this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
43 points (69.0% liked)
Gaming
20006 readers
7 users here now
Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules:
- 1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
- 2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
- 3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Racism isn't exactly the right word, but China and the rest of east asia have thousands of years of historical ethnic prejudices. It's just not interpreted as "racism" because it's more complicated than the color of your skin, and that's typically what westerners can wrap their heads around at any given point.
Xenophobia, all of the response including the early comments of Lemmy were xenophobic leading to racist.
"How many Chinese people are playing the game to get those numbers so high"
"Of course it's selling this much, Chinese are buying it"
"I wonder if we can trust the numbers coming out of China"
Like Chinese gamers make up huge percentage of sales and player base in general, yet this game in particular people are very concerned about the number of Chinese players.
Who cares if it's selling well in China first, or China only, fuck off with this shit.
Please report those comments also, so we can remove them.
I'm not sure what that has to do with my rebuttal? I was confronting the claim that is now deleted, that China has never had a problem with racism.
I'm not claiming people aren't being racist or xenophobic about this game. I was just explaining the difference between the western concept of racism and the history of ethnic conflict in east Asia.
No, you have a super secret definition of racism that doesn't include people of similar ethnic groups not liking eachother because of past circumstances. Right?
Ethnicity is included in racism. A Korean or Chinese person who dislikes a Japanese person partially because of a cultural memory of occupation is still a racist. Even if there's a historical justification for it, the strawman of a person you created in your head to dislike is nothing like the actual people of that ethnicity. Even if the ethnicity is close to yours. Even if you can point to examples of Chinese people doing things you don't like currently. If you have a cultural dislike of a neighboring country, or different ethnic group, that's still racism.
There are many regions that have vast histories of regional conflict in very small areas. It stil gets to be racist. Kurds and Armenians, everyone in Europe, Jews and Palestinians, Hondurans and Nicaraguans, the Tutsi and the Hutu in Africa.
You could point to other forms of hatred in a country, like the caste system in India (which was eventually used by the British as a census tool), as being non racist. But if it's based in ethnicity, ESPECIALLY ETHNIC CONFLICTS, it's racist.
Tldr, you don't want to define yourself as racist so you created a new category that doesn't include you.
Nope, just the scientifically correct version. Redefining the colloquial understanding of racism to exclude the history of racial discrimination and it's foundation in slavery is immoral and incorrect.
It equivocates ethnic conflict such as your example of Japanese and Koreans as the same as the European racial science theory that vindicated chattle slavery based on skin tone.
So any conflict between two ethnic groups is automatically the same as the European slave trade.....? That totally makes sense
You are conflating ethnic conflict, which can happen for a multitude of reasons with racism, which is a prejudice specific to race.
Lol, or.....you are actively preserving racial science and projecting your cultures dark history unto people whom never partook in chattel slavery because not something as idiotic as melanin content.
There are specific terminologies for everything we talked about, you just refuse to part ways with race science because it's so inherent to your upbringing.
The word you're looking for is called prejudice. Prejudice is part of racism, but so is the belief in race itself. Ethnic prejudice can be just as violent, or as damaging to social cohesion, but it's inherently different than racism.
Do you not think Asians engaged in chattle slavery? Is that the entire crux of you argument? There was chattel slavery in Asia, there was chattel slavery based on inter Asian racism due to ethnic differences.
Prejudice isn't separate from racism, it fits in like a puzzle piece. You don't even have a good reason for your argument, you just don't like the word. Bro I think you might be racist.
Well, there's the whole problem with specifying race again. What do you mean when you say Asian? Are we talking about east Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or even south east Asia?
There was something akin to chattel slavery in India in the 1800s, but nothing as widespread or cruel as chattel slavery in the Americas. As far as east Asia, no there's not a documented history of chattel slavery.
Chattel slavery is a very specific type of slavery that wasn't prevalent until the 18th century.
Lol, I didn't say it was separate. All racist are prejudice, but not all prejudice is based on racism.
The word is fine, it's your understanding of the word that is flawed.
