Risou no Himo Seikatsu - Vol. 5 Ch. 20 - Sharowa Royal Family Arrives!

[Ruhrpottpatriot]

@ jonsmth In general, yes. However the way you bow is very different in Europe compared to Asia.
Men move their left foot back and lean their upper body forward. The right arm is moved horizontally across the abdomen holding any head-wear, while the left is moved away from the body with the palm facing the greeted. This shows that they are unarmed and come with good intentions.
Women in pre 17th century Europe bow like men, and in post 17th century they perform a curtsey. Here the right foot is moved behind the left and the knees bend outwards. The upper body is kept upright (never stick out your behind or lean forward!) and a long skirt is prevented from toughing the ground by holding it up (unless you have something in your hands, duh).
There's also the very important distinction between bowing and genuflection (formal kneeling). Catholic priests also have to prostate in certain circumstances.

For this chapter, the time period cannot be set for certain, since the technological level indicates somewhen pre 1400, but some of the clothing of the Sharowa royal family and general social layout clearly hints towards the Victorian (i.e.19th century) or even Edwardian Era. Therefore it would be expected of the crown prince to bow, and from the daughter to do a curtsey. Yet both bow in "the" Asian style.


Additional errors, assuming the social structure is 19th century:
- The thrones are the same size, which would indicate that Zenjirou is the King and therefore above Aura.
- Aura doesn't sit like a Queen (or any women from that time period) would. She needs to have both legs together slightly angled to the left
- The guards of the Sharowa royal family are wearing weapons in the throne room, this is a big, big no go!
- European state banquets are usually smaller and involve all parties sitting based on very strict rules.
- We don't get any hint of military honours (which is excusable, maybe it just didn't fit into the narrative structure)
- On page 37 both kneel. The crown price has the left hand in front and the right on the back. This is a big no go, as the right is the sword hand and one must never hide his sword hand! Kneeling before the sovereign in general would be considered wrong in this time period.

 

[Glomoro]

A real man would just let his wife bridal carry him if she's capable, because being so insecure in your own masculinity that this reversal of the norm could embarrass you this much is the actual sign of weakness. Man up and let the queen carry you.

 

[Disguised22]

Why are people assuming the cultural customs would be the same as Europe? This is a different world in a Middle Eastern/pseudo-european/Spanish setting, of course customs would be different.

 

[pimentinha112]

@Glomoro
Agreed.

 

[ShionSinX]

Seeing the AC working I was just thinking, what would happen if Aura were to use her magic on a shampoo bottle that was emptied into another container? Would it get refilled and the other container keep the shampoo as well?

 

[IShallReadTheHeavens]

I'm getting annoyed, man.

 

[The5thSeraph]

@ShionSinX
A duplication glitch would probably be the surest way to prove or disprove the existence of a god. Exploit it like mad and see if it gets patched out.


@Ruhrpottpatriot

I always find it funny how this manga tries to build "European" countries, but then makes sure that social custom is totally Japanese.

I can't think of a single isekai manga off-hand that doesn't do that to one degree or other.
Not to mention anachronisms that probably wouldn't be noticed by the average Japanese reader.
Middle-ages social hierarchies and technology levels with Edwardian architecture (assuming generic western European style) and all the small gaps filled in liberally with Japanese social traits (gender roles, shame culture, bowing, manzai "comedy", bizarre obsession with onsens, etc) seems to be painfully common for the genre in general. Oh, plus completely unnaturally hair colours that make you think the entire cast is blond/e until you see a colour image and find they're various shades of pastel blue, green and purple.

 

[Ruhrpottpatriot]

@The5thSeraph

I can't think of a single isekai manga off-hand that doesn't do that to one degree or other.

