#I think this is also part of why Americans are generally so ignorant to other cultures too

[katrafiy]

I think about this image a lot. This is an image from the Aurat March (Women's March) in Karachi, Pakistan, on International Women's Day 2018. The women in the picture are Pakistani trans women, aka khwaja siras or hijras; one is a friend of a close friend of mine.

In the eyes of the Pakistani government and anthropologists, they're a "third gender." They're denied access to many resources that are available to cis women. Trans women in Pakistan didn't decide to be third-gendered; cis people force it on them whether they like it or not.

Western anthropologists are keen on seeing non-Western trans women as culturally constructed third genders, "neither male nor female," and often contrast them (a "legitimate" third gender accepted in its culture) with Western trans women (horrific parodies of female stereotypes).

There's a lot of smoke and mirrors and jargon used to obscure the fact that while each culture's trans women are treated as a single culturally constructed identity separate from all other trans women, cis women are treated as a universal category that can just be called "women."

Even though Pakistani aurat and German Frauen and Guatemalan mujer will generally lead extraordinarily different lives due to the differences in culture, they are universally recognized as women.

The transmisogynist will say, "Yes, but we can't ignore the way gender is culturally constructed, and hijras aren't trans women, they're a third gender. Now let's worry less about trans people and more about the rights of women in Burkina Faso."

In other words, to the transmisogynist, all cis women are women, and all trans women are something else.

"But Kat, you're not Indian or Pakistani. You're not a hijra or khwaja sira, why is this so important to you?"

Have you ever heard of the Neapolitan third gender "femminiello"? It's the term my moniker "The Femme in Yellow" is derived from, and yes, I'm Neapolitan. Shut up.

I'm going to tell you a little bit about the femminielli, and I want you to see if any of this sounds familiar. Femminielli are a third gender in Neapolitan culture of people assigned male at birth who have a feminine gender expression.

They are lauded and respected in the local culture, considered to be good omens and bringers of good luck. At festivals you'd bring a femminiello with you to go gambling, and often they would be brought in to give blessings to newborns. Noticing anything familiar yet?

Oh and also they were largely relegated to begging and sex work and were not allowed to be educated and many were homeless and lived in the back alleys of Naples, but you know we don't really like to mention that part because it sounds a lot less romantic and mystical.

And if you're sitting there, asking yourself why a an accurate description of femminiello sounds almost note for note like the same way hijras get described and talked about, then you can start to understand why that picture at the start of this post has so much meaning for me.

And you can also start to understand why I get so frustrated when I see other queer people buy into this fool notion that for some reason the transes from different cultures must never mix.

That friend I mentioned earlier is a white American trans woman. She spent years living in India, and as I recal the story the family she was staying with saw her as a white, foreign hijra and she was asked to use her magic hijra powers to bless the house she was staying in.

So when it comes to various cultural trans identities there are two ways we can look at this. We can look at things from a standpoint of expressed identity, in which case we have to preferentially choose to translate one word for the local word, or to leave it untranslated.

If we translate it, people will say we're artificially imposing an outside category (so long as it's not cis people, that's fine). If we don't, what we're implying, is that this concept doesn't exist in the target language, which suggests that it's fundamentally a different thing

A concrete example is that Serena Nanda in her 1990 and 2000 books, bent over backwards to say that Hijras are categorically NOT trans women. Lots of them are!

And Don Kulick bent over backwards in his 1998 book to say that travesti are categorically NOT trans women, even though some of the ones he cited were then and are now trans women.

The other option, is to look at practice, and talk about a community of practice of people who are AMAB, who wear women's clothing, take women's names, fulfill women's social roles, use women's language and mannerisms, etc WITHIN THEIR OWN CULTURAL CONTEXT.

This community of practice, whatever we want to call it - trans woman, hijra, transfeminine, femminiello, fairy, queen, to name just a few - can then be seen to CLEARLY be trans-national and trans-cultural in a way that is not clearly evident in the other way of looking at things.

And this is important, in my mind, because it is this axis of similarity that is serving as the basis for a growing transnational transgender rights movement, particularly in South Asia. It's why you see pictures like this one taken at the 2018 Aurat March in Karachi, Pakistan.

And it also groups rather than splits, pointing out not only points of continuity in the practices of western trans women and fa'afafines, but also between trans women in South Asia outside the hijra community, and members of the hijra community both trans women and not.

To be blunt, I'm not all that interested in the word trans woman, or the word hijra. I'm not interested in the word femminiello or the word fa'afafine.

I'm interested in the fact that when I visit India, and I meet hijras (or trans women, self-expressed) and I say I'm a trans woman, we suddenly sit together, talk about life, they ask to see American hormones and compare them to Indian hormones.

There is a shared community of practice that creates a bond between us that cis people don't have. That's not to say that we all have the exact same internal sense of self, but for the most part, we belong to the same community of practice based on life histories and behavior.

I think that's something cis people have absolutely missed - largely in an effort to artificially isolate trans women. This practice of arguing about whether a particular "third gender" label = trans women or not, also tends to artificially homogenize trans women as a group.

You see this in Kulick and Nanda, where if you read them, you could be forgiven for thinking all American trans women are white, middle class, middle-aged, and college-educated, who all follow rigid codes of behavior and surgical schedules prescribed by male physicians.

There are trans women who think of themselves as separate from cis women, as literally another kind of thing, there are trans women who think of themselves as coterminous with cis women, there are trans women who think of themselves as anything under the sun you want to imagine.

The problem is that historically, cis people have gone to tremendous lengths to destroy points of continuity in the transgender community (see everything I've cited and more), and particularly this has been an exercise in transmisogyny of grotesque levels.

The question is do you want to talk about culturally different ways of being trans, or do you want to try to create as many neatly-boxed third genders as you can to prop up transphobic theoretical frameworks? To date, people have done the latter. I'm interested in the former.

I guess what I'm really trying to say with all of this is that we're all family y'all.

#transgender #third gender #hijras #femminielli #trans women are women #trans solidarity #trans rights #transmisogyny #transunity #transunitism #this is what trans unity looks like

[hero-israel]

I think there needs to be a reckoning about how so many white (passing) American secular/nonpracticing antiZionist Jews can say "Not in my name, Israel doesn't speak for us!" and then think they can speak for Israel. How so many of them can have a limited familial connection to Israel, have such a disdain for Israelis, Israeli culture and society, and Israel as a concept, and then have the gall to act like their opinions matter?

I see their attitudes be described as fear, but to me it strikes me as more than just fear. A lot of them, I suspect, have incorporated antiZionism as a fundamental part of their Jewish identity. It's not just a disagreement, they're not just saving face. Take away the Goyim and talk to them privately and they still believe what they believe, and express it in the same way. They hate Israeli Jews.

And Israel is only going to become less Ashkenazi (aka less "white") as time marches forward. The bad faith hysterical Israel bashing and condescension is only going to look more and more like Orientalism, and frankly, racism.

I think it's very possible that calling something antisemitic can't just be a catchall term when this chicken comes home to roost. I think if there aren't already, there will be distinct forms of antisemitism, some that only Diaspora Jews face and some that only Israeli Jews face. And if this is true or will end up being true, it's pretty important that we not speak over each other's experiences. To do that we have to recognize these experiences and respect them. Do some Israeli Jews disrespect the Diaspora experience? Yes, from what I've seen. Is it nearly as vitriolic and is it growing nearly as quickly as the disrespect for the Israeli experience among antiZionist American Jews? Not even close.

