That's good. I though the internet had chewed up and swallowed my post on me and I was stewing about it for several hours. I didn't want to have to type it out all over again.Thanks for the reference, when I get some time I will pull out the Dragon CD to check out 229.
While I don't know if Asians have felt an negative impact regarding the presentation of it's "dragons", but as an aside, I've seen a home-made partially translated Pathfinder Core rules in Japanese, as they play it in Japan. Neither the Japanese nor the Chinese would call their dragons, "dragons". In Japanese they are Ryu. They recognize European dragons as dragons, but they don't have dragons, they have Ryu. Ryu aren't dragons. So calling those dragon like beings, dragons, at least according to the Chinese and Japanese, is a kind of misappropriation.Many of the monsters are non-Japanese. Don't have time to go monster-by-monster, but there are monsters from Malaysia (bajang, bisan), Philippines (buso), Vietnam (con-tinh, doc cu'o'c) just as a start. The dragons use Chinese names but Chinese dragons are extremely similar to Japanese dragons anyway.
Bhutanese druk is generally translated as thunder dragon, and ryu and lung are both generally translated as "dragon." Plus I'm using dragon in the broadest sense, because even the standard perception of a "European dragon", so to speak, that is used in D&D is reductive and not actually reflective of dragons in much of European myth and folklore. I'm using "dragon" in the broad folkloric sense, and in that sense, ryu and lung are certainly dragons - large, serpent-like creatures, generally with magical powers.In Japanese they are Ryu. They recognize European dragons as dragons, but they don't have dragons, they have Ryu. Ryu aren't dragons. So calling those dragon like beings, dragons, at least according to the Chinese and Japanese, is a kind of misappropriation.
Bad example. Before Tolkien became de rigeur in peoples' minds, elf was a very general term, and dwarfs were generally seen as a type of elf. See for example svartalfar in Norse myth, which are seen as dark elves in modern interpretations but originally were synonymous with dwarf.It's like calling an elf, a dwarf - they aren't the same thing.
They have a particular idea of what dragons are, in their minds, based on one particular, narrow definition of dragon. But this is not the only definition of dragon. As stated, I'm not using that definition, as should be obvious since I included ryu in it, and ryu are very different from "standard" D&D dragons, which again are not completely reflective of a lot of European folklore about creatures collectively called dragons. My actual point was that lung and ryu are very similar.They know what dragons are, and ryu aren't dragons... simple.
I majored in Japanese Language and Culture in college, and spent some time living over there, and in my experience you're technically correct, but that's not a distinction that's applied very strictly.Neither the Japanese nor the Chinese would call their dragons, "dragons". In Japanese they are Ryu. They recognize European dragons as dragons, but they don't have dragons, they have Ryu. Ryu aren't dragons.
That's fair. But fair or not, I have zero interest in any fictional derivation of Japanese lore, even done by the Japanese or anybody from the 20th/21st century. That is almost too "modern" for me to use as a souce, and maybe influenced by the west somehow, so be less "true". I only look at sources from 1899 or before. I wouldn't even look at Dragon Ball Z, nor consider a source of accuracy - even though it was Japanese that created it. It could be accurate, I don't know, I won't look. I wanted Kaidan to be created as a first interpretation, rather than a reflection of someone else's interpretation.To look at one of the most famous examples, Dragon Ball refers to the actual dragon in the series as 神龍 ("Shenron," using the kanji for "kami" and "ryu"), as it's very clearly an Asian-style dragon, but the orbs that summon it (from which the series takes its name) are written with the katakana ドラゴンボール (phonetically spelling out "dragon ball").
I think you may be thinking about some other thread. This thread is not a discussion about what parts of OA are racist. It's about identifying the non-Japanese elements included in OA. The point I made was that although Chinese names are used for a particular type of creature (lung instead of ryu), the nature of the creature is so similar in Chinese and Japanese folklore that they are effectively the same creature, which you seem to agree with.I see OA as something riddled with mistakes, rather than being "racist" - so I have no horse in that race.
Oh, and the finger cutting, self mutilation punishments forced onto problem yakuza members was about cutting off your pinkie, because your pinkie controls the movement of your sword, while the other fingers/thumb hold the sword - losing your pinkie, takes away combat effectiveness. You don't lose a second finger in your second "incident", though, they just kill you.
Yakuza meant "good for nothing", a losing hand in a card game with the result of 8, 9, 3 (ya ku za - 8, 9, 3 in one of the counting systems)
In modern Japan, their world famous tattoo artists aren't allowed to have public shops, they operate from home studios and are not allowed signage, business cards, websites - it's word of mouth, as well as how to find them. It's that taboo in Japan, still - and the same in Korea. American fascination with tattoos give the Japanese heebie geebies. You're not allowed to use a public bath house if you wear a tattoo. Yakuza use private ones.