#apparently bringing reforms and civilisation to other peoples not from your state is a kindness? | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

randomnameless · 1 year

Note

I've seen a post on redshit saying deghinsea was racist and I don't understand how people even came to that conclusion. The fandom isn't ready to Tellius remakes

Are you sure it was on redshit and not here anon? lol

If it's about the branded issue, Deghinsea received a very crappy hand to deal with - and we sure as hell don't see what happens or how the Branded are dealt with in Hatari, save for a meaningless "kumbaya" because the Tellius verse completely falls on its head with this question -

Tellius is all about discriminations and how stupid it is - only to, uh, biologically, tell you one race is "superior" to the other because the other "dies" when both races mix to make a baby.

Ergo, if beorcs and laguz "coexist" peacefully and make tons of babies, the laguz will cease to exist - because each time a branded is born (or even just conceived?) the laguz parent ceases to be a laguz.

In a context of racial tensions (Tellius isn't very clear on the details, but there used to be a war where laguz enslaved beorcs, then beorcs enslave laguz?) revealing this to the public meant ultimately yes, Laguz were going to go extinct unless they got rid of beorcs.

In a way, I find it very different from the manakete - dragon stone - problem, because Manaketes still can access to their power through a device, but they are still manaketes. In the Archanea verse at least (but it's suggested even in Elibe?) the dragon parent doesn't lose their power, even if they have a dragon stone, when they hold hands with a human to make a baby, Nah exists, the Nini siblings exist (and iirc it's implied their mom was a dragon when she went "missing"?) etc etc.

But in Tellius?

Lehran wanted to kill himself because he wasn't a "laguz" anymore, he can't sing, he can't hear the voice of the Goddess, he can't transform - he is not a laguz anymore, but he isn't a beorc either.

In an era where people genuinely thought Claude "killed the CEO of racism" and don't even want to think more than 12 seconds about the Nabateans and what revealing the truth about them may create as a result (it's a egg hunt, but this time, humans are hunting chocolate eggs for easter, they hunt living beings to vivisect them to create more shiny weapons or magic milkshakes to gain a longer life and superpowers), Tellius remakes and the kind of themes and discussion brought by this duology are completely inaudible.

(and especially since Tellius's main lead doesn't give a fuck about the world or the consequences of his and the general party's actions as he fucks off to another continent with his besties, letting everyone else piece back and rebuild the continent)

What was Deghinsea supposed to do? Reveal to Laguz that yes, coexistence is impossible because they are bound to disappear if they coexist too much with Beorcs? How would the Laguz react? Lash out against Beorcs and exterminate them to make sure the Laguz, as a race, will continue to exist? And how would the Beorc react? Feel even more superior because whatever happens the "punished" parent for branded unions will forever be the Laguz and not the Beorc, and thus will start to call Laguz "subhumans" even more recently than they do in canon?

What was the solution? His lie sure led branded to be shunned and outright despised - but let's be real, if he revealed the truth, wouldn't branded still be despised by Laguz, who would see them as symbols and reasons why "their race" loses to Beorcs ?

I've seen some fics try to dance around the question by saying, more or less, Laguz are seen as giving their powers to the baby and it's a gesture of affection - but still, why should the Laguz be the only to "pass on" something to the baby when the Beorc can just, you know, get said baby without "losing"/"passing on" anything ?

I really don't know what IS was thinking when they made this "rule" - especially coupled with Yune's insane "teehee it was never intended it just happened like that!" that made Stefan weep, at Deghinshea's lie, of course, but in general, at the entire "Branded issue" ; ffs the Goddess (or one half of the goddess) said Laguz and Beorcs cannot coexists, and it wasn't something that was planned, it just happens.

I honestly consider this message "race A is superior to race B because race B ceases to exist if it breeds too much with race A" as bad as Fodlan's "imperialism good akshually" and honestly don't know why IS went through this route.

