Implications of Social-Construct terms of "Humanity" and "Beast"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Payadopa

True (as far as I understand), but 40k only has two emotions that go along with that.
Rage and barely contained rage.

---

In the world of Warhammer, emotions like empathy is for the weak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moogly900

<snip>

What do you guys think?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jandor

I think beastmen are different to the human races, certainly in appearance.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moogly900

Several angry replies!

---

So... do you want people to share what they think or not? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jandor

No confirmed biological difference? Mate, what? Half of them aren't even mammals.

---

There is no confirmed biological or aetherical difference between the playable races and other tribes that would be cause for categorizing them as an other.

The bolded part is the point. Obviously Sahagin are fish and Ananta and reptiles, but that wasn't the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldStarz

There is no confirmed biological or aetherical difference between the playable races and other tribes that would be cause for categorizing them as an other.

The bolded part is the point. Obviously Sahagin are fish and Ananta and reptiles, but that wasn't the point.

---

Right. "I think, I feel, therefore I am."

Many of them speak the common tongues. They are capable of ambition, of kindness and cruelty, of love and hate, happiness and sadness, animosity and forgiveness. That makes them no more deserving of a derogatory designation like "Beastmen" than the Hrothgar, Lupin, or Kojin, all of whom are no less bestial than say... the Amal'jaa, but who have been largely accepted in Eorzea's spoken communities by now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Payadopa

True (as far as I understand), but 40k only has two emotions that go along with that.
Rage and barely contained rage.

---

You forgot the 3rd emotion of legend, the one that leaves naught but destruction in its wake. I speak of course...OF HERESY!

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/46/28...972e8bf678.gif

Flippantly, I would suspect the primary difference between "humanity" and "beast races" is which ones are likely to be possessed by an Ascian.

Because I would dare an Ascian to take the form of a Namazu.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YianKutku

Flippantly, I would suspect the primary difference between "humanity" and "beast races" is which ones are likely to be possessed by an Ascian.

Because I would dare an Ascian to take the form of a Namazu.

---

Lahabrea would do it. That man went through bodies so fast that he burnt himself out so hard we could beat him in a fight at level 50.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldStarz

Lahabrea would do it. That man went through bodies so fast that he burnt himself out so hard we could beat him in a fight at level 50.

---

To the point where Emet-Selch almost blatantly called him an idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldStarz

There is no confirmed biological or aetherical difference between the playable races and other tribes that would be cause for categorizing them as an other.

The bolded part is the point. Obviously Sahagin are fish and Ananta and reptiles, but that wasn't the point.

---

My point is that they don't look like people, that is what made it so easy to categorize them as an "other."

The beast tribes of Eorzea look like, well, tribes of beasts. It seems incredibly unlikely that the term would have caught on and spread like it did were that not the case.

In fact, you can see this reflected on the other side of the world with the Au ra steppe tribes that were mentioned in the comment I was replying to, and that caused you in turn to bring up the Hrothgar and Lupin.
The Hrothgar and Lupin, and Namazu for that matter, were all well integrated into the local civilizations, and the Au ra steppe tribes are not. In fact the steppe tribes act far more savagely than some of Eorzean beast tribes, but oh would you look at that, when your local "beasts" behave themselves and the local savages are pretty, then neither the beast tribe term, nor any functional equivalent, arises.

-----

The sad truth is that the manipulative potato people have tricked all the pretty but gullible Eorzeans into bullying all the ugly ones for their own lewd benefit, and maybe so they could open some new mines or something as well, but that was almost certainly secondary. :(

Slapping the Beastman label on any of Eorzea's indigenous tribes, let alone the Steppe Au Ra is, was in effect the same as British settlers calling the Natives of America "Savages." Nothing more than a thinly veiled publicity ploy to make the Amal'jaa an other so they could excuse expansionist aggression and tax the trade routes for protection.

Their biology matters for very little on a world like Hydaelyn. If it can think, if it can speak, and process emotions then it is a spoken. "Humanity" and "Beastmen" false labels that by rights should not exist but do anyway because lalafell are assholes.

