Justice and Rule
You're really not proving the point that you seem to think you're proving lol.
Wow, it looks like a map of colonizat- Oh. Oh.
You're really not proving the point that you seem to think you're proving lol.
Oh and back on this, I dunno as much about the Roman conquest of Germany, but with Britain, there's a very good reason for that and it's not "The Romans were great!".You can see how the development of the formerly occupied areas of germany was leaps and bounds ahead of the free german territories for centuries to come even after rome retreated and ultimately fell.
Pulled is pulled. Unavailable is unavailable. It doesn't actually matter why.
I'm not seeing how it's "let them eat cake" for me to point out that I can't watch my show (The Amazing Race) any more than you can't watch your show (The Mighty Boosh). If anything, it's "let us eat bread together". We're both in the same situation. "Let them eat cake" implies I don't care if you get it, but if you don't care I can't watch The Amazing Race, that's equally "let them eat cake" of you!
Why can't we be bread-brothers, moaning together that we don't get to watch everything we want on streaming, and some things always have to be sourced more elaborately?
I guess for me, I find the focus on bowlederization, which seems to be no more common than previously, aside from a brief outburst in 2020, to be disingenuous if we're discussing media generally as you were. It doesn't seem to be responsible for any significant amount of stuff becoming/being unavailable, rather that stuff not being profitable enough does. Even, when, as you note, it would cost near-zero to make this stuff available.Yeah, it's true- there is a lot more availability now, but that doesn't mean that we should blithely accept bowdlerization of media just because there's more of it.
Tropes and memes have a way of unconsciously reincarnating into future products, in new ways. Especially when future content creators seek inspiration from the earlier sources.Just a question that popped into my head. We do not sanitize religious texts which pretty much are supposed to imprint one's core-beliefs, why is there a push to sanitize historical RPG books? The evolution of the game already provides updated correctness on many troublesome issues.
So are we mansplai... er, Anglo-splaining to someone how they should view their own history now?
And, folks, let us be clear about something - Roman occupation of these places isn't analogous to the issues highlighted in this thread. Because the Romans left those places, and didn't massively displace the native population. It is entirely reasonable for a modern German or Brit to view ancient Roman occupation differently, because, well, the Germans and people of the British Isles are still the majority populations in their spaces. The Native Americans... aren't.
So, maybe rethink whether this argument has much relevance?
Sure, but there's a direct link between the Romans and the logic involved in defending/supporting the Roman conquests and the colonial conquests, which started in the renaissance, and did displace populations and leave them "occupied" and so on. And I would question any idea that this is just "how it always is with empires", because a lot of pre-Roman empires had pretty different approaches to empire.Because the Romans left those places, and didn't massively displace the native population. It is entirely reasonable for a modern German or Brit to view ancient Roman occupation differently, because, well, the Germans and people of the British Isles are still the majority populations in their spaces. The Native Americans... aren't.
This is pretty funny (I mean that genuinely, made me smile) given the sheer amount of Scandi-splaining some Scandinavian people like to do online re: British history (and even the English language). I've told an awful lot of things about how to view British history, particularly from about 867 to like 1100. Some of them were even right! Some not so much.So are we mansplai... er, Anglo-splaining to someone how they should view their own history now?
During the Post-Classical Era, the power of the Roman Empire was prestigious. The chiefs of the Germanic tribes aggressively self-Romanized, styling themselves as Roman aristocrats, adopting the Roman point-of-view and Roman way of life, while conscripting tribe members into the Roman armies.And yet the brought us civilization, urbanization. We kept and cherished those even after kicking the romans themselves out.
I am regularily going to cities that were founded by the romans thousands of years ago and still going strong in modern germany. The legacy of the roman occupation are the pillars of our modern culture. Even our laws are still based on what the romans left us (in principle).
Not based on what those savage weirdos in their longhouses worshiping Wotan did.
