Ninja vs Zombies - Or is it? From the Art Studio.

Tramp Graphics · June 2013

Nice ghouls (they're not zombies; Zombies are slaves created through Voodoo, and don't eat people).

SEE this Thread for HOW it all started. http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/24857/ Edited by a Mod

agent unawares · July 2013

Tramp Graphics said:
Nice ghouls (they're not zombies; Zombies are slaves created through Voodoo, and don't eat people).

Hmm, ghouls are evil spirits or demons that rob graves to feed on the dead, methinks that may fit even less. ;)

Tramp Graphics · July 2013

Agent_Unawares said:
Tramp Graphics said:
Nice ghouls (they're not zombies; Zombies are slaves created through Voodoo, and don't eat people).

Hmm, ghouls are evil spirits or demons that rob graves to feed on the dead, methinks that may fit even less. ;)Yep. They're also defined as undead who attack people and feed on flesh, it varies from culture to culture. Ghouls have been decribed veriously as demons, spirits, undead, or simply monsters, and, typically, having once been human, and they have viracious apetites for human flesh, living or dea.

Zombies, however, are specifically slaves created through Voodoo magic. There have even been real life case studies. One in particular study, That of Clairvius Narcisse, was made into a book (and subsequent movie) titled The Serpent and the Rainbow. In the simplest terms, a Zombie is created when a person is poisoned by the witch-doctor using tetrodotoxin (found in Puffer Fish venom and Cane Toad venom). The actual amount doesn't actually kill the victim, but, rather, puts him into a "death-like" coma, slowing the metabolism, and organ functions to imperceptible levels, and would appear dead to everyone, even potentially a medical expert (as happened with Narcisse). After the victim has been buried, the witch-docter would come by later that night and exhume his victim, who, by this time, would be awakening, but still very disoriented, and would then keep his new Zombie, in a stupefied and highly suggestible state through another drug known as "Zombie Cucumber". This substance can also cause memory loss. The Zombie is then put to work in the sugar cane fields as a slave.

The "flesh-eating undead" which people commonly refer to "zombies" are nothing of the sort. The only thing that they have in common with zombies is being "reanimated dead". Even the movie that started the whole "Zombie" craze, uses the term Ghouls to describe them, not "Zombie". Another term for these terrifying undead is Revenant, though Revenants are usually described as vengeful undead. Thus, "Ghoul" is the most accurate term to describe these flesh-eating undead monsters, not Zombie. Zombies don't attack people, and don't eat human flesh. Ghouls do.

agent unawares · July 2013

Tramp Graphics said:
Agent_Unawares said:
Tramp Graphics said:
Nice ghouls (they're not zombies; Zombies are slaves created through Voodoo, and don't eat people).
Hmm, ghouls are evil spirits or demons that rob graves to feed on the dead, methinks that may fit even less. ;)
Yep. They're also defined as undead who attack people and feed on flesh, it varies from culture to culture.

Just like zombies!

Zombies, however, are specifically slaves created through Voodoo magic.
Except where it varies from culture to culture. ;)

Unicorns were pretty definitely based on rhinoceros sightings and possibly narwhal horns; that doesn't mean that a stag-like creature with a lion's tail and one horn isn't a unicorn, or further down the line, that a horse with one long horn isn't a unicorn. Sure, zombies are voodoo slaves [and probably everyone interested in the genre knows it], but the term is also used to refer to ravenous undead, and is equally accurate there.

Gohrbandt, that lighting is looking very impressive.

EDIT: You need to turn on shadows.

Tramp Graphics · July 2013

Agent_Unawares said:
Tramp Graphics said:
Agent_Unawares said:
Tramp Graphics said:
Nice ghouls (they're not zombies; Zombies are slaves created through Voodoo, and don't eat people).
Hmm, ghouls are evil spirits or demons that rob graves to feed on the dead, methinks that may fit even less. ;)
Yep. They're also defined as undead who attack people and feed on flesh, it varies from culture to culture.

Just like zombies!

Zombies, however, are specifically slaves created through Voodoo magic.
Except where it varies from culture to culture. ;)

Unicorns were pretty definitely based on rhinoceros sightings and possibly narwhal horns; that doesn't mean that a stag-like creature with a lion's tail and one horn isn't a unicorn, or further down the line, that a horse with one long horn isn't a unicorn. Sure, zombies are voodoo slaves [and probably everyone interested in the genre knows it], but the term is also used to refer to ravenous undead, and is equally accurate there.

Gohrbandt, that lighting is looking very impressive.

EDIT: You need to turn on shadows.The very term "Zombie" and it's meaning come from Hatian Voodoo culture. The whole concept and belief in them originates with that culture. The so-called "zombies" we see in the movies are actually ghouls. Even the guy who started the whole "zombie movie" craze called them gholus in Night of the Living Dead, the movie that started it all. So, no, it is not "equally accurate" to call the "ravenous undead" "Zombies", because that's not what they are.

agent unawares · July 2013

Tramp Graphics said:
Agent_Unawares said:
Tramp Graphics said:
Agent_Unawares said:
Tramp Graphics said:
Nice ghouls (they're not zombies; Zombies are slaves created through Voodoo, and don't eat people).
Hmm, ghouls are evil spirits or demons that rob graves to feed on the dead, methinks that may fit even less. ;)
Yep. They're also defined as undead who attack people and feed on flesh, it varies from culture to culture.

Just like zombies!
Zombies, however, are specifically slaves created through Voodoo magic.

Except where it varies from culture to culture. ;)

Unicorns were pretty definitely based on rhinoceros sightings and possibly narwhal horns; that doesn't mean that a stag-like creature with a lion's tail and one horn isn't a unicorn, or further down the line, that a horse with one long horn isn't a unicorn. Sure, zombies are voodoo slaves [and probably everyone interested in the genre knows it], but the term is also used to refer to ravenous undead, and is equally accurate there.

Gohrbandt, that lighting is looking very impressive.

EDIT: You need to turn on shadows.The very term "Zombie" and it's meaning come from Hatian Voodoo culture. The whole concept and belief in them originates with that culture. The so-called "zombies" we see in the movies are actually ghouls. Even the guy who started the whole "zombie movie" craze called them gholus in Night of the Living Dead, the movie that started it all. So, no, it is not "equally accurate" to call the "ravenous undead" "Zombies", because that's not what they are.
Yes, they are. Terms gain and change definitions. A horse with a horn on its head is still a unicorn even if it's not a stag-like creature with a lion's tail drawn to virgins. A gaunt immortal with fangs which preys upon young women to drink blood from their necks is still a vampire even if it's not bloated and wrapped in grave linen. A ravenous undead creature is still a ghoul even if it's not a demon from Muslim folklore.

And an animated corpse is still a zombie, even if the method used to create it was not voodoo.

You'll be interested to know that "zombie" was originally used to refer to a snake deity [probably derived from an earlier god with a similar name]. So if we just jump back far enough, it's not the correct term for voodoo slaves.

EDIT: Forum's still breaking Wikipedia links. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombi_(African_deity)
http://www.answers.com/topic/nzambi

Tramp Graphics · July 2013

Agent_Unawares said:
Tramp Graphics said:
Agent_Unawares said:
Tramp Graphics said:
Agent_Unawares said:
Tramp Graphics said:
Nice ghouls (they're not zombies; Zombies are slaves created through Voodoo, and don't eat people).
Hmm, ghouls are evil spirits or demons that rob graves to feed on the dead, methinks that may fit even less. ;)
Yep. They're also defined as undead who attack people and feed on flesh, it varies from culture to culture.

