Not every game that comes out now is crap - but great modern games are the exception, not the rule. I too hate the Final Fantasy series. I loved the first one, but every one after that got less "game" and more "movie". I can handle playing up to 6, I can't stomach FF-VII.
Sure, there were terrible games 15 years ago, but the shear number of bad games today is the difference.
But it's important to note that the introduction of 3D graphics isn't completely to blame for this. While it did start a major trend in game development ("hey, let's make that same game again, but with more triangles!") the idea that games should have good graphics isn't new. Even the NES games we judged on their visuals - some were better than others, some weren't up to the standard at the time. The difference between then and now is that the visual aspect has almost completely taken over as the major mechanic of new games.
Thankfully, there are more games coming out now that extend game mechanics (like the portals in Portal, and Prey) and extend how the narrative is told (Half Life, and Heavy Rain use very different methods of story progression than the pre-rendered video of FF-VII).
Sadly, the 'means to an end' argument is a terrible one. It tries to say that even if the methods used are terrible it's okay if the outcome is beneficial. Lots of scientific data was gained when Nazi* doctors experimented on children (like 'how long you survive with acid on your face') but we don't condone these actions.
Yes, more women in more areas of work traditionally done by men would be beneficial to society as a whole (showing woman as just as capable as men is an important part in convincing people that woman are as good as men). But - and this is an important 'but' - the ends never, ever, justify the means. A great benefit from an evil deed still involves an evil deed.
* yeah, yeah, I know Godwin's law says I lose now, but I'm just using it as an example no one will refute. I'm not saying affirmative action is like pouring acid on babies.
I was very excited when I first heard that Apple would be treated in a similar way Microsoft is being treated (not 'the same', to a lesser degree but similarly). Does apple have a "monopoly"? In online music downloads and music players, yes. Are they being "anti-competitive"? Yes, iTunes and iPods are joined at the hip. So, are they going to be force, like Microsoft, to open up and give instructions on how to interact with their software (Microsoft is being forced to do very similar things with their server software)? Ye- no? Well, are they at least being fined like Microsoft is? No? They might actually get paid for this?
So, Microsoft makes online-software that rivals can't interact with. They get fined MILLIONS of dollars, and are forced to help rivals.
Apple makes online-software that rivals can't interact with. They get.. nothing yet? They might have to help their rivals, but if they do they might get paid by the government?
Am I the only one sick of this kind of 'news'?
This just in: two more female workers signed up for oil drilling, bringing the total population of female oil drillers to 4, of the total population of 20,000
Why does it matter what sex they are? The reason this is 'news' is because people want to hear stories about how women are being treated equally in the workplace. Women's rights are always easy news. You say, "Women have lagged behind men in [insert job] but are catching up thanks to [insert bullshit here]" and you sell newspapers/ad-space/FreeIPodsAndViagra.
If you single out women for working in a specific job for no reason other than 'they're women' you aren't treating them as equals to men. You're treating them like freaks, like a sideshow.
This isn't a real question, this is a thinly veiled attempt at getting a conversation going about how terrible the US government is.
Yes, there's a lot of censorship and surveillance going on. Yes, we have to be vigilant about everything we've heard.
My fear is, the fact that we find out about these domestic wiretaps, secret European prisons - means that the people put in charge of these things are morons. Most people in the position to be doing important secret 1984-type dealings are smart. The things we know about are pretty bad - how much worse are the things we don't know about?
Okay, let's clarify my statement then: "Games are an art form just like films or books [are art-forms]. "
Better?
Games are inherently different from the art forms you mentioned in that games involve at least some degree of active participation on the part of the "user."