All this divisive language to say: sometimes when Israelis say "so and so is antisemitic!" in the context of antiZionism, they're talking about themselves, their experiences, the stakes for them, and not Americans. So maybe we should all learn to stay in our lanes sometimes.

A lot of Israeli Jews disrespect, or at least are unable to grasp, diaspora existence, particularly when it comes to Americans. I can't even count the number of times I read Israelis say "Why are you American Jews so upset about Trump? Don't you see how good he's been for Israel?" Which is the worst damn argument a person could possibly use - it feeds into both left-wing and right-wing antisemitism, while ignoring that American Jews live HERE and are at risk from Trump's fascist cult and general lawlessness. And it is bad FOR EVERYBODY to have "pro-Israel" become the position of stroke-babbling grotesque racist criminals, and also for America to be too focused on anarchic decomposition and Yugoslav-style street warfare to be able to support Israel like it traditionally has.

And because turds of a feather flush together, Netanyahu wants ALAN DERSHOWITZ to be Israel's advocate if the ICJ case proceeds. I knew Netanyahu was a senile failure undermining all the strengths he had ever built for the country and this is just the shit cherry on top of the shit sundae. Alan Dershowitz is the ultimate stereotype of a Boomer who was kind of useful in the 1980s-90s and became awful and embarrassing now, Trump is surrounded by them (i.e. Rudy Giuliani). Your grandma in Florida remembers Alan Dershowitz for writing "Chutzpah" and being tough and quick-witted, and everybody under 40 knows Dershowitz as a Trump cultist and Epstein fuckbuddy. Big "Vladek Spiegelman can only compare his artist son to Walt Disney" energy. There are surely thousands of lawyers better-suited for the role, just off the top of my head I'd prefer Eugene Kontorovich and so should anyone who is more aware of the world as it actually is than how it was in 1994.

I say all that to parallel your original point, not to contradict it. Yes, the American Jews who performatively loathe Israel are by and large just an Extremely Online phenomenon of the most college-town bubble-protected, least observant, least affiliated, and least aware of non-Ashkenazim. It is not so hard for American Ashkenazim to stay protected from antisemitism as long as they totally unplug from their Jewish identity and any public-facing aspects of it. Can't be killed in a synagogue or JCC or kosher store if you never go in, head tap.

[aroaceleovaldez]

random question but i came across a post of yours where you talked about how mark oshiro sort of erased an aspect of nico's ADHD by making a joke about how he only liked mythomagic cards because he's gay and there are hot guys on the cards, and then TSATS also seemed to really downplay the themes of neurodivergence in the series. and it made me wonder if you have any thoughts on how the show has portrayed the demigods' ADHD and dyslexia so far? i've seen some people say that the show also downplayed it a lot, and i'm inclined to agree... which feels really weird considering that rick's own son's neurodivergence was specifically a major inspiration for him writing the series. but if i recall correctly a lot of scenes showcasing that in the first book were taken out of the show.

Oh absolutely, a lot of scenes and general discussion about adhd/dyslexia were removed in the show (and some of the disability-coding in general - i appreciate the change they made with making Chiron disabled based on his mythos rather than just using a wheelchair as a disguise, but i wish they had kept Grover's crutches in a similar manner honestly) - I've made a couple of posts discussing it: here, here, and this reblog is relevant to my opinions about the matter. There's probably some other stuff in my pjo tv crit tag.

I think the main sentiment i have regarding it - which i've seen a couple of other people mention as well - is how much the show ignores or outright removes and downplays Percy's personal struggles with his disabilities to instead emphasize Sally's experiences instead, particularly in manners of her taking out her stress on Percy - which alongside being completely antithetical to Sally's role in the books, is pretty ableist and why I continually compare show!Sally to Autism Speaks Parents. Autism Speaks tends to make an emphasis on the struggles of the parents of autistic children rather than treating autistic individuals like a person experiencing their own struggles. One of the major points of Sally's character (and later Paul) in the books is that she's an incredibly accommodating parent and works hard to make sure Percy is supported when he's struggling with his disabilities, because he's not been able to find that accommodation elsewhere. That's part of why Sally is such a great mom in particular, and is intentionally supposed to directly contrast Annabeth's home life struggles with her parents having difficulty navigating how to provide that same level of accommodation to help support her (and how Annabeth finds that accommodation at CHB instead, because that's the metaphor that CHB is supposed to represent - an appropriately accommodating system they can rely on, and then exploring how that's still a flawed system and looking at how disabled kids/demigods fall through the cracks and how to change the system to better support them).

The show also almost completely ignores Percy's ADHD/dyslexia experiences in general after the first episode. I was honestly really happy with, in the first episode, how clearly Percy's poor experiences in the American education system, particularly relating to his neurodivergence, have informed his reaction to situations such as people trying to tell him he's a demigod in coded language. It was essentially the perfect update to something i've discussed in the past here, about how the original "all demigods have adhd/dyslexia because it's secretly SUPERPOWERS" thing was presented as the basis for the series and why that teaching/parenting style fell out of favor. We see Percy in e1 acknowledge how dismissive of his struggles it is to constantly just be told he's "special" - and we even get explicit acknowledgement of how that description is used aggressively and for ostracization (from Nancy), which is extremely true to the experiences of kids who grew up with that teaching/parenting structure. But then we get to episode 2 and... all the acknowledgement of ADHD/dyslexia/etc is gone. We get at most a one-off acknowledgement from Luke that demigods are all neurodivergent and that's it. Pretty much nothing else for the entire rest of the season, save for flashback scenes that only emphasize Sally's experiences, not acknowledge Percy's. No further acknowledgement of Percy's dyslexia, or Annabeth's, or anything about their ADHD, or even Percy's completely removed PTSD (which we know for sure because of both writer commentary [see: that second post i linked about the LA Times article] and Percy's total lack of reaction to Mr. D). Nothing.

It was extremely disheartening to say the least, having such a strong start and it evaporating completely, and I fully agree with you.

#pjo #percy jackson #riordanverse #pjo tv #pjo tv crit #adhd #Anonymous #ask #long post // #ask to tag

[kynimdraws]

INFO POST

Name: Kylee (they/them). 30+

A totally normal Korean American mostly known for my drawings, specifically my Pokemon nuzlocke comics. But I will talk about other things on occasion because I do have periods of being fixated on certain topics. I also am a doctor!

Interests:��Pokemon, League of Legends (everything except the game lmao), Fire Emblem, Advance Wars, Animal Crossing, Mother series, Korean history/culture, character design

General FYIs: 

General inquiries/commission work/etc should be sent thru kynimdraws [at] gmail [dot] com! Tumblr messaging/asks/etc is not 100% reliable

I will not follow NSFW accounts but I am fine talking/interacting with them. There may be suggestive shitposting but I like keeping my content on the SFW side

I am VERY picky about who I follow/interact with online. Fandom content in particular is a minefield for me aka I have many things I dislike and don’t want to see, even if it might be a popular thing in media that I otherwise enjoy. Therefore, I will unfollow/block/mute liberally. There are times I accidentally block a blog bc I mistake them for bots. So if you got hit with that, just send me an ask or email me

I am very open about what I like and dislike, and none of those things are a direct attack on your sensibilities. I have never gone out of my way to directly send hate or whatever have you if I end up seeing shit I don’t like. My complaints in my little online space ain't a personal attack on you.

