Quote from: SHARK on January 27, 2021, 01:05:33 PM
Hmmm...Chris, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment regarding the ancient use of the term "Race". Or medieval, as well. The usage of the term "Race" is commonly found throughout medieval and ancient writers and commentators, even from otherwise diverse and "barbarian" sources, such as Norse Vikings, Celtic Pagan barbarians, Native American tribes.

Here's the trick though... were they REALLY using "Race" or is that just the word modern (as in 1700's and later) translators used when the actual word in the language it was written down in actually meant "tribe" or "people of a given nation" without the specific genetic connotations that modern uses of the term (and how its used in fantasy) imply?

Because all the etymological evidence I've read is that "race" as a term in the medieval period was just a "these things are like each other" term rather than something specific to ethnicity. So "race of miners" (i.e. people who engage in mining as a profession), "race of Millennials" (people of the Millennial generation), or races of wine.

Basically, in context the Dorian barbarians from your example being a race... even if that is the closest possible accurate translation of the word in ancient context doesn't imply "shared genetic traits" it means "this is a collection of people from the Dorian regions of Greece with the shared trait of "they're invading us."

Someone whose parents were African tribesmen and someone whose parents came from Scandinavia, but who were born in the Dorian region of Greece would both be considered to be of the Dorian race by ancient Greek standards because that's all race meant back then... it had zero relation to genetic traits at all.

Or in D&D context, if a human infant were taken in and raised by orcs, by every ancient use of the term, the human would be a member of the orc race.

Quote from: jhkim on January 27, 2021, 01:47:20 PM
If you realize that there really is political meaning, but you don't give a fuck - then just ignore the politics and get on with the action. But other people who look and see meaning aren't wrong. If you don't want to hear it, don't read it.

For someone who fashions himself as an intellectual, you have serious reading comprehension skills. No one, and I mean NO ONE, watched Rambo in the 80s and cared about that political bullshit. That is all modern day revisionist history. We ignored the politics because it was actually irrelevant. "Other people" = people watching the movies 30 years later and commenting on the internet. I don't read their nonsense because it's pure nonsense, just like I don't read crap like the article mentioned in this thread, only doing so because I wanted to know WTF this entire discussion was about.

TL;DR - No U

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 27, 2021, 02:10:32 PM

Quote from: SHARK on January 27, 2021, 01:05:33 PM
Hmmm...Chris, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment regarding the ancient use of the term "Race". Or medieval, as well. The usage of the term "Race" is commonly found throughout medieval and ancient writers and commentators, even from otherwise diverse and "barbarian" sources, such as Norse Vikings, Celtic Pagan barbarians, Native American tribes.

Here's the trick though... were they REALLY using "Race" or is that just the word modern (as in 1700's and later) translators used when the actual word in the language it was written down in actually meant "tribe" or "people of a given nation" without the specific genetic connotations that modern uses of the term (and how its used in fantasy) imply?

Because all the etymological evidence I've read is that "race" as a term in the medieval period was just a "these things are like each other" term rather than something specific to ethnicity. So "race of miners" (i.e. people who engage in mining as a profession), "race of Millennials" (people of the Millennial generation), or races of wine.

Basically, in context the Dorian barbarians from your example being a race... even if that is the closest possible accurate translation of the word in ancient context doesn't imply "shared genetic traits" it means "this is a collection of people from the Dorian regions of Greece with the shared trait of "they're invading us."

Someone whose parents were African tribesmen and someone whose parents came from Scandinavia, but who were born in the Dorian region of Greece would both be considered to be of the Dorian race by ancient Greek standards because that's all race meant back then... it had zero relation to genetic traits at all.

Or in D&D context, if a human infant were taken in and raised by orcs, by every ancient use of the term, the human would be a member of the orc race.

You're missing the forest for the trees.  Unless you are going to assert that only English and its derivatives use the normal meaning of "race," because they have the word and other languages don't, then of course translators substituted the word "race" for the Spanish "rasa," etc.  The point that undermines your argument is that the translators believed that the word "race" as the translator understood it was an appropriate English synonym for the word they were translating.  Which means that, in their judgement, the word used in the original had a very similar meaning.  To come back now and proclaim that "race" didn't mean the same thing, because it's just the approximate that translators used ignores that translators knew the meaning of both words.  So they felt that the meanings were similar enough to use one for the other!  This is not a case where translators were trying to describe a concept that was foreign to the native speakers (like translating "email" into Anglo-Saxon would require).  So your distinction lacks a difference...

Fëanor follows a common pattern in Tolkien's myths.

