“How do we get more people into this genre?”
No sale, and that cover art is plain awful.
Has he never read Imaro? It’s the progenitor of sword & soul!
A quick search turned this up: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/116013/is-my-copy-of-ki-khanga-a-misprint. There are no reviews on DriveThru for the Basic Game, and the sample provided only includes a few pages of the rules (the standard card deck rules referenced in the first link).
Agree; what can be gleaned from the Basic Game preview on DriveThru looks like a FUDGE/FATE-like quality scale (Below Average, Average, etc.), with attributes combining to determine "fighting capability", etc. But there's nothing in the preview which indicates how the cards determine success or failure in task resolution.A quick search turned this up: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/116013/is-my-copy-of-ki-khanga-a-misprint. There are no reviews on DriveThru for the Basic Game, and the sample provided only includes a few pages of the rules (the standard card deck rules referenced in the first link).
Thanks. Typos and missing references don't sound great, though those aren't judging the design quality of the game.
I don't fall into his "fellow white, cishet, neurotypical, able-bodied fellas" and I find this cringy af. I just want to be treated like a normal person, not coddled, worshipped, or pitied.
"For example, don’t scratch your head wondering why more women don’t read and write in the genre when you’re reluctant to call out sexism in the scene...."
It never occurred to Mr. Brackenbury that maybe not a lot of women read sword & sorcery for the same reason not many men read romance novels, or not many women read technothrillers? I.e., the genre's basic style and typical content simply doesn't appeal to the average reader of that group?
Sword and sorcery is largely plot-based melodrama, and very seldom goes into deep exploration of characters, emotions and relationships, which is (in my experience and observation) what most women want in their fiction. You could write a story which did do this, but even if it used all the classic S&S tropes I doubt it would much feel like S&S, any more than Mercedes Lackey feels like Fritz Leiber.
"For example, don’t scratch your head wondering why more women don’t read and write in the genre when you’re reluctant to call out sexism in the scene...."
It never occurred to Mr. Brackenbury that maybe not a lot of women read sword & sorcery for the same reason not many men read romance novels, or not many women read technothrillers? I.e., the genre's basic style and typical content simply doesn't appeal to the average reader of that group?
Sword and sorcery is largely plot-based melodrama, and very seldom goes into deep exploration of characters, emotions and relationships, which is (in my experience and observation) what most women want in their fiction. You could write a story which did do this, but even if it used all the classic S&S tropes I doubt it would much feel like S&S, any more than Mercedes Lackey feels like Fritz Leiber.
s the publishing merely reflecting the audience and culture? Or is the publishing *producing* the audience and culture? I would say the answer is both.
I wouldn't classify them as technothrillers necessarily, but more technical sci-fi like Andy Weir's The Martian and Artemis along with Martha Wells' Murderbot novels have been popular with many women I know.
Have you read C.L. Moore's Jirel of Joiry stories? I feel they are pretty classic S&S, while also being written by and about a woman, with appeal to women readers.
"For example, don’t scratch your head wondering why more women don’t read and write in the genre when you’re reluctant to call out sexism in the scene...."
It never occurred to Mr. Brackenbury that maybe not a lot of women read sword & sorcery for the same reason not many men read romance novels, or not many women read technothrillers? I.e., the genre's basic style and typical content simply doesn't appeal to the average reader of that group?
Sword and sorcery is largely plot-based melodrama, and very seldom goes into deep exploration of characters, emotions and relationships, which is (in my experience and observation) what most women want in their fiction. You could write a story which did do this, but even if it used all the classic S&S tropes I doubt it would much feel like S&S, any more than Mercedes Lackey feels like Fritz Leiber.
What bugs me about the interview is the self-serving narrative that this broadening is a new thing, ignoring past works like Charles Saunders' Imaro novels and C.L. Moore's Jirel of Joiry. They are selling themselves as more revolutionary by not talking about previous works that have a variety of protagonists.
What bugs me about the interview is the self-serving narrative that this broadening is a new thing, ignoring past works like Charles Saunders' Imaro novels and C.L. Moore's Jirel of Joiry. They are selling themselves as more revolutionary by not talking about previous works that have a variety of protagonists.
But this sort of narrative has become extremely common in anything apparently appealing to the left “this is the first movie with a black female protagonist (since the last movie with a black female protagonist)”
Is the publishing merely reflecting the audience and culture? Or is the publishing *producing* the audience and culture? I would say the answer is both.
There's certainly a mutual feedback loop. But Brackenbury's immediate assumption that the primary reason women haven't historically read S&S is its allegedly sexist content seems both reductionist and incomplete, and if he thinks all that's necessary to improve female S&S readership is to remove what he assumes is "sexist", I'm skeptical it'll have the results he hopes for.
I wouldn't classify them as technothrillers necessarily, but more technical sci-fi like Andy Weir's The Martian and Artemis along with Martha Wells' Murderbot novels have been popular with many women I know.
I don't doubt it, but The Martian, at least, has a lot of character work to go along with the technical detail, and from what I've read about the Murderbot series, those books also have a lot of introspection on the part of the protagonist. (I also can't help but wonder how much female liking for The Martian is a product of Matt Damon starring in the movie -- apologies to the exceptions.)
The stuff that in my observation seldom catches womens' interest is the stuff where everything that isn't an in-depth examination of technology tends to be about fight scenes or politics. Larry Correia knew what he was doing when he included a love story as a key element of his first Monster Hunter International book.
I think the main result (Brackenbury) hopes for is to sell more copies of his own fiction magazine. It's also possible that he is a true believer in that he thinks it will marginally change the culture, but I suspect he is deliberately overselling.
I'm not sure what we're disagreeing on here, if anything. ...From my reading (which is mostly R.E. Howard with a scattering of Lieber, Vance, and others), Sword & Sorcery stories are frequently heavy on melodramatic emotion and sometimes romance. For example, Howards' "Queen of the Black Coast" is centered on romance and relationship, as much so as the Jirel of Joiry stories. It's not particularly deep character exploration, but then neither is Jirel. ...One could draw a line to classify Jirel and Imaro as being not really S&S, but I'm not sure what purpose that serves. Regardless of what label is put on them, I think they're both good and could make for good gaming.
Well, again, I must concede you're right; I may have gone out of my way to emphasize the differences in fantasy subgenres and the audiences they attract, mostly because I have developed a knee-jerk resistance to what Brackenbury appears to be implicitly claiming -- i.e. that the fact a particular genre doesn't appeal to all audiences equally is somehow a political issue with the nature of the genre, rather than a personal reflection on the nature of the audiences.
It's also telling that stories like Jirel's, or the works of Tanith Lee and similar stuff, were far more often marketed under the genre label of "dark fantasy" than "sword & sorcery", despite involving a lot of the same tropes; it was what those authors did differently from authors like Vance, Howard or Leiber -- the gothicism, the romance, the style -- that got them their own marketing technique. (And the "dark fantasy" label is also why the works of authors like Abercrombie, Erikson, and Bakker had to have the label "grimdark" attached to them for marketing purposes, because they in turn were very different from either predecessor label.)I completely missed this, but now that you point it out it makes perfect sense. These are all actually the same genre: dark/gritty fantasy intended to rebel against the standard Arthurian/Tolkienesque romantic fantasy clichés.
These are all actually the same genre: dark/gritty fantasy intended to rebel against the standard Arthurian/Tolkienesque romantic fantasy clichés.
I'm not opposed in principle to the idea that a particular subgenre can get stale and that deliberately going beyond its stereotypical tropes can reinvigorate it. I just dislike the marketing approach which explicitly politicizes that process.
I think all of this misses the point that Sword and Sorcery (which I love) is generally quite a cyncial apolitical genre focusing on individuals who cleave their own path regardless of the hardships or hypocrisy the world presents them. The characteristics of the protagonists is secondary to their attitude.
Yea, gonna rush right out and get this one... Inclusive to these dummies really means Exclusive, spin it as they might.
.......
Regarding Sword & Sorcery, there was some interesting discussion about the Imaro books in a thread on the "Other Games" forum that had cross-over with this topic.
https://www.therpgsite.com/other-games/aragorn-race-swapped-what-the-literal-fuck/msg1233081/#msg1233081
The Imaro books are often classified as the progenitors of "Sword & Soul" which is sometimes considered distinct from Sword & Sorcery, or alternately a subgenre. I think Imaro exemplifies the individualist attitude of Sword & Sorcery protagonists.
Still, I also think that if I was pitching a game in the world of Imaro, I would probably qualify it more than generic Sword & Sorcery.
Yea, gonna rush right out and get this one... Inclusive to these dummies really means Exclusive, spin it as they might.
Just like "diverse". As in "we are only hiring diverse employees". What it really means is "not white men".
Regarding Sword & Sorcery, there was some interesting discussion about the Imaro books in a thread on the "Other Games" forum that had cross-over with this topic.
https://www.therpgsite.com/other-games/aragorn-race-swapped-what-the-literal-fuck/msg1233081/#msg1233081
The Imaro books are often classified as the progenitors of "Sword & Soul" which is sometimes considered distinct from Sword & Sorcery, or alternately a subgenre. I think Imaro exemplifies the individualist attitude of Sword & Sorcery protagonists.
Still, I also think that if I was pitching a game in the world of Imaro, I would probably qualify it more than generic Sword & Sorcery.
LOL. I was thinking of Imaro. What if a studio decided to option the right to a movie? Could I as a white guy go, "You know, I don't feel like I'm represented in this film (I mean I'm sure white man is the bad guy but I want good guys too). Could we cast some white people? Or the best actor for the Imaro role is a white guy, let's cast him."
Yea, gonna rush right out and get this one... Inclusive to these dummies really means Exclusive, spin it as they might.
Just like "diverse". As in "we are only hiring diverse employees". What it really means is "not white men".