And the garleans call other races/cultures savages, including hyur. Both terms are used for the same reasons, to make others out as 'lesser' and dehumanize them. Both terms exist for basically the same reasons and are used to the same ends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jandor

So... do you want people to share what they think or not? :confused:

---

GoldStarz already told you that these labels are nothing more than social constructs made by the people of Eorzea..yet, you refuse to even acknowledge that. Human looking =/= human but rather as Humanoids or Demi-humans. That's the point. Yeah, and the people in the first page already had clarified it for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyuDragnier

You forgot the 3rd emotion of legend, the one that leaves naught but destruction in its wake. I speak of course...OF HERESY!

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/46/28...972e8bf678.gif

---

Ah, If only that there had been a Warhammer 40k MMO then this conversation would definitely be awesome, rofl.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirisu

Slapping the Beastman label on any of Eorzea's indigenous tribes, let alone the Steppe Au Ra is, was in effect the same as British settlers calling the Natives of America "Savages." Nothing more than a thinly veiled publicity ploy to make the Amal'jaa an other so they could excuse expansionist aggression and tax the trade routes for protection.

Their biology matters for very little on a world like Hydaelyn. If it can think, if it can speak, and process emotions then it is a spoken. "Humanity" and "Beastmen" false labels that by rights should not exist but do anyway because lalafell are assholes.

---

Man, their cute appearance is pretty deceptive, rofl.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jandor

My point is that they don't look like people, that is what made it so easy to categorize them as an "other."

The beast tribes of Eorzea look like, well, tribes of beasts. It seems incredibly unlikely that the term would have caught on and spread like it did were that not the case.

In fact, you can see this reflected on the other side of the world with the Au ra steppe tribes that were mentioned in the comment I was replying to, and that caused you in turn to bring up the Hrothgar and Lupin.
The Hrothgar and Lupin, and Namazu for that matter, were all well integrated into the local civilizations, and the Au ra steppe tribes are not. In fact the steppe tribes act far more savagely than some of Eorzean beast tribes, but oh would you look at that, when your local "beasts" behave themselves and the local savages are pretty, then neither the beast tribe term, nor any functional equivalent, arises.

-----

The sad truth is that the manipulative potato people have tricked all the pretty but gullible Eorzeans into bullying all the ugly ones for their own lewd benefit, and maybe so they could open some new mines or something as well, but that was almost certainly secondary. :(

---

Well, you're basing the idea that there is biological differences between the terms solely on appearances which GoldStarz showcase that's not the case at all.
https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...=1#post5611425

The term, Beast, is solely an Eorzean terminology which doesn't exist outside of it, and these steppe nomadic Aura are not living in Eorzea for them to be called as "beasts" similar to the tribes of Eorzea nor do these nomads go outside their realm to invade Eorzean interests either. Don't know why you're applying Eorzean politics with the continent of Othard here. The Hrothgars are more beastly in appearance than the Lupin, but the former aren't called as Beasts for political/social reasons.

This is what Goldstarz and Kirisu were saying all along that these terms are Eorzean political/social terms. Absolutely nothing to do with biology whatsoever. I highly recommend you read this too.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ffxiv/comme...encyclopaedia/

Transcript:

Quote:

---

Beastmen--a most common term in the modern Eorzean lexicon, yet one that proves nigh impossible to define. Why have we as Eorzeans chosen to brand a select few of Hydaelyn's children with an epithet that serves only to demean? What is gained by drawing this line betwixt hypothetical "us'" and a "them?" Does not this line merely serve to separate us further? To foster confusion and hate by veiling our eyes to the truth--the truth that these men we call beasts are no more beast than we?

The Folly of Bias

What exactly is it then that separates man from beastman? It cannot, for one, be the capacity for language, for those that make up these so-called "beast tribes" have also been undeniably classified as spoken--the slyphs and goblins having gone as far as adopting our own Eorzean as their preferred means of parlance. It cannot be culture, for as we have explored in these very publications, the beliefs and customs of these peoples are as rich as they are diverse, and as complex as any of those seen amongst the "five races" (a similarly questionable term in is own right suggesting that Hyur, Lalafell, Elezen, Miqo'te, and Roegadyn are somehow above the Garleans, the Au Ra, the Bangaa, the Seeq, or the myriad spoken races that call Hydaelyn home). Many of the realm's most notable inventions prove the answer does not lie in a lack of skill or intelligence--the sprawling kolold forges and refineries of Vylbrand, the Ixali dirigibles, predating the realm's earliest airships, the goblins' colossal walking fortress, all of these arguable equal to or rivaling creation attributed to that small slice of civilization known as "mankind." Just as the answer does not lie in fairness of feature, for if it did, then who could say that the leonine Miqo'te are not beasts, or that the horns of an Au Ra make them more dragon than man? Or that a Roegadyn is but a gigas of diminutive stature? No. There exist no distinctly plausible linguistic, anthropological, or biological variance that might warrant a separate classification. Yet, one exists, and the poison of its twisted logic, conceived for the political and economic benefit of a select few, has permeated modern society, breading animosity where there ought be none.