Just like zombies!
Zombies, however, are specifically slaves created through Voodoo magic.

Except where it varies from culture to culture. ;)

Unicorns were pretty definitely based on rhinoceros sightings and possibly narwhal horns; that doesn't mean that a stag-like creature with a lion's tail and one horn isn't a unicorn, or further down the line, that a horse with one long horn isn't a unicorn. Sure, zombies are voodoo slaves [and probably everyone interested in the genre knows it], but the term is also used to refer to ravenous undead, and is equally accurate there.

Gohrbandt, that lighting is looking very impressive.

EDIT: You need to turn on shadows.The very term "Zombie" and it's meaning come from Hatian Voodoo culture. The whole concept and belief in them originates with that culture. The so-called "zombies" we see in the movies are actually ghouls. Even the guy who started the whole "zombie movie" craze called them gholus in Night of the Living Dead, the movie that started it all. So, no, it is not "equally accurate" to call the "ravenous undead" "Zombies", because that's not what they are.
Yes, they are. Terms gain and change definitions. A horse with a horn on its head is still a unicorn even if it's not a stag-like creature with a lion's tail drawn to virgins. A gaunt immortal with fangs which preys upon young women to drink blood from their necks is still a vampire even if it's not bloated and wrapped in grave linen. A ravenous undead creature is still a ghoul even if it's not a demon from Muslim folklore.

And an animated corpse is still a zombie, even if the method used to create it was not voodoo.

You'll be interested to know that "zombie" was originally used to refer to a snake deity [probably derived from an earlier god with a similar name]. So if we just jump back far enough, it's not the correct term for voodoo slaves.

EDIT: Forum's still breaking Wikipedia links. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombi_(African_deity)
http://www.answers.com/topic/nzambi An "animated corps" is a Zombie if, and only if, it is one animated via "magic", and controlled by another individual, not as a ravenous flesh-eater. That is the key difference between Zombies and Ghouls. One is a slave, the other is a predator, hungry for human flesh. Zombies have no will of their own, and cannot act on their own; nor can they transform others into zombies. Ghouls can act on their own, and do so. They're predators and scavengers, and their bite can transform their victim into one of them. They may still be "mindless", but they do have a "will", a will to feed, an insatiable hunger for human flesh, living or dead, something Zombies lack. That is the difference, and it is a key distinction.

Therefore, calling the flesh-eating undead "zombies" is a misnomer. They're not zombies, they're ghouls. And, to see this misidentification of these creatures perpetuated, irks me to no end. It's like confusing pixies and fairies—while similar in some respects, they're not the same thing, and thus, the terms are not interchangeable. The same with ghouls and zombies. They're two different things which share some superficial similarities.

For the record, Haitian Voodoo also has its origins in Africa. Not only that, but, according to that linked article, the goddess "Zombi" is worshiped by believers of the Voodoo religion. Therefore, it is certainly not a coincidence that the Zombie slave of Voodoo derives its name from this goddess.

Also, all corporeal undead are "animated corpses"—Vampires, ghouls, zombies, Liches, etc.

agent unawares · July 2013

Tramp Graphics said:
An "animated corps" is a Zombie if, and only if, it is one animated via "magic", and controlled by another individual, not as a ravenous flesh-eater. That is the key difference between Zombies and Ghouls
In the particular culture you choose to draw your definition from. The word is not rendered invalid for "horror movie zombies" simply because you prefer one definition over the other.
Tramp Graphics said:
One is a slave, the other is a predator, hungry for human flesh. Zombies have no will of their own, and cannot act on their own; nor can they transform others into zombies. Ghouls can act on their own, and do so. They're predators and scavengers, and their bite can transform their victim into one of them. They may still be "mindless", but they do have a "will", a will to feed, an insatiable hunger for human flesh, living or dead, something Zombies lack. That is the difference, and it is a key distinction.
Hmm? I thought zombie slaves had a will to work on sugar plantations or somesuch, whatever they were told to do. Much like rotting flesh zombies resurrected by a necromancer have the will to guard temples and lairs.
Tramp Graphics said:
Therefore, calling the flesh-eating undead "zombies" is a misnomer. They're not zombies, they're ghouls. And, to see this misidentification of these creatures perpetuated, irks me to no end. It's like confusing pixies and fairies—while similar in some respects, they're not the same thing, and thus, the terms are not interchangeable. The same with ghouls and zombies. They're two different things which share some superficial similarities.

The difference being "pixie" is not a word with any cultural definition meaning "fairy," and "fairy" is not a word with any cultural definition meaning "pixie." "Zombie," however, has more than one definition, especially in current lore, and while one of them describes voodoo slaves, the other describes reanimated corpses which often hunger for human brains.
For the record, Haitian Voodoo also has its origins in Africa. Not only that, but, according to that linked article, the goddess "Zombi" is worshiped by believers of the Voodoo religion. Therefore, it is certainly not a coincidence that the Zombie slave of Voodoo derives its name from this goddess.

Of course not. My point is that was the initial meaning of the word, so I can argue with just as much validity as you are now that "Zombies aren't voodoo slaves, Zombi is a deity who assuredly wouldn't be captured and put to work on a plantation." Terms change and gather meanings. Just because one is newer does not make it somehow "wrong." Both coexist and should be understood in context.

Also, all corporeal undead are "animated corpses"—Vampires, ghouls, zombies, Liches, etc.
Granted. I should have chosen my words more carefully. Perhaps "some animated corpses are still zombies..."

On that note, I'm going to ask a mod to split out our posts into a different thread - I find this discussion interesting but I'm afraid it's not terribly nice to Tobias.

Tramp Graphics · July 2013

Agent_Unawares said:
Tramp Graphics said:
An "animated corps" is a Zombie if, and only if, it is one animated via "magic", and controlled by another individual, not as a ravenous flesh-eater. That is the key difference between Zombies and Ghouls
In the particular culture you choose to draw your definition from. The word is not rendered invalid for "horror movie zombies" simply because you prefer one definition over the other. As I said before, the guy who came up with the "horror movie 'zombies'" specifically referred to them as ghouls in his movie.
Tramp Graphics said:
One is a slave, the other is a predator, hungry for human flesh. Zombies have no will of their own, and cannot act on their own; nor can they transform others into zombies. Ghouls can act on their own, and do so. They're predators and scavengers, and their bite can transform their victim into one of them. They may still be "mindless", but they do have a "will", a will to feed, an insatiable hunger for human flesh, living or dead, something Zombies lack. That is the difference, and it is a key distinction.
Hmm? I thought zombie slaves had a will to work on sugar plantations or somesuch, whatever they were told to do. Much like rotting flesh zombies resurrected by a necromancer have the will to guard temples and lairs. The sugar cane fields are certainly where they were typically employed, in Haiti, that much is certain, but, no, they did not have wills of their own. As mentioned in the case of Clairvius Narcisse, The drugs, and potions used in "real life zombies", strips them of their wills, placing them in a highly suggestible stupor. And even in fantasy stories, Necromancers didn't tend to use Zombies for guard duty. They're not suited for it because they're incapable of making decisions for themselves as a result of the "spells" which made them zombies. They have no wills, and no consciousness. They are completely under the control of the bocor who cast the spell on them. http://www.dhushara.com/book/med/zombie.htm
Tramp Graphics said:
Therefore, calling the flesh-eating undead "zombies" is a misnomer. They're not zombies, they're ghouls. And, to see this misidentification of these creatures perpetuated, irks me to no end. It's like confusing pixies and fairies—while similar in some respects, they're not the same thing, and thus, the terms are not interchangeable. The same with ghouls and zombies. They're two different things which share some superficial similarities.