To add more drama maybe, but damn if this is a stinky message to have in a series about acceptance and coexistence - especially coming after Elibe and the heavily implied (as of FE7) dragon hybrid hero (of FE6).

#anon #replies #that's why Tellius is not my fave verse #that and the Ike wanking #idk what IS was thinking or smoking or whatever when they made that rule/mechanic #but in the modern FE fandom? those issues are going to fly right over some people's heads #i mean we have devoted fans parroting the worst 1800 messages to justify uwu imperialism #apparently bringing reforms and civilisation to other peoples not from your state is a kindness?#kill that it's rather a 1600s message #but now with Tellius I'm afraid we would have to dust off Gobineau's essays and what not #Tellius stuff #funny thing we don't hear about Lehran's pov on the branded #and that's why this issue sucks #the parent despairs because they lost part of themselves #and the children are hated for the sin of 'existing'#without Deg's lies Laguz would eventually find branded 'wrong'#iirc Vika inherently avoids Miccy even if she has nothing against her and i dont' think vika heard much about Deg's lie #creating a situation like this what was IS thinking seriously

11 notes · View notes

wisdomrays · 4 years

Text

THE QURANIC CONCEPT OF HISTORY AND WESTERN PHILOSPHIES OF HISTORY: Part 3

A possible question; If civilisations are not, essentially, subject to an inevitable end, why, then, was none of the past civilisations able to resist decadence and the ‘corrosive power of time’?

The core of the matter lies in the answer to this important question. What, indeed, caused the philosophers of history such as Ibn Khaldun, Toynbee, Spengler and the like to form a wrong conception of history is that they, rather than trying to discover the real dynamics of historical movements, attempted to explain the apparent causes of the establishment, flourishing, and decay of civilisations. Whoever looks back to the past couldn’t help arriving at the same conclusions. But that no community has so far been able to remain at the peak it climbed does not mean that this is an inevitable end, a determinist grip on the fate of nations. The past civilisations collapsed because they did not heed the warnings of what had happened to peoples preceding them. To accept a historical determinism means to nullify human free will and to regard as useless, even an absurdity, all the warnings and advices made to living people by both Divine scriptures and social sciences.

As stated before, man is tested in the world. He has a carnal soul which is the source of all desires and animal appetites. In addition, man has a natural inclination towards living together with his fellow human beings, and also he is in a complex relationship with his natural environment. This requires that man’s carnal desires should be limited and his relations with both his human and natural environment be based on ‘justice’ so that he may be at peace with himself, his environment and nature. Nevertheless, as history witnesses, some people may, under the instigation of his carnal desires, not be pleased with his share in the society and attempt to dominate others. If such people realise their ambitions, they, this time, in order to justify their actions, make a constitution to govern the people. It is indeed, easy to have the people to ‘vote’ for their constitution.

This is what has always been where and when the Divine laws are abrogated. Where the people sincerely believe in one God as the Lord, Sovereign and Master of human kind, without concession to any intermediate role of some classes such as Clergy as in Christianity and Shi‘a Islam, and where they are really conscious of the meaning of Divine Unity, which, by delivering man from the humiliating slavery of carnal desires, worldly positions, or of other beings, and eradication of the false and artificial contradictions of the black and the white, clergy and laity, the ruler and the ruled, the employer and employed etc., elevates him so high to be the servant of only One God, no one does attempt to dominate others through the force of money, colour, race or weapons.

According to the Qur’an, all men are, on account of being the creatures of one God, essentially equal in the sight of God. Furthermore, man lacks the enough knowledge and power to establish the rules according to which at least the majority of people could live at peace with themselves, with each other and with the natural environment. Above all, man has to be at peace with his Creator and Sustainer. Because of these, only God’s exclusively is sovereignty both in heavens and on the earth.

What God asks of man-it is what we can conclude we must do through the exercise of our reasoning-is that man should build his wordly existence on three foundations: justice, religious-moral values and Divine laws of life and nature.

