|
|
Post by frogspawned on Aug 13, 2020 1:09:45 GMT
I'm all for casting based on Talent - but I also like redheads. It's a vexing conundrum.
|
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Aug 14, 2020 8:35:51 GMT
...  Yes it is. This isn't Lord of the Rings or A Song of Ice and Fire, Gunnerkrigg is allegedly set in the real world. The chapter The Stone more than anything should make that abundantly clear. And while Gunnerkrigg itself obviously is a fictional place with fictional characters it is not unreasonable to bring up real life when that's the place it purports to being set in. They have a forest with suicidal fearies and a godlike coyote..... It's more like Harry Potter is set in the real world... The real world where there are still lots of supernatural beings, but which are normally not noticed by us normals. |
|
|
|
Post by ekimie on Aug 14, 2020 16:03:16 GMT
They have a forest with suicidal fearies and a godlike coyote..... It's more like Harry Potter is set in the real world... The real world where there are still lots of supernatural beings, but which are normally not noticed by us normals. Good point! (I'll accept any good Harry Potter based argument  ) |
|
Nika
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by Nika on Aug 16, 2020 11:33:32 GMT
They have a forest with suicidal fearies and a godlike coyote..... It's more like Harry Potter is set in the real world... The real world where there are still lots of supernatural beings, but which are normally not noticed by us normals. Exactly! It's Urban Fantasy. Unless differences are directly pointed out we are to assume the rest of the world isn't too different from the real one. |
|
|
|
Post by jda on Aug 16, 2020 15:59:51 GMT
Related but unrelated: gunnerkrigg.com is down
|
|
|
|
Post by verrenox on Aug 16, 2020 20:06:26 GMT
Related but unrelated: gunnerkrigg.com is down Thank you, I was wondering this. |
|
|
|
Post by jda on Aug 17, 2020 2:56:44 GMT
Related but unrelated: gunnerkrigg.com is down Thank you, I was wondering this. Well, solved, I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by wies on Aug 17, 2020 5:23:15 GMT
Thank you, I was wondering this. Well, solved, I guess. Yet another mystery solved at gunnerkrigg dot com. |
|
|
|
Post by Dvandaemon on Aug 20, 2020 5:05:26 GMT
I guess Tom decided on Coyote mainly because he likes mythical dogs. Actually I never questioned whether it "should" have been a European trickster god instead. Coyote explained that and why he had come to Europe and I was satisfied with that. Where is the problem? For starters it's appropriating another culture. Minorities, particularly Native American cultures, hardly get enough representation of their own and more often than not their cultural icons are used to supplement the narratives of others, white Europeans in particular, as novel experiences. The second point brings up watsonian and doylist context. The Watsonian argument is the circumstances that led Coyote to Europe but the more relevant Doylist perspective is that Tom just wanted a mythical dog in his story. A lot of people argue from in-story reasons but the more relevant perspective is that stories are entirely constructed by author fiat which goes back to my point of a singular point of view and any problems inherent to that. So no, the circumstances in the story of how Coyote ended up in embroiled in this setting aren't compelling or satisfying to me. Again I can ignore it insofar as it's entertaining, but I can neither dismiss or deny that it wasn't constructed in a vacuum and carries implications. Gunnerkrigg Court does not exist. It is not based on the real world ... Yes it is. This isn't Lord of the Rings or A Song of Ice and Fire, Gunnerkrigg is allegedly set in the real world. The chapter The Stone more than anything should make that abundantly clear. And while Gunnerkrigg itself obviously is a fictional place with fictional characters it is not unreasonable to bring up real life when that's the place it purports to being set in. When people say "fiction doesn't exist in a vacuum" they mean there is no fiction that exists that isn't informed by some author's experience with real life. So even with stuff like Game of Thrones and Lord of the Rings, you can still scrutinize the world the author chooses to depict as informed by whatever prejudices, positive or negative, they may hold. I know there are plenty of in depth discussions over the depictions of evil races in Lord of the Rings |
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Aug 21, 2020 10:47:43 GMT
I guess Tom decided on Coyote mainly because he likes mythical dogs. Actually I never questioned whether it "should" have been a European trickster god instead. Coyote explained that and why he had come to Europe and I was satisfied with that. Where is the problem? For starters it's appropriating another culture. Minorities, particularly Native American cultures, hardly get enough representation of their own and more often than not their cultural icons are used to supplement the narratives of others, white Europeans in particular, as novel experiences. The second point brings up watsonian and doylist context. The Watsonian argument is the circumstances that led Coyote to Europe but the more relevant Doylist perspective is that Tom just wanted a mythical dog in his story. A lot of people argue from in-story reasons but the more relevant perspective is that stories are entirely constructed by author fiat which goes back to my point of a singular point of view and any problems inherent to that. So no, the circumstances in the story of how Coyote ended up in embroiled in this setting aren't compelling or satisfying to me. Again I can ignore it insofar as it's entertaining, but I can neither dismiss or deny that it wasn't constructed in a vacuum and carries implications. So him being a white European means that Tom is only allowed to write about deities of European peoples? Nevermind that during humanity's history deities have spread out to different parts of the world than the one where they sprang up, just like it did and does happen to any other aspect of human culture. Where do you draw the line then? Continents? Countries? Regions? Renard is a figure presumed to have originated in Lorraine, France, so is putting him inside the story cultural appropriation? If I write a story where one of the characters is from Thailand, am I allowed to make their special relationship to Buddha a point in the story, or is that cultural appropriation? What if the person is a German who converted to Buddhism?