You missunderstood. I am not disappointed. I am having a blast as those faires and hope that next year we'll again have more of those and not all are cancelled again due to covid
Sure, but there's a direct link between the Romans and the logic involved in defending/supporting the Roman conquests and the colonial conquests
Sure we do, and it's not like we're spitting on it or whatever, but I think British people, especially under a certain age, are a bit less keen on the Romans, because we have at least some evidence of successful traditions wiped out by them (agriculture being one, not being massive misogynists being another - rumours of Celtic matriarchy are likely false but powerful women had far more of a place in Celtic society than Roman), and whilst neo-paganism never caught on, there's an innate sympathy for the Druids and so on, who Caesar was so proud of wiping out.I am pretty shocked that british look back so harshly on the roman times. Don't you have restored patches of Hadrian's Wall that are treated as cultural heritage and place of yearly roman renfaires?
We sure have those along the Limes.
Yup. You side with the winning side, not with the people who are getting crushed militarily and having their land taken away for being insufficiently Roman, and so on.During the Post-Classical Era, the power of the Roman Empire was prestigious. The chiefs of the Germanic tribes aggressively self-Romanized, styling themselves as Roman aristocrats, adopting the Roman point-of-view and Roman way of life, while conscripting tribe members into the Roman armies.
I mean, I don't think you can reject that logic so easily, given the huge amount of scholarship around it, but if you're saying as a mod we shouldn't discuss the Romans, I guess that's that.Well, I just rejected that logic based on how the results are nowhere near analogous. Quick, concise, and efficient.
I think discussing the Romans at this point is a distraction.
I just took offense to the idea that they brought civilization. All the conquered peoples Rome defeated had civilization. The idea that they didn't is part of the great justification for colonialism, particularly in the 19th Century.
Every time I hear that history is written by the victors I can't help but think of Thucydides who was on the losing side of the Peloponnesian War, the robust body of Lost Cause literature created by Southern historians regarding the American Civil War, or the myriad of books on Vietnam written by Americans.History is written by the victor, but archaeology lets you find out that it's often a pack of lies, and a lot of what people claim about Rome is exactly that.
Hi, could you clarify this phrase: "I tickle on the recurring founding" ? I realize we're not all native English speakers - and I welcome that - I just want to make sure I understand what you're conveying.I have read your proposal. I tickle on the recurring founding because I evaluate that you place your noble cause in a position of weakness by doing so.
IMO if I was in charge of a Waldorf school, I would politely discard an offer of funding base on products that promote mockery and racism. The tie with educational article won’t change the nature of gaz10 product. And knowing human nature, even with your proposals add in, Gaz10 may become a crush for the wrong reasons. So for educational purpose I would rather seek for a DnD setting to promote Native American culture and history.
Amends certainly won't come if no one calls for it. I'll move on when I wish.Amends is a step, it may never come, so better keep moving on, the goal is to have a meaningful and satisfying life.
The main problem with Roman settings is, hilariously, that virtually all of them tone DOWN how horrifying a lot of elements of Roman culture were, rather than even presenting them accurately, let alone demonizing them.
I actually cannot think of a single setting which genuinely manages to demonize the Romans (it's probably out there but I can't think of it). Literally all of the Roman and quasi-Roman settings I can think of stop short of some of the more horrifying stuff (especially re: mass executions, mass slavery, sometimes quasi-genocidal conquest, and so on). There's always this "But they were civilized!!!!" thing. And like mate no. They were not. They just seemed like it. Reading about Roman society is always fascinating because one minute you're going "Wow, that's almost like us!" and the next you're going "JESUS WEPT THEY DID WHAT?!?!".
I mean, that's because of a misunderstanding of what "History is written by the victor" refers to though, isn't it?Every time I hear that history is written by the victors I can't help but think of Thucydides who was on the losing side of the Peloponnesian War, the robust body of Lost Cause literature created by Southern historians regarding the American Civil War, or the myriad of books on Vietnam written by Americans.