119 réponses à ce sujet

[Patchwork]

1) Wrong again. Arlathan was already destroyed when Tevinter was still barely founded. There was no war of conquest. The elves destroyed their own civilization.

In Abelas' words, it was the war of carrion feasting upon a corpse. The corpse being the ruins of Arlathan after a great war amongst the elves erupted, where Mythal was murdered and some time later, the Veil was created.

 

Like I said, go and play Inquisition.

 

2) The Dales were not destroyed. Orlais reclaimed the territory that was generously granted to the elves on the condition they helped during a Blight. The territory remained part of the Empire. The elves were therefore solely legal occupants. They didn't own the land.

The elves broke their oath. Therefore, the Empire considered the agreement cancelled, thus proceeding to take the territory back from the elves. 

No doubt they arrogantly thought they owed humans nothing, even after their blatant TREACHERY as they watched Montsimmard burn and didn't want to leave. 

 

Like I said, they paid the price for their incompetent leadership. How can a people afford to be selfish during a Blight? 

 

If I were Orlais, I wouldn't even have let them stay in Alienages. Just send those treacherous bastards as far away as possible. They dislike humans, even after they were offered a place to rebuild after their civilization fell? So why help them at all?

 

Let someone else deal with them. See if the elves have better luck with the Qunari, who are not famous for taking bulls*** from other peoples.

 

3) I'm talking about what happens to marginalised groups within a society and their relationship with said society. Therefore, the example of Qunari in Kirkwall is a perfect example. 

It illustrates a pattern that happens ALL OVER THE PLACE, BE IT FICTION OR NON FICTION, because antagonising sentiments naturally emerge between different cultures that happen to be forced upon each other, with the prevalent one imposing the terms of the relationship. 

 

There's even a NAME for it in academic circles: the clash of civilizations, a theory proposed by the political scientist Samuel Huntington.

 

From the level of hostility and violence displayed by the Dalish against humans, we can safely assume they're intolerant and prone to racism. Qunari are as equally intolerant, but they value life above all else. So instead of stupidly shooting people or leaving them to die, they try and convert them to the Qun.

 

The Qunari are actually more considerate of other lives than the Dalish, who look for excuses to kill other people ([Origins] the vengeful wife, [DA2] the daughter who wanted to kill an uncursed werewolf).

 

Sorry, elves were not a great people. They were the Tevinter of Thedas's Antiquity. And from the way they continue being prone to hate, supremacy (elves had a great empire, were immortal, blah, blah blah) and racism, their descendants are not a vast improvements over their rotten blood mage, slaver ancestors.

 

I don't even know why Solas bothers with them at all.

 

1)The entire social structure and culture of the elvhen was shattered when Solas put up the Veil to imprison the Creators. That's the corpse Abelas is talking about, the world as he and they knew was dead and fighting broke out among the elves that remained because there was a huge power vacuum to be filled. This is a race of former immortals that don't seem to adapt to change well but I'm confident that if Tevinter hadn't swooped in and enslaved them all they would have sorted themselves out.  

 

Try playing Inquisition without an 'elves are awful' mindset.

 

2)I don't know where you got this one from, the Dales were a gift to the elves because of Shartan and his army helping Andraste. It had nothing what so ever to do with the Blight. The First Blight softened the Tevinter Empire up for Andraste but that's a different topic.

 

3)Elves aren't universally bigoted and racist any more than humans, dwarves or qunari are. Each race has people who are, it's not solely found in elves.

[Seraphim24]

The backstory in Dragon Age is literally a bunch of people who have pointy ears were in their city and then Tevinter, which is a city primarily with non pointy ear people attacked and destroyed it all and everything and like killed many of them.

 

Moreover, the betrayal of Fen'Harel caused all of their gods to not answer calls which rendered them fairly defenseless.

 

I guess it's not really just why are/were Elves treated so terribly, but why would people in the past in the present and future continue to kind of forsake the value and potency of magic? It seems like a useful thing to improve the world... but most people (Elves, Dwarves, Humans, whoever) don't care or view an attempt to restore and discover those magical powers as bad.

 

I guess my problem isn't one of treatment per se but just the irrationality of the people of Thedas. If what was called "Elven Civilization" had powers of immortality and magic that could transform things, shouldn't everyone have been excited to have that.

