Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2023, 07:12:41 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on February 06, 2023, 06:23:49 PM
Having the disclaimer is just the icing on the cake regarding the authenticity of your (or anyone else's) arguments. By having one they can easily absolve themselves from any mistakes that you think they have made. It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree. All books and games are open to criticism but no one has to take that seriously. But when people start calling for boycotts and bannings then I just think that's exceedingly petty.

So I'm hoping TDM has not taken this product down from D.T. But at least it's still available to buy on their website and lulu. And I highly recommend the PDF!

To be clear, I'm not calling for a boycott or ban. I've only read the previews for the book and not the full book, and I am not critiquing it myself. I have read Liam's critique, as well as Séadna's fact-checking on RPGPub that has supported Liam's points. From the threads I've read, neither Liam nor Séadna have called for a boycott or ban of the game.

I'm sure that there are others out there on the Internet who are calling for a boycott or ban, though, and I disagree with them.

Criticizing the game isn't the same thing as calling for a boycott or ban.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on February 06, 2023, 06:10:41 PM
I keep seeing the term 'harm' thrown about. Where's all this 'real-world harm' done by these elf-game's source books? This is a bogeyman IMO just to drum up fear so the woke scolds can try to enforce their hybrid-style censorship.

I agree they are just elf-game source books, and I dislike the language like "harm" as well.  However, this cuts both ways. I say the same thing about left-leaning RPGs like Coyote & Crow. I don't think RPGs are important for forming people's political leanings. It's more that people gravitate towards games that they find comfortable. RPGs are highly personalized, so people will mostly make of games what they will. (At least adults -- I'm more cautious about RPGs for kids.)

Absolutely... Critiquing the book is fine, and that of course doesn't mean the same thing as calling for a ban or boycott.

BUT anyone who is calling for the book to be 'revised' for the sake of someone's 'feelings' is engaged in a form, of what I would call hybrid censorship. Reporting it to the Maori council as, Liam did is defintly trying to put pressure on the game company from another angle (but I'm sure they have bigger and better things to worry about).

So his actions ARE in some way trying to get the book changed or pulled in one form or another. Just because he's not saying it directly doesn't mean he's not trying. Why else would you cry to the council? So I don't accept when he says when he didn't want it to be pulled, and that includes any other gimboid that wrote to them while demanding changes they are also engaged in that woke scolding censorious behavior. They can all kick rocks as far as I'm concerned.

Liam (and Seadna) may well feel that there is a legitimate gripe to be had with the M.P. book. They have every right to have an opinion. I'm not necessarily disputing that here per se, but I don't care as a consumer and I certainly don't care what Liam thinks (or wants). Their disclaimer clearly states the book's intentions. That may not be good enough for you or Liam but I'm good with it, and others can decide it for themselves. But I'll give TDM the benefit of the doubt.

When it comes to kids I believe that age-appropriate games should be followed. But RPGs don't cause any 'harm' in the way some imply that's just a weasel word for a woke scold to try and sow doubt. I don't believe RPGs are any more dangerous than any other material that we consume such as: violent video games, horror books or horror movies (I could go on). That's not to say they couldn't affect someone with an already wonky brain but they are defective, to begin with so it's not necessarily the medium.

I incorprated the Haka into my campaign, made it a combat ritual. If 3 or more party members succeed on a performance or Intimidate roll they can cause one enemy to be "afraid" or cast the bless spell till the end of the last players next turn.


None of us are Polynesian, None of us give a damn, we just want to play those rugby videos at the table.

Quote from: THE_Leopold on February 06, 2023, 08:13:04 PM
None of us are Polynesian, None of us give a damn, we just want to play those rugby videos at the table.

This is it!

Any culture or concept is open to being used for elf-games in any way you see fit and if people don't like it, who cares?

