283 réponses à ce sujet

[What a Succulent Ass]

Youth4Ever wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

The point: racial demographics of North Africa didn't experience a significant paradigm shift until the invasions and the rise of Arab supremacy, which brought anti-black regimes, anti-black pogroms, and anti-black legislation that is still continuing today. As in, right now, immediately. When the Moors conquered the Iberian peninsula and much of southern Europe, that paradigm shift had not yet occurred, but the Berber-Muslim dynasties and caliphates were completely informed by Islam and the cultural values therein...which set the stage for the current strife in the North with nations like Saudi Arabia and Qatar trying to use the region as a cultural foothold. It's also important to realise that current racial constructions (especially constructions of "whiteness" and "blackness") did not begin to formulate until the late 17th century when chattel slavery began in earnest and European colonisers needed methods to quell poor white and enslaved African alliances. There were no such things in the centuries preceding this. If you need evidence of this, observe how European Jews, Irishmen, and Italians only recently became "white" — and how West Asians are still considered "white" anthropologically. Not all Moors were black Africans, but all black Africans (regardless of actual ethnicity) were called "Moorish."

This is likely cultural then. Black is the US generally refers to Africans Americans or those of Sub-Saharan African descent because of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Black in the US doesn't necessarily exclude Northern Africans, but it generally isn't referring them either. When I heard David Gaider say Isabela is black, I'm thinking Sub-Saharan African as a black American.

That's the point. There is no difference between "sub-Saharan" black Africans and black Africans in North Africa. Literally. None. The "sub-Saharan" designation is itself a residual term that came out of racist white anthropology (which hasn't improved that much, to be honest). Africans (and black people in general) don't all look the same. Africans in the Americas are descended from West Africans, but even they (and by "they," I mean everyone, including Afro-Latin@s, Afro-Indios, black Americans, and Afro-Caribbean people in the global south) vary widely. Same goes for non-akatas. Hell, you can likely pinpoint West Africans by nation, and even by region if you're really good. West Africans look different from East Africans who look different from southern Africans who look different from Central Africans who look different from North Africans who look different from West Africans and everyone looks different from everyone else who even looks different from themselves because of admixtures.

The point is, saying you don't think Isabela is black because she doesn't look "black enough" is silly, because there isn't a specific construction of blackness that anyone adheres to.

[Cadell_Agathon]

Random Jerkface wrote...

It's why you can find Fula people (just as an example) literally everywhere on the continent, yet their cultures are almost unrecognisable. It's why there can be as many as five hundred or so ethnic groups in a single nation, and even more languages spoken. It's also why Africans end up being such polyglots. Speaking four or five languages isn't considered uncommon.

W00t! I'm 1/4 Fulani! 

But on topic. DA still hasn't fully fleshed out all of the awesome theodosian countries yet and I'd much rather explore all or at least most of thedas before shipping off to a different country. We still need to experience the Anderfels, Tevinter, The Dales, Orlais, Nevarra, Antiva, Rivain, Par Vollen, Serehon, etc. We have much more adventures to do on thedas before looking elsewhere in my opinon.  

Also, I'm super excited to see Orlais in DA]I[ and hopefully we get to see somemore Rivaini, Anders, and Tevinters!

[lil yonce]

Random Jerkface wrote...

The point is, saying you don't think Isabela is black because she doesn't look "black enough" is silly, because there isn't a specific construction of blackness that anyone adheres to.

I said she was black. I had to find a link to prove it to others in this thread. I assumed the Rivani were Sub-Saharan Africans based on my own perceptions of blackness as a black American and I realize that may not be accurate to someone outside North America. Its more about pureness. When I say the Moors shared East African, West African, North East African, and West Asian lineages, I don't mean they weren't black to begin with or a different kind of black in the beginning or a different kind of black now. I mean because of the prehistoric West Asian influence when I think about blacks, North Africans do not immediately come to mind. That's not to say they aren't in part black or I exclude them from being black. When I say the Moors aren't exactly black, I'm saying they aren't identical to the perception of Sub-Saharan blacks which is what immediately comes to mind for many or most with the word black.

