I’m not saying it doesn’t appear that way or that people who read it that way are wrong even if I disagree. I’m legitimately interested in what causes the different perspectives on this.
What is the biggest cause of people perceiving it as colonization?
Is it the text? Either because of the original writing or potentially by extension my translation of it.
Is it the visual imagery? That’s why I asked about the clothing before. Obviously from a western lens, those clothes with dark skin has a certain reading regarding natives and “savages” and is often used in colonization narratives. But from the Chinese lens from which the story was written those are just poor commoners clothes and their dark skin has been well established as part of the Mulai people. They’re not things associated with colonization.
Is it the structure of the narrative that’s muddied the authors intent and given it the appearance of something it wasn’t intended to be?
I just find this all interesting
Nah, they just have massive "colonizer" bias.
To the extent they don't even have the ability to read this story in the setting that it's in - a setting of kingdoms where the land is already owned by the various nobles.
And if they have issues with that setting, I don't know why they're even reading this in the first place. It's not exactly a secret how the world was run by nobles. We still use the term "landlord" even now.
last edited at Aug 24, 2026 7:45AM