• Melkor (greatest among Valar) - falls into evil
  
• Fëanor (greatest among Noldor, and possibly all elves: "For Fëanor was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind: in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and subtlety alike: of all the Children of Ilúvatar, and a bright flame was in him.") - falls into evil
  
• Saruman (greatest among Istari) - falls into evil
  
• Ar-Pharazôn ("proudest and most powerful" Numenoran king) - falls into evil
  

Pride is (obviously) often part of it. There's also a thread of "creation" or "crafting" running through some of it. For example, Aulë (the "smith" Valar, associated with creating/creating) came close to falling when he created the dwarves, although he repented. Sauron was a maia of Aulë. Saruman was also a maia of Aulë. Fëanor was a great smith/craftsman.

No real point: just throwing it out there.

Quote from: Brad on January 27, 2021, 02:34:32 PM
For someone who fashions himself as an intellectual, you have serious reading comprehension skills. No one, and I mean NO ONE, watched Rambo in the 80s and cared about that political bullshit. That is all modern day revisionist history. We ignored the politics because it was actually irrelevant. "Other people" = people watching the movies 30 years later and commenting on the internet. I don't read their nonsense because it's pure nonsense, just like I don't read crap like the article mentioned in this thread, only doing so because I wanted to know WTF this entire discussion was about.

Honestly, Rambo is a prime example of the adventure building advice from the old Feng Shui RPG... "design 2-4 set piece battles then wrap a plot around them."

i.e. when it was actually written, the traumatized Vietnam vet part was just there to justify the action sequences being a story; a paper thin motivation for the protagonist to kick ass and move him from one action sequence to the next.

It was just the 1980's equivalent to the modern "They were special forces in the Gulf/Afghanistan" to sum up in a single sentence why the character is able to kick the asses of every mook in the story without needing some lengthy sequence or explanation for why this seemingly harmless person suddenly transforms into a badass once the inciting incident occurs (the Vietnam War ended just seven years before First Blood was released).

Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 27, 2021, 09:37:10 AM
All of these issues with the term "race" and racial abilities can all be easily solved if D&D just switches back to race-as-class.

And then we would have to solve the problem of race-as-class.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 27, 2021, 02:55:54 PM
Honestly, Rambo is a prime example of the adventure building advice from the old Feng Shui RPG... "design 2-4 set piece battles then wrap a plot around them."

i.e. when it was actually written, the traumatized Vietnam vet part was just there to justify the action sequences being a story; a paper thin motivation for the protagonist to kick ass and move him from one action sequence to the next.

It was just the 1980's equivalent to the modern "They were special forces in the Gulf/Afghanistan" to sum up in a single sentence why the character is able to kick the asses of every mook in the story without needing some lengthy sequence or explanation for why this seemingly harmless person suddenly transforms into a badass once the inciting incident occurs (the Vietnam War ended just seven years before First Blood was released).

No disagreement. My favorite 80s movie by far is Commando and the plot/backstory is just a way to explain why Matrix can kill literally hundreds of dudes with rocket launchers, claymores, machine guns, pistols, shotguns, rifles, grenades, machetes, saw blades, knives, and a steam pipe while only suffering from an inconvenient shrapnel wound that doesn't even hinder him. Yes yes, his daughter is kidnapped blah blah blah oh look he is blowing up a small town that's awesome.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 27, 2021, 02:10:32 PM

Quote from: SHARK on January 27, 2021, 01:05:33 PM
Hmmm...Chris, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment regarding the ancient use of the term "Race". Or medieval, as well. The usage of the term "Race" is commonly found throughout medieval and ancient writers and commentators, even from otherwise diverse and "barbarian" sources, such as Norse Vikings, Celtic Pagan barbarians, Native American tribes.

Here's the trick though... were they REALLY using "Race" or is that just the word modern (as in 1700's and later) translators used when the actual word in the language it was written down in actually meant "tribe" or "people of a given nation" without the specific genetic connotations that modern uses of the term (and how its used in fantasy) imply?

Because all the etymological evidence I've read is that "race" as a term in the medieval period was just a "these things are like each other" term rather than something specific to ethnicity. So "race of miners" (i.e. people who engage in mining as a profession), "race of Millennials" (people of the Millennial generation), or races of wine.

Basically, in context the Dorian barbarians from your example being a race... even if that is the closest possible accurate translation of the word in ancient context doesn't imply "shared genetic traits" it means "this is a collection of people from the Dorian regions of Greece with the shared trait of "they're invading us."

Someone whose parents were African tribesmen and someone whose parents came from Scandinavia, but who were born in the Dorian region of Greece would both be considered to be of the Dorian race by ancient Greek standards because that's all race meant back then... it had zero relation to genetic traits at all.

