Quote from: jhkim;481103Again, here's the short form:  Most stuff created prior to 1950, and quite a bit after it, has some racism in it.  Racism has been the mainstream view throughout history, with scattered exceptions.  

The term was only really developed in the 20th century to describe the ideology of Nazi Germany.  It can be applied fairly easily to some 19th century ideas, but go back any further and the concept becomes increasingly nonsensical.  Most people throughout history were not 'racist', had no concept of racism, and would think you very strange.

Quote from: Sigmund;481106Edit: Response to jhkim's characterization of Greeks as racist...

http://www.anistor.gr/english/enback/AGRacism.pdf

Short form:
Speaking of "racism" as meaning our modern concept of it in relation to ancient Greece is inaccurate.

Of course the racism in ancient Greek isn't going to be the same as the racism found in modern-day.  Neither of these are going to be the same as the racism in Shakespeare's day, or Chaucer's.  The abstract doesn't claim that the ancient Greeks were non-racist, but that their racism was different than typical modern-day racism.  From the abstract:

"However, we will see that, following ancient Greek racial thought, the interpretive model of modern racism could successfully be applied to ancient Greece. In other words, we make use of the Weberian "idealtypus" of modern racism. However, one has to cut it loose from the connotations of modern-day racism and analyse ancient Greek racism within the framework of the cultural, religious and political conditions of Antiquity."

Note that they still call the ancient Greek racism as, well, racism.

Is this part of that "everything is racist, but if we acknowledge it then it is OK" meme that keeps popping up? Because, you know, that's really annoying.

Quote from: jhkim;481103I agree there is no One True Way, and it's fine to use myths.  But I think there should be acknowledgment of what myths are.  Historical myths are based on historical views of the world, and tend to have themes that are based on those views.  While medusa is a near-unique creature, a mythic race like the centaurs represents an ancient Greek view of other races.  I'm sure now people will jump down my throat for my hideous slander against ancient Greeks for claiming them to be racist, and I'm wild crazy politically correct for inventing such a crazy notion that ancient Greeks were racist, but oh well...

Personally I don't care what you say about the ancient greeks (and I personally have no idea where the idea for centaur came from, butyour explanation sounds as reasonable as many others I've heard). I just don't understand why we have to care if the centaurs we use today in a game were originallly the product of how the greeks viewed other peoples.

Quote from: jhkim;481116Of course the racism in ancient Greek isn't going to be the same as the racism found in modern-day.  Neither of these are going to be the same as the racism in Shakespeare's day, or Chaucer's.  The abstract doesn't claim that the ancient Greeks were non-racist, but that their racism was different than typical modern-day racism.  From the abstract:

"However, we will see that, following ancient Greek racial thought, the interpretive model of modern racism could successfully be applied to ancient Greece. In other words, we make use of the Weberian "idealtypus" of modern racism. However, one has to cut it loose from the connotations of modern-day racism and analyse ancient Greek racism within the framework of the cultural, religious and political conditions of Antiquity."

Note that they still call the ancient Greek racism as, well, racism.

Just trying to be clear that much of Ancient Greek "racism" had little to do with the color of a person's skin. Not that has anything to do with the OP or anything.

Quote from: jhkim;481111Yes, I think that racism was the norm for almost all historical cultures and time periods.  The opposite - the idea of the equality of races - is largely a modern idea along with universal suffrage democracy, abolition of slavery, and equal rights for men and women.  There are exceptions, but they are uncommon.  

Yes, I personally distinguish between racism and culturalism/nationalism.  However, historical cultures generally conflated the two, since they had no concept of genetics.

So in other words, speaking of "racism" is kinda pointless because in your view it is/was the normal view that everyone held... in other words, everyone was equally racist so the only odd attitudes would be our modern ones, and drawing inspiration from any kind of historical source must contain racism as you view it, whether the author wants it to or not. So, when speaking of Tolkien's "racist" inclusions it could very well be just influences from his historical cultural inspirations and not something he consciously included in his work. Ditto for EGG, in which case no matter what fantasy game based even loosely on historical time periods or cultures Dray tries to play, he is going to find "racist" influences and ideas, and so he's either going to have to accept that as a natural by-product of drawing on real world influences, or stop playing the vast majority of fantasy games completely.