 

And why did Tevinter want to destroy these powerful things anyway? Couldn't they have made use of those things? If they are a civilization bent on power, which they apparently are overall.

[Gervaise]

It wasn't quite as simply as that.   Reading the Dalish myth of Arlathan and comparing it with what we are told in DAI and Trespasser, plus studying the timeline given in World of Thedas, I think it went something like this.

 

Elven Empire ruled over by the evanuris.   Dissenters led by Fen'Harel.    Dwarves originally led by Titans, but "freed" by evanuris (Mythal specifically).   Humans "appear" in Par Vollen and spread to the mainland as small, warring, barbarian tribes, probably nomadic.    If the ancient elves gave them any notice at all it was probably no more than as potential additional slaves or no different to other creatures.    The natives of Seheron do speak about the ancestors learning at the feet of the elves, so there may have been some friendly interaction.

 

Something bad reveals itself in the Deep Roads (Red lyrium perhaps?)   Evanuris want to tap into it.   Mythal wants to stop them.   Evanuris kill her.   Solas exacts revenge by tricking them into his trap (possibly telling them of a quick route through the Fade to the deep roads), then raises the Veil, trapping them but severing the other elves connection with the Fade.     In the ensuing chaos the humans become bolder in their interactions with the elves and probably fall on some of the weaker outlying settlements.  (It is possible that humans did not have magic until coming into contact with the elves but interbreeding brought the magic into human bloodlines)   Elves contract diseases from humans and also realise they are starting to die from old age.      Those born before the raising of the Veil decide to withdraw from the world and enter Uthenera to await a time when the gods will return to them.    Those born after the Veil, who were never immortal have the job of tending them down the years.    

 

Hundreds of years later, in the absence of the elves, the human tribes have grown in power.    In the absence of the evanuris, other spirit/gods become bolder and start talking to the human mages from the Fade.    As they explore the land, they come across ancient elven ruins and artefacts that increase their knowledge and power.  Tevinter has become the pre-eminent power in Thedas.   They start to spread eastwards into the Forest of Arlathan.   This causes the elves from the ancient settlement of that name to fight back, those in uthenera awakening to do so, just like those in Temple of Mythal did.    The Tevinter respond by fighting back and destroying the settlement of Arlathan.    It was but a shadow of the original city in the time of the evanuris but nevertheless it is this conquest that lodges into elven memory, particularly since any survivors are taken into captivity.    The Tevinter mages discover that the blood of elves is more potent in their magical experiments than the blood of other races, except those who also have magical ability.   So they make a point of enslaving and breeding the elves to ensure their survival and use in their experiments.

 

However, the humans have no idea that Arlathan they destroyed wasn't the real deal or that the elven gods were real and the myth of their entrapment was true.    So they have no reason to try and recover what once was since they assume that their power proved the superior.     I think the reason Corypheus was aware of the nature of the vallaslin was that he obtained much knowledge from the memories contained in Solas' orb and it was this that gave him the idea of finding the Well of Sorrows (as mentioned in a codex found in the Arbor Wilds).    As for the foci that Dorian recalls seeing in pictures of the time from before the Dreamers, may be the Tevinter  of that time did discover them in elven ruins, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were able to activate them.   Alternatively they did activate them but they did something different to Solas' but it was the use of the foci that actually allowed Tevinter the edge over their neighbours and the whispering of the spirits that gave them the knowledge to use them.

[Master Warder Z_]

but I'm confident that if Tevinter hadn't swooped in and enslaved them all they would have sorted themselves out.  

 

:/

 

Because mindsets like that the west had a forty year cold war with the USSR.

 

Don't follow up war with war they said, let them sort themselves out, that Stalin fella won't last.

 

He didn't but his country did. If anything, that place should have been hit by the hammer when it was weak, you attack when the foe doesn't see it coming, and you hit them unrelentingly. You ensure they can NEVER rise against you again, even if you have to do bad things. Tevinter ensured that the elven empire wasn't going coming back, even unintentionally they erased a civilization that could have threatened peace.

 

They should feel good about that, even if they misunderstand what they did.