Obviously games involve some degree of interactivity. That's what makes it different from a film or book.
the notion of self exists separate from the narrative.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. The notion of 'self'? Do you mean the 'amount of emotional involvement' you have while playing the game? If so, then yes it's true that the same 'story' can be displayed in different ways and that the degree of emotional involvement from the 'user' varies depending on how the story is presented. But that's not really what the point is here. Are you trying to say that because this story was presented as a game it must be less emotionally involving that if it was a film? Or a book? That doesn't make much sense. The blame for one medium being less 'meaningful' than another is, quite simply, writing. We know that there exists both bad-writing and good-writing in every art-form. A poorly written book, or film, or play, or game will always be bad - not because it's a book, or a film, or a play, or a game - but because it was implemented badly. It is not the fault of the medium itself - but with those who fail at using it to it's full potential. You can't say that games are not as good as films because they're not as good right now. When films were first introduced they were basically badly filmed plays. The camera didn't move, no music... nothing that we see today as essential parts of a film. These films suck - a lot - but those films suck, not all films.
It's a world of difference whether I tacitly witness a character's misstep and resultant hardship or I myself err, causing hardship for the character I represent. It's a degree of separation similar to that which sets second and third person narration styles apart from one another.
Eh? I'm not sure what your point there is. Yes, those are two different ways a similar story can be interpreted. Yes, first and second person narratives can give different emotional responses. So?
That's a good point. Such an event is emotional because you can't control it. That's why people become angry or sad when such things happen in other mediums. You are sad or angry because it 'happened' and you aren't in the frame of mind to think that it can be changed. In a game, you're always thinking about how to 'win'. If something bad happens (like one of your teammates dies) you aren't as effected by it because you are not 'in' the scene like you would be if it was a movie. You are, in a way, 'outside' the scene as an omnipotent observer with the ability to affect the world. Like a god. You have great power over the game's 'world'. You can try and help the characters, and if it doesn't work you can always try again. In a non-interactive medium you cannot do that. You expect that you're able to find some way out of the level with everyone alive. You expect that you'll be able to 'save the world'. In a non-interactive story, you don't expect that, so you don't think in such a way, but in a game you cannot take such consequences as seriously.
Perhaps games need to evolve into a more 'all or nothing' mindset. Currently all games are based on the idea that you can restart at any time and try again. Maybe the game that finally causes us to evoke major emotions will be one where you can't just 'try it again'. Maybe 'the next great game' will start you on a quest to save the world, give you teammates that you grow to care about, and not let you get them back when they get killed. Imagine playing a game and getting careless and having one of your teammates killed. The emotional impact could cause you to take the consequences of your actions much more seriously. You will start to think about characters as much more human if they stay dead.
That said, it doesn't mean it's impossible for a current game to evoke such strong emotions - just harder. I was playing 'Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood' some time ago and had grown attached to my squadmates. In one level we were ambushed and one of my men couldn't get to cover fast enough and screamed out as he was riddled with bullets. My heart stuttered and, for a moment, I froze. It wasn't enough to make me cry, and it was only momentary (I reloaded the level and kept him out of harm's way), but I certainly felt a very strong, very real emotional shock.
Can a game make you cry? Yes. They can, and they will.
Games are an art form just like films or books. These other art-forms can instill a wide range of feeling into those playing/watching/reading them. Interactive media has come a long way since it's inception a few short decades ago, and already there are games which can made you happy, excited, they can move you, or they can scare you, some even make you laugh. It stands to reason that a game can make you cry, it's just a matter of "what game", and "when".
Mr. Jennings says allegations that he wasn't sufficiently involved in the project or accessible to the plane's owners are false, and has over 1,200 emails related to the project to disprove them.
I've got 1200 emails about Viagra - I'm not involved in cock-pills.
You still don't understand... an 'abstract concept' is different from a 'social construct'. A 'social construct' is something that is created by society, that cannot exist without it. Now, 'pain' is something that exists. The definitions of these things are similar... but there is a big difference between 'difficult to scientifically measure' and 'disproven by science'. The idea that skin colour creates a separate sub0species of human is disproven by all scientific knowledge - skin colour does not create enough of a genetic difference to warrant such a classification or 'race'.