My ask/submission box/DMs  are open for criticisms if you have any issues you want to resolve in private. No one is perfect and I may have done ignorant shit that needs to be pointed out. I have deleted or edited posts in the past if people tell me what I did wrong. PS I get that some of my stuff may upset you, but try to act civil when pointing shit out please.

I try to tag all my things whenever I can. Again, send me a message if anything bothers you. I am all for good debate but if you send me excessive hate or threats bc I have different opinions about matters that are trivial, I will block/delete them.

If you wish to use any of my hcs, please credit me. And if you are comfortable with it, send me the works so I can check them out! Or @ me if that is easier.

---

FIRE EMBLEM FYI: Specifically for 3Houses/3Hopes because I need a separate one for this franchise specificially given how many crazy things I got due to being involved in this fanbase via my fanworks:

DO NOT try to convince me to like or tolerate Byleth/student ships, ESPECIALLY the ones with the lords (aka CIaude, Dimitri, EdeIgard). I already summarized why I don’t like FE3H Byleth ships with student chars here. While the spinoff game FEW3H has now removed that teacher/student problematic situation, the fandom keeps putting the FE3H elements into the FEW3H fanworks (i.e. remembering Byleth from “another life” trope)...so no thanks!! DO NOT SHOW ME IT!!!

As for the Byleth ships with faculty members, my response is here so don’t try to bait me about that topic either thanks.

I do not care whom you ingame S-support. 3Houses limits the dating-sim part of the game to that character, so I cannot care less about how you play the game. The main issue I have is when people treat Byleth the “character” as a legit ship material when I personally think they are a cool character ruined by fans who are too obsessed with badly executed self insert otome tropes bc they self-project super hard onto them. Just to be clear, any FE3H or FEW3H OC/Canon >>>>>>Byleth ships personally. Even Byleth-sonas that remove the teacher/student aspects are better than canon FE3H!Byleth

Please don't drag FE VA statements as some sort of “gotcha” on my opinions like this post here. IDC what other people prefer with ship shit, that’s their problem and not mine. I am not gonna bother them about it. So don’t bother ME about it.

---

Links to check out:

Myths of Unova + Episode Grey (Pkmn White/White2 Comic)

Tales of Sinnoh (Pkmn Diamond Comic)

Art Site (Portfolio)

Twitter 

Instagram 

#psa post #pinned info post lol #updating this for myself and also to use the “do not reblog” feature from the get-go this way

[wenellyb]

Eddie Diaz is a white Latino. Did people learn nothing from the Pedro Pascal discourse? And does the fandom *not* remember that episode where the funeral protestor refuses to be tended by Hen and Chim, so he asks Eddie to give him care— fully seeing he’s white— until Eddie says his last name is Diaz and his father’s Mexican, but he can channel his mother’s Swedish heritage for the man’s comfort? White people are not members of the global majority, but they do live and exist outside Western Europe and the U.S. (like Mexico).

It’s so weird how parts of the fandom are making any positive reaction to a m/m relationship in this show (that isn’t their yaoi ‘buddie’ fanfiction) into something about loving to see white men kiss. Y’all would still be getting that with canon buddie! Y’all couldn’t even support Michael and Glenn (calling them “homewreckers”). Y’all constantly ignore Hen and Karen with your complaints of “queerbaiting.” Y’all also called TK & Carlos’ (911 Lone Star) relationship “toxic” because it began with sex and because y’all fanon Carlos as some aggressive control freak. Like… c’mon!

I don’t think anyone who is supportive of Buck’s new relationship is arguing that Tommy is perfect. He’s was a fucking dick to both Hen and Chim when they joined the 118. His “delivery man” comment to Chim was wildly unacceptable. No one has forgotten this. Yet both Hen and Chim are *NOW* good friends with him…? Why? He changed. And the show shows the audience this. They show that he developed a great camaraderie with Hen and Chim. They show how he— unlike Sal and Gerrard— shifted his behavior and worldview to accept, embrace, and enjoy change.

Tommy could have been Sal. He could have been Gerrard. He had a good working relationship with both men and both men encouraged bad behavior in the 118. Yet he didn’t. He stayed on and befriended Hen and Chim (when most of the other guys still refused). Because he chose to learn and change and open himself to people’s differences (which likely also helped him come to terms with his own “differences”).

Tommy’s arc is meant to show how someone can make amends, repair relationships, and become a better person (y’know… learn, grow, and reform himself). The general audience for this show is straight and white. They *need* to see white people changing and learning to be better. They *need* to see queer people coming into themselves. These are important story lines.

Fans like Buck and Tommy together because they like Buck and Tommy together, because they like what this means for them and what might happen going forward. That’s literally it. We’re all just overjoyed by having more queer representation, including Bi representation. That’s it.

But there are a lot of “buddie” shippers in people’s inboxes hating on Buck and Tommy together for no reason other than it stands in the way of their ideal porn fantasies (“buddie”). And they’re being weirdly queerphobic about it, too.

Hi Anon!!!! So much to unpack here. I'll post this and let anyone comment their thoughts because this is an interesting conversation.

I'll start by saying that it never occurred to me that Ryan Guzman was not White, until Bucktommy became more popular and some Buddie shippers said that Bucktommy shippers were preferring the White MM pairing and I was like "Hmm.... both Buddie and Bucktommy are White MM pairings"???? Like it never even occured to me.

I'm not here to debate Ryan Guzman's ethnicity, he knows that better than us, but as you mentionned people seem to forget that there are White latinos.

I should add that Americans will maybe have a different perspective but in Europe, there is racism, and there is also xenophobia both are bad, but not the same.

If I'm talking about someone who is White and Latino being a victim of prejudice, I would never say that they're victim of racism, I would say that he's victim of xenophobia.

Believe it or not there are a lot of Europeans are xenophobic but not racist and vice versa.

With that being said, I agree with the rest of your ask..

I love 911 Lone Star and watched 911 casually but I never got the Buddie shippers, especially the ones who said they shipped Buddie as a form of activism, or because there was a lack of Queer representation (which is true) but Henren are there, TK and Carlos are right there and it's the same franchise.

They never cared about Henren, they even erased them whenever they accused the show of Queerbaiting even thought it has several Queer characters.

I remember when they started complaining that Bucktommy had more fics that Henren after one kiss.... but never said anything about Buddie having over 20 000 fics after 6 years of nothing even thought Henren was canon.

A lot of their takes are rooted in hypocrisy, it's like they're taking all the arguments that have been thrown at them and throwing them back at Bucktommy shippers without even thinking about it.

It's very important to have discussion about fandom racism, because it's a huge issue especially in the biggest fandoms but I do feel like some of them are bringing the issue in bad faith. This discussion is so important but it needs to be had with the Bucktommy fandom AND the Buddie fandom. So far the Buddie shippers only want the Bucktommy shippers to have it.

Why don't they take a look at the mirror first and ask themselves why they never cared about a Black Lesbian couple when one of them was a Main Character. Why don't they ask themselves why a ship with 2 best friends has over 20000 fics and a canon ship that is TK and Carlos only have 7000.

And why do they find the weirdest excuses to hate on Carlos (as you said), who's clearly not White and never give him the same courtesy they give their fave White chatacters.

When Buddie shippers talk about fandom racism, all I can think is: the call is coming from inside the house.

