I will give Ulfric credit

[Linsolv]

Khajiit are not allowed in cities

there is like that in many cities because of so much thieves and skooma dealers within khajiits. and as i saw in thalmor embassy. i guess the empire is really weak now.

 

That's racism at it's best. "Can't let black people into our store because they're all thieves" is racist, and it's obviously racism. But for some reason Khajiit are different?

[Scribblesix]

Yes, though the skyrim NPC's are generally poorly written Ulfric and paarthurnax have at least a sembilance of character. What I do feel was done poorely was the NPC coments on Ulfric, without exceptional they are all 'he's a self serving upstart'. I think the game would have been better served by making them more balanced and nuanced. Have people talk about what a great__warrior/Nord/hero___ he was but how he changed after the war (I'm guessing his capture by the thalmor is not common knowledge). I suppose one problem is that a lot of people wrote the dialogue regarding one character so a lot of it doesn't quite fit.

[eltucu]

I'm really flabbergasted, to be honest, by the supposition that the dark elves in Windhelm are that bad, or even the Argonians. Khajiit are not allowed in cities. This is closer to real-life historical racism

Actually, i think that being "mean" to the dunmer is almost like beign "mean" to some ppl "just" cuz they're nazi war criminals.

 

I mean, the Dunmer are almost as bad as the Thalmor. They dont just think they're over everybody, they ENSLAVED both argonians and khajiits for YEARS. Hell, we have that story of Cyrus freeing some Khajiiti slaves in the comic, not surprisingly portrayed as a sort of concentration camp, and thats back in the 2nd era. The Dunmer didnt stopped until half their province blew up and the argonians took the other half for themselves.

 

If the "grey quarter" should be called something, im not calling it racism, im calling it karma.

[Lachdonin]

I'm really flabbergasted, to be honest, by the supposition that the dark elves in Windhelm are that bad, or even the Argonians. Khajiit are not allowed in cities. This is closer to real-life historical racism

Actually, i think that being "mean" to the dunmer is almost like beign "mean" to some ppl "just" cuz they're nazi war criminals.

 

I mean, the Dunmer are almost as bad as the Thalmor. They dont just think they're over everybody, they ENSLAVED both argonians and khajiits for YEARS. Hell, we have that story of Cyrus freeing some Khajiiti slaves in the comic, not surprisingly portrayed as a sort of concentration camp, and thats back in the 2nd era. The Dunmer didnt stopped until half their province blew up and the argonians took the other half for themselves.

 

If the "grey quarter" should be called something, im not calling it racism, im calling it karma.

 

Thats... Historicly incorrect.

 

First, yes, the Dunmer did keep slaves, but it was more in line with the Roman concept of slaves. It was part of an economic model which relied on masses of cheap labour which could only be attained through Slavery. Even then, slavery wasn't a death sentance, and we have examples of former slaves being granted freedom and becomming land holders. It was more of a forced Indentured Servitude than proper slavery.

 

Second, they are NOT anything near as bad as the Thalmor. The Thalmor are expansionistic, the Dunmer were insular. With the exception of occational slave raids (most Morrowind slaves were born into slavery) the Dunmer rarely left Morrowind. Never did they try to take over the world, even during the 5ish thousand years where they were literally ruled by gods.

 

Third, House Drez, the last paramount of the slave trade (They provided House Telvanii) renounced slavery just prior to the Oblivion Crisis, at least 20 years BEFORE Redmountain errupted. Considering the obscenely insular nature of House Telvanii, its unlikely they led any slave raids themselves, so the only slaves remaining in Morrowind would have been in their possition for at least two decades.

 

The Dunmer got what was comming to them when their gods died. They got more than they gave when Red Mountain errupted and the Argonians attacked. Their treatment in Windhelm is just out of racial spite, and has nothing to do with karma.

 

As Sul puts it in Lord of Souls, Skyrim handed control of Solsthiem to the Dunmer not as a gesture of good will, but because they had minimal control there and the Dunmer were going to settle anyway. There is no altruism in either the relinquishing of Solsthiem, or accepting refugees into Windhelm. It was simply something they couldn't stop without looking like the bad guy, so they saved face by playing the 'gratious host', and they are increasingly showing their true colours.