EDIT: And also I thought the Rivaini might be Sub-Saharan because north of the Donarks where the Rivani come from, there is jungle and island chains. That sounds more like Sub-Saharan Africa. But, yeah. I understand the point you're making here.

Modifié par Youth4Ever, 05 mars 2013 - 11:27 .

[Lennard Testarossa]

Random Jerkface wrote...
The point is, saying you don't think Isabela is black because she doesn't look "black enough" is silly, because there isn't a specific construction of blackness that anyone adheres to.

That's like claiming it is silly to state that Ryan Gosling doesn't look Asian because there are huge differences between Asians from Korea, Japan and Vietnam.

Youth4Ever wrote...
I assumed the Rivani were Sub-Saharan Africans based on my own perceptions of blackness as a black American and I realize that may not be accurate to someone outside North America.

It is the only perception relevant to this discussion. We are not trying to reassign labels here, we're trying to discuss how certain people actually look.

[Travie]

Interesting, I'd love to see something along these lines!

[Zkyire]

Random Jerkface wrote...

That's the point. There is no difference between "sub-Saharan" black Africans and black Africans in North Africa. Literally. None. The "sub-Saharan" designation is itself a residual term that came out of racist white anthropology (which hasn't improved that much, to be honest). Africans (and black people in general) don't all look the same. Africans in the Americas are descended from West Africans, but even they (and by "they," I mean everyone, including Afro-Latin@s, Afro-Indios, black Americans, and Afro-Caribbean people in the global south) vary widely. Same goes for non-akatas. Hell, you can likely pinpoint West Africans by nation, and even by region if you're really good. West Africans look different from East Africans who look different from southern Africans who look different from Central Africans who look different from North Africans who look different from West Africans and everyone looks different from everyone else who even looks different from themselves because of admixtures.

Sub Saharan as in below the Sahara. Which it is. Now geographical terms are 'racist'?

And of course Black people from north Africa are not different from Black people elsewhere. It's that the vast majority in North Africa are not black at all.

Modifié par Zkyire, 05 mars 2013 - 07:37 .

[Cadell_Agathon]

Modifié par Cadell_Agathon, 05 mars 2013 - 08:26 .

[Naughty Bear]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

PinkDiamondstl wrote...

a12boom wrote...

Androme wrote...

a12boom wrote...

Africa's current culture is participating in white genocide in the south region of the continent, killing each other in Rwanda, and forcing people to submit to Islam...no thank you. But if you meant fesitivals, armor, architecture...not much, really. Asian culture is much more my style.

I would prefer if we stuck with Orlais and the Tevinter Imperium then move up the map.

This

I hope my post doesn't get deleted.

^
Ban this guy 

Unfortunately stupidity and caustic ignorance isn't a banning offense. Which it was though.

Personally, I love it when someone posts something like this, such obvious bait yet it ruffles the feathers of many.

My popcorn is heated and ready to eat.

[gw2005]

Lennard Testarossa wrote...

does Africa really have more ethnic groups than anywhere else [...]?

Yes.

Edit: Africa having more genetic variation isn't all that surprising if you assume the "Out of Africa" theory to be correct. 

I would disagree on the fact that Africa is THE most diverse. The Asian continent is bigger and more diverse if only we look at the shear geographical size of it.

On that note, wouldn't be better if we drop off this topic entirely if the content of future game has nothing to do with what's being discussion? Or would you kindly put the discussion back into the perspective: how does wether or not Isabella is "black" impacts addition of future cultures that are not european based?

Modifié par gw2005, 06 mars 2013 - 12:11 .

[-leadintea-]

Random Jerkface wrote...

This whole thread is obroni nonsense. Raze it to the ground.

This made me lol more than it should have. Are you Ghanaian?

[Mercedes-Benz]

I hope that the game will continue to be based on medieval Europe, so adding the in-game equivalents of the Mongols, Turks (actually, I think that the Qunari are based on the Ottoman Empire, so that has already been done), Arabs and Berbers (and the various peoples who were an part of their empires) would be OK, but adding the in-game equivalents of the Zulu or Maori wouldn't make any sense whatsoever.

[shootist70]

Random Jerkface wrote...


Has anyone here actually been to Africa, least of all North Africa?