As long as Tom does proper research about the myths he incorporates, and makes it clear where they originate, I don't see a problem. Rather, before reading Gunnerkrigg Court I had no idea there was the mythological figure Coyote the Trickster, and the comic inspired me to learn more about the mythical Coyote, beyond the scope of what is shown in the comic, so my personal horizont was widened.
|
|
|
|
Post by wies on Aug 21, 2020 10:55:32 GMT
From what I know of it, is that appropriation is tricky, and less about that western creators use the motifs and images of other cultures, but more that it is harder for people of other cultures to use those very motifs and images than for those western creators.
It is less thing bad, and more how comes this is the first and only webcomic that I (and pyradonis and likely many of other forumgoers) have read that employs Coyote as a character, and it is not written by an Native American? And what does that mean in the wider context? I can be wrong, and correct me if so, but imo the concept of cultural appropriation is something more for examination than judgement.
|
|
|
|
Post by DonDueed on Aug 22, 2020 1:19:50 GMT
I first encountered the Coyote character in the Tony Hillerman mystery stories. For those unfamiliar, these books' protagonists are Navajo policemen, solving crimes in and around the Navajo reservation in the American southwest. They typically include elements of the traditional Navajo religion and way of life.
Tony Hillerman was not a Navajo. The stories were always respectful of traditional Navajo beliefs, even when those came in contact (or conflict) with the broader culture. Yet I wonder whether they would be seen by some here as cultural appropriation.
According to Hillerman's books, the Navajo have a saying about the canine trickster: "Coyote is always out there waiting. And he's always hungry." I for one am thankful that Hillerman gave me a glimpse of Navajo culture.
|
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Aug 23, 2020 21:29:29 GMT
I mean, I don't think any of us readers here would refuse to read a webcomic by a Native American about Coyote because we already have GKC. But after a quick online research I have to say I did not find any webcomics by Native Americans (some fine printed comics though). Which does not mean there aren't any, of course, but if there are, they're not easy to find even when explicitly searched for...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dvandaemon on Aug 29, 2020 23:15:48 GMT
For starters it's appropriating another culture. Minorities, particularly Native American cultures, hardly get enough representation of their own and more often than not their cultural icons are used to supplement the narratives of others, white Europeans in particular, as novel experiences. The second point brings up watsonian and doylist context. The Watsonian argument is the circumstances that led Coyote to Europe but the more relevant Doylist perspective is that Tom just wanted a mythical dog in his story. A lot of people argue from in-story reasons but the more relevant perspective is that stories are entirely constructed by author fiat which goes back to my point of a singular point of view and any problems inherent to that. So no, the circumstances in the story of how Coyote ended up in embroiled in this setting aren't compelling or satisfying to me. Again I can ignore it insofar as it's entertaining, but I can neither dismiss or deny that it wasn't constructed in a vacuum and carries implications. So him being a white European means that Tom is only allowed to write about deities of European peoples? Nevermind that during humanity's history deities have spread out to different parts of the world than the one where they sprang up, just like it did and does happen to any other aspect of human culture. Where do you draw the line then? Continents? Countries? Regions? Renard is a figure presumed to have originated in Lorraine, France, so is putting him inside the story cultural appropriation? If I write a story where one of the characters is from Thailand, am I allowed to make their special relationship to Buddha a point in the story, or is that cultural appropriation? What if the person is a German who converted to Buddhism?
As long as Tom does proper research about the myths he incorporates, and makes it clear where they originate, I don't see a problem. Rather, before reading Gunnerkrigg Court I had no idea there was the mythological figure Coyote the Trickster, and the comic inspired me to learn more about the mythical Coyote, beyond the scope of what is shown in the comic, so my personal horizont was widened.