The difference being "pixie" is not a word with any cultural definition meaning "fairy," and "fairy" is not a word with any cultural definition meaning "pixie." "Zombie," however, has more than one definition, especially in current lore, and while one of them describes voodoo slaves, the other describes reanimated corpses which often hunger for human brains.

Actually, people do confuse the two. A good example is Tinkerbell from Perter Pan. The original book and play by J. M. Barry, refers to her, and describes her as a fairy, and the dust she uses to make the children fly, as fairy dust. Disney refers to her as a Pixie, and her dust as Pixie dust. according to this article, the terms are sometimes used interchangeably in modern usage; however, in folklore, they're definitely distinct races, often traditionally described as having an enmity between them. A big difference between Fairies and Pixies, is Fairies have wings, Pixies do not. Ergo, your above statement is in error. Both are cases where people using the wrong term for a "creature" of folklore has pervaded popular media.

For the record, Haitian Voodoo also has its origins in Africa. Not only that, but, according to that linked article, the goddess "Zombi" is worshiped by believers of the Voodoo religion. Therefore, it is certainly not a coincidence that the Zombie slave of Voodoo derives its name from this goddess.

Of course not. My point is that was the initial meaning of the word, so I can argue with just as much validity as you are now that "Zombies aren't voodoo slaves, Zombi is a deity who assuredly wouldn't be captured and put to work on a plantation." Terms change and gather meanings. Just because one is newer does not make it somehow "wrong." Both coexist and should be understood in context. Yes, it does, particularly, when it is describing a completely different creature. And also, for the record, while the name of the goddess in question, and the term used for the "undead" slave of Voodoo practice, might be similar and share the same pronunciation, you'll notice that they are spelled differently. The goddess' name is spelled Z-O-M-B-I. The slave is spelled Z-O-M-B-I-E. The words are homonyms, that happen to originate from the same culture. The same sound, but different spellings and meanings. While the difference in spelling is a minor one (only a single letter), it completely changes the meaning of the word.

Also, all corporeal undead are "animated corpses"—Vampires, ghouls, zombies, Liches, etc.
Granted. I should have chosen my words more carefully. Perhaps "some animated corpses are still zombies..."

On that note, I'm going to ask a mod to split out our posts into a different thread - I find this discussion interesting but I'm afraid it's not terribly nice to Tobias.Exactly. Some "animated corpses" are Zombies. Those who were brought back through "magic" to serve as mindless slaves with no wills of their own. By contrast, ghouls feed on the flesh of humans, both the living and the dead, and, while still "mindless, do have a rudimentary and malicious "will"— a will to feed. It is that innate malice and insatiable hunger for human flesh which characterizes the Ghoul and sets it apart from a Zombie.

agent unawares · July 2013

RE: Tinkerbell, that's just common language usage and people confusing the two. It's not decades of historical precedence for using the word "zombie" to refer to a flesh-eating reanimated corpse. And if the terms become synonymous in a certain context, then they're synonymous in that context. Language changes.

Plenty of fairies in folklore didn't have wings, so I don't know where that distinction came in.

Tramp Graphics said:
Exactly. Some "animated corpses" are Zombies. Those who were brought back through "magic" to serve as mindless slaves with no wills of their own. By contrast, ghouls feed on the flesh of humans, both the living and the dead, and, while still "mindless, do have a rudimentary and malicious "will"— a will to feed. It is that innate malice and insatiable hunger for human flesh which characterizes the Ghoul and sets it apart from a Zombie.
Using your preferred definition above other valid ones.
Tramp Graphics said:
Terms change and gather meanings. Just because one is newer does not make it somehow "wrong." Both coexist and should be understood in context.

Yes, it does, particularly, when it is describing a completely different creature.
Fair enough. Which definition of "snipe" is correct? They refer to completely different creatures, so one must be wrong.

Herald of Fire · July 2013

A zombie is a zombie is a zombie. What you choose to call it and what the historical context of it is are completely irrelevant if everyone knows precisely what you're talking about when you say the word 'zombie'.

Language progresses, words change their meanings. In popular culture, a zombie is still an undead brain-munching machine. Take any zombie movie or video game and you can bet your last dollar they won't use the word 'ghoul' except as a synonym for zombies.

CypherFOX · July 2013

Greetings,

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

I come down on the side that believes language is fluid, alive, and evolving. Zombie, like xerox and queer, has a meaning dictated by the times in which we live, and the words we speak and hear spoken. Just as one would not 'alphabet your papers' any longer, zombies need not be restricted to haitian majic.

I am an oral relativist. ;)

-- Morgan

Tramp Graphics · July 2013

Agent_Unawares said:
RE: Tinkerbell, that's just common language usage and people confusing the two. It's not decades of historical precedence for using the word "zombie" to refer to a flesh-eating reanimated corpse. And if the terms become synonymous in a certain context, then they're synonymous in that context. Language changes.
Plenty of fairies in folklore didn't have wings, so I don't know where that distinction came in.. Tinkerbell being referred to as a "Pixie" dates back to the release of the Disney movie in 1953. The movie Night of the Living Dead (the movie which started the whole "Zombie Apocalypse" sub-genre) came out in 1968, more than a decade and a half later, and, as I said, used the term Ghouls to refer to these creatures. Ergo, the use of "Pixie" to refer to Fairies, is actually an older misnomer with more "historical precedence". It doesn't make it any less wrong. The inappropriate use of the term "Zombie" to describe ghouls didn't come about until much later.

Tramp Graphics said:
Exactly. Some "animated corpses" are Zombies. Those who were brought back through "magic" to serve as mindless slaves with no wills of their own. By contrast, ghouls feed on the flesh of humans, both the living and the dead, and, while still "mindless, do have a rudimentary and malicious "will"— a will to feed. It is that innate malice and insatiable hunger for human flesh which characterizes the Ghoul and sets it apart from a Zombie.
Using your preferred definition above other valid ones. The "other" definition isn't valid because it describes a completely difference creature already named.
Terms change and gather meanings. Just because one is newer does not make it somehow "wrong." Both coexist and should be understood in context.
Yes, it does, particularly, when it is describing a completely different creature.

Fair enough. Which definition of "snipe" is correct? They refer to completely different creatures, so one must be wrong. Neither. Your analogy here is misplaced. This isn't a case where a word is incorrectly used to describe a superficially similar creature already known by another, proper, name, where the name for one was confused with that of another. Rather, one refers to a species of bird, the other is drawn from the actions of the individual in question. A person referred to as a "snipe" is called such because he or she is verbally "sniping" (taking shots) at another. It is derived from sniper, an individual who shoots at exposed targets usually from a concealed position. Thus, a "Snipe" is verbally sniping his or her "victim" with targeted contemptible verbal attacks.

Here's a rather interesting article on the subject of the "Walking Dead", and the inappropriate use of the word "Zombie" to describe them. To quote: ]"One of the more Genre Savvy reasons is that the walking dead technically aren't zombies. The proper "zombie" is a person whose higher thought processes have been removed, leaving them under the sway of a master. This original zombie is usually the result of occult vodou magic. Some books, such as The Serpent and the Rainbow, argue that vodou practitioners can create zombies through a combination of drugs and cultural beliefs. "P-zombies", or "philosophical zombies", which are even more convoluted — persons who don't have any subjective "experience".

