Flash Game Makes Players Beat Up "Tropes vs. Women" Creator

| 6 Jul 2012 18:35
image

Creator calls Anita Sarkeesian's Kickstarter a "scam."

When FeministFrequency writer and videomaker Anita Sarkeesian started a Kickstarter to fund a video series examining problematic and sexist tropes regarding female characters in videogames, she sought a paltry $6,000 to make it happen. After igniting a reactionary misogynist firestorm, she came away with over $160,000. The harassment campaign against Sarkeesian hasn't ended with the Kickstarter, though; it now includes an interactive videogame where the player is invited to punch her in the face.

"Anita Sarkeesian has not only scammed thousands of people out of over $160,000," writes the game's maker, who goes by the handle of "Bendilin," "but also uses the excuse that she is a woman to get away with whatever she damn well pleases. Any form of constructive criticism, even from fellow women, is either ignored or labelled to be sexist against her."

"She claims to want gender equality in video games, but in reality, she just wants to use the fact that she was born with a vagina to get free money and sympathy from everyone who crosses her path."

There has, in fact, been a ton of reasonable (and not-so-reasonable) discourse in the gaming community recently regarding the treatment of women in and out of games. Some of that discourse agrees with Sarkeesian, and some of it does not, and even criticizes her. Most of it manages to do so without being sexist, even.

But that's besides the point being made here. Kickstarter doesn't hide the amount of money that has been donated. People chose to give to Sarkeesian's project knowing full well that it had wildly outstripped not just the original $6,000 mark but all of its stretch goals. By that very definition, as long as she works on the video series and delivers, calling it a "scam" is a ridiculous stretch even if you disagree with her viewpoints.

What makes this so troubling isn't that people disagree with her viewpoints - which is in itself perfectly reasonable - but that there is a campaign of harassment to keep her from expressing her viewpoints in the first place.

Of course, the great irony here is that the vicious response is not only giving Sarkeesian's cause way more publicity than it would have otherwise gotten, but does more to illustrate the problem of misogyny in nerd/gamer culture way more than a video series ever could.

Because seriously, making a videogame about beating a woman in the face for daring to express the point of view that a male-dominated industry doesn't always treat women and female characters like it should, is kind of just making her point for her.

Source: Newgrounds, via Destructoid

Update: The game has been "blammed" by Newgrounds users, effectively removing it from the site. That's probably for the best.

Post Comment

You must be logged in to post. Log In

should just ignore feminists most of the time they have no idea what theyre talking about anyway

Now I don't think it requires a crate full of credits to do what she's doing, but then I remember I'm not the one giving her money.

So I could care less, this guy should too.

There are tons of similar games.
Justin Bieber, George Bush etc etc.

Zachary Amaranth:

Except nothing you've said, nothing that's been said here at all, indicates she's in the latter category.

Fine. She isn't a troll. Just the asshole White Knights who defend her at every turn are, given how I can't go to any of my normal sites without this topic being front-and-center.

I got really tired of it, and said something out of a moment of anger. At the time, I thought she was another feminist who talks a lot of shit, but provides no alternatives (a personal pet peeve of mine are people who complain and advocate for change, but abjectly refuse to provide even a simple solution).
Her work is more analytical, which is to say, more about identifying the problem.

As for her work, I'm not against stronger feminine characters, but this is a problem with NO SOLUTION so long as gaming companies stick to their hyper-conservative routine: Which means pandering to the safest, most proven demographics.

Beyond that, I don't know what the hell you have against me, but I'm tired of it. I'm tired of White Knights on the net, and I'm tired of this topic especially.

Good day.

Atmos Duality:

There's a difference between tackling controversy for the sake of action (advocating change) and for the sake of just stirring the shit pot for profit.

Except nothing you've said, nothing that's been said here at all, indicates she's in the latter category.

You condemn her because your overly glib interpretation of her prior works involve her just saying "the industry is bad" without offering a solution. I've looked at her prior videos, and your portrayal is simply wrong.

Also, "what is your plan?" Bad for the bush Administration, bad for any argument.

What is it about her works specifically that merits such rage and trolling, and why does it keep going back and forth without end?

What do you mean about her works specifically? This happens to virtually everyone who has such views. For someone who thinks it's just the same stuff over and over again, you must surely have recognised the related pattern of dismissal, trolling, hate threads and death threats.