The Qur’an invites man, first of all, to believe in and worship One God, by which he may lead a balanced life: He may attain true inward happiness and peace and co-exist with his fellow human beings in accordance with the rules of justice, without being led astray by his carnal, evil-commanding soul. Second, the Qur’an lays some moral, also legal, principles-for example, it says:

Give to the kindred his due and the poor and to the wayfarer. But spend not wastefully in the manner of a spend thrift. Kill not your children for fear of poverty. We provide for them and for you. Come not near to unlawful sexual intercourse. Do not kill anyone which God has forbidden, except for just cause. Come not near the orphan’s property except to improve it. And fulfil covenant. Give full measure when you measure and weigh with balance that is right.

Also, the Qur’an prohibits usury, black marketing, hoarding, theft, gambling, and cheating etc. Besides, it is also a Qur’anic injunction to study nature, discover its laws and make progress in sciences. Moreover, there are some other vital principles, obedience to, or neglect of, which has a definite part in man’s ‘fate’. For example, patience and forbearance usually bring success and victory, and while working produces wealth, inertia and laziness are the causes of poverty.

Thus, man, according to the Qur’an, by neglecting or living in accordance with justice, religious-moral values and divine laws of nature, determines his own future. There is principally nothing, other than his free choice, to dictate his fate. If, then, a community, at least by majority, obey God and perform both His ‘religious’ and ‘natural’ laws, there can be nothing to prevent them from realizing peace, happiness and harmony in both individual and social life. Otherwise, no matter how glittering a community may appear, it is inevitable for them to fall into decay.

There is another point to be emphasized concerning the Qur’anic concept of history. The Qur’an does not accept ‘inevitable end’ for civilisations. Any civilisation, as long as it follows its ‘right’ way, it could remain at the peak, although no civilisation has so far been able to. And, any civilisation which is due and, on the threshold of, collapse because it has deviated from its course, could be saved from destruction and even realise a new rise if it reforms its way. Finally, history does not follow a straight and always forward course, rather, it advances by cycles.

3 notes · View notes

leviathuss · 5 years

Text

i thought i was done with GoT but nope

Man the bullshit politics they shoved into the show at the end to justify Daenerys becoming unfit to rule and being killed off

I think they tried to associate her more with the modern idea of a dictator now in the last seasons, when I think she was maybe meant to be a conqueror or an emperor or dictator like in the ancient times. I'm not saying that she wasn't supposed to end up a tyrant, but they tried to make her seem way worse than she was, given the fact that she was at war and they were living in a world where Westeros is a feudal medieval system and Essos is a combination of nations inspired by ancient civilisations.

And it shows they misunderstood her as a ruler because they tried to shove in that talk about democracy at the end when it clearly made no sense for their society; for them it would have made sense to strive for a good ruler or ruling class, or to have the power of their rulers limited in some ways.

And it's like they forgot that:

conqueror/dictator or not, she did have very good intentions and wanted to change society for the better, but her execution was lacking and needed improving

her first intention was not being a liberator or to impose her ideas of good and justice on everyone, her goal was to go home and reclaim her birthright (she was the heir to the throne so she saw it not as conquering Westeros but as reclaiming what is hers); and on her way of getting there she became responsible for the Dothraki (if she hadn't ruled them they would've sent her to Dosh Khaleen); and in Slaver's Bay all she wanted was to get an army but was horrified by the way the slaves were treated and decided to free them because she couldn't leave the people suffering like that, she chose to stay and help them over pursuing her goal... only after that does she discover that the realities of ruling and of justice are rather different than her ideals

i don't know if they just didn't get her character or made an active choice to adapt her differently... because in the show she does seem like she wants to conquer Slaver's Bay but i think that's because she is made to be way more entitled and arrogant in the show, or they just wanted to give her cool powerful lines, so this way it does seem more obvious when she makes mistakes... and yeah she did have a rigid idea of justice but that doesn't mean she is a tyrant... and she does make compromises, both in the book and in the show... i think that's why they had all this talk in season 8 about her going mad and being like a dictator all along, to somehow justify the abrupt change in her character that makes no sense, cuz she really wasn't that out of line for a person with her goals and experience and power, giving the society she was living in..