Lol, against whom?
I think you might be trying to enact a revisionist view of history that lessens the actual meaning of racism. I think you are trying to equate all ethnic conflict to the systemic chattel slavery that race science enabled in the first place, making it seem less harmful than what it was.
I think you are trying to exact a revisionist history on slavery and racism. Asians engaged in the chattel slavery you mention in the 18th century, they also engaged in just plain old slavery. There are still millions of slaves today in Asia. This is a weird argument to have with someone.
Chattel slavery was not a Western only concept, you may ask yourselves why the Asian continent is not filled with the children of black slaves. That's because slaves that were imported to Asia were generally castrated. Used them up, let them die, get new ones, no breeding programs.
Whenever someone spends this much time trying to convince me that their feelings about other ethnic groups are not racist, because racism was invented by the West, I figure they are just trying to desperately hide their racism.
Edit: I'll be specific for you, specially black slaves entered east Asia through the Arab corridor, the Arab states were the one's collecting and castrating black slaves, many black slaves also made their way from European traders as well. I'll even give you some verbiage to look up. The Kunlun slaves. There has been exploitation of indigenous dark skinned tribes for a long long time.
First of all, the 18th century would be the 1700s not the 1800s as I originally stated. Secondly, the slavery that was akin to chattel slavery was introduced to India by the British when they invaded in the latter half of the 18th century.
Lastly, it's kinda hilarious the only way you could state "Asians engaged in chattel slavery" is by utilizing terminology originating from racial science. We were talking about east Asia, not the Indian subcontinent.
I mean that's incorrect in so many ways..... Chattel slavery was a Western concept, and African slaves never made their way to anywhere close to East Asia.
Lol, source?
Lol, whatever you have to tell yourself to make believe Europe didn't create one of the largest crimes against humanity ever with the transatlantic slave trade.
We're just arguing semantics at this point, I'm not arguing the transatlantic African slave trade (a period lasting from the 16th to the 19th century you silly man) wasn't largely European and evil, of course it was! Everyone in the West who engaged in it was terrible, it may have even been uniquely terrible.
The African slave trade has been active through the Arab Muslim world since antiquity, of the slave routes during the transatlantic period, three went inward into Asia via the Muslim world, the red sea, the Indian sea and the trans Saharan route (this route being used since antiquity).
Here I'll link a Wikipedia for you! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world
Where do you think the Chinese were getting these magical Kunlun slaves.
I'm just responding to the weird ass arguments you're making with all the century shit, the definition of chattel slavery isn't the transatlantic slave trade, it's using humans as a commodity, which again is and was worldwide. The transatlantic slave trade was chattel slavery, and Asia did participate in one of the most brutal parts of it through the Muslim world. None of this is a secret you know!
The time I used was for chattel slavery, not for the transatlantic slave trade.
And you think the Arab Muslim world is relevant to a conversation about East Asia because your race science categorizes them all as Asians? Despite that most European countries have more culturally shared history than any East Asian country....
Lol, that's from a mythical tale from the fucking tang dynasty.... . If there actually were real Kunlun slaves, most historians agree that they were most likely from South East Asia.
Never claimed it was? Chattel slavery isn't just that they were treated as commodities, it that they were treated as personal property. Even in places where slaves were historically traded as a commodity they usually still had some rights. Whether that be you couldn't break apart their family, enslave their children, or even enslave them in perpetuity.
Chattel slavery requires a system of laws protecting the rights of the owner, ensuring that he could treat slaves any way they see fit.
This is so interesting, honestly your arguments are so all over the place it's hard to keep up. So you think the idea of humans as personal property was a Western invention that specifically the East Asians didn't engage in? And you are using the transatlantic slave trade specifically to point that out? Are you arguing that Asian slavery is better because slaves occasionally had rights?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Asia
I think the slaves of the Khmer might disagree with you most recently. It's well known the Tang dynasty in China kept Western slaves. What are you trying to say?