Yep. It's a very popular holiday destination for us Europeans (Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, Kenya).

Not sure what that's got to do with anything, though.

[saMoorai]

gw2005 wrote...

 As per title. Just look at how popular this is. And that's just the armour. But I know, and seeing how it took 8 years for the WOW to introduce the Pandaria expension, it's understandable, I mean, there's lots of room to expand on without having to resort to introducing entire new continents into the game (I'm guessing that's what would be required). Thoughts?

but NO more samurais please

No.

Samurai  Kossith.

It must happen.

[Medhia Nox]

@Entropic Angel: The term "half-breeds" is bad form my good man.

[Das Tentakel]

shootist70 wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...
Has anyone here actually been to Africa, least of all North Africa?

Yep. It's a very popular holiday destination for us Europeans (Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, Kenya).
Not sure what that's got to do with anything, though.

The assumption may have been that virtually everybody here is American. On a European forum, this would have been a silly question. Not to mention the fact that mainland western Europe has a rather large population of North African descent. I studied in a city where nearly 10% of the population is of North African origin (mostly Moroccan, but also some Algerians and Egyptians).

To add a little context (particularly for us befuddled Europeans): The Internet is awash with veritable ‘virtual wars’ between Afrocentrists (mostly North Americans, but also some Britons and Sub-Saharan Africans) and White supremacists and racists (mostly North Americans, but also some Europeans, South Americans and the occasional North African, Turk, Iranian etc.). White supremacists try to claim North Africa ‘for the white race’, while Afrocentrists try to do the same ‘for the (‘black’) Africans’. Egypt is a favourite battleground. A lot of people on both sides of this 'virtual war' have never been on the other side of the Atlantic, let alone in Africa or the Mediterranean.
African-Americans who have been there, often complain about the racism or racial prejudice in, say, Egypt and other North African countries. 

Both sides tend to bombard the other with pictures taken from the Internet. White supremacists always post the same handful of pictures showing the occasional blond Berber or an ancient Egyptian wall painting that shows relatively light-skinned Pharaonic Egyptians cheerfully slaughtering indisputably ‘black’ Nubians. The Afrocentrists react with pictures of Berbers who look sufficiently ‘black’ in their eyes, the occasional ‘black’ musician from the illustrations of King Alfonso the Wise’s ‘Cantigas de Santa Maria’ (13th century) and statues of Egyptian Pharaohs from the 25th dynasty (who were of Nubian origin).

By and large, it’s the hapless North Africans, Levantines and Southern Europeans – the peoples and cultures based in the Mediterranean region – who get caught in the middle, to their great annoyance. In a sense, they, their past, the way they look or are supposed to look, sometimes even their very DNA, are subjected to a form of ‘virtual colonization’ by a bunch of outsiders (mostly North American, plus ideological affiliates from elsewhere).

And the scientists? If their research has implications that either side in this debate dislikes, it gets distorted, disregarded or slandered. Then it’s suddenly ‘politically correct’ or ‘evil white science’.

Anyway, enough off-topic stuff. I seem to remember this thread was about non-European human cultures in Thedas.
(are there even any European (-inspired) cultures in it, I sometimes wonder ).

[BouncyFrag]

What has any of this to do with DA3? We really need some info on the game.

[gw2005]

 Was just browsing through BSN and then this came up: Good Game Feature - Racial Representations in Games

from this thread

I think this really sums up the problem people as of this page is discussing. This was not the point of my thread originally, but I'll run with it.

[CuriousArtemis]

Here's how you identify if a person is Black or not:

Person: I'm Black.

Hint: That person is Black.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Maybe a chinese like society of isolationist who constructed a giant barrier to keep thedas and the blight out of their country eons ago, as was the case when the roman empire fell and china stopped trading with europe and instead decided to cut off european culture from their own.

But african and oceanic cultures might not be worth the trouble, espically oceanic since interaction between these people didn't occur for quite some time after the middle ages and into the Renaissance.

[Yumichika]

Mercedes-Benz wrote...