Gamers aren't exactly friendly to change.

RT-Medic-with-shotgun:

JerrytheBullfrog:

I realize that quite well, thank you very much. I'm beginning to think that you don't, considering that you're mistaking the criticism of one with the criticism of another.

Ask yourself this: Why is she criticizing Kanye's video instead of criticizing, say, Lady Gaga's videos, wherein she wears plenty of skimpy clothing? A crucial difference here is that of "agency." That is, who decides what the women are to be wearing? In one, it's the women - Lady Gaga wears what Lady Gaga decides she wants to wear. Maybe this IS for the titillation of a male viewer, but it's still the woman's choice to do so, much like it's her choice to do so IRL. In the other, it's the men - the women wear what the men want them to wear to titillate the male viewer. They have no agency.

I'm actually kind of stunned that you don't see the objectification here. Most of the women in this video are portrayed as dead. They're lifeless and immobile, only around for their physical appearance in lingerie. Hell, in one scene Kanye is physically rearranging them! They are literally being portrayed as objects, not people. The message here is that the artists in the video choose to surround themselves with women in lingerie for no reason other than that they look sexy in lingerie. It is ABSOLUTELY exploitation and objectification of the highest order, and that you insist that she's just criticizing "Women in lingerie = bad" just kind of makes me think that you... honestly don't understand what she's getting at.

A woman may have designed Bayonetta, but it was men who decided how to portray her in game. Is the character designer responsible for the lascivious shots panning over her crotch and ass? Probably not.

SO because a man told the women to dress that way(regardless of purpose) it is objectification. Bull shit. As said before, the women in the Kanye video serve as background dressing. Extras functioning as props for symbolism. They wore clothing normally regarded as sexy but were not sexualized. Yes, they wore less than modest clothing but the point was not 'check these bitches being half naked'. There is a reason most of the girl is obscured by lighting. Point is her criticisms are a glancing blow. It scrapes the top but doesn't bite deep into the meaning or purpose of the song. She see female extras playing dead while wearing lingerie & cries misogyny without exploring any possible meanings, she sees the difference between white & black women's portrayal here & cries foul in the same manner. She watched the video, saw something that pissed her off, & opened fire. She did not decide to think maybe that wacky kanye is trying to say something that's not 'i hate women'. But both of you jump straight to crying misogyny, no analysis of the lyrics or exploration of possible purposes, straight to the misogyny.. My favorite analysis of the song is multifaceted, that its a commentary on white/black politics, the music industries 'meat grinder' business practices, a look at what fame can do to you, & a glance into the past. But im sure its all misogyny & demonetization of women because that's what the patriarchy do. The video is not the ramblings of a misogynistic madman, its got purpose. At any rate, titillation is not the word i would use to describe any of the girls in the video, the idea of a dead girl is not sexy to most people. necrophilia is still a very small niche.

She designed the characters appearance & behavior. But regardless of gender of the person executing this, a man making the character does not automatically invalidate their sexuality, or that they were made to harm/spite women.

Before this goes forward you will define, misogyny, sexual objectification, exploitation, sexualization. Particularly how YOU define them. Otherwise this will be unable to progress any further.

No, because *someone else* told them to dress that way for the benefit of a viewer, not because they chose to dress themselves that way. It could have been a woman; they are still being objectified.

If the video is, as you say, about the music industry's meat grinder, why are there no men found in similar attire/state of literally being reduced to objects? There is a undercurrent here equating death to the sexual objectification of women, and I can hardly blame her for being a bit disturbed.

A man or a woman making the character does not make much of a difference. If a woman decided to do panning shots over her crotch or frame shots with her legs and ass, it'd still be objectification. It is admittedly trickier in Bayonetta given that it's such a stylized parody, but when Bayonetta is one of the few games that even have any pretense at letting the female characters SOMEWHAT "own" their sexuality (and even then, it's just as much playing the objectification angle straight as it is attempting to subvert it, so...)

Sexual objectification - the reduction of a character or human being into an object. Taking her (or his) body and prioritizing it above any message or personality or character they could have, because they're trying to use sex to appeal to an audience. It's women in videogames and comics wearing high heels to the battlefield just as much as it is women with big breasts jumping on trampolines.