Again, you contradict yourself. "as substantial as" can be replaced by "is equal to."
No, you still don't understand. The key term in the definition is 'as _ as'. 'X is as _ as Y' means that 'X is not Y'. Now, in the definition, 'X' is 'social constructs' and 'Y' is 'facts'. 'Facts'. Let's let that sink in. 'Facts'. Social constructs are not 'facts'.
And at this point, you're arguing that because you can't "see" the Earth moves around the sun, that it must not be.
No, that's what you're arguing. You contend that "because I believe it, it's real" - I keep explaining that "no, what's real is real regardless of whether or not you believe it".
the fact is thoughts are real, and shape your behavior
Yes: what you think dictates to a large extent how you will behave. To change how you act because of these beliefs you have to recognise and understand that, and adjust your beliefs accordingly. No: thoughts are not 'real'. They are "real" to the person, but not 'real', not 'real' in that they are 'factual'. I can't explain this any more simply: just because YOU think so, doesn't mean you're right. For a few years, I thought that the sky was made of marbles, I was wrong - the sky was never made of marbles. If "thoughts are real" then the sky would have been made of marbles.
Go back and re-read what I said before, and re-read the definition of social construct, 'cause you're not getting it. By it's very definition, a social construct is as real as the other facts of the world.
Um... "ontological status in society as substantial as the ontological status of brute facts". See that? It means that these 'social constructions' have a 'status' in that society that is just as 'real' as "facts". So 'social constructions' are different from 'facts': facts exist - 'not-facts' don't exist. I can't make it clearer than that. A 'social construction' seems real to the society, but ISN'T REAL.
Again, you contradict yourself. Europeans fucked the natives over because they believed the natives were a separate "type" of human. How does that not involve race? Sure, it involved some illogical, unscientific, and unfair thinking. But unfortunately, that's what race is.
No, no, no. It involved 'race', yes. Race still doesn't exist. I really can't explain this any better: just because people believe it, doesn't mean it's true! Belief and truth are not correlated!
BUT, I disagree with your initial assertion that slavery is NOT a big deal anymore
Oh, I never said that. It's still a big deal - it's just that it shouldn't be.
think that and ad like this, though not racist itself, comes from a place inspired by racism. And trust me, if they KNEW that running a Dutch ad could possible harm sales in the US, then I'm almost certain that they wouldn't run it.
It's not "inspired" by racism, that's possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard. That woman has very dark skin and hair, that other woman has very light skin and hair. That's it. Come on now - you're too smart to actually believe that.
Oh, and I do have to say that I agree with your assertion that "Affirmative Action" is not "fair" in the real spirit of the word "equality". But I do think it's a very practical way to get around the fact that "White America" has not come to terms with their feelings in regards to slavery and it's legacy. And until they take full responsibility for their part in actively preventing blacks from integrating peacefully and fully into our society, I'm glad it helped my father get a job to replace the other three he couldn't get because he was a "nigger".
You seem to contend that racism is terrible... but you keep talking about 'them'. You seem not just concerned, but fixated on race. You seem to have an 'us versus them' attitude about this - and that's actually very racist and incredibly detrimental to the situation.
Of course, we're all entitled to our opinions and I could very well be full of shit, but the thing that troubles me is that, many people, like me, think slavery is STILL a big deal.
Well, "slavery" is a big deal. It's the forced subservitude of one person to another. It almost split your country in two! (which reminds me of a couple real good Lincoln quotes that make me proud to be half-American).
The REALLY big deal with slavery is that it still exists in some countries. Americans get all pent up about skin colour and history, but human slavery STILL EXISTS. Perspective is key.
Many people, similar to you, DON'T think slavery is a big deal.
Okay, let's make this clear: slavery is one of the worst things one person can do to another. Okay? Let's make that clear: I don't like slavery.
But if the people on "your side" of the issue dismiss it and refuse to discuss it, then there's no way to decide the issue.
