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

This version of the epic leans into the celebration that Saiáwush received when arriving in Túrán. It generally seems to emphasize how beloved he was. Through this, differences between the Iranians and the Turanians are marked. As soon as Saiáwush arrives, the people essentially beg him to rule over them. This suggests that he is equipped to do what the locals cannot, therefore he should have power, putting Iranians in a favorable position and building a sense of national pride. At the same time, a distinction between them and the foreign group is established. CC BY-NC-SA

Ultimately, these characters from Turan turn on Siawosh. This could be a way of othering them, and differentiating them from the Iranians. The epic may have been set up so that the friendship between Siawosh and the Turanians was always fated to fall apart, because they were from different groups, and could not reconcile that fact. Thus, the notion of the “Other” is cemented. CC BY-NC-SA

Siawosh marrying Afrasiyab’s daughter further demonstrates the blurring of lines separating the “Us” of the story from the “Them”. It’s a union in all senses. With Siawosh residing in Turan for much of his story, he makes connections with people from Turan. These connections are key to humanizing the characters. CC BY-NC-SA

The foreign group is relatively humanized and developed, to a greater extent than in stories such as the Ramayana or Josephs. While divisions are still drawn, the people of Turan are written as near equals, capable of the same complexity as the Iranians. CC BY-NC-SA

There is generally a lot of sympathy shown to the people of Turan, as shown in this line. The foreigners are not too othered, which is reminiscent of The Persians by Aeschylus. CC BY-NC-SA

By having the hero of the story be destined to destroy Turan, Iran is clearly shown as the "Us" and Turan as the "Them". If it's what Siawosh must do, then it must be correct, and Turan must deserve that fate. Unlike Iran, which may also have a corrupt king, but doesn’t deserve the same as Turan, by virtue of not being the “Other”. CC BY-NC-SA

Joseph, being monotheistic, is uniquely special. His abilities are something that the Egyptians cannot emulate, which implies that the Egyptians are generally less capable. The narrative shows how the Canaanites are distinct from the Egyptians through their skills, allowing monotheists to form a separate identity. 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

The contrast of beliefs is an important way of emphasizing the otherness of the Egyptians, who may be a stand-in for polytheists in general. The condemnation of other religions successfully creates a divide between groups. Religion is one of the greatest tools to forge a sense of identity with, seeing as how it builds community. It follows, then, that it would also be one of the greatest tools to other a foreign nation. CC BY-NC-SA

While not directly stated, his beauty may be mentioned in order to contrast him with the Egyptians. This could be a way of portraying the Canaanites as more desirable than other groups, which would contribute towards building a sense of national identity. In the context of the Quran, it could also be something more similar to a religious identity. Either way, having more attractive physical traits places the Canaanites above foreign groups. 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

Xerxes praising the Athenians for standing against him could be a subtle way of showing the Persians as the "Other". This is because he's depicted as praising the enemy, in a somewhat unrealistic way. It reads as an attempt of portraying the Athenians as righteous and just, whereas the Persians are left no choice but to accept that as fact. They're not "Us", so their suffering cannot be unfair; they're "Them", so the suffering is deserved. CC BY-NC-SA

The Greeks are being painted as inherently more deserving of respect and reverence. The narrative feeds into the Athenian nations' superiority by claiming the Persians can only prosper by leaving them alone, because Greece is simply more successful. Thus, the Persians and the Athenians are not equal parties in the story. Still, they are much more equal than, for instance, the opposing parties of the Ramayana. The Persians stands out for the general sympathetic portrayal of the people from the Achaemenid Empire. 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

Here, the differences in weaponry highlight the overall differences between the groups. It's not just about using particular tools, it's about what those tools say about a culture. From an Athenian perspective, a bow may seem like a more cowardly weapon. Calling attention to this perception could be a way of disparaging the foreign Persians while also building a sense of national pride around the Athenians’ own choice of weapon. CC BY-NC-SA

Be it through caricatures or descriptions, differences in physical features have always been an incredibly common way of othering groups. Surphanaka, Ravana's sister, having a so-called “ugly nose” exemplifies this phenomenon. A similar sentiment about Ravana is also expressed: “Your ugly yellow eyes should fall out of your head as you stare at me so lustfully, Ravana.” (Paley, 00:27:16 - 00:27:21). In his case, Ravana’s yellow eyes serve to dehumanize him. Where distinct features emphasize a difference, inhuman features—like yellow eyes—only widen that gap. 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

Sita cries due to being captured by the evil "Other". It's made clear that it’s not just the king that's evil, but also the subjects that are called "wild she-demons". This is a very direct example of othering a foreign people by perceiving them as uncivilized. This lays the groundwork for the judgment of others’ unique customs, which in turn, builds an identity around one’s own customs. CC BY-NC-SA

The king—and by extension his people—eat food that regular people wouldn't, which is another way of othering them. This portrayal likely stems from them not being written as human in the first place. Rather, they're giants. Thus, their race feeds into the narrative of foreigners being a distinct type of person. The idea is taken to the extreme, as they’re not even human. CC BY-NC-SA

By having goblin-headed creatures pull Rávan's chariot, the people of Lanká are painted as strange and abnormal. Rather than use regular donkeys, Rávan uses monstrous donkeys, a reflection of the perceived culture in Sri Lanka. Modifications such as these exotify and mystify the foreign group. CC BY-NC-SA

This line suggests that there is an inherent difference between Ráma and Rávan. Rávan’s character is shown to be naturally inferior and sinful when compared to Ráma, which is part of a broader narrative about the Sri Lankans. This inequality is acknowledged directly by Akampan, one of the giants himself. So, regardless of which group one belongs to, the imbalance between the sides is made apparent. In a sense, the giants seemingly accept and give in to Ráma’s superiority. 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

This disparaging description paints Rávan as unreasonable and deeply evil. The lack of consideration for his perspective fuels the reading of him and his people as inferior beings. Vocabulary choices such as “savage fury uncontrolled” don’t describe just any angry man. They describe a ruthless, dangerous person that cannot be trusted. He is a villain by all means, and his belonging to a separate people furthers that narrative. CC BY-NC-SA

Rávan, the king of Ceylon (present-day Sri Lanka) would be an example of the "Other" in the Ramayana. Describing him as "senseless" is one way of othering him and his people, making them seem incomprehensible and fundamentally different. This feeds into the narrative of nation, wherein the Indian people are rational and sympathetic, and the Sri Lankans are not. Instead, they are their own separate, lesser people. CC BY-NC-SA