[Seraphim24]

Hundreds of years later, in the absence of the elves, the human tribes have grown in power.    In the absence of the evanuris, other spirit/gods become bolder and start talking to the human mages from the Fade.    As they explore the land, they come across ancient elven ruins and artefacts that increase their knowledge and power.  Tevinter has become the pre-eminent power in Thedas.   They start to spread eastwards into the Forest of Arlathan.   This causes the elves from the ancient settlement of that name to fight back, those in uthenera awakening to do so, just like those in Temple of Mythal did.    The Tevinter respond by fighting back and destroying the settlement of Arlathan.    It was but a shadow of the original city in the time of the evanuris but nevertheless it is this conquest that lodges into elven memory, particularly since any survivors are taken into captivity.    The Tevinter mages discover that the blood of elves is more potent in their magical experiments than the blood of other races, except those who also have magical ability.   So they make a point of enslaving and breeding the elves to ensure their survival and use in their experiments.

 

However, the humans have no idea that Arlathan they destroyed wasn't the real deal or that the elven gods were real and the myth of their entrapment was true.    So they have no reason to try and recover what once was since they assume that their power proved the superior.     I think the reason Corypheus was aware of the nature of the vallaslin was that he obtained much knowledge from the memories contained in Solas' orb and it was this that gave him the idea of finding the Well of Sorrows (as mentioned in a codex found in the Arbor Wilds).    As for the foci that Dorian recalls seeing in pictures of the time from before the Dreamers, may be the Tevinter  of that time did discover them in elven ruins, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were able to activate them.   Alternatively they did activate them but they did something different to Solas' but it was the use of the foci that actually allowed Tevinter the edge over their neighbours and the whispering of the spirits that gave them the knowledge to use them.

 

And the those Elves couldn't have just mentioned this though?

 

Then it would be back on humans for failing to exercise a rational judgment which is that these people are telling the truth and there is greater power to be had.

[Seraphim24]

:/

 

Because mindsets like that the west had a forty year cold war with the USSR.

 

Don't follow up war with war they said, let them sort themselves out, that Stalin fella won't last.

 

He didn't but his country did. If anything, that place should have been hit by the hammer when it was weak, you attack when the foe doesn't see it coming, and you hit them unrelentingly. You ensure they can NEVER rise against you again, even if you have to do bad things. Tevinter ensured that the elven empire wasn't going coming back, even unintentionally they erased a civilization that could have threatened peace.

 

They should feel good about that, even if they misunderstand what they did.

 

Not to get super-historical, but my understanding is this is completely backwards... like one of the problems continental Europe has had is (well one they had all these conflicts) but also every conflict would end with one side doing something disagreeable to the the other side at the end of it all, whether it's the Hundred Years War, he War of Spanish Succession, Austrian Succession.. 7 years war... 30 years war, Franco-Prussian, WW1, WW2 the victors would always go too far trying to ruin who they were fighting.

 

And in doing so creates the basis for the following conflict.

 

Not to mention, in this particular instance, there isn't really any indication what the Elves of DA were doing in the first place that was so harmful, Tevinter just attacked them. 

 

Imagine a bunch of friends playing D&D at a park, having ginger ale, eating pizza, and their actually talented with special powers that other people in the universe don't even have yet which can provide benefits to a larger group of people, and then a bunch of people suddenly hop over the fence attack, murder, enslave, and kill the rest, and also never show any interest in those powers in the first place.

 

That's at least how it was presented in DA1, it seems that was partially changed in DA3.

 

That's Tevinter.

[In Exile]

But since you brought it up: The Dales did let Montsimmard be sacked by darkspawn. Also, in that same Blight the Tevinter Imperium abandoned the Anderfels to the ravages of the darkspawn (which was worse because that was part of their own territory at the time). In the Fourth Blight, the Tevinter Imperium also refused to send any aid to any other nation. And Orlais did not send anything more than token help. So leaving others to die at the hands of darkspawn is not something only elves are guilty of. 

 

Let me preface this by saying this is all a side point - I'm not attempting to defend the post you are responding to in your own post. 

 

Hold on - are you suggesting that Tevinter has something other than incredibly hostile relations with its neighbors? Do you think Orlais would hesitate to obliterate and conquer Tevinter if it had the means? Gaspard even starts a war in one of his endings. 

 

Letting Montsimmard burn is totally a casus belli and a legitimate basis for future hostility. Now we can debate whether or not that decision was influence by something other than politics - I say racism, you say no - but what we can't debate is that it's absolute poison for future political relationships. 