From what little I have read, Genjitsushugi Yuusha no Oukoku Saikenki handles it pretty well, as does The Holy Grail of Eris and for an older example: Ginga Eiyū Densetsu, although the latter two aren't isekai.
Naturally an author who doesn't have any clue how it really was can't do it properly. And lets be fair, not even most European authors portrait Europe at a certain point in time that isn't the last 40 years and usually put in a healthy dose of modern (very U.S. influenced) morals in it (not that that's a bad thing per se, in fact it can be very good -- if done properly). Just the view that the individual has far less worth than the group is just alien to most.
And now you have an author who is from a wholly different cultural sphere (regardless of the fact that much of what we see today as japanese, chinese or "asian" has distinct 19th century european roots) and it gets even harder.

Middle-ages social hierarchies

Which in most cases aren't medieval, but rather from the renaissance or age of reformation. They usually totally miss the main point in feudal societies, which is a mutual (and very, very complicated) relationship between the sovereign and the nobility and nobility and common folk.


Again: It's amusing to me and I'm not blaming the author. I usually can read above or dismiss things that are obviously in a work because the work needs to somehow speak to the intended audience; which in 99% of LN/Mangas is Japan, no matter the increasing translations into english. Sidenote: That's what I did for SAO and the "harem" which Kirito apparently has (hint: he has not; the interactions are mostly just there so Otakus can self insert)

 

[The5thSeraph]

@Ruhrpottpatriot

Just the view that the individual has far less worth than the group is just alien to most.

I had to re-read this sentence a few times to make sure I was reading it right, as it looks backwards to me. Are you sure you didn't get it backwards?
I mean I know I'm surrounded by collectivists pretty much everywhere who subscribe zealously to herd morality to the point where I can't even regard anyone remotely normal as being a self-contained singular being. It would probably be an exaggeration to claim they ascribe any worth to individuals whatsoever.

 

[Ruhrpottpatriot]

@The5thSeraph

Are you sure you didn't get it backwards?

Yes, I'm quite sure. Pre 1968 (as a general rule of thumb) it was consensus, that the society as a whole is more important than the individual in it. The most notable example is the willingness of men volunteering for armed service. We all know that there were suicides of Japanese men who were classified as unfit for military service, but many don't know this happened regularly in the U.S. as well. Especially for men, if you didn't do at least some form of either military service you were stigmatized and since every European country back then drafted men, draft dodgers were pretty much social outcasts. Women had it easier in that regard, but they too had their fair share of social pitfalls, e.g. don't even dare think of sharing a room overnight with a man unless you're married, and god help you if you're unmarried and you need to raise a child.
Modern social norms have a few places to put one's foot in, but in comparison to pre WWII social norms it's a walk in the park. I'd say the closest we get to a modern example of social norms and hierarchy from then are Japanese honorifics (which in a different way existed in Europe as well).

The U.S. has always been the odd ball in the community of western countries and usually was fairly egalitarian (even compared to republican France) because many people who founded the U.S. were people that left Europe because they didn't fit in with society.

 

[The5thSeraph]

@Ruhrpottpatriot
Still seems kinda alien to me. I'm hard Individualist compared to people though. Kinda Egoist, though it is more like convergent evolution than actually subscribing to Stirner's writings.
People all still seem disgustingly collectivist to me. Heck, they still use "selfish" as a criticism for heck sake, while I see it as a necessary part of existing.

As for murica, yeah they were escapees from the Catholic church as I recall. The irony being that they ended up even more religious in the end than those they were trying to escape from. That sort of thing tends to happen a lot. They might blather about "freedom" a lot, but they're still mostly collectivist authoritarians. Fuckin hive-mind.

 

[Ruhrpottpatriot]

@The5thSeraph

Still seems kinda alien to me.

Which is what I meant. Although egoism (as in the individual has more worth than the group) is a modern thing. Yes, there were individuals who subscribed to that idea even before 1900, but they were a crass minority.
Psychology actually supports the idea that for the average human it's better to live in a group and support the group to the individuals own expense. This ranges from purely logical things, like vaccination (as with everything a vaccination can cause serious harm, but the advantages for literally everyone except the person affected, by far outweigh the risks for the individual) to seemingly random things like people running into a burning house to rescue other humans or their pets.
The homo sapiens is a social animal and it shows pretty hard. The COIVID-19 epidemic has brought to light that many people, especially older ones, are in serious risk of not only psychological, but also bodily harm because of loneliness. The psychological well being has direct impact on the physical condition and multiple studies have shown that a healthy mind is almost a necessary condition for a healthy body.

