D&D 5E World of Farland Now Embraces Asian, African, and Indian Cultures

Gradine · Nov 13, 2019

Sadras said:
Don't we, humans, perhaps initially need to tolerate others and therefore we act respectful, you know before real respect is/can be earned?

I rather think a large part of the issue is the notion that respect must be earned

Sadras · Nov 14, 2019

Gradine said:
I rather think a large part of the issue is the notion that respect must be earned

Maybe I'm over analyzing. Does one respect a stranger as much as one respect one's friend?

LuisCarlos17f · Nov 14, 2019

Sorry if my English level isn't enough good to explain some things.

I can enjoy a tale from "1001 nights" and this isn't cultural appropriation. If in USA dancing and singing "la Macarena" was very popular for those days, why not couldn't they enjoy anything from Latin-Mediterranean culture? Who is going to say "if you are Irish you can't drink gazpacho because it is a Spanish recipe"? ridiculous, isn't it?

I love fantasy where different people learn to cooperate, where elves and dwarfs may become friends although opposite personalities.

I am Spanish, we are a cosmopolitan people and accustomed to miscegenation. In the first century of Christian age Jews were the 10% of population of the Roman empire. 2000 years ago the Latins were the supreme power, and the blonde-haired+blue-eyed from the North Europe were the barbarians, the third world, the poors. Do you remember the conflicts between Normans vs Saxons in the old Robin Hood's movies, and what worries about this now? When after the fall of Roman empire the goths came to Spain, without green card, and became the rulers the coexistence with Latins wasn't good. Both communities with different legal codes, and mixed marriage between Hispanolatins and Hispanogoths was forbidden. Step by step this started to be allowed and in the end both become one community.

If you want to help for a better coexistence and stop hate and intolerance, then you have to defend the respect of human dignity, the base of our rights as persons, against the fanaticism you have to promote these values: good sense against prejudices, patiente (against resentment), faith against fear, humidity against proud, mercy against hate, and understanding about the point of view by the rest, friends or enemies.

Gradine · Nov 14, 2019

Sadras said:
Maybe I'm over analyzing. Does one respect a stranger as much as one respect one's friend?

Why would one not?

Umbran · Nov 15, 2019

Sadras said:
Don't we, humans, perhaps initially need to tolerate others and therefore we act respectful, you know before real respect is/can be earned?

There's a bit of rhetorical slight-of-hand here that often happens when the word "respect" comes up. There are two things we call "respect"

1) a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.

2) due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others.

The first form needs to be earned. The second one does not. We sometimes elide between them, but we shouldn't.

Please raise your hand if you have real issues with the following proposition: As a baseline we should have a modicum of respect for our fellow sentient, feeling human beings such that we should generally not do flagrantly insulting things to their faces just because we feel like it.

This isn't a huge ask. This is The Golden Rule This is Wheaton's Law. This is basic civility.

It is unfortunate that I feel I need to give references for this, but some of you talk like you have forgotten that to live with hundreds of millions and billions of other human beings, we need to give others the tiniest bit of consideration.

Umbran · Nov 15, 2019

Sadras said:
Maybe I'm over analyzing. Does one respect a stranger as much as one respect one's friend?

That's not the relevant question.

Does one not respect the stranger at least enough to not be a complete jerk to them?

Sadras · Nov 15, 2019

Umbran said:
There's a bit of rhetorical slight-of-hand here that often happens when the word "respect" comes up.

I can assure you there is no sleight of hand on my part. You might have missed my use of the word "perhaps" upthread which was meant to indicate my uncertainty on this topic and hence this conversation is very much discovery - for myself.

There are two things we call "respect"

1) a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.

2) due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others.

The first form needs to be earned. The second one does not. We sometimes elide between them, but we shouldn't.

Ah thanks. Yes I had the concern that I was muddling things in my mind.

Please raise your hand if you have real issues with the following proposition: As a baseline we should have a modicum of respect for our fellow sentient, feeling human beings such that we should generally not do flagrantly insulting things to their faces just because we feel like it.

I do not have any issue with this. Our initial conversation started over your comment that respect would be first thought before tolerance. I wanted to say this then, but I will say this now - as I started thinking about that I kind of got into the chicken and egg dilemma. Does tolerance for others come first before auto respect or do we respect all before we tolerate?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I find in your equation - tolerance doesn't even enter the picture.

However having said all that - I find you polarise the issue by making comments like
"do flagrantly insulting things to their face" and "complete jerk" like it is either the one or the other.

Perhaps I identify being respectful as "going out of your way" and you might not, hence you make such a black and white distinction on the choices that are available.