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on February 06, 2023, 07:46:32 PM
When it comes to kids I believe that age-appropriate games should be followed. But RPGs don't cause any 'harm' in the way some imply that's just a weasel word for a woke scold to try and sow doubt. I don't believe RPGs are any more dangerous than any other material that we consume such as: violent video games, horror books or horror movies (I could go on). That's not to say they couldn't affect someone with an already wonky brain but they are defective, to begin with so it's not necessarily the medium.

It sounds like we're mostly in agreement. I agree that RPGs are no more dangerous. I think they're typically less dangerous than passive and/or immersive media like film, because they call for thinking and involvement.

To check - I've heard many conservatives complain about LGBT characters in published works - that it's engaging in the culture war and/or normalizing the LGBT lifestyle - which threatens to corrupt and destroy traditional Western society. There are several posters who say that here on the site. I don't disagree that there is a culture war, but I think it's normal and good that multiple viewpoints are presented.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on February 06, 2023, 07:46:32 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2023, 07:12:41 PM
I'm not calling for a boycott or ban. I've only read the previews for the book and not the full book, and I am not critiquing it myself. I have read Liam's critique, as well as Séadna's fact-checking on RPGPub that has supported Liam's points. From the threads I've read, neither Liam nor Séadna have called for a boycott or ban of the game.

I'm sure that there are others out there on the Internet who are calling for a boycott or ban, though, and I disagree with them.

Absolutely... Critiquing the book is fine, and that of course doesn't mean the same thing as calling for a ban or boycott.

BUT anyone who is calling for the book to be 'revised' for the sake of someone's 'feelings' is engaged in a form, of what I would call hybrid censorship. Reporting it to the Maori council as, Liam did is defintly trying to put pressure on the game company from another angle (but I'm sure they have bigger and better things to worry about).

So his actions ARE in some way trying to get the book changed or pulled in one form or another. Just because he's not saying it directly doesn't mean he's not trying. Why else would you cry to the council?

First of all, I don't know Liam personally or about what he is secretly doing behind the scenes. I am not vouching for his character. He could be lying and secretly be trying to get the book banned despite saying against that.

However, I disagree that such negative feedback on a book is inherently censorship. Someone can say that a book is a steaming pile of garbage and that no one should even look at it - but however bad the things that are said, that's not the same as banning it.

I didn't previously know that he had talked to a Maori council about this, and I also have no idea what that means. What council is it? What are their duties? And what is his duty to the council? It's possible that the council is trying to ban the book, but I wouldn't assume that. It could also be that the council wants to stay informed about cultural portrayals of themselves in wider media. Without knowing more, I couldn't say.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on February 06, 2023, 07:46:32 PM
Liam (and Seadna) may well feel that there is a legitimate gripe to be had with the M.P. book. They have every right to have an opinion. I'm not necessarily disputing that here per se, but I don't care as a consumer and I certainly don't care what Liam thinks (or wants). Their disclaimer clearly states the book's intentions. That may not be good enough for you or Liam but I'm good with it, and others can decide it for themselves. But I'll give TDM the benefit of the doubt.

I don't particularly care what Liam as a person thinks or feels, but I care if his objective criticisms are accurate. When I buy games in real world settings, I do care about accuracy of research. I enjoyed Pundit's Lion & Dragon for it's well-researched material on medieval England - and more, it's attempt to get an authentic feel. I've bought and used many other RPG books in real-world settings, like various historical GURPS books, the D&D 2E historical campaign series, RuneQuest Vikings, Call of Cthulhu sourcebooks, etc. With all of these, I care about how well informed the writing is about the real-world subject.

My impression of the Mythic series is that they involve a lot of research on the real-world subject, and that is a lot of the content of the book. So I'd want to know if that research has been done badly. That's not just a matter of taste. Objective reality exists, and bad research is different than good research.