 

The reason why letting the darkspawn sack it is important when we're talking about the Dales - and this is quite apart, again, from how we view the racial tension angle undercuting the Montsimmard decision - is that it provides the backdrop for why Orlais and the Dales had a period of very high tension. Then we have a Dalish elite military unit massacring an Orlesian town. Again, the true story is more complicated, and we can debate to what degree the "Dales" are at fault (in a sense, they're completely innocent, because this was an AWOL group, but depending on what they likely did after, probably totally at fault). But this is yet another thing that triggers conflict.

 

The historical narrative is that we had two regional powers with a history of tension. Can't really say the Dales were the victims to the initial conflict. After, obviously. The Orlesians perpetrated a genocide and basically went down the list for every crime agianst humanity you could perpetrate. 

 

But what the history does undercut is the story that Orlais attacked because of racism and expansionism. In fact, based on the early Dalish victories, it's unlikely they attacked at all.

[Aimi]

3) I'm talking about what happens to marginalised groups within a society and their relationship with said society. Therefore, the example of Qunari in Kirkwall is a perfect example. 
It illustrates a pattern that happens ALL OVER THE PLACE, BE IT FICTION OR NON FICTION, because antagonising sentiments naturally emerge between different cultures that happen to be forced upon each other, with the prevalent one imposing the terms of the relationship. 
 
There's even a NAME for it in academic circles: the clash of civilizations, a theory proposed by the political scientist Samuel Huntington.

Leaving the actual content of the respective posts here aside, it's worth pointing out that Huntington's widely mocked, and among actual historians the only ones who think his "clash of civilizations" idea has any merit at all based on the evidence are the ones of a...certain extremist political bent. I can't speak for the political science wing of the academy, obviously.

[Aimi]

But what the history does undercut is the story that Orlais attacked because of racism and expansionism. In fact, based on the early Dalish victories, it's unlikely they attacked at all.

This is a dangerous argument to make, and one that's had unfortunate consequences for real life.

The campaigns of August 1914, at the outbreak of the First World War, resulted in an almost total German victory across all fronts. In the west, French forces were devastated in the Battles of the Frontiers, whereby in two engagements on either side of the Metz-Diedenhofen fortress complex four separate French armies were shattered by German troops and pursued inside French territory. More German troops swept through Belgium, dismantled the relatively small Belgian military, and then eviscerated another French field army and the British Expeditionary Force on their way into northern France. In the east, the Germans attacked a Russian army in the Battle of Gumbinnen, which resulted in a tactical draw, and then began to redeploy for what would become the decisive Battle of Tannenberg, where an entire Russian field army was comprehensively destroyed.

By the beginning of September, German troops were deep inside France, nearing Paris, and had almost totally overrun Belgium; this situation would continue for the rest of the war.

The standards we're applying to the Exalted March would mean that we'd be compelled to say that it's likely that the Germans were the aggressors in the war. After all, their armies won all the initial battles and launched an offensive into their enemy's heartland. Qvod erat demonstrandvm. Indeed, that narrative dominated the historiography of the war for nearly a century, with lavish embellishments from Entente wartime propaganda.

A cursory neutral examination of the available evidence, though, leads one to the exact opposite conclusion. French and Russian armies mobilized before Germany's (in Russia's case, long before Germany's); the German government was still trying to keep the peace when the French and Russians, beholden to their mobilization time-tables agreed in their military alliance, were already set on war. French troops violated German territory first, and even deployed to march into Belgium before it even became clear that the Germans would invade that country. After a morale-boosting French attaque brusquée on Mülhausen in the first days of the war, the French launched one attack on German Lorraine that was defeated at Morhange, and another through Belgian Luxembourg that was crushed in the Ardennes.

What doomed German efforts to paint their conflict as the politically defensive war it was in the beginning, was the success of Germany's army. Fighting outnumbered on two fronts, the German military managed to win the initial engagements so decisively - and follow them up with pursuits like any sane military commander would - that it seemed as though they had been on the attack all along. Had the German military not been so well-trained, perhaps that particular myth wouldn't have arisen.

So Orlais' initial defeats don't necessarily mean that the Orlesian leadership didn't escalate what happened at Red Crossing into a war expressly to mount an imperialistic war of genocidal conquest. Perhaps it did do exactly that, but it was just bad at implementation.

