Extremely Fair Article About Witcher 3

[Riven-Twain]

Yep. Tolkien would say the exact same. He hated putting intentional allegories in his work, but believed authors were subject to them nonetheless. Basically, he believed authors should focus only on writing an engaging story and the allegories would come together naturally as a byproduct of that process.

An example of a statement he would've hated is "The Ring is a metaphor for nuclear weapons." An example of a statement he would not hate is "When veiwed as a metaphor the Ring can teach lessons about nuclear weapons."

Precisely what I was driving at! The line between allegory, and broader, thematic symbolism, from which we may draw interpretations, and apply them to our own condition, is often very poorly defined. Heavy-handed metaphors can have limited appeal.

 

[Phinnway]

Precisely what I was driving at! The line between allegory, and broader, thematic symbolism, from which we may draw interpretations, and apply them to our own condition, is often very poorly defined. Heavy-handed metaphors can have limited appeal.

We've done it! Between you and I we've done the impossible! Two strangers on the internet who previously had a disagreement have come to mutual understanding! I now believe that anything is possible. There is no problem in the world that cannot be overcome.

 

[Riven-Twain]

Communication -- sometimes it works! It just takes a bit of patience, a willingness to exchange ideas, and the ability to attempt to view things from another's perspective. Hurrah for us! But, now, back on topic -- it is an extremely fair article about The Witcher III.

 

[GuyNwah]

Yes, but serfdom was no slavery. Barons did not owe their serfs directly, the serfs belonged to the land. So, as far as I know, it was illegal to sell just people, or to split families, or to relocate them. It was a rather stable system - serfs produced food, etc, while the barons owned them protection, and justice. The serfs had an option to go to a city, and after a year, they seized to be bound to the land, and became citizens of their cities. Sure, they did not have too much freedom, but, unlike slaves had a status of cattle, not human beings, they did have certain rights.



Well, Irish, when they arrived to USA after the famine, were considered of a different, inferior, race, as well as a lot of other immigrants. I remember an article I read in college, "How Irish became whites", or some similar title.

Yes, discrimination against the Irish ran very deep, it was especially fierce ikn England and among English descendants in the US, even to the extent that the Know-Nothing Party tried to drive Catholics from office and Prohibition targeted the political system (if your people meet in taverns, outlaw the taverns).

 

[WolvenGear]

A thrall could also become a freedman, for instance by buying or being willed his freedom. Contrast serfs and villeins (serfdom developed later), who were tied to the land they worked.

Yeah. Over here we call them a "trell".

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Easy Scholdarr
If Sapkowski didn't "gave a shit" about (formerly and still) oppressed minorities, why would he bring up this issue over and over again in his books.

You got me wrong. I never said he didn't care about such topics at all. I said that BLACKS are of no importance for him. Poles themselves feel often like a minority in Europe and there were other groups in Europe that qualifies for that (like Sinti and Roma). The issue is that the topic about black people has no big meaning in Eastern Europe and Poland especially. It's a pretty much all-Amerianc thing and I don't understand all these "analysis" posts that want to connect Sapko's works to that American topic. There is no such connection beyond the mere fact that it's in parts about minorites and racial/cultural conflicts.

What is probably the first thing a European thinks about when hearing oppressed minority? Very likely Jews, Sinti and Roma, even lower classes of society, which coincidentally all more or less have a white-ish skin colour. That's not more of an issue than the oppression of people of non-white skin colour, but it's something more familiar to an European.

Exactly.

But after all, Sapko probably wrote a lot of stuff just for entertainment. To add tension to stuff you need to add conflict. With every novel it's the same old topic, how much we interpret into it and how much the writer just wrote for adding conflict fo support the entertainment factor.

---------- Updated at 11:16 AM ----------

That's what I find interesting about the 'racism' presented in The Witcher, as everyone looks about the same, and yet they hate each other.

That's not true at all. It's exactly what's wrong with Americans trying to interpret topics of other countries/regions around the world. Racism has only little to do with black or whites for other people, outside of NA. And people can look pretty different although they are all "white". People from southern Europe for example look different than people from northern Europe. Slavs look different than people from western Europe. And people have certain prejudices about the looks of Jews as well (like big hawk noses and such). And minority problems in other cultures are often less about "race" and "looks" but about behaviour and cultural differences. Best example are perhaps Sinti and Roma. While they are all white their main difference to other people is that they live for themselves in groups and travel around, following their own traditions and cultures.

Honstly, I can't read American "social" reviews of European games anymore. They always try to interpret them like the games were especially made with American culture and American conflicts in mind while in fact they often neglect completely that there exists other countries, other cultures, other conflicts that have almost nothing to do with conflicts people are used to in NA.