I'm actually pretty sure I don't have a side. Other than Tim Buckley, I've never heard anyone else suggest that they think 'race' doesn't exist.
I'd also like to point out that I don't WANT a side. I want everyone to work together to abolish 'race'. It's not 'blacks against whites', it's not 'the people against big business', it's not 'racists against non-racists'. it's not 'us against them' - it's just 'us'. We're all in this together.
Thank you for sharing your opinion with me.
That you. It's actually a bit presumptuous for a Canadian to talk about a clearly American issue. While racism exists here too - it's always been comforting to know that, historically, Canada's been a 'multi-cultural' place.
"Race" is as much a fact of our lives as gravity is
Um... no. You're missing the point. An arbitrary classification of humans into sub-groups is something that doesn't exist on it's own. It's "seems" to be as real and factual to the social group that constructed it - but it doesn't really exist. Anything that exists only because people believe in it - doesn't really exist. Gravity exists on it's own, 'race' does not.
but a simple statement suggesting the elimination of "race" gives me pause. If race is eliminated, it eliminates the truth of history.
The "truth of history"? I just don't understand what this 'truth of history' means to you - to me, it simply means 'the truth'. I'm pretty sure the truth of history is that Europeans showed up and fucked the natives over because they believed the natives were a separate 'type' of human, and that the European 'type' was superior. Nothing about that 'truth of history' suggest that 'race' exists. The 'truth of history' is that there was a time when some people thought 'some thing', and acted upon it. Later that 'thing' turned out to be wrong and these people slowly began accept that they were wrong and change the way they acted. This is how history goes, for the most part. The Earth being flat, the sun revolving around the Earth, gravity, microscopic organisms, race... it's all just a matter of time.
First, you say "Race doesn't exist," followed by "Race only exists as a social construct."
I should explain further then: I mean to say that 'race' (that is the idea that there are human sub-species) is wrong. Not 'immorally' wrong but scientifically, logically, wrong. You can group humans into sub-groups based on hereditary traits in a way that is similar to 'race' but even then this isn't a distinction of separate groups, but just categorisations. Skin colour means no more, genetically, than hair colour, or eye colour. The idea that this one phenotype is enough to separate humans into groups is laughable.
When I say that 'race only exists as a social construct' I mean to say that 'race' (as I've explained above) doesn't exisit in-and-of itself. It only exists as religion exists, as something created by people. It cannot exist on it's own.
You state your own identity is made up in part of another social construct (being Canadian).
I was using that as an example of how a person can have a 'cultural identity' without resorting to 'race'.
Not everyone states that their race is the most important part of their identity, but it is still important
It's important to you. It's not important to me. Remember you can't speak for everyone's ideals and morals.
It doesn't eliminate the fact that the majority of the people we used to call "black" are economically, educationally, and socially disadvantaged because of a shared history of discrimination.
True - and you think that solving this problem involves contnuing to acknowledge 'race'? Um, maybe I'm just grasping here but perhaps 'racial inequality' wouldn't exist if 'race' didn't exist... I don't know, seems pretty simple to me. I know no one believes that red-heads are a separate sub-species and there's very little 're-head discrimination'.
as an indigenous person, I have a family and social history that I share with a number of other people,
So, your culture is dependant on the idea that you are a separate 'race' from others? Your customs are derived from the idea that the First Peoples are different from the Europeans? Now, and again perhaps I'm just talking crazy here, but perhaps these customs are based in something other than 'race'. I was under the impression that these customs were created before ideas of 'race' developed in North America, before the Europeans arrived.
I can't (and would not want to) give up that part of an identity that has meaning to me, any more than you would want to give up being "Canadian," because the shared history of you, your family, and your country has meaning to you.
Quite true. I have very strong ties to this country, I am also very proud of my ancestory in Scotland. I celebrate these customs daily - but I don't celebrate them because of my 'Canadian race' or my 'Scotish race'.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and I weep at the thought...