[Master Warder Z_]

If only!



Sadly only half that statement can be true! Orlais obviously ended up reclaiming the Dales and dispersing its population but...the population obviously survived as elves persist... Like weeds.

[ModernAcademic]

Leaving the actual content of the respective posts here aside, it's worth pointing out that Huntington's widely mocked, and among actual historians the only ones who think his "clash of civilizations" idea has any merit at all based on the evidence are the ones of a...certain extremist political bent. I can't speak for the political science wing of the academy, obviously.

 

He is mandatory reading in Political Science and International Relations.

 

If he's mocked by one political current, his theory is commonly present in academic papers, dissertations and thesis. 

 

He's like Bourdieu for those who specialize in Social Studies.

[Aimi]

He is mandatory reading in Political Science and International Relations.
 
If he's mocked by one political current, his theory is commonly present in academic papers, dissertations and thesis. 
 
He's like Bourdieu for those who specialize in Social Studies.

I certainly hope your appraisal of how widely read he is in international-relations courses is faulty, because it would be a shame if so much of that field was based on...well...the flimsiest of historical evidentiary bases.

[In Exile]

This is a dangerous argument to make, and one that's had unfortunate consequences for real life.

The campaigns of August 1914, at the outbreak of the First World War, resulted in an almost total German victory across all fronts. In the west, French forces were devastated in the Battles of the Frontiers, whereby in two engagements on either side of the Metz-Diedenhofen fortress complex four separate French armies were shattered by German troops and pursued inside French territory. More German troops swept through Belgium, dismantled the relatively small Belgian military, and then eviscerated another French field army and the British Expeditionary Force on their way into northern France. In the east, the Germans attacked a Russian army in the Battle of Gumbinnen, which resulted in a tactical draw, and then began to redeploy for what would become the decisive Battle of Tannenberg, where an entire Russian field army was comprehensively destroyed.

By the beginning of September, German troops were deep inside France, nearing Paris, and had almost totally overrun Belgium; this situation would continue for the rest of the war.

The standards we're applying to the Exalted March would mean that we'd be compelled to say that it's likely that the Germans were the aggressors in the war. After all, their armies won all the initial battles and launched an offensive into their enemy's heartland. Qvod erat demonstrandvm. Indeed, that narrative dominated the historiography of the war for nearly a century, with lavish embellishments from Entente wartime propaganda.

A cursory neutral examination of the available evidence, though, leads one to the exact opposite conclusion. French and Russian armies mobilized before Germany's (in Russia's case, long before Germany's); the German government was still trying to keep the peace when the French and Russians, beholden to their mobilization time-tables agreed in their military alliance, were already set on war. French troops violated German territory first, and even deployed to march into Belgium before it even became clear that the Germans would invade that country. After a morale-boosting French attaque brusquée on Mülhausen in the first days of the war, the French launched one attack on German Lorraine that was defeated at Morhange, and another through Belgian Luxembourg that was crushed in the Ardennes.

What doomed German efforts to paint their conflict as the politically defensive war it was in the beginning, was the success of Germany's army. Fighting outnumbered on two fronts, the German military managed to win the initial engagements so decisively - and follow them up with pursuits like any sane military commander would - that it seemed as though they had been on the attack all along. Had the German military not been so well-trained, perhaps that particular myth wouldn't have arisen.

So Orlais' initial defeats don't necessarily mean that the Orlesian leadership didn't escalate what happened at Red Crossing into a war expressly to mount an imperialistic war of genocidal conquest. Perhaps it did do exactly that, but it was just bad at implementation.

 

This is a fascinating discussion to have - let me preface this by saying thank you for the post - and I'll have to look into the issue further before commenting. Because it seems to me that the parallel breaks down when we examine the reasons for the German defeat. Apart from the fact that the Allies, as I recall, didn't truly march into Germany proper in WWI (though really that was just a consequence of the surrender), I recall that the Allies had a much greater material difference in troops. Or to put it differently, numbers played a significant part in WWI in a way I don't think we can say played a part in the Orlesian-Elven war. 

[JJ Likeaprayer]

I agree with the title. Not just elves are mostly slaves for human and dwarf,but they're also being sacrificed and killed all the f*ing time! If you read some of the letters in DA games,the elves are being treated like chickens...every time I read them I just wish in the new DA game there's more we could do for the poor elves.