Slavery has occurred in nearly every society throughout human history, the abnormality which is unique to chattel slavery is the legal system that evolved to protect the owners right in totality. Even in ancient examples that most closely resemble the chattel slavery practiced in the Americas, there were still social contracts that prevented the enslaved from the levels of dire abuse African slaves experienced in the Americas.
Are you claiming that all slavery is equally bad? That being an indentured servant is the same as chattel slavery? Seems like a pretty convenient attitude for someone who is trying to distance themselves from the largest example of chattel slavery in recorded history.
Lol, once again equating two totally separate societies and cultures as the same because racist from hundreds of years ago labeled anyone east of turkey as Asian. Cambodia is in South East Asia......
It's crazy how you don't see that trying to justify your position with race science is in fact racist. What exactly do you believe validates your examples of Arab slave trade and the Khmer being pertinent to a conversation about East Asia?
Lol, no it really isn't. You are utilizing your preconceptions about skin color and projecting it to a misinterpretation of a mystical story from the 9th century.
When someone from the tang dynasty is speaking about "westerns" they aren't talking about Europeans, the Arab world, or Africa. They are usually referring to places immediately west of China or West China. In the case of the Kunlun, they are more than likely talking about modern day Malaysia and Cambodia.
Here is a good breakdown of the Kunlun in China, with sources.
Again, you are applying your preconceptions of racial science to a people that predated it, and have a vastly different understanding of things like skin color. The Kunlun weren't all slaves, and the type of slavery that did happen was no where close to chattel slavery.
This is a great example of racism in action. You are generalizing an entire continent, the one with a majority of the world's population, and conflating them to be the same peoples based on criteria that was developed by racial science. The reason this debate has gotten so misconstrued is because the system you utilize to categorize ethnic groups isn't based on any legitimate or logical basis.
Racism is prejudice applied through the lens of racial science. There's a similar prejudice that occurs in ethnic prejudice, that can lead to similarly devastating results as racism, but usually on a much smaller scale.
Racial prejudice isn't based on any real criteria that can be consistently measured or predicted. Which can lead to people classifying an entire Continent of people as the same and lesser than. Instead of a conflict between two rival ethnic groups, it can lead to things like the Scramble for Africa.
I don't know how you can't see that as being relevant, and I honestly don't know why you have a problem with me utilizing a more correct terminology. Utilizing ethnic prejudice is correct when race isnt a factor. Is this the first time you've heard of the terminology, or do you think it's never appropriate? Why do you think both terms are used in academia if you don't think there's a delineation between the two?
Do I put a value difference between the Atlantic slave trade/chattel slavery and the sexual slavery of the Vietnamese women, or Korean women? No I guess I don't! Every version of slavery is both abhorrent and devalues human life, and a well kept slave is functionally still a slave.
I feel like you just ignored any examples that do meet your criteria cause you desperately want Western slavery to somehow be worse than Eastern slavery.
Honestly just sounds like exceptionalism to me. Again, sounds like you are a racist.
Lol, so the amount of people, the amount of violence, the amount of time it's practiced, and for what reasons are all meaningless to you?
So if you had a choice of being from Africa and taken from their homeland and forced into perpetual slavery in the US, where your children could be whipped to death in front of you, or sold down the river for no reason. Or you could be in indebted servitude to a rich family in the tang dynasty who used you as a doorman, but you still got to go home to your family who weren't enslaved at the end of the day.
Both choices would be equal for you? That's just a false equivocation that is willfully ignorant to the actual human suffering that's occurred.
This is just as bad as people claiming that the Irish had it just as bad in America as people in chattel slavery in the South because they were both technically "enslaved".
Because it's not even close...... The chattel slavery that occurred in the Americas is widely regarded by historians as some of the worst forms of slavery in recorded history. By what ever criteria you are ranking it, whether it be by volume, lack of rights, deaths, or in human suffering.
This is not a controversial or even drastic claim. The technology and social hierarchy that allowed them to transport and organize that many people into chattel slavery was even possible prior to the transatlantic slave trade.