Not every game that comes out now is crap - but great modern games are the exception, not the rule. I too hate the Final Fantasy series. I loved the first one, but every one after that got less "game" and more "movie". I can handle playing up to 6, I can't stomach FF-VII.
Sure, there were terrible games 15 years ago, but the shear number of bad games today is the difference.
But it's important to note that the introduction of 3D graphics isn't completely to blame for this. While it did start a major trend in game development ("hey, let's make that same game again, but with more triangles!") the idea that games should have good graphics isn't new. Even the NES games we judged on their visuals - some were better than others, some weren't up to the standard at the time. The difference between then and now is that the visual aspect has almost completely taken over as the major mechanic of new games.
Thankfully, there are more games coming out now that extend game mechanics (like the portals in Portal, and Prey) and extend how the narrative is told (Half Life, and Heavy Rain use very different methods of story progression than the pre-rendered video of FF-VII).
the Wright to Life
And the redux.
I blame bears, personally.
This is why I don't do 'awards'. They never explain why one thing is better than another - and they always choose 'winners' that suck.
And this isn't "The Top 100 Games of the 21st Century" it's "The 100 top-selling console games of the last 5 years".
Lame - with a capital 'L'.
Still nothing on the $100 in food, clean water, shelter, and clothing per child project.
How can we assume that these 'nature pictures' won't be used to identify and murder trees later?
Sadly, the 'means to an end' argument is a terrible one. It tries to say that even if the methods used are terrible it's okay if the outcome is beneficial. Lots of scientific data was gained when Nazi* doctors experimented on children (like 'how long you survive with acid on your face') but we don't condone these actions.
Yes, more women in more areas of work traditionally done by men would be beneficial to society as a whole (showing woman as just as capable as men is an important part in convincing people that woman are as good as men). But - and this is an important 'but' - the ends never, ever, justify the means. A great benefit from an evil deed still involves an evil deed.
* yeah, yeah, I know Godwin's law says I lose now, but I'm just using it as an example no one will refute. I'm not saying affirmative action is like pouring acid on babies.
I was very excited when I first heard that Apple would be treated in a similar way Microsoft is being treated (not 'the same', to a lesser degree but similarly). Does apple have a "monopoly"? In online music downloads and music players, yes. Are they being "anti-competitive"? Yes, iTunes and iPods are joined at the hip. So, are they going to be force, like Microsoft, to open up and give instructions on how to interact with their software (Microsoft is being forced to do very similar things with their server software)? Ye- no? Well, are they at least being fined like Microsoft is? No? They might actually get paid for this?
So, Microsoft makes online-software that rivals can't interact with. They get fined MILLIONS of dollars, and are forced to help rivals.
Apple makes online-software that rivals can't interact with. They get.. nothing yet? They might have to help their rivals, but if they do they might get paid by the government?
What's the definition of 'double standard" again?
Women are working on stuff? Holy cow!
Am I the only one sick of this kind of 'news'?
This just in: two more female workers signed up for oil drilling, bringing the total population of female oil drillers to 4, of the total population of 20,000
Why does it matter what sex they are? The reason this is 'news' is because people want to hear stories about how women are being treated equally in the workplace. Women's rights are always easy news. You say, "Women have lagged behind men in [insert job] but are catching up thanks to [insert bullshit here]" and you sell newspapers/ad-space/FreeIPodsAndViagra.
If you single out women for working in a specific job for no reason other than 'they're women' you aren't treating them as equals to men. You're treating them like freaks, like a sideshow.
"I know of no better way to keep people in line and afraid to speak out"
Four words: Colour coded alert levels.
This isn't a real question, this is a thinly veiled attempt at getting a conversation going about how terrible the US government is.
Yes, there's a lot of censorship and surveillance going on. Yes, we have to be vigilant about everything we've heard.
My fear is, the fact that we find out about these domestic wiretaps, secret European prisons - means that the people put in charge of these things are morons. Most people in the position to be doing important secret 1984-type dealings are smart. The things we know about are pretty bad - how much worse are the things we don't know about?