Yes, it’s about ideology, not really identity. Identity politics is a tool used by the Woke to atomize the public. It’s just a means to an end.Yea, gonna rush right out and get this one... Inclusive to these dummies really means Exclusive, spin it as they might.
Just like "diverse". As in "we are only hiring diverse employees". What it really means is "not white men".
No.
If someone who wants to hire 'diverse' has a choice between a female black Christian and a white male woke progressive, they will pick the latter. It's about ideological homogeneity. What hiring 'diverse' really means is hiring 'woke'.
Yes, it’s about ideology, not really identity. Identity politics is a tool used by the Woke to atomize the public. It’s just a means to an end.Yea, gonna rush right out and get this one... Inclusive to these dummies really means Exclusive, spin it as they might.
Just like "diverse". As in "we are only hiring diverse employees". What it really means is "not white men".
No.
If someone who wants to hire 'diverse' has a choice between a female black Christian and a white male woke progressive, they will pick the latter. It's about ideological homogeneity. What hiring 'diverse' really means is hiring 'woke'.
Oh, yes, finally! The messiah the Sword & Sorcery genre has been waiting for!
Tvtropes has a helpful list of examples: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RaceLiftRegarding Sword & Sorcery, there was some interesting discussion about the Imaro books in a thread on the "Other Games" forum that had cross-over with this topic.
https://www.therpgsite.com/other-games/aragorn-race-swapped-what-the-literal-fuck/msg1233081/#msg1233081
The Imaro books are often classified as the progenitors of "Sword & Soul" which is sometimes considered distinct from Sword & Sorcery, or alternately a subgenre. I think Imaro exemplifies the individualist attitude of Sword & Sorcery protagonists.
Still, I also think that if I was pitching a game in the world of Imaro, I would probably qualify it more than generic Sword & Sorcery.
LOL. I was thinking of Imaro. What if a studio decided to option the right to a movie? Could I as a white guy go, "You know, I don't feel like I'm represented in this film (I mean I'm sure white man is the bad guy but I want good guys too). Could we cast some white people? Or the best actor for the Imaro role is a white guy, let's cast him."
There *was* a movie made of a Charles Saunders story, as I found out in that thread. It wasn't a story about Imaro, but it was still a Saunders fantasy story about Africans -- and the producers made it with an all-white cast. The movie was called "Amazons".
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090627/
Saunders himself had to work on the script.
That's been quite common in the history of Hollywood. In practice, almost everyone only cares about cross-racial casting if it's in a direction they don't like. What they really care about is perceived bias against their preferred demographic. I think the history of Hollywood is quite clear in its biases.
This thesis of how this is not about being anti-white but being pro-woke is enlightening, I had not thought about that.
Personally I think this woke magazine is destined to fail, but lets see if they get to make any money while pressing on their woke ideology.
Did anybody read their #0 issue? Is it any good? At this point I would rather not put my own personal time to check it out without having seen any review here.
Thank you, I will download the issue #0 and have a look.This thesis of how this is not about being anti-white but being pro-woke is enlightening, I had not thought about that.
Personally I think this woke magazine is destined to fail, but lets see if they get to make any money while pressing on their woke ideology.
Did anybody read their #0 issue? Is it any good? At this point I would rather not put my own personal time to check it out without having seen any review here.
I downloaded issue #0 to see what people were talking about, but I only skimmed the stories. I'm not sure how to compare them apples to apples, since I haven't read any other contemporary S&S fiction magazines. I've read collections of classic R.E. Howard, Charles Saunders, and others. However, that's selectively picking best stories of top authors, which isn't a fair comparison with a magazine starting up.
I downloaded issue #0 to see what people were talking about, but I only skimmed the stories. I'm not sure how to compare them apples to apples, since I haven't read any other contemporary S&S fiction magazines. I've read collections of classic R.E. Howard, Charles Saunders, and others. However, that's selectively picking best stories of top authors, which isn't a fair comparison with a magazine starting up.
Thank you, I will download the issue #0 and have a look.
Did you notice in any way the diversity and inclusiveness? Do you feel it would be any different without them? I also have not ready any other contemporary S&S fiction magazines so I don't have any point of reference.
I don’t know if it is possible to answer this, but does it feel particularly "woke"?
It started with a Mongol-inspired story that didn't seem particularly woke from the first page, but I didn't read the rest. It's easily possible that there were more woke aspects to the stories. From flipping through, it seemed noticeable that there were multiple non-European based settings and multiple female protagonists.
It started with a Mongol-inspired story that didn't seem particularly woke from the first page, but I didn't read the rest. It's easily possible that there were more woke aspects to the stories. From flipping through, it seemed noticeable that there were multiple non-European based settings and multiple female protagonists.
The real question we should all be asking, of course is: Were any of the stories good? Were they entertaining, exciting, interesting, enjoyable, moving?
I have no objection to what used to be called "non-vanilla" protagonists, as long as the stories they're in are good stories and not exercises in browbeating the Straight White Audience into reparations-inspiring guilt.
It started with a Mongol-inspired story that didn't seem particularly woke from the first page, but I didn't read the rest. It's easily possible that there were more woke aspects to the stories. From flipping through, it seemed noticeable that there were multiple non-European based settings and multiple female protagonists.
The real question we should all be asking, of course is: Were any of the stories good? Were they entertaining, exciting, interesting, enjoyable, moving?
I have no objection to what used to be called "non-vanilla" protagonists, as long as the stories they're in are good stories and not exercises in browbeating the Straight White Audience into reparations-inspiring guilt.
How can we beat racism unless we tell white people who are against racism that racism am bad?
Even literal Africans think it's cringy. https://youtu.be/iYJ48s2I5qw
Sure, they had slavery and colonialism in theirpastspresent. Itwasis terrible for them.
Even literal Africans think it's cringy. https://youtu.be/iYJ48s2I5qw
Sure, they had slavery and colonialism in their pasts. It was terrible for them. But rather than dwell on the horrors of the past and obsess over getting revenge, they work towards building brighter futures. It's really inspiring.
Quote Nothing wrong with my fellow white guys, "I just want them to have no say in anything that I take a personal interest in by deprioritizing their civil status as rational or even compassionate human beings! That's what you get for all that oppression!" | Quote We’ll be focused on experimentation-- Not really keen on buying what you "experiment" with in your free time, thanks! |
Quote ... I love sword & sorcery, period, ... Such gender envy... | Quote I suspect there’s an element of phonebook-length fantasy novel, and mega-franchise, fatigue. I suspect that he's murdered the golden goose. |
Quote Tower of the Elephant fell completely flat for my younger guest-- There's no pleasing lack of taste. | Quote Learning the history of the genre at large isn’t mandatory, but it doesn’t hurt! We're aware of your fondness for hIsToRy... |
Quote I imagine this question could yield some interesting answers when presented to people different from myself. How about white people? | Quote I hope you’ll all try the magazine out, joining me on this journey, as I think it could be the start of something truly wonderful! In a manner of speaking: Hard no. |
So from watching the video... I haven't seen The Woman King, but complaining that Black Panther doesn't realistically represent modern African countries is just stupid. Wakanda is a fictional country from a superhero comic book. It is intentionally unique and fantastical, with its own religion and crazy technology. I'll admit to some bias since I love the comics - particularly the Christopher Priest run from the 1990s - but this seems petty.
The Black Panther comics and the Black Panther movies shouldn't have to represent all of Africa. I can see complaining that modern African countries should be better represented in movies, but I don't think Black Panther should be expected to do so.
I'd complain much more about movie adaptations set in real African countries, like Black Hawk Down. One of the fascinating parts of that book was when it interviewed local civilian residents who were on the scene as the military action was going down. But that side of the story was completely cut out of the movie.
Going back to Sword & Sorcery, I think it would also be fair to say that the Imaro stories by Charles Saunders don't accurately reflect African history -- which again is not the point. They don't and they shouldn't have to.
So from watching the video... I haven't seen The Woman King, but complaining that Black Panther doesn't realistically represent modern African countries is just stupid. Wakanda is a fictional country from a superhero comic book. It is intentionally unique and fantastical, with its own religion and crazy technology. I'll admit to some bias since I love the comics - particularly the Christopher Priest run from the 1990s - but this seems petty.
The Black Panther comics and the Black Panther movies shouldn't have to represent all of Africa. I can see complaining that modern African countries should be better represented in movies, but I don't think Black Panther should be expected to do so.
I'd complain much more about movie adaptations set in real African countries, like Black Hawk Down. One of the fascinating parts of that book was when it interviewed local civilian residents who were on the scene as the military action was going down. But that side of the story was completely cut out of the movie.
You're completely entitled to enjoy Black Panther and Wakanda, but the big problem with it is not so much that it doesn't reflect the reality of Eastern Africa, but more that it's an ethnonationalist state; Back when the first movie came out, people were memeing “Make Wakanda Great Again” to hell and back. If we think that ethnonationalism is a dangerous cultural/political position, then we ought to decry it when it happens in Africa just as much as when it happens in the United States.
If ethnonationalism is just as valid as social democracy, then sure, Wakanda away. But then other ethnonationalist states in fiction also get a free pass.
Wakanda is extremely isolationist, but it isn't ethnonationalist. At most, it is a parallel to Japan.
They're not racist, they're just xenophobic! Like, what's the functional difference? How does this differ from people living in isolated rural communities who don't want a bunch of "dirty foreigners" moving into their territory?
That's quite the sharp knife you have there being able to split a gnat's cunt hair...
ALSO, in Ultimates, Captain America is literally the only white man allowed in Wakanda because he pretty much single-handedly saved the country from an alien invasion. "Yeah, but it has nothing to do with race!" Okay, he's still the token white guy. The let in Riri Williams, who is an outsider...see how your bullshit fails just based on the actual comics?
The functional difference is that it doesn't matter if you're a black outsider or a white outsider. They will accept white heroes like the Fantastic Four just as much as black heroes like Riri Williams.
Do you not realize the irony in saying Wakanda is not racist and more akin to Japan? LMAO.
