As Jihad enters the battlefield, choose a color and an opponent.
White creatures get +2/+1.
When the chosen opponent controls no nontoken permanents of the chosen color, sacrifice Jihad.
Printings View all
|Arabian Nights (ARN)||Rare|
Combos Browse all
Latest Decks as Commander
2 months ago
Ok so Im just gonna say this about the setting precedent arguments (slippery slope) and the "bit of a stretch" arguments.
A lot of you are claiming this is a slippery slope and that theres evidence theyll ban more cards for the same reason. And tbh there isnt any evidence of that. They havent said anything about other cards potentially banned for it and there is no precedent for them banning other things with this reason. Unless say, the card depicted something racist in the art.
Weve explained why these cards arent good and pointed out like realistic reasons why people will get offended. Even Cleanse, which a number of people have explained nonstop (once again, its a combination of a number of things but the fact that racial cleansing is an idea combined with the effect and flavor text). The first comment on this thread literally addressed this issue from a member of the MTG community who is a POC. None of these are the huge stretches you think they are. Literally like Ive said on here myself why Jihad and Crusade are problems as a Muslim (note: before anyone says Islam is a religion, its also one that is heavily associated with Middle Eastern people and is mostly POC in terms of people).
Also like... did any of you even use these cards? Or cards like them? Like also its a card game, it shouldnt even be depicting cards directly referencing racist ideals.
And before anyone says "Stone-Throwing Devils is a stretch" the name of that one is a literal slur used against Muslims. Like even if you havent heard it used, that shouldnt be the name of a card.
2 months ago
TheRealSpecialK, in the case of Jihad, I can understand your words, and there is also the fact that a fantasy world using real world terminology does not make sense. For that reason, I shall also accept the banning of Pradesh Gypsies, since the Roma people do not exist in a fictional world.
However, I shall stand by my assertion that Cleanse should not be banned, because the word "black" refers to philosophical alignment, not ethnicity.
Also, when people today use the word "crusade," they are more often than not using it as a general term for a zealous movement to achieve a certain goal, not in reference to the specific crusades that occurred during the 1000's to the 1200's, so I shall maintain that the card Crusade is not problematic, especially when Cathars' Crusade has not been banned.
2 months ago
One more thought - through my comment, I am trying to help people put themselves into the shoes of others. Let me try to reverse it. For Magic players living in, say, Asia, who are very unfamiliar with American Culture and history, it is possible that they may be a bit confused as to why Invoke Prejudice is banned. To someone unaware of American History, there is nothing wrong with the art at all. However, we in America see depictions of the KKK - and coupled with the name, easily understand that it is a card that evokes hate. I could see someone who invested in that card in Asia, again, unaware of its symbolism, being very upset because a card that they potentially invested a lot of money in has now been banned for issues that they are totally unaware of. To them, that might seem like a great injustice - they are being punished for issues other people face that have never affected them or their lives in the slightest.
That is what some of these other cards are like for us. Consider the word Jihad. For Muslims, it is a word used religiously to symbolize a lot more than just a "Holy War." The card Jihad doesn't really take away from that. But the culture in America (and possibly around the world) post 9/11 has dramatically shifted in how certain aspects of Islam are viewed. There is a lot of misunderstanding to the word Jihad now. For Muslims, I can't imagine how frustrating and hurtful it is that a word/concept that has deeper meaning in their faith has now taken on a violent and hate-fueled light in the eyes of non-Muslims living around them. So while Jihad might not have been problematic when it was printed, Wizards is acknowledging that times have changed, that they are aware of a whole community who might be uncomfortable by how the word Jihad has kind of taken on a new meaning outside Islamic culture, and that their feelings are just as real and important as the feelings of the much larger Magic community who might not understand why the card Jihad makes them uncomfortable. And that is why the banning are good - they aren't necessarily for everyone, and not everyone will understand them, but there will be people who have been affected by hate and prejudice who will feel grateful at some of them. Those people might not be you or me, but their feelings are real, and to them this gesture will mean a lot.
2 months ago
derekross305 please take the time to read the thread before commenting. This is not about mechanics. Imagine someone unfamiliar with the game gets to examine card XYZ. They certainly won't care about +1/+1 or blue mana creatures, but when black creatures get cleansed and destroyed, to an outsider 'not playing our card games', that looks racist. An image move by WotC.
The word Jihad, to a muslim, has religious meaning to this day. And no, I'm not refering to the extremist interpretation of holy war against non-believers. Rather, a muslim once explained to me, muslims view Jihad as a fight with one self, one's desire to sin. It is not a historic or fantasy word.