Or in D&D context, if a human infant were taken in and raised by orcs, by every ancient use of the term, the human would be a member of the orc race.

Greetings!

Hello, my friend. Well, Chris, I cannot claim with absolute certainty that "modernistic" scholars involved with translations didn't simply use the term "Race" as you describe--obviously, all of the works we have are from the post-1700's. I have a number of primary source works, such as the Doomsday Book, compiled for William the Conqueror, the Norman King of England. Even it, though, is a translation. The same goes for my works written by Arrian, Thucydides, Herodotus, Polybius, and Caesar. *Laughing* I'm familiar with Latin, but alas, I do not understand much Greek. None the less, however, they all seem to use "Race" in a comprehensive, generalized manner--when reading when they talk about the Scythian race, and their characteristics, likewise with the Ethiopians, the Gauls, Germans, Goths, and more, the meaning is clear and normative. Dorians are particular, and different from Greeks or Spartans in such and such ways. Reading forward, for example, in using D&D books, the reference to "Races" is likewise normative and easily understood.

While the term has not always had a strictly scientific definition--modern scientists of course enjoy making all kinds of particular stipulations--the generalized usage of the term seems to have a long and ancient pedigree. I think it is salient though that even if translated, so many of these ancient authors and commentators, across hundreds and even thousands of years--and through many different cultures and regions--Europe, the Middle East, India, Mongolia, China--all spoke and wrote in a manner that we can assuredly comprehend. Whether it is the Greeks discussing the Scythians, or the ancient Chinese talking about the Mongolians to their north, we know who exactly they are talking about, and learn of their specific characteristics, habits, and mannerisms--particular to them. Modern people screaming about the use of the term "Race" seems so disengaged from what I have always understood it to be, you know what I'm saying? It makes me think of how I have always understood the term--and then, I think of all of these ancient authors, and they all seem to be saying the same consistent things, if I'm making any sense.

Maybe I'm just not grasping what all of the SJW crying is about. Their whole argument seems like nonsense to me. *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 27, 2021, 02:10:32 PM

Quote from: SHARK on January 27, 2021, 01:05:33 PM
Hmmm...Chris, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment regarding the ancient use of the term "Race". Or medieval, as well. The usage of the term "Race" is commonly found throughout medieval and ancient writers and commentators, even from otherwise diverse and "barbarian" sources, such as Norse Vikings, Celtic Pagan barbarians, Native American tribes.

Here's the trick though... were they REALLY using "Race" or is that just the word modern (as in 1700's and later) translators used when the actual word in the language it was written down in actually meant "tribe" or "people of a given nation" without the specific genetic connotations that modern uses of the term (and how its used in fantasy) imply?

Because all the etymological evidence I've read is that "race" as a term in the medieval period was just a "these things are like each other" term rather than something specific to ethnicity. So "race of miners" (i.e. people who engage in mining as a profession), "race of Millennials" (people of the Millennial generation), or races of wine.

Basically, in context the Dorian barbarians from your example being a race... even if that is the closest possible accurate translation of the word in ancient context doesn't imply "shared genetic traits" it means "this is a collection of people from the Dorian regions of Greece with the shared trait of "they're invading us."

Someone whose parents were African tribesmen and someone whose parents came from Scandinavia, but who were born in the Dorian region of Greece would both be considered to be of the Dorian race by ancient Greek standards because that's all race meant back then... it had zero relation to genetic traits at all.

Or in D&D context, if a human infant were taken in and raised by orcs, by every ancient use of the term, the human would be a member of the orc race.

Yet you're the one who's doing exactly the same with Aristotle's biological classification scheme. The Greek words he used are sometimes translated as genus and species, but in context and usage they're vastly different from the modern taxonomic terms. His "genera" included reptiles and amphibians -- yes, one "genus" included two whole Linnean classes, which are composed of thousands of modern genera. His "species" included things like cranes, or a whole family of birds.

As I noted earlier, the words can also be translated as form and kind. And they use the kind of loose, pre-modern thinking, poorly defined thinking that allows us to map them to types and races in D&D, like giants/athach or constructs/warforged.

But using species to refer to D&D's race is close to the worst possible choice. Race at least has the virtue of having being vaguely defined, and a long-standing established use in the genre.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 27, 2021, 02:50:22 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 27, 2021, 02:10:32 PM

Quote from: SHARK on January 27, 2021, 01:05:33 PM
Hmmm...Chris, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment regarding the ancient use of the term "Race". Or medieval, as well. The usage of the term "Race" is commonly found throughout medieval and ancient writers and commentators, even from otherwise diverse and "barbarian" sources, such as Norse Vikings, Celtic Pagan barbarians, Native American tribes.

