This translation uses more emotional language than the Helen Zimmern translation. This simultaneously lessens and widens the gap between the depiction of Iranians and Turanians, depending on the context. Ferangís, for instance, is a more sympathetic character, whereas Afrásiyáb is condemned more harshly. CC BY-NC-SA

Similarly to the Quranic version, Joseph also emphasizes his religion in the Biblical interpretation. This makes sense, since both are religious texts used to spread their respective faiths. It shows that the differing beliefs of the Egyptians and Canaanites are at the heart of their division. They can never be the same as long as that core difference remains. CC BY-NC-SA

When compared to E. D. A. Morshead’s translation, Robert Potter’s translation clearly identifies the context of this statement. The Athenians are not slaves to any monarch, specifically. Aeschylus’s belief that monarchies were comparable to slavery is still present, this time more accurately, drawing a clean division between the Persians and Athenians. Both translators named were English, albeit from different centuries, so the change in phrasing may reflect their political beliefs. Therefore, praise for the Athenian form of government would have been framed according to each man’s support for the monarchy. At the time of Potter’s 1777 translation, Enlightenment ideals were popular; a blatant anti-monarchy stance may have reflected that. CC BY-NC-SA

Aeschylus is emphasizing Athenian democracy, as their unique form of government was a point of pride. It would be very easy to foster a national identity around this concept, which is what he was leaning into. However, his bias in the writing is evident, seeing as how the Persians very famously freed slaves. The use of the word "slave" here, then, is interesting. Athens did actually have slaves, but the point here is to compare other forms of government to slavery, not to talk about real slavery in society. Aeschylus took the opportunity to highlight the democratic values of Athens, in contrast to the values of the Achaemenid Empire, regardless of how accurate the assessment may or may not have been. CC BY-NC-SA

As a modern retelling of the Ramayana, Sita Sings the Blues is not afraid to critique the original story, often using a lighthearted tone to do so. In this part, the narrative acknowledges how Ravana is portrayed as evil, despite his accomplishments. If it weren’t for his foreignness, he may have been a more nuanced character. Since that wasn’t the case, he was unambiguously villainous. One step out of line proved him to be in the wrong. The group that controls the narrative is waiting for the outsider to fail, in order to justify their preconceived ideas about their nature. Sita Sings the Blues uses humor to comment on this narrative of nation, because it was intentionally made as commentary on the Ramayana. CC BY-NC-SA

Here, the Sri Lankans are described both as giants and demons. Overall, there is a preference for the term "giant" over "demon" in this translation. The decision suggests that this version of the Ramayana was trying to portray the giants more neutrally. The translator, an Englishman from the 19th century, would have less of a need to highlight distinctions between Indians (particularly from Ayodhya) and Sri Lankans. For one, both territories were British colonial possessions at the time of translation (1870-1874). Furthermore, the translator and his anglophone audience would not feel a strong connection to either group. Thus, one of the original goals—nation-building—would be diminished. CC BY-NC-SA