In the year 1559th year [sic] of the Sixth Astral Era, the sultanate of Ul'dah, under heavy influence by the Syndicate, officially coined the term "beast tribe," using it to describe those "foreign" entities whose interests directly oppose or interfere with those of the city-state. Amalj'aa were declared enemies of the people for opposing expansionist policies that saw the tribe's traditional homeland divided up by mining concerns. Citing the protection of "local interests," evictions were issued for Qiqirn, goblin, and sylph traders, and all dealing with the victims of circumstance strictly prohibited. The Syndicated had swiftly and effectively sown a national distrust in entire races so as to create a diversion that they may profit in the confusion--a distrust that remains to this day, and has become accepted amongst even our most educated. Yet, as stated above, if there is naught that separates our peoples beyond a term born of convenience and fostered in self-serving sanctimony, then does that not make us beast for insisting that these, our brothers, are in some way beneath us? Are we Eorzeans so insecure that we must continue this practice which historians will almost certainly look back upon with both disgust and disbelief?

The Padjal

There are none in Eorzea so foolish as to suggest the wise Padjal leaders of Gridania might be of inferior stock. Yet if we are to compartmentalize the realm's denizens based on whether they are to be counted amongst the five races, then where does that leave the Seedseers? Their fawn-like horns, their ceased aging, their ability to commune with the elementals, are all traits more commonly associated with those peoples dishonored with the "beastmen" designation.

Dragonkind

And what of the dragons? If intelligence is to be measured by the volume of knowledge amassed over one's lifetime, then how might we conceive the intelligence of one who has lived a hundred lifetimes? A thousand? And how might we even begin to claim any manner of moral or intellectual superiority over such a being? If anything, the prevailing theory that Midgardsormer's First Brood are not of Hydaelyn and came to this world from some distant star suggests that the dragons are neither man nor beastman, but instead something wholly unclassifiable by modern standards.

Signed, a concerned editor.​

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bright-Flower

And the garleans call other races/cultures savages, including hyur. Both terms are used for the same reasons, to make others out as 'lesser' and dehumanize them. Both terms exist for basically the same reasons and are used to the same ends.

---

Which the Ascians greatly exploit to divide the races of Eorzea AKA divide and conquer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moogly900

GoldStarz already told you that these labels are nothing more than social constructs made by the people of Eorzea..yet, you refuse to even acknowledge that. Human looking =/= human but rather as Humanoids or Demi-humans. That's the point. Yeah, and the people in the first page already had clarified it for me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jandor

The beastmen label and the discrimination are both cultural, but the beast races are also clearly different from the human races.

---

I mean, if you're not even going to read my posts...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jandor

I mean, if you're not even going to read my posts...

---

No, and you were insisting that the differences are biological. Don't move the goalpost, please. The entire argument here is about whether these labels are based on actual biological differences between "Human" and "Beast" races which Goldstarz showcase that it isn't the case at all. You acknowledge that the label is racist, but then went about saying that there are biological differences between beastmen and human races which despite appearance there isn't any.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldStarz

There is no confirmed biological or aetherical difference between the playable races and other tribes that would be cause for categorizing them as an other.

The bolded part is the point. Obviously Sahagin are fish and Ananta and reptiles, but that wasn't the point.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moogly900

No, and you were insisting that the differences are biological. Don't move the goalpost, please. The entire argument here is about whether these labels are based on actual biological differences between "Human" and "Beast" races which Goldstarz showcase that it isn't the case at all. You acknowledge that the label is racist, but then went about saying that there are biological differences between beastmen and human races which despite appearance there isn't any.

---

The term wasn't created to be any kind of scientific classification of species or anything, but biological differences between the two groups certainly aided the terms spread and adoption. It's not just a pure coincidence it was applied to all the non-human races of Eorzea, no matter how peaceful or civilized they acted, and not applied to any of the human races, no matter how savagely they behaved.

