Racism then and now

The racism that is seen in medieval texts is much different from the racism found in neo-medieval texts and media. Racism in texts that were written in the medieval era are obvious and blatant in their racism. However, racism in neo-medieval texts is very subtle and much of the time unintentional. In The King of Tars, a medieval text, we see the blatant racism between white, Christians, and non-white Muslims. The text makes clear implications that white skin is more desirable and right than dark skin, seeing as the white Princess of Tars is said to be the fairest lady in the world and when the Sultan converts to Christianity, his skin immediately turns white. This also serves to heavily imply that Christianity is the superior religion over Islam. Additionally, the text claims that if two people of opposing religions attempt to have a child, it will end up being a lump baby, so plan accordingly.

Stereotypes and generalizations of racism

However, in neo-medieval text and media, racism operates in a much more stealthy way, seeing as it is frowned upon in modern society. Even though it is frowned upon and generally unacceptable, racism has had such a strong root in human society for so long that many people are subconsciously racist. Many people are unaware that they hold archaic and outdated stereotypes and generalizations as truth, distorting their world view and giving them a misrepresentation of other races. For example, in A Game of Thrones, the races that are depicted as barbaric and primitive are the non-white, eastern people who do not practice the dominant western religion. On the other hand, the white races are depicted as civilized and live in the west, practicing the dominant organized religion.

Depiction of Dothraki camp in GoT

 This is eerily similar to our own world, or at least a commonly held, but distorted, view of our world. While this kind of racism is likely not intentional, it just goes to show that while blatant, malicious racism may be on the decline, there is still subconscious ideas of racial superiority that are unknowingly held by many.

Racism in Tamriel

The world of Tamriel where the Elder Scrolls video game series takes place is home to many very distinct and different races. There is a lot of animosity between many of the races, as hearing semi-racist comments is not uncommon in the game. When people in the game address someone they don't, many times they just call them by whatever race they are, reducing their individual identity to that of racial stereotypes and generalizations. Additionally the races that seem to receive the brunt of this racism are the races that look most physically different, such as the Argonians, Khajit, and Dunmer. On the other hand, the races that are most in control of the world are the light-skinned, fair High Elves and Imperials. In Tamriel, casual racism is so commonly used that no one seems to notice or mind it. Additionally, because there are so many different races, most of the races tend to stick with people of their own race and are often distrustful of other races.

A Khajiit, a feline race in Tamriel

For example, in the latest Elder Scrolls game Skyrim, there is a group of travelling Khajit merchants who go from city to city selling their wares. These foreign salesmen are distrusted by many of the townspeople and are forced to set up camp and sell their wares outside the city gates. This group of travelling Khajit could easily be seen to fit into the modern stereotype of a gypsy.

A Dark Elf, also known as Dunmer

Another example of how racism in the game can mirror the real world is that of the Dunmer ghetto in Windhelm. Windhelm is a city ruled by the Nord race, who resemble Scandinavian races. The areas of town that the Nords live in are quite nice, but in a separate area of town there is a ghetto where Dark Elf refugees live in squalor. This could reflect any real world situation in which refugees have fled to another country and placed in sub-par living situations. 

Ah yes, double standards. Would you like a side of misogyny with that?

In many societies, including today’s, there has been a habit of exaggerating the female features so much that they appear masculine in many tales, such as the Amazon women. So masculine, in fact, that they make the men seem less masculine in comparison. Somehow this situation insults the women for being masculine. While the men are praised for such a thing, it glosses over how the men have become feminine even when that would normally be considered an insult. How have the creators of these tales managed to get away with this? By perpetuating double standards in almost every form.

Sir John Mandeville gives an account of such a situation in his published travels where there is an abundance of men being glorified for their pure state and a great focus on women being called ugly, as if their looks are all that matter. He refers to a culture in Chaldea where the men are “very handsome… [and] well dressed in cloth of gold and precious stones,” which is usually indicative of female clothing or qualities. Sir John then proceeds to state that the women are “ugly and ill-dressed and they go barefoot.” They also “are very swarthy and ugly to look at and of evil behavior.” The area he speaks of may have established their gender roles differently, or they could have been normal people he misrepresented because he saw them as he wanted to see them. If the latter was the truth, then double standards are being enforced here. It would appear that he believes it is completely fine for men to be dainty and beautiful and take on traditionally female traits, but abhorrent for women to be anything other than beautiful. These standards become clearer in his tale of the Amazons.

While this is the most conservative version of the
Amazons I could find, they just had to make
the black woman the only one not fully clothed.

