Advertisement
by Ancient and Holy Terra » Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:06 pm
by Siromizu » Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:09 pm
Ancient and Holy Terra wrote:Honestly, I grew up in Japan, and the term essentially wasn't heard - though whether that was out of apathy or because it's a taboo, I cannot say.
That said, it's undoubtedly a racial slur in the West.
Ancient and Holy Terra wrote:EDIT: Is this worth taking to another thread?
by Cannot think of a name » Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:09 pm
by Ancient and Holy Terra » Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:13 pm
Cannot think of a name wrote:Maybe the time machine will be absconded by some of the more reality divorced members of the internets and they'll waste all the jumps looking for Pickard and Kirk...
by Ravea » Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:17 pm
New Nicksyllvania wrote:And an unarmed, unarmoured man is going to get his ass beat in a melee with a knight no matter what mystical ninja skillz he has.
by Ancient and Holy Terra » Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:29 pm
New Nicksyllvania wrote:According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "Jap" as an abbreviation for "Japanese" was in colloquial use in London around 1880.
Jap is only a racial slur in North America due to post-war guilt and propaganda taking it as its monosyllabic nature made for catchy slogans. That has since been taken up as being on the level of "nigger" by the Japanese-American community simply because of the butthurt caused by the camps. Regarding it as a slur when it was quite obviously utilised as a abbreviation is only cheapening the struggles of legitimate complaints against slurs. I suppose the Japanese electronic industry is rascism for making the JAP region zone.
by Sarzonia » Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:30 pm
New Nicksyllvania wrote:Jap is only a racial slur in North America due to post-war guilt and propaganda taking it as its monosyllabic nature made for catchy slogans.
by Aggicificicerous » Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:34 pm
Ancient and Holy Terra wrote:Aggicificicerous wrote:Have you ever tried to fire a longbow while mounted on a horse?
They have. For over a thousand years.
Yabusame remains an essential part of Japan's cultural heritage, and it's a common sight at decent-sized Shinto shrines if you know when and where to look.
by SaintB » Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:43 pm
North Calaveras wrote:id have to say that because westerners were larger than easterners they had more brutish weapons and relied more on power while the smaller lighter guys of the east relied on speed.
by Ancient and Holy Terra » Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:44 pm
Aggicificicerous wrote:Interesting. That bow doesn't look as big or thick as an English longbow, but I wouldn't mind seeing if it can penetrate a knight's armour.
by Brandenburg-Altmark » Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:46 pm
SaintB wrote:North Calaveras wrote:id have to say that because westerners were larger than easterners they had more brutish weapons and relied more on power while the smaller lighter guys of the east relied on speed.
Not very true, I own a fine example of a European sword in common use during the third crusade; its long, but its sharp, light, and well balanced, in fact its so well balanced it feels like an extension of the arms more than a weapon.
Too big to image.
by SaintB » Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:53 pm
Brandenburg-Altmark wrote:SaintB wrote:North Calaveras wrote:id have to say that because westerners were larger than easterners they had more brutish weapons and relied more on power while the smaller lighter guys of the east relied on speed.
Not very true, I own a fine example of a European sword in common use during the third crusade; its long, but its sharp, light, and well balanced, in fact its so well balanced it feels like an extension of the arms more than a weapon.
Too big to image.
That is the heart of the misconception. Weapons that weren't well balanced were worthless to any serious fighter, so weaponsmiths balanced them perfectly to improve their effectiveness. Counterweights in the hilt made it much easier to use than one would think.
by Norstal » Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:54 pm
Militire wrote:Hi NS. Recently, I watched the movie Fearless. It pissed me off and made me draw paralels between that and other shows and films (Deadliest Warrior sometimes comes to mind) that constsantly destroy the reputation of Western armed and unarmed martial arts in the eyes of the last few generations at the beheadst of Eastern martial arts. It makes even the most trained western knight and soldiers look like ill trained barbarians who think that brute force will beat through anything and wearing a massive amount of(usualy badly made) armor will save them. They are also usualy arrogant or tragicaly self doubting. This is opposed to the fast, discplened, and extremly (and apparently justifibly) confident warriors of the Far East. This goes the same for weapons of each faction: Western bastard swords and Eastern Katana, and the such, as well as armors.What have, you, NS, to say about this. (PS. This is not remotely a rascial thing, so don't try and bring it up)
Toronto Sun wrote:Best poster ever. ★★★★★
New York Times wrote:No one can beat him in debates. 5/5.