Sockratease · July 2013

I thought a Zombie was an unusually loyal reader of Marvel Comics.

They even coined the term Marvel Zombie to describe themselves.

This is the earliest definition of Zombie I ever heard, so in my chronology (external and historical timelines don't count!) - it's the Original use of the term and will always be what I associate with it before any of your crazy death related definitions.

Everything is subjective...

agent unawares · July 2013

HeraldOfFire said:
A zombie is a zombie is a zombie. What you choose to call it and what the historical context of it is are completely irrelevant if everyone knows precisely what you're talking about when you say the word 'zombie'.
Precisely.
Tramp Graphics said:
Agent_Unawares said:
RE: Tinkerbell, that's just common language usage and people confusing the two. It's not decades of historical precedence for using the word "zombie" to refer to a flesh-eating reanimated corpse. And if the terms become synonymous in a certain context, then they're synonymous in that context. Language changes.
Plenty of fairies in folklore didn't have wings, so I don't know where that distinction came in.. Tinkerbell being referred to as a "Pixie" dates back to the release of the Disney movie in 1953. The movie Night of the Living Dead (the movie which started the whole "Zombie Apocalypse" sub-genre) came out in 1968, more than a decade and a half later, and, as I said, used the term Ghouls to refer to these creatures. Ergo, the use of "Pixie" to refer to Fairies, is actually an older misnomer with more "historical precedence". It doesn't make it any less wrong. The inappropriate use of the term "Zombie" to describe ghouls didn't come about until much later.
Since my point was that Disney using the term was an instance of accidental conflation, when it happened is of no relevance. Disney's Tinkerbell is one character in one universe, over those many decades. No precedent for anything but Disney being cute. They define their own mythology, after all, and always have, and it's the right of any artist.

"Zombie," on the other hand, has been used consistently to refer to flesh-eating undead in hundreds upon hundreds, likely thousands, of stories in only those 45 years. That is precedent.

Tramp Graphics said:
Tramp Graphics said:
Exactly. Some "animated corpses" are Zombies. Those who were brought back through "magic" to serve as mindless slaves with no wills of their own. By contrast, ghouls feed on the flesh of humans, both the living and the dead, and, while still "mindless, do have a rudimentary and malicious "will"— a will to feed. It is that innate malice and insatiable hunger for human flesh which characterizes the Ghoul and sets it apart from a Zombie.
Using your preferred definition above other valid ones. The "other" definition isn't valid because it describes a completely difference creature already named.
Which brings us back to "snipe" again, doesn't it?

Terms change and gather meanings. Just because one is newer does not make it somehow "wrong." Both coexist and should be understood in context.
Yes, it does, particularly, when it is describing a completely different creature.

Fair enough. Which definition of "snipe" is correct? They refer to completely different creatures, so one must be wrong.

Neither. Your analogy here is misplaced. This isn't a case where a word is incorrectly used to describe a superficially similar creature already known by another, proper, name, where the name for one was confused with that of another. Rather, one refers to a species of bird, the other is drawn from the actions of the individual in question. A person referred to as a "snipe" is called such because he or she is verbally "sniping" (taking shots) at another. It is derived from sniper, an individual who shoots at exposed targets usually from a concealed position. Thus, a "Snipe" is verbally sniping his or her "victim" with targeted contemptible verbal attacks.
I haven't bothered to look up the etymology, so I'll take your word for it,but my point still stands. They're completely different creatures, therefore one definition must be wrong according to your earlier statement. In fact, they're whole a heck of a lot more different from each other than voodoo reanimated corpses and their hungrier cousins. "Snipe" had a very particular definition referring to a shorebird long before the secondary definition came into play. By your logic, the latter must be wrong, then. A snappish person isn't related to one of those birds.

Here's a rather interesting article on the subject of the "Walking Dead", and the inappropriate use of the word "Zombie" to describe them. To quote: ]"One of the more Genre Savvy reasons is that the walking dead technically aren't zombies. The proper "zombie" is a person whose higher thought processes have been removed, leaving them under the sway of a master. This original zombie is usually the result of occult vodou magic. Some books, such as The Serpent and the Rainbow, argue that vodou practitioners can create zombies through a combination of drugs and cultural beliefs. "P-zombies", or "philosophical zombies", which are even more convoluted — persons who don't have any subjective "experience".
Says someone on TVTropes. Good for them. I can edit it to reflect current culture, if you desire? This is going to be a contentious subject precisely because people cling to using specific definitions, not realizing that it's context which ultimately defines a word, and they can very well have alternative interpretations without sullying the purity of the original one.

Like so:

I almost caught the snipe with my bare hands, but it flew away just as I touched its feathers.
I tried to avoid my critical coworker, but the snipe just wouldn't leave me in peace.

No confusion there.

The zombies shuffled through the street, groaning loudly as they attempted to encircle their prey.
The voodoo priest preferred to choose low-profile targets for his zombies, the sort of people one wouldn't miss or recognize afterwards.

No confusion there, either. And in context of a story, there will be even less. It's blatantly obvious whether someone's referring to a voodoo slave, a necromancer's undead hordes, or more modern examples which may not even be dead, but share enough characteristics they're referred to by the same name. Using "zombie" to refer to a voodoo slave is perfectly accurate. It is, however, just as accurate to use the term to refer to shuffling hordes of hungry rotting corpses. One definition does not detract in any way from the other unless one is documenting actual voodoo practices, in which case the other definition should at least be touched on for thoroughness' sake.

Much like vampires; there are many shades of definition which touch on similar creatures.The most common and basic split is between energy/life force vampires and the blood drinkers. The Harry Dresden universe manages to include three wholly different types of vampire, they are all referred to as "vampires," and there is never any confusion between them. Nobody's saying that horror film zombies are the same thing as voodoo zombies, just that the word "zombie" can be used to refer to both. Given artists create their own universes, it's actually rather insulting to them to insist on referring to their creatures as ghouls when they named them otherwise. Certainly, to say "the zombies in this work fall under the ghoul archetype" is fine, but insisting they're using the wrong word is not. It's not as though they're writing a story which represents voodoo completely wrong, in which case correction would be in order, they're writing an unrelated story with creatures that are somewhat similar to others, and deciding that the term "zombie" would serve as a fitting description for theirs, which makes perfect sense, more so now as it has become part of the definition.

If I create a sci-fi creature with a single horn and refer to it as unicorn because of such, is it wrong because it's not a rhinoceros or the aforementioned stag-like creature, or a horned horse? When aliens or phenomena are referred to as "angels," is this wrong because they're not actually mythological Hebrew beings? If I decide to name a creature zibbadeen, am I somehow even more wrong, because "that word doesn't mean anything at all"? Language develops this way, using already existing terms for similar or reminiscent things so they bring connotations and impact along with them. As long as it's thoroughly clear what the creatures are, there shouldn't be a problem. Nobody's attempting to trick others into thinking their horror zombies are voodoo zombies.

Philosophical zombies aren't voodoo zombies; I'm surprised you pasted that bit. Do they count, or is that an incorrect term as well?

agent unawares · July 2013

Sockratease said:
I thought a Zombie was an unusually loyal reader of Marvel Comics.
They even coined the term Marvel Zombie to describe themselves.

This is the earliest definition of Zombie I ever heard, so in my chronology (external and historical timelines don't count!) - it's the Original use of the term and will always be what I associate with it before any of your crazy death related definitions.