The irony being that they ended up even more religious in the end than those they were trying to escape from.

The evangelist attitude of most mid-west states in the US is pretty lax compared to what many European countries went through at some point in their history. Especially before the 30 years war religious persecution and killings were the norm and lets not forget the pogroms that happened. The US had neither.
And if you look at Spain's Philip II then the US seems like almost a atheistic country.

 

[The5thSeraph]

@Ruhrpottpatriot

The homo sapiens is a social animal and it shows pretty hard.

Every variant of that phrase I've heard has been equally cringe-inducing.
When one puts the needs of the group ahead of the needs of the individual, as most humans tend to, that that means in practice is to heavily prioritise the preferences of the numerical majority in any given context while marginalising and dismissing any deviations from that norm. It is a system that promotes homogeny in iterations until the very definition of individuality is regarded as a flaw.
When you say humans are "a social animal", what you're effectively saying is that the majority are, while those who aren't don't even get your consideration... and in simply refusing to acknowledge that humanoids who are NOT social animals exist, you promote a lifestyle ever more unpleasant for such individuals.

The evangelist attitude of most mid-west states in the US is pretty lax compared to what many European countries went through at some point in their history.

Who even cares about that? It is completely irrelevant. I'm comparing what they're like NOW.
It doesn't make any sense to point out the way Europe used to be when the whole point is that it has progressed beyond that now, while America instead regressed (from what I gather, the earlier American government often lauded in their history tales were a lot more secular than those that followed, though still only by the standards of the time).
That said, the recent influx of yet more middle-easterners of another certain religion is NOT doing much good for Europe.

 

[Ruhrpottpatriot]

@The5thSeraph

Every variant of that phrase I've heard has been equally cringe-inducing.

That doesn't make it less true. Every reputable study has show that humans are social in nature.

When you say humans are "a social animal", what you're effectively saying is that the majority are

Well yes, genetics are not Mendelian, but rather "Gaussian" in nature (see Fisher and Galton) and genes are passed on based on normal distribution. So trying to attack an argument by "it's only the majority" is like saying "water is wet".

and in simply refusing to acknowledge that humanoids who are NOT social animals exist

I didn't deny anything. You're putting words in my mouth.

Who even cares about that? It is completely irrelevant. I'm comparing what they're like NOW.

You haven't been in Poland or Malta, have you?

That said, the recent influx of yet more middle-easterners of another certain religion is NOT doing much good for Europe.

I don't see what helping refugees has to do with the secularism of Europe, unless you want to imply a certain thing.


Although, its quite hypocritical for you to claim your own individualism and deny others theirs. Living like oneself wants also includes religious fundamentalism or radical atheism.
One thing from my own countries history: Directly after the war Germany took on more than ten million refugees from the old eastern provinces and other eastern European countries who were fleeing soviet persecution. Most of them settled in the Rhineland, an ultra conservative and ultra catholicistic part of Germany. most of the people coming were protestant, or orthodox and barely spoke the German dialect of that area. After all if you had put a Bavarian, Saxon and Westphalian in one room, you'd need more than just one translator because nobody would understand each other. Also: most of those Germans were reviled as "Polack" by other Germans, no matter whether they were even remotely from Poland. All that at a time where absolutely nobody had anything to eat or money to spare.

And 2015 was what? 1 million refugees in a time where we have literal billions to spend and (almost) nobody is starving? Yeah, if people could stop blowing things out of proportion, that'd be great.

 

[The5thSeraph]

@Ruhrpottpatriot

Well yes, genetics are not Mendelian, but rather "Gaussian" in nature (see Fisher and Galton) and genes are passed on based on normal distribution. So trying to attack an argument by "it's only the majority" is like saying "water is wet".