That's not even close to what I was saying but if you're myopic enough to conclude that I don't see us going anywhere. But I'm already in this so let's go. No, it doesn't mean that. But trying to make that argument glosses over the damage to native cultures when non native people appropriate their cultural stories to supplement their own. This cannot be ignored. We're not talking about France, France is a disgression, it's a deflection. The cultural security of France isn't even comparable to the cultural security of native people. It's actually insultingly ignorant to make that comparison, because France historically and presently has directly threatened and damaged the cultural security of native populations with their colonialist efforts. Don't be dense. I'm not even going to humor your other questions because I don't trust that they're made in good faith given your behavior so far. He's already making his story mostly about European figures. Because European figures like Renard and Ysengrin are prominent characters. They're talking to the Norn's right now after being lead there by a Valkyrie. European figures are the main drivers of the plot at the moment. He's already doing that, non European figures are just supplements like I said because they're foreign and thus novel and mostly exist to convey a sense of worldliness to the setting. You could have learned about Coyote any other way. Native people still exist to tell these stories so acting like it's impossible for you to hear about their culture any other way is a further symptom of the problem that erases their agency over their own culture. It's not a bad thing that you discovered him through this, but that's no the only outcome his presence can bring. At any rate yes doing proper research was exactly my point, on that we agree. I literally never said he couldn't tell these stories the way he did just that there's still a chance of doing more harm than good. At this point I don't expect people to handle being told the basic concept of just being mindful maturely or with the barest level of critical thinking; people rarely do when told they might harm others, or are harming others, many often doubling down on their behavior because they've long since rationalized to themselves, without ever considering a second opinion, that they're justified. Because why change or reconsider when you can always just tell yourself that you're right? Besides, even if I was just saying he couldn't use Coyote, what would it matter? He's already done it and Coyote, on a practical level to the story, is dead and gone at this point. Even if he wasn't I doubt Tom would rewrite the story to gratify that. That isn't my point here, I was just cautioning against dismissing concerns so cavalierly, both here and when discussing other stories. My question now is, why does considering this seem to infuriate you so pointedly? From what I know of it, is that appropriation is tricky, and less about that western creators use the motifs and images of other cultures, but more that it is harder for people of other cultures to use those very motifs and images than for those western creators. It is less thing bad, and more how comes this is the first and only webcomic that I (and pyradonis and likely many of other forumgoers) have read that employs Coyote as a character, and it is not written by an Native American? And what does that mean in the wider context? I can be wrong, and correct me if so, but imo the concept of cultural appropriation is something more for examination than judgement. No, you've summed it up pretty well. A big part of why cultural appropriation is harmful is because of things like that. Stuff made by an in-group is dismissed or belittled, until it's reduced to an icon or aesthetic and applied to supplement the product of an out-group. It diminishes the significance of that cultural practice, makes it difficult to remain confident in sharing it with an out-group, because they don't seem to care what it means to you, just that it's new and trendy. This is comorbid with general colonialist impact like the active or passive genocide of a culture that further disconnects a group from their own practices. It makes a widening gap between practicing traditions and exploring them in the recreation that is adapting them to stories. |
|
|
|
Post by wies on Aug 30, 2020 6:10:57 GMT
We're not talking about France, France is a disgression, it's a deflection. The cultural security of France isn't even comparable to the cultural security of native people. [...] because France historically and presently has directly threatened and damaged the cultural security of native populations with their colonialist efforts. I agree the cultural security of France and the native people of the US aren't the same. But I also feel it is a valid question pyradonis asks. Cultural appropriation is a modern name for an ancient practice that has persisted through all the ages of humanity. And also through all of its cultures. And a great part of it is indeed accompagnied or caused by power imbalances and imperialism. But a lot of it is also just a culture picking up bits and stories of cultures it finds interesting. It is one of the ways a culture adapts and changes. I feel this is natural behaviour complicated by that not every culture can practice that as freely as each. So where do we draw the line? When is a culture sufficiently secure that other cultures may copy and implement parts of it? I think dismissing this question is unfair, because it shows the complexity and trickyness of the concept of cultural appropriation. He's already making his story mostly about European figures. Because European figures like Renard and Ysengrin are prominent characters. They're talking to the Norn's right now after being lead there by a Valkyrie. European figures are the main drivers of the plot at the moment. He's already doing that, non European figures are just supplements