D&D General "Red Orc" American Indians and "Yellow Orc" Mongolians in D&D

[Ruin Explorer]

(almost to the point that it felt a little implausible the lead character was so enlightened, but it was there)

One of the main problems with Rome is that we really only have ruling-class opinions from Romans, but occasionally they, as people say today "tell on themselves" in their writing. For example, one Roman writer briefly mentions the legal requirement to massacre the slaves of anyone who got murdered by a slave of theirs, and this Roman writer is appalled, absolutely appalled that loads of working and middle class Romans (by his description) oppose this policy, and are really angry about it, and are protesting in the streets about it and making a nuisance of themselves! The implication seems to be they're too dumb to understand why this policy is needed.

Knowing humans, I suspect it's more like they didn't like it, and thought it was a bad thing. From this and other evidence, whilst I think total opposition to slavery was probably vanishingly rare in Rome, seeing it as a messed-up institution that primarily existed to benefit the rich (note that poor and middle class Romans were the ones most likely to be forced into debt slavery, of course) was probably fairly common. And even some other Roman writers seemed a bit irked by people mistreating slaves. Eventually Roman law slowly shifted to make mistreatment or murder of slaves more and more illegal.

I just don't think that bolded part is true.

I can't speak for the US, maybe you can go further there. In the UK? I've literally never seen a UK-made show about Rome go further than that, and even Rome got some of the "usual suspects" in the establishment moaning and whinging about how it was "unfair" and didn't adequately show the benefits of Rome.

But does that sound right to you?

Er... yes? Because they're the most directly affected party? I'm not sure why that's a big question? It seems pretty straightforward. It's not Americanocentric, it's looking at who is actually impacted, right now, by what's happening. It's a broadly applicable concept that doesn't just relate to America.

Do Asian Americans own how the rest of us exchange culture with Japan?

I mean, I think people impacted by Orientalism, particularly the treatment of Asian culture and people as "exotic", "mysterious", "desirable" (not necessarily in a good way), and so on do get to comment on what they perceived (accurately I would say in this case) Orientalsim yeah. Again not entirely sure why that would be much of a question.

That's a novel way of describing the gladiator matches.

And yes, I know that's not what you meant, but I can't pass up potential humor.

Christ I didn't even think of that, nice work!

 

[billd91]

I'm not going to lie and say we don't find it extremely amusing that Americans will identify themselves with 200+ year distant ancestors, but equally, I don't think it's something we typically see as "wrong", just... odd.

Consider it the legacy of a country built on waves of immigration. Each wave of immigration tended to provoke a backlash from the preceding groups - which may be one of the reasons virtually nobody calls themselves English or British-Americans. Most of the hyphenates were in reaction to difficulties in penetrating into the cultures established by the original colonists. And most of the anti-hyphenate reaction (very strong in the late 19th and early 20th centuries) came from that culture as well.

One additional feature is probably that we have the room for many of these groups to form their own significant regional political power bases and further maintain the strength of the identity - something that waves of post-war and post-imperial immigration into Europe may lack.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

lol I am not denying that link. Obviously the Roman empire was christianized. And, as a practicing Catholic, I am very aware of the 'Roman' part. But I also would never read "Roman Catholic" as meaning you are supposed to be an advocate of the Roman empire, or ignore its crimes. But my point is it is very hard to grow up say, reading the New Testament every sunday, and not not view the Roman empire as oppressive. That doesn't mean you can't also see its legacy and its achievements. Like I said, you can juggle multiple things in your head. You can be impressed by Rome, admire its literature, see the cleverness of its military tactics, without needing to endorse how those tactics were used. And there is plenty of room for augmentation and discussion. When people look at a society like Rome and the impact it had, they are going to take different positions on how much it gave to the world versus how much it took away. I think the best history is when we don't get dragged down into overly black and white moralizing and take a more nuanced view so we can analyze it more clearly (especially when we are taking about stuff that happened thousands of years ago).

I feel like the way you keep looping back to the "achievements" of a specific violent colonialist empire from 2000 years ago is kind of proving my point re: propaganda succeeding. Especially as people find it vastly easier to list the achievements of Rome than the crimes, and tend to focus solely on the "crimes" that happened to Christians, which were, in the grand scheme of things, not necessarily going to make a "top 10" list of bad things Rome did.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I feel like the way you keep looping back to the "achievements" of a specific violent colonialist empire from 2000 years ago is kind of proving my point re: propaganda succeeding. Especially as people find it vastly easier to list the achievements of Rome than the crimes, and tend to focus solely on the "crimes" that happened to Christians, which were, in the grand scheme of things, not necessarily going to make a "top 10" list of bad things Rome did.

I don't think it is. The Romans did achieve a number of important things, and the legacy of their achievements is visible in the modern world. I wouldn't argue they are the only ones to achieve this sort of thing. Lot so of historical empires had signifiant achievement. China has an amazingly advanced bureaucracy for example (to say nothing of its technological achievements). The Greeks had achievements. The Egyptians had achievements. The Caliphates had achievements. etc. etc. There is a lot of stuff in history to be impressed by. And a lot of those achievements were done by people who also did bad things (sometimes the achievements were even a product of them doing bad things). The conversation doesn't have to stop at 'violent colonialist'.