Do you not realize the irony in saying Wakanda is not racist and more akin to Japan? LMAO.
LOOK, it's only a racist ethnostate if it's white people doing it. Asians, blacks, etc., doesn't count. I mean he's literally saying that under the guise of "outsiders", and refuses to address my own example of small communities that don't want outsiders, but we all know he has a problem with it because they're dumbass rednecks.
Japan has plenty of racist *people*, just like many other countries. It also has a past that is full of racism and colonialism. I hate the racism of the Japanese. As a Korean, my father spent his childhood under Japanese racist oppression. However, he also faced plenty of racism from white people when he emigrated to the U.S. The current laws of Japan are neutral with respect to race, so I would not call it an ethnostate.
Specifying a nameless hypothetical community that doesn't want outsiders isn't useful to compare, since it is hypothetical. Let's take a specific example of a small white community that doesn't want outsiders -- say Brigadoon from the 1947 musical. As portrayed, it's much like Wakanda in that it is intentionally keeping itself secret and hiding from the outside world, like Wakanda has traditionally done. My son was in a high school production of Brigadoon 7 years ago, and I didn't have any condemnation of the play for its racism, nor would I call Brigadoon a racist ethnostate.
I wouldn't claim that the people of Brigadoon are free of racism. However, their drive to be isolated from the outside world is not inherently a racist principle -- and I wouldn't condemn the play as racist as a result.
Would either of you (Brad or oggsmash) call Brigadoon a racist white ethnostate? If not, can you explain why?
Korea has a looong history of racism regarding Japan as well, I understand being extra salty about the last 100 years considering the ass kicking the Japanese gave them though. Saying Japan is neutral when it is very very hard to immigrate there and become a citizen is an out right lie. If we use the metric of the USA regarding immigration Japan, Korea and China are all big time ethnostates.
Alot of historical hard feelings and mistreatment also emerge from essentially a group getting their asses kicked by another group. All the salt towards white people is from both their past behavior and being just too good at kicking asses. Modern day the salty folk are pushing for changes socially and societally that in the past requires an actual fight/war. My advice as always is be careful how hard one pushes, because at some point the changes they want may end up requiring an actual fight....and historically the people being pushed are pretty good at fighting.
Korea has a looong history of racism regarding Japan as well, I understand being extra salty about the last 100 years considering the ass kicking the Japanese gave them though. Saying Japan is neutral when it is very very hard to immigrate there and become a citizen is an out right lie. If we use the metric of the USA regarding immigration Japan, Korea and China are all big time ethnostates.
oggsmash, you haven't answered my question about Brigadoon. Like Wakanda, it is a fictional community that is strongly isolationist. The question is, does their isolationism inherently mean that they should both be considered racial ethno-states?Korea has a looong history of racism regarding Japan as well, I understand being extra salty about the last 100 years considering the ass kicking the Japanese gave them though. Saying Japan is neutral when it is very very hard to immigrate there and become a citizen is an out right lie. If we use the metric of the USA regarding immigration Japan, Korea and China are all big time ethnostates.
I agree that Korea and Japan have lots of racism, but I disagree about how you come to that conclusion. It seems to me that you are coming from a position that:
1) Low immigration or desire for less immigration is proof of racism
and/or
2) Less racial diversity is proof of racism
To me, the proof of racial discrimination is in actual attitudes over race and how racial minorities are treated. I hear a lot about how ethnic Korean citizens of Japan (Zainichi Koreans) suffer racial discrimination in the present. In South Korea, I hear about how black kids face discrimination growing up - highlighted by Korean-American football star Hines Ward - as well as non-white foreign workers. I would want both countries to do more to fight racism both legally and culturally.
That's the real problem, and it could be true regardless about how common the racial minority is or the level of immigration.
---
This is relevant because within the U.S., I don't think those two assumptions apply either. The least diverse state in the U.S. is Maine at 94% white, but I don't think that means it is the most racist state. My sister lives in Maine, and from her experience, while racism is present, it isn't the worst.
Similarly, if someone advocates for less immigration, I don't consider that proof that they are racist. I'd have to actually talk to the person and see how they feel about other races. There are factors other than race that are relevant to immigration. For example, I'd note that Japan has 10 times the population density of the U.S., and South Korean has 15 times the population density. Both rely heavily on imported food for their overpopulation. That will factor into what level of immigration they want.
This is relevant because within the U.S., I don't think those two assumptions apply either. The least diverse state in the U.S. is Maine at 94% white, but I don't think that means it is the most racist state. My sister lives in Maine, and from her experience, while racism is present, it isn't the worst.
How many "refugees" has the Maine population accepted? NIMBY right?
Japanese think that the Koreans should be living in Korea. Would it be wrong for Koreans to think that Japanese should live in Japan and not Korea?
"Don't you dare get comfortable here, this is our home!"
Greetings!
Why is this such a revelation? Why do so many Libtards push the idea that only WHITE PEOPLE are racist? Every group of people are racist. Especially Asians. Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, they lead the pack. They are often viciously racist against other Asians. I've heard them called "Jungle Asians". You know, the Vietnamese, Filipinos, Indonesians, Burmese. I'm sure there are others. Ultimately though, who cares? It is human nature. It is what it is! *Laughing*
If it bothers you, then simply avoid racist people, and embrace people into your life that are not racist. DONE.
Somehow though, literally MILLIONS of Black Africans, Brown Latinos, and Asians--all love each other, and white people, especially. Whatever they may think of a particular *group*--they eagerly make exceptions for individuals that they favour. And, well, while the men can, generally speaking be slower to accept others of different races, the women are certainly eager to welcome others with open arms. Once you have whatever woman embracing a foreign man, for example, the men within her circles typically get on board, too.
I have personally seen this in *FULL EFFECT* myself, whether it is with Asians, Latinos, or Black Africans. I've seen this reality amongst dozens of friends and associates, a well as myself, personally, for *DECADES*. My entire life. Don't worry about whoever being racist. Whaa, whaa, whaa. Just focus on YOU. Being the best person you can be. When interacting with others--foreigners, someone of a different race, don't be a smug, arrogant jackass. Be cool. Be respectful, and enthusiastic about their language, culture, food, and customs. Be forgiving of their flaws and shortcomings. YOU have flaws and shortcomings, too. Somewhere along the way, goddamn, you find that you have the opportunity to embrace and enjoy genuinely wonderful an awesome relationships.
The Woke fucking Libtards are the true racists, here in America. They are terrible, and full of hate. They arrogantly seek to divide everyone and make everyone hate each other--meanwhile, while they build this Marxist utopian shithole, they deep down view themselves as being the super-special anointed elite that gets to rule over everyone else. Fuck them all! These scum need the napalm, baby. Comics, movies, and more, have all been corrupted by the Libtards. Let them all burn the fuck down.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Japanese think that the Koreans should be living in Korea. Would it be wrong for Koreans to think that Japanese should live in Japan and not Korea?
"Don't you dare get comfortable here, this is our home!"
Dispotatic254 - Are you aware of the history there?
Greetings!
Why is this such a revelation? Why do so many Libtards push the idea that only WHITE PEOPLE are racist? Every group of people are racist. Especially Asians. Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, they lead the pack. They are often viciously racist against other Asians. I've heard them called "Jungle Asians". You know, the Vietnamese, Filipinos, Indonesians, Burmese. I'm sure there are others. Ultimately though, who cares? It is human nature. It is what it is! *Laughing*
If it bothers you, then simply avoid racist people, and embrace people into your life that are not racist. DONE.
Somehow though, literally MILLIONS of Black Africans, Brown Latinos, and Asians--all love each other, and white people, especially. Whatever they may think of a particular *group*--they eagerly make exceptions for individuals that they favour. And, well, while the men can, generally speaking be slower to accept others of different races, the women are certainly eager to welcome others with open arms. Once you have whatever woman embracing a foreign man, for example, the men within her circles typically get on board, too.
I have personally seen this in *FULL EFFECT* myself, whether it is with Asians, Latinos, or Black Africans. I've seen this reality amongst dozens of friends and associates, a well as myself, personally, for *DECADES*. My entire life. Don't worry about whoever being racist. Whaa, whaa, whaa. Just focus on YOU. Being the best person you can be. When interacting with others--foreigners, someone of a different race, don't be a smug, arrogant jackass. Be cool. Be respectful, and enthusiastic about their language, culture, food, and customs. Be forgiving of their flaws and shortcomings. YOU have flaws and shortcomings, too. Somewhere along the way, goddamn, you find that you have the opportunity to embrace and enjoy genuinely wonderful an awesome relationships.
The Woke fucking Libtards are the true racists, here in America. They are terrible, and full of hate. They arrogantly seek to divide everyone and make everyone hate each other--meanwhile, while they build this Marxist utopian shithole, they deep down view themselves as being the super-special anointed elite that gets to rule over everyone else. Fuck them all! These scum need the napalm, baby. Comics, movies, and more, have all been corrupted by the Libtards. Let them all burn the fuck down.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Greetings!
Why is this such a revelation? Why do so many Libtards push the idea that only WHITE PEOPLE are racist? Every group of people are racist. Especially Asians. Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, they lead the pack. They are often viciously racist against other Asians. I've heard them called "Jungle Asians". You know, the Vietnamese, Filipinos, Indonesians, Burmese. I'm sure there are others. Ultimately though, who cares? It is human nature. It is what it is! *Laughing*
If it bothers you, then simply avoid racist people, and embrace people into your life that are not racist. DONE.
Somehow though, literally MILLIONS of Black Africans, Brown Latinos, and Asians--all love each other, and white people, especially. Whatever they may think of a particular *group*--they eagerly make exceptions for individuals that they favour. And, well, while the men can, generally speaking be slower to accept others of different races, the women are certainly eager to welcome others with open arms. Once you have whatever woman embracing a foreign man, for example, the men within her circles typically get on board, too.
