Ulfric might not be racist after all

[NemesisTheWarlock]

Kind of my point. The game is limited in scope regarding race and interracial crossover, so it's kind of a moot point. The Dragonborn could well be a Nord but, due to parentage, you have the choice of any race. Effectively, the game is predominantly made up of clearly defined racial groupings although the world is meant to allow for all races to interbreed. The only conclusion I can see to reasonably draw from this is that the world of TES has a radically different view of racism to what we are used to and virtually everyone is racist, making it very hard to put such simple labels on individuals.

[Lachdonin]

That would be a largely accurate depiction of the world. Even the Imperials, who have spend almost a thousand years trying to foster good interracial relations, are still racist, believing that THEIR acceptance make them superior to the others.

 

Of course, Tamriel is fundamentally different than our world, because for the most part the races ARE different. For us, race is largely an illusion created by skin tones and perpetuated by social upbringing, but on Tamriel the races are fundamentally different. The differences tend to be brought about through magic or divine pacts, but it makes them far more pronounced than anything you can see in the real world.

[swiftfoxmark2]

I love how people always point to the treatment of the Dunmer and Argonians as evidence of Ulfric's racism, forgetting the recent history with both races (the Argonian war with Dunmer for example) and they forget about two significant citizens in the main shop areas: Niranye and Nurelion. Both are High Elves, who have every reason to be despised by the Nords of Windhelm being that the Thalmor are mostly high elves, and yet both own shops. While Niranye has a market stall, Nurelion has his own building.

 

Neither of those two things would have occurred without the Jarl's approval. Secondly, recall this quote from Niranye:

"It was difficult at first. The Nords of this city are, at best, suspicious of outsiders. But in time, I made the right friends and proved myself useful enough that they don't give me trouble anymore. The dark elves are too proud and naive to understand the way things truly are, and so they continue to dwell in that slum"

 

The Dark Elves indeed are a proud race and more than likely are demanding equal treatment from a people whose land they did not settle in and have no real stake in.

 

And the Argonians are dangerous. They were the only group to repel Dagan's invasion, even having their armies chase the Dremora into Oblivion itself, besides the Imperials of course and that was only through divine intervention. The Argonians only had the Hist and their own might.

 

This does not justify their treatment, but when seen through the perspective of a leader, it becomes much more clear. You have a race of elves who are known Daedra worshippers and a race of reptiles who are know to have taken on Daedra and claim victory.

 

The truth is, while Ulfric may be racist, in the literal definition of the term, he is not stupid enough to be intolerate of others. He clearly is willing to show favor to the right kinds of people, that is, the people who are willing to adapt to Nord culture rather than try and overtake it.

[SayinNuthin]

 

Well... First, i think you're misunderstanding what egalitarian is. Thats fine, a lot of people don't understand it. "Egalitarian" is a system of self organization in which the number of positions of power and influence is equal to the number of qualified individuals to fill them. That is, anyone who is good at leading, gets to be a leader.

 

Second, the creation of a definition requires that you create a description of a term or idea which includes every essential characteristic of that term or idea, but cannot be confused with anything else. Dictionaries fail at this criteria miserably because they try to include common usages, slang and idioms rather than DEFINING words.

 

Third. The Roman, Indian, British as well as several 'Business Empires' have all been highly enabling to their subjects, in many cases more so than individual nations were capable. The Romans facilitated trade and technology throughout Europe, connection cultures thousands of kilometers apart through trade, and contrary to the popular belief many of the upper-class citizens through the mid and late Empire were NOT Italian, but natives of the provinces. Similarly, the British Empire (second) drove the economies of Canada, South Africa, Australia and India from the point of bare subsistence to a substantial surplus (looking at the fishery industry in Canada is a grand example of this dynamic) and, just like the Romans, the late Empire had more colonial wealthy and educated people than it did in Britain proper.