Here's the trick though... were they REALLY using "Race" or is that just the word modern (as in 1700's and later) translators used when the actual word in the language it was written down in actually meant "tribe" or "people of a given nation" without the specific genetic connotations that modern uses of the term (and how its used in fantasy) imply?

Because all the etymological evidence I've read is that "race" as a term in the medieval period was just a "these things are like each other" term rather than something specific to ethnicity. So "race of miners" (i.e. people who engage in mining as a profession), "race of Millennials" (people of the Millennial generation), or races of wine.

Basically, in context the Dorian barbarians from your example being a race... even if that is the closest possible accurate translation of the word in ancient context doesn't imply "shared genetic traits" it means "this is a collection of people from the Dorian regions of Greece with the shared trait of "they're invading us."

Someone whose parents were African tribesmen and someone whose parents came from Scandinavia, but who were born in the Dorian region of Greece would both be considered to be of the Dorian race by ancient Greek standards because that's all race meant back then... it had zero relation to genetic traits at all.

Or in D&D context, if a human infant were taken in and raised by orcs, by every ancient use of the term, the human would be a member of the orc race.

You're missing the forest for the trees.  Unless you are going to assert that only English and its derivatives use the normal meaning of "race," because they have the word and other languages don't, then of course translators substituted the word "race" for the Spanish "rasa," etc.  The point that undermines your argument is that the translators believed that the word "race" as the translator understood it was an appropriate English synonym for the word they were translating.  Which means that, in their judgement, the word used in the original had a very similar meaning.  To come back now and proclaim that "race" didn't mean the same thing, because it's just the approximate that translators used ignores that translators knew the meaning of both words.  So they felt that the meanings were similar enough to use one for the other!  This is not a case where translators were trying to describe a concept that was foreign to the native speakers (like translating "email" into Anglo-Saxon would require).  So your distinction lacks a difference...

Greetings!

Excellent, Eirikautha! That's also what I'm getting at. Or attempting to!  *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: GameDaddy on January 27, 2021, 11:35:05 AM

Quote from: Pat on January 27, 2021, 08:38:02 AM
Feanor may exemplify hubris, but he also exemplifies perfection and privilege.

Whut... you must be high, very high. Feanor done attacked the Teleri, killing many thousands of them, and took their boats so he could exact his revenge on Melkor. While he was going to Beleriand (Middle Earth), he ditched half his own people who had disagreed with his genocide and left them to die in the ice floes of Northern Middle Earth (This included Galadriel, by the way...). There is no perfection in Genocide.

He also died at the hands of Gothmog and an entire band of Balrogs. Yes, he killed Melkor, a former Maia, with the help of other Valar, but he died at that hands of the servants of Morgoth. I'd hardly call that privilege.  Many of his own people, and kin, despised him.

We must be talking past each other, because I just read what you wrote and the only possible explanation I can come up with for the words you just strung together is you smoked all the pipeweed in the Shire, inhaled aurung's breath, snorted the essence of at least eight Ringwraiths, and ate an entire crop of Farmer Maggot's mushrooms. What you wrote makes no sense, and completely contradicts itself in multiple places.

Feanor is repeatedly described as the most talented and amazing elf who ever lived, i.e. the epitome of perfection. And the greatest army of elves ever assembled, composed of the greatest heroes in the entire history of Middle-earth, came at his beck and call and undertook an impossible task that required them to forsake... well, basically everything. I can't imagine someone with more privilege. He literally had everything handed to him.

You seem to be defining perfection as some kind of moral stance. Which is an incredibly narrow, and probably very Christian, definition of the term. And privilege by the consequences, which is a very strange interpretation.

Quote from: Brad on January 27, 2021, 02:34:32 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 27, 2021, 01:47:20 PM
If you realize that there really is political meaning, but you don't give a fuck - then just ignore the politics and get on with the action. But other people who look and see meaning aren't wrong. If you don't want to hear it, don't read it.

For someone who fashions himself as an intellectual, you have serious reading comprehension skills. No one, and I mean NO ONE, watched Rambo in the 80s and cared about that political bullshit. That is all modern day revisionist history. We ignored the politics because it was actually irrelevant. "Other people" = people watching the movies 30 years later and commenting on the internet. I don't read their nonsense because it's pure nonsense, just like I don't read crap like the article mentioned in this thread, only doing so because I wanted to know WTF this entire discussion was about.