Everything is subjective...

Shhhhhh, you're not supposed to give that away.

Chohole · July 2013

You are both wrong. These are The Zombies http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5IRI4oHKNU

agent unawares · July 2013

Tramp Graphics said:
Agent_Unawares said:
Tramp Graphics said:
An "animated corps" is a Zombie if, and only if, it is one animated via "magic", and controlled by another individual, not as a ravenous flesh-eater. That is the key difference between Zombies and Ghouls

In the particular culture you choose to draw your definition from. The word is not rendered invalid for "horror movie zombies" simply because you prefer one definition over the other.

As I said before, the guy who came up with the "horror movie 'zombies'" specifically referred to them as ghouls in his movie.
I just realized I missed this.

It's irrelevant. All it means is that the creatures in that particular story were ghouls. You can well argue that all horror movie zombies are ghouls - most of them certainly are if one accepts the secondary definition of ghoul,* but that doesn't mean they're not zombies as well.

*Why do you do this for ghouls and not zombies?

agent unawares · July 2013

chohole said:
You are both wrong. These are The Zombies http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5IRI4oHKNU

My paradigm includes them. HA!

=P

Tramp Graphics · July 2013

HeraldOfFire said:
A zombie is a zombie is a zombie. What you choose to call it and what the historical context of it is are completely irrelevant if everyone knows precisely what you're talking about when you say the word 'zombie'.
Language progresses, words change their meanings. In popular culture, a zombie is still an undead brain-munching machine. Take any zombie movie or video game and you can bet your last dollar they won't use the word 'ghoul' except as a synonym for zombies.

Except for the fact that zombies are not "brain munchers". Zombies are mindless slaves, nothing more. Ghouls are the flesh-eaters, not Zombies.

Tramp Graphics · July 2013

Agent_Unawares said:
Tramp Graphics said:
Agent_Unawares said:
Tramp Graphics said:
An "animated corps" is a Zombie if, and only if, it is one animated via "magic", and controlled by another individual, not as a ravenous flesh-eater. That is the key difference between Zombies and Ghouls

In the particular culture you choose to draw your definition from. The word is not rendered invalid for "horror movie zombies" simply because you prefer one definition over the other.

As I said before, the guy who came up with the "horror movie 'zombies'" specifically referred to them as ghouls in his movie.
I just realized I missed this.

It's irrelevant. All it means is that the creatures in that particular story were ghouls. You can well argue that all horror movie zombies are ghouls - most of them certainly are if one accepts the secondary definition of ghoul,* but that doesn't mean they're not zombies as well.

*Why do you do this for ghouls and not zombies? Because the "horror movie 'zombies'" are the same exact creatures as Romero's ghouls from the first movie. It was these creatures that the fans started calling "zombies" erroneously in the first place. And, secondly, the term "ghoul" to describe these creature does satisfy the original definition of "Ghoul", namely a corporeal "Evil spirit" or demon, which feeds upon dead human flesh (even if it has to kill to get it). Remember, a "demon" does not necessarily denote the Judeo-Christian creature from Hell. And, traditionally, Ghouls do have the appearance of "animated" rotting corpses, and, typically, were originally Human.

Zombies, specifically, are slaves animated by a sorcerer (mainly a Voodoo Bocor) with no wills or minds of their own, and, in fact, aren't even truly dead in the first place. The defining features of a zombie are not hunger for human flesh nor brains. That is the defining characteristic of a ghoul. The defining characteristic of a zombie is mindless servility.

Tramp Graphics · July 2013

Agent_Unawares said:
HeraldOfFire said:
A zombie is a zombie is a zombie. What you choose to call it and what the historical context of it is are completely irrelevant if everyone knows precisely what you're talking about when you say the word 'zombie'.
Precisely.
Tramp Graphics said:
Agent_Unawares said:
RE: Tinkerbell, that's just common language usage and people confusing the two. It's not decades of historical precedence for using the word "zombie" to refer to a flesh-eating reanimated corpse. And if the terms become synonymous in a certain context, then they're synonymous in that context. Language changes.
Plenty of fairies in folklore didn't have wings, so I don't know where that distinction came in.. Tinkerbell being referred to as a "Pixie" dates back to the release of the Disney movie in 1953. The movie Night of the Living Dead (the movie which started the whole "Zombie Apocalypse" sub-genre) came out in 1968, more than a decade and a half later, and, as I said, used the term Ghouls to refer to these creatures. Ergo, the use of "Pixie" to refer to Fairies, is actually an older misnomer with more "historical precedence". It doesn't make it any less wrong. The inappropriate use of the term "Zombie" to describe ghouls didn't come about until much later.
Since my point was that Disney using the term was an instance of accidental conflation, when it happened is of no relevance. Disney's Tinkerbell is one character in one universe, over those many decades. No precedent for anything but Disney being cute. They define their own mythology, after all, and always have, and it's the right of any artist.

"Zombie," on the other hand, has been used consistently to refer to flesh-eating undead in hundreds upon hundreds, likely thousands, of stories in only those 45 years. That is precedent. except for the fact that "Disney's use of the term has perpetuated, and Disney isn't the only one to confuse the two; just the one who started it. This is the same as with the the misuse of the word Zombies to describe Ghouls.

Tramp Graphics said:
Tramp Graphics said:
Exactly. Some "animated corpses" are Zombies. Those who were brought back through "magic" to serve as mindless slaves with no wills of their own. By contrast, ghouls feed on the flesh of humans, both the living and the dead, and, while still "mindless, do have a rudimentary and malicious "will"— a will to feed. It is that innate malice and insatiable hunger for human flesh which characterizes the Ghoul and sets it apart from a Zombie.
Using your preferred definition above other valid ones. The "other" definition isn't valid because it describes a completely difference creature already named.
Which brings us back to "snipe" again, doesn't it?

Tramp Graphics said:
Terms change and gather meanings. Just because one is newer does not make it somehow "wrong." Both coexist and should be understood in context.
Yes, it does, particularly, when it is describing a completely different creature.

Fair enough. Which definition of "snipe" is correct? They refer to completely different creatures, so one must be wrong.
Neither. Your analogy here is misplaced. This isn't a case where a word is incorrectly used to describe a superficially similar creature already known by another, proper, name, where the name for one was confused with that of another. Rather, one refers to a species of bird, the other is drawn from the actions of the individual in question. A person referred to as a "snipe" is called such because he or she is verbally "sniping" (taking shots) at another. It is derived from sniper, an individual who shoots at exposed targets usually from a concealed position. Thus, a "Snipe" is verbally sniping his or her "victim" with targeted contemptible verbal attacks.

I haven't bothered to look up the etymology, so I'll take your word for it,but my point still stands. They're completely different creatures, therefore one definition must be wrong according to your earlier statement. In fact, they're whole a heck of a lot more different from each other than voodoo reanimated corpses and their hungrier cousins. "Snipe" had a very particular definition referring to a shorebird long before the secondary definition came into play. By your logic, the latter must be wrong, then. A snappish person isn't related to one of those birds.
Here's a rather interesting article on the subject of the "Walking Dead", and the inappropriate use of the word "Zombie" to describe them. To quote: ]"One of the more Genre Savvy reasons is that the walking dead technically aren't zombies. The proper "zombie" is a person whose higher thought processes have been removed, leaving them under the sway of a master. This original zombie is usually the result of occult vodou magic. Some books, such as The Serpent and the Rainbow, argue that vodou practitioners can create zombies through a combination of drugs and cultural beliefs. "P-zombies", or "philosophical zombies", which are even more convoluted — persons who don't have any subjective "experience".