So you don't think pre-modern people had any idea that "race" and "culture" could mean different things despite the fact that even without the knowledge of genetics, it's rather obvious that, frex, a pale, blond Scandinavian or German looks nothing like a dark skinned and haired Ethiopian or Arabian or Egyptian?

Quote from: jhkim;481116Note that they still call the ancient Greek racism as, well, racism.

Of course they do, because that's the idea that precipitated the study, but what they describe has more to do with culture than race. Note they even include some other Greek tribes in who they consider "barbarians". They viewed people in terms of Hellenistic vs. non-Hellenistic cultures. As the paper says, what Greeks would have meant when using the term "racism" has little to do with how we use the term today. Equating the two is a mistake, plain and simple.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;481123Personally I don't care what you say about the ancient greeks (and I personally have no idea where the idea for centaur came from, butyour explanation sounds as reasonable as many others I've heard). I just don't understand why we have to care if the centaurs we use today in a game were originallly the product of how the greeks viewed other peoples.

We don't. There are just some pretentious folks who are trying and failing to convince us that if we don't we're somehow wrong or inferior. The entire idea is silly. As others have said, Kyle has won the thread, as he has had the wisdom to simply dismiss the entire idea with the derision it deserves. You and I and Jeff and S'mon and Tristam are being silly by even engaging the troll in a serious manner it's starting to seem to me. I don't see any sign of anyone arguing the merit of Dray's lament being even remotely willing to consider our points as valid, which is why I'm attempting to disengage. I'll succeed here soon too, as the whole thing's getting boring to me now.

So, apparently, we're back to guilt by association.

This kind of discourse is so largely wide-spread. If you don't think in terms of guilt by association yourself, you might as well declare your "bigoted racism" and be done with it.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;481123Personally I don't care what you say about the ancient greeks (and I personally have no idea where the idea for centaur came from, butyour explanation sounds as reasonable as many others I've heard). I just don't understand why we have to care if the centaurs we use today in a game were originallly the product of how the greeks viewed other peoples.

I think this is a very good question that I would like to ask many of the people arguing against me.  I have been expressing the view that one should simply note that something is racist and move on.  However, many people here seem very angry at this - and are arguing that it is wrong to label ancient Greeks as racist in a manner that implies it is very important I not do this.  

Generally speaking, modern books and films that portray Greek myth tend to edit and change the original stories to fit more closely to the modern viewpoint.  Likewise, our medieval fantasy tends to express values very different than real medieval values.  People edit out support of slavery, for example, or the treatment of women as property.  If you want to do this deliberately, then you might care about what the meanings of the original myths were.

Quote from: S'mon;481115The term was only really developed in the 20th century to describe the ideology of Nazi Germany.  It can be applied fairly easily to some 19th century ideas, but go back any further and the concept becomes increasingly nonsensical.  Most people throughout history were not 'racist', had no concept of racism, and would think you very strange.

It's true that older historical values were different than Nazi values, absolutely.  However, I think it is even more nonsensical to identify historical values with modern-day non-racist values.  Your argument suggests we should call 19th century slavers racist, but call 18th century slavers non-racist.  That Nazis were racist, but the Jewish pogroms of the Renaissance were non-racist.  That seems equally strange to me.  I think it's better to say that historical racism was different than Nazi racism.  For that matter, racism in different parts of the world are also different.  19th century Korean racism isn't the same as 19th century American racism.  

Regardless of the racism label, though, the point is that myths and stories from history often express values that clash with our modern-day values.  If you are basing your game on myths, then what you are using are constructs used to express those historical values.  It is blatantly revisionist to say that the "good" and "evil" expressed by historical myths is the same thing that we would consider "good" and "evil" today.  There is overlap, but they are not the same thing.

