Black Myth: Wukong has made history as the one of the fastest-selling video games of all time, accumulating 10 million copies sold within 3 days of launch.
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.
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?
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.
A Korean or Chinese person who dislikes a Japanese person partially because of a cultural memory of occupation is still a racist.
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.
you don’t want to define yourself as racist so you created a new category that doesn’t include you.
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.
If you have a cultural dislike of a neighboring country, or different ethnic group, that’s still racism.
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.
Do you not think Asians engaged in chattle slavery?
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.
Prejudice isn’t separate from racism, it fits in like a puzzle piece
Lol, I didn’t say it was separate. All racist are prejudice, but not all prejudice is based on racism.
you just don’t like the word.
The word is fine, it’s your understanding of the word that is flawed.
Bro I think you might be racist.
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.
Asians engaged in the chattel slavery you mention in the 18th century, they also engaged in just plain old slavery.
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.
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.
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.
That’s because slaves that were imported to Asia were generally castrated. Used them up, let them die, get new ones, no breeding programs.
Lol, source?
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.
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).
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!
(a period lasting from the 16th to the 19th century you silly man)
The time I used was for chattel slavery, not for the transatlantic slave trade.
African slave trade has been active through the Arab Muslim world since antiquity
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…
Where do you think the Chinese were getting these magical Kunlun slaves.
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.
the definition of chattel slavery isn’t the transatlantic slave trade, it’s using humans as a commodity, which again is and was worldwide.
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.
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.