Says someone on TVTropes. Good for them. I can edit it to reflect current culture, if you desire? This is going to be a contentious subject precisely because people cling to using specific definitions, not realizing that it's context which ultimately defines a word, and they can very well have alternative interpretations without sullying the purity of the original one.

Like so:

I almost caught the snipe with my bare hands, but it flew away just as I touched its feathers.
I tried to avoid my critical coworker, but the snipe just wouldn't leave me in peace.

No confusion there.

The zombies shuffled through the street, groaning loudly as they attempted to encircle their prey.
The voodoo priest preferred to choose low-profile targets for his zombies, the sort of people one wouldn't miss or recognize afterwards.

No confusion there, either. And in context of a story, there will be even less. It's blatantly obvious whether someone's referring to a voodoo slave, a necromancer's undead hordes, or more modern examples which may not even be dead, but share enough characteristics they're referred to by the same name. Using "zombie" to refer to a voodoo slave is perfectly accurate. It is, however, just as accurate to use the term to refer to shuffling hordes of hungry rotting corpses. One definition does not detract in any way from the other unless one is documenting actual voodoo practices, in which case the other definition should at least be touched on for thoroughness' sake. No, it isn't because, what they're describing are ghouls. As I said, the defining characteristics (the hunger for human flesh) are those of a ghoul. Thus, what these movies and stories describe and show are ghouls, by definition, and therefore, should be referred to as such. It would be like me describing an automobile and calling it a plane.

Much like vampires; there are many shades of definition which touch on similar creatures.The most common and basic split is between energy/life force vampires and the blood drinkers. The Harry Dresden universe manages to include three wholly different types of vampire, they are all referred to as "vampires," and there is never any confusion between them. Nobody's saying that horror film zombies are the same thing as voodoo zombies, just that the word "zombie" can be used to refer to both. Given artists create their own universes, it's actually rather insulting to them to insist on referring to their creatures as ghouls when they named them otherwise. Certainly, to say "the zombies in this work fall under the ghoul archetype" is fine, but insisting they're using the wrong word is not. It's not as though they're writing a story which represents voodoo completely wrong, in which case correction would be in order, they're writing an unrelated story with creatures that are somewhat similar to others, and deciding that the term "zombie" would serve as a fitting description for theirs, which makes perfect sense, more so now as it has become part of the definition. It is when such a creature is more properly known by another name, and is already defined by said other name. That is the problem. They're using one term to describe a creature already established by another, more accurate term. It's like calling an apple and orange, or calling a horse a cat. It is wrong. In the case of your "life-force vampire" vs "blood-sucking" variety. There is no other creature in folklore to denote "life-force" vampires. Thus, you're not confusing one creature for another. You are by calling Ghouls "zombies". You're calling one creature the name of another. That is what makes the use of the term "Zombie" wrong here.

If I create a sci-fi creature with a single horn and refer to it as unicorn because of such, is it wrong because it's not a rhinoceros or the aforementioned stag-like creature, or a horned horse? When aliens or phenomena are referred to as "angels," is this wrong because they're not actually mythological Hebrew beings? If I decide to name a creature zibbadeen, am I somehow even more wrong, because "that word doesn't mean anything at all"? Language develops this way, using already existing terms for similar or reminiscent things so they bring connotations and impact along with them. As long as it's thoroughly clear what the creatures are, there shouldn't be a problem. Nobody's attempting to trick others into thinking their horror zombies are voodoo zombies.

Philosophical zombies aren't voodoo zombies; I'm surprised you pasted that bit. Do they count, or is that an incorrect term as well? In none of those cases are you calling one creature, which already has a name, by that of another creature. As for the "angel's/aliens example. "Ancient Alien" theorists would argue that the Angels of myth and biblical stories may have indeed been alien visitors who the early humans believed to be divine messengers.

The "zombie" of horror movies meets all of the defining criteria of a Ghoul. Thus, by definition, it is a Ghoul, not a Zombie. And, therefore, should be referred to by the proper term. It is not simply that these creatures don't meet the Voodoo definition, but, rather, that they're more properly defined by another name entirely. Thus, it is not just that they don;'t meet the definition of a true Zombie, but that they do met the definition of a Ghoul. Just like the Pixie/Fairie issue, it is name swapping—identifying one creature as another.

In the case of your "Snipe" example. Calling that particular species of bird a "Snipe" is not wrong because that is indeed its proper name. However, if I were to call a Robin or a Pigeon a Snipe, then, I would be incorrect. That is the situation we have with the horror movie "Zombie". That is where the use of the term "Zombie" is wrong.

Jay_NOLA · July 2013

Just digging at some of my occult books and books on folk lore adter reading the post.

The word zombie most likely originated from the Congo word nzambi, which means spirit of a dead person.

In voodoo a bokor. a voodoo practitioner, allegedly restores a dead person to life.,

Real life zombies are physically and mentally impaired individuals forced into submission by the use of drugs, starvation, and psychological manipulation administered by a bokor. (I won't mention all the things a bokor administered to a person used as that is rather long but will mention that Datura stamonium is one of them that you'll see mentioned most often.

The modern erroneous meaning as was pointed comes from movies and pop culture.

A Ghoul is a demon from Islamic lore that feeds on the flesh of humans. They are not all ways dead resurrected creatures. The word ghoul comes from the Arabic terms ghul (masculine) and ghula (feminine).

Another word that most people use incorrectly is anime. Anime is French for animation and does not just mean Japanese animation.

The modern erroneous meaning is the result of modern fans of Japanese animation hearing the word anime used to describe it from animation from Japan, as the Japanese were using the French word and they didn't know what the word actually meant.

Older fans of Japanese animation who know the correct definition of anime prefer to use the term Japanimation instead of anime.

At universities, comic shops, etc. and give lectures on Japanese animation back in the 80s I used to go with the Japanese animation group and talk about Japanese animation and we explained the correct meaning of the word and used the word Japanimation to refer to Japanese animation and we explained the meaning of the word anime.

I'm of the mid set to use the correct older definition of what words means.

.

Tramp Graphics · July 2013

Jay_NOLA said:
Just digging at some of my occult books and books on folk lore adter reading the post.
The word zombie most likely originated from the Congo word nzambi, which means spirit of a dead person.

In voodoo a bokor. a voodoo practitioner, allegedly restores a dead person to life.,

Real life zombies are physically and mentally impaired individuals forced into submission by the use of drugs, starvation, and psychological manipulation administered by a bokor. (I won't mention all the things a bokor administered to a person used as that is rather long but will mention that Datura stamonium is one of them that you'll see mentioned most often.

The modern erroneous meaning as was pointed comes from movies and pop culture.

A Ghoul is a demon from Islamic lore that feeds on the flesh of humans. They are not all ways dead resurrected creatures. The word ghoul comes from the Arabic terms ghul (masculine) and ghula (feminine).

Exactly. And while a Ghoul is not always created from a human corpse, a human can be transformed into a Ghoul as a result of being attacked by one. This is what we see in these so-called "Zombie" movies too.

Another word that most people use incorrectly is anime. Anime is French for animation and does not just mean Japanese animation.

The modern erroneous meaning is the result of modern fans of Japanese animation hearing the word anime used to describe it from animation from Japan, as the Japanese were using the French word and they didn't know what the word actually meant.