like I said because they're foreign and thus novel and mostly exist to convey a sense of worldliness to the setting. I disagree that Coyote is just a supplement. He is one of the most important drivers of the plot. Without Coyote you don't have the story of Gunnerkrigg Court. It is true that it is mostly European figures as main drivers of the plot, but that doesn't exclude his agency in the plot. Even Muut, who plays a quieter role (so far) isn't just a supplement to the story. A big part of why cultural appropriation is harmful is because of things like that. Stuff made by an in-group is dismissed or belittled, until it's reduced to an icon or aesthetic and applied to supplement the product of an out-group. It diminishes the significance of that cultural practice, makes it difficult to remain confident in sharing it with an out-group, because they don't seem to care what it means to you, just that it's new and trendy. This is comorbid with general colonialist impact like the active or passive genocide of a culture that further disconnects a group from their own practices. It makes a widening gap between practicing traditions and exploring them in the recreation that is adapting them to stories. (emphasis mine) "Comorbid" is a too weak word for cultural appropriation and "general colonist impact". The consequences of cultural appropriation as you describe it above are one of the impacts of colonialism. People invade another people, drive them out of their habitatual grounds, strip them of their native rights and, if they are lucky, treat them like second-class citizens which means among other things that they are excluded from cultural participation on their own terms. In these circumstances it is very unlikely for the stories of that invaded culture to transmit through other cultures with respect for their nuances. It is like how between two adults of equal standing in a dialogue there is an equal chance of influencing or dictating that conversation, but less so between master and slave. A healthy cultural practice is then corrupted by colonialism having deliberately harmed and weakened another cultures. And the way to readress that violent legacy is a long one. To make such an inequal conversation again balanced probably requires a lot of effort that will have to be repeated in different ways and at different times. Cultural appropriation isn't even at the roots here of that inequality, it is one of its fruits to speak. You say you aren't saying Tom shouldn't use Coyote, just that that usage could do more harm than good, even with research. I agree on that possibility of harm, but I also think it is unavoidable. To partake in such an conversation permeated with violence makes it hard to avoid that violence. But it still may end up being helpful to make it easier later to recognize mistakes and faults, and how things have gone better, and where things can be still better. Like how Beecher's Uncle Tom's Cabin brought forth harmful stereotypes, but managed to attack older stereotypes of the ministrel shows. Were there works written at that time that handled the subject with more respect? Probably, but I don't know if they would have become as popular and as influential in such a deeply racist society as the US of that time. Or a more contemporary example: The British Empire stole many cultural objects of other civilizations and displayed them in musea (or private collections). It is awful, it is cultural theft in its purest form. But it still seems to me preferable above outright destruction. Of course the most preferable outcome is that England never invaded other cultures and robbed them. But in this way, the robbed cultures still have the chance to demand those objects back and reclaim them. It is still unlikely for that return to occur, but not impossible. The question that seems to me the crux of the discussion about cultural appropriation is that whether talking in an inequal conversation, even if it does more harm than good, can do more good than silence? I think it does. |
|
|
|
Post by Dvandaemon on Aug 30, 2020 16:37:04 GMT
I think we can safely draw the line between an imperialist nation and a nation it colonized. Sharing culture is not the same as cultural appropriation. Picking up bits and pieces from cultures you interact with is distinct from actively denigrating those cultures and taking their icons as fun accessories. Especially with a history of conquering because guess what, you don't need colonialism to have a cultural exchange. I concede it's not always clear cut but it's also not nearly so obscure as to be that confusing. I feel like people are being obtuse when they try and make that argument. Befriending someone from another culture or converting to that culture and participating in its traditions is not appropriating a culture. Again, I feel like people are being deliberately dense and arguing in bad faith if they try and make that argument to me. Please be more mindful, it costs nothing. You can endlessly justify crappy practices by acting like the concern for it is modern and "how can the thing people have always done suddenly be wrong?" Newsflash, it was always wrong, and what you're trying to equate with it is actually distinct and not what's being contested here.
Coyote and Muut are definitely supplemental to me. There's nothing about either of them that couldn't be done with other trickster and psychopomp figures. The fact that they're used and not other figures is arbitrary. We could have some other talking canine figures for the story instead of Renard and Ysengrin. We could have some other Fates figures instead of the Norns, but we don't. The choice in depictions is deliberate.
Yeah I don't think a comparison to Uncle Tom's Cabin is that pertinent. I have a lot of personal feelings about that and America's history with racism, but I feel like getting into it would be too far a digression from staying on point talking about this here.