I never said the persecution of the Christians was their worst crime. I mentioned that because were are talking about predominantly Christian cultures and Christians are keenly aware of Rome's violence because it was done not just upon them, but upon the figure they worship. It is a theme in the religious text. But I would say there is plenty of evil to go around when it comes to Rome. I don't know that I would rate it like a top ten list, but are plenty of things we can point to and say 'this was bad'. But that doesn't mean we should ignore things like aqueducts, like the size and stability of its spread, its impact on our culture, etc.

 

[Zardnaar]

This response to this :

It is interesting how quickly a person forgets, and how looking at things with a wide lens is extremely difficult. Extremely difficult.

From market drivers to consumer feeds, from paying homage to backhanding, from mores to perceptions - it's all very messy; a painting on a painting on top of another painting all on the same canvas. It's nice to have someone like the OP go back and look at one (or several) of the layers. It is also nice to be open to others' viewpoints.

Sure some people thought that way but look at the rest of 80's pop culture and the wider movement at the time.

Would some people be offended sure. Most would shrug there shoulders and say something like "so what" or "it's just a joke".

Not saying that's right it wrong but that's what it was like.

Other things were so over the top not many people took it seriously at the time (Revenge of the Nerds).

Here you could still get a criminal conviction for being gay until 85/86. Doesn't exactly scream modern values there does it?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I can't speak for the US, maybe you can go further there. In the UK? I've literally never seen a UK-made show about Rome go further than that, and even Rome got some of the "usual suspects" in the establishment moaning and whinging about how it was "unfair" and didn't adequately show the benefits of Rome.

I don't think most Americans are that invested in 'the glory of Rome'. I could be wrong. Just to tie this in with the whole hyphenated American thing, part of my background is Italian and think there is more of that there, than in the broader society (when I think about my own interest in Rome for example, I can't help but remember having an older cousin who adored Rome and was proud of Rome as an Italian: there is even a reference to that in Godfather II, and the Sopranos makes that connection as well: both referencing Livia from I, Claudius but also with Tony claiming they are the Romans in the first season). Generally though, outside very patrician New England families, I don't get this sense that Rome is on a pedestal of any kind. When I took my ancient history courses in College for example, I never once got the sense that I had to avoid being overly critical of Roman cruelty.

 

[Bedrockgames]

One of the main problems with Rome is that we really only have ruling-class opinions from Romans, but occasionally they, as people say today "tell on themselves" in their writing. For example, one Roman writer briefly mentions the legal requirement to massacre the slaves of anyone who got murdered by a slave of theirs, and this Roman writer is appalled, absolutely appalled that loads of working and middle class Romans (by his description) oppose this policy, and are really angry about it, and are protesting in the streets about it and making a nuisance of themselves! The implication seems to be they're too dumb to understand why this policy is needed.

Knowing humans, I suspect it's more like they didn't like it, and thought it was a bad thing. From this and other evidence, whilst I think total opposition to slavery was probably vanishingly rare in Rome, seeing it as a messed-up institution that primarily existed to benefit the rich (note that poor and middle class Romans were the ones most likely to be forced into debt slavery, of course) was probably fairly common. And even some other Roman writers seemed a bit irked by people mistreating slaves. Eventually Roman law slowly shifted to make mistreatment or murder of slaves more and more illegal.

It is entirely possible. I won't pretend to know everything about Roman social history. And the roman writer you mention isn't something I am familiar with. My point was just that it felt a little implausible to me at the time I was reading it. The main character, if I recall, was either an equestrian or senator (been a while since I read it). And I remember, I think it was in the second book but may have been the first, there was a scene on a ship that used slaves as rowers, and the protagonist commented. My sense of the dialogue was I was getting the writer's judgement on the issue, and it felt intrusive to me. That doesn't mean though I think it couldn't have been done. Claudius in the I, Claudius miniseries is presented as a somewhat progressive thinker for his times. And the way it was done, felt a little more natural to me than here. Either way though, I do highly recommend the Saylor books (I think the series title was Roma Sub Rosa). And my original reason for mentioning it was just to observe that in the Roman Murder mystery books you often do have writers who are very aware of the negatives of Roman society.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Consider it the legacy of a country built on waves of immigration.

Every country was built on waves of immigration. Everyone's ancestors came from somewhere else at some point. Well, maybe apart from a handful of Africans.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Not trying to be snarky here, but if GAZ10 was just no longer for sale, would we really be worse off for it?

I mean, it seems like a terrible book through and through, and no company is obligated to continue selling everything it's ever made (or inherited, in this case). That's not censorship or slippery slopey nonsense or anything else, just a publishing decision. The idea of putting in the work to "fix" something so shoddy and unessential just seems bizarre to me. Kill it and move on--whatever copies already exist are enough to support further analysis.

Speaking from a generic and uninterested viewpoint, it is always a bad thing when materials become less "available" to a person that might want to acquire them.

There are, of course, exceptions for things that weren't meant to be published, are illegal, or other such things.

In my opinion every "published" bit of material gains a value that cannot be diminished just be having existed. Making that product harder to acquire is a strictly negative change.

Note: This is speaking theoretically. In reality there are many factors in the real world that go into why or why not items are kept "in print".

 

[Vaalingrade]

I don't think most Americans are that invested in 'the glory of Rome'.

Certain Americans are. To the point of implying Rome is the source of all culture (ignoring all they learned/borrowed/stole from Africa and elsewhere) and that's generally a real problem we have to deal with.