[Aimi]

This is a fascinating discussion to have - let me preface this by saying thank you for the post - and I'll have to look into the issue further before commenting. Because it seems to me that the parallel breaks down when we examine the reasons for the German defeat. Apart from the fact that the Allies, as I recall, didn't truly march into Germany proper in WWI (though really that was just a consequence of the surrender), I recall that the Allies had a much greater material difference in troops. Or to put it differently, numbers played a significant part in WWI in a way I don't think we can say played a part in the Orlesian-Elven war.

Oh, I didn't want to make a one-to-one comparison of the Exalted March and the Great War, especially in terms of how they ended. It was just about the specific mechanics of the outbreak of the conflict(s). In the absence of an actual canonical statement on the topic, we can't be sure that the Orlesians didn't play the greater role in starting the war - er, escalating the conflict from the 'incident' at Red Crossing - simply because they lost the opening rounds.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Let me preface this by saying this is all a side point - I'm not attempting to defend the post you are responding to in your own post. 

 

Hold on - are you suggesting that Tevinter has something other than incredibly hostile relations with its neighbors? Do you think Orlais would hesitate to obliterate and conquer Tevinter if it had the means? Gaspard even starts a war in one of his endings. 

 

Letting Montsimmard burn is totally a casus belli and a legitimate basis for future hostility. Now we can debate whether or not that decision was influence by something other than politics - I say racism, you say no - but what we can't debate is that it's absolute poison for future political relationships. 

 

The reason why letting the darkspawn sack it is important when we're talking about the Dales - and this is quite apart, again, from how we view the racial tension angle undercuting the Montsimmard decision - is that it provides the backdrop for why Orlais and the Dales had a period of very high tension. Then we have a Dalish elite military unit massacring an Orlesian town. Again, the true story is more complicated, and we can debate to what degree the "Dales" are at fault (in a sense, they're completely innocent, because this was an AWOL group, but depending on what they likely did after, probably totally at fault). But this is yet another thing that triggers conflict.

 

The historical narrative is that we had two regional powers with a history of tension. Can't really say the Dales were the victims to the initial conflict. After, obviously. The Orlesians perpetrated a genocide and basically went down the list for every crime agianst humanity you could perpetrate. 

 

But what the history does undercut is the story that Orlais attacked because of racism and expansionism. In fact, based on the early Dalish victories, it's unlikely they attacked at all.

 

Well when it comes to the question of condemning inaction against the Blight, I don't really think international relations matter, given the the overriding importance of stopping the darkspawn horde. They threaten all life, not just Orlais or Tevinter. Also, it doesn't even really apply in every case anyway, such as the Imperium abandoning their own conquered province in the Second Blight.

 

And when it comes to the question of the deterioration of Dales/Orlais relations, the most comprehensive accounts tell us it was never about one issue. The elves' passivity during destruction of Montsimmard may have been a big deal and an early point of contention, but Ameridan's comments make it sound like relations were already becoming frosty even back then. And it was over 80 years between the sack of Montsimmard and the start of the Dales/Orlesian War, it wouldn't really have been the most directly relevant of all the issues. 

 

Secondly, The Dales being racist or xenophobic and wanting war is not mutually exclusive with Orlais being racist and expansionist and also wanting war. Drakon was a conqueror.And the Chantry did become angry that the Dales rejected their presence. One side attacking first doesn't necessarily make the other side nothing but a peaceful victim of aggression. Both sides fought border skirmishes for years before Red Crossing, after all.

[BioWareMod02]

Hello everyone. Please keep it on topic and avoid historical debates. Thank you.

[Seraphim24]

Hello everyone. Please keep it on topic and avoid historical debates. Thank you.

 

Bummer! I like reading about historical debates....

[Xilizhra]

Some people have a fetish for abusing the weak. Sometimes, you can tell by the uniform, but other times they hide. Thankfully, threads like this allow them to expose themselves.

[ModernAcademic]

I don't know, man. Wolf in sheep's clothing. Strong or abusive people more than often twist the truth so much they make themselves look weak and harmless. And then, they can continue exploiting the true weak far away from the public eye.

 

Victimisation is an efficient means of cohercion. Especially if you have enough power and influence to silence those who would expose you for what you truly are.