Exploitation - Difficult to summarize. Someone using the identity of someone else as a tool for marketing/appeal/whatever, generally to an audience outside of that which is being exploited.

Sexualization - A character or person being sexy, or presenting in a sexual manner. This may be exploitation/objectification if done at the command of another. This may however, also be an individual's choice. (Assuming it's a person. A fictional character has no agency in how she or he is presented).

Misogyny - I'm just going to link a good quote here. "There are some bad bad man-hating bitches and still they don't make misandry a meaningful word-idea that deserves equal status opposite misogyny. Misandry is not a system and it does not oppress; misogyny is and does. Misogyny is, among other things, men hating women without knowing why, only fearing. It's men failing to empathize with women because empathy is sharing power, and no traditionally ruling class wants to share."

So to just write misogyny off as literal "hatred of women" is understating it. It is the system of oppression that enables such hatred and minimizing.

Zachary Amaranth:

I mean, unless you're saying tackling any controversial issue is trolling, because what she's doing is really no different than anyone else who looks at controversies "for profit."

There's a difference between tackling controversy for the sake of action (advocating change) and for the sake of just stirring the shit pot for profit.

From what I've seen of Ms. Sarkeesian's videos and works, she's only too happy to condemn the industry (fine, they aren't above criticism) but what is her plan or agenda?
The only thing that's been made clear is "stop treating women like objects in video games", which isn't exactly treading any new ground here.

What is it about her works specifically that merits such rage and trolling, and why does it keep going back and forth without end?

Atmos Duality:

Zachary Amaranth:

Pretty loose version of "trolling" here, it seems.

What would you call it?
Because all I see is a lady who got a kickstarter setup and made a mint by stirring the shit pot, and how a bunch of immature trolls responded.

If goes ahead and makes a game/movie with the movie, fine. It's her right.
I honestly don't see what is so special about her or her message that it deserves such attention.

Trolls responded...So she's...Trolling.

Huh. That makes absolutely zero sense.

I mean, unless you're saying tackling any controversial issue is trolling, because what she's doing is really no different than anyone else who looks at controversies "for profit."

JerrytheBullfrog:

I realize that quite well, thank you very much. I'm beginning to think that you don't, considering that you're mistaking the criticism of one with the criticism of another.

Ask yourself this: Why is she criticizing Kanye's video instead of criticizing, say, Lady Gaga's videos, wherein she wears plenty of skimpy clothing? A crucial difference here is that of "agency." That is, who decides what the women are to be wearing? In one, it's the women - Lady Gaga wears what Lady Gaga decides she wants to wear. Maybe this IS for the titillation of a male viewer, but it's still the woman's choice to do so, much like it's her choice to do so IRL. In the other, it's the men - the women wear what the men want them to wear to titillate the male viewer. They have no agency.

I'm actually kind of stunned that you don't see the objectification here. Most of the women in this video are portrayed as dead. They're lifeless and immobile, only around for their physical appearance in lingerie. Hell, in one scene Kanye is physically rearranging them! They are literally being portrayed as objects, not people. The message here is that the artists in the video choose to surround themselves with women in lingerie for no reason other than that they look sexy in lingerie. It is ABSOLUTELY exploitation and objectification of the highest order, and that you insist that she's just criticizing "Women in lingerie = bad" just kind of makes me think that you... honestly don't understand what she's getting at.

A woman may have designed Bayonetta, but it was men who decided how to portray her in game. Is the character designer responsible for the lascivious shots panning over her crotch and ass? Probably not.

SO because a man told the women to dress that way(regardless of purpose) it is objectification. Bull shit. As said before, the women in the Kanye video serve as background dressing. Extras functioning as props for symbolism. They wore clothing normally regarded as sexy but were not sexualized. Yes, they wore less than modest clothing but the point was not 'check these bitches being half naked'. There is a reason most of the girl is obscured by lighting. Point is her criticisms are a glancing blow. It scrapes the top but doesn't bite deep into the meaning or purpose of the song. She see female extras playing dead while wearing lingerie & cries misogyny without exploring any possible meanings, she sees the difference between white & black women's portrayal here & cries foul in the same manner. She watched the video, saw something that pissed her off, & opened fire. She did not decide to think maybe that wacky kanye is trying to say something that's not 'i hate women'. But both of you jump straight to crying misogyny, no analysis of the lyrics or exploration of possible purposes, straight to the misogyny.. My favorite analysis of the song is multifaceted, that its a commentary on white/black politics, the music industries 'meat grinder' business practices, a look at what fame can do to you, & a glance into the past. But im sure its all misogyny & demonetization of women because that's what the patriarchy do. The video is not the ramblings of a misogynistic madman, its got purpose. At any rate, titillation is not the word i would use to describe any of the girls in the video, the idea of a dead girl is not sexy to most people. necrophilia is still a very small niche.