I really question the British museum argument because that's a highly spurious circumstance. No one should be invading each other and stealing their artifacts. Even further, Britain actually has destroyed or vandalized artifacts, so the argument is moot. The lesser of two evils is still evil and though it's technically "preferable" that cultural artifacts are conserved, the culture itself has still been threatened and deeply damaged which should never be an option. Following from my previous argument, the choice between silence or misrepresentation is a false dichotomy, the people who practice those cultural traditions are often still around and perfectly capable of telling their own stories. Their attempted genocide should have never have been an option and it's wrong either way. If question is "but who will tell their story?" the answer is always "them, if you cared to ask".
There's nothing positive gained from colonialist action that couldn't be gained from alternative actions.
|
|
|
|
Post by verrenox on Aug 30, 2020 23:05:04 GMT
I think we can safely draw the line between an imperialist nation and a nation it colonized. Sharing culture is not the same as cultural appropriation. Picking up bits and pieces from cultures you interact with is distinct from actively denigrating those cultures and taking their icons as fun accessories. I've really liked following this conversation, and I've been learning a bit from it. I also just want to say props to everyone involved for keeping it civil, too often I see conversations about this turn hostile really fast, which keeps me from learning more.
I have a genuine question. How does one draw a line between one nation as a whole denigrating a culture and taking icons, versus the bits and pieces that an out-group individual alive today would pick up through interaction with in-group individuals? I get that this question is akin to the typical "I didnt do it, my ancestors did", but in order to draw that line one needs to know almost everything about the past of the person from the out-group.
Also, I'm not well versed in mythology of really any kind, but for sake of argument, I want to contest another point you've been making. Yes, there are trickster gods in almost every culture/religion that could be sourced instead of Coyote, but the comic also seems to lean heavily into a motif that puts specifically canines in the spotlight. What other canine-trickster deities are there?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dvandaemon on Aug 31, 2020 3:30:22 GMT
Thank you for the compliment as I've been pretty frustrated and actively reigning in my kneejerk urge to be more sardonic.
One draws the line pretty much the same place one does informed consent. You're friends with someone, either you ask them or they ask you, to share in their cultural practices. Like I've said it's not nearly as nebulous as people treat it to be. Cultural conversion is also a thing, if you convert your lifestyle to practicing another culture then you can expect to engage their cultural traditions. It's also pretty clear with instances surrounding colonialism, because at the most there are attempts of cultural genocide and at the least there's social marginalization. You'll see a cultural tradition actively or passively disrespected or disregarded, only for said traditions to be appropriated later on the terms of those who dismissed it.
You generally don't need like, a background check, but familiarity, reciprocity and communication are all important components as they are in any healthy relationship.
I'm not familiar enough with tricksters to say but most tricksters are also famously known to be shapeshifters, so a canid trickster figure is pretty fungible. A figure like Loki could even just shapeshift into one if he wanted, his relationship with Ysengrin would even still work because his son is a wolf.
|
|
|
|
Post by wies on Aug 31, 2020 16:40:57 GMT
Sharing culture is not the same as cultural appropriation You are right, I conflated cultural appropration and cultural exchange. You don't need colonialism to have a cultural exchange. That is true. You can endlessly justify crappy practices by acting like the concern for it is modern and "how can the thing people have always done suddenly be wrong?" Newsflash, it was always wrong, and what you're trying to equate with it is actually distinct and not what's being contested here. Not my intention to justify them, I was aware it was always wrong, but I did that indirectly with that false equation. So thank you for pointing that out. Coyote and Muut are definitely supplemental to me. There's nothing about either of them that couldn't be done with other trickster and psychopomp figures. The fact that they're used and not other figures is arbitrary. We could have some other talking canine figures for the story instead of Renard and Ysengrin. We could have some other Fates figures instead of the Norns, but we don't. The choice in depictions is deliberate. If your defintion of "supplemental character" means that they can be replaced with another that could do what they do, than that goes for almost any character in the story. The headmaster could be replaced with anyone that can sit in a bored way. Jones could be perfectly replaced with a indestructible man. But let us constrain ourselves to legendary figures, which is where your argument is at. So the Norns could be indeed replaced with other fate figures (like the Greek Fates). But I don't know if that goes for Coyote, Reynard and Ysengrin. Renard and Ysenrgrin's antagonistic relationship is lifted from their story and has an in-comic impact on his self-loathing and hatred for humans. Which also leads to his disliking Coyote favoring Renard. I don't know if you can find two canine figures with a similiar relationship. And for Coyote himself, one of the