#911 abc #911 spoilers #eddie diaz #anti buddie shippers

[determinate-negation]

i know new york being the ancestral homeland of jews is a joke but as a jew from europe it literally feels that way. like i cannot imagine like a whole street written in hebrew. like i want to go there just to see that. i dont think jews inthe united states are aware of how good they have it

i do want to note that america is also a settler colonial state and its only because of specific american aims of the settler project and material realities of the economy and the physical land they were trying to settler that theyve had this “melting pot” ideology where jews were incorporated similarly to italian and irish immigrants, instead of continuing to have deeply ingrained religious and cultural antisemitism like europe. there were in some periods of us history more restrictions on jewish immigration and some institutional barriers for jews, especially before and during ww2, but never to the same degree as europe. although american jews were rarely (if ever, i dont know any examples but there could be some) violent genocidal settlers like the anglos and generally migrated later, we were still settlers searching for economic interests provided by american expansion on native land. that being said were here now and have the status of any other american settler (meaning people who arent indigenous or descended from enslaved people brought here against their will) most indigenous theorists and activists maintain that they want sovereignty, reparations, companies to stop destroying native land, etc, not every american settler to leave. i really believe that the united states also must fall, but i dont think this makes us like not belonging, at least any more than the other settlers.

i just want to say this to explain that my love for new york and the east coast us is complex. objectively the multicultural and cosmopolitan aspects of nyc that make it unique are products of american imperialism– for example nyc is the most linguistically diverse city in the world! over 600 languages are spoken here, including languages that arent spoken anywhere else anymore, but think about why that is. and the flourishing of jewish communities and culture in parts of the us was a product of specific historic processes and policies, and we like any other descendants of settler-immigrants have to grapple with that. i think its possible to oppose and fight against american imperialism and settler colonialism and still deeply appreciate the contradictory aspects of culture in america. (which lbr all the dynamic and interesting and worth preserving things about american culture were not created by anglos, but by outsiders and oppressed people) anyways this is all just to say im really not coming at it from a nationalist perspective but a diaspora perspective but yeah, new york is such a jewish city its genuinely incredible. this is why i especially despise tri state area zionists... youre ignoring that you live in the greatest place in the world for jews. literally the most jewish city in the world. like theres a moving company called schleppers here, yiddish words are part of everyones dialect, you can get the best jewish food everywhere from delis that are like 100 years old, we literally have a truck called the mitzvah tank that chabad drives around and asks people on the street if theyre jewish. the only romaniote synagogue in the western hemisphere is here and they have a greek jewish festival every year (which unfortunately is always covered in israeli flags -_-) the whole foods by one of my work sites had a sign up for yom kippur catering because the neighborhood is so jewish.

jewish culture and history and jews in general are just part of the fabric of life in new york. also whatever street youre talking about was probably written in yiddish since thats what most of the hassidic jews speak here! nyc has the largest concentration of yiddish speakers, which isnt surprising, and its the 8th most spoken language in nyc. theres also a big and still growing bukharian community here too. if you ever can, i really recommend visiting new york. theres so much jewish culture and history here. a lot of american jews live much more isolated, so i cant speak for them, but for many parts of the north east i feel that were lucky. antisemitism exists here but idk ive grown up in pretty jewish areas and never really experienced it. europe sounds legitimately shitty. also... fun fact, netanyahu went to high school in the suburbs outside of philly

^my photos in the lower east side, and heres some photography of hassidic williamsburg too

also williamsburg

[jingchu-time]

Spoilers for all of DRDT so far (all the way to the end of Ch.2 - Pt.1)

(This is my first attempt at a character analysis, so forgive me if it's a bit messy, I'll try to fit it up later. Also my first time using tumblr, intimidating but I'll figure it out.)

-

(TW: Talks about parental death and neglect. Mentions of racism, not talked about in much depth)

---

Intro:

Whit is one of the most interesting and mysterious characters in Despair Time. Despite being so well-loved by the fandom, his character is not taken nearly as seriously as I believe he should be. Objectively, Whit has one of the most in-depth characters, which isn't talked about with how often he gets reduced to a possible love interest for Charles. I also love their relationship (and ship it as well), but compared to Charles, Whit's other traits are ignored in favor of their relationship, which is unfair with how complex Whit's character actually is. Likes his backstory for example.

Part 1 - Whit's Backstory:

Whit's backstory is still shrouded in mystery, since it's only Chapter 2, but that isn't to say we know nothing about it. During Episode 4 of Chapter 1 Whit talks about his home life. He reveals that he's an only child, and briefly mentions that he thinks having a sibling would be cool, since he could be friends with them. This will be mentioned again later in the analysis, so keep this fact in mind. He then goes on to talk about his parents. First, he talks about his father, Lin or Steve. Whit says he doesn't see him a lot since he works overseas. All Whit is able to say about him is that he's quiet. Then Whit goes to talk about his mother, Elizabeth. Whit shows actual happiness when he talks about her. He doesn't go in depth, but he does call her pretty and sophisticated. He says he even bleached his hair to be like her. He clearly admired her a lot. He finally goes on to talk about his since nobody is ever in their house for long periods of time, he couldn't have pets. His home seems decent solely based on this information, but we have gained another part of it recently. In Episode 9 of Chapter 2 (what a jump) the secrets of all the cast are finally talked about. During the trial, Whit admits his secret is, "Your mother is dead. You always omit that truth." This isn't all that surprising when you consider how Whit deals with stuff like death (which well talks about in a different section) or his secret quote, "We tend to idolize the Dead."

So that's all of Whit's backstory, right? Insert *Sore wa chigau yo!" meme here. Is it all we've seen in the story, yes, but there was a Q&A done a while back that gave us an even greater idea of Whit's past. Anon asked if Whit was Biracial. The creator said yes, since his father is Chinese and his mother is American. It's also mentioned that for the first part of Whit's life, he was raised by his mom, so he doesn't have many Chinese experiences. What is mentioned next is what I care about the most. It's said that his father was very absent from his childhood (and life in general it seems). I think this makes it safe to say that Whit probably experienced some form of neglect from his father. He could barely say anything about him, the house is so empty that he can't even have pets, the way he talks about having a sibling. His mother is dead, and his father is never around. Whit was probably a lonely kid. The idea of having a sibling could fill the void because of his basically non-existent family. Also, regarding his mother's death, I'm gonna guess it was around his teen years, though I'm not sure.

Why mention his backstory first? Because this fandom never acknowledges anything about his past besides his dead mom when we clearly have more to look at. I also think this backstory can explain a lot of Whit's actions throughout the game. Speaking of…

Part 2 - Whit's role as comic relief, and how he (and Ace) subvert the stereotype:

Whit is easily seen as comic relief by most (I hope). Comic relief is a character used to defuse tension from certain scenes in shows/movies, plays/musicals, or video games. Whit is clearly made for the role, but another character, Ace, plays (or did play) the role as well. How can they both share the same role? You see, all roles have different stereotypes that are repaired with them. Comic relief is no expectation. I would say that comic relief tends to come in two types.

Characters who take absolutely nothing seriously. The lack of seriousness can be so bad that their jokes can fully screw over the tone of a scene, or story as a whole.

Using flanderization, which is just exaggerating a certain trait (or even sometimes traits) in a character. Character traits like paranoia, anger, happiness, or even sadness will become so amplified that you, much like the story, won't be able to take them seriously.