Better?
Obviously games involve some degree of interactivity. That's what makes it different from a film or book.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. The notion of 'self'? Do you mean the 'amount of emotional involvement' you have while playing the game? If so, then yes it's true that the same 'story' can be displayed in different ways and that the degree of emotional involvement from the 'user' varies depending on how the story is presented. But that's not really what the point is here. Are you trying to say that because this story was presented as a game it must be less emotionally involving that if it was a film? Or a book? That doesn't make much sense. The blame for one medium being less 'meaningful' than another is, quite simply, writing. We know that there exists both bad-writing and good-writing in every art-form. A poorly written book, or film, or play, or game will always be bad - not because it's a book, or a film, or a play, or a game - but because it was implemented badly. It is not the fault of the medium itself - but with those who fail at using it to it's full potential. You can't say that games are not as good as films because they're not as good right now. When films were first introduced they were basically badly filmed plays. The camera didn't move, no music... nothing that we see today as essential parts of a film. These films suck - a lot - but those films suck, not all films.
Eh? I'm not sure what your point there is. Yes, those are two different ways a similar story can be interpreted. Yes, first and second person narratives can give different emotional responses. So?
That's a good point. Such an event is emotional because you can't control it. That's why people become angry or sad when such things happen in other mediums. You are sad or angry because it 'happened' and you aren't in the frame of mind to think that it can be changed. In a game, you're always thinking about how to 'win'. If something bad happens (like one of your teammates dies) you aren't as effected by it because you are not 'in' the scene like you would be if it was a movie. You are, in a way, 'outside' the scene as an omnipotent observer with the ability to affect the world. Like a god. You have great power over the game's 'world'. You can try and help the characters, and if it doesn't work you can always try again. In a non-interactive medium you cannot do that. You expect that you're able to find some way out of the level with everyone alive. You expect that you'll be able to 'save the world'. In a non-interactive story, you don't expect that, so you don't think in such a way, but in a game you cannot take such consequences as seriously.
Perhaps games need to evolve into a more 'all or nothing' mindset. Currently all games are based on the idea that you can restart at any time and try again. Maybe the game that finally causes us to evoke major emotions will be one where you can't just 'try it again'. Maybe 'the next great game' will start you on a quest to save the world, give you teammates that you grow to care about, and not let you get them back when they get killed. Imagine playing a game and getting careless and having one of your teammates killed. The emotional impact could cause you to take the consequences of your actions much more seriously. You will start to think about characters as much more human if they stay dead.
That said, it doesn't mean it's impossible for a current game to evoke such strong emotions - just harder. I was playing 'Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood' some time ago and had grown attached to my squadmates. In one level we were ambushed and one of my men couldn't get to cover fast enough and screamed out as he was riddled with bullets. My heart stuttered and, for a moment, I froze. It wasn't enough to make me cry, and it was only momentary (I reloaded the level and kept him out of harm's way), but I certainly felt a very strong, very real emotional shock.
Can a game make you cry? Yes. They can, and they will.
Games are an art form just like films or books. These other art-forms can instill a wide range of feeling into those playing/watching/reading them. Interactive media has come a long way since it's inception a few short decades ago, and already there are games which can made you happy, excited, they can move you, or they can scare you, some even make you laugh. It stands to reason that a game can make you cry, it's just a matter of "what game", and "when".
I tagged this story 'werewolf' :)
Someone's jealous.
No, you still don't understand. The key term in the definition is 'as _ as'. 'X is as _ as Y' means that 'X is not Y'. Now, in the definition, 'X' is 'social constructs' and 'Y' is 'facts'. 'Facts'. Let's let that sink in. 'Facts'. Social constructs are not 'facts'.
No, that's what you're arguing. You contend that "because I believe it, it's real" - I keep explaining that "no, what's real is real regardless of whether or not you believe it".