I have personally seen this in *FULL EFFECT* myself, whether it is with Asians, Latinos, or Black Africans. I've seen this reality amongst dozens of friends and associates, a well as myself, personally, for *DECADES*. My entire life. Don't worry about whoever being racist. Whaa, whaa, whaa. Just focus on YOU. Being the best person you can be. When interacting with others--foreigners, someone of a different race, don't be a smug, arrogant jackass. Be cool. Be respectful, and enthusiastic about their language, culture, food, and customs. Be forgiving of their flaws and shortcomings. YOU have flaws and shortcomings, too. Somewhere along the way, goddamn, you find that you have the opportunity to embrace and enjoy genuinely wonderful an awesome relationships.
The Woke fucking Libtards are the true racists, here in America. They are terrible, and full of hate. They arrogantly seek to divide everyone and make everyone hate each other--meanwhile, while they build this Marxist utopian shithole, they deep down view themselves as being the super-special anointed elite that gets to rule over everyone else. Fuck them all! These scum need the napalm, baby. Comics, movies, and more, have all been corrupted by the Libtards. Let them all burn the fuck down.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Japanese think that the Koreans should be living in Korea. Would it be wrong for Koreans to think that Japanese should live in Japan and not Korea?
"Don't you dare get comfortable here, this is our home!"
Dispotatic254 - Are you aware of the history there?
Most of the nearly 1 million Koreans living in Japan have been there for generations. During the occupation from 1910 to 1944, Japan brought close to 2 million Korean people into Japan -- often by force -- as workers or other jobs. My grandfather went to Japan to learn dairy farming at an agricultural school during the early occupation. He left as did most others, but some stayed because their livelihoods, children, and other ties were now in Japan.
During that time, Koreans were told that Japan and Korea were one country, and Koreans should work to help their country. So there are multiple generations of people who are ethnically Korean who have grown up in Japan as their only home, and are sometimes intermarried. They are the complete opposite of invaders, and it is rank hypocrisy for racist Japanese to resent their presence there.
I like how we went from "Japan isn't an ethnostate" and "Japanese aren't racist" to basically admitting Japan is an ethnostate and Japanese are racist, by the same guy, within one page.
Somehow though, literally MILLIONS of Black Africans, Brown Latinos, and Asians--all love each other, and white people, especially. Whatever they may think of a particular *group*--they eagerly make exceptions for individuals that they favour. And, well, while the men can, generally speaking be slower to accept others of different races, the women are certainly eager to welcome others with open arms. Once you have whatever woman embracing a foreign man, for example, the men within her circles typically get on board, too.
I have personally seen this in *FULL EFFECT* myself, whether it is with Asians, Latinos, or Black Africans. I've seen this reality amongst dozens of friends and associates, a well as myself, personally, for *DECADES*. My entire life. Don't worry about whoever being racist. Whaa, whaa, whaa. Just focus on YOU. Being the best person you can be. When interacting with others--foreigners, someone of a different race, don't be a smug, arrogant jackass. Be cool. Be respectful, and enthusiastic about their language, culture, food, and customs. Be forgiving of their flaws and shortcomings. YOU have flaws and shortcomings, too. Somewhere along the way, goddamn, you find that you have the opportunity to embrace and enjoy genuinely wonderful an awesome relationships.
I like how we went from "Japan isn't an ethnostate" and "Japanese aren't racist" to basically admitting Japan is an ethnostate and Japanese are racist, by the same guy, within one page.
No shit. I am sure we can 100 percent rely on his reports from his sister as to how much racism is or is not in Maine as well. The guy is living in his own world.
Greetings!
Why is this such a revelation? Why do so many Libtards push the idea that only WHITE PEOPLE are racist? Every group of people are racist. Especially Asians. Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, they lead the pack. They are often viciously racist against other Asians. I've heard them called "Jungle Asians". You know, the Vietnamese, Filipinos, Indonesians, Burmese. I'm sure there are others. Ultimately though, who cares? It is human nature. It is what it is! *Laughing*
If it bothers you, then simply avoid racist people, and embrace people into your life that are not racist. DONE.
Somehow though, literally MILLIONS of Black Africans, Brown Latinos, and Asians--all love each other, and white people, especially. Whatever they may think of a particular *group*--they eagerly make exceptions for individuals that they favour. And, well, while the men can, generally speaking be slower to accept others of different races, the women are certainly eager to welcome others with open arms. Once you have whatever woman embracing a foreign man, for example, the men within her circles typically get on board, too.
I have personally seen this in *FULL EFFECT* myself, whether it is with Asians, Latinos, or Black Africans. I've seen this reality amongst dozens of friends and associates, a well as myself, personally, for *DECADES*. My entire life. Don't worry about whoever being racist. Whaa, whaa, whaa. Just focus on YOU. Being the best person you can be. When interacting with others--foreigners, someone of a different race, don't be a smug, arrogant jackass. Be cool. Be respectful, and enthusiastic about their language, culture, food, and customs. Be forgiving of their flaws and shortcomings. YOU have flaws and shortcomings, too. Somewhere along the way, goddamn, you find that you have the opportunity to embrace and enjoy genuinely wonderful an awesome relationships.
The Woke fucking Libtards are the true racists, here in America. They are terrible, and full of hate. They arrogantly seek to divide everyone and make everyone hate each other--meanwhile, while they build this Marxist utopian shithole, they deep down view themselves as being the super-special anointed elite that gets to rule over everyone else. Fuck them all! These scum need the napalm, baby. Comics, movies, and more, have all been corrupted by the Libtards. Let them all burn the fuck down.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Well said Shark and I 100% agree! It’s easy for the racism topic to get blown out of proportion and co-opted by malicious parties to indoctrinate people. We would do well to remember the Golden Rule and trust our own experiences.
Somehow though, literally MILLIONS of Black Africans, Brown Latinos, and Asians--all love each other, and white people, especially. Whatever they may think of a particular *group*--they eagerly make exceptions for individuals that they favour. And, well, while the men can, generally speaking be slower to accept others of different races, the women are certainly eager to welcome others with open arms. Once you have whatever woman embracing a foreign man, for example, the men within her circles typically get on board, too.
I have personally seen this in *FULL EFFECT* myself, whether it is with Asians, Latinos, or Black Africans. I've seen this reality amongst dozens of friends and associates, a well as myself, personally, for *DECADES*. My entire life. Don't worry about whoever being racist. Whaa, whaa, whaa. Just focus on YOU. Being the best person you can be. When interacting with others--foreigners, someone of a different race, don't be a smug, arrogant jackass. Be cool. Be respectful, and enthusiastic about their language, culture, food, and customs. Be forgiving of their flaws and shortcomings. YOU have flaws and shortcomings, too. Somewhere along the way, goddamn, you find that you have the opportunity to embrace and enjoy genuinely wonderful an awesome relationships.
Well said, SHARK. We might not agree on everything, but I fully agree with this.I like how we went from "Japan isn't an ethnostate" and "Japanese aren't racist" to basically admitting Japan is an ethnostate and Japanese are racist, by the same guy, within one page.
No shit. I am sure we can 100 percent rely on his reports from his sister as to how much racism is or is not in Maine as well. The guy is living in his own world.
Sorry if I communicated poorly. I think we crossed about the meaning of "ethnostate". I thought of that as meaning a country where someone's legal rights depend on what race they are -- like 1980s South Africa. I didn't mean to imply that Japan didn't have racism.
Despite complaining about racism in Japan, I do believe that there are many Japanese people opposed to racism. I just hope the sentiment grows. My father's religion growing up, Mugyohoe, is a Christian movement that originated in pre-war Japan -- and promoted peace as well as racial unity. My family had many Japanese friends who were in the movement. It has never been very popular, but they add to the ranks of those who want to promote racial harmony.
Japanese think that the Koreans should be living in Korea. Would it be wrong for Koreans to think that Japanese should live in Japan and not Korea?
"Don't you dare get comfortable here, this is our home!"
Dispotatic254 - Are you aware of the history there?
Most of the nearly 1 million Koreans living in Japan have been there for generations. During the occupation from 1910 to 1944, Japan brought close to 2 million Korean people into Japan -- often by force -- as workers or other jobs. My grandfather went to Japan to learn dairy farming at an agricultural school during the early occupation. He left as did most others, but some stayed because their livelihoods, children, and other ties were now in Japan.
During that time, Koreans were told that Japan and Korea were one country, and Koreans should work to help their country. So there are multiple generations of people who are ethnically Korean who have grown up in Japan as their only home, and are sometimes intermarried. They are the complete opposite of invaders, and it is rank hypocrisy for racist Japanese to resent their presence there.
Also you should be aware while the Korea was occupied during that time by the Japanese, the Koreans were treated as second class citizens. They had to take up Japanese names and could not speak Japanese in public.
Despite complaining about racism in Japan, I do believe that there are many Japanese people opposed to racism. I just hope the sentiment grows. My father's religion growing up, Mugyohoe, is a Christian movement that originated in pre-war Japan -- and promoted peace as well as racial unity. My family had many Japanese friends who were in the movement. It has never been very popular, but they add to the ranks of those who want to promote racial harmony.
Greetings!
Why is this such a revelation? Why do so many Libtards push the idea that only WHITE PEOPLE are racist? Every group of people are racist. Especially Asians. Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, they lead the pack. They are often viciously racist against other Asians. I've heard them called "Jungle Asians". You know, the Vietnamese, Filipinos, Indonesians, Burmese. I'm sure there are others. Ultimately though, who cares? It is human nature. It is what it is! *Laughing*
If it bothers you, then simply avoid racist people, and embrace people into your life that are not racist. DONE.
Somehow though, literally MILLIONS of Black Africans, Brown Latinos, and Asians--all love each other, and white people, especially. Whatever they may think of a particular *group*--they eagerly make exceptions for individuals that they favour. And, well, while the men can, generally speaking be slower to accept others of different races, the women are certainly eager to welcome others with open arms. Once you have whatever woman embracing a foreign man, for example, the men within her circles typically get on board, too.