Whit and Ace fit these two stereotypes very well. After Whit's introduction in Episode 4 of the Prologue, Teruko calls him frivolous. A word, when used as a trait, is characterized by lack of seriousness or sense, which is a fairly accurate descriptor for Whit. Ace fits the second very well. Ace is characterized as both extremely aggressive, and as an extremely large coward through the entirety of the Prologue and Chapter 1. It's hard to take either character seriously at first glance.

Yet both Whit and Ace manage to subvert the stereotype and do interesting new things while doing it.

Ace goes through (negative but natural) character development after Chapter 1. He takes on a fully aggressive persona so that he's not seen as someone that can be easily killed off, the more intimidating the better. If he's seen as all bark no bite cowards, then he'll be an easy target. The cowardness is replaced by more anger and now the anger isn't funny now since we see it negatively affecting both the rest of the cast and Ace himself. He loses the role as comic relief by going through his natural character development. He subverts the trope by getting proper development, which leads to him losing the role entirely.

Whit subverts the trope by fully admitting that he's trying to be it. In Episode 4 of Chapter 1, Whit talks about how his constant joking is just him trying to lighten the mood. Whit wants to find a way to make the others happy, or at the very least lessen the stress they have because of the current situation they're in. He does this by joking and teasing. Whit subverts the trope by admitting he's trying to be the trope.

Both Whit and Ace subvert the same trope in vastly different ways, which are both effective for both of them. This does lead me to a question. Why does Whit do this? Well…

Part 3 - Goals vs Motive, actions, and what differentiates Whit and Hu:

When discussing characters' popularity, Hu and Whit are basically opposites. Whit, as mentioned earlier during the intro, is one of the most popular characters in the DRDT fandom. Hu, on the other hand, has gained a distaste by a majority of DRDT fandom because of how she's acted during the course of Chapter 2. This is very interesting, since the two are fairly similar. This is probably surprising to many, since the two seem so, so different. Hu is a serious mom friend, while Whit is a jokester.

I won't deny their differences, but what makes them similar is actually really important. The biggest similarity between the two is their goal. "Help the others through the killing game". This goal is special to these two because while the others are all (mostly) actively trying to find a way to either get out or end the killing game. These two don't though. They don't make any active attempts to find a way to or escape like the others, or their attempts are way more subtle than everyone else. So, if they have the same goal, why do they go about it so differently? Motive. A goal is what a character wants, a motive is why your character wants to achieve their goal.

We already know Hu's motive. Her motive is feeling useful. I'll discuss it more whenever I get to making a Hu analysis, but Hu has self-worth issues, making her believe that if she isn't doing some then she is completely useless. The idea of being useless seems to scare her. The reason Hu wants to help the other through the killing game is because it will make sure she isn't useless. Her actions to achieve her goal are by giving all her love to certain people, since she's aware that she can give equal love to everyone. She'll do whatever it takes to keep those certain people safe and happy, even excusing their bad actions. She plays favorites so that there will always be someone that finds her useful.

Whit is very different in regard to motive, since we don't really know fully what it is yet. We can make assumptions, but we can't be fully sure yet. Our best answer currently is simply, nobody can. This leads me to the next section…

Part 4 - Whit's calm persona, and it's relation to his motive:

Whit likes to make others happy. Whit also likes to help others. I believe these two traits heavily influenced his persona. Whit doesn't show emotion. We've seen happiness, concern, surprise, regret, confusion, and neutrality. He legit says "Jeez" after watching Min's execution in Episode 12 of Chapter 1, which is very tame compared to the others. Then he says, and I quote, "Oops" after seeing Arei's dead body in Episode 8 of Chapter 2. That is not a normal/socially (and morally for that matter) appropriate response to a dead body. What does this mean? Well, Whit doesn't show a real hint of sadness, or what he has is a very closed off version. Why does this point matter? Well, Whit is doing what nobody in the cast can. Whit is able to be a kind while being a reasonable/neutral force in the killing game. Hu and Eden, while kind, are both easily swayed by their emotions. Whit is less swayed by emotions like that and is shown to be logical when it counts. Like when he reminded David that they only knew Xander for a few days, so there was no real way of knowing if how Xander acted was in or out of character during the scrum debate in Episode 8 of Chapter 1. Whit can manage the role of a jokester and calm person very well. However, his calm side has grown a lot over the killing game.

Whit has always been generally calmer compared to a majority of this cast. You can take his dialogue after the killing game was revealed during Episode 5 of the Prologue as an example. However, his persona is something growing in intensity over the course of the series. When Min was executed, Whit showed off at least some form of sympathy, compared to when Arie died. He barely acknowledges her death, focusing much more on comforting Eden. This is all odder considering that while he and Arei didn't always see eye to eye, he still had more connections to her than Min from what saw. While everyone else slowly descends into madness, Whit just keeps amplifying his calm persona.

How does this relate to his motive? At the very least, for Chapter 2, Whit's motive is something along the lines, "Because someone has to". Whit likes helping others. If he doesn't help the others through the game, literally nobody else will. Mainly because this cast is extremely mentally unwell. Also, having a goal and motive doesn't mean they'll be good at achieving said goal. Whit hasn't been particularly helpful despite his efforts, but I'll explain why this is a little later. Anyway, if you compare Whit and Hu's motive to help others, then it makes sense why they're so different. It also explains why Whit is more easily likable compared to Hu. Neither of them are bad, not by a long shot, but we still have to wait for more of both. I would like to move into my next section, since this section does reference something in there…

Part 5 - Whit's ability to see the best in others:

This is one of Whit’s lesser known traits, which is so odd because this trust is seen so much in his character. Whit’s main relationship is with Charles. He and Whit have lots of interactions. Like during the Prologue, where half of Charles’ introduction is him and Whit. Or during Chapter 1, where the pairs' friendship begins to develop. And Chapter 2, where we get to watch their friendship fully develop. At the start, both of them disliked each other. Charles disliked Whit for his jokester person and how often Whit would use him as an object for humor, which didn’t mix well with how much Charles hates being looked down upon. Meanwhile, Whit didn’t like Charles for his very rude and arrogant personality, which make sense considering how much of Whit’s persona(s) are based around being kind to others. What happens in Chapter 1 is what I’d like to discuss in relation to the topic of this section.

During Chapter 1, Xander tries to pin the blame on Charles by using Charles’s hemophobia. Charles’ phobia makes him breakdown when he sees gory or dead bodies because of his unresolved childhood trauma. After Charles gets lured into seeing Teruko’s dead body and runs away, he ends up running into Whit, who was in the cafeteria, mid-breakdown. At first, Whit assumes that Charles is messing with him, but ends up realizing he wasn’t. Whit ends up making the choice to stay and help out Charles. Levi brings up in Episode 9 of Chapter 1 that Charles could have been faking it. In a game where any wrong moves can lead to your death, Whit decision to stay and help could’ve gotten him killed if Charles had been. Yet Whit choice to stay, ignoring his own opinions about Charles at that point, decided to see the best in him. He chose to see the best in Charles despite only really having his intuition as a reason.