For the Xaela in particular, of course the term wasn't used to apply to them. It's an eorzean term that doesn't really apply in Othard. They people in Kugane don't call the Kojin and namazu beastmen as far as I can recall for example.

It's also a very broad, non descriptive term that applies to a very diverse group of people, the amal'ja and sahuagin for example, are as different from one another as they are from hyur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moogly900

No, and you were insisting that the differences are biological. Don't move the goalpost, please. The entire argument here is about whether these labels are based on actual biological differences between "Human" and "Beast" races which Goldstarz showcase that it isn't the case at all. You acknowledge that the label is racist, but then went about saying that there are biological differences between beastmen and human races which despite appearance there isn't any.

---

The two terms aren't mutually exclusive, though. The term "beastmen" can be acknowledged as racist in and of itself, while also acknowledging that there are some inherent biological differences. Even Goldstarz addition of "the bold part is the point" makes that very clear - there are biological differences, but not enough to categorize them as an other. Both Jandor and Goldstarz are correct - there was a miscommunication at the beginning but they're both coming to the same conclusion, just worded differently. That conclusion being:

There are inherent biological differences between the Human and Beast races - however, not enough to justify the racist othering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jandor

The term wasn't created to be any kind of scientific classification of species or anything, but biological differences between the two groups certainly aided the terms spread and adoption. It's not just a pure coincidence it was applied to all the non-human races of Eorzea, no matter how peaceful or civilized they acted, and not applied to any of the human races, no matter how savagely they behaved.

---

No..and please read this as well.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ffxiv/comme...encyclopaedia/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirisu

That comes from them being native to Othard, and in the Hrothgars case, Ilsabard. The phrases "Beastmen" and "Beast Tribes" originated from Ul'dah, when the Amal'jaa rebuffed their aggressive expansion into Amal'jaa lands. The Syndicate was quick to slap the label on them because they could then impose taxes and security tolls on the trade routes for keeping the roads safe from "Them."

The terms then spread to the other three city-states and was applied to their own indigenous problem-children and the rest is history.

Miqo'te are a tribal culture too and probably narrowly dodged the bullet because 1.) they look comparatively human next to eorzea's other indigenous peoples and 2.) because they folded in with the "Civilized" world where others did not.

Comparatively, the Au Ra and especially Hrothgar immigrants actually faced considerable scrutiny and likely persecution when they first appeared in Eorzea. We know Sidurgu's tribe was more or less exterminated to a man because they were mistaken for Dragonkin by Ishgardian forces, while the Hrothgar were feared and ostracized as beastmen until they gained a measure of mastery of the Eorzean common tongue to make themselves understood.

Meanwhile in the Far East, the connotations of "Beast Tribes" is something we Eorzeans carried with us East, the Kojin, Lupin and Namazu are not branded so and in fact, the latter two blends in quite seamlessly with the local Spoken, while the former prefers isolation on the sea floor but maintains cordial relations. Viera lastly, though tribal. Are much too isolated outside of their native lands to receive the Beastman Brand, and are perceived more as curiousities than an actual people.

It's important to remember that despite the species' player population, Viera don't actually leave their forest homes in droves, in fact you'd be lucky to spot even one in a lifetime.

---

What about the Hrothgar, hmm? They don't look Human, and they're more beastly in appearance than the Lupin. Yet, why aren't they considered as Beasts then? Stop circle jerking around this issue, please. While the Labels aren't based on biological differences, you're saying that they are without backing it up with actual sources. I showed you the link to the Eorzea encyclopedia but you ignore it. If this is based on appearances then why the Hrothgar aren't called as Beasts then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MilkieTea

The two terms aren't mutually exclusive, though. The term "beastmen" can be acknowledged as racist in and of itself, while also acknowledging that there are some inherent biological differences. Even Goldstarz addition of "the bold part is the point" makes that very clear - there are biological differences, but not enough to categorize them as an other. Both Jandor and Goldstarz are correct - there was a miscommunication at the beginning but they're both coming to the same conclusion, just worded differently. That conclusion being:

There are inherent biological differences between the Human and Beast races - however, not enough to justify the racist othering.