The problem with writing Mythic Polynesia is the same as writing Mythic Americas. There are many cultures involved which were often hostile to each other, so you can't take any single source as definitive, and many will object to their historic enemies speaking for them. After all a rather startling number of Native American names still in use today are all but slurs given to then by the tribes they fought with. And as I don't have the book I cannot say how or if it covers each Polynesian demographic.

The other problem I'm realizing is that all media is treated like propaganda these days, and neither artistic interpretation nor personal expression can exist in such an environment. And while all art is political, not all of it is advocacy. Many folks explore darker subjects without being consumed by them as many who are ostensibly in the kink and BDSM communities should realize. But if we eliminate every piece of media which could be interpreted in an ideologically aberrant way we're not going to have any media at all, just vacuous content and insipid political screeds.

Quote from: jhkim on February 07, 2023, 12:21:02 AM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on February 06, 2023, 07:46:32 PM
When it comes to kids I believe that age-appropriate games should be followed. But RPGs don't cause any 'harm' in the way some imply that's just a weasel word for a woke scold to try and sow doubt. I don't believe RPGs are any more dangerous than any other material that we consume such as: violent video games, horror books or horror movies (I could go on). That's not to say they couldn't affect someone with an already wonky brain but they are defective, to begin with so it's not necessarily the medium.

It sounds like we're mostly in agreement. I agree that RPGs are no more dangerous. I think they're typically less dangerous than passive and/or immersive media like film, because they call for thinking and involvement.

To check - I've heard many conservatives complain about LGBT characters in published works - that it's engaging in the culture war and/or normalizing the LGBT lifestyle - which threatens to corrupt and destroy traditional Western society. There are several posters who say that here on the site. I don't disagree that there is a culture war, but I think it's normal and good that multiple viewpoints are presented.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on February 06, 2023, 07:46:32 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2023, 07:12:41 PM
I'm not calling for a boycott or ban. I've only read the previews for the book and not the full book, and I am not critiquing it myself. I have read Liam's critique, as well as Séadna's fact-checking on RPGPub that has supported Liam's points. From the threads I've read, neither Liam nor Séadna have called for a boycott or ban of the game.

I'm sure that there are others out there on the Internet who are calling for a boycott or ban, though, and I disagree with them.

Absolutely... Critiquing the book is fine, and that of course doesn't mean the same thing as calling for a ban or boycott.

BUT anyone who is calling for the book to be 'revised' for the sake of someone's 'feelings' is engaged in a form, of what I would call hybrid censorship. Reporting it to the Maori council as, Liam did is defintly trying to put pressure on the game company from another angle (but I'm sure they have bigger and better things to worry about).

So his actions ARE in some way trying to get the book changed or pulled in one form or another. Just because he's not saying it directly doesn't mean he's not trying. Why else would you cry to the council?

First of all, I don't know Liam personally or about what he is secretly doing behind the scenes. I am not vouching for his character. He could be lying and secretly be trying to get the book banned despite saying against that.

However, I disagree that such negative feedback on a book is inherently censorship. Someone can say that a book is a steaming pile of garbage and that no one should even look at it - but however bad the things that are said, that's not the same as banning it.

I didn't previously know that he had talked to a Maori council about this, and I also have no idea what that means. What council is it? What are their duties? And what is his duty to the council? It's possible that the council is trying to ban the book, but I wouldn't assume that. It could also be that the council wants to stay informed about cultural portrayals of themselves in wider media. Without knowing more, I couldn't say.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on February 06, 2023, 07:46:32 PM
Liam (and Seadna) may well feel that there is a legitimate gripe to be had with the M.P. book. They have every right to have an opinion. I'm not necessarily disputing that here per se, but I don't care as a consumer and I certainly don't care what Liam thinks (or wants). Their disclaimer clearly states the book's intentions. That may not be good enough for you or Liam but I'm good with it, and others can decide it for themselves. But I'll give TDM the benefit of the doubt.

