image and make Jimi Hendrix a simian, that would definitely be racist. Context is everything.
I did assume people had read the actual article I originally posted. Not a mistake I’ll make again, I guess.
Honest to Og, I can’t view it there either. 
But it shows up clear and plain now as an in-post image. Thanks!
That was incredibly offensive. If people of any historically opposed group tell me that something offends them, I listen and try to learn. I don’t nitpick it to death. I can’t believe that you thought that making a comparison with that picture of Jimi was apt or appropriate.
Definitely. I’ve been thinking about this over the last couple of days, and I honestly can’t remember what are my own thoughts and what I got from here; but I’ll risk repeating what others have said with something that may help others understand.
One of the tools in racism’s toolkit is to dehumanize groups by comparing them with animals. It IS true that monkeys aren’t human, and they jump around and hoot and are playful and mischievous and sometimes from a human perspective “thieving.” So if you’re a racist who wants to ascribe these traits to a racial group, imagining that group as monkey-people is an effective way to get others to see those animal traits in that group. It’s a pernicious fantasy with harmful real-world effects; and folks who are harmed by these awful human-animal stereotypes, not to paint with too broad a brush, are generally unhappy about them.
One of the tools in fantasy and science fiction is to create new species that are sentient and human-like; and an easy way to do that is to humanize an animal. You can take an animal like a monkey and humanize it by saying, “They’re like humans who jump around and are playful and mischievous and thieving.” Your intent is 100% different from the racist’s intent. But what you create comes out looking very similar. And folks who are harmed by that stereotype? They might not be too happy about it.
Another humanized animal might be far less problematic. I’ve not heard anyone complain about the racist implications of the tabaxi (cat-people), probably because there’s not a racist history of dehumanizing people by comparing them to cats.
Does this mean that it’s cool to create cat-people, and much less cool to create monkey-people?
Yup.
“But that’s not fair!” you might say. “Why should racist stereotypes get to ruin my fun, when my fun isn’t racist?”
I sympathize with this objection to the tune of a very tiny violin. You know what? Racism sucks. It’s resulted in the murder, torture, and oppression of millions of folks, and especially Black Americans. And it might also mean that you shouldn’t play monkey-people in fantasy games.
If you don’t like that injustice, let’s work real hard together on getting rid of racism. When we’ve gotten rid of racism, Black people won’t suffer systemic oppression, and as a bonus, you get to play a monkey person without catching side-eye!
Sure. And I’m thinking of the allegory of the cave where people step out into the light and it’s painful.
I’ve been thinking about it, and other than the Hadozee and a couple of demons, I can’t seem to come up with any sentient D&D races with ape or monkey-like characteristics. Do you know how odd that is? Dozens and dozens of canine, feline, equine and other mammalianform races - to say nothing of the avians - but only a handful of simians. It’s almost as if the game’s designers usually knew better.
Don’t draw apes wearing clothing. Just… don’t. Nothing good will come of it.
Does this apply to zodiac animals? Because the monkey is on there, and Chinese mythology has a rich history of associating people from all walks of life with animals based on year of birth rather than race. And each zodiac has positive and negative stereotypes.
There’s an entire archetype of monkey heroes in the east. Sun Wukong (the “monkey king” from Journey to the West) is a hugely popular hero/fairy tale character in Chinese culture, compare to, say, Robin Hood in terms of popularity. He leads an entire society of monkeys, he rebels against heaven and nearly wins; it takes a literal mountain to hold him down. He has great magical powers even in each individual hair, and can travel great distances with ease. Finding religion, he condescends to bring justice to the mortal plane.
~Max
The Pathfinder game, which was spun out of D&D third edition, has a playable race, the Vanara, who are based on this archetype.
They’ve also got at least two different intelligent ape “monster” races - the charau-ka, who fill the “goblin” niche in the African-themed portion of their game world, and the derhii, who are more “honorable warrior culture.”
What? No. Not even slightly. Did you mean to quote some other part of my post?
Well, there’s the Vanara, from [cringe] Oriental Adventures. I don’t really remember them well enough to analyze them well.
Every mythology on the planet - China’s included - has animal heroes and animal villains. That’s not at all relevant to LHoD’s point that ascribing animalistic features to people you hate is a classic method of literally dehumanizing your victim.