QuoteI think this is a very good question that I would like to ask many of the people arguing against me. I have been expressing the view that one should simply note that something is racist and move on. However, many people here seem very angry at this - and are arguing that it is wrong to label ancient Greeks as racist in a manner that implies it is very important I not do this.

Your problem is that "racism" is a very serious charge to most people, and a very specific one to most people.

"Everyone's a little bit racist" is a dogma that most people do not subscribe to, and one that trivializes "racism" as a word on a host of grounds.

I think, and the way I was raised to know those words, that there is a difference between simple prejudice and outright racism, and I suspect many people view it as the same.  The former is an unfortunate flaw many of us share, the latter is a serious charge of conscious hostility that carries a large payload.

Quote from: jhkim;481146I think this is a very good question that I would like to ask many of the people arguing against me.  I have been expressing the view that one should simply note that something is racist and move on.  However, many people here seem very angry at this - and are arguing that it is wrong to label ancient Greeks as racist in a manner that implies it is very important I not do this.  

I am not angry, I just don't think I understand your position. I am wondering where your "should" is coming from with the centaur. Lets concede that it originally stemmed from greek racism (something I think is debatable but not an unreasonable suggestion); why "should" we have to make note of that? What relevance does it have if the centaur has lost any connotation of racism?

QuoteGenerally speaking, modern books and films that portray Greek myth tend to edit and change the original stories to fit more closely to the modern viewpoint.  Likewise, our medieval fantasy tends to express values very different than real medieval values.  People edit out support of slavery, for example, or the treatment of women as property.  If you want to do this deliberately, then you might care about what the meanings of the original myths were.
.

I think it has been a while since we've edited those things out. Most history books make note of the role of things like slavery in the ancient I have a book on Roman Social relations I am leafing through right now. It was written by Ramsay MacMullen in 1970 and he basically lays bare all the social inequalities in Roman society.

Even films and TV are a lot more comfortable dwelling on these sorts of things now. It isn't like the 1950s when historical films were scrubbed for modern viewers.

I am not denying that exploring the meanings behind the Centaur could be interesting (especially if I was making a movie or book about ancient greeks ). In fact you could probably get a good thread out of it here. But I just don't see gamers who are simply including a centaur encounter need to care about that.

Quote from: J Arcane;481148I think, and the way I was raised to know those words, that there is a difference between simple prejudice and outright racism, and I suspect many people view it as the same.  The former is an unfortunate flaw many of us share, the latter is a serious charge of conscious hostility that carries a large payload.

That's where I'm coming from as well.

Quote from: J Arcane;481148Your problem is that "racism" is a very serious charge to most people, and a very specific one to most people.

"Everyone's a little bit racist" is a dogma that most people do not subscribe to, and one that trivializes "racism" as a word on a host of grounds.

I'm not saying "everyone's a little bit racist".  I'm saying that people who like me who chanted "A fight! A fight!  A n***** and a white!" on a schoolyard are a little bit racist (or at least were so at the time).  I'm saying that people like Aristotle who openly advocate that other races are inferior and more fit for slavery are a little bit racist.  For definitions, here are some I browsed:

Wikipedia: Racism is the belief that there are inherent differences in people's traits and capacities that are entirely due to their race, however defined, and that, as a consequence, racial discrimination (i.e. different treatment of those people, both socially and legally) is justified.

Free Online Dictionary: 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.  2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

My definition is more or less in line with these.  

Quote from: J Arcane;481148I think, and the way I was raised to know those words, that there is a difference between simple prejudice and outright racism, and I suspect many people view it as the same.  The former is an unfortunate flaw many of us share, the latter is a serious charge of conscious hostility that carries a large payload.

Look, we have different definitions.  It happens.  However, it should have been obvious for a long time that I'm not going by the same definition.  The definitions I quoted say nothing about hostility, for example, and have no qualifier about conscious or unconscious.