To continue this point, I’d like to bring up Teruko and David. Teruko is fairly straight forward, as during the dressing room scene in Episode 2 of Chapter 2, Whit says he doesn’t think Teruko or anyone else in the cast is a bad person. We get a small look into Whit’s thought process. He believes that, despite everyone acting callously, they aren’t bad people. They are human. They are just human with emotions and weaknesses, and that’s fine with him. He believes, even when Teruko herself doesn’t, that there is still a good person in her. That despite the current asshole she is being, she is still a good person, even if it’s a little deeper inside. This thought process also relates to how he handles David. Whit is the one who had David’s secret. David’s secret is, “You exist to manipulate others, others exist to be manipulated.” It is very hard to see this secret and believe whoever it’s about isn’t a bad person. But Whit having it actually makes this makes sense. Whit, much like Hu, likes to see the best in others. Unlike Hu, however, Whit keeps this fact to himself unless he’s having a moment of vulnerability. It isn’t hard to believe that he, despite how obvious the secret is, convinced himself that David wasn’t a bad person. Hell, we get some confirmation of this during Episode 11 of Chapter 2, when after David’s real personality is reveled, Whit makes a certain comment. “I was keeping that secret out of concern for your career. But if this is how you really act, then your career might be in trouble for reasons out of my control.” A majority of the fandom think he’s lying, and I won’t deny the possibility, but I feel like we should look at this comment from more than one angle. If we bring up the idea of him believing that the secret was simply worded badly, then it’s no wonder he of all people wouldn’t wanna take that risk. I don’t think anybody would want to ruin someone's whole career based on a secret that could be purposely worded badly. “...reasons out of my control”, this quote basically confirms that if David hadn’t gone insane in Episode 11, then Whit would have blamed himself for David’s career. Whit is a caring person, so this idea is very plausible.

If it was anyone else, then the idea would be unlikable, but it’s not unbelievable if you consider Whit’s character so far. A person who cares for others and has risked his life holding onto the idea of seeing the best in them. Whit is the only character who would hide a secret like that. Since I brought up Charles, Teruko, and David, that brings me to a different section…

Part 6 - Gaining importance through others:

This section should be fairly brief. Whit, while has not really been a major player, keeps having connections to characters who are. If most had to assign the DRDT cast cliché Danganronpa roles, then it tends to go Teruko is the protagonist (obviously), Charles is the support (stretching but okay), and David is the antagonist. Whit, as mentioned in the section before, is connected to all three. However, that isn’t all when it comes to his connections to major characters (this wouldn’t be a section if that was the case). Let me bring up Eden, Arei, and Hu. Whit has come to Eden’s defense twice now. First in Episode 5 of Chapter 1, when Arei and Arturo are insulting the cake which she was actually really proud of. Whit makes a joke about how cake=birthday song, which is able to distract the group from the insults and everyone becomes much less hesitant about eating the cake. Then in Episode 9 of Chapter 2, he buys Eden some time, since Teruko was asking about the note (that made Eden super suspicious), by bringing up the alibis. In Episode 1 of Chapter 1, we get to see that Whit and Arei were investigation partners. It’s not big, but is still a point of connection. Finally, he and Hu had a a fairly long talk about the killing game during the dressing room scene during Episode 2 of Chapter 2.

Whit keeps being given importance because of his connections with major players in Chapter 2. No matter how big or small. I honestly don’t have a good translation to the next section, so…

Part 7 - He is very different compared to the rest:

Whit handles most stuff in a very special way. Firstly, while a majority of this cast will become aggressive or start fighting with each other. Whit, however, is very different compared to the others in this case. Whit will make passive-aggressive or sarcastic comments. He is also very conflict avoidant, which will be dissected later for reasons. And second, his method of investigation. Compared to the majority of the cast, who go the logical route of investigating the body and scene of the crime in depth, then investigating other areas. Whit is one of the three character (the others being Charles and Rose) who don’t examine the body. This is odd considering that Whit doesn’t really seem to have a reason to not too, I think I know why, but it will have to be talked about a little later (I'm sorry, but this is the last time I promise). Anyway, as mentioned earlier, Whit is a very calm person. His type of calm (yeah type) is different from that of Hu or Veronika. Hu is calm but is very easily angered by her situation and constantly struggles to keep composure. Veronika is much more similar, but unlike Whit, Veronika finds joy in their situation. She finds the killing game fun and interesting, completely fine with her situation. She’s only calm because she doesn’t find the danger frightening. She’ happy because she hates being bored. Whit is only calm because, as mentioned many times, he had to be. Someone has to be calm and kind during their situation. One is more selfish than the other, and that makes them different. All the talk about Whit’s differences reminds me of one thing that only her has…

Part 8 - Whit’s intuition:

Before I get into Whit’s intuition, I want to talk about what intuition actually is. Intuition are just gut feelings. They are ideas that, while there i no logical reason to believe it, you just feel like you do. Whit’s intuition has been mentioned during Episode 4 and 9 of Chapter 1 and during his and Charles’ FTE. He claims, using his intuition, that one day, Teruko will be happy, that Charles isn’t faking the breakdown he is/was having, and that one day him and Charles were going to be friends. His intuition hadn’t been mentioned once through the first part of Chapter 2. I think this mostly because of the calm persona, He has to be more logical. This doesn’t mean his emotions won’t influence situations, but now he had to try to rationalize his decisions based on those emotions. He can’t just say it’s his intuition anymore, not with how the group is currently.

I still don’t have a good way to transition so let’s just-

Part 9 - Whit’s social life and conflict avoidance:

Whit isn’t a fan of fights, unless it for the sake of someone else. In Episode 2 of Chapter 2 (it’s a great scene okay), Hu and Whit are discussing how much the Mastermind knows about them. Teruko, being Teruko, finds a way to twist it into distrusting others. Whit then makes one of his passive-aggressive comments towards her. Then, only a little while later, Teruko is equally rude when Whit tries to call her a good person, and this time Whit keeps quiet. Whit won’t argue with someone unless what that other person is doing negatively effects others. His conflict avoidance is seen during Episode 4 of Chapter 2, where he refuses to try and break up any of the fights. His reasoning is that his talent isn’t couple counseling, therefore he can’t be the one to break up any of the fights. This is an excuse that Charles quickly shuts down. So yeah, Whit doesn’t like conflict, which is probably part of why he became a jokester in the first place, but we’ll come back to this though after the next section. Speaking of the next section…

Part 10 - The 4th wall (and finding information):

Whit is the character that shows the most awareness of the 4th wall. In Episode 8 of Chapter 1, Whit legit tells the audience to pause to read the list, since it would be useful. There is no way that he was directing that at the cast, since they can’t fuckin’ pause their lives. Then in Episode 10 of Chapter 2, Whit breaks the 4th wall, but in a far more subtle way. Whit says he doesn’t remember which secret Eden got, which leads to us, the audience, to be shown the list. Whit gave us a direct way to relook at the secret list, which is very weird since he could have just looked up and silently read the list. Something that Ace points out (kind of). Whit is the only character to show this much awareness of us, The weird thing is why would Whit want to help us? We’re the whole reason that he and the rest of the cast are stuck there, dying for our entertainment. So why would he want to help us? This is a question we’ll have to wait for an answer, since even I’m not sure yet. A downside of only being through half of the 2nd Chapter.

This section is the one I brought up earlier during Part 9, and will be connecting some of the mysterious points I didn’t expand upon earlier…

Part 11 - How does his backstory influence him:

You’ve probably noticed that despite his backstory being brought up first, I haven’t given it much though since. This is because I believed we all need a better understand of Whit before I could describe how his backstory affected all of what we’ve discussed. Before that, however, there is one part left.

