4 ms·

The author spent significant time explaining why they chose to address that livejournal excerpt, and the context in which they were addressing it. They did not

The author spent significant time explaining why they chose to address that livejournal excerpt, and the context in which they were addressing it. They did not present speculation as fact, they presented facts (historical information, photographs, and quotes from the material) and suggested an interpretation of those facts.

rendall 6y ago
This is the motte. "It's just historical inaccuracy. Surely you cannot object to correcting the record can you?" Now defend that the historical inaccuracy is a demeaning stereotype.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  Reducing a culture to a single point of reference should self-evidently be a demeaning stereotype. If you need more evidence, I'll point out that in the specific case of making the defining characteristic being bad-ass warriors, that implies that when the bad-ass warriors get their asses kicked (by modern militaries), you are implying that they no longer have any redeeming qualities worth caring about.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    This is not logical. These characters are fictional, and they have been vaguely identified with roughly a third of the premodern cultures I've ever heard of. Emphasizing their prowess in war and also illustrating them facing difficulties in war is just a trope. "The Worf Effect", to be precise. [0] It doesn't say anything about the Huns or the Turks or the Sioux or anyone. Even telling a story about the actual Huns and how they were great at war but also they lost some wars wouldn't be demeaning. You might not have heard, but war is generally horrible for everyone involved. [0] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheWorfEffect https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheWorfEffect
  - rendall 6y ago
    > Reducing a culture to a single point of reference should self-evidently be a demeaning stereotype. Let's grant that premise! You are correct! What does that have to do with the Dothraki, a fictional nation? Remember, the bailey is "The Dothraki is a demeaning stereotype" The motte is "The Dothraki is historically inaccurate." or "The Sioux have endured demeaning stereotypes." These are both true and uncontroversial. The essayist even seems to take umbrage that the Dothraki armor looks nothing like Sioux buckskin! Would he take umbrage if they looked alike? You betcha he would. The truth is, GRRM's throwaway comment notwithstanding, the Dothraki serve an analogous role to ASOIF narrative as the Huns, Vikings, Kazakhs, Barbary pirates and Mongol raiders did to European history. Are you and the essayist seriously arguing that these ancient peoples are somehow demeaned by the freaking Dothraki?
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      > The essayist even seems to take umbrage that the Dothraki armor looks nothing like Sioux buckskin! Would he take umbrage if they looked alike? You betcha he would. Most historians, and enthusiasts of history like myself, would not take umbrage; instead, they would effuse praise for bucking stereotype and actually doing their research into how these cultures would have dressed. I'll point out that the author actually has a lot of praise for CK3 for getting its history details right. > The truth is, GRRM's throwaway comment notwithstanding, the Dothraki serve an analogous role to ASOIF narrative as the Huns, Vikings, Kazakhs, Barbary pirates and Mongol raiders did to European history. Are you and the essayist seriously arguing that these ancient peoples are somehow demeaned by the freaking Dothraki? I think your first sentence is unwitting justification of the second sentence. Your understanding of the aforementioned cultures [1] appears to be limited to their raiding effects on "civilized" societies, ignoring other aspects of their society as at best uninteresting and at worst nonexistent. That steppe cultures are reduced in popular history to such a degree is perhaps understandable, but if you're taking a position of trying to assert historical accuracy, perpetuating popular history myths is pretty tasteless. [1] Although interesting that you chose to qualify only Barbary and Mongol with pirates and raiders, leaving no qualification for the Huns, Vikings, and Kazakhs. Am I to take away that you believe that the Huns, Vikings, and Kazakhs consist solely of entities predating on settled societies, and that you believe that the Berbers and Mongols had richer cultures with only a subset of these people consisting of such entities? Or should I infer that you are listing known predatory groups, and know the "Barbary pirates" only by that name and not their culture grouping (admittedly, this makes "Mongol raiders" harder to explain)?

rendall 6y ago

This is the motte. "It's just historical inaccuracy. Surely you cannot object to correcting the record can you?" Now defend that the historical inaccuracy is a demeaning stereotype.

jcranmer 6y ago
Reducing a culture to a single point of reference should self-evidently be a demeaning stereotype. If you need more evidence, I'll point out that in the specific case of making the defining characteristic being bad-ass warriors, that implies that when the bad-ass warriors get their asses kicked (by modern militaries), you are implying that they no longer have any redeeming qualities worth caring about.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  This is not logical. These characters are fictional, and they have been vaguely identified with roughly a third of the premodern cultures I've ever heard of. Emphasizing their prowess in war and also illustrating them facing difficulties in war is just a trope. "The Worf Effect", to be precise. [0] It doesn't say anything about the Huns or the Turks or the Sioux or anyone. Even telling a story about the actual Huns and how they were great at war but also they lost some wars wouldn't be demeaning. You might not have heard, but war is generally horrible for everyone involved. [0] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheWorfEffect https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheWorfEffect
- rendall 6y ago
  > Reducing a culture to a single point of reference should self-evidently be a demeaning stereotype. Let's grant that premise! You are correct! What does that have to do with the Dothraki, a fictional nation? Remember, the bailey is "The Dothraki is a demeaning stereotype" The motte is "The Dothraki is historically inaccurate." or "The Sioux have endured demeaning stereotypes." These are both true and uncontroversial. The essayist even seems to take umbrage that the Dothraki armor looks nothing like Sioux buckskin! Would he take umbrage if they looked alike? You betcha he would. The truth is, GRRM's throwaway comment notwithstanding, the Dothraki serve an analogous role to ASOIF narrative as the Huns, Vikings, Kazakhs, Barbary pirates and Mongol raiders did to European history. Are you and the essayist seriously arguing that these ancient peoples are somehow demeaned by the freaking Dothraki?
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    > The essayist even seems to take umbrage that the Dothraki armor looks nothing like Sioux buckskin! Would he take umbrage if they looked alike? You betcha he would. Most historians, and enthusiasts of history like myself, would not take umbrage; instead, they would effuse praise for bucking stereotype and actually doing their research into how these cultures would have dressed. I'll point out that the author actually has a lot of praise for CK3 for getting its history details right. > The truth is, GRRM's throwaway comment notwithstanding, the Dothraki serve an analogous role to ASOIF narrative as the Huns, Vikings, Kazakhs, Barbary pirates and Mongol raiders did to European history. Are you and the essayist seriously arguing that these ancient peoples are somehow demeaned by the freaking Dothraki? I think your first sentence is unwitting justification of the second sentence. Your understanding of the aforementioned cultures [1] appears to be limited to their raiding effects on "civilized" societies, ignoring other aspects of their society as at best uninteresting and at worst nonexistent. That steppe cultures are reduced in popular history to such a degree is perhaps understandable, but if you're taking a position of trying to assert historical accuracy, perpetuating popular history myths is pretty tasteless. [1] Although interesting that you chose to qualify only Barbary and Mongol with pirates and raiders, leaving no qualification for the Huns, Vikings, and Kazakhs. Am I to take away that you believe that the Huns, Vikings, and Kazakhs consist solely of entities predating on settled societies, and that you believe that the Berbers and Mongols had richer cultures with only a subset of these people consisting of such entities? Or should I infer that you are listing known predatory groups, and know the "Barbary pirates" only by that name and not their culture grouping (admittedly, this makes "Mongol raiders" harder to explain)?