native legends refer to him begetting shadow men. Since that ends up being both narratively and thematic important (as the opposite of the robots created by humans and in the love between Robot and Shadow), I don't know if you can find another canine trickster that gave birth to a different kind of people. He also refers in the comic to other mythological actions of his, such as throwing the stars in array. Which ends up being another thematic point. It seems to me that according to your definition of supplemental the three canine figures aren't. Muut could be indeed replaced with another psychopomp in that way. But it is also not a definition of supplemental I agree with. Because I don't even see the easily repleacable Headman as supplemental. For me a character to not be supplemental they must make actions that have impact on the narrative. Also your arguing that the Norns are supplemental contradicts this earlier statement. He's already making his story mostly about European figures. Because European figures like Renard and Ysengrin are prominent characters. They're talking to the Norn's right now after being lead there by a Valkyrie. European figures are the main drivers of the plot at the moment. He's already doing that, non European figures are just supplements like I said because they're foreign and thus novel and mostly exist to convey a sense of worldliness to the setting. If the Norns and all other european mythological figures are replaceable with other that could do what they do - to use your definition of supplemental - why is it then a problem that according to you the non-european mythological figures are "just supplements"? (which, again, I do not agree with.) I agree the choice in depictions is deliberate. Every thing an drawer chooses to show is deliberate at a certain point. I am not arguing that choice of Coyote as a character is not deliberate. What we are arguing about, as I understand it, is whether Tom's choice of Coyote as a character is a harmful or shallow one. No one should be invading each other and stealing their artifacts. I agree. Of course the most preferable outcome is that England never invaded other cultures and robbed them. Even further, Britain actually has destroyed or vandalized artifacts, so the argument is moot. I don't see how? Does that not further validate my opinion that destruction is more horrible than theft? Unless I gave the impression that I was defending the actions of the British Empire, which, let's dispell that quick: the British Empire was a horrible and savage subjugation and wrecking of many people's lives out of greed and arrogance that never should have happened. The lesser of two evils is still evil and though it's technically "preferable" that cultural artifacts are conserved, the culture itself has still been threatened and deeply damaged which should never be an option. Agreed again. Following from my previous argument, the choice between silence or misrepresentation is a false dichotomy, the people who practice those cultural traditions are often still around and perfectly capable of telling their own stories. Their attempted genocide should have never have been an option and it's wrong either way. If question is "but who will tell their story?" the answer is always "them, if you cared to ask". There's nothing positive gained from colonialist action that couldn't be gained from alternative actions. Those alternative actions must be viable first then of course. I agree the best way to tell the story of a people, is to let the people tell that themselves. But the trouble is the "if you cared to ask". If a colonialist society is deeply prejudiced and mistreats the colonized, how many people of the colonizer's class will care to listen to them? I think a certain amount will listen to them actually, but not enough to immediately stop the mistreatment. To change that, they themselves must also talk to other colonizer people which leads us again then to people who are not colonized taking action on behalf of the colonized. Or should they remain silent while the colonized, probably with risk for their life, try to tell their story? That might lead to the desired change, but unnecessarily slower. Of course that taking action can cause misrepresentation since it seems almost impossible to me to be completely free of prejudices if you are part of the colonizer's class. But that would be imo still better than do nothing. I am not arguing that we should be satisfied with imperfect action, it is just the most likely outcome of the help of privileged allies having profited in a bigoted and colonizing society. If you mean with your latest statement that it would have been better for the world if colonization didn't happen, I agree. If you mean people of the colonizer class can't do something of worth for the colonized even if it ends up flawed, I disagree. If you mean if it is better for the colonized to free themselves on their own power without help of privileged allies, I suppose it depends on what you mean with "better". It is more independent, that is true. To summarize this post and to expand on my last sentence of my former post: A inequal situaton where people get oppressed persists the best in silences. Silences of many different kinds. And some silences are so deeply entrenched and enforced that the oppressed people will have a hard time breaking them on their own. Thus will they need the people of the oppressor's class to ally with them in that task. Being likely prejudiced themselves, their help will be flawed but can still matter. Be of worth. To break a silence, talking helps. Even if in an inequal conversation. Even if it starts as misrepresentation. I've really liked following this conversation, and I've been learning a bit from it. I also just want to say props to everyone involved for keeping it civil.
