Yes, I read the link about the Other.
The thing is, you're completely missing the point. (Both what I have said, and also, apparently, the point of the thing you just linked to, since what you're arguing flies in the face of what it says. Did YOU read it? It's saying how belief in how race shapes culture is inherently distorting how one looks at history... which is exactly what you're trying to apply.)
No Kotaku, try again. Here, I'll help you:
The concept of "the other" is implicit. It is the opposite of "the self". Each person equates with people that person views as being "like the self". Eg, Humans will equate and understand other humas more than elves, because elves can never be human, and humans can never be elves. Elves aren't just another kind of person, they are a kind of person with traits humans can never have, and their place in literature is there to contrast what it means to be human, by NOT being human. The article points out that the ways that humans, being non-elves, will distort the reality of what elves are and represent, through their own cultural lense.
I don't particularly care why you think racism is fashionable all of a sudden, but that's completely beside the point of what I'm talking about.
Good grief Kotaku, give the "racisism is bad! My culture says so, and my culture is right! No, I am TOTALLY NOT injecting my own bias here, its a fundemental axiom!" Angle a rest here, pull away, and look at how your fundemental approach and line of argument is exactly what the linked article is warning against.
I am NOT advocating racism. I am saying it is real, and exists, and that your denouncement of it is a clouding of cultural waters.
We're talking about ways to make culture change procedurally. Making race the sole determinant of culture is inherently contrary to the goals of this thread. You're trying to talk about culture while at the same time trying to bind it entirely with race.
And YOU are trying to negate any and all implication that racial identity would have on culture, by saying it is too general! Under your paradigm, elves are just humans with pointy ears!
Definitionally, in order for procedural cultural changes to take place, it means that the binding of all dwarves being the same has to be loosened. Some dwarves are going to have to specialize in skills and arts that are totally different from other dwarves. Otherwise, there's no point.
And without hard setting racial influences on dwarves, you again make them no different from any other species, again betraying your intrinsic bias. Again. I am not saying all dwarves should end up the same. I am saying that dwarves are different from humans, fundementally, and should react to situations and stimuli differently.
Not only does this mean that there might be pacifist goblins, but they still exist in the game. Just create a world where goblins are assimilated into a human culture right now - there's going to be tons of them in the human civilization, and they're going to be thriving.
Yes, and they will be a minority, constantly fighting their innate nature. Eg, anomalies.
Strictly enforcing Planet of the Hats race stereotypes undermines the whole capacity of the game to actually simulate cause and effect as it pertains to culture or technology or ideas, and that's one of the game's greatest strengths.
And again, making them all McHumans, Now with BEARDS!(tm) and Pointy-Ears!(tm), by making all the different races share the same mechanic, makes then fundementally boring.
Why even bother talking about change or culture or simulation if you want to keep them black-and-white and isolated? These things only matter to a simulation in as far as the lines blur and interactions cause changes in both cultures, and the cultures that interact with those other cultures, as well.
I didn't say I wanted them to beblack and white. I said I wanted the directions their cultures to progress down to be appropriate to their biological imperitives. Why would an elf, who doesn't get sick ever, study medicine, for instance?
You can't look at late Medieval European history as something totally separate and distinct from the Muslim world, there's changes brought about by the influence of other cultures, and if you want to make a simulation, you have to recognize these things.
But in all instances of extant human civs, all the civs were humans, and shared human ambitions, and followed decidedly human qualities. Leaders rose to power, people fought over resources, and sought out ways to become the strong man. While the specifics of the cultures are different, they are all decidedly HUMAN cultures. What you seem unable to comprehend is that the paths elven cultures would go down would be INSANELY different from ANY human civ! I am not saying all humas have to be McHumanCiv. I am saying human civs should be HUMAN civs. VERY different beast! At this point I am beginning to question your objectivity and reading skills...
As for "economics", you can't just throw down that word as if it explains everything
The issue is that Economics only knows a LITTLE about how human exchange works and always tries to quantify it into cash or resources but doesn't understand the metaphysical because it cannot. Someone who lives purely by economics is a psychopath.
It is why some Economists are always trying to introduce additional systems of value.
No, that's not what I'm talking about, either.
I'm saying that you can't just say "economics" and act like it explains anything.
"Why is China rising to prominence as an economic superpower?" "Economics!"
"Why is Europe falling behind?" "Economics!"
"What is the cause of Detroit once being a massive engine of economic power, but now being a destitute wasteland of unemployment?" "Economics!"
Economics is a broad and very complex topic, and just saying the word doesn't explain jack shit.
Once again, Africa has cheap labor, just like Southeast Asia. Can you explain the Economics! of why that doesn't mean Africa is a superpower in high technology?
The problem is that we're trying to talk about the hows and whys of the rise and fall of civilization, and simply saying "Asians make things because economics!" is incredibly unhelpful and frustrating because we're just reducing the whole conversation to spouting jargon and buzzwords.
If you aren't conveying meaning when you are talking about something, helping someone to get to a deeper understanding of the subject matter, you're doing nothing but spouting noise. Nothing of value gets discussed at that level.
The reason is that the instability of the region makes the investment of infrastructure hazardous, and I have a counter example to yours.
The city of Gabarone, the capital of Botswana.
The city of Gabarone is experiencing fantastical economic and financial growth, as many major tech firms seek to capitalize on its relative political stability and low cost of employment. Many noteworthy firms, like seimens, cisco, microsoft, and pals have HEAVILY invested into the city's development.
So again, yes, 'economics!'
Specifically, the arbitrary association of value with a commodity or service, based on scarcity, and in this case, the subset of that discipline known as globalism, itself characterized by the efficient employment of trade networks for the benefit of the trading partners, as a means of increasing the standard of living by overcoming scarcity.
Eg, why you can buy strawberries out of season, and do so affordably.
In the specific light of the arguments that started this derailment:
It costs a fixed amount of resources to train a stone mason. They have to eat, they need a place to sleep, what they build at first will be of dubious quality, so yu have to sink development costs into their progression, and all that time, they could be doing work for you doing something they are moe knowledgeable or adept at-- this last is especially poingant, when discussing te training of a stone mason in an area devoid of local stone, like a savanah.
Contrast with the costs of sending for, and hiring an already trained stone mason, from an area with a surplus of stone, and a wealth of stone buildings that must be continually repaired.
The cost of hiring the stonemason, in the case of the savannah dwellers, is considerably lower! It does not make any financial sense to train a stonemason, when you can hire a competent one for a tiny fraction of the price. The savannah dwellers get all the benefits of a stone specialist culture, without paying anywhere close to the price.
The establishment of the trade connection allowing this hired service to be possible, is a trade network. The rise and fall of these networks is known as globalization, and the equitale exchange of goods for services over these networks is called economics.
Much like you most likely do not sew up your own clothing, but instead buy them from a store, because it is less expensive in resources (especially time), and thus are unlikely to have specialist knowledge of tailoring clothing, a network of friendly civilizations will naturally compartmentalize knowledge, because it is not financially reasonable to mass replicate.
The exceptions to this will be in cases where the costs of doing business exceed the cost savings of doing business, making the development and retention of an industrial skill valuable.
Because of this, if the skill is in very high demand, there will be local artisans to meet that demand. Otherwise, if that artisinal skill can be obtained for trade, and demand is low, there won't be. Again, the study of relationships and trades over these networks, is called 'economics'.
Author
Topic: Working through Medieval stasis (Read 31639 times)