I have personally seen this in *FULL EFFECT* myself, whether it is with Asians, Latinos, or Black Africans. I've seen this reality amongst dozens of friends and associates, a well as myself, personally, for *DECADES*. My entire life. Don't worry about whoever being racist. Whaa, whaa, whaa. Just focus on YOU. Being the best person you can be. When interacting with others--foreigners, someone of a different race, don't be a smug, arrogant jackass. Be cool. Be respectful, and enthusiastic about their language, culture, food, and customs. Be forgiving of their flaws and shortcomings. YOU have flaws and shortcomings, too. Somewhere along the way, goddamn, you find that you have the opportunity to embrace and enjoy genuinely wonderful an awesome relationships.
The Woke fucking Libtards are the true racists, here in America. They are terrible, and full of hate. They arrogantly seek to divide everyone and make everyone hate each other--meanwhile, while they build this Marxist utopian shithole, they deep down view themselves as being the super-special anointed elite that gets to rule over everyone else. Fuck them all! These scum need the napalm, baby. Comics, movies, and more, have all been corrupted by the Libtards. Let them all burn the fuck down.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Well said Shark and I 100% agree! It’s easy for the racism topic to get blown out of proportion and co-opted by malicious parties to indoctrinate people. We would do well to remember the Golden Rule and trust our own experiences.
Greetings!
Thank you, Rytrasmi! Excellent! Yeah, so much of people's discussions on "racism"--particularly on the interwebs and in the media--is absolutely poisonous, ignorant, and garbage. I'd also so say that most of what goes on in colleges is also lying, Marxist propaganda, and not based in historical reality or TRUTH in any way. It's disgusting. My blood pressure goes up when I hear these sanctimonious college professors bloviating nothing but racist propaganda to students, every day in classes. I saw it when I was in school--and it is even much worse NOW.
Everyone throughout history has been racist, towards somebody, or everybody. *Laughing* I don't dwell on that fact--I focus just like you said, on the Golden Rule and what I am experiencing in front of me.
Long ago, I had a *ahem*--Japanese girlfriend. Her mother took a dim view of me, and called me Gaijen. Yeah, my girlfriend translated for me, and told me without holding back precisely what *Gaijen* meant. So, I've been discriminated against, and "victimized" by racist people. It was terrible, and horrifying, and heartbreaking! (It sucked, but come on. *Laughing*)
My Japanese girlfriend was very eager to make it up to me for being so unfairly offended by her disapproving and racist mother.
I think people need to get away from the hateful, Marxist propaganda, and simply focus on real people, and real relationships. People in your neighborhood, at church, at work, wherever. Say hi. Be kind, generous, and willing to become friends.
It always makes me laugh as well, at how so many of these "racist incidents" and "Hate crimes"--have actually been total, lying HOAXES, done by the Libtards themselves. Under investigation and feeling the fire from police detectives--so many of them have CONFESSED to it all being a lying HOAX. The graffiti, the swastikas, whatever. Actual Black men hired to beat up O'le Jussie Smollett by HIMSELF--but Jusse claimed it was racist WHITE men that had attacked him. Black women students falsely claiming racist gang-rape--and yet, most of it is all fucking lies. All because these Libtards themselves either hate themselves, or they otherwise hate white people, and so desperately WANT there to be angry, racist white people everywhere. It is sickening, and disgusting. We need to resist the lies and deceit everywhere, and fight for the TRUTH.
I apologize for going on a rant, my friend!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Japan has plenty of racist *people*, just like many other countries. It also has a past that is full of racism and colonialism. I hate the racism of the Japanese. As a Korean, my father spent his childhood under Japanese racist oppression. However, he also faced plenty of racism from white people when he emigrated to the U.S. The current laws of Japan are neutral with respect to race, so I would not call it an ethnostate.
Specifying a nameless hypothetical community that doesn't want outsiders isn't useful to compare, since it is hypothetical. Let's take a specific example of a small white community that doesn't want outsiders -- say Brigadoon from the 1947 musical. As portrayed, it's much like Wakanda in that it is intentionally keeping itself secret and hiding from the outside world, like Wakanda has traditionally done. My son was in a high school production of Brigadoon 7 years ago, and I didn't have any condemnation of the play for its racism, nor would I call Brigadoon a racist ethnostate.
I wouldn't claim that the people of Brigadoon are free of racism. However, their drive to be isolated from the outside world is not inherently a racist principle -- and I wouldn't condemn the play as racist as a result.
Would either of you (Brad or oggsmash) call Brigadoon a racist white ethnostate? If not, can you explain why?
Koreans are the most racist people on Earth in my experience, so let's not pretend the Japanese are somehow worse. That said, I have a friend who moved to Japan years ago to open his own videogame company and speaks fluent Japanese, married a Japanese girl. It's my understanding he can never become a Japanese citizen, even now, because he's a white dude. So the statement "the current laws of Japan are neutral with respect to race" doesn't even make any sense. He'll always be an outsider and second-class member of Japanese society, regardless of what he does.
RE: hypotheticals, how about instead of some dumbass play we use real-life examples? Japan: de facto ethnostate. Maine: de factor ethno-"state". 94% white people. The first one is fine, the second one is problematic for a lot of people. Why? Because there are too many white people living in Maine?
Bringing up some dumb play when plenty of real-world examples exist is just disingenuous.
Japan has plenty of racist *people*, just like many other countries. It also has a past that is full of racism and colonialism. I hate the racism of the Japanese. As a Korean, my father spent his childhood under Japanese racist oppression. However, he also faced plenty of racism from white people when he emigrated to the U.S. The current laws of Japan are neutral with respect to race, so I would not call it an ethnostate.
Specifying a nameless hypothetical community that doesn't want outsiders isn't useful to compare, since it is hypothetical. Let's take a specific example of a small white community that doesn't want outsiders -- say Brigadoon from the 1947 musical. As portrayed, it's much like Wakanda in that it is intentionally keeping itself secret and hiding from the outside world, like Wakanda has traditionally done. My son was in a high school production of Brigadoon 7 years ago, and I didn't have any condemnation of the play for its racism, nor would I call Brigadoon a racist ethnostate.
I wouldn't claim that the people of Brigadoon are free of racism. However, their drive to be isolated from the outside world is not inherently a racist principle -- and I wouldn't condemn the play as racist as a result.
Would either of you (Brad or oggsmash) call Brigadoon a racist white ethnostate? If not, can you explain why?
Koreans are the most racist people on Earth in my experience, so let's not pretend the Japanese are somehow worse. That said, I have a friend who moved to Japan years ago to open his own videogame company and speaks fluent Japanese, married a Japanese girl. It's my understanding he can never become a Japanese citizen, even now, because he's a white dude. So the statement "the current laws of Japan are neutral with respect to race" doesn't even make any sense. He'll always be an outsider and second-class member of Japanese society, regardless of what he does.
RE: hypotheticals, how about instead of some dumbass play we use real-life examples? Japan: de facto ethnostate. Maine: de factor ethno-"state". 94% white people. The first one is fine, the second one is problematic for a lot of people. Why? Because there are too many white people living in Maine?
Bringing up some dumb play when plenty of real-world examples exist is just disingenuous.
He's always full of shit. Best to ignore him.
Japan has plenty of racist *people*, just like many other countries. It also has a past that is full of racism and colonialism. I hate the racism of the Japanese. As a Korean, my father spent his childhood under Japanese racist oppression. However, he also faced plenty of racism from white people when he emigrated to the U.S. The current laws of Japan are neutral with respect to race, so I would not call it an ethnostate.
Specifying a nameless hypothetical community that doesn't want outsiders isn't useful to compare, since it is hypothetical. Let's take a specific example of a small white community that doesn't want outsiders -- say Brigadoon from the 1947 musical. As portrayed, it's much like Wakanda in that it is intentionally keeping itself secret and hiding from the outside world, like Wakanda has traditionally done. My son was in a high school production of Brigadoon 7 years ago, and I didn't have any condemnation of the play for its racism, nor would I call Brigadoon a racist ethnostate.
I wouldn't claim that the people of Brigadoon are free of racism. However, their drive to be isolated from the outside world is not inherently a racist principle -- and I wouldn't condemn the play as racist as a result.
Would either of you (Brad or oggsmash) call Brigadoon a racist white ethnostate? If not, can you explain why?
Koreans are the most racist people on Earth in my experience, so let's not pretend the Japanese are somehow worse. That said, I have a friend who moved to Japan years ago to open his own videogame company and speaks fluent Japanese, married a Japanese girl. It's my understanding he can never become a Japanese citizen, even now, because he's a white dude. So the statement "the current laws of Japan are neutral with respect to race" doesn't even make any sense. He'll always be an outsider and second-class member of Japanese society, regardless of what he does.
RE: hypotheticals, how about instead of some dumbass play we use real-life examples? Japan: de facto ethnostate. Maine: de factor ethno-"state". 94% white people. The first one is fine, the second one is problematic for a lot of people. Why? Because there are too many white people living in Maine?
Bringing up some dumb play when plenty of real-world examples exist is just disingenuous.
Never mind that Korea had the longest unbroken chain of slavery of ANY society in history, spanning about 1500 years:
It's a hilarious short and I can't embed it
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/t18qMiEXVyI (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/t18qMiEXVyI)
Japan has plenty of racist *people*, just like many other countries. It also has a past that is full of racism and colonialism. I hate the racism of the Japanese. As a Korean, my father spent his childhood under Japanese racist oppression. However, he also faced plenty of racism from white people when he emigrated to the U.S. The current laws of Japan are neutral with respect to race, so I would not call it an ethnostate.