2 months ago
I can understand the Invoke Prejudice one. I guess you could make the case for it representing medieval executioners but I'm not going to get into that. If Cleanse is going to be considered racist than Virtue's Ruin should be too. Personally though, I think that's a slippery slope and kind of ridiculous to say Black/White creatures in the game are like Black/White people in real life. This game has always had the 5 colors and they are not about race. Crusade and Jihad seem more focused on religion than race and the artwork on those aren't bad at all. I don't see how Predash Gypsies is racist and I personally have never heard the word Gypsy used as a racial slur. Are gypsies even a race? Even if they were, that card says nothing bad about them. As far as Imprison and Stone-Throwing Devils go, it seems like they're just creating racism where it isn't. You'd basically have to be racist yourself to see some of these as racist. I don't see why we have to have politics/race seep into every aspect of our lives anyway. Just let us play our card games.
2 months ago
I've been thinking about it, and I feel that I owe the community here an apology.
I let my anger get the best of me, again. I've made it no secret about my anger management issues on here, but that is not an excuse.
The fact is, I should not have used this site, nor the contents of the game, as a conduit for my rage.
Part of anger management therapy is admitting when I am in the wrong, and that is what I am doing here.
My personal beliefs are still firm. I do agree that several cards listed are in fact racist, and like much of American media 20+ years ago came from a bad place. However, I still firmly believe several cards listed are not in fact racist and that WOTC is merely pushing a PR agenda in order to "get ahead" of potential fallout.
We saw this with Spacegodzilla, and we are seeing it again now. I strictly mentioned the card Crusade in my prior post, so I'd like to expand on it more with a less emotionally driven mind.
Yes, the Crusades in historical context were horrific. We aren't here to argue this. My argument is that WOTC is taking a backwards-racist method toward this card.
If the idea of mentioning crusades is a problem, other cards that mention that word or phrase would be banned, such as Cathars' Crusade. They are not, however.
This tells me that it is not the depiction of the card that is a problem. If it were, all cards eluding toward the idea of a Crusade would be banned.
They are not banning an idea, they are banning a single card.
We need to draw a line between the definition of a Crusade and what it means and the actual physical event in history that lead to the mass genocide of tens of thousands.
If they have a problem with the actual physical event in history, they'd ban all cards referencing it. The fact of the matter is, they have not.
Therefore, we need to look SPECIFICALLY at the card they chose to ban and ask why.
- "All white creatures get +1/+1."
Recall my point that "white" in this context does not mean the color of a creature's skin. It reflects the mana they are aligned with. For example, Cataclysmic Gearhulk would get +1/+1. It literally can't even have a "race" because it literally would not even be "alive". It's literally a machine. But, it has and therefore gets +1/+1.
Given the current BLM protests, the call to arms to ban and defund the police force due to "systemic racism" and the current administration - it is very clear to me that WOTC saw the "benefit toward whites" as a problem, thereby forgetting the entire mechanical design altogether.
So if a card can not give a single color of creature a boon, does this mean Bad Moon needs to also be banned? Of course not.
If we are speaking about "racial inequality" here, what about Crucible of Fire? After all, you are unjustly raising up Dragons - who are a race?
What about, as I mentioned before, Paragon of Fierce Defiance? Recall, "Red" was an old racial slur toward Native Americans. In a similar vein as to how "Yellow" is a slur toward Asians, in some contexts.
What we are looking at here are pieces of a puzzle, and each piece is important and must be asked of and evaluated individually in order to find the true stance.
What we have is:
- The banning of a single card mentioning the Crusades
- Which happens to be a card that grants +1/+1 to "white" creatures
- During the time of BLM protests
- During the time of supposed systemic racism in the police force
It's clear that the card was not chosen for its "inherent hate", but as a marketing ploy to serve an agenda in order to protect themselves from backlash during, as I said, an economic and societal crisis.
Okay, so let's move onto Invoke Prejudice.
Yes, this is absolutely a racist card. The artwork clearly depicts the KKK, and the tone of the card clearly is about superiority over others. I 100% agree that this card should be banned, and am glad that it is.
Now onto Cleanse.
Okay. Destroying "black" creatures is bad. Recall, "Black", in the context of MTG, does not mean "African American". It means having in its casting cost or part of an activated ability. So Cleanse would kill Drana, Kalastria Bloodchief. Does she look "African" to you? What about Teysa, Envoy of Ghosts? How about Crosis, the Purger? No? Funny, isn't it? It doesn't mean the color of their skin - it means the color of their mana.
...do you see where I'm going with this?
Stone-Throwing Devils. I legitimately have no idea how this can even be considered racist at all. Why, because it's another "black creature" who is "throwing rocks"? No, I don't buy this. Throughout Human history, many cultures throw rocks.
Bare in mind this card depicts creatures throwing stones as an aggressive and offensive means, not as a victim being stoned to death. If this card were something such as a sorcery where a group of people were beating someone to death by stoning them, I'd understand it more. But, again, that's not what this card is showing or representing. This card is not racist in any way.