 

The misconception about Empires is that they work ONE way. They don't, the flow of wealth, culture and education is two way, and at a highly accelerated rate than you see with standard international relationships. The problem lies in the centralized power, which leaves it more prone to mass-abuse, which, though infrequent, tends to be what history remembers most.

 

 

You make many excellent points here. I'd always understood Egalitarian as describing the kind of meritocracy where a indigenous Tasmanian, for example could become an administrator in the British Colonial service, were he able to demonstrate the appropriate abilities... But then he couldn't could he? Because we exterminated the race.

 

We hunted them down like dogs and did our best to kill every last man, woman and child...

 

Of course that is unfair to the British Empire which achieved many fine things across the world, of which my personal favourite is the railroads. It's just a pity that the benefits the railroads (and communications, rule of law etc.) were a bye-product, were not actually motivated by altruism were they? And we had entirely pragmatic reasons for creating these things and when the native peoples were 'too' affluent, like the Pacific Northwest Canadian tribes, well then stern measures needed to be taken.

 

We will dance when our laws command us to dance, we will feast when our hearts desire to feast. Do we ask the white man, 'Do as the Indian does'? No, we do not. Why, then, will you ask us, 'Do as the white man does'? It is a strict law that bids us to dance. It is a strict law that bids us to distribute our property among our friends and neighbors. It is a good law. Let the white man observe his law; we shall observe ours. And now, if you are come to forbid us to dance, begone; if not, you will be welcome to us.

 

Said Chief O'wax̱a̱laga̱lis of the Kwagu'ł. The British response, we banned his tribes most important ceremonies.

 

I do sincerely take your point that in the long term empires seem beneficial to a subject peoples but it appears to me that in many cases this is partly due to the collapse of an empire often leading to a barbarian and disease ridden era in which the empire in question then invariably appears to be a golden age - I've actually met old Egyptian guys who complained about America and bemoaned the loss of Britain’s 'influence' and then central Africa's post colonial history is really too dire to get into here.

 

But the single shining achievement of the British Empire would have to be the abolition of slavery. We get brownie points for that one, our motives for once were good and no-one else was in a position (had enough ships) to do it. A real pity that those ships were manned by men pressed into service against their will - Still it's the thought that counts eh, :blush:

 

[edit] Are you on Historum forums?

Edited February 3, 2014 by SayinNuthin

[WickedRequiem]

Not really.

British Empire's move to end the slave trade was to limit French Empire's access to cheap labor force after British Empire no longer had the need to import such in form of slaves.

[SayinNuthin]

Not really.

British Empire's move to end the slave trade was to limit French Empire's access to cheap labor force after British Empire no longer had the need to import such in form of slaves.

 

I think I've come across that idea, but trying to be generous in 'interpreting motivations' (which is what reading history comes down to, no?)

 

Lachdonin obviously knows far more, about different empires than I. But I grew up in the British one that is generally held to be a moderately benevolent, reasonably successful example of what an empire 'Could' be and my point is, it really wasn’t that good... And if that was a good (or not completely lousy) example then a bad one like the Aztecs must have been desperately f**king vile! therefore the 'Empire model' of rule IS fundamentally, intrinsically flawed.

Edited February 12, 2014 by SayinNuthin

[Lachdonin]

therefore the 'Empire model' of rule IS fundamentally, intrinsically flawed.

 

 

The main problem with that line of thinking (and i agree with all the things you've said, and don't dispute that every empire to date has done some rather horrific things) is that you can't narrow down the cause to Empires. Tribal's, Peasant Societies and even national States ALL do the same thing. To attribute something to the nature of the Empire that is, frankly, endemic to human civilization is (in most cases) an attempt by modern historical revisionism. We don't want to admit that we have a problem, so we blame it all on the 'Empires of Old' rather than examining the real cause.