She designed the characters appearance & behavior. But regardless of gender of the person executing this, a man making the character does not automatically invalidate their sexuality, or that they were made to harm/spite women.

Before this goes forward you will define, misogyny, sexual objectification, exploitation, sexualization. Particularly how YOU define them. Otherwise this will be unable to progress any further.

I can agree to an extent but there are bias's within rights groups that deserve attention.many good points tho

What about the men in gagas vids always half naked. Is wager that is a double standard. Sexism in kanyes video is not present. He does not drive home that he's better than these women . The video was a brash look at the entertainment industry and about vices. For kanye his vices are women. He sees himself as a monster having gone too far an them be ing dead represents what he an by extension fame does to these women that would group around him. He talks about habit.g crossed the line an that he will let god decide this means that hrs a better judge of himself than others an that only god can decide.

There is something positive about bayonettas sexuallity. As a person she's mastered it an is not anywhere close to a victim. All she does she does to entertain herself. This to me is a good message that men an women can learn from I too would be stronger were I more masterful of my own sexuality.

Now I know what's coming next.""but men wrote her that way for men". Indeed but not Inspite of women. Women too can enjoy bayonettas shere awesome if they choose an some do.I'd argue that those against such a thing are repressing there own expression an sexuality. If she were to be submissive there'd be a case but making sexy things for men to enjoy is no different than making sexy things for women. We just need more female service not the prude police coming after us!lol

rbstewart7263:
Fair enough. I just get sick of the dismissal that comes from being a straight white male. If I say "limiting the art of others to instill your sense of right an wrong does injustice to us all." My opinion is dismissed as though I've never lived in a rat infested trailer or worked in a furniture factory. If a black trans woman were to say "limiting the art of others to instill your sense of right an wrong does injustice to us all." Then its held up as an absolute truth. That is hypocrisy.I'm just like her but to everyone else I'm Tue black suited CEO and she is the downtrodden. I thought the point of equal rights was that we are all heard equally.

I'm not sure I understand the quote, can you rephrase it? But honestly, it's true that when it comes to discussing oppression, you - and I, as a heterosexual cisgendered white man - don't have the relevant experience to discuss it as someone who is actively oppressed or marginalized by society. We don't have the experiences that they might, and so in that regard we absolutely should shut up and listen rather than speaking, because we are already assumed to be the default.

It's interesting that you phrase it as "that we are all heard equally." There was a study from... last year? A year before? I don't remember off the top of my head, but it essentially said that in a classroom or other discussion environment, if women spoke equally as much as men - a straight 50/50 split - it was perceived by men as inequal in favor of women. What was actually equality, we perceived as inequality against us. Men tended to say that it was "equal" when the speech was 70/30 in our favor.

It's important to remember that heterosexual cisgender white men are considered the "default." In society, we have institutionalized power. When we speak, people are less likely to see us as representative members of a group and more as individuals, and they're MORE likely to listen to us - people will take feminist lessons more seriously if they come from a guy than a lady, which is kinda fucked up.

We don't have to worry about people taking what we have to say seriously because it's already kind of assumed by society. To that extent, it IS important to advocate for the speech of marginalized groups over the privileged, because we already have that recognition and legitimacy that they lack. And, again, they have experiences on the subject that we simply cannot understand by virtue of never having lived them.

RT-Medic-with-shotgun:

Define exploitation of sexuality & how it differs from sexuality on its own. Also, the sex negativity in the Kanye video stems from her zeroing in on the girls being in lingerie. Also, from the stance of film-making the girls were extras. Extras are background dressing & serve little more purpose beyond living props. This is not restricted to women, & nothing is wrong with it. While they are functioning as objects for the purpose of the video, what makes them sex objects? That they are wearing lingerie? Which leaves her only criticism 'this fetishizes parts of us' on the only standing that the human body is inherently wrong. Because this is not exploitation, the shock value is minimal & the sexual value is null. Another thing is that, while race is used, its not racist. At least not since none of the claims have backed the statement beyond 'white women= dead sex objects & black women= demons'.