TL;DR - No U

All the Rambo movies are deeply political calls to action. Granted, some of those overt political statements come from conservative politics, but that does not mean they aren't political.

If you are getting amped up at the idea of killing evil drug cartel members invading your rural ranch, then you have accepted multiple political messages.

If you are rooting for Rambo in the first movie, you have been convinced of the political message that he didn't do anything wrong. That being an American Veteran is not reason persecute someone. (This previous political message has since been accepted as fact, but it started as a political idea that various woke people had to push) 

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 27, 2021, 01:47:35 PM
Feanor died before the final battle against Melkor/Morgoth. The only interaction between them was in Aman when Feanor slammed his door in Melkor's face.

I think the argument being put forth is that Feanor was "perfect" even in his hubris and fall. (What do we mean by Perfect anyway...) His decisions were bad, even evil, but he was still the most powerful and skilled Eldar, and his sordid history made him a rebel and a renegade and kind of troubled hero.

"We have sworn, and not lightly. This oath we will keep. We are threatened with many evils, and treason not least; but one thing is not said: that we shall suffer from cowardice, from cravens or the fear of cravens. Therefore I say that we will go on, and this doom I add: the deeds that we shall do shall be the matter of song until the last days of Arda."

This.

I always had a soft spot for Feanor. In a lot of ways, he's an analogue for Lucifer, the Morning Star. The most perfect of all angels/elves, but not satisfied with his place, and unwilling to bend to higher authorities. A fall is a tragedy in direct proportion to its height.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 27, 2021, 02:50:22 PM
You're missing the forest for the trees.  Unless you are going to assert that only English and its derivatives use the normal meaning of "race," because they have the word and other languages don't, then of course translators substituted the word "race" for the Spanish "rasa," etc.  The point that undermines your argument is that the translators believed that the word "race" as the translator understood it was an appropriate English synonym for the word they were translating.  Which means that, in their judgement, the word used in the original had a very similar meaning.  To come back now and proclaim that "race" didn't mean the same thing, because it's just the approximate that translators used ignores that translators knew the meaning of both words.  So they felt that the meanings were similar enough to use one for the other!  This is not a case where translators were trying to describe a concept that was foreign to the native speakers (like translating "email" into Anglo-Saxon would require).  So your distinction lacks a difference...

Not at all; there's a lot of subjectivity involved in translation. For example, from the Greek; φυλή, γένος, ράτσα, έθνος, and σόι could all be translated as "race", but φυλή can also be translated tribe, γένος as genus, ράτσα as breed, έθνος as nation, and σόι as family. Only the words that could also be translated as genus and family have any genetic context even though all of the above could be translated as race.

And there's a huge difference between Race as 'people with shared genetic ancestry' and Race as 'the nation over there.'

That's not a trivial thing or something that lacks a difference. Again... a genetic human infant is raised by genetic orcs In modern terms the human is still a human because we always mean race genetically these days. But in ancient terms the genetic human would be a member of the orc race because they were raised among the orcs.

And that's just with humans... now throw in dragons, sprites, talking lions, golems and ghosts into the mix and you're really going to say that "race" is the best term medieval society would have for all of those when the terms and definitions of genus and species were known all the way back in 300 BC?

I'm not even arguing against the notion of distinct groupings based on genetics (or whatever passes for it in your fantasy world) with distinct advantages and disadvantages based on their morphology. I'm just arguing that, unless your list is pretty much just the TSR-era playable humans and demi-humans from distinct geographic regions* then Race is damned poor term to use for the category and that Species or Origin or Type or Nature would all be a more historically accurate way to break down a list that including giant winged lizards and beings made of solid rock as options.

* This is another reason why Tolkien's use of race as a descriptor is actually spot on for the period... the Hobbits are defined as much by their region, trade and tribe as any genetic traits they share. It is also why orcs can be both twisted elves and a separate race at the same time.

Quote from: Rhedyn on January 27, 2021, 03:40:05 PM
All the Rambo movies are deeply political calls to action. Granted, some of those overt political statements come from conservative politics, but that does not mean they aren't political.

If you are getting amped up at the idea of killing evil drug cartel members invading your rural ranch, then you have accepted multiple political messages.

If you are rooting for Rambo in the first movie, you have been convinced of the political message that he didn't do anything wrong. That being an American Veteran is not reason persecute someone. (This previous political message has since been accepted as fact, but it started as a political idea that various woke people had to push)

So now killing evil people is political in nature? I guess that means killing orcs in a game is political as well, hence the thread comes full circle and now we're all pushing identity politics and racism if we want to destroy tribes of orcs.