---

Can you actually back it up with actual sources on these differences, please? Is it because of appearances? If this is your theory or hypothesis then it's okay, but you're prompting the idea that there is an actual confirmed biological differences without actually telling me what it is. Goldstarz and others made it clear, and even this one showcases it as well.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ffxiv/comme...encyclopaedia/

No, he didn't. He states that there is no confirmed biological differences to place the "Human" races apart from the "Beast" ones, and these labels don't exist in Othard either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldStarz

There is no confirmed biological or aetherical difference between the playable races and other tribes that would be cause for categorizing them as an other.

The bolded part is the point. Obviously Sahagin are fish and Ananta and reptiles, but that wasn't the point.

---

He stated clearly that some Beast tribes are fish and reptiles, but that wasn't the point in categorizing them as the other, and the goblins and the Qiqirn are clearly Mammals, so the Hrothgar are even more beastly in appearance than the Lupin..yet, why aren't they considered as beast tribe then? You two are literally trying to push your own interpretations into FFXIV cannon which creates much more confusion than the already illogical terms. Please, read this.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ffxiv/comme...encyclopaedia/

She ignores on the idea that Humanoid =/= Human, but she ignores much of my posts on this issue. Are you going to apply real world science on these races next? Are the Viera and Au Ra are simply just Human races similar to say Europeans and Africans next which all Human races belong to the same species including the Hrothgars? And is it confirmed by actual sources? Did the people of Ul-dah, who were the ones who created the term in the first place, were using in both cultural and scientific? I would love to see them because you two are confusing the living hell out of me that is contradictory to what others are telling me here, and that's what pissing me off more than anything. A prime example of gaslighting here.

One issue is players will continue to use the term "beast tribes", because the actual game UI uses the term "beast tribes".

I'm kind of hoping this will change in Endwalker, but I don't know if it's actually technically feasible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YianKutku

One issue is players will continue to use the term "beast tribes", because the actual game UI uses the term "beast tribes".

I'm kind of hoping this will change in Endwalker, but I don't know if it's actually technically feasible.

---

Well, some people would use this as based on biological scientific differences between "Human" and "Beast" races even though the Hrothgar aren't considered as the latter even though they're more beastly in appearance than say the Lupin. Even this Encylopedia confirms this as well.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ffxiv/comme...encyclopaedia/

Aparently, they have official sources that are confirmed by Koji fox on this that backs their idea that Beasts and Humans are a biological designations or something, so I'm waiting for them to post them here.

Ehh, it's just more realism at play. In the real world there are "antiquated" terms that many cosmic(social) justice adherents believe to be racist and bad. Yet, some of those terms are what people identify themselves as too, so we run into the problem of, "Hey, that's part of my identity and I don't want you to take it from me." vs. "I need to take it from you, because it's a symbol of your oppression!"

The thread's already addressed the actual problem, which is the othering. The real solution isn't to stop using the terms, but to gut them of their malice, which is a mental obstacle for some people.

I can keep calling Sahagin beastmen, and they can keep calling me Shorewalker.

https://reactorpanda.files.wordpress...4/09/kutku.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyrerus

Ehh, it's just more realism at play. In the real world there are "antiquated" terms that many cosmic(social) justice adherents believe to be racist and bad. Yet, some of those terms are what people identify themselves as too, so we run into the problem of, "Hey, that's part of my identity and I don't want you to take it from me." vs. "I need to take it from you, because it's a symbol of your oppression!"

The thread's already addressed the actual problem, which is the othering. The real solution isn't to stop using the terms, but to gut them of their malice, which is a mental obstacle for some people.

I can keep calling Sahagin beastmen, and they can keep calling me Shorewalker.

https://reactorpanda.files.wordpress...4/09/kutku.png

---

I don't mind really people use these terms as social constructs or say only based on appearances and etc, but what some people here are doing is using these terms as scientific or biological or at least based on these things which is extremely weird in the world of FFXIV really(adding scientific phylogenetic taxonomy and etc). Even the Encyclopedia made it apparent than these terms are..pretty illogical and etc, and that there isn't any biological, anthropological, linguistic and etc to justify the existence of these terms. About the nomadic Au Ra on why they're not considered as Beasts, someone clarified it on the matter.
https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...=1#post5612067