The Land of Women, where the Amazons reside, means just what the name implies; there are no men there. This is not because they have died out or left of their own accord, but because the Amazons have killed them and driven them off in war. Warrior women sound like strong and powerful women, but when they are described by Sir John, the reader gets the feeling that they are not as womanly as previously thought. According to Sir John, the women must become more masculine to be able to be in what is traditionally a man’s position by cutting off a breast so they can use a bow and arrow properly or carry a shield more easily. Seeing as breasts do not logically hinder a woman in either of these ways, we see a repetition of the idea that masculine is right and anything else is bad.

This idea has been perpetuated into today’s culture. Many women buy into this belief due to the fact that they have been repeatedly exposed to it. Men that advocate for women most likely don’t realize it either for that same reason. Misogyny and double standards definitely exist even when we don’t realize it.

Game of Thrones, Does it Confine its Women?

The traditional role of a woman in the medial ages was that of a confined woman. Basically, this means that the women of this time period fulfilled the traditional role of staying home taking care of the kids, and doing the daily chores. However, it was also during this time period that the idea of the unconfined woman began to emerge. This idea was the direct opposite of its counterpart in that it had woman take a more active role in society. This, idea even began to affect the literature of the time. However, most of the time the unconfined woman was presented in a negative light. For example the unconfined woman represented in the literature of the time were always trouble makers. Two examples of this are the women in Beowulf, and the Albina Myth.

           

                                                        Daenerys Targaryen Game of Thrones

The idea of the confined vs the confined woman of the middle ages has been represented in modern representations of the time period. One example of this is in the novel A Game of Thrones by George R. R. Martin. In this novel, and also in its TV show adaptation, we see the brother and sister pair of Viserys and Daenerys Targaryen. Viserys, wants to marry off his sister in order to gain an army to reclaim a throne that he believes he deserves. He eventually marries Daenerys off to the leader of the Dothraki people. This seems to be going well at first, but Daenerys starts to act more like a Dothraki over time, and begins to show signs of being independent. This angers Viserys, because he believes that the Dothraki are obligated to help him regain his thrown. However, when he confronts the Dothraki about this by threatening his sister and her unborn child he is executed. It is interesting to note that in this modern novel we see a woman break the social standards, against her brother, a man’s, will. This leads to trouble for the man, just like in the medieval works of literature. Of course the character of Viserys, was not very popular and his death was satisfying for most viewers. However the parallels that highlight the medieval idea of Confined vs Unconfined woman is undeniable.

                                             Viserys Targaryen Game of Thrones

Drow: Why They Gotta Be Black?

So I’ve been thinking a lot about Dungeons and Dragons lately--specifically its racial divisions and the alignments associated with those divisions.

Drow, for instance, are an Always Chaotic Evil race, sprung from the beautiful, ethereal, usually Neutral Good High Elves. The Drow themselves are black. Like, literally dark as the night sky, not dark brown. And they are associated with the dark, evil corners of the world, and especially with a cannibalistic spider goddess.

As you do.

Of course, the alignments and stories associated with Drow vary from campaign to campaign, and can be edited as the story they are a part of needs--but this description of them as evil, twisted creatures, along with their appearances, is the default present in the majority of game guides and handbooks. Also, because it is their distinguishing feature, their appearances are fairly constant from story to story. So in the vast majority of official game materials, a major Evil race is literally black.

Similarly, the Orcs are a race of sort-of humans who worship a cruel god and are more monster than human in appearance, though, again--dark, gray-green skin. They are also Always Chaotic Evil, though again this depends on story/campaign. Unlike Drow, however, Orcs have a specifically-noted crossbreed with humans, which results in a more human appearance and also--guess what--pale green skin. Half-Orcs are noted to be more variable in alignment, presumably due to the human in them.

Behold: an orc. 

Behold: a half-orc. Note shining armor and general comparative "bright"-ness.

Which brings me to the kicker: for the most part, in contrast, the remaining races have highly variable appearances and alignments--humans, in particular, are depicted as every alignment and have the range of skin colors typical to non-D&D humans. The monstrous races are primarily characterized as such due to the gods they worship. The Drow’s spider-goddess, for instance, is what drove them to evil; same with the Orcs’ god. But the fact that humans can also have evil gods and do evil shit, despite being any color of the human skintone rainbow, doesn’t really help the Always Chaotic Evil races’ characterization hold water.

Blog about a topic

Am I White enough?