Thank you.  Thank you for the compliment as I've been pretty frustrated and actively reigning in my kneejerk urge to be more sardonic. Thanks for that! I find this an thoughtful conversation and I will avoid frustrating you as best I can. I'm not familiar enough with tricksters to say but most tricksters are also famously known to be shapeshifters, so a canid trickster figure is pretty fungible. A figure like Loki could even just shapeshift into one if he wanted, his relationship with Ysengrin would even still work because his son is a wolf. That would be the Fenrir wolf. That is a wolf that bit off the hand of Tyr, a god, and will kill Odin, also a god. He will have sons that will devour the sun and the moon. This wolf figure would have no concerns about his weakness like Ysengrin is and wouldn't envy Coyote or Loki's powers that much. This is a wolf feared by gods. And if Loki's is the antagonist with the Ysengrin figure (who, again, is not like Ysengrin) as his son, that would be a different relationship imo. Again, I don't see the canine figures as supplemental, and I find it a doubtful claim that you can just swap mythological figures around as if their specific background didn't matter. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Aug 31, 2020 22:15:18 GMT
The tales of Loki are tales of a deliberately and hugely destructive trickster god.
The tales of Coyote are tales of a playful, self-amusing, and occasionally educational trickster god.
The two are about as interchangeable as wine and nitrogycerin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dvandaemon on Aug 31, 2020 22:23:42 GMT
No see, I think you're missing something if you think I'm suggesting that the oppressed should talk without any protection. Talking at all is always a risk, but in those cases silence imo is important for the colonizers and they should use their privilege to defend the oppressed. Misrepresentation isn't as much of an option one has to accept as you seem to be saying it is. It's a false dichotomy to say that a colonizer's only option is to either speak and misrepresent or do absolutely nothing. They can do things besides speaking, like building and protecting a platform for the oppressed to speak without being ignored. They do, as you say, have a lot of pull with their community, so silently vouching for and supporting them goes a long way and wouldn't be as slow going as you say. There are alternative actions besides talking for someone that can be done to help. It costs nothing to conceive of them. My main concern with the oppressed maintaining lead of these conversations is asserting their agency over their own stories. Their perspective and insight from living it. Yes, they might get ignored but again the lesser of two evils is still evil and I deign to fully concede that anyone absolutely has to let someone from an out group lead their conversations. Edit: I respect that most of this is rhetorical but I don't like the subtext in responding to a reminder of boundaries with "then what? can no one do anything?" when you're a mindful person and can consider whatever you think works best case by case. My main reason for engaging this discussion at all is I found everyone a little too cavalier at best or dismissive at worst at basic calls for consideration which I can't often bring myself to ignore. Again, most of this works like a healthy relationship would; respect the disparity in circumstances between yourself and another, communicate honestly and openly, try being constructive instead of plainly dismissing someone when they express misgivings. If it's someone else's work let them lead on sharing it and support them if you can. The tales of Loki are tales of a deliberately and hugely destructive trickster god. The tales of Coyote are tales of a playful, self-amusing, and occasionally educational trickster god. The two are about as interchangeable as wine and nitrogycerin. We talking about the same Coyote that's a hair's breadth away from wanton destruction purely because you can't keep playing with your toys that are still less than boring after you break them? But again it could also be any trickster. Loki is just one example. |
|
|
|
Post by wies on Aug 31, 2020 23:39:09 GMT
Thanks for that clarification, because yeah, I misunderstood your argument. So it is not that the colonized class can't do anything useful for the colonized, but that it doesn't have to lead to misrepresentation and other harmful outcomes of their help? I agree with you that there are other ways for them to help without having to speak over the oppressed. But I wonder how often that kind of humility would occur in the minds of ones who have so benefited so well from their colonial society and have been fed stereotypes? I think I am more pessimistic than you at the ability of humans to pierce through the veils of an oppressive society likes to hang for the eyes of those that benefit the most and are the most distanced from the actual oppression happening, and would realize that they are just true equals with the people that they want to help. That the colonized people can perfectly well argue for themselves.