If you remember, I said that Whit was a lonely kid. Along with what I said earlier in the backstory section this is also because of his talent and love life. Whit’s talent is something others have to pay for, mentioned in the Q&A earlier. He sets other people up as a way to earn money, which begs the question of why Whit took up the talent in the first place. Since we don’t have a proper answer yet, so we’re going to move one, just keep that as food for thought. Anyway, Whit is said to have a pretty bad romantic life despite his talent. He apparently just can’t find a partner, despite his efforts. This isn’t all that surprising when you consider that Whit isn’t all that socially competent at times. It’s hard to describe, so well use examples instead. During the FTE, Whit is shown to be completely shocked at Charles’ anger toward him. Whit hadn’t even considered the idea that the stuff he did earlier could be seen as negative. Even when it’d probably become obvious to anyone else at that point. Then, during the Computer Lab scene during Episode 7 of Chapter 2, Whit makes a dark joke about Min’s death in front of Teruko and doesn’t even think of the bad implication till Charles points it out to him. He is able to apologize and fix those behaviors, which is an interesting pattern of behavior. Not understanding a wrong till someone points it out to you, and then you improve it. Unless you point it out to Whit, he probably won’t notice the problem. I think these behaviors say a lot about his past and it’s effects on him.

Whit’s past would explain his social incompetence at times. His father wasn’t there to be a good example and his mom probably wasn’t there for his teen years, which is a huge time for development in minors. This leads to him not having the proper role-models.

(This is an off section, but I felt the need to bring it up. Whit is biracial, Asian American, American/Chinese, a race that faces a lot of discrimination in America. The DRDT creator is very well versed in his research of the topic and ideas he handles. Ace is a lovely example, including the higher chances of anxiety and chances for eating disorders they have. I won’t say I know anything, but I wouldn’t completely discard the idea of him facing discrimination in the past.)

So yeah, Whit was a lonely kid, why does it matter? It matters because if he is as much of a former loner as mentioned, then that would also explain why Whit keeps people-pleasing. (I think there is a want for acceptance, but a struggle to believe that it’s possible without the personas.)

His backstory also explains his seeing the best in others' mindset. People tend to think that the only way to look at negative events in life is through negativity, but that’s wrong. When you have nothing, then you’ll leach onto anything to hold onto, like optimism. This idea was used in the canon Danganronpa games with Nagito, and I think a similar principle is shared with Whit. Whit probably attached onto something positive because he literally had nothing else. Optimism, in that case, is the easiest answer. Whit deals with life, and the killing game by trying to find the good. Whit's life might not be great, but that doesn't mean he has to see it that way. It's probably why he keeps omitting the fact about his mother's death. Why look back on the past when there is so much left to do in life. He probably thinks this is what she would've wanted, based on his idolization of her.

This all brings me to my last section…

Part 12 - His belief in privacy:

Whit is very adamant in respecting others' privacy. In Episode 1 of Chapter 2, Whit brings up the idea that everyone keeps the secrets to themselves until they have more time to work through it properly. This gets ignored by Arturo, who does it anyway. I've already gone into depth talks about privacy with Charles and David. What I wanna talk about is why Whit is so big on it. Because that is a question we haven't gotten an answer to. Why? Well, while I'm not sure, I think it has something to do with his past.

I have also lost my mom, like Whit. When I lost my mom, people wouldn't stop questioning me about it. Whit described his mom as sophisticated, so that makes me think she could've been fairly known in the community. Whit probably had a lot of strangers question him about it, despite his feelings about it. Mix this with Whit's pleasing other mentality, then his adamantly about respecting others' privacy. This is the only part of his mentality that goes against his more logical character. Charles even says he gave Teruko the secret he had because he wouldn't trust Whit to sacrifice someone's' privacy when it's necessary. Charles has a strong understanding of Whit's, so I'd trust him. This is the only part of Whit that he never changes, even when he has different personas on. It's consistent.

This concludes the final section to this analysis, so onto the conclusion.

Conclusion:

Whit is a character that gets overlooked by a majority of the fandom despite being pretty much universally loved. His past is so much more than what we've seen or is talked about. His caring nature is something that has so much hidden depths. And, unless he is the Chapter 2 killer, there is so much left to find about Whit.

---

(Thanks for reading. Again, sorry if it's a bit all over the place. I hope I could shed some more light on Whit's character for ya'll. Have a good day/night.)

#danganronpa despair time #drdt #drdt spoilers #drdt whit #whit young #fanganronpa #drdt fanart

[communistkenobi]

ive never seen any star trek stuff before i started watching tos recently, and ive been liking it a lot but the level to which i like it is definitely not proportional to how good i think it is. like its good but its also kinda shit in a lot of ways, they had kirk say the gender binary is a universal constant, most of kirks Blonde Love Interests Of The Week show zero agency in the romance or sometimes the plot in general, they constantly defy the "dont fuck with alien cultures" rule bc Other Cultures Are Weird And Need Us To Fix Them, and also its just kinda dumb sometimes! i like it mostly because A) the character dynamics are really fun and B) i love seeing the 60s bleed through the script and getting to psychoanalyze the writer based on the thematic storytelling ("this is about the cold war. this is also about the cold war. this is- yup you guessed it the cold war, theyre feeling anxious about nukes again this week. this ones about the writer hating religion. this ones about integration. surprise twist this ones an implicit criticism of solitary confinement. this ones about the cold war again but this time its a really weird but ballsy take"), but its still very much a show from the 60s written by incredibly flawed people so of course its going to be flawed? its been interesting to watch it as a shadow on the cave wall of american politics from that era and ive been having fun but idk why anyone would try and say its not politically fucked in a lot of ways. like its fine you can like this old show and also admit that the writers were not actually all that enlightened about colonialism

I really really like the show! and honestly I genuinely like that it’s openly a piece of American Cold War propaganda, I think it’s very interesting and entertaining as a living historical artefact. I’m less interested in critiquing any one part of it because I feel like the misogyny and orientalism and ableism and etc are not flaws grafted onto an otherwise uncompromised whole, they are an integral part of what tos is and what its place is in the broader popular culture. Like I do not think you can subtract any of those qualities and keep tos enact at the end it, because those gendered and racial and abled assumptions are baked into it, as they are in a lot of sci-fi. And I find the reactionary and bigoted elements just as compelling as the good parts, not because they don’t offend my political sensibilities but because I want to appreciate “the whole text” for what it is and what it does. For me they aren’t things to be ignored or blocked out, they are part of how I enjoy the show and how I understand it as a piece of art.

obviously nobody is required to engage with it in the same way, and if those things are deal-breakers (or even if you want to ignore them) then that is completely fine, I’m not your dad etc, but I think part of why I’ve been getting so much pushback from people about bringing these things up is because they are primarily invested in it as a character drama with the word “socialist utopia” pasted on top of it, and so they are engaging with tos is an idealised expression of their political values. Which isn’t novel, that is like the default mode of engagement with art online (and I am not exempting myself from this), but if you bring up the racism or colonialism or misogyny most people invoke “but it’s socialist!” as a blanket defense, as if that’s at all responsive to any of those descriptions of the show.

anyway I ALSO really like the show as character drama, legitimately Kirk and Spock are really fun characters and I’m very invested in them individually, but my main enjoyment of Star Trek is that it’s American mid-century space-race propaganda, and a lot of it is deeply reactionary as a direct consequence

#asks

[splat20]

Another part of Icewind Dale that's been fucking grueling so far though... Ngl a part of me is actually fascinated by the historical fantasy worldbuilding done by A Certain Kind Of History Dude who clearly has no idea how history has ever actually worked. The hoops they jump through to convince you that history has never been what might be called "political" is, in its own way, kind of impressive.