Spinning my wheels here because i can't seem to get you top realize sex doesn't equal sexual objectification/exploitation.

Just so you know, Bayonetta was designed by a woman when told to make a modern witch that wields guns.

I realize that quite well, thank you very much. I'm beginning to think that you don't, considering that you're mistaking the criticism of one with the criticism of another.

Ask yourself this: Why is she criticizing Kanye's video instead of criticizing, say, Lady Gaga's videos, wherein she wears plenty of skimpy clothing? A crucial difference here is that of "agency." That is, who decides what the women are to be wearing? In one, it's the women - Lady Gaga wears what Lady Gaga decides she wants to wear. Maybe this IS for the titillation of a male viewer, but it's still the woman's choice to do so, much like it's her choice to do so IRL. In the other, it's the men - the women wear what the men want them to wear to titillate the male viewer. They have no agency.

I'm actually kind of stunned that you don't see the objectification here. Most of the women in this video are portrayed as dead. They're lifeless and immobile, only around for their physical appearance in lingerie. Hell, in one scene Kanye is physically rearranging them! They are literally being portrayed as objects, not people. The message here is that the artists in the video choose to surround themselves with women in lingerie for no reason other than that they look sexy in lingerie. It is ABSOLUTELY exploitation and objectification of the highest order, and that you insist that she's just criticizing "Women in lingerie = bad" just kind of makes me think that you... honestly don't understand what she's getting at.

A woman may have designed Bayonetta, but it was men who decided how to portray her in game. Is the character designer responsible for the lascivious shots panning over her crotch and ass? Probably not.

Yeah people assume a lot but it comes down to taste. I got a friend who would love a bad ass bitch like bayonetta. Another who was spouting the same rhetoric an after seeing the game changed her mind. Sarkeesians just more prude minded an I'm gonna stick by cdproject an crystal dynamics. If sarkeesian wants more games likened to her taste she should take that money and get it done.

JerrytheBullfrog:

I'd seen the Bayonetta video before. And sorry, but I don't see any of this supposed sex-negativitism in the Kanye video. She's criticizing a male artist for his portrayal of women as sex objects - literally objects, not even alive - as well as problematic portrayals along racial lines. The women in the video have no agency of their own, it's Kanye's show.

There is no sex-negativity in this or the Bayonetta video. She is criticizing a male establishment's exploitation of female sexuality, not female sexuality in itself.

Define exploitation of sexuality & how it differs from sexuality on its own. Also, the sex negativity in the Kanye video stems from her zeroing in on the girls being in lingerie. Also, from the stance of film-making the girls were extras. Extras are background dressing & serve little more purpose beyond living props. This is not restricted to women, & nothing is wrong with it. While they are functioning as objects for the purpose of the video, what makes them sex objects? That they are wearing lingerie? Which leaves her only criticism 'this fetishizes parts of us' on the only standing that the human body is inherently wrong. Because this is not exploitation, the shock value is minimal & the sexual value is null. Another thing is that, while race is used, its not racist. At least not since none of the claims have backed the statement beyond 'white women= dead sex objects & black women= demons'.

Spinning my wheels here because i can't seem to get you top realize sex doesn't equal sexual objectification/exploitation.

Just so you know, Bayonetta was designed by a woman when told to make a modern witch that wields guns.

Fair enough. I just get sick of the dismissal that comes from being a straight white male. If I say "limiting the art of others to instill your sense of right an wrong does injustice to us all." My opinion is dismissed as though I've never lived in a rat infested trailer or worked in a furniture factory. If a black trans woman were to say "limiting the art of others to instill your sense of right an wrong does injustice to us all." Then its held up as an absolute truth. That is hypocrisy.I'm just like her but to everyone else I'm Tue black suited CEO and she is the downtrodden. I thought the point of equal rights was that we are all heard equally.