The Game of Throne is very evident that there are racial issues that are very evident within the book and movie. The most obvious one is seeing how Daenerys, the princess, is extremly white in every facit you can possibly think of. The white could symbolize a lot of things from being pure, virgin, or "chosen one" to just being white in who a white person is thought of as being superior to any other race. In both the book and movie it is very apparent that Daenerys is extremely white not including her white horse, go figure. With all this white focus you almost think that she is the next coming of Jesus or some Christ figure. To me it almost seemed like she was the next coming of Jesus due to her being so white and the Dothraki king being dark skinned. This is relatable in how Jesus come and washed everyones sin away and made them "white as snow". Not saying that Daenerys is Jesus or anything but just pointing out that the commonality between the two. Also when the Dothraki king, he rides a dark colored horse that is suppose to be superior and top stuff but ends up dying to save his owners life, wonder why they just did not use the white horse if being white is a superior thing?? Guess this time is was meant to just be shown that the horse is Daenerys’ and that the white is being just from a different tribe rather then being a “superior” thing.

Women in the Medieval Time Period

Women who follow to the “normal” roles of wives, mothers, and peace weavers generally appear as confined and content. Even though they have no control and put into a submissive role against their will, the confined woman of medieval literature appears perfectly happy and gracious to live in such a role. Women in medieval literature is not dangerous and poses no threat to the male power structure. Such as King of Tars and Game of Thrones offers a clear example of a women’s role. Both of these works shows certain ideas about the role of the medieval woman and what her interactions with men should be. In a Game of Thrones Daenerys is dressed to catch the eyes of men, one in particular, and is put in weird almost a childlike role with her brother. Her brother uses her as an object to get what he wants, to reclaim his throne. Also when she is pregnant with “the stallion that mounts the throne,” she is only seen as an object, just as the career of the baby, forgetting that half of the baby’s genetic makeup is hers. In the King of Tars a Sultan demanded the hand of the Christian princess. The king refuses and the Sultan and his army attacks the Christians. The Christian princess was forced to leave her home and go with the Sultan. Again the women were used as only objects to settle disagreements and as a bargaining tool between two different races, or religious groups. Also in both of these books the women were fair and every beautiful. Saying that fair and super white is more desirable than any other skin tone. So basically women were seen to be trophy wives and to bear children.      

Zara Robinson

The formula for your new demon baby

The demonic spawn is a well known symbol that dates back to even the Biblical times with references to demon babies being made in the Torah. They were created to show straying away from God and the consequences that resulted from that. The word in Hebrew used for these children was Nephilim which translates to giants or fallen ones. The demon child is used in a falling from grace in the Albina myth, the King of Tars, and A Game of Thrones. 

In the Albina myth, the women travel to an uninhabited island as a punishment for trying to kill their husbands to avoid being subservient. They become masculine on the island and learn to fend for themselves but are seduced by an incubus and have children who become the giants of Albion or demon children. The women can be interpreted to create these demon children because they have gone on the wrong path. They were led astray and created demon children because of their change in beliefs.

Actual real life image of the giants

In the King of Tars, the Princess of Tars is forced to convert to Islam because of her marriage to the Sultan of Damascus. She becomes pregnant but is horrified to learn that she has beget a child that is a lump of flesh. She and the Sultan try to make the baby normal by using their religions, Christianity and Islam respectively. The Sultan’s methods fail while the Princess’ methods turn the baby normal and the Sultan becomes Christian as a result. The changing from Christianity again causes a demonic baby to be born.

In A Game of Thrones, Daenerys is forced to marry Khal Drogo and covert to his lifestyle and beliefs as a result. As opposed to the King of Tars, Daenerys actually is happier as a result and is supposed to give birth to the “Stallion who Mounts the World”. However, when she tries to change her beliefs again by using blood magic to save Khal Drogo’s life, her child becomes stillborn and looks like a monster. This is in stark contrast to the other two texts when the changing of lifestyles from the predominately Christian one to another creates a demon child. Daenerys does give birth to demon children through a conversion back to her old lifestyle when she hatches dragons over Drogo’s funeral pyre and begins to proclaim herself as the blood of the dragon.

How could Daenerys not love this?

The demonic spawn is used many times to show the effects of falling from what the author considers to be the correct religion. In the Albina myth and the King of Tars, this is patriarchal Christianity while in A Game of Thrones, it is the old beliefs of Daenerys that her family is the blood of the dragon and blood magic that cause her to mother demonic children.. In A Game of Thrones however, it is used more positively when Daenerys hatches the dragons and to make her more powerful as opposed to the the King of Tars which shows the lump child as only causing grief. 