If people want to have their own headcannon stories and etc based on the world of FFXIV then it's not wrong in any way(I love making fanfics in my mind and etc myself), but I just find it very confusing and irritating when some people here are pushing their own theories as factual in the game that contradicts on what others have been telling me here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moogly900

She ignores on the idea that Humanoid =/= Human, but she ignores much of my posts on this issue. Are you going to apply real world science on these races next? Are the Viera and Au Ra are simply just Human races similar to say Europeans and Africans next which all Human races belong to the same species including the Hrothgars? And is it confirmed by actual sources? Did the people of Ul-dah, who were the ones who created the term in the first place, were using in both cultural and scientific? I would love to see them because you two are confusing the living hell out of me that is contradictory to what others are telling me here, and that's what pissing me off more than anything. A prime example of gaslighting here.

---

Are you not familiar with the concept of just having a polite discussion for the sake of it? You created a thread called "Implications of social-construct terms of Humanity and Beast" and yet when I try to talk about the implications of term, to move beyond what is explicitly stated and theorize on the how and why of the terms spread, you accuse me of spreading misinformation and gaslighting.

If there are no differences between man and beastman, then what exactly do you think caused it to spread the way it did and be applied to the races it was? The term was created by one city state, and yet is now used by virtually all Eorzeans and applied pretty universally to all native non-human sentients.

----

Also, regarding the human races, yes they are somewhat similar to the real world human race. The player races of Eorzea are confirmed as being able to crossbreed. https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/threads/32685-Questions-related-to-Lore?p=490835&viewfull=1#post490835

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jandor

Are you not familiar with the concept of just having a polite discussion for the sake of it? You created a thread called "Implications of social-construct terms of Humanity and Beast" and yet when I try to talk about the implications of term, to move beyond what is explicitly stated and theorize on the how and why of the terms spread, you accuse me of spreading misinformation and gaslighting.

If there are no differences between man and beastman, then what exactly do you think caused it to spread the way it did and be applied to the races it was? The term was created by one city state, and yet is now used by virtually all Eorzeans and applied pretty universally to all native non-human sentients.

----

Also, regarding the human races, yes they are somewhat similar to the real world human race. The player races of Eorzea are confirmed as being able to crossbreed. https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/threads/32685-Questions-related-to-Lore?p=490835&viewfull=1#post490835

---

So? The races in the WoW universe are also able to cross breed, and they have nothing to do with each other biologically speaking(Elves evolved from Trolls, and they evolved naturally in Azeroth while Humans, Gnomes and Dwarves came from Titan creations). It isn't universally all of the sapient races(only in Eorzea for political reasons which isn't the case by the peoples of Othrad), and people already told you that it's strictly an Eorzean terminology first created by Ul-dah which they tried to push into Amaljah territory and other tribes that resisted their homogeny into their lands. People already had showcase these things to you, but you refuse to acknowledge and admit that your interpretations are merely just hypothetical at best. Terms like man, human, beasts and etc are all social constructs to categorize between the Spoken and the others for political reasons similar to how the Garleans look at all as savages which have no biological, linguistic, anthropological basis, no more no less. Applying real life science into the worlds of fantasy like FFXIV or WoW doesn't make any remote sense. Koji fox doesn't imply that they're the same "species" or anything here, and in real world science, it's a very outdated concept since species do intermix in the wild, and different species can have fertile offsprings and others don't. Go ask people like Darren Naish or Thomas Holtz on Twitter for more clarification.

Sorry, but you're the one who is pushing his/her theories as factual in the game canon here, not us. Lastly, you haven't told me as to why the Hrothgar aren't considered as Beasts by Eorzeans while the Lupins are? As what others said and the Eorzea encylopedia, these terms are solely discriminatory political terms which has no logical reasons behind them be it biological, anthropological and etc. Everything else are just guesses and theories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirisu

That comes from them being native to Othard, and in the Hrothgars case, Ilsabard. The phrases "Beastmen" and "Beast Tribes" originated from Ul'dah, when the Amal'jaa rebuffed their aggressive expansion into Amal'jaa lands. The Syndicate was quick to slap the label on them because they could then impose taxes and security tolls on the trade routes for keeping the roads safe from "Them."

The terms then spread to the other three city-states and was applied to their own indigenous problem-children and the rest is history.

Miqo'te are a tribal culture too and probably narrowly dodged the bullet because 1.) they look comparatively human next to eorzea's other indigenous peoples and 2.) because they folded in with the "Civilized" world where others did not.