 

Of course, this isn't restricted only to Windhelm, its just the most obvious there.

[lilrhys]

I only joined the Stormcloaks because my character wants ultimate rule of Tamriel and he believes in order to do so he should follow Tiber Septim/Hjalti Early-Beard/Talos (whatever you want to call him)' s way and befriend a local war-lord (Ulfric) and serve as a heroic General (Battle of Whiterun/Solitude) and become renouned throughout the land as a hero and then lead this warlords army on the Imperial City and retake the throne for the Dragonborn Emperors. The reason I didn't take the Imperial path was that I doubt Titus Mede would like to lose his family's throne that they gained from a power-vacuum after the death of Martin Septim.

 

So in my opinion both sides leaders aren't heroes and in all honesty Ulfric only gets the hate is because it is shown throughout the game unlike with Mede where you see him as an Old Man who can't even defend himself. Also, the replacement for Ulfric as High King would be Elisif who isn't a natural leader unlike Ulfric who can rally a whole people behind him.

[Sky999]

"Can't let black people into our store because they're all thieves" is racist

 

Yeah...but it's all relative in-game, Khajit are banned from towns, yes, but they're not hanging from trees outside of Whiterun either.

[eltucu]

Thats... Historicly incorrect.

Oh my, i messed up the dates!

 

First, yes, the Dunmer did keep slaves, but it was more in line with the Roman concept of slaves. It was part of an economic model which relied on masses of cheap labour which could only be attained through Slavery. Even then, slavery wasn't a death sentance, and we have examples of former slaves being granted freedom and becomming land holders. It was more of a forced Indentured Servitude than proper slavery.

I think you dont know the meaning of slavery if you think that forced servitude is not slavery: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slavery

1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.

2.

a. The practice of owning slaves.

b. A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.

3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.

4. A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery.

What you're describing is exactly what i said it was. Besides, that their economic model was based on slavery actually makes them repugnant.

 

Second, they are NOT anything near as bad as the Thalmor.

Relative, its your opinion. I think the difference is that the Dominion feel that they must show the world that they're better, wheter the dunmer are contempt with just feeling that they're better (except for the slavery issue of course, that very well falls into the "enforcing the idea that they're better" category).

 

Third, House Drez, the last paramount of the slave trade (They provided House Telvanii) renounced slavery just prior to the Oblivion Crisis, at least 20 years BEFORE Redmountain errupted. Considering the obscenely insular nature of House Telvanii, its unlikely they led any slave raids themselves, so the only slaves remaining in Morrowind would have been in their possition for at least two decades.

Again, that makes them any better because... mild slavery is good?

 

"Enslave them! But just a little" Forced servitude, slavery, whatever you want to call it, is degrading. For both the Dunmer and the ppl they enslaved. For former it makes them a bunch of stupids who think they can own the lives of others, and for the latter makes them miserable knowing that their life depends and revolves around the will of another being. I dont care how well you want to disguise it.

 

The Dunmer got what was comming to them when their gods died.

No, they got to everybody else's level. They were literally false gods. Gods that stole their godhood from Lorkhan power. That sent them to square 1, there is no payback in killing some important political and religious figure when the suffering they caused was much, much greater, reaching all castes of the ppl they enslaved. You're going to tell me that a bunch of dunmer questioning their beliefs is enough?

 

They got more than they gave when Red Mountain errupted and the Argonians attacked.

Now this is when the sht got all over them. That they lost their gods was something that was supposed to happen, something that eventually would happen. The Tribunal knew it. So their disappearance was just returning them to statu quo, where they should be compared to the rest of the races. After that, both the eruption of the Red Mountain and the Argonian invasion was, as i see it, what took them back from where they reached though the exploitation of other races.

 

Their treatment in Windhelm is just out of racial spite

Exactly, just like them back in Morrowind. They could be glad that Ulfric doesnt wants to "spend" them building new fortifications for Windhelm like Ysgramor did with the falmer. Dont look at me like that! Its "forced servitude" , not slavery!

