Val’kyr aren’t entirely undead.
Connecting through cultural DNA; the implication that you can’t fully belong to some place unless you connect with the original people that once lived there.
Darn thats a very eloberate answer.
Now I feel bad that I wanted to say that the vrykul aren’t the natives of the Kul Tiran islands either 
I´d say until the last generation that arrived to colonize the place dies out. At that point you´ll have population that never knew another homeland than the one they´re in right now.
1 Like
Ppl fr siding with the drust here despite them being evil dark magic wielding murder psychos. Lol, I say. Lmao, even.
It’s not like native populations have been pristine and benevolent entities either. If you insist that Blizzard is somehow tonedeaf about colonialism, at least educate yourself and know that many native tribes in both the americas and the islands surrounding Australia (not the continent itself) practiced things like slavery, human sacrifice, cannibalism and/or genocide.
Native populations don’t spawn out of the aether noble and pure, they are capable of just as much evil (and more) than the colonizer. It doesn’r excuse any actions of the invader, but it does tarnish them as a sole victim in the story.
Drust are not victims of the story. They are the antagonists. Simple as.
Simple. When the argument suits me better, then the opponent is an evil colonizer. When tge argument suits me worse, I have roots to the land.
4 Likes
That wasn’t what I was implying at all. Allow me to clarify and make my point a little clearer.
I classify the Kul Tirans as colonisers because of their strong cultural connection to the original colonisers of Kul Tiras. They celebrate their colonial heritage and as far as I can tell, the government of Kul Tiras when we arrive at Kul Tiras is the same government that originally conquered it. Certainly, the House Waycrest that originally conquered Drustvar is the same entity as the House Waycrest that currently rules Drustvar. They continue that cultural legacy, so they shall continue to carry that cultural burden.
This is why people still want the USA, UK and other European nations of today to provide reparations for crimes that were committed long ago. A lot of these countries are still ruled by the same systems of governance that were responsible for those crimes, a lot of these countries still benefit from and profit off of the damage inflicted by their colonialism and imperialism, and a lot of these countries still celebrate their colonial and imperial heritage.
So, they should also carry the burden of that heritage, the damage inflicted, and those crimes.
However, there are ways around this. A people can dismantle a system of governance and replace it with a reformed government, reparations can be paid to try and make up for historical harm and the cultural legacy of the original perpetrators can be left behind and become a relic of the past, instead of being celebrated as a strong part of that people’s identity.
Scandinavian countries are an example of this. Viking raiders were responsible for immense amounts of damage and colonialism throughout Europe, through massive amounts of religious and political reformation and through the abandonment of the cultural identity of those raiders, these people have such little connection to the vikings of old that blaming them for the crimes of their ancestors seems ridiculous.
In contrast, the modern Kul Tirans are politically and culturally a direct continuation of the original colonisers and raiders, no matter how many thousands of years have passed, so they still carry that burden, at least in my opinion.
If the Kul Tirans left the legacy of their colonising ancestors behind, through reformation and becoming a distinct and separate cultural entity that does not celebrate or profit off of past crimes, then sure, I’d be willing to accept those Kul Tirans as being separate from the original colonisers. The first step towards this would be the dismantling of House Waycrest, the direct descendants of the conqueror of Drustvar, as the ruling house of Drustvar.
“The implication that you can’t fully belong to some place unless you connect with the original people that once lived there” has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Hopefully that makes my point a little clearer, and hopefully you won’t feel the urge to point fingers and go “you sound like a fascist” at the drop of a hat.
From what I recall, it was a little more nebulous back in the beta but it’s true, Blizzard went out of their way to make the Drust under Gorak Tul as monstrous as humanly possible, to make the actions of the first Kul Tirans seem as justified as possible.
Like Syelia said, the problem here is that the story of Drustvar comes across as tone-deaf and whitewashy, considering the context and the people who wrote it.
As for me, I was just answering Shadowtwili’s question about colonialism.
5 Likes
Reminds me of the glorious times people championed the Gnoll Mon-Ark as a Pride icon because of his non-choice of pronouns and how the gnolls of the Azure Span are victims of unmerited genocide due to the Kirin Tor quest NPC being flippant about the matter.
Legitimate brain rot.
2 Likes
I mean, pretty sure one of the devs/writers did specifically point out that Mon-Ark is designed that way, so whether you like it or not it’s a concious choice.
And the Kirin Tor mass-murder quest did sit really weird and leave a bad taste, frankly. It was the same kind of “Your character got smacked with the helpful idiot bat” as the start of Revendreth, where anyone with two braincells could go “Ah. Yes. This place is quite literally draped in red flags, what the hecking heck.”
Their*
Shut up lol.
4 Likes
This thread sure is going places.
It’s the red-versus-blue containment thread, what else do you expect?