Specifying a nameless hypothetical community that doesn't want outsiders isn't useful to compare, since it is hypothetical. Let's take a specific example of a small white community that doesn't want outsiders -- say Brigadoon from the 1947 musical. As portrayed, it's much like Wakanda in that it is intentionally keeping itself secret and hiding from the outside world, like Wakanda has traditionally done. My son was in a high school production of Brigadoon 7 years ago, and I didn't have any condemnation of the play for its racism, nor would I call Brigadoon a racist ethnostate.
I wouldn't claim that the people of Brigadoon are free of racism. However, their drive to be isolated from the outside world is not inherently a racist principle -- and I wouldn't condemn the play as racist as a result.
Would either of you (Brad or oggsmash) call Brigadoon a racist white ethnostate? If not, can you explain why?
Koreans are the most racist people on Earth in my experience, so let's not pretend the Japanese are somehow worse. That said, I have a friend who moved to Japan years ago to open his own videogame company and speaks fluent Japanese, married a Japanese girl. It's my understanding he can never become a Japanese citizen, even now, because he's a white dude. So the statement "the current laws of Japan are neutral with respect to race" doesn't even make any sense. He'll always be an outsider and second-class member of Japanese society, regardless of what he does.
RE: hypotheticals, how about instead of some dumbass play we use real-life examples? Japan: de facto ethnostate. Maine: de factor ethno-"state". 94% white people. The first one is fine, the second one is problematic for a lot of people. Why? Because there are too many white people living in Maine?
Bringing up some dumb play when plenty of real-world examples exist is just disingenuous.
Never mind that Korea had the longest unbroken chain of slavery of ANY society in history, spanning about 1500 years:
It's a hilarious short and I can't embed it
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/t18qMiEXVyI (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/t18qMiEXVyI)
Yup. That guy is a total dumbass. Korea has been a hugely classist society for centuries. Even though slavery has been outlawed, classism is still extremely strong in South Korea. Class bias is the reason why films like Parasite had such a strong impact. Social class is encoded into the Korean language, with different grammar based on mode of address (honorifics).
I'm not clear what we're disagreeing about.
This subtopic got kicked off back in reply #58 where Wtrmute characterized Wakanda as an ethnonationalist state, which I disagreed with. I said that fictional isolationist societies like Wakanda and Brigadoon can be criticized for their isolationism, but their isolationism isn't inherently ethnonationalism in either case.
With Japan, my issue with historical Japan isn't about isolationism like not allowing Koreans to immigrate -- but rather with conquering their neighboring countries (including Korea), forced immigration of Koreans to be laborers during WWII, and then treating those forced laborers as second-class citizens.
Yup. That guy is a total dumbass. Korea has been a hugely classist society for centuries. Even though slavery has been outlawed, classism is still extremely strong in South Korea. Class bias is the reason why films like Parasite had such a strong impact. Social class is encoded into the Korean language, with different grammar based on mode of address (honorifics).
I'm not clear what we're disagreeing about.
This subtopic got kicked off back in reply #58 where Wtrmute characterized Wakanda as an ethnonationalist state, which I disagreed with. I said that fictional isolationist societies like Wakanda and Brigadoon can be criticized for their isolationism, but their isolationism isn't inherently ethnonationalism in either case.
With Japan, my issue with historical Japan isn't about isolationism like not allowing Koreans to immigrate -- but rather with conquering their neighboring countries (including Korea), forced immigration of Koreans to be laborers during WWII, and then treating those forced laborers as second-class citizens.
Your definition of ethnicity seems a little off to me.
Something I'm sure Koreans never did to other people's right? In all the 1500 years of slavery.
Spare me the virtue posturing, ALL people around the world committed atrocities. Some do even today.
That said, while all countries have committed atrocities, I don't buy into moral relativism. The United States committed atrocities in WWII, and so did Nazi Germany. That doesn't make them equal.
Yup. That guy is a total dumbass. Korea has been a hugely classist society for centuries. Even though slavery has been outlawed, classism is still extremely strong in South Korea. Class bias is the reason why films like Parasite had such a strong impact. Social class is encoded into the Korean language, with different grammar based on mode of address (honorifics).
I'm not clear what we're disagreeing about.
This subtopic got kicked off back in reply #58 where Wtrmute characterized Wakanda as an ethnonationalist state, which I disagreed with. I said that fictional isolationist societies like Wakanda and Brigadoon can be criticized for their isolationism, but their isolationism isn't inherently ethnonationalism in either case.
With Japan, my issue with historical Japan isn't about isolationism like not allowing Koreans to immigrate -- but rather with conquering their neighboring countries (including Korea), forced immigration of Koreans to be laborers during WWII, and then treating those forced laborers as second-class citizens.
Your definition of ethnicity seems a little off to me.
Something I'm sure Koreans never did to other people's right? In all the 1500 years of slavery.
Spare me the virtue posturing, ALL people around the world committed atrocities. Some do even today.
GeekyBugle, we seem to be talking past each other.
I am saying that Korea has had an abusive, atrocious system of repression of the lower classes -- including not just slaves (nobi) but also in its inequality among other classes like vulgar commoners (cheonmin). You refer to "ethnicity" and "other people" -- but Korean nobi was a social class of ethnic Koreans. The Koreans got their slaves by oppressing their own poor, not by raiding other countries and taking captives. That doesn't make it any better - I'm just stating a fact.
That said, while all countries have committed atrocities, I don't buy into moral relativism. The United States committed atrocities in WWII, and so did Nazi Germany. That doesn't make them equal.
This subtopic got kicked off back in reply #58 where Wtrmute characterized Wakanda as an ethnonationalist state, which I disagreed with. I said that fictional isolationist societies like Wakanda and Brigadoon can be criticized for their isolationism, but their isolationism isn't inherently ethnonationalism in either case.
With Japan, my issue with historical Japan isn't about isolationism like not allowing Koreans to immigrate -- but rather with conquering their neighboring countries (including Korea), forced immigration of Koreans to be laborers during WWII, and then treating those forced laborers as second-class citizens.
Japan committed atrocities during WWII nobody is denying it, but the ethnicity comment is regarding wakanda, your claim that it's not an ethnostate is based on an iffy definition of ethnicity.
Edited to add:
Ethnicity
a large group of people with a shared culture, language, history, set of traditions, etc., or the fact of belonging to one of these groups:
Do you agree with that definition?
This subtopic got kicked off back in reply #58 where Wtrmute characterized Wakanda as an ethnonationalist state, which I disagreed with. I said that fictional isolationist societies like Wakanda and Brigadoon can be criticized for their isolationism, but their isolationism isn't inherently ethnonationalism in either case.
With Japan, my issue with historical Japan isn't about isolationism like not allowing Koreans to immigrate -- but rather with conquering their neighboring countries (including Korea), forced immigration of Koreans to be laborers during WWII, and then treating those forced laborers as second-class citizens.Japan committed atrocities during WWII nobody is denying it, but the ethnicity comment is regarding wakanda, your claim that it's not an ethnostate is based on an iffy definition of ethnicity.
Edited to add:
Ethnicity
a large group of people with a shared culture, language, history, set of traditions, etc., or the fact of belonging to one of these groups:
Do you agree with that definition?
There are three terms being thrown around here -- "ethnicity", "ethnostate" and "ethnonationalist state". Wtrmute used the term "ethnonationalist state" when talking about Wakanda. For of an ethnonationalist, I think of now-banned user Alathon. He self-identified as an ethnonationalist, and claimed that societies function better if they are one race. Specifically, he said that the US would be better if it was only white people. As far as I know, he didn't advocate violence against non-white Americans, but would prefer that they live in societies that fit their race better.
I'm fine with the dictionary definition of "ethnicity" you quote, but I don't think it's going to clear up any disagreement. I'd prefer to focus on cases and judgement of them, whether fictional Wakanda or Brigadoon, or real states referred to like Maine, Japan, and South Korea.
EDITED TO ADD: The important question isn't whether Japan is an ethnostate or Wakanda is an ethnostate - but more on what that means. If we decide that "ethnostate" means that almost all citizens share the same native langauge and overall history, then I'm fine calling them ethnostates -- but that doesn't mean that everyone in Japan is an ethnonationalist like Alathon.
Ethnostate:
a state that is dominated by members of a single ethnic group
White Ethnostate:
A White ethnostate is a proposed type of state in which residence or citizenship would be limited to whites, and non-whites, such as Blacks, Asians, Jews, Middle Easterners and North Africans and Hispanics would be excluded from citizenship.
I don't think there's a meaningful difference between the two things, but since I like consistency and since when people accuse Israel/Japan of being an Ethnostate they are thinking of the second definition let's use that one.
So, Wakanda being a place where ONLY ethnic wakandans can live fits perfectly the definition of an Ethnostate.
Meanwhile Israel doesn't since there's Muslims that have the nationality and full citizenship rights. No idea about Japan so I won't pronounce myself in one way or the other.
1. The State of Israel
a) Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people in which the State of Israel was established.
b) The state of Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, religious, and historic right to self-determination.
c) The fulfillment of the right of national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.
Article 14. All of the people are equal under the law and there shall be no discrimination in political, economic or social relations because of race, creed, sex, social status or family origin.
Peers and peerage shall not be recognized.
No privilege shall accompany any award of honor, decoration or any distinction, nor shall any such award be valid beyond the lifetime of the individual who now holds or hereafter may receive it.
Ethnostate:
a state that is dominated by members of a single ethnic group
White Ethnostate:
A White ethnostate is a proposed type of state in which residence or citizenship would be limited to whites, and non-whites, such as Blacks, Asians, Jews, Middle Easterners and North Africans and Hispanics would be excluded from citizenship.
I don't think there's a meaningful difference between the two things, but since I like consistency and since when people accuse Israel/Japan of being an Ethnostate they are thinking of the second definition let's use that one.
So, Wakanda being a place where ONLY ethnic wakandans can live fits perfectly the definition of an Ethnostate.
Meanwhile Israel doesn't since there's Muslims that have the nationality and full citizenship rights. No idea about Japan so I won't pronounce myself in one way or the other.