I hope that the game will continue to be based on medieval Europe, so adding the in-game equivalents of the Mongols, Turks (actually, I think that the Qunari are based on the Ottoman Empire, so that has already been done), Arabs and Berbers (and the various peoples who were an part of their empires) would be OK, but adding the in-game equivalents of the Zulu or Maori wouldn't make any sense whatsoever.

I just hope they wont and they will innovate. This is an important point about DA futur. If they still continue with the inspiration from medieval europe i'm afraid when it will come to DA4 if they wanna do that medieval europe will not be that popular anymore. Variety to me is the key.

Plus worldwide people would be more interested in playing such a game.

[syllogi]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Entropic Angel: The term "half-breeds" is bad form my good man.

Being one myself, I really don't care if someone takes offense to it.

You are not an animal with a pedigree.  You are multi-racial, and I don't care if you think it sounds cooler, or you think you're being edgy and "un-PC" by using the term "half-breed" for anyone with mixed heritage...if you want to be taken seriously, stop trying to be offensive on purpose.

There are plenty of "white" people who have very diverse ethnic backgrounds, but you don't call them a derogatory term that stems from animal breeding, right?  So quit it.

[Heimdall]

Yumichika wrote...

Mercedes-Benz wrote...

I hope that the game will continue to be based on medieval Europe, so adding the in-game equivalents of the Mongols, Turks (actually, I think that the Qunari are based on the Ottoman Empire, so that has already been done), Arabs and Berbers (and the various peoples who were an part of their empires) would be OK, but adding the in-game equivalents of the Zulu or Maori wouldn't make any sense whatsoever.

I just hope they wont and they will innovate. This is an important point about DA futur. If they still continue with the inspiration from medieval europe i'm afraid when it will come to DA4 if they wanna do that medieval europe will not be that popular anymore. Variety to me is the key.

Plus worldwide people would be more interested in playing such a game.

they've barely scratched the surface of the existing cultures in Thedas.  There's no driving rush to add more exotic ones.

[DDG4005]

Random Jerkface wrote...

Youth4Ever wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

The point: racial demographics of North Africa didn't experience a significant paradigm shift until the invasions and the rise of Arab supremacy, which brought anti-black regimes, anti-black pogroms, and anti-black legislation that is still continuing today. As in, right now, immediately. When the Moors conquered the Iberian peninsula and much of southern Europe, that paradigm shift had not yet occurred, but the Berber-Muslim dynasties and caliphates were completely informed by Islam and the cultural values therein...which set the stage for the current strife in the North with nations like Saudi Arabia and Qatar trying to use the region as a cultural foothold. It's also important to realise that current racial constructions (especially constructions of "whiteness" and "blackness") did not begin to formulate until the late 17th century when chattel slavery began in earnest and European colonisers needed methods to quell poor white and enslaved African alliances. There were no such things in the centuries preceding this. If you need evidence of this, observe how European Jews, Irishmen, and Italians only recently became "white" — and how West Asians are still considered "white" anthropologically. Not all Moors were black Africans, but all black Africans (regardless of actual ethnicity) were called "Moorish."

This is likely cultural then. Black is the US generally refers to Africans Americans or those of Sub-Saharan African descent because of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Black in the US doesn't necessarily exclude Northern Africans, but it generally isn't referring them either. When I heard David Gaider say Isabela is black, I'm thinking Sub-Saharan African as a black American.

That's the point. There is no difference between "sub-Saharan" black Africans and black Africans in North Africa. Literally. None. The "sub-Saharan" designation is itself a residual term that came out of racist white anthropology (which hasn't improved that much, to be honest). Africans (and black people in general) don't all look the same. Africans in the Americas are descended from West Africans, but even they (and by "they," I mean everyone, including Afro-Latin@s, Afro-Indios, black Americans, and Afro-Caribbean people in the global south) vary widely. Same goes for non-akatas. Hell, you can likely pinpoint West Africans by nation, and even by region if you're really good. West Africans look different from East Africans who look different from southern Africans who look different from Central Africans who look different from North Africans who look different from West Africans and everyone looks different from everyone else who even looks different from themselves because of admixtures.

The point is, saying you don't think Isabela is black because she doesn't look "black enough" is silly, because there isn't a specific construction of blackness that anyone adheres to.

You nailed it dead-on.