So you're suggesting that exceptions to water being wet exist? Honest question.
Still, pushing the whole "people are social animals" angle while deliberately omitting those that aren't is as misleading as pushing the angle that birds are flying creatures. Just because the majority are doesn't mean it is a rule by any means. Point being that if you're using it as some sort of justification for anything else, it doesn't work. If you go about assuming that anyone you're talking to feels the same social dependencies as you do, you might be surprised to find it isn't necessarily the case.

I didn't deny anything. You're putting words in my mouth.

No I didn't. I said you refused to acknowledge it, which is a 100% accurate description of what you did. I didn't say you denied it. That isn't the same thing. You're the one putting words in my fingers (I'm not typing with my mouth, afterall).

You haven't been in Poland or Malta, have you?

I've been to Warsaw 3 times. Not Malta though.
Nobody I met in Warsaw struck me as religious... though that was before the whole blasphemy law thing kicked off.

I don't see what helping refugees has to do with the secularism of Europe, unless you want to imply a certain thing.

They're very religious refugees, obviously. Of a religion with possibly the most severe case of megalomania in the history of humanity. It isn't like that religion would have any sort of influence across Europe any more without them (though they used to dominate Spain once, I'm aware).

Although, its quite hypocritical for you to claim your own individualism and deny others theirs.

I'm doing nothing of the sort though. THEY are rejecting individuality. And my criticism of them is based ON that.

Living like oneself wants also includes religious fundamentalism or radical atheism.

Nonsense. Religion relies upon collectivism. It cannot exist without it. And a collectivist does not live like any "one". It is a borrowed identity. A group identity that draws no significant distinction between one copy of itself and the next.
And there is no "radical atheism". Atheism is the default state of not having belief in some vague, imaginary authority figure. Rocks and trees are atheist. It isn't a thing at all, but a defined absence. How can one be radical about not having something?

And 2015 was what? 1 million refugees in a time where we have literal billions to spend and (almost) nobody is starving? Yeah, if people could stop blowing things out of proportion, that'd be great.

You're changing the context to suit your needs. By all means if you think this has anything to do with america reverting to a highly religious country, feel free to explain. But it looks to me like you're just trying to go off on a meaningless tangent.

 

[Ruhrpottpatriot]

@The5thSeraph

Still, pushing the whole "people are social animals" angle while deliberately omitting those that aren't

What part of "these people existed before 1900" and "for the average human" in any way omits that these people exist?

Just because the majority are doesn't mean it is a rule by any means.

It's not a mathematical rule (in the analytical sense) like 1+1 = 2 or 0.999... = 1 (yes, that is true), but statistics doesn't work that way. In statistics we (the statisticians) never, ever make assumptions only when our data set shows 100%, usually we take 95% as sufficient (and thus extract a rule of that) or for more significant values (e.g. the Avogardo constant N_A or the Planck constant h) are taken as factual at 99.5%. So yes, exceptions in fact confirm the rule.

Nobody I met in Warsaw struck me as religious

You went to probably most liberal city in Poland, and yes it has gotten worse. As for Malta: They are strange, very strange. Homosexual marriages are totally a O.K. but toplessness is forbidden and don't even dare talking about abortion... Still one of the most religiously fundamental countries.

Religion relies upon collectivism. It cannot exist without it.

No it does not. Certain religions build upon the community. Yes Catholicism is one major player in that field, but Protestantism on the other hand far less so. In fact one of the main things Luther criticised the church for was its obsessive collectivism, stating that only the individual can properly commune with god to get absolution.
Roman Paganism is also an interesting religion in that regard. You (as a free person) were expected to take part in the ceremonies since it was the state religion, but what you did after that was your business, you could be a Jew or German Pagan they didn't care. Religion for them was means to get the people to shut up and not revolt (which is true for most other religions as well). Norse paganism is even more extreme. Yes, they have shamans who direct a ceremony (since they knew the rituals best and also played a vital part as arbitrators), but the belief is inherently centred around the individual and their actions.
Also: Shintoism, and Bhuddism...