BNguyen:

Why not be mad at the Europeans who bought, sold, and escalated the salve trade to a global market? At least people from America at the time didn't participate in colonizing areas and exploiting the people. Europeans were by far bigger racists than Americans were.
And by your logic, you're saying we should be mad at modern United States citizens for being a part of a country that participated in slave and racially demeaning actions.
Did you even know that most slaves from Africa did not come to the U.S. but rather to plantations owned and run by Europeans in Central and South America?

Missing the point, dude. History is history; it is the effects of said history that are still felt in the modern day that we need to be concerned about.

rbstewart7263:

Is that aimed at me? No the point is to dismantle the popularly held notion that the white man is the worst and every other culture just wants to live simple family lives while the evil white man wants to fuck it up and enslave you.

The truth is more realistic. That when countries fall to there rivals they become the enslavers when they were the slaves to begin with etc etc. basicly this obviously doesnt ALWAYS happen but you get my point.

No once again my point is that we shouldnt be mad at anyone. The white man in a business tie is the whipping boy of the century and when you look at all of history holistically. Well theres some bad in all of us. A point where our culture or ancestral culture was great. A point where it was shitty and did shitty things to other cultures sometimes wiping that culture out.

We shouldnt pick at the english for slaves cause damn near everyone has kept a slave or been kept as a slave.

We shouldnt be mad at anyone.

Again, you're also missing the point. The point is not "people of color were treated terribly by white settlers and colonists for centuries," though that is, in fact, true. The point has nothing to do with history for history's sake, and everything to do with how things are today.

We are not talking about racial (and gender!) struggle and power imbalances a hundred and fifty years ago, we are talking about those things as they exist today. To do so, it is necessary to understand history. Today, though we have made great strides towards equality, the default image of power in US society (and in fact, most Western society) is that of a white man. Taken as a whole, white people and men possess institutionalized power that people of color and women do not have.

Why is this? Well, because of history. 150 years ago, black people were still held as slaves in half of the country. Then we had Jim Crow, segregation, the KKK, etc. 100 years ago, women couldn't vote. Through the feminist movement and the Civil Rights movement, these conditions have certainly improved; nobody's doubting that. But they are still not equal in society's eyes.

And for hundreds of years - and even today still - violence or the threat of violence has been used to silence "uppity" people of color or women; it was used by those in power to silence those without it. So to that end, a game that invites people to beat up someone who is a member of a group that is still disenfranchised (POCs, women, LGBT people, etc) has unfortunate implications that a game about beating up someone with institutional power does not.

Understanding that is why we need to know history - its effects that linger today. No, you don't need to feel guilty or ashamed because your great great great great great great grandfather was a slave-owning Confederate; obviously that's not your fault. But you DO need to understand how that history still shapes power imbalances today, and to not dismiss it.

Have I explained that better now?

BNguyen:

JerrytheBullfrog:

rbstewart7263:

Ok for the record Im only saying this for clarification only I dont support the "beat up the black/ jew thing" But your point seems to be that there has been a historical bias in marginalizing them/using them as a resource. this is true the slave trade was one of the worst things that ever happened.

however africans particularly nubians had slaves as well in the 25th century.

Ancient Egypt conquered Nubian territory in various eras, and incorporated parts of the area into its provinces. The Nubians in turn were to conquer Egypt under its 25th Dynasty.

There was slavery under nubian rule though it is known that it was not a fixture enough for it to be well recorded.

Later there culture would be combined with that of egyptian(Nubian pharoahs for example) and the trend would increase as time went on.

Egyptians would also have nubian slaves and this would go back and forth it would seem. Its hard to know of a decisive victor since the cultures would merge to become indistinguishable to one another.

So this is contrary to the notion that africa has ALWAYS been the victim and indeed were the agressors.

So in my view the english catch all the flack as though it were only white people to use slaves. The english and french were simply the LATEST in a long history of power struggles in the world to use it.

This runs contrary to the notion that africans are perpetual victims by others. Indeed sometimes they were on top and sometimes not so.

And to summarize its the same with Jewish culture having its ups and downs too.They too participated in the slave trade though not as much as hitler would later claim.

an you can look all this up a simple google:"nubians had slaves" or "jews owned slaves" to find all of the info here.

again I just wanted to dimantle the common notion that "teh white man is the only bad man ever" which is prevalent today.

