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

[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.

[Moogly900]

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

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.

[Moogly900]

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

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

[Moogly900]

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.

[Moogly900]

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:

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.​

[Moogly900]

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.

[Jandor]

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.

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...

[Moogly900]

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.

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.

[Jandor]

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.

[Bright-Flower]

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.