and I think that is very interesting giving that many conquerors and emperors in ancient times did both good and bad, some had god complexes, some waged useless wars in the name of their ideals, some had selfish desires but ended up influencing and changing the world and some truly wanted to change the world for the better but just couldn't succeed...but both in ancient and medieval times war was an everyday reality and the only way to achieve power and make a lasting impact so..

and lets remember that both good rulers and bad rulers were taken out throughout history, because even if you had the best interest of the people at heart (less likely i know but still), the rich class always wanted to serve their own interests....

that's why I think Dany's character could've ended up in so many ways and show a lot of complexity because being a conqueror or absolute monarch doesn't automatically make her a bad ruler but holding onto that kind of power makes one dirty their hands and make some tough calls

another thing that makes no sense to me is the fact that they made Dany so desperate for the support and acceptance of the lords of Westeros when in the show she states so many times that she wants to break the wheel and rule for the poor and neglected people not for the rich.. I guess she needed to consolidate her reign with the help of the others and wanted to spill as little blood as possible but that is the opposite of dictatorship so idk what fuckery they were going for.. cuz in Essos she didn't care if the ruling class loved her and accepted her, she just wanted to do good and indeed became kind of an absolute ruler, but in westereos it seems like she is trying to please everyone (and is shown as bad when she doesn’t take advice but looses every time she listens and complies lol - this acually makes me very angry because her “losing it” is associated with her not listening to advice but she lost half of her army cuz she helped jon and didn’t take kings landing before cuz she listened to tyrion... and when ppl say that oh she lost rhaegal and missandei because she didn’t listen to sansa and her council, uhmm no, she lost rhaegal and missandei because of bad writing: ”dany kind of forgot about the iron fleet” and so did tyrion and varys and everyone else apparently, it was done this way to move the plot forward and have Dany lose more power in order to bring her to her end)

the opinion of the common people of Westeros isn't even shown in the show, just the opinions of the lords.. cuz honestly they had some terrible rulers (joffrey, cersei, and robert didn't even want to be king he just wanted lyanna lol) so i think the common people wouldn't have cared if their ruler was Dany cuz she was the heir... maybe they could've shown that the common people were afraid of the targaryens now because of the mad king but they didn't, they just went well how to make her unfit to rule in both the eyes of the lords and the commoners... oh i know, lets make her slaughter innocents cuz they litteraly had no argument against her being a good ruler... and if the argument was that she was becoming hungry for power, well then killing innocents and not your enemies really makes no sense..

and “ooh but she was a bad person and did bad things”, literally the show has been showing us from the beginning that people who only want to do the right thing and only do good things can’t hold onto power, if you want to get power and mantain it you have to do shitty things, you have to sacrifice your morality sometimes.. what the show is saying is whats the point of being a rightful person, what’s the point of all these good people potentially being better rulers if they can’t hold onto power, if their enemies kill them (Ned, Robb, Renly).. whats the point of being the person best suited for the job if you don’t want the power (Jon).... Cersei wanted power only for selfish reasons and was terrible to the common people but she got her position because she pursued power...

that’s why it’s not about being good or bad or killing people or not, it’s about being smart and balancing power and killing the right people, sparing your allies and disposing of your enemies.. and Dany has the potential of becoming a good ruler with the best of intentions; people have been trying to kill her all her life, she has been through immense hardship and so first she learns how to look after herself and survive, and becuase she wants to help people and rule in a good way she needs to learn how to best look after her subjects and pursue her ideal of a better society while survivng her enemies, cuz whats the point of all her justice and reform if she can’t hold onto her position as a ruler..

#daenerys targaryen #game of thrones #got

1 note · View note