Older fans of Japanese animation who know the correct definition of anime prefer to use the term Japanimation instead of anime.

At universities, comic shops, etc. and give lectures on Japanese animation back in the 80s I used to go with the Japanese animation group and talk about Japanese animation and we explained the correct meaning of the word and used the word Japanimation to refer to Japanese animation and we explained the meaning of the word anime.

I'm of the mid set to use the correct older definition of what words means.

.

Actually, as a long-time Anime connoiseur (sp?) (well over 30 years and counting), the term "Japanimation" is not used by the Anime community, and it is highly frowned upon to do so. it is considered a bastardization, and always has been. The French word "Anime" meaning "Animation" is considered the proper term, as it is the term the Japanese themselves use, and yes, the Japanese did know what the word meant when they started using it. That's why they use it. If anything, the full term, "Japanese Animation" may be used instead, but never "Japanimation".

Only newbies use that term, and are quickly corrected, particularly by the more hard-core "purist" fans (some of whom can be quite obnoxious). Thus, using the word "anime" is actually correct. The Japanese use the term Anime because it means "animation", which is all the Japanese really consider their animated shows. They don't differentiate between their own material and those of other countries; just as "Manga" simply means comic book in Japan. Thus, the Anime community uses the term to stay true to the Japanese. On everything else, I'm in full agreement.

Herald of Fire · July 2013

Tramp Graphics said:
Except for the fact that zombies are not "brain munchers". Zombies are mindless slaves, nothing more. Ghouls are the flesh-eaters, not Zombies.

Popular culture disagrees with you, and when the majority consider a zombie to be the flesh eating kind, then that's what the new definition becomes. Historical context is meaningless if you use the 'correct' word and no one has a clue what you're talking about. Language evolves.

Tramp Graphics · July 2013

HeraldOfFire said:
Tramp Graphics said:
Except for the fact that zombies are not "brain munchers". Zombies are mindless slaves, nothing more. Ghouls are the flesh-eaters, not Zombies.

Popular culture disagrees with you, and when the majority consider a zombie to be the flesh eating kind, then that's what the new definition becomes. Historical context is meaningless if you use the 'correct' word and no one has a clue what you're talking about. Language evolves.

And "popular culture" is WRONG!!!! By definition, these creatures are ghouls. They act like ghouls, they look like ghouls. They meet all of the defining characteristics of ghouls. The use of the word Zombie for these creatures is a grievous error which should never have gotten started, and needs to be stamped out. Just because a lot of people do it, does not make it right. People call these things "Zombies" because they don't know any better. If they did, most likely, they'd stop using the wrong term. If a person does know better and continue to perpetuate it, that's willful ignorance of the worst kind because it is deliberately misleading. I will not perpetuate that kind of error. So, if a person doesn't know what you're talking about, correct them. These creatures are not Zombies. Thery are Ghouls, and need to be referred to as such. Period.

Jay_NOLA · July 2013

Tramp Graphics said:
Jay_NOLA said:
Just digging at some of my occult books and books on folk lore adter reading the post.
The word zombie most likely originated from the Congo word nzambi, which means spirit of a dead person.

In voodoo a bokor. a voodoo practitioner, allegedly restores a dead person to life.,

Real life zombies are physically and mentally impaired individuals forced into submission by the use of drugs, starvation, and psychological manipulation administered by a bokor. (I won't mention all the things a bokor administered to a person used as that is rather long but will mention that Datura stamonium is one of them that you'll see mentioned most often.

The modern erroneous meaning as was pointed comes from movies and pop culture.

A Ghoul is a demon from Islamic lore that feeds on the flesh of humans. They are not all ways dead resurrected creatures. The word ghoul comes from the Arabic terms ghul (masculine) and ghula (feminine).

Exactly. And while a Ghoul is not always created from a human corpse, a human can be transformed into a Ghoul as a result of being attacked by one. This is what we see in these so-called "Zombie" movies too.

Another word that most people use incorrectly is anime. Anime is French for animation and does not just mean Japanese animation.

The modern erroneous meaning is the result of modern fans of Japanese animation hearing the word anime used to describe it from animation from Japan, as the Japanese were using the French word and they didn't know what the word actually meant.

Older fans of Japanese animation who know the correct definition of anime prefer to use the term Japanimation instead of anime.

At universities, comic shops, etc. and give lectures on Japanese animation back in the 80s I used to go with the Japanese animation group and talk about Japanese animation and we explained the correct meaning of the word and used the word Japanimation to refer to Japanese animation and we explained the meaning of the word anime.

I'm of the mid set to use the correct older definition of what words means.

.

Actually, as a long-time Anime connoiseur (sp?) (well over 30 years and counting), the term "Japanimation" is not used by the Anime community, and it is highly frowned upon to do so. it is considered a bastardization, and always has been. The French word "Anime" meaning "Animation" is considered the proper term, as it is the term the Japanese themselves use, and yes, the Japanese did know what the word meant when they started using it. That's why they use it. If anything, the full term, "Japanese Animation" may be used instead, but never "Japanimation".

Only newbies use that term, and are quickly corrected, particularly by the more hard-core "purist" fans (some of whom can be quite obnoxious). Thus, using the word "anime" is actually correct. The Japanese use the term Anime because it means "animation", which is all the Japanese really consider their animated shows. They don't differentiate between their own material and those of other countries; just as "Manga" simply means comic book in Japan. Thus, the Anime community uses the term to stay true to the Japanese. On everything else, I'm in full agreement.

Yes, the Japanese knew what the term anime meant, but Westerns hearing the word thought it was Japanese word and took it just mean animation only from Japan and continue to think it means only animation from Japan. The book Samurai From Outer Space give a detailed look into this.

I've actually seen a person with a PhD who teaches at a major art university that teaches animation try and claim that the word meant only animation from Japan and even claim it was a Japanese word and not a French one, because she had been taught and heard it referred to as being only animation from Japan when she got interested in it back in the 90s. That women was very obnoxious too.

I honestly got sick of most Japanese animation back in the mid 90s once it started to become very popular in the West because of how many of the newer fans acted towards the older fans and because of what certain companies involved in bring it to the US did to older fan communities, especially Viz (Plus, having you entire collection of tapes you purchased destroyed by a hurricane along with numerous irreplaceable books and magazines on it contributes to my losing interest in most of it. Also, some companies were very good to the older fans that helped promote it AD Vision and AnimeEigo were two of the more friendly companies. Every year I used to get a Christmas Card for example from the from the CEO of AD Vision for example that was personalized and had stuff hand written on it. Don't ask about what Viz did as that is a very long story that involved things that occurred to various fan groups and thing that occurred at certain animation conventions.)

Anyway, I was trying to point that out in my post.that it is used incorrectly now by many because of the didn't know that the word meant animation and not specifically animation from Japan.

Japanimation was what was being used back in the 70s & 80s to describe animation from Japan by most of the fans who knew the correct definition of anime and wanted a word to mean specifically animation from Japan instead of just saying Japanese Animation. The use of that word wasn't frowned upon back then and was considered acceptable back then from many actively involved in promoting animation from Japan.

Most of my old pen pals from Japan back in the 70s and 80s used to use the words anime when I was corresponding with them. Some did use Japanimation to refer specifically to animation from their country as a result of the people they were corresponding with. Some places I used to get things imported from used Japanimation in the order forms catalogs they had in English back in the 70s and 80s instead of just saying anime. In the late 80s early 90s those many of them just stopped using the word Japanimation and were using the term anime.