Pradesh Gypsies: Yes, as I stated before, "Gypsy" is a slur. It's being taken back by the community, but it's still a slur. I 100% agree that this card is in poor taste for its name. No issues here.
Jihad: Uh, yes. Obviously. I can't believe a card was named this. 100% agree.
Imprison: I can see where someone MIGHT consider this to be a racist card, but again this is not about representing or attacking an ethnic group. This is a card that is aligned with , and flavorfully depicts it appropriately. The only reason this card is "considered racist" is because the artwork shows a dark-skinned man. If this card showed anyone else, it would have never made this list. The card wasn't racist until WOTC cried wolf and made a big fuss about it.
As I said before, and as I'll say again - WOTC doesn't care about you. We see this through their ever-growing price points, their cash-grab garbage products, their knee-jerk Secret Lair products dropped without warning and with limited windows... we see this with their inability to condemn cheating in their tournaments, their vice-grip banning of players and YouTubers who don't grovel to their every whim, and now this.
These cards existed for years. Decades. At any point someone could have said something. At any point someone could have brought it up. At any point someone could have made the call.
But they didn't. They didn't until now. Because, again, WOTC doesn't care about you.
They care about their bottom line. They saw companies being lambasted and see people, creators and companies being "cancelled" by the vocal minority far-wing Left and decided to step out in front of the train before it was "too late".
This is just a marketing ploy. A PR stunt.
It is a back-handed apology to protect their own wallets.
And that makes it insulting.
Some cards were rightfully banned and should have been banned long ago. They shouldn't have ever even seen the light of day.
The rest? It's them spitting in your face and asking you to thank them for it.
2 months ago
Ok so like... I get a lot of you are like "how about slippery slope" because youll think any card that effects black creatures could get banned but like... its the combination of racial phrasing on the card and the effect combined, not just cause it affects mostly black creatures.
Also like... one of the cards utilize imagery of a man in a slave mask and me and others gave lengthy reasons and explanations why the other cards are reasonable to call racist. Especially Jihad, Crusade and Stone-Throwing Devils Like... just because you dont understand doesnt mean its not right. Theyre not as much of a stretch as a lot of you are putting it as.
2 months ago
Wow, this was a really interesting move by WotC I honestly didn't see it coming, but I think I'm glad it did.
To start, I don't think this banning affects gameplay at all, the last time I saw any of these cards in a commander deck or other deck was never. Sure Crusade may be okay for white decks, but there are other, better, cards.
Onto each card:
Invoke Prejudice: I think everyone can agree that this card has no place in our game. When I learned it existed like 2 years ago, I was surprised it was ever printed (which is also what Wizard's said in their article)
Cleanse: a lot of people think this shouldn't be banned. The tone seems like exactly what Wizards said in the article.
Stone-Throwing Devils: I honestly didn't know this card existed. I can certainly see why it's banned now, again, I don't think this banning actually hurts anyone.
Pradesh Gypsies: The term is a slur, I'm almost uncomfortable putting the card name here. This card shouldn't have been created in the first place. I saw an argument from someone that said they felt this excluded people who identified as (and these are their words) "a gypsie" and that they felt the banning of this card took away their ability to relate to the game. The only question is if the person knew this card existed. It's really freakin' obscure.
Jihad: very straight forward card. I agree with the decision to ban it. Also, I've never seen ANYONE play this card in my 4+ years of constant commander and no I never will sooo
Imprison: Again, very surprised this card existed. I'll make a point about old magic cards soon but like...damn, WotC was messed up in the early days. The art is a clear depiction of what others have said above, I don't think there should be any argument about this cards banning.
Crusade: This might be the most debated card aside from cleanse. While I've never played against or seen it, I do know people that run this card in mono white decks. The card legitimately references the actual crusades, especially with the OG art and while a lot of people use: "it's time for another crusade" ironically, the historical event is a terrifying glimpse of how bad humanity actually is, I agree with this banning, though it may affect a few players within the community (EDH speaking.
For one, I don't disagree with the bannings, Wizards essentially removing cards that depict or reference real-world (yes it's important to distinguish between real world and reality)intolerance is a good thing as it will promote a healthier game. Overall, the bans don't affect anyone other than Crusade for which there is a functional reprint.
I've got two last points to make. The first is that these cards are from the beginning of Magic's history. These old sets simply weren't regulated like they are today. The company didn't put a ton of care into it's public image like they do today.
Finally, I do think this is Wizard's hopping on a corporate bandwagon. While I do agree these cards should've been banned a long time ago (Tbh they shouldn't have been made at all), I think Wizards could've banned them at any time, but now that people are taking a closer look into companies in light of the recent events in america, Wizards felt some pressure to erase past mistakes (which is still a good thing). At least those cards are finally out of here, they didn't have a good use anyway.