I've responded with a clear explanation to all of your ridiculously racist claims this whole time. Even providing sources that explain exactly how you came up with your assumptions. You on the other hand have ignored every question and have failed to explain how your claims are pertinent to the conversation.
Ahh yes, a rebuttal that disproves a highly inaccurate claim..... Exceptionalism.
Again, how do I seem racist? I already said east asians can be racist, I've already said they've had slaves. The only thing I am denying is your inaccurate use of the word racism under specific context, and denying your clearly inaccurate claims African slave trade happening in East Asia during a specific dynasty.
You on the other hand have made generalized claims about race this whole time, in an effort to conflate all slavery as being equally bad.
You don't seem like a racist, based on your claims you are a racist. Go kick rocks.
I don't generally split hairs on enslaving people to make a racist argument that my people are better in some way cause they might have treated their slaves better in some circumstances, that's legit crazy. To the point where I try to reject proper verbiage because it paints people a color I don't like.
If I had a choice to be a slave, would I prefer being an Asian woman being group raped by Asian men until death, would I rather be castrated and worked to death in persia, would I rather he worked to death an whipped on a plantation, would I rather be a house slave for the Ting (which by the way they said they were very nice to their slaves and I bet they was never a bad experience!), would I rather be a Chinese space to the Khan?
None of those sound good, none of them sound like a race is better than the other, you are making a racial argument based on the nuances of slavery and it's kinda silly!
Racist.
We're not talking about modern people, nor are we blaming modern people for their ancestors behaviour. We are examining the crimes historic people did to other historic people, which do vary in different degrees in scale and violence.
The racism you are accused of isn't because of your people's past, it's because you are still utilizing the same racist classification system and justifications that led to their crimes in the first place.
Lol, a lot of writing to admit you just don't care about the suffering caused by chattel slavery in America. I didn't claim that there weren't horrific versions of slavery in east Asia, though you are exaggerating certain aspects. What I claimed is that there is a difference in scope and cruelty, compared between the two, which is just a fact.
Lol, still about race for you huh.
Lol, ethnicity does not = race you fucking idiot.
The whole point of this is that race is construct that can't be used to actually examine the ethnic prejudices that happened in a specific area at a specific time.
Says the person defending an argument developed by white supremacists.....
Uh hu, are the white supremacists who came up with the verbiage you don't like in the room right now?
Yeah chattel slavery was super bad, maybe uniquely bad, that really doesn't say anything about all slavery, which is also bad, no real reason to split hairs expect you specifically don't want to be associated with white people, I guess. I would call that racism honestly. Would you call that Asian supremacy?
"OUR SLAVERY ISN'T AS BAD, AS THOSE YUCKY WHITES!"
I don't know that Muslims are white tho... So that's not very careful about language.
Nah, just their legacy....
Not ignoring one of the largest crimes against humanity = splitting hairs...... Interesting.
You do realize you are the only person separating people based on skin color? My wife is German, I don't hold her country's past against her. But, if she was a Holocaust denier, or attempted to become a Nazi apologist, things would be different.
The internalized guilt is strong with you....
Islam is a religion you idiot, it's not a race, or an ethnicity......Also, you are the only person legitimately utilizing skin color to categorize people. I don't care what your pigmentation is, that's not the thing that makes you a racist moron.
Lol you think I'm white.
Next thing you know you'll be telling me you can't be racist cause of your white friends.
Irish people who still experience racism in the UK would disagree.
Irish isn't a race of people......that's an ethnicity, therefore they experience ethnic prejudice.
Is the Wikipedia definition wrong then? You should have it edited.
"Racism is discrimination and prejudice against people based on their race or ethnicity." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
Your pedantry is both boring and incorrect. The origin of the word involves race, but its usage extends beyond that. Language evolves. As does our scientific understanding of what constitutes race and ethnicity and its all more social construct than anything well defined.
Lol, depending on context yeah. If you read further into the article you'd find that it's not a black and white subject.