[Lachdonin]

Sorry to burst your ethnocentric bubble, Eltucu, but making blanket judgements based on your own morals is bad arguementation. The fact that we, in this infidesimal speck of temporal existance don't approve of slavery does not make it universally wrong. It's a subjective concept whose morality varries from culture to culture. There are also very specific differances which come out in anthropological studies and papers which are not represented in the 'dictionary definition'.

 

You also seem to be missing the whole point of my statements. That being, the Dunmer gave up slavery. Almost a generation before the Argonians invaded. While i may agree with you that slavery is an abhorable economic base (but, as i said, one of socially subjective morality) we clearly differ on the legitimacy of taking revenge for ones ancestors. Its just as reprehensable, maybe even more so, to kill on the basis of something done generations before you were born. We know at the time of Morrowind slave raids were almost unheard of, because of Imperial restrictions on Dunmer activities outside of Morrowind, so the likelyhood of the Argonians being subjected to any large scale slaving in the last 500 years is low. As such, they were taking vengence on the Dunmer for crimes commited against people long since dead. Is it morally acceptable for me to barge into someones home and murder him because his great-great-great-great-great grandfather 'owned' mine?

 

The loss of their gods and the complete destabilization of their society was punishment enough for their crimes. Following that, they were invaded by the Nords, who all but destroyed two Great Houses. Then they had the Oblivion Crisis. Then the Red Year, and the Argonian invasion, and Umbriel. It's clear that karma was repaid a long, long time ago, what goes on now, most evident in Skyrim, is just out of spite. Especially considering, again, its spite in tribute to men long since dead.

 

 

 

**Edit**

 

Regardless, with the exception of the Empire (distinct from Cyrodiil), pretty much everyone in Tamriel is racist. On a racial level, they most certianly all are. Because of that, trying to argue that Ulfric is bad simply because he's racist is a moot point, because everyone else is too. Its the social norm, and while it may be wrong to us, its perfectly normal for them.

Edited February 7, 2012 by Lachdonin

[eltucu]

Sorry to burst your ethnocentric bubble, Eltucu,

You shouldnt be sorry for things that you didnt do. Its El Tucu, or just Tucu btw, the Nexus doesnt allows for spaces in names : /

 

making blanket judgements based on your own morals is bad arguementation. The fact that we, in this infidesimal speck of temporal existance don't approve of slavery does not make it universally wrong. It's a subjective concept whose morality varries from culture to culture. There are also very specific differances which come out in anthropological studies and papers which are not represented in the 'dictionary definition'.

Oh, im sorry. Did i missed a part where you quoted the paper you were basing your statements on? "Slavery, according to Guywhojustremembered Johnson Et Al" ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery If you want to be convinced, plenty of sources, papers, references, descriptions, etc. It is slavery, stop trying to dodge bullets.

 

Im going to ask you, since you're all into this "put yourself into the shoes of the other" Is it good to be enslaved? Do you think that anyone who is enslaved could possibly, under his completely functional mind be glad that he/she is enslaved? It is a matter so relative to culture?

 

I bet you that being enslaved wasnt fun for both Argonian and Khajiit, but you dont seem to care to think bout the slaves rather than the slavers. You dont ask the one who limits the liberty of others if they're doing wrong, you ask the one who thinks their liberties are being limited if they want it to be like that. I dont care if it was "subjective" for the Dunmer, their society or culture, i care if it was that subjective for their slaves.

 

You say its relative cuz the one that you're asking whether slavery is acceptable or not is the owner, not the slave. Its not an issue of morality, but ethics.

Is it morally acceptable for me to barge into someones home and murder him because his great-great-great-great-great grandfather 'owned' mine?

Murder is not morally acceptable, because murder is per definition, illegal. Unless you can quote me a paper saying otherwise and want to argue with its legal definition. Which seems thats its a thing you enjoy, to argue with the unarguable.

