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

[MilkieTea]

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.

[Moogly900]

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/

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?

[Moogly900]

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.

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.

[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.

[Moogly900]

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.

[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.

[Moogly900]

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.

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.

[Jandor]

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

[Moogly900]

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.

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.

[Vyrerus]

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.