I don't particularly care what Liam as a person thinks or feels, but I care if his objective criticisms are accurate. When I buy games in real world settings, I do care about accuracy of research. I enjoyed Pundit's Lion & Dragon for it's well-researched material on medieval England - and more, it's attempt to get an authentic feel. I've bought and used many other RPG books in real-world settings, like various historical GURPS books, the D&D 2E historical campaign series, RuneQuest Vikings, Call of Cthulhu sourcebooks, etc. With all of these, I care about how well informed the writing is about the real-world subject.

My impression of the Mythic series is that they involve a lot of research on the real-world subject, and that is a lot of the content of the book. So I'd want to know if that research has been done badly. That's not just a matter of taste. Objective reality exists, and bad research is different than good research.

When it comes to gaming I tend to leave my bias at the door. But I won't tick boxes to appease anyone, right or especially the Woke Scold left (even tho' I lean left in the political sphere).

I think we are getting wires crossed here. I don't care if people criticize a book. Liam has every right to do so. But you go beyond mere criticism when you start 'reporting it to the Maori council' in the hope they will do something. He didn't do that for no reason. He hoped for some kind of pressure. And advising people not to buy the book which he also did on his twitter (you should check it out). So he is calling for 'pressure' on the company which in my opinion is overstepping the line from being just 'critical' and falling into censoring a company's creativity.

This is subjective... But if you are buying gaming books for historical accuracy, then you're probably going to be mostly disappointed. As they said themselves it is not a textbook. If I want to know the real history of a place I'll buy a history book. But that's just me.

But you are absolutely free not to buy the book and you can certainly take Liam's criticisms onboard. And if you feel he's right then this book probably 'aint for you. Personally, I'm only into playing elf-games so I don't care about liberties taken in order to facilitate a good rollicking game set in 'mythic' Polynesia. And I don't think any harm will be done because of it existence.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on February 07, 2023, 05:47:13 AM
But if we eliminate every piece of media which could be interpreted in an ideologically aberrant way we're not going to have any media at all, just vacuous content insipid political screeds.

Exactly...

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on February 07, 2023, 06:12:20 AM
I think we are getting wires crossed here. I don't care if people criticize a book. Liam has every right to do so. But you go beyond mere criticism when you start 'reporting it to the Maori council' in the hope they will do something. He didn't do that for no reason. He hoped for some kind of pressure. And advising people not to buy the book which he also did on his twitter (you should check it out). So he is calling for 'pressure' on the company which in my opinion is overstepping the line from being just 'critical' and falling into censoring a company's creativity.

As I read it, you're saying that it's OK to say

1) "For reasons X, Y, and Z, this book is a steaming pile of dogshit."

but saying

2) "For reasons X, Y, and Z, this book is a steaming pile of dogshit. Don't buy it."

is crossing the line and is effectively censoring the company by putting pressure on it. As I see it, #1 and #2 are effectively the same. A negative review will inherently put pressure on the company and cost the company sales, because potential customers read it and it influences them not to buy it. But those are the breaks. Someone expressing their genuine opinion to the world can put pressure on a company. As long as they are truthful in what they say, I think that's valid.

As I said, I don't know what his Maori council is like or what they would do.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on February 07, 2023, 06:12:20 AM
This is subjective... But if you are buying gaming books for historical accuracy, then you're probably going to be mostly disappointed. As they said themselves it is not a textbook. If I want to know the real history of a place I'll buy a history book. But that's just me.

I've been quite pleased by a lot of RPG historical/mythic sourcebooks. I like Pundit's Lion & Dragon. Many of the GURPS sourcebooks have excellent research (with some lower-quality exceptions like GURPS Vikings and GURPS China). The AD&D 2E historical sourcebooks line were generally excellent - like Vikings and A Mighty Fortress. Ars Magica and Call of Cthulhu have had many excellent sourcebooks (and a few stinkers).