Modern Israel's notable ethnic policy is immigration. A person automatically has the right to immigrate to Israel if they are Jewish, or the direct family of a Jewish person. Other ethnicities have more restricted immigration rights. Israel strongly encourages immigration by Jews, and about 22% of the population are immigrants. Also, according to Israeli law:Quote1. The State of Israel
a) Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people in which the State of Israel was established.
b) The state of Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, religious, and historic right to self-determination.
c) The fulfillment of the right of national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.
---
Modern Japan, by contrast, has no ethnic-specific laws for immigration or citizenship. Non-ethnic Japanese citizens have the same rights as ethnic Japanese. According to the Japanese constitution:QuoteArticle 14. All of the people are equal under the law and there shall be no discrimination in political, economic or social relations because of race, creed, sex, social status or family origin.
Peers and peerage shall not be recognized.
No privilege shall accompany any award of honor, decoration or any distinction, nor shall any such award be valid beyond the lifetime of the individual who now holds or hereafter may receive it.
Though note that this constitution was imposed on Japan by the US after WWII. Legally, becoming a Japanese citizen is the same for anyone regardless of ethnicity - but it has a very long naturalization process (10 years permanent residence). The immigration rate is extremely low - less than 1% of the population is immigrant.
---
Fictional communities like Wakanda and Brigadoon are isolationist -- but I think it is weird to call either Wakandan or Brigadooner an ethnicity, since this is a fictional "ethnicity" that is the same as their community, and there is no suggestion that Wakanda or Brigadoon defines themselves ethnically.
When a white baby crash-lands in Wakanda, they don't judge based on the baby's race or ethnicity. He is raised as a Wakandan citizen and he grows up to have a high position in government. Likewise, in Brigadoon, the American visitor without any mention of his race or even nationality.
Immigration ISN'T a moral good or a moral bad, IF you agree that Jews (due to the historical persecution they have faced) deserve to call their millennial country of origin home, and given that there's still millions of Jews outside of Israel (not forgetting the Ethiopians) why should they need or have to open their borders to non Jewish immigrants?
Immigration ISN'T a moral good or a moral bad, IF you agree that Jews (due to the historical persecution they have faced) deserve to call their millennial country of origin home, and given that there's still millions of Jews outside of Israel (not forgetting the Ethiopians) why should they need or have to open their borders to non Jewish immigrants?
OK, I'm confused. This is exactly what I was saying -- that immigration alone isn't inherently a moral good or moral bad.
It seemed like your argument was that Wakanda was an ethnostate and morally wrong because it didn't open itself up to non-Wakandan immigrants. But now I'm not clear. Are you saying that there is a moral wrong with Wakanda's isolationism? What should Wakanda be like to be morally right?
This is exactly what I was saying -- that immigration alone isn't inherently a moral good or moral bad.
It seemed like your argument was that Wakanda was an ethnostate and morally wrong because it didn't open itself up to non-Wakandan immigrants. But now I'm not clear. Are you saying that there is a moral wrong with Wakanda's isolationism? What should Wakanda be like to be morally right?
Wakanda IS an Ethnostate
Wakanda is morally wrong because having super advanced tech allowed all kinds of atrocities to be committed against their neighbors: The Arab slave trade, 12 centuries 15 million souls enslaved, the Trans-Atlantic slave trade 4 centuries 12 million souls enslaved, not counting ALL the natural disasters like droughts, etc. More recently for allowing the contamination of the planet to continue because they would not share their super tech.
This is exactly what I was saying -- that immigration alone isn't inherently a moral good or moral bad.
It seemed like your argument was that Wakanda was an ethnostate and morally wrong because it didn't open itself up to non-Wakandan immigrants. But now I'm not clear. Are you saying that there is a moral wrong with Wakanda's isolationism? What should Wakanda be like to be morally right?
Wakanda IS an Ethnostate
Wakanda is morally wrong because having super advanced tech allowed all kinds of atrocities to be committed against their neighbors: The Arab slave trade, 12 centuries 15 million souls enslaved, the Trans-Atlantic slave trade 4 centuries 12 million souls enslaved, not counting ALL the natural disasters like droughts, etc. More recently for allowing the contamination of the planet to continue because they would not share their super tech.
From this it sounds like you don't have a problem with Wakanda's no-immigration policy (i.e. "Wakanda for Wakandans").
Instead, you think that they should have used their advanced technology to become a superpower and act as world police to solve the problems of other countries.
---
This sounds like a critique of isolationism. I'm sympathetic to that. As another example, the isolationism of Star Trek's Federation Prime Directive often seemed like moral cowardice to me - like when they would let a whole planet perish rather than interfere. However, I also have to admit that historically, real countries going out to be world police has most often been conquest and domination rather than making the world better.
Based on the Christopher Priest comics (which I'm a fan of), I'm not convinced that centuries of Wakandan domination would have necessarily been better for history. The modern Wakandans are a decent country overall - with their own flaws and strengths - but they're not an enlightened utopia. If they became a superpower in medieval times, they might well have participated in the slave trade just like most Europeans, Arabs, and Africans did. I could easily picture a "What If" comic set in an alternate 18th century after centuries of Wakandan domination, where the New World Wakandan colonies are having debates over their own rights and freedom -- along with those of their Gaulish and Celtic slaves.
I suppose my ideal case would be Wakanda as a center of learning - who spread knowledge like especially medical and ecological knowledge, and participating in international debate, but don't get militarily involved in territorial wars.
From this it sounds like you don't have a problem with Wakanda's no-immigration policy (i.e. "Wakanda for Wakandans").
Given that I openly support closing Mexico's borders and deporting ALL the illegals you could hardly say I'm an open borders proponent, no I have no problem with country X deciding they do not want Immigration.
So, Wakanda being a place where ONLY ethnic wakandans can live fits perfectly the definition of an Ethnostate.
This sounds like a critique of isolationism. I'm sympathetic to that. As another example, the isolationism of Star Trek's Federation Prime Directive often seemed like moral cowardice to me - like when they would let a whole planet perish rather than interfere. However, I also have to admit that historically, real countries going out to be world police has most often been conquest and domination rather than making the world better.
Based on the Christopher Priest comics (which I'm a fan of), I'm not convinced that centuries of Wakandan domination would have necessarily been better for history. The modern Wakandans are a decent country overall - with their own flaws and strengths - but they're not an enlightened utopia. If they became a superpower in medieval times, they might well have participated in the slave trade just like most Europeans, Arabs, and Africans did. I could easily picture a "What If" comic set in an alternate 18th century after centuries of Wakandan domination, where the New World Wakandan colonies are having debates over their own rights and freedom -- along with those of their Gaulish and Celtic slaves.
I suppose my ideal case would be Wakanda as a center of learning - who spread knowledge like especially medical and ecological knowledge, and participating in international debate, but don't get militarily involved in territorial wars.
Stopping the slave trade can hardly be described as intervening in foreign wars, and since I do admire the Brits for spending blood and treasure to stop it I do think that if someone else had the power and choose to do nothing then that's morally wrong.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
To do nothing to stop an evil when it's within your power (supertech compared to other nations) it's morally wrong, I would even say it's downright evil.
From this it sounds like you don't have a problem with Wakanda's no-immigration policy (i.e. "Wakanda for Wakandans").Given that I openly support closing Mexico's borders and deporting ALL the illegals you could hardly say I'm an open borders proponent, no I have no problem with country X deciding they do not want Immigration.
OK. I saw your earlier labelling Wakanda as an ethnostate here:So, Wakanda being a place where ONLY ethnic wakandans can live fits perfectly the definition of an Ethnostate.
And I thought that you were implying that it was morally wrong that only Wakandans can live in Wakanda.This sounds like a critique of isolationism. I'm sympathetic to that. As another example, the isolationism of Star Trek's Federation Prime Directive often seemed like moral cowardice to me - like when they would let a whole planet perish rather than interfere. However, I also have to admit that historically, real countries going out to be world police has most often been conquest and domination rather than making the world better.
Based on the Christopher Priest comics (which I'm a fan of), I'm not convinced that centuries of Wakandan domination would have necessarily been better for history. The modern Wakandans are a decent country overall - with their own flaws and strengths - but they're not an enlightened utopia. If they became a superpower in medieval times, they might well have participated in the slave trade just like most Europeans, Arabs, and Africans did. I could easily picture a "What If" comic set in an alternate 18th century after centuries of Wakandan domination, where the New World Wakandan colonies are having debates over their own rights and freedom -- along with those of their Gaulish and Celtic slaves.
I suppose my ideal case would be Wakanda as a center of learning - who spread knowledge like especially medical and ecological knowledge, and participating in international debate, but don't get militarily involved in territorial wars.
Stopping the slave trade can hardly be described as intervening in foreign wars, and since I do admire the Brits for spending blood and treasure to stop it I do think that if someone else had the power and choose to do nothing then that's morally wrong.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
To do nothing to stop an evil when it's within your power (supertech compared to other nations) it's morally wrong, I would even say it's downright evil.
From our modern view, it's obvious that slavery is evil and so any good country should act to go out and stop slavery.
But in the 16th century, slavery was common. Countries across Europe, Africa, and the Middle East all participated in it. You're suggesting that 16th century Wakanda was evil for not stopping slavery -- and I would technically agree, but I'd also say that it was no more evil than countries like England, Spain, Egypt, and others who actively promoted slavery. Not better, but also not worse.
Now, it's true that in the early 19th century Britain outlawed the slave trade and worked to stop it. So was 19th century Wakanda more evil than 19th century Britain? Possibly so, but it's also complicated. The British outlawed the slave trade in 1807 only after they lost their American colonies. Because of this, they were no longer making money on slaves, so they economically benefited by disrupting the profitable slave trade of their enemies. This decision was influenced by genuine abolitionists, but it was also economic.
Actual history is rarely clear good vs evil.