2 Likes
Do you think any of the playable factions eat quillboar?
We know they eat murlocs and dragons…
1 Like
We do? Where? How have I completely missed this?
Problem with this logic is that, if applied to the real world, would make everyone a colonizer. The French would be colonizers of France because Franks took the land in 5th century. Hungarians would be colonizers of Hungary because they took it in 9th-10th century. All Slavs except those living in our ancient homeland (somewhere around Belarus and Ukraine) are colonizers.
And that´s just the innocent examples that won´t start 200 comments long argument.
At certain point people who live in a certain place can´t be seen as colonizers and I think almost 3000 years should be enough for species where reaching 100 is a huge achievement.
4 Likes
They certainly do:-
https://www.wowhead.com/classic/item=3680/recipe-murloc-fin-soup
https://www.wowhead.com/item=168232/murlocos-fish-tacos
The top one’s been in the game since vanilla.
They also skin them for bags and armour
https://www.wowhead.com/item=1470/murloc-skin-bag
https://www.wowhead.com/spell=6704/thick-murloc-armor
Just because it’s the thread’s topic, I’d also note that Murloc Fin Soup is a Stormwind-exclusive recipe. Horde characters can’t/couldn’t acquire it without cross faction stuff. Humans out here nomming on Murlocs?? Pretty messed up…
3 Likes
Suppose Murlocs do look tastier then Gnolls or Kobolds…
Also lets not forget the Orcs’ and Taurens’ skin Centaurs and uses them as rugs…
I suppose its just a thing in Warcraft were (semi-)intelligent beings are being used as decorations, food, bags and Armour. Which isn’t that weird when you consider that almost every race in Warcraft is (semi-)intelligent!
1 Like
That’s why in that post, I went through the effort of establishing the three criteria of:
- Is the country still governed by the same political entity that was responsible for the initial colonialism/imperialism?
- Does the country still benefit and profit from the damage that was caused by the initial colonialism/imperialism?
- Does the country still celebrate and culturally identify with that initial colonialism/imperialism?
From what I know, the French, the Hungarians and a whole lot of Slavic nations have gone through heaps of political reforms and none of them are governed by the same government that was responsible for the original settling of their lands.
Nor do I think that any French, Hungarian or Slavic individuals presently possess significant amounts of wealth that were seized during the process of colonisation or gained through the exploitation of the native people.
Nor do I believe that the French, Hungarian or Slavic cultures put significant emphasis on celebrating the achievements of their conquering ancestors, or consider the conquest of the lands that they currently occupy to be an immense achievement of their present culture. I could be wrong though.
In these cases, there’s enough cultural distance between those original conquerors and the current inhabitants of those lands that I’d no longer consider them colonisers. But this is just my personal criteria for judging such things in my own mind, there’s no genuine science behind it. So, dismiss and disregard as you see fit.
3 Likes
France: I’d say so, Francia was never conquered and still has the same name.
Hungary: Árpád is very much viewed as Hungarian leader and while Stephen was the first king, I doubt you’ll see Hungarians who think he somehow established new country.
Both France and Hungary still exist on conquered land.
France celebrated 1500th anniversary of Clovis’ baptism and I’m going to take a guess that they still view Francia positively.
And Hungary celebrates the crap out of their conquest. Many would even love to take back Slovakia, Transylvania and Vojvodina.
Hence why I used these countries as an example.
As a native I can concur and confirm that this is true. Every national holiday has a deeply ingrained pride of what our forefathers accomplished (in terms of conquest, victories and turning Scythian into Hungarian clay) and also a deep victim complex over everything lost since the 15th Century.
Except the taking back part, we just want the people, the regions are at this point not worth it.
Edit: On the note of Arpad and Szent István, the former is seen as the primary leader of our people and who laid the foundations for the country, while the latter is canonized as the founder of Hungary as a kingdom.
1 Like
If not, we can start
But several dynasties and a revolution later, I’d say that France has transformed a lot since the founding of Francia.
Similarly, wasn’t the monarchy of Hungary abolished in 1918? That particular regime no longer exists or has influence over that nation, or so I thought, and even then it went through several dynasties. Let me know if I’m wrong.
As for existing on conquered land, that is something that cannot be helped and a reality that can’t be escaped from, so I do not judge the descendants of colonisers for that.
However, I will judge the descendants of colonisers and imperialists who still possess wealth that was stolen from a native people or wealth that obtained by the exploitation of a native people. That can be helped.
And as for the celebration of the initial colonisation/imperialism, I think that it’s unfortunate and that such things shouldn’t be celebrated (just my personal opinion), but if that’s the only criterion that is fulfilled, that alone is not enough for me to judge an entire nation as being colonialist in nature.
Heading out for now and as always, this is not scientific and just my own personal view on the subject.
1 Like