Comparatively, the Au Ra and especially Hrothgar immigrants actually faced considerable scrutiny and likely persecution when they first appeared in Eorzea. We know Sidurgu's tribe was more or less exterminated to a man because they were mistaken for Dragonkin by Ishgardian forces, while the Hrothgar were feared and ostracized as beastmen until they gained a measure of mastery of the Eorzean common tongue to make themselves understood.

Meanwhile in the Far East, the connotations of "Beast Tribes" is something we Eorzeans carried with us East, the Kojin, Lupin and Namazu are not branded so and in fact, the latter two blends in quite seamlessly with the local Spoken, while the former prefers isolation on the sea floor but maintains cordial relations. Viera lastly, though tribal. Are much too isolated outside of their native lands to receive the Beastman Brand, and are perceived more as curiousities than an actual people.

It's important to remember that despite the species' player population, Viera don't actually leave their forest homes in droves, in fact you'd be lucky to spot even one in a lifetime.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moogly900

So?

---

You're getting a little heavy handed here. Jandor's just trying to say and reinforce that there are differences, and that's why the use of the term beastman has spread around. As well as why the beastmen refer to the spoken races as stuff like, "Shorewalker" "Uplander" "Walking Ones" etc. As much as there is an othering by the Spoken races, the beastmen often other the spoken as well. The beastmen themselves acknowledge their differences, and they are quite proud of themselves in a lot of cases (particularly where their differences allow them advantages, such as inborn flight or breathing underwater).

Also, don't forget that even learned people like Sharlayans, who are technically not Eorzean, even use the term beastmen. Look further still to the Auspice questline in Stormblood. A kojin takes on the role of Genbu and eventually becomes a spiritually inclined Adamantoise. Despite what the devs say, there are differences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldStarz

Without getting too into it, you're essentially correct. Beast Tribe is just a social construct to describe a species of Spoken creature that hasn't fully integrated into the society that other races have established. Later story content will address this and the implications of what it means down the line.

---

Is it? How come this topic is so very controversial is beyond me. At least the Elder Scrolls franchise are clear on human race like Nords and etc, and other races that are not Humans like Elves, Khajits and etc. Honestly, it's pretty dumb if one sees a Lalafell the same race or species as a Hyur or something..like they're both biologically Humans. According to Jondar and others, these terms are indeed biological which separate two groups of sentient species that are very close to one another; humanity or humans and non-Human ones.

I guess the Dwarves in the First are indeed biologically not Humans while in the source aka the Lalafells are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jandor

Are you not familiar with the concept of just having a polite discussion for the sake of it? You created a thread called "Implications of social-construct terms of Humanity and Beast" and yet when I try to talk about the implications of term, to move beyond what is explicitly stated and theorize on the how and why of the terms spread, you accuse me of spreading misinformation and gaslighting.

If there are no differences between man and beastman, then what exactly do you think caused it to spread the way it did and be applied to the races it was? The term was created by one city state, and yet is now used by virtually all Eorzeans and applied pretty universally to all native non-human sentients.

----

Also, regarding the human races, yes they are somewhat similar to the real world human race. The player races of Eorzea are confirmed as being able to crossbreed. https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/threads/32685-Questions-related-to-Lore?p=490835&viewfull=1#post490835

---

Okay. I guess that the playable races of FFXIV like the Roes, Lalafells and etc are similar to the ESO human races like Nords, Redguards and etc, right? As in, these races belong to the same species which is Humans similar to our species with different races and ethnicities, right? So, we can say with confidence that the Beastmen races are indeed a biological grouping which is true for Humans.

Wonder why the Lalafells in the First are considered as Beasts though? Hmm. Weird.

Honestly this is just western delirium.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elissar

Honestly this is just western delirium.

---

It's giving me headache.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MilkieTea

The two terms aren't mutually exclusive, though. The term "beastmen" can be acknowledged as racist in and of itself, while also acknowledging that there are some inherent biological differences. Even Goldstarz addition of "the bold part is the point" makes that very clear - there are biological differences, but not enough to categorize them as an other. Both Jandor and Goldstarz are correct - there was a miscommunication at the beginning but they're both coming to the same conclusion, just worded differently. That conclusion being:

There are inherent biological differences between the Human and Beast races - however, not enough to justify the racist othering.