And there is no "radical atheism".

Then what do you call the movement to banish all religion, destroy all churches/temples/shrines and ban worshipping in any form?

Rocks and trees are atheist.

Rocks and trees are not atheist, they are inanimate objects incapable of thought.

By all means if you think this has anything to do with america reverting to a highly religious country, feel free to explain

a
a) The US (not America, unless you also mean Canada, Mexico and the Latin-American nations) is not getting more religious. Religious nutjobs are just getting louder through social media. They were and are centred in the bible-belt and have barely any reach to the population centres at the coast.
b) What I wanted to say is that just because you have a "massive" (stretching that word quite significantly) influx of other minded people, doesn't magically change the culture of the place. 1 million Muslims won't make Germany any more religious.

 

[The5thSeraph]

@Ruhrpottpatriot

What part of "these people existed before 1900" and "for the average human" in any way omits that these people exist?

What makes you believe I was at any point referring to those two phrases in particular?
You omitted it by not only failing to acknowledge it, but by making sweeping statements about the nature of humanity at its core. Those two statements above fit the first criterion. Other things you've said obviously meet the latter criterion. Please quit trying to evade the issue through deliberate misdirection.

or 0.999... = 1 (yes, that is true)

Sure, if infinitesimal = 0. But I'm not here to argue mathematics. For one thing it isn't my forté. Palaeobiology and behavioural evolution are my forté.

You went to probably most liberal city in Poland, and yes it has gotten worse.

Well of course. It is the capital. And it is for work, since half my work team is based there.

No it does not.

Yes, it does. Religion exists as a tool to control a population through standardisation of their behaviour and distracting them from individual concerns. It has absolutely ZERO use or worth to an individual. The very notion of a god as a form of external authority is inherently collectivist (and obviously authoritarian).

Then what do you call the movement to banish all religion, destroy all churches/temples/shrines and ban worshipping in any form?

It is called Antitheism, and calling it a "movement" as opposed to the relatively isolated position of a small and unpopular minority is a gross exaggeration. I'm antitheistic myself, but since I'm also individualistic, I don't regard those things as what "should be done" but what "I should personally do, should the impossibly rare opportunity arise". But if someone else happens to do so in the meanwhile, all the better. I'm also "anti" a lot of other things in the same manner.

Rocks and trees are not atheist, they are inanimate objects incapable of thought.

And incapable of belief in a god, ergo atheist.
You're not really following, are you?
Being incapable of something necessarily means NOT doing / having it, which is the key criterion here.

a) The US (not America, unless you also mean Canada, Mexico and the Latin-American nations) is not getting more religious. Religious nutjobs are just getting louder through social media. They were and are centred in the bible-belt and have barely any reach to the population centres at the coast.

Calling it America isn't wrong. It is just incomplete. Besides, last I checked, the yanks like it to just be called "America" because they can pretend the other countries don't exist that way.
Anyhow, whether it is getting more religious now or not is, AGAIN, beside the point. It HAS DONE SO in the relatively recent past and has remained so. The American government is religious to the extent that the openly Atheist don't get into office there. Being non-religious is actually something people have to hide from their families over there.
Yeah, getting really tired of the way you keep metahphorically moving the goalposts. Like trying to shift the context around for your own convenience is your entire way of life. Could you please stop doing that, as it is really counterproductive and I'm not oblivious enough not to notice.

b) What I wanted to say is that just because you have a "massive" (stretching that word quite significantly) influx of other minded people, doesn't magically change the culture of the place. 1 million Muslims won't make Germany any more religious.

No, it won't "magically" do it. It will just do so normally, the same way cultures have been influencing each other since the dawn of human collectivism, obviously. The same way it is already happening. Or are you completely oblivious to the fact that cultures influence each other and change over time? ¬_¬

 

[Gavastar]

@The5thSeraph you comment on every chapter lol

 

[The5thSeraph]

@Gavastar
I comment on a great many things. I don't even recall which this thing is.
But if something has to be said then I say it.