 

[Phinnway]

That's not true at all. It's exactly what's wrong with Americans trying to interpret topics of other countries/regions around the world. Racism has only little to do with black or whites for other people, outside of NA. And people can look pretty different although they are all "white". People from southern Europe for example look different than people from northern Europe. Slavs look different than people from western Europe. And people have certain prejudices about the looks of Jews as well (like big hawk noses and such). And minority problems in other cultures are often less about "race" and "looks" but about behaviour and cultural differences. Best example are perhaps Sinti and Roma. While they are all white their main difference to other people is that they live for themselves in groups and travel around, following their own traditions and cultures.

Honstly, I can't read American "social" reviews of European games anymore. They always try to interpret them like the games were especially made with American culture and American conflicts in mind while in fact they often neglect completely that there exists other countries, other cultures, other conflicts that have almost nothing to do with conflicts people are used to in NA.

Think it sucks for you? Just imagine what it's like to live in this country where you hear this bullshit 24/7

 

[Riven-Twain]

That's not true at all. It's exactly what's wrong with Americans trying to interpret topics of other countries/regions around the world. Racism has only little to do with black or whites for other people, outside of NA. And people can look pretty different although they are all "white". People from southern Europe for example look different than people from northern Europe. Slavs look different than people from western Europe. And people have certain prejudices about the looks of Jews as well (like big hawk noses and such). And minority problems in other cultures are often less about "race" and "looks" but about behaviour and cultural differences. Best example are perhaps Sinti and Roma. While they are all white their main difference to other people is that they live for themselves in groups and travel around, following their own traditions and cultures.

Honstly, I can't read American "social" reviews of European games anymore. They always try to interpret them like the games were especially made with American culture and American conflicts in mind while in fact they often neglect completely that there exists other countries, other cultures, other conflicts that have almost nothing to do with conflicts people are used to in NA.

Well, you certainly seem to have some prejudices of your own. . . .as do we all. Incidentally, I'm not a very good American, by American standards, and I guess I just don't see that much difference in the physical appearances of humans -- in terms of colour or body structure . Oh well.

 

[dragonbird]

In the interest of this thread NOT turning into country-bashing, even by people who live there, could you get back to the article now please?

 

[Riven-Twain]

In the interest of this thread NOT turning into country-bashing, even by people who live there, could you get back to the article now please?

Ay. Thank you for the warning. We should know better.

 

[Aes Sídhe]

Yeah, Europe had practically zero contact with sub-saharan Africans until the 1600s.

You're practically right of course, however I can tell you the Vikings brought at least 300 Black Africans to Ireland ~900AD. No record of their ultimate fate. Such small numbers would have an extremely difficult time transmitting their gene down 1000 years, attrition would likely get them, and thats even if they bred. Theres another instance in Irish lore of the ancient days that discusses "Blue men" from a land to the south, some have noted the blue tint to dark African skin, others have named them Atlanteans. Could point out the possibility the Vikings deposited a few around Europe and no where else recorded it for posterity.

We are outsiders to it all and we can see from this distance that the hatred is artificial, created for political ends and seized upon by vicious and manipulative elements.

“How can an elite of usurpers... establish their privilege? By one means only: debasing the colonized to exalt themselves, denying the title of humanity to the natives, and defining them as simply the absences of qualities- animals, not humans".

Actually years ago after years of reading about ancient Greece, Rome & Egypt I suddenly realised I had encountered no racism. Egypt had had Black African god-Emperors, they were all over Greece treated respectfully, Rome had Black African Senators, and again no evidence of racism. What you do find of course is Elitism. Moving forward in time, the Celts and the Vikings I would also say shows more signs of elitism than racism, whether the difference was in rank or caste. It seemed to me the beginnings of actual colour / race based prejudice surfaced with the Normans, who took elitism to the max, but really doesn't seriously appear until the African slave trade in the 16th century. Seriously, its that young.

Hey, same here man! Although the form of my surname actually means my family is descended from Irish thralls.

If you're not totally certain about this, pm me the name and i'll see what I can find out, I have most of the primary research sources available. I mention this because there are mistranslations & false origin stories out there.

 

[Phinnway]

You're practically right of course, however I can tell you the Vikings brought at least 300 Black Africans to Ireland ~900AD.

Indigenous North Africans are black. Again the problem with "black" and "white" at times being arbitrary labels. IIRC there was also an extensive slave trade through Mali/Songhai long before Europeans entered Africa.

 

[Aes Sídhe]

Sorry, I'm not sure whats your point?

Would it help if I stated the record I refer to describes their appearance as the blackest black?

I'd also question whether we have any certainty about population movements in north & western Africa +1000 years ago.