Yes: what you think dictates to a large extent how you will behave. To change how you act because of these beliefs you have to recognise and understand that, and adjust your beliefs accordingly. No: thoughts are not 'real'. They are "real" to the person, but not 'real', not 'real' in that they are 'factual'. I can't explain this any more simply: just because YOU think so, doesn't mean you're right. For a few years, I thought that the sky was made of marbles, I was wrong - the sky was never made of marbles. If "thoughts are real" then the sky would have been made of marbles.
No, no, no. It involved 'race', yes. Race still doesn't exist. I really can't explain this any better: just because people believe it, doesn't mean it's true! Belief and truth are not correlated!
It's not "inspired" by racism, that's possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard. That woman has very dark skin and hair, that other woman has very light skin and hair. That's it. Come on now - you're too smart to actually believe that.
You seem to contend that racism is terrible... but you keep talking about 'them'. You seem not just concerned, but fixated on race. You seem to have an 'us versus them' attitude about this - and that's actually very racist and incredibly detrimental to the situation.
Well, "slavery" is a big deal. It's the forced subservitude of one person to another. It almost split your country in two! (which reminds me of a couple real good Lincoln quotes that make me proud to be half-American).
The REALLY big deal with slavery is that it still exists in some countries. Americans get all pent up about skin colour and history, but human slavery STILL EXISTS. Perspective is key.
Okay, let's make this clear: slavery is one of the worst things one person can do to another. Okay? Let's make that clear: I don't like slavery.
I'm actually pretty sure I don't have a side. Other than Tim Buckley, I've never heard anyone else suggest that they think 'race' doesn't exist.
I'd also like to point out that I don't WANT a side. I want everyone to work together to abolish 'race'. It's not 'blacks against whites', it's not 'the people against big business', it's not 'racists against non-racists'. it's not 'us against them' - it's just 'us'. We're all in this together.
That you. It's actually a bit presumptuous for a Canadian to talk about a clearly American issue. While racism exists here too - it's always been comforting to know that, historically, Canada's been a 'multi-cultural' place.
The "truth of history"? I just don't understand what this 'truth of history' means to you - to me, it simply means 'the truth'. I'm pretty sure the truth of history is that Europeans showed up and fucked the natives over because they believed the natives were a separate 'type' of human, and that the European 'type' was superior. Nothing about that 'truth of history' suggest that 'race' exists. The 'truth of history' is that there was a time when some people thought 'some thing', and acted upon it. Later that 'thing' turned out to be wrong and these people slowly began accept that they were wrong and change the way they acted. This is how history goes, for the most part. The Earth being flat, the sun revolving around the Earth, gravity, microscopic organisms, race... it's all just a matter of time.
When I say that 'race only exists as a social construct' I mean to say that 'race' (as I've explained above) doesn't exisit in-and-of itself. It only exists as religion exists, as something created by people. It cannot exist on it's own.
I was using that as an example of how a person can have a 'cultural identity' without resorting to 'race'.
It's important to you. It's not important to me. Remember you can't speak for everyone's ideals and morals.
True - and you think that solving this problem involves contnuing to acknowledge 'race'? Um, maybe I'm just grasping here but perhaps 'racial inequality' wouldn't exist if 'race' didn't exist... I don't know, seems pretty simple to me. I know no one believes that red-heads are a separate sub-species and there's very little 're-head discrimination'.
So, your culture is dependant on the idea that you are a separate 'race' from others? Your customs are derived from the idea that the First Peoples are different from the Europeans? Now, and again perhaps I'm just talking crazy here, but perhaps these customs are based in something other than 'race'. I was under the impression that these customs were created before ideas of 'race' developed in North America, before the Europeans arrived.
Quite true. I have very strong ties to this country, I am also very proud of my ancestory in Scotland. I celebrate these customs daily - but I don't celebrate them because of my 'Canadian race' or my 'Scotish race'.
Whoot are you talking aboot?