But still, I'd agree that they - like most developed countries for that matter - don't bother with Victimhood Culture. That thing's a recent and, afaik, historically unique development. People have always had notions of injustices done to them, but there has never been that much prestige in portraying yourself as victimized on the scale as some people do now.
I don't think it's the "struggling" aspect of "primitive" societies that would make them less susceptible to Victimhood Culture. It's simply that they know each other, and so when someone screams that hunter is "*taboo in that culture*", there isn't a nameless horde of people who don't know the person who will slander that person to his face without good cause. Second reason could be somewhat related to what StA posted, in that a precise vocubulary is essential to keep the peace because having a shared language is considered essential to that. So there is less tendency to stretch the definition of *insert their taboo word* to infinity or use accusations of being *taboo word* as a blanket word for "bad/evil person", like "Racist" or "Marxist", is being used by the American left and right, respectively.
Expanding on StA's interesting comments on language - I've taken writing classes where the instructor says that Middle East and Asian cultures view reader responsibility completely differently than western culture. According to the professor these cultures believe the responsibility for understanding the written word lay solely with the reader. The west, however, believes the author is responsible for writing clearly enough for readers to understand. So if something is vaguely or ambiguously written in the western world we'll say the author sucks. Other cultures apparently view the same phenomena as the readers simply failing to grasp what the author was saying. I can't vouch for it personally, not being literate in any ME or Asian languages.
Yet even this minor difference seems like it could make a major impact on worldview. I can't imagine the number of my preconceptions that might change if I was raised believing that the onus was on others to understand what I write. Would it end at writing, or would I also believe others were equally responsible to understand my other endeavors - or not? On one hand, that could be quite liberating. "Yo, your music sucks".
"No man, you're just hearing it wrong".
On the other hand, it doesn't seem like it would do wonders for individual responsibility or drive. "Write better? What do you mean? They all need to read better!"
Would such a belief make one more or less susceptible to the allure of Victimhood Culture? Maybe it would have no effect at all. Or, maybe it's the very first step down that path.
There is a lot that we take for granted when in the west. I was surprised to find out that a lot of Russians took offense with The Lord of the Rings books. They automatically identified with the Orcs and didn't like the portrayal. There is a whole subgenre of literature that tells stories from the Mordor point of view, Russian Orc fiction. The most famous example being The Last Ring Bearer by Kirill Yeskov.
LotR was written by the victors and it is western propaganda and it's racist about orcs. The Last Ring Bearer is the true story of what really happened.
It has been translated to English but no one wants to publish it out of fear that they might be problems with the Tolkien estate. It's easy to find for free online. https://archive.org/details/TheLastRing ... n/mode/2up
Some other titles in the genre are Pavel Mochalov’s 2017 The Tank Driver of Mordor
and Sergei Shkenev's the Red Lord (in which Stalin is reborn in a parallel Swords and Sorcery world)
Last edited by Hastur on Thu Apr 23, 2020 12:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur? - Axel Oxenstierna
Nie lügen die Menschen so viel wie nach einer Jagd, während eines Krieges oder vor Wahlen. - Otto von Bismarck
Tolkien was very resistant to the idea that LOTR was allegorical. He always said it was just a story about good and evil.
The claims come from him locating Mordor and the Orcs in the East.
He actually got pissed off when people brought it up.
I'm pretty sure that he was telling the truth but people will always try to see things that aren't there and put their own interpretation on things.
It all started with him writing a story for his child and draws from his knowledge of ancient myths from Norse and Old English languages which was his day job.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Tolkien was very resistant to the idea that LOTR was allegorical. He always said it was just a story about good and evil.
The claims come from him locating Mordor and the Orcs in the East.
He actually got pissed off when people brought it up.
I'm pretty sure that he was telling the truth but people will always try to see things that aren't there and put their own interpretation on things.
It all started with him writing a story for his child and draws from his knowledge of ancient myths from Norse and Old English languages which was his day job.
Michael Moorcock critiqued Middle Earth as a childishly rose-tinted vision of the Merrie Olde England that never was and pointed out that Tolkien was willfully blind to the hardships and injustice of preindustrial and feudal societies. The Russian stories take aim at the same weakness. They take that as proof that the stories are just propaganda.
It's just a bit of fun really.
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur? - Axel Oxenstierna
Nie lügen die Menschen so viel wie nach einer Jagd, während eines Krieges oder vor Wahlen. - Otto von Bismarck
Tolkien was very resistant to the idea that LOTR was allegorical. He always said it was just a story about good and evil.
The claims come from him locating Mordor and the Orcs in the East.
He actually got pissed off when people brought it up.
I'm pretty sure that he was telling the truth but people will always try to see things that aren't there and put their own interpretation on things.
It all started with him writing a story for his child and draws from his knowledge of ancient myths from Norse and Old English languages which was his day job.
Michael Moorcock critiqued Middle Earth as a childishly rose-tinted vision of the Merrie Olde England that never was and pointed out that Tolkien was willfully blind to the hardships and injustice of preindustrial and feudal societies. The Russian stories take aim at the same weakness. They take that as proof that the stories are just propaganda.
It's just a bit of fun really.
He's also been criticised as being sexist due to the serious lack of female characters.
At the end of the day most fantasy literature could be described as childish. It's just make believe after all...
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Postby Speaker to Animals » Fri Apr 24, 2020 9:46 am
With respect to language.. it is technically possible to modify the English language such that you add in new inflection and conjugation rules that force the speaker/writer to articulate facts that otherwise could get lost in the ambiguities of our language.
Such as adding the grammar rules to a statement of factual evidence as opposed to an inference from evidence, and another for speculation. I am not sure how complicated you'd want to go, but just forcing separate grammatical constructions for observable facts contrasted with inferences, speculation, and theory might be useful.
Consider just the case of fake news. They often try to hide their duplicity behind the ambiguities of language, but if there was a specific grammar for writing a statement of verifiable fact, and they used it, but it turns out they knew they couldn't verify it, then it would be very difficult to pretend it was a miscommunication.