Quote from: jhkim on February 07, 2023, 12:12:42 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on February 07, 2023, 06:12:20 AM
I think we are getting wires crossed here. I don't care if people criticize a book. Liam has every right to do so. But you go beyond mere criticism when you start 'reporting it to the Maori council' in the hope they will do something. He didn't do that for no reason. He hoped for some kind of pressure. And advising people not to buy the book which he also did on his twitter (you should check it out). So he is calling for 'pressure' on the company which in my opinion is overstepping the line from being just 'critical' and falling into censoring a company's creativity.

As I read it, you're saying that it's OK to say

1) "For reasons X, Y, and Z, this book is a steaming pile of dogshit."

but saying

2) "For reasons X, Y, and Z, this book is a steaming pile of dogshit. Don't buy it."

is crossing the line and is effectively censoring the company by putting pressure on it. As I see it, #1 and #2 are effectively the same. A negative review will inherently put pressure on the company and cost the company sales, because potential customers read it and it influences them not to buy it. But those are the breaks. Someone expressing their genuine opinion to the world can put pressure on a company. As long as they are truthful in what they say, I think that's valid.

As I said, I don't know what his Maori council is like or what they would do.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on February 07, 2023, 06:12:20 AM
This is subjective... But if you are buying gaming books for historical accuracy, then you're probably going to be mostly disappointed. As they said themselves it is not a textbook. If I want to know the real history of a place I'll buy a history book. But that's just me.

I've been quite pleased by a lot of RPG historical/mythic sourcebooks. I like Pundit's Lion & Dragon. Many of the GURPS sourcebooks have excellent research (with some lower-quality exceptions like GURPS Vikings and GURPS China). The AD&D 2E historical sourcebooks line were generally excellent - like Vikings and A Mighty Fortress. Ars Magica and Call of Cthulhu have had many excellent sourcebooks (and a few stinkers).

It's not the same... A bad review from a person is highly highly unlikely to ever get a book changed or be taken down by a publisher.

Now, if you give it a shit review while virtue signaling very publically on Twitter all about the 'harm it could do', and given in the current climate of uber-political correctness it may actually cause a company to cave into the pressure. Especially if a mini-mob appears on Twitter and starts saying that they will never buy another product from them again.

Of course, it's all bull shit and no one should ever listen to these hyperbolic dweebs. But some fearful companies do.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on February 07, 2023, 12:26:04 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 07, 2023, 12:12:42 PM
As I see it, #1 and #2 are effectively the same. A negative review will inherently put pressure on the company and cost the company sales, because potential customers read it and it influences them not to buy it. But those are the breaks. Someone expressing their genuine opinion to the world can put pressure on a company. As long as they are truthful in what they say, I think that's valid.

It's not the same... A bad review from a person is highly highly unlikely to ever get a book changed or be taken down by a publisher.

Now, if you give it a shit review while virtue signaling very publically on Twitter all about the 'harm it could do', and given in the current climate of uber-political correctness it may actually cause a company to cave into the pressure. Especially if a mini-mob appears on Twitter and starts saying that they will never buy another product from them again.

I hate Twitter for its low thought content -- but someone isn't inherently wrong just for being there, as long as they're truthful and genuine. Companies should listen to their customers, and change what they're doing if there's a mass of opinion that doesn't like what they're doing.

If a company is selling to woke customers (like Evil Hat, say), then they should listen to woke criticism and feedback. That's listening to their customer base. There exist both woke gamers and anti-woke gamers, so there should be companies that sell to one or the other or both.

I suspect the problem from your view is that anti-woke gamers don't have the influence over game companies that you think they should have. But the answer to that isn't to whine that it's not fair for woke gamers to be vocal. The answer is that there should be more companies that listen to anti-woke reviewers and opinions, and sell to that market.

Quote from: jhkim on February 07, 2023, 12:21:02 AMTo check - I've heard many conservatives complain about LGBT characters in published works - that it's engaging in the culture war and/or normalizing the LGBT lifestyle - which threatens to corrupt and destroy traditional Western society. There are several posters who say that here on the site. I don't disagree that there is a culture war, but I think it's normal and good that multiple viewpoints are presented.