 

Besides, this isnt a individual case but a collective mindset that went without reprisal, and something that the Dunmer showed no remorse about.

 

The loss of their gods and the complete destabilization of their society was punishment enough for their crimes. Following that, they were invaded by the Nords, who all but destroyed two Great Houses. Then they had the Oblivion Crisis. Then the Red Year, and the Argonian invasion, and Umbriel. It's clear that karma was repaid a long, long time ago, what goes on now, most evident in Skyrim, is just out of spite. Especially considering, again, its spite in tribute to men long since dead.

But yet you omit what Dunmer currently do in Windhelm now. Which is being arrogant ppl that demand yet offer nothing. No one can demand stuff like that, whether you're nord or not, since its the Jarl's hold, and that stuff is handled more directly. Its a feud, you cant do nothing if the Jarl disapproves. They pretty much want that nord customs and morals start to be oblivious to them just because they're Dunmer.

 

Well, though luck if you wanted to try that in one of the two most important cities in Skyrim while its in a civil war. Why is slavery morally "subjetive" in the case of dunmer but accepting nord rule and customs in Skyrim isnt? Or is that you using double morals?

 

Besides, why do you think that Argonians invaded a ravaged land like Morrowind? Because they didnt liked the Swamps that much? Its obvious that they felt they needed to give one last punch to the Dunmer. And i feel like it was their right. Not like the Dunmer cared for the Argonians in the first place, why Argonians, Khajiits or Nords should care bout them?

Edited February 7, 2012 by eltucu

[Lachdonin]

Stephan Malmie has extensivly studdied both slave cultures, and the cultures which partake in slavery. Gerald McSheffrey has several papers regarding the development of slavery and the slave trade along the Gold Coast, a few of which make note of willfull entrance into what is generally regarded as 'slavery'. Any philosopher worth their salt from the last 100 years will have a least one paper on the nature of Freedom, and many of them revolve around the subjectivity of freedom as a concept.

 

As for would i like to be in their shoes? It depends on the individual specifics of the slave-master dynamic. It also depends on the overt or subtle nature of the slavery its self. There are few people who are not subject to the current dynamic of corporate-capitalist slavery which our world is built on, though it is not one of whips and overt control, but rather shiny baubles and manipulation.

 

Regardless, there's not enough room here to talk about the nature of slavery, coersion and control. And even then, thats not the point.

 

Should Europe be subjected to an invasion by Africa, based on their implementation of using African slaves between the 16th and 19th centuries? No one alive in Europe has ever had a slave, though many of their ancestors certianly did. The majority of Morrowind gave up Slavery centuries ago, and the argonian invasion was revenge for the actions of people who were largely dead, on behalf of those who were well dead. If they had just slaughtered people whos till had slaves (IE the Telvaani) i wouldn't see a problem but they killed indisciminantly, and did it to a displaced refugee population.

 

Whats more, the Argonians were, and remain, literal slaves to the Hist. The Hist can literally control them without their consent. Their moral claims to be exacting revenge for their enslavement at the hands of the Dunmer is moot when they willingly accept slavery by another.

 

All of which is, again, irrelivent to the point of the thread. The Arognian invasion of Morrowind was not illigitimate. There certianly was, at the very least, causal grounds for the Argonians to attack the Dunmer. However, claiming the ground of moral superiority is moot because morality is subjective. Furthermore, claiming that their religation to slums in Skyrim is morally justified because of their past 'crimes' is, again, moot. Argueing the morality of the current situation of the Dunmer is a fools errand at best, and i must admit myself the fool for trying to argue that they've "Gotten worse than they gave". It's completely subjective.

 

It's all about the racism between races, particularly along the Man/Mer/Beast lines. The Empire, as an international entity (thus seperate from Cyrodiil, thoughin practice it carries a lot of their bias) is the only sociopolitical entity which is not inherently racist. Tullius definately has a Cyrodiil-centric perspective, and can be considered racist, but the Empire its self is not. Still, because racism, on a personal level, is pretty much a given, you can't use it as a strike against against Ulfric.

Edited February 7, 2012 by Lachdonin