"While the concepts of race and ethnicity are considered to be separate in contemporary social science"
Because westerners are so obsessed with race as an inherent truth, ethnicity and race have evolved to be similes in the English language. This is similar to how sex and gender are often used as similes, and that works in most cases, but it's not appropriate in scientific context.
It's not pedantry when the argument is specifically about differentiating between racism and ethnic conflict.
My first statement was a rebuttal to someone claiming that racism hasn't ever been a problem in China.
Race is entirely a social construct, equating it to ethnicity is just wildly inaccurate and does nothing but validate the theory of racial science.
Again referring to westerners as a block without nuance, while thinking you understand nuance while westerners dont. Of course context is important. In context your comments are I'll informed and insulting, while condescending without the understanding to have such grounds.
Yes, race is a construct, as I pointed out. Ethnicity is too, more by definition. China also has xenophobia and racism. Ask Tibet. Ask the Uighurs. Han Chinese is not the ibky Chinese. Ask Taiwan or hong Kong nationals. That's not news to anyone.
Your reply doesnt add anything useful, so well leave it there.
Lol, first I was being pedantic and now I'm not being nuanced? Under the context of racial science, labeling it as a western ideology is correct and fairly specific. What exactly is it lacking in nuance?
Ethnicity has a set definition in the social sciences. Simply calling something a social construct does not equate it to flawed social constructs like race. Unless you are claiming that things like language and culture are just as meaningless as someone's skin color, then there are inherent differences between ethnicity and race.
Xenophobia yes, racism no. If race has no pertinence to racism, why utilize the terminology? Why preserve the ideology of a long debunked science?
What race are the Chinese and Tibetan?
Lol, you are getting even more wrong the more you type. People from HK and Taiwan are the same race, and ethnicity. You are now equating nationality to race......
I can tell you totally understand what youre talking about.....
Do people ever listen to their own nonsense. Say this out loud for me. You really believe "ethnic prejudices =/= racism." How would your brilliant mind classify racism? I just didn't sell a house to those people because ethnic prejudice, I swear it wasn't racism. Enjoy your champagne racism.
It doesn't matter what you call it. What matters is that some losers got offeded that a game from a non-Western studio became successful.
Whether you call this racism or something else does not matter.
This right here, - I wonder why they removed my original comment. Lol
There's a pretty clear delineation from racism and ethnic prejudice. One is a classification system used to loosely categorize people by general region and skin tone. The other is actually based on ethnic groups, and tends to actually be based on historical context.
Defined under the social construct of racism, a Han Chinese person and a Manchurian are the same "race", they're just Asian or "yellow".
Ethnic prejudice is often just as bad as racism, but is generally based on actual historical context instead of a defunct "science", that was only created to justify slavery.
Lol, you do realize that you are the one demanding the globe to view ethnic conflict through the lens of race "science "?
Ok but seems like a distinction without a difference. Neither racism, nor ethnic racism, have anything to do with video games.
I mean the distinction is fairly self evident. I as an Asian person cannot hold racial prejudices against other Asians, but can have ethnic prejudices.
Man, you guys just don't understand that race is not an actual idea people outside the west utilize. Race is exclusively a western concept used to generalize people outside of Europe.
I didn't say they were? I was responding to a claim that someone else made and then deleted.
"you guys" i'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that racists don't actually exist on lemmy. Leftist understand that "race" was a construct used to divide people based on criteria that aren't threatening to the status quo. In the US, race exist to make sure that people don't question the capitalists. In China is exist to make sure people don't question whatever the inherent power structure that existed at the time "ethnic racism" was defined.
The point is it doesn't matter. The purpose of the division was the same and the practical division was equally spurious.
You heard him as an Asian he can't be racist to other Asians... It's hard for our western minds to comprehend. 😆 This fucking guy.
Is it so hard for you to understand that racial science was never established as an inherent truth in most of the world? That it's only the west who utilize the word Asian to describe the majority of the world's population.
Ethnic and religious conflict, and nationalism lead different groups into the same type of ethnic prejudices, but that is inherently different from racism within the study of social sciences.