I've explained why Wakanda is evil, but I can't claim that of a fictional black country so you must make claims about the UK's motives, did you know they just recently finished paying of the debt they acquired to stop the slave trade? that it was illegal to own slaves in the UK before they started their war? that many British citizens died stopping this objectively evil trade?
I seriously doubt incurring in such debt was to their economic benefit.
In 1770, England was a major player in the transatlantic slave trade. Then in 1807, England outlawed the slave trade and worked to shut the trade down. So do you think that England suddenly jumped from extreme evil to good in the span of 37 years? That seems abrupt to me. The U.S. then also started as extreme evil, and jumped to good later in the 1800s?
In 1770, England was a major player in the transatlantic slave trade. Then in 1807, England outlawed the slave trade and worked to shut the trade down. So do you think that England suddenly jumped from extreme evil to good in the span of 37 years? That seems abrupt to me. The U.S. then also started as extreme evil, and jumped to good later in the 1800s?
See that's the problem with your ideology, you give people no reason to do better.
PS - You think not doing something to stop slavery is evil, but if a Western nation rolled in to Africa or China, you'd call them cultural imperialists, and run cover for the slave nations.
Now, it's true that in the early 19th century Britain outlawed the slave trade and worked to stop it. So was 19th century Wakanda more evil than 19th century Britain? Possibly so, but it's also complicated. The British outlawed the slave trade in 1807 only after they lost their American colonies. Because of this, they were no longer making money on slaves, so they economically benefited by disrupting the profitable slave trade of their enemies. This decision was influenced by genuine abolitionists, but it was also economic.
Actual history is rarely clear good vs evil.
Now, it's true that in the early 19th century Britain outlawed the slave trade and worked to stop it. So was 19th century Wakanda more evil than 19th century Britain? Possibly so, but it's also complicated. The British outlawed the slave trade in 1807 only after they lost their American colonies. Because of this, they were no longer making money on slaves, so they economically benefited by disrupting the profitable slave trade of their enemies. This decision was influenced by genuine abolitionists, but it was also economic.
Actual history is rarely clear good vs evil.
Britain lost a bunch of colonies that became the US in the 18th century, but it didn't lose all of its colonies in the Americas. In particular it had colonies in the Caribbean which used slave labour on sugar plantations, and those were impacted by Britain abolishing the slave trade, and then abolishing slavery itself. Since those laws only affected the British Empire, it's clear they weren't set up to hurt rivals.
Even if we consider the later British crusade against the wider slave trade, much of the cotton grown in the American south was sent to UK textile mills, which were an important part of the British economy. Impacting the ability of the US to grow cotton would have impacted the British Empire economically, not furthered them.
In 1770, England was a major player in the transatlantic slave trade. Then in 1807, England outlawed the slave trade and worked to shut the trade down. So do you think that England suddenly jumped from extreme evil to good in the span of 37 years? That seems abrupt to me. The U.S. then also started as extreme evil, and jumped to good later in the 1800s?
See that's the problem with your ideology, you give people no reason to do better.PS - You think not doing something to stop slavery is evil, but if a Western nation rolled in to Africa or China, you'd call them cultural imperialists, and run cover for the slave nations.
Grognard GM, the post you are quoting isn't a declaration of my own ideology. It is questions for GeekyBugle to try to understand his ideology.
In my own ideology, I wouldn't use labels like good and evil for countries, or for humans. There is always better and worse on different issues, and it always has to be in comparison to others. For example, I wouldn't say the initial U.S. was evil because it practiced slavery and promoted the slave trade. I am opposed to slavery, but it is only one of many practices on which to judge a country.
I would criticize a country that has a past of conquering others, but I'd also give it credit where it participated for positive change. I would criticize a highly isolationist country for failing to contribute enough to make the world better, but also give it credit for doing better than most other countries that engaged in territorial wars and conquest.
Can someone explain how having a rare and super-special medal allowed Wakanda to become technologically advanced because I don't see the connection.
Now, it's true that in the early 19th century Britain outlawed the slave trade and worked to stop it. So was 19th century Wakanda more evil than 19th century Britain? Possibly so, but it's also complicated. The British outlawed the slave trade in 1807 only after they lost their American colonies. Because of this, they were no longer making money on slaves, so they economically benefited by disrupting the profitable slave trade of their enemies. This decision was influenced by genuine abolitionists, but it was also economic.
Actual history is rarely clear good vs evil.
Britain lost a bunch of colonies that became the US in the 18th century, but it didn't lose all of its colonies in the Americas. In particular it had colonies in the Caribbean which used slave labour on sugar plantations, and those were impacted by Britain abolishing the slave trade, and then abolishing slavery itself. Since those laws only affected the British Empire, it's clear they weren't set up to hurt rivals.
Even if we consider the later British crusade against the wider slave trade, much of the cotton grown in the American south was sent to UK textile mills, which were an important part of the British economy. Impacting the ability of the US to grow cotton would have impacted the British Empire economically, not furthered them.
Shhhhh, those pesky facts can't be allowed to disrupt the narrative.
In YOUR ideology the past sins must ALWAYS be kept to the forefront and no amount of good deeds can ever erase them. A funny thing for someone who calls himself Christian.
But if you're going to judge the country for their sins you need to do so for the ones they haven't washed away. For instance the "war on terror", destabilizing countries for profit, etc. While keeping in mind that (like during slavery) there's people in those countries speaking against those evil deeds even if they haven't been allowed to do anything because they are just a bunch of istaphobes.
In YOUR ideology the past sins must ALWAYS be kept to the forefront and no amount of good deeds can ever erase them. A funny thing for someone who calls himself Christian.
GeekyBugle, you are the one claiming that you judge a modern country by its history of slavery. You're the one who brought up the topic in order to say that Wakanda is evil, citing the history of slavery. Likewise, you recently posted a video where people similarly claimed modern Korea was evil based on its history of slavery.
I haven't said anything about judging modern countries at all by their history of slavery - and certainly not calling them evil. History is important to understand the present, but the important thing is to change the future.
In YOUR ideology the past sins must ALWAYS be kept to the forefront and no amount of good deeds can ever erase them. A funny thing for someone who calls himself Christian.
GeekyBugle, you are the one claiming that you judge a modern country by its history of slavery. You're the one who brought up the topic in order to say that Wakanda is evil, citing the history of slavery. Likewise, you recently posted a video where people similarly claimed modern Korea was evil based on its history of slavery.
I haven't said anything about judging modern countries at all by their history of slavery - and certainly not calling them evil. History is important to understand the present, but the important thing is to change the future.
And this is why people accuse you of being disingenuous and a liar. Because each of the points you object to was a direct response to something you had said or implied. This is also the reason that neither you nor anyone who thinks like you should ever be in a position of authority: because your inability to take responsibility for your half of the discussion shows that you will never solve any problems, only attempt to deflect them onto others.
In YOUR ideology the past sins must ALWAYS be kept to the forefront and no amount of good deeds can ever erase them. A funny thing for someone who calls himself Christian.
GeekyBugle, you are the one claiming that you judge a modern country by its history of slavery. You're the one who brought up the topic in order to say that Wakanda is evil, citing the history of slavery. Likewise, you recently posted a video where people similarly claimed modern Korea was evil based on its history of slavery.
I haven't said anything about judging modern countries at all by their history of slavery - and certainly not calling them evil. History is important to understand the present, but the important thing is to change the future.
And this is why people accuse you of being disingenuous and a liar. Because each of the points you object to was a direct response to something you had said or implied. This is also the reason that neither you nor anyone who thinks like you should ever be in a position of authority: because your inability to take responsibility for your half of the discussion shows that you will never solve any problems, only attempt to deflect them onto others.
Eirikrautha, GeekyBugle started his point that Wakanda is evil because of the history of slavery in reply #104 (https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/towards-a-more-inclusive-sword-sorcery/msg1252239/#msg1252239).
Prior to that, I was focused on Wakanda's no-immigration policy, using the parallel of Brigadoon. I don't see that I said anything about slavery. If you can see a place where I did, please point it out to me. It seems to me more that posters are making assumptions about me rather than anything that I actually say. That's why I try to ask more questions rather than assume someone else's position.
For the point going forward -- do you think that Wakanda's history with regards to slavery means that it is evil, as GeekyBugle holds?
In YOUR ideology the past sins must ALWAYS be kept to the forefront and no amount of good deeds can ever erase them. A funny thing for someone who calls himself Christian.
GeekyBugle, you are the one claiming that you judge a modern country by its history of slavery. You're the one who brought up the topic in order to say that Wakanda is evil, citing the history of slavery. Likewise, you recently posted a video where people similarly claimed modern Korea was evil based on its history of slavery.
I haven't said anything about judging modern countries at all by their history of slavery - and certainly not calling them evil. History is important to understand the present, but the important thing is to change the future.But if you're going to judge the country for their sins you need to do so for the ones they haven't washed away. For instance the "war on terror", destabilizing countries for profit, etc. While keeping in mind that (like during slavery) there's people in those countries speaking against those evil deeds even if they haven't been allowed to do anything because they are just a bunch of istaphobes.
I'd love more voices speaking against the "war on terror" and destabilizing countries for profit. We need to convince more people on both sides that its wrong, since it is a program that is thoroughly supported by the uniparty.
BTW, you were also proven wrong about Israel being an Ethnostate, and you didn't concede the point either.
So, let's drag the conversation back to before it was derailed:
Wakanda IS an Ethnostate by all definitions.
Israel ISN'T an Ethnostate even if you stretch the definition.
Those points have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, will you concede the points?
Why the fuck do people care that Japan is a fucking "ETHNOSTATE?" Good for them. Japan does not need to let hordes of fucking foreign immigrants pour into their country. NO COUNTRY NEEDS TO DO THAT.
But do you want MORE reasons why Wakanda (if it was real) would be the most EVIL country ever to exist? Supertech, super-science that they REFUSE to share with the rest of the world, one would imagine this is due to their ethno-supremacist stances.