 

I'm not saying that we have, thus far, had a good empire. But the structure of a definition is such that it CANNOT define something else. This is where dictionaries tend to fail, because they try to create as broad a 'definition' as they can. But defining Empire as something which, by its nature, commits atrocities and is based on 'Inequality and dominance' describes just about every system of government known to man.

 

And no, i am not on Historum forums, though you have peaked my interest... Dammit, i have too many forums as it is >_>

[LeddBate]

This is an incredible thread. Please don't stop posting guys. Even your arguments with each other are brilliant. Incredible food-for-thought going on here.

 

What really fascinates me about TES series is that we're witness to an entire world's history being created. And it is apparently really pushing our emotional buttons (witness threads like this one) and that means that the writers are really doing a fantastic job (even if you don't agree with some of their directions.)

 

Oh, yeah. My take. Not everybody is racist in the world of Tamriel, but I do believe that the cultures depicted all certainly are to at least some extent. The comment above about races in TES being literally different as opposed to the artificial differences in our world really made me think about it quite a bit.

 

Ulfric may not be racist (at least not overly) but he is certainly too caught up in his emotions to be anything but an arrogant jerk to anyone who disagrees with him. I got THAT impression real clear when I helped broker the cease-fire (pardon, truce) so that I could get on with the job of capturing a dragon and, you know, prevent everyone from eventually getting eaten by Alduin and his proteges.

Edited February 13, 2014 by LeddBate

[SayinNuthin]

 

therefore the 'Empire model' of rule IS fundamentally, intrinsically flawed.

 

 

The main problem with that line of thinking (and i agree with all the things you've said, and don't dispute that every empire to date has done some rather horrific things) is that you can't narrow down the cause to Empires. Tribal's, Peasant Societies and even national States ALL do the same thing. To attribute something to the nature of the Empire that is, frankly, endemic to human civilization is (in most cases) an attempt by modern historical revisionism. We don't want to admit that we have a problem, so we blame it all on the 'Empires of Old' rather than examining the real cause.

 

I'm not saying that we have, thus far, had a good empire. But the structure of a definition is such that it CANNOT define something else. This is where dictionaries tend to fail, because they try to create as broad a 'definition' as they can. But defining Empire as something which, by its nature, commits atrocities and is based on 'Inequality and dominance' describes just about every system of government known to man.

 

And no, i am not on Historum forums, though you have peaked my interest... Dammit, i have too many forums as it is >_>

 

 

Once more I concur with the thrust of your argument. But do you not feel that 'Empires represent some of the worst human attributes that have been amplified or DE-constrained, because they are systematized. The forming of a system somehow bypasses normal human checks like 'conscience' and normalizes what would be otherwise unacceptable - or at least questionable in non-empire conditions?

 

Pardon me I'm struggling to express my self here. Earlier you said the empire model's main problem is its power imbalance. I suggest this is only partly correct and call the writer Terry Pratchett to the stand :ohmy:

 

"There is only one sin, said Granny Weatherwax, an that's treating people as things" - Thank you Mr Pratchett.

 

Anyone disagree with that? Can you fault the ethical position of that statement Lachdonin? Because I propose that is exactly what empires do, it's what empires are for! An essential defining characteristic, without which an empire would not be an empire but some other form of collective.

 

Council concludes it's submission and thanks the Court for its attention...

 

 

 

 

[Lachdonin, I mostly hang out in 'Historum/General History' and 'try' to ask sensible questions, but there are extremely knowledgeable people there]

[SayinNuthin]

Ulfric may not be racist (at least not overly) but he is certainly too caught up in his emotions to be anything but an arrogant jerk to anyone who disagrees with him. I got THAT impression real clear when I helped broker the cease-fire (pardon, truce) so that I could get on with the job of capturing a dragon and, you know, prevent everyone from eventually getting eaten by Alduin and his proteges.

 

Which raises the question of what is racism? Someone with visceral feeling of xenophobia, certainly but a politician content to manipulate those feelings in others?

 

Hmmm, That would be trickier wouldn't it...