Tramp Graphics · July 2013

Jay_NOLA said:
Tramp Graphics said:
Jay_NOLA said:
Just digging at some of my occult books and books on folk lore adter reading the post.
The word zombie most likely originated from the Congo word nzambi, which means spirit of a dead person.

In voodoo a bokor. a voodoo practitioner, allegedly restores a dead person to life.,

Real life zombies are physically and mentally impaired individuals forced into submission by the use of drugs, starvation, and psychological manipulation administered by a bokor. (I won't mention all the things a bokor administered to a person used as that is rather long but will mention that Datura stamonium is one of them that you'll see mentioned most often.

The modern erroneous meaning as was pointed comes from movies and pop culture.

A Ghoul is a demon from Islamic lore that feeds on the flesh of humans. They are not all ways dead resurrected creatures. The word ghoul comes from the Arabic terms ghul (masculine) and ghula (feminine).

Exactly. And while a Ghoul is not always created from a human corpse, a human can be transformed into a Ghoul as a result of being attacked by one. This is what we see in these so-called "Zombie" movies too.

Another word that most people use incorrectly is anime. Anime is French for animation and does not just mean Japanese animation.

The modern erroneous meaning is the result of modern fans of Japanese animation hearing the word anime used to describe it from animation from Japan, as the Japanese were using the French word and they didn't know what the word actually meant.

Older fans of Japanese animation who know the correct definition of anime prefer to use the term Japanimation instead of anime.

At universities, comic shops, etc. and give lectures on Japanese animation back in the 80s I used to go with the Japanese animation group and talk about Japanese animation and we explained the correct meaning of the word and used the word Japanimation to refer to Japanese animation and we explained the meaning of the word anime.

I'm of the mid set to use the correct older definition of what words means.

.

Actually, as a long-time Anime connoiseur (sp?) (well over 30 years and counting), the term "Japanimation" is not used by the Anime community, and it is highly frowned upon to do so. it is considered a bastardization, and always has been. The French word "Anime" meaning "Animation" is considered the proper term, as it is the term the Japanese themselves use, and yes, the Japanese did know what the word meant when they started using it. That's why they use it. If anything, the full term, "Japanese Animation" may be used instead, but never "Japanimation".

Only newbies use that term, and are quickly corrected, particularly by the more hard-core "purist" fans (some of whom can be quite obnoxious). Thus, using the word "anime" is actually correct. The Japanese use the term Anime because it means "animation", which is all the Japanese really consider their animated shows. They don't differentiate between their own material and those of other countries; just as "Manga" simply means comic book in Japan. Thus, the Anime community uses the term to stay true to the Japanese. On everything else, I'm in full agreement.

Yes, the Japanese knew what the term anime meant, but Westerns hearing the word thought it was Japanese word and took it just mean animation only from Japan and continue to think it means only animation from Japan. The book Samurai From Outer Space give a detailed look into this.

I've actually seen a person with a PhD who teaches at a major art university that teaches animation try and claim that the word meant only animation from Japan and even claim it was a Japanese word and not a French one, because she had been taught and heard it referred to as being only animation from Japan when she got interested in it back in the 90s. That women was very obnoxious too.

I honestly got sick of most Japanese animation back in the mid 90s once it started to become very popular in the West because of how many of the newer fans acted towards the older fans and because of what certain companies involved in bring it to the US did to older fan communities, especially Viz (Plus, having you entire collection of tapes you purchased destroyed by a hurricane along with numerous irreplaceable books and magazines on it contributes to my losing interest in most of it. Also, some companies were very good to the older fans that helped promote it AD Vision and AnimeEigo were two of the more friendly companies. Every year I used to get a Christmas Card for example from the from the CEO of AD Vision for example that was personalized and had stuff hand written on it. Don't ask about what Viz did as that is a very long story that involved things that occurred to various fan groups and thing that occurred at certain animation conventions.)

Anyway, I was trying to point that out in my post.that it is used incorrectly now by many because of the didn't know that the word meant animation and not specifically animation from Japan.

Japanimation was what was being used back in the 70s & 80s to describe animation from Japan by most of the fans who knew the correct definition of anime and wanted a word to mean specifically animation from Japan instead of just saying Japanese Animation. The use of that word wasn't frowned upon back then and was considered acceptable back then from many actively involved in promoting animation from Japan.

Most of my old pen pals from Japan back in the 70s and 80s used to use the words anime when I was corresponding with them. Some did use Japanimation to refer specifically to animation from their country as a result of the people they were corresponding with. Some places I used to get things imported from used Japanimation in the order forms catalogs they had in English back in the 70s and 80s instead of just saying anime. In the late 80s early 90s those many of them just stopped using the word Japanimation and were using the term anime.

In most cases, the use of the term "anime" to refer to animation from Japan by Westerners, isn't so much out of not knowing the original meaning of the word (which is still perfectly accurate), but rather, as a means of differentiating it from western animation (where we use the term "cartoon"). It helps that it's a real word, not a made-up portmanteau, and much easier to say. The other reason for the change, is because the Japanese don't use the term "Japanimation", and many find it insulting. Thus, the fandom uses the term the Japanese themselves use. This is also why we use the term "Manga" for Japanese comics. Thus it is also perfectly acceptable (and still technically correct) for an artist (like myself) who patterns his style after the Japanese to refer to himself as an American "manga" or "anime" artist.

Sockratease · July 2013

What if a classic VoodyDoody guy orders his traditional mindless Zombie slaves to "Go Forth and EAT BRAINS!! Flesh too."

Then zombies would be brain eating flesh eaters, right?

Tramp Graphics · July 2013

Sockratease said:
What if a classic VoodyDoody guy orders his traditional mindless Zombie slaves to "Go Forth and EAT BRAINS!! Flesh too."
Then zombies would be brain eating flesh eaters, right?

There are a few problems with that scenario. First, it's too vague a command. A Zombie wouldn't know what to do to accomplish that. To attack and kill does require some "creative problem solving", something zombies lack. They would need specific instruction on who to attack, and what to do. Secondly, Zombies ate docile by nature. Unless given a task to accomplish, they just stand there oblivious to their surroundings. That's also why they don't make good guards. Third, they certainly wouldn't be able to "turn" their victims into one of them. Simply put, it's beyond their capabilities.

Herald of Fire · July 2013

Tramp Graphics said:
And "popular culture" is WRONG!!!! By definition, these creatures are ghouls. They act like ghouls, they look like ghouls. They meet all of the defining characteristics of ghouls. The use of the word Zombie for these creatures is a grievous error which should never have gotten started, and needs to be stamped out. Just because a lot of people do it, does not make it right. People call these things "Zombies" because they don't know any better. If they did, most likely, they'd stop using the wrong term. If a person does know better and continue to perpetuate it, that's willful ignorance of the worst kind because it is deliberately misleading. I will not perpetuate that kind of error. So, if a person doesn't know what you're talking about, correct them. These creatures are not Zombies. Thery are Ghouls, and need to be referred to as such. Period.

Be that as it may you won't change popular opinion, it's too much like trying to hold back the tide with a sandcastle. Therefore until some crazy leap in human thinking occurs, a zombie will always be known as a flesh-eating plague-bringer.

Besides, the word 'Ghoul' just doesn't sound as fun as 'Zombie'...

Notifications

Ninja vs Zombies - Or is it? From the Art Studio.

Comments

Adding to Cart…