As one of those rare unicorns, a conservative gay man, I thought I'd comment here.

Gay characters have existed in fantasy and sci-fi literature for a long time. I'm sure I'm not the only gay geek who grew up with Mercedes Lackey, for example. I don't have a problem with gay characters in fantasy and sci-fi RPG... to a point.

When you basically design your game from the ground up to be an LGBT utopian wonderland, that's just stupid. I'm looking at you, Blue Rose. I'm gay, and even I don't care about the issue that much. I don't need an entire RPG that validates my struggle by having placeholder homophobic groups I can beat up on, and I sure as shit don't need to be reassured over and over that I'm valid and good and right and nobody who disagrees is anything other than an evil caricature. I'm not a pet. You don't need to pat me on the head and reassure me.

When you try to rewrite history and make your "authentic" settings based on the "real world" conform to modern-day LGBT sensibilities. Look, I get it, despite what we sometimes think, homosexuality wasn't unknown in the past, but it also wasn't treated like the LGBT community today thinks it should be. Don't treat me like a moron, I don't need to pretend the past wasn't what it was to avoid going into an emotional meltdown or something.

When you specifically call out only the gay people. When you have a dozen characters, 8 of them do not have their sexuality discussed at all, 1 is straight, and 3 are some flavor of LGBT? That's insulting. Don't do it. It's also stupid. Again, don't do it. Is it relevant to the character, the story, the product? Is there a scandal because the prince of the dwarven kingdom in the North Peak region has a male lover, which calls into question the succession? Great! That's interesting! Sure! Are you just telling me that the male tavern keeper has a husband to point out that he's gay, when that husband is in no way relevant to anything? Again, that's insulting and dumb. Don't do it. To paraphrase a rant I once heard from another gay guy about this issue, I also don't care that the tavern keeper's mother has hemorrhoids, because it doesn't matter.

That's where I stand on the "culture war" issue with regards to gay representation in games. "Do it right, don't treat me like an idiot, and stop being so fucking annoying about it". Outside of games, it's a whole lot more complex.

Quote from: jhkim on February 07, 2023, 01:04:04 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on February 07, 2023, 12:26:04 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 07, 2023, 12:12:42 PM
As I see it, #1 and #2 are effectively the same. A negative review will inherently put pressure on the company and cost the company sales, because potential customers read it and it influences them not to buy it. But those are the breaks. Someone expressing their genuine opinion to the world can put pressure on a company. As long as they are truthful in what they say, I think that's valid.

It's not the same... A bad review from a person is highly highly unlikely to ever get a book changed or be taken down by a publisher.

Now, if you give it a shit review while virtue signaling very publically on Twitter all about the 'harm it could do', and given in the current climate of uber-political correctness it may actually cause a company to cave into the pressure. Especially if a mini-mob appears on Twitter and starts saying that they will never buy another product from them again.

I hate Twitter for its low thought content -- but someone isn't inherently wrong just for being there, as long as they're truthful and genuine. Companies should listen to their customers, and change what they're doing if there's a mass of opinion that doesn't like what they're doing.

If a company is selling to woke customers (like Evil Hat, say), then they should listen to woke criticism and feedback. That's listening to their customer base. There exist both woke gamers and anti-woke gamers, so there should be companies that sell to one or the other or both.

I suspect the problem from your view is that anti-woke gamers don't have the influence over game companies that you think they should have. But the answer to that isn't to whine that it's not fair for woke gamers to be vocal. The answer is that there should be more companies that listen to anti-woke reviewers and opinions, and sell to that market.

This is veering into a different point about companies making products to fit their customers but generally, it works the other way around for niche stuff and creative products like RPGs, etc.

