Anyone else think it's funny (not ha-ha funny, but that weird kind of
funny like deja vu) that WoTC changes the name of Jyhad to "not offend
the Middle East" among other reasons, and then comes up with two new
clans playing off stereotypes of Egyptians and Arabs (the Followers of
Set and the Assamite). I don't mean to sound offended, but how is
portraying Middle Eastern vamps as the terrorists and asassins of the
gothic world going to help anything? Why, that would be like portraying
Italian vampires as mobsters (the Giovanni and their "corporate
interests"...I'm sure they're all legitimae businessmen)...
Andrea, Vecchia del Giovanni
Welcome to the New World Order...please check your mind at the door
In article <48tdvf$8...@sun.lclark.edu>, a...@sun.lclark.edu (Andrea
Williams) writes:
>Anyone else think it's funny (not ha-ha funny, but that weird kind of
>funny like deja vu) that WoTC changes the name of Jyhad to "not offend
>the Middle East" among other reasons, and then comes up with two new
>clans playing off stereotypes of Egyptians and Arabs
I think they changed the name because "Jyhad" didn't sound like a game
about vampires and they wanted to up the sales of their product. It sure
is working well (sarcasm). Stereo types exist, and making politically
correct clans doesn't seem all that important if they are not offensive.
~Biomechanoid of Clan Gangrel (militant tree huggers)
Andrea Williams <a...@sun.lclark.edu> wrote:
>Anyone else think it's funny (not ha-ha funny, but that weird kind of
>funny like deja vu) that WoTC changes the name of Jyhad to "not offend
>the Middle East" among other reasons, and then comes up with two new>clans playing off stereotypes of Egyptians and Arabs (the Followers of
>Set and the Assamite). I don't mean to sound offended, but how is
>portraying Middle Eastern vamps as the terrorists and asassins of the
>gothic world going to help anything? Why, that would be like portraying
>Italian vampires as mobsters (the Giovanni and their "corporate
>interests"...I'm sure they're all legitimae businessmen)...
We did not come up with Assamites or Followers of Set; those are clans
created by White Wolf for the Masquerade, the game VTES is based off of.
The existence of Assamites is not really "portraying Middle Eastern vamps
as the terrorists and assassins of the Gothic world", as there are many
Middle Eastern vamps in other clans, and there are non-Middle Eastern vamps
in the Assamites. The Assamites are largely Middle Eastern for historical
reasons. Also, I don't see Followers of Set as playing on any stereotype
of Egyptians; White Wolf simply picked an Egyptian god to base the clan on.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>Andrea Williams <a...@sun.lclark.edu> wrote:>>Anyone else think it's funny (not ha-ha funny, but that weird kind of
>>funny like deja vu) that WoTC changes the name of Jyhad to "not offend
>>the Middle East" among other reasons, and then comes up with two new
>>clans playing off stereotypes of Egyptians and Arabs (the Followers of
>>Set and the Assamite).>We did not come up with Assamites or Followers of Set; those are clans
>created by White Wolf for the Masquerade, the game VTES is based off of.
I believe the term 'Jyhad' was also created (coined) by WW for V:tM.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text.
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |
In article <48tdvf$8...@sun.lclark.edu>, a...@sun.lclark.edu (Andrea
Williams) writes:
>Anyone else think it's funny (not ha-ha funny, but that weird kind of
>funny like deja vu) that WoTC changes the name of Jyhad to "not offend
>the Middle East" among other reasons, and then comes up with two new
>clans playing off stereotypes of Egyptians and Arabs (the Followers of
>Set and the Assamite).
There have been numerous prior indications that "Jyhad" being offensive
had little or nothing to do with the name change. Some examples:
Calling their Israeli distributor the "Middle Eastern" distributor.
Implying that the aforementioned distributor had been offended - but never
actually saying they were (makes you wonder).
Giving away vast numbers of supposedly "offensive" cards.
Just add this to the list.
In article <49hknq$h...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu
(L. Scott Johnson) wrote:
> I believe the term 'Jyhad' was also created (coined) by WW for V:tM.
Yes. As well all play, we can look in our rulebooks for a definition.
To those who ascribe negotive connotations, I guess I have to say this:
It is you who have the problem, and not the word. Wish I could give
credit to who wrote this (Brian somebody) on rec.games.frp.storyteller in
a thread on Etymology of words.
[Basicly Jihad=Holy War and religious excuses for terrorism.]
:Thank you, oh so much for your religious ethnocentrism. "Jihad" is Arabic
:(classical) for "struggle". It is NOT a "holy war". Ascribing the meaning
:"holy war" willy-nilly to "jihad" is the height of ignorance. A "holy
war" is
:but one type of "jihad". Anyway, Mohammed (PBUH) stated that the most
:important jihad is the jihad within, not an external war.
Jihad's connotation is not offensive. The people who connote it to mean
wanton slaughter of innocents for a righteous cause are offensive.
Disagree? Please, blast away. :)
"I can send and receive e-mail even over the Internet"-aol commercial
@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$
# Adrian Sullivan sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu Spoutingly yours 8^) #
$ GAT/CS/O/WS R+++* tv&--- b++(+++)&+ t X++&-- 5->? e+*>++++ PS+&-+ @
# PE&++&- C(+++)$ UX+>+++$ N++(+) K+>++++ w---$>? M++$ r(+) y*+? 3.1#
@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>There have been numerous prior indications that "Jyhad" being offensive
>had little or nothing to do with the name change. Some examples:
>
>Calling their Israeli distributor the "Middle Eastern" distributor.
Would you have preferred that I used "Mediterranean", or something?
>Implying that the aforementioned distributor had been offended - but never
>actually saying they were (makes you wonder).
First, I'm not sure if the distributor was personally offended or not.
Second, did it occur to you that the distributor probably doesn't have
any interest in being publicly cited as one of the causes of a change
such as this? Insisting that the distributor be made public makes *me*
wonder if the person insisting cares about others' privacy at all.
>Giving away vast numbers of supposedly "offensive" cards.
To a forum that is not particularly international, and thus does not
particularly overlap with the area that caused the concern in the first place.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <49mlj8$p...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R
Wylie) writes:
>CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:>>There have been numerous prior indications that "Jyhad" being offensive
>>had little or nothing to do with the name change. Some examples:
>>
>>Calling their Israeli distributor the "Middle Eastern" distributor.>
>Would you have preferred that I used "Mediterranean", or something?
If they distribute to Italy, Spain, Turkey, Egypt, and Tunisia (or large
subset) as well, sure. Do they?
>>Implying that the aforementioned distributor had been offended - but
never
>>actually saying they were (makes you wonder).>First, I'm not sure if the distributor was personally offended or not.
>Second, did it occur to you that the distributor probably doesn't have
>any interest in being publicly cited as one of the causes of a change
>such as this? Insisting that the distributor be made public makes *me*
>wonder if the person insisting cares about others' privacy at all.
Many people consider it narrowminded or bigoted for people to object to
the use of words in public, *particularly* when they are words from other
religions. My first post made it seem as if the Isreali distributor
actually felt this way, and I got a very reasonable email which pointed
out that they might be as broadminded and tolerant as anyone. So I'm just
being careful not to accuse them of anything they didn't actually do.
>>Giving away vast numbers of supposedly "offensive" cards.>To a forum that is not particularly international, and thus does not
>particularly overlap with the area that caused the concern in the first
place.
So "Jyhad" is not a problem in the US, then?