...modern history, dude. Yes, african empires used slaves. Pretty much EVERYONE in antiquity used slaves. But that has nothing to do with a history of racism and oppression in, specifically, America.

I mean by your logic, we should still be angry at the Greeks or Mongolians for conquering huge swaths of the world.

Why not be mad at the Europeans who bought, sold, and escalated the salve trade to a global market? At least people from America at the time didn't participate in colonizing areas and exploiting the people. Europeans were by far bigger racists than Americans were.
And by your logic, you're saying we should be mad at modern United States citizens for being a part of a country that participated in slave and racially demeaning actions.
Did you even know that most slaves from Africa did not come to the U.S. but rather to plantations owned and run by Europeans in Central and South America?

Is that aimed at me? No the point is to dismantle the popularly held notion that the white man is the worst and every other culture just wants to live simple family lives while the evil white man wants to fuck it up and enslave you.

The truth is more realistic. That when countries fall to there rivals they become the enslavers when they were the slaves to begin with etc etc. basicly this obviously doesnt ALWAYS happen but you get my point.

No once again my point is that we shouldnt be mad at anyone. The white man in a business tie is the whipping boy of the century and when you look at all of history holistically. Well theres some bad in all of us. A point where our culture or ancestral culture was great. A point where it was shitty and did shitty things to other cultures sometimes wiping that culture out.

We shouldnt pick at the english for slaves cause damn near everyone has kept a slave or been kept as a slave.

We shouldnt be mad at anyone.

Trilligan:
I'm just gonna leave this here.

Good read actually. I an everyone here probably does this.

JerrytheBullfrog:

rbstewart7263:

JerrytheBullfrog:

This is not being overly chivalrous, or somehow saying that women are weak and need to be protected. This is about recognizing that there has been for centuries (if not longer), a history of keeping women "in their place" via violence and the threat of violence. Calling this out for perpetuating that culture of silence-via-violence is a good thing.

It'd be pretty fucked up if it were, say, a "beat up a black man" or "beat up a Jew" game, too, because again, there is a history there of violence against marginalized and disenfranchised groups. Refer to my earlier point about how power factors into this.

Ok for the record Im only saying this for clarification only I dont support the "beat up the black/ jew thing" But your point seems to be that there has been a historical bias in marginalizing them/using them as a resource. this is true the slave trade was one of the worst things that ever happened.

however africans particularly nubians had slaves as well in the 25th century.

Ancient Egypt conquered Nubian territory in various eras, and incorporated parts of the area into its provinces. The Nubians in turn were to conquer Egypt under its 25th Dynasty.

There was slavery under nubian rule though it is known that it was not a fixture enough for it to be well recorded.

Later there culture would be combined with that of egyptian(Nubian pharoahs for example) and the trend would increase as time went on.

Egyptians would also have nubian slaves and this would go back and forth it would seem. Its hard to know of a decisive victor since the cultures would merge to become indistinguishable to one another.

So this is contrary to the notion that africa has ALWAYS been the victim and indeed were the agressors.

So in my view the english catch all the flack as though it were only white people to use slaves. The english and french were simply the LATEST in a long history of power struggles in the world to use it.

This runs contrary to the notion that africans are perpetual victims by others. Indeed sometimes they were on top and sometimes not so.

And to summarize its the same with Jewish culture having its ups and downs too.They too participated in the slave trade though not as much as hitler would later claim.

an you can look all this up a simple google:"nubians had slaves" or "jews owned slaves" to find all of the info here.

again I just wanted to dimantle the common notion that "teh white man is the only bad man ever" which is prevalent today.

...modern history, dude. Yes, african empires used slaves. Pretty much EVERYONE in antiquity used slaves. But that has nothing to do with a history of racism and oppression in, specifically, America.

I mean by your logic, we should still be angry at the Greeks or Mongolians for conquering huge swaths of the world.

Why not be mad at the Europeans who bought, sold, and escalated the salve trade to a global market? At least people from America at the time didn't participate in colonizing areas and exploiting the people. Europeans were by far bigger racists than Americans were.
And by your logic, you're saying we should be mad at modern United States citizens for being a part of a country that participated in slave and racially demeaning actions.
Did you even know that most slaves from Africa did not come to the U.S. but rather to plantations owned and run by Europeans in Central and South America?

Continue reading 1055 comments on the forums.