But there's nothing wrong with listening to intelligent feedback from your customer base of course. But political correctness is not really part of the creative process although the woke scolds would try to tell you that it is.

Also, why should TDM listen to 'one' person (who is then joined by another few Twitter bell-ends?). They shouldn't. If he hadn't raised this mico-storm no one would have ever batted an eyelid about MP. There was certainly no 'mass' opinion here they were just trying to be as vocal as they could be in order to affect change.

Hypothetically speaking - If I wrote a novel and it had 300 reviews, and 290 of those were all very positive but the remaining 10 were awful that would generally mean that I was doing something right. If it was the other way around then I'd have to possibly re-think my novel's concept. Arbitrary numbers of course but that's what happened to TDM. It's only one or two dweebs complaining so it's not something they need to worry about at all (IMO).

But it's up to them at the end of the day. I just hope they hold their ground. As long as that book and pdf are still available which they are, then that's a victory for the freedom of creativity.

Quote from: Bruwulf on February 07, 2023, 01:13:51 PM
That's where I stand on the "culture war" issue with regards to gay representation in games. "Do it right, don't treat me like an idiot, and stop being so fucking annoying about it". Outside of games, it's a whole lot more complex.

Exactly this! Make a good character first who happens to be gay. Not a gay character (to tick a box) and who's nothing beyond their sexuality. It's one of the worst mistakes a writer could ever make when attempting to create rich and diverse characters.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 04, 2023, 11:43:49 AM
You mean 21st century Argentina, Brazil, etc?

We know near to nothing about the cultures before us, and I mean the people that do study them know next to jack shit. Because between the conquest, their own wars and primitive cultures and climate very little survived to a time when studying it wasn't worshipping demons.

Shortly after here come the leftards to make studying them taboo because reasons.

I don't know, I think we know a fair bit about the cultures which immediately preceded us, exactly because the Iberian Crowns were banking so much on coöpting local élites into becoming their feudal subjects. It's only after the "Enlightenment" mentality of European cultural superiority trickled down from France in the 18th Century that the idea of the "White Saviour" came into South America.

Unless you're talking about Christianity. We certainly did our level best to throw away native religions as quickly as we could make them do it.

As for the cultures before those we found on the ground, there's been some very good archaeological work done in the past seventy years or so, but there's only so much you can do with archaeology of pre-literate societies in a very hot, very humid environment.

Quote from: Wtrmute on February 07, 2023, 07:23:09 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 04, 2023, 11:43:49 AM
You mean 21st century Argentina, Brazil, etc?

We know near to nothing about the cultures before us, and I mean the people that do study them know next to jack shit. Because between the conquest, their own wars and primitive cultures and climate very little survived to a time when studying it wasn't worshipping demons.

Shortly after here come the leftards to make studying them taboo because reasons.

I don't know, I think we know a fair bit about the cultures which immediately preceded us, exactly because the Iberian Crowns were banking so much on coöpting local élites into becoming their feudal subjects. It's only after the "Enlightenment" mentality of European cultural superiority trickled down from France in the 18th Century that the idea of the "White Saviour" came into South America.

Unless you're talking about Christianity. We certainly did our level best to throw away native religions as quickly as we could make them do it.

As for the cultures before those we found on the ground, there's been some very good archaeological work done in the past seventy years or so, but there's only so much you can do with archaeology of pre-literate societies in a very hot, very humid environment.

Since the only people who could write were the priests/monarchy no, we don't know very much because plenty was lost during the conquista.

We know a little, infer a bunch and don't know how much we can trust what we "know" because it was contaminated by the religious, the hatred of one poeple towards the other because of being their slaves for centuries before the Spaniards came here and the woke "historians".

We still can't read the Mayan heriogliphs, because there's no rosetta stone with 3 languages and we happen to know one. Ditto for most of the American cultures. Not to mention the northamerican ones who didn't even have that.

How many of the stories told to the priests are just tall tales? We don't know.