---

Okay. The races we play as are biologically Humans similar to the Human races in Elder scrolls while the unplayable ones are Beasts. Got it.

There is no hard clear dividing line. It's like pink and red, most people would agree they're two different colours, but most people would also disagree about where exactly one becomes the other.

If you compare Hyur to Sylph then it's obvious they're different, if you compare Hrothgar with Lupin then the divide becomes a lot fuzzier. (get it, fuzzier :p)

There will likely never be any serious clarification because the term was created with negative intentions, it works less and less well as a category as more species that don't fit it quite so neatly become known to the Eorzeans, and the people of Eorzea, man and beast both, are trying to move past the term anyway.

-----

I don't think the people of the First use the term beast tribe, when the lalafell of the First are referred to that way I believe it's mostly a gameplay thing as their quest chains function in an identical manner to the other beast tribe quest chains.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moogly900

Okay. The races we play as are biologically Humans similar to the Human races in Elder scrolls while the unplayable ones are Beasts. Got it.

---

Getting there, but it isn’t so black and white. To make a lighthearted attempt at an analogy- it’s like the difference between birds that fly and birds that don’t. Let’s say they have their own societies and terms and whatnot (like Animal Farm). The birds that fly call the birds that don’t fly “Landbirds” I guess. For some reason they keep the landbirds outside of their cities, hunt them down and kill them etc etc etc.

There’s still a biological difference between the birds that fly and birds that don’t fly - but not enough for them to other each other. The difference is still there - penguins can’t mate with finches, for example. But there’s not enough of a difference for them to hunt down the landbirds, theres not enough of a difference for them to ostracize them etc etc.

The ostracism, the othering, that is what is racially charged. The term? could be replaced with any other term and it would mean the same thing - but it’s the connotation behind it that makes it racially charged.

Thinking about all these biological differences is making me miss the, "Do Au Ra lay eggs?" kinds of threads lol

The term beastmen wasn't even made with the idea that there would be races beyond the big, original five. Tarutaru, Galka, Mithra, Hume, and Elvaan. Or as they're known in XIV, Lalafells, Roegadyns, Miqotes, Hyurs, and Elezens.

We're basically at a point now where they've introduced other races with features once only given to beastmen, but since that isn't the focus of the main story, it only gets brought up to speed ever so slightly and slowly. The juxtaposition between "human" races and beastmen has been present in their MMOs since 2002. They have always been sentient, and whether or not they were the aggressors or oppressors varied race to race.

The real big stand out for beastmen is that each race has their own method of reproduction, and then their own, isolated societies that are tribal or far removed from other societies. Goblins are always an exception, and there are more exceptions in FFXIV.

But I mean, look at Sahagin. They breed like fish and are matriarchal. Their kind of society literally cannot integrate beyond social interactions with Spoken races. You fall in love with a Sahagin, you don't get a kid out of the deal, at least by blood relation.

Sylphs grow in seed bulbs. Fall in love with a Sylph, and I guess you're always choosing soup at restaurants from now on.

Ananta are all female, and they also hatch from eggs.

Ixal, eggs again.

Now, some of the beastmen are mammalian in appearance or seem to revolve around livebirth instead of eggs, but the big takeaway here is that every Spoken race can get it on like donkey kong and produce a donkey kong jr. that's halfsies on the race.

As far as we've been shown, Spoken do fall in love with beastmen sometimes... lookin' at that one Company of Heroes dude that has eyes for Brayflox... but we've never been shown a proper couple to my knowledge, nor any sort of half beastman, half spoken sort of person.

"Keep these savages in their dilapidated shacks and put up walls around them.
Make them pay for it with their beast tribe currency.
We need to make Eorzea great again,"

Garlemald, I guess.

I'm guessing that for Hrothgar at least as to why is due to the fact they like the Anata have been a race and nation that has been around for at least five thousand years. As we know one tribe successfully made the Allagans withdraw. The Au Ra are a little more tricky as I don't think we've been given a date as to when the Raen who moved to Hingashi started to become interwoven into the ruling class as they quickly proved themselves to be not only useful but better than most in the reason why they got accepted that currently I can't remember. The Lupin as far as I can remember have always been in a service role either via guards or labor that takes advantage of their natural skills and height.