---------- Updated at 11:08 PM ----------

Here, went and raided an ivory tower for some backup

Racism is therefore not merely "xenophobia"--a term invented by the ancient Greeks to describe a reflexive feeling of hostility to the stranger or Other. Xenophobia may be a starting point upon which racism can be constructed, but it is not the thing itself. For an understanding of the emergence of Western racism in the late Middle Ages and early modern period, a clear distinction between racism and religious intolerance is crucial. The religious bigot condemns and persecutes others for what they believe, not for what they intrinsically are. I would not therefore consider the sincere missionary, who may despise the beliefs and habits of the object of his ministrations, to be a racist. If a heathen can be redeemed through baptism, or if an ethnic stranger can be assimilated into the tribe or the culture in such a way that his or her origins cease to matter in any significant way, we are in the presence of an attitude that often creates conflict and misery, but not one that should be labeled racist. It might be useful to have another term, such as "culturalism," to describe an inability or unwillingness to tolerate cultural differences, but if assimilation were genuinely on offer, I would withhold the "R" word. Even if a group--for example, Muslims in the Ottoman Empire or Christians in early medieval Europe--is privileged in the eyes of the secular and religious authorities, racism is not operative if members of stigmatized groups can voluntarily change their identities and advance to positions of prominence and prestige within the dominant group. Examples would include the medieval bishops who had converted from Judaism and the Ottoman generals who had been born Christian. (Of course mobility may also be impeded by barriers of "caste" or "estate" that differentiate on a basis other than membership in a collectivity that thinks of itself, or is thought of by others, to constitute a distinctive "people," or "ethnos.")

 

[GuyNwah]

Indigenous North Africans are black. Again the problem with "black" and "white" at times being arbitrary labels. IIRC there was also an extensive slave trade through Mali/Songhai long before Europeans entered Africa.

In the special case of Africa, the danger of arbitrary labeling is perhaps greatest. Human diversity is greater in Africa than anywhere else. There are as many as 14 distinct African populations, and they may account for 90% of human phenotypic diversity. Characterizing Saharan and sub-Saharan Africans as black may be accurate but useless.
Yeah, the slave trade there is older than European incursions, though the European and Arab trade were notably brutal and unlike the more-feudal Songhai.

 

[Phinnway]

Sorry, I'm not sure whats your point?

Just that your example doesn't really prove anything. Those slaves were probably captured from North Africa or purchased from there. North Africa was never enslaved by Europeans. And had little to nothing in common with sub-saharan Africans because they were sepparated from them by the largest desert on Earth. I meant - just look at the size of that thing!

On the other hand, North Africa has been owned by several Hellinistic empires over the centuries - including Rome itself. Like I said earlier, "black" and "white" are at times arbitrary labels. And this is true in the case of North Africa

Yeah, the slave trade there is older than European incursions, though the European and Arab trade were notably brutal and unlike the more-feudal Songhai.

Yes indeed.

 

[Aes Sídhe]

Just that your example doesn't really prove anything.

I think i've lost you somewhere. I mentioned the Vikings bringing Africans to Ireland as an example of how Blacks were in Europe in the early middle ages. And seeing this is the Viking age, we would be foolish to assert that they didn't import a few elsewhere either. Proof of concept is the point I was making, I'm not sure what you think I was on about

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Yes, but serfdom was no slavery. Barons did not owe their serfs directly, the serfs belonged to the land

In practice it wasn't much better than slavery. I.e. if the owner of the land was a sadistic crook, peasants' life was a nightmare. In Russia it persisted until 1861.

 

[Phinnway]

I think i've lost you somewhere. I mentioned the Vikings bringing Africans to Ireland as an example of how Blacks were in Europe in the early middle ages.

Right. But in the original post you quoted I said.

Yeah, Europe had practically zero contact with sub-saharan Africans until the 1600s.

I'm not denying there were blacks in Europe during the middle-ages. That would be rediculous considering there's been blacks in Europe since pre-Roman times. What I AM denying is that there was any contact with sub-saharan Africans. Which is where the later European slave trade came from.

---------- Updated at 09:01 PM ----------

if the owner of the land was a sadistic crook, peasants' life was a nightmare.

Actually - the nobility weren't usually personally aquainted with the peasantry. They hired people for that. They might have a really high tax rate or something like that but that's about it.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

@RivenII
Indeed. Although - personally - I've always seen Elves and Dwarves as human-like but inately different in the same sense that Elves and Dwarves are different in LOTR (and if you think they aren't, then you need to reread The Silmarillion). But I'm always willing to have my mind changed.

Origins of Middle Earth races are better defined (indeed in Silmarillion). Including the less known fact that orcs were created by Morgoth by corrupting elves. But in Sapkowski their origins aren't explained besides just saying that conjunction of spheres brought many races together. I.e. they are from different worlds.

---------- Updated at 09:04 PM ----------

Actually - the nobility weren't usually personally aquainted with the peasantry. They hired people for that. They might have a really high tax rate or something like that but that's about it.

The character of the owner still had a translation to what was going on. I.e. same as with slaves. So the formal distinction is really not so important. Both groups weren't free in many aspects.

 

[Phinnway]

Including the less known fact that orcs were created by Morgoth by corrupting elves.

Sorry. But I don't think that's a lesser known fact considering it's explicitly mentioned in the Silmarillion - and even in the LOTR movies