Shockingly, It's Racist

One of the first things that I noticed when watching the first season of Game of Thrones is how unjustly stereotypical the Dothraki were portrayed during the Daenerys Targaryen arc of the show. From the second that the Dothraki and Khal Drogo are put into action, they are placed in a bad light. The first scene that you Khal Drogo appears is when he’s getting to see Dany for the first time after purchasing her from her brother. This automatically places him in the role of the villain in the beginning scenes, the audience immediately revolting after his overtly sexual and what appears to be condescending look when he first sees her.

"Yep. I'd tap that."

From that point on, the Dothraki seem to follow a path of stereotypes that try to explain who they are while keeping them less civilized and inferior to the Targaryens. During the first season of Game of Thrones, the Dothraki race was quoted to be written to portray a “Native American-like culture”. Even while they try to explain what they’re doing, they’re doing all the things that an American audience would usually identify with countries that are underdeveloped. From the massive dance/orgy that took place in the beginning at Dany’s wedding to Khal Drogo, to eating the heart of the horse in front of shaman-like woman while she chants things in a foreign language, these are all things that we, as an American audience, identify with cultures that we find inferior to our own.

You mean this isn't how we party?

This is even emphasized during the heart-eating scene, by placing Viserys in the scene. Viserys is our white-imperialist counterpart that needs everything explained to him. He says what we as an audience is feeling in this scene, which by doing, is placing us in the viewpoint of someone who openly and with hostility thinks himself and his culture as superior. They are having the audience identify with the racism that Viserys is feeling.

As Viserys let us know, "Gross".

Sex and Dragons: How Dany’s “Tasteful Nudity” and Dragon Children Symbolize Her Role as White Imperialist

         Daenerys has been known to proclaim “I am the mother of dragons.”  Anyone with Internet access and a mediocre sense of humor knows this.  But what do these dragons mean in a world where everybody is associated with a symbol or identity of sorts, including the bastardy of Jon Snow as incongruent with his genuine goodness and Tyrion’s malformed façade as a means of shaping him as a Richard III figure? Dany has her dragons.  The majority of her segment of the first book builds up to the moment at which she claims her matriarchal role and it lingers throughout the rest of the series, television and novel.  These dragons are symbolic of Dany’s imperial power.

            First, the dragons emerge in suspicious timing with the death of Khal Drogo and Rhago’s ill-fated monstrous birth.  They emerge at a time when Dany, at least in the show’s depiction, has begun to adorn herself in her original attire.   The dragons were the emblem of her family, her ancestors, really.  In this sense, they represent Dany reclaiming her heritage and seizing that power, that identity.  Normally, this gesture would be seen as empowering, however, Dany’s Targaryen roots present the much more problematic action of Dany demeaning the Dothraki people, ultimately. Upon the death of her husband, she rises from the pyre along with her dragons and she takes the role of white imperialist in place of indigenous warrior and utilizes those people to reclaim her prize.  Fire cannot burn the dragon, as she says.  Instead, it bolsters her and gives rise to the birth of her dragons.  The dragons rise and so does Dany. 

Both mythological reptile and white-haired princess are unclothed, in a high fantasy recreation of “The Birth of Venus,” a repetition of one of Dany’s first scenes in which she, naked, steps into the scalding bath.  While nudity could draw Dany closer to the carnal and atavistic depictions of the Dothraki people, we, the viewers, do not see her extremities.  The assets both the camera and the male characters draw attention to are now covered by dragons.  Dany’s armor is now her small dragon family.  Assuming dragons equate to white imperialism, Dany’s reptilian fig leaves seem to better her in juxtaposition to the nude Dothraki women.  She is still nude, she is still somewhat vulnerable, but the parts of her body both representative of her role as prize and potentially role as Dothraki Khaleesi, are shrouded by civilized imperialism.

Perhaps the dragons in their roles as Dany’s “children” as opposed to her “pets” further this imperialistic nature.  Even though mythological and ancient in appearance and nature, these dragons represent a new future.  Somehow they are a more civilized generation than the Dothraki people.  Even Dany exclaims that dragons eat horses.  Dragons, essentially the symbol of the white imperial Dany, conquer the symbols of the Dothraki.  In this sense, Dany takes over the Dothraki with her “seed,” her lineage.  It just so happens to be super convenient that her half—Dothraki son didn’t quite make it past the lump child stage.

Dany as both sexualized being and mother of dragons serves an interesting purpose.  Dany uses her dragons not quite as an armor but as a distraction from what the male characters had been determining her worth by.  Through using her dragons as form of empowerment, she proves she is more than her sexuality.  She reclaims a new identity as woman, as matriarch and not sex thing, and, further, heightens her role as an imperialist force that cannot be stopped.

image source:fanpop