IGN wrote:Literally the best game I've ever played. 10/10
NSG Public wrote:What a fucking douchebag.
by Ancient and Holy Terra » Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:58 pm
Norstal wrote:Militire wrote:Hi NS. Recently, I watched the movie Fearless. It pissed me off and made me draw paralels between that and other shows and films (Deadliest Warrior sometimes comes to mind) that constsantly destroy the reputation of Western armed and unarmed martial arts in the eyes of the last few generations at the beheadst of Eastern martial arts. It makes even the most trained western knight and soldiers look like ill trained barbarians who think that brute force will beat through anything and wearing a massive amount of(usualy badly made) armor will save them. They are also usualy arrogant or tragicaly self doubting. This is opposed to the fast, discplened, and extremly (and apparently justifibly) confident warriors of the Far East. This goes the same for weapons of each faction: Western bastard swords and Eastern Katana, and the such, as well as armors.What have, you, NS, to say about this. (PS. This is not remotely a rascial thing, so don't try and bring it up)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearless_(2006_film)
Yeah except this is made in Hong Kong.
I thought someone would link the wikipedia article on the movie by now
by Orcoa » Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:03 pm
by Brandenburg-Altmark » Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:11 pm
SaintB wrote:Brandenburg-Altmark wrote:SaintB wrote:North Calaveras wrote:id have to say that because westerners were larger than easterners they had more brutish weapons and relied more on power while the smaller lighter guys of the east relied on speed.
Not very true, I own a fine example of a European sword in common use during the third crusade; its long, but its sharp, light, and well balanced, in fact its so well balanced it feels like an extension of the arms more than a weapon.
Too big to image.
That is the heart of the misconception. Weapons that weren't well balanced were worthless to any serious fighter, so weaponsmiths balanced them perfectly to improve their effectiveness. Counterweights in the hilt made it much easier to use than one would think.
This I know, I was just providing an actual example. Some weapons you wanted to be less than perfectly balanced, for instance you want a hammer to have more weight to the top.
by Bears Armed » Wed Jul 28, 2010 2:49 am
Ancient and Holy Terra wrote:I think we're now dealing with two separate issues. I don't think people are claiming that it was always derogatory, but rather that it is now considered pejorative simply because it falls into the same category as "Jerry" and "Kraut".
by Arthropoda Ingens » Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:38 am
I think the point is that compared to contemporary European armour, Japanese armour was... Unimpressive. Hence why, as soon as it became possible, the Japanese staretd to import European full plate (Well, those who could afford it. Luxury item). Some additions to make it stylistically fit... Bam. Basically untouchable to Japanese weaponry, unliek the poorer sods who couldn't afford transcontinental imports.Daistallia 2104 wrote:I guess the suit of Japanese maille and plate that I got to wear at a museum in Kyoto didn't exist.
Being beaten to shit by a better armed, better disciplined opponent despite actually enjoying a numerical advantage, not to mention fighting on one's hometurf, and being saved solely by virtue of bad weather fucking up one's invader twice isn't 'Crushing' by any stretch of the imagination, I'm afraid.Brandenburg-Altmark wrote:If the Katana was so useless, how did they absolutely crush the Mongols that managed to land on their shores?
You'd be surprised. Even the (Superior) European longbow formations were perfectly crushable by lance-armed cavalry formations - as long as terrain and weather didn't slow them down to a crawl.UNIverseVERSE wrote:You have a longbow. The other person does not.
I hope more obviousness is not needed
by Risottia » Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:42 am
Aggicificicerous wrote:Risottia wrote:About the usual samurai vs knight debate, here:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm
The knight wins. Deadliest warrior did an episode on this, and the samurai couldn't even beat a Spartan from B.C. Simply put, the samurai has no answer to a shield, and the knight's armour is of superior quality.
by Brandenburg-Altmark » Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:45 am
Risottia wrote:Aggicificicerous wrote:Risottia wrote:About the usual samurai vs knight debate, here:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm
The knight wins. Deadliest warrior did an episode on this, and the samurai couldn't even beat a Spartan from B.C. Simply put, the samurai has no answer to a shield, and the knight's armour is of superior quality.
I also think that the knight has some advantage over the samurai of the same period.
Expecially about the sword. The European swords are far more versatile in combat.
by Risottia » Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:48 am
Brandenburg-Altmark wrote:Risottia wrote:Aggicificicerous wrote:Risottia wrote:About the usual samurai vs knight debate, here:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm
The knight wins. Deadliest warrior did an episode on this, and the samurai couldn't even beat a Spartan from B.C. Simply put, the samurai has no answer to a shield, and the knight's armour is of superior quality.
I also think that the knight has some advantage over the samurai of the same period.
Expecially about the sword. The European swords are far more versatile in combat.
The main difference comes from individual skill.
There's a much lower margin of error in a duel between two Samurai than in a battle involving Knights.
by Aelosia » Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:53 am
by Rambhutan » Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:26 am
by Ermarian » Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:28 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, Ethel mermania, Foxyshire, Galactic Powers, Grandocantorica, Ineva, Keltionialang, Knothole and Brunswick, Kostane, Ors Might, Skiva, The Jamesian Republic, Washington Resistance Army
Advertisement