So for instance using rather crude examples
(1) In a queue at a supermarket. I am ahead of someone with only 1 item while I have plenty.
I allow the person with 1 item to go ahead of me. Is it disrespectful of me not to let them go first - I mean can you equate that with "complete jerk" and "do flagrantly insulting things to their face"

(2) Elder gets on bus and stands due to no availability of seats. A youngster does not offer up their seat for the elder. Is that on par with "do flagrantly insulting things to their face" and "complete jerk". I might go with jerk.

I have rambled somewhat - but hoping the position I'm coming from is clearer to you and @Gradine.

Celebrim · Nov 15, 2019

Sadras said:
Does tolerance for others come first before auto respect or do we respect all before we tolerate?

I've been trying to stand out of this because it's quibbling for the sake of quibbling, but since it's gone about like I've expected, I'll try to answer without making it even worse.

So in general, most cultures believe that a person is owed a certain degree of respect without proof that they deserve it. That is, you start with the assumption that a person deserves respect and go from there. And in Western cultures in particular, there is a degree of respect that a person deserves that is inalienable as a result just of being a person. For example, in the 'The Green Mile', there is a character who attempts to treat even people on death row - people who've even lost the right to life - with respect, and the story is about the consequences of that. It's a story with a lot of traditional values and symbolism in it.

And so I can agree with Umbran that it is good to respect and value people as individuals based on their inherent personhood. And I can also disagree with him that respect is more proximal to the problem than tolerance.

The reason is that what we are talking about here is ultimately opinions and actions. We're talking about what happens when someone publishes an 'Oriental Adventures' book and someone is offended by that. You see once that happens, Umbran "respect of the 2nd type" is no longer the operative thing controlling ones actions. What's happened is Umbran's respect of the 1st type has gone wholly missing.

And the problem is that I don't think you can or ought to demand respect of the first type. I think there will be general agreement that a person can have opinions that are not worthy of respect and can perform actions that are not worthy of respect.

So then what? The problem with "multiculturalism" as an answer is that I don't think the people that use the word have seriously considered what culture is. They think culture is costumes and cuisine and things like that, and those are really only the superficial artifacts of a culture. They don't make you a member of that culture. It is as it were what comes out of you and not what goes into you that makes you a member of a culture (to paraphrase someone famous). Real culture is about opinions, beliefs, and actions and any two given cultures will be widely apart on those opinions, beliefs, and actions. Cultures are inherently incompatible.

So the question is never about how we go about living with people who have our respect, because that's easy. There is no challenge there. The question is how we go about living with people we don't think deserve our respect, and who in turn do not respect us as we would wish. Or in other words, what do you do if you are a Native American in Germany who discovers that there is this LARPing community of Germans dressing up in the trappings of your culture and pretending to be "Red Indians".

Tonguez · Nov 15, 2019

Celebrim said:
.So the question is never about how we go about living with people who have our respect, because that's easy. There is no challenge there. The question is how we go about living with people we don't think deserve our respect, and who in turn do not respect us as we would wish. Or in other words, what do you do if you are a Native American in Germany who discovers that there is this LARPing community of Germans dressing up in the trappings of your culture and pretending to be "Red Indians".

I think this example goes to the next step of obligation to act when intolerable occurs but nonetheless
I think that it is still possible to respect the inherent personhood of the people involved in this situation and even to show a degree of tolerance whilst also addressing the ignorance of their actions. It may even go someway to address Sadras earlier question regarding friends and strangers to the extent that respect should be given to strangers and tolerance afforded to their differences, but that friendship often makes the difference moot.

Nonetheless there is an obligation to address overt action such as the Red Indian larp and in this regard education of the ignorant tends to have better results than belligerence, as it utilises the value of respect shown to generate respect for opinion, belief and culture.

Celebrim · Nov 15, 2019

Tonguez said:
Nonetheless there is an obligation to address overt action such as the Red Indian larp and in this regard education of the ignorant tends to have better results than belligerence, as it utilises the value of respect shown to generate respect for opinion, belief and culture.

Yeah, but what do you do when, "Those ignorant people refuse to change! They refuse to accept that my superior and respectful cultural beliefs are better than their inferior and disrespectful beliefs!"

At some point you have to deal with the fact that those LARPing Germans don't feel they are being disrespectful, and have been in communication with other members of your community who didn't treat them as if they were being disrespectful, and no amount of your education is changing their minds.

So do you just keep calling them "ignorant" "jerks" and hope that works? Do you go around feeling disrespected and outraged? What do you do?

You used the world "intolerable". I hope you understand how terrible the implications of that word really are and what the word really means.