And with that they would also risk conflict and exclusion with their as much privileged surroundings.(which also would make it more difficult for them to actually help) Because I think it is hard to avoid such a conflict if you really think that way. That in some way or another it will be noticeable that you really see the ones who are pushed down at the bottom as worthy of dignity as the very highest on the top. It would be much more comfortable and alluring to take a just less bigoted stance. (It is where such things as the trope of White Savior come from) Leads to less soulsearching that might bring up some painful truths. But it is not like those people can't exist. They have existed and exist. I just think they are much rarer when an colonizing society has barely begun to move on from the oppression it inflicted and inflicts. So I agree with you completely on the value of taking actions of a more humble and listening kind, I think they are an option! and I think they are more just! Where I disagree with you is how likely they are to occur and how effective they would be. My main concern with the oppressed maintaining lead of these conversations is asserting their agency over their own stories. Their perspective and insight from living it. Yes, they might get ignored but again the lesser of two evils is still evil and I deign to fully concede that anyone absolutely has to let someone from an out group lead their conversations. I get that, and it shouldn't be necessary to led someone else lead your conversations. It is indeed a lesser evil, but I think, if you live in a world seemingly filled with evil and bent on denying you agency, you might not have much else to choose. I respect that most of this is rhetorical but I don't like the subtext in responding to a reminder of boundaries with "then what? can no one do anything?" when you're a mindful person and can consider whatever you think works best case by case. I think that is a simplification of my reasoning, if I understand what you mean. My response is less "can no one do anything" and more "okay, but how likely is it that you would meet people in a deeply prejudiced and oppressive society willing to fully accept your boundaries. And do you refuse the help of people who are willing to accept the most basic of boundaries ("Hey, people shouldn't kill you.") but not much more than that?" And people can and did and do anything. What you say should happen, can happen and did happen. But it is a mighty struggle to make that happen. And, like you said, it depends on how it might work case by case. In some cases it works, in some not. Sometimes dramatically not. Though to be clear: that gets easier as time goes on, and the actions have their effect and society changes for the better. And imperfect action should be critized. But even then, I think any kind of action, how flawed it might be, still can be of worth. People should do better than misrepresentation, but I don't know if that is happening here with Coyote here. But I understand if people are worried about that. respect the disparity in circumstances between yourself and another, communicate honestly and openly, try being constructive instead of plainly dismissing someone when they express misgivings. If it's someone else's work let them lead on sharing it and support them if you can. You are completely right there. But again it could also be any trickster. Loki is just one example. You know my thoughts on this one.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dvandaemon on Sept 1, 2020 7:16:14 GMT
I'm not going to argue over the likelihood of better actions being taken, both because I am also pretty cynical myself but mostly because my main point was that they do exist so as to keep in mind that worse options don't have to be resigned to.
|
|
|
|
Post by wies on Sept 1, 2020 7:54:34 GMT
I think they have to be sometimes resigned to, but I agree that in the greater part of the cases the better actions are an option that should be taken. I think we have reached the agree to disagree point. Thank you for spending so much time and thought on this discussion. I hope it wasn't frustrating, but I appreciate it nonetheless. |
|
|
|
Post by blahzor on Sept 1, 2020 13:52:54 GMT
No see, I think you're missing something if you think I'm suggesting that the oppressed should talk without any protection. Talking at all is always a risk, but in those cases silence imo is important for the colonizers and they should use their privilege to defend the oppressed. Misrepresentation isn't as much of an option one has to accept as you seem to be saying it is. It's a false dichotomy to say that a colonizer's only option is to either speak and misrepresent or do absolutely nothing. They can do things besides speaking, like building and protecting a platform for the oppressed to speak without being ignored. They do, as you say, have a lot of pull with their community, so silently vouching for and supporting them goes a long way and wouldn't be as slow going as you say. There are alternative actions besides talking for someone that can be done to help. It costs nothing to conceive of them. My main concern with the oppressed maintaining lead of these conversations is asserting their agency over their own stories. Their perspective and insight from living it. Yes, they might get ignored but again the lesser of two evils is still evil and I deign to fully concede that anyone absolutely has to let someone from an out group lead their conversations. Edit: I respect that most of this is rhetorical but I don't like the subtext in responding to a reminder of boundaries with "then what? can no one do anything?" when you're a mindful person and can consider whatever you think works best case by case. My main reason for engaging this discussion at all is I found everyone a little too cavalier at best or dismissive at worst at basic calls for consideration which I can't often bring myself to ignore. Again, most of this works like a healthy relationship would; respect the disparity in circumstances between yourself and another, communicate honestly and openly, try being constructive instead of plainly dismissing someone when they express misgivings. If it's someone else's work let them lead on sharing it and support them if you can. The tales of Loki are tales of a deliberately and hugely destructive trickster god. The tales of Coyote are tales of a playful, self-amusing, and occasionally educational trickster god. The two are about as interchangeable as wine and nitrogycerin. We talking about the same Coyote that's a hair's breadth away from wanton destruction purely because you can't keep playing with your toys that are still less than boring after you break them? But again it could also be any trickster. Loki is just one example. then less than chaotic neutral things Coyote has done knock over a building trick Rey into killing the guy tricking Loup into existing "stealing" powers from other regions gods stealing Y's memories the teeth wristband  ? whatever his long term plan is to get rid of Loup so he can come back |
|
)
? whatever his long term plan is to get rid of Loup so he can come back