Conflict has never been about stuff like colonialism, it's all about nebulous human themes like Tradition. Conflict is about Economy and Economy never involves anything like class or culture. Only trout. The entire machinations of this society revolves ONLY around trout. (I'm now genuinely harping about the trout, it's just really dumb ok.) Conflict is about different groups just being fundamentally different, usually with a clear evil one. Conflict is about all groups being greedy about THEIR FUCKING TROUT because it's just a nebulous human condition to be greedy. Racist also. And poor people are just poor because they aren't ambitious, as a little aside.

It's so...... ashistorical but also deeply uncurious about our own actual real life world right now.

So many "high" fantasy books are like this. The Certain Kind Of History Dudes have too much power in this genre. They get praised for their worldbuilding and it's just the most shallow understanding of how anything works ever.

And more nefarious is the way this seemingly innocent ignorance so quickly and easily justifies stuff like "well, it's totally chill for good guys to kill bad guys... because they're from a bad guy society." Drizzt will tie himself in knots if he has to kill the worst human you can possibly imagine, but swats down random orcs no problem. The way that seemingly creates no cognitive dissonace at all for these writers needs to be studied in a lab. It's all fun and games when we're talking about monsters, but then you think about how that translates into the real world using the exact same mechanisms and that isn't fun at all is it? The ways racist men can tell themselves they are good people follows similar mental gymnastics. Why are "humans" deserving of infinite grace and forgiveness even at their most evil but "orcs" are understood to be inherently a lost cause? Why really? What is that mechanism really? It's been particularly egregious as I'm trying to slog my way through The Crystal Shard because, like, we can generously say that the "barbarians" are based on vikings, but ngl all I'm getting from this dynamic is Salvatore playing "cowboys and indians" but with white people. The general underlying vibes... And maybe that's what I'm trying to get at with what I'm describing in the fantasy races too. If you take off the mask, it all just feels like "cowboys and indians." A trope so deeply embedded in American genre fiction which has always just been incredibly racist this whole time.

These books are such whiplash because unfortunately I do love the characters but boy I wish I could save them from these books sometimes. The Crystal Shard has been soooo much worse than the other books so far imo, so I'm hoping the series chills tf out again generally.

#this has soured my enjoyment considerably but unfortunately i am cursed with investment at this point #jarlaxle come back #everything's going to shit without you babygirl #also where is catti brie tbh #i feel like catti brie isn't in this book because if she was she'd just be like 'everything happening here is macho and stupid' #im just saying maybe we didnt need wulfgar at all and you couldve just given the cool hammer to your daughter just saying #legend of drizzt #racism cw #fantasy racism cw

[ilikethisacompletelynormalamount]

It feels like Andrew Scott and Paul Mescal are lifelong friends, even though they insist their bond formed while working together on All of Us Strangers, the new drama from Looking and Weekend filmmaker Andrew Haigh.

On a Friday afternoon in Los Angeles in November, the pair remain in their own world. A cacophony of publicists and camera operators swirl around them, in the thick of a string of media interviews, but Scott, 47, and Mescal, 27, sit calmly shoulder-to-shoulder in a press room having their own private, whispered conversation. It's difficult to make out, which only makes you want to know what they're saying that much more. And when you pry, they shrug it off.

Perhaps this was what Haigh was talking about when he said, during an awards-season Q&A for the American Film Institute, that the three of them went to a concert in London together and his actors "completely ignored" him most of the day. "We didn't!" Scott insists. "That's not true," Mescal adds, laughing. "That's a little bit of hyperbolic directorial license," Scott says. "We need to have a word with him." *

*(emphasis entirely mine, because, seriously Andrew Haigh, wtf was that interview)

It's no wonder the internet has fallen for the bond between these Irish gents, fawning over photos of Mescal attending Scott's birthday party at a club.* The pals say they only knew of each other "a little bit" prior to All of Us Strangers, but "not as well as we know each other now," Scott quips — alluding to the sex scenes they shot together for the movie. "We know everything. The whole kit and caboodle!" However, once people see the film — part romance, part ghost story — it's their emotional bond they forge on screen that stands out... and often leads to overt sobs from the audience.

*(a club that was definitely NOT in Spain, no matter what you may have read on Twitter, just so we're clear. It was also the wrap party for Vanya, which had just ended that evening in London, so unless he has super powers, Spain's not possible. Also, Andrew was surrounded by other friends and practically everyone involved in the play, not there with just Paul FFS. Sorry, sorry, carry on. )

...

Scott and Mescal joke how it was their Irish heritage that helped them understand what Haigh was going for. "The means to express is something that we as a culture are still processing," Mescal says. "I think that's why Irish actors, generally speaking, are good at playing the stuff beneath the surface. A good healthy dose of repression helps the ol' acting." The connection these actors forge through performance is palpable. It was a surprise even to them how affected the audience became when they attended their first public screening of All of Us Strangers in Los Angeles earlier in the week. "I was balling," Scott recalls. "We had to do a Q&A afterwards. I was really emotional."

...

"To play being in love or falling in love with someone, it's the best, completely wonderful thing to be able to do," Scott says. "We were starting to get to know each other [as people], as well. Beyond our preliminary friendship, it was like both of those experiences were coexisting."

This was a very good article, you should absolutely click through and read it all so that EW knows that we are interested in this film and these actors!

(Thank you for indulging my asides, I just had some things I needed to get off my chest 😆)

#andrew scott #paul mescal #all of us strangers #andrew haigh #entertainment weekly #jamie bell #claire foy #his beautiful smile #fucking spain *incoherent grumbling*

[punkass-diogenes]

Zionism isn't what people think it is (it's worse)

Note: this was not written by me. It was taken from here.

I often get the impression that most people discussing the Israel-Palestine issue have done very little research into the history of Zionism, the history of Palestine, the history of the Jewish Diaspora, or the history of the State called Israel (henceforth called Medinat Israel). It can lead to very frustrating discussions where nobody seems to understand why the other side won't agree with them or change their mind or even empathize with the other position in the slightest.

You often encounter liberal American Jews who say things like "I am a Zionist, but I oppose the occupation, and the Likud government, and believe in separation of religion and State, and support equal rights for Palestinians, and even right of return of Palestinians... but I'm a strong Zionist like I really believe in Zionism" and it begs the question "what do you think Zionism means then?" Likewise, you sometimes encounter anti-zionists, like myself, who seem to have no idea why so many Jewish people moved to Palestine, or why these holocaust survivors keep electing fascists, and then we'll say ignorant things like "they should all move back to Europe" which basically immediately tells whoever is listening that you have no idea what you're talking about.

For a full-disclosure, I'm an anti-zionist, I do not believe in Zionism. I think Zionism is the golden calf of our day and has turned many Jews away from Judaism and towards a fascist nationalist worship of the State. I think Medinat Israel is an awful racist apartheid state and needs to be abolished and replaced with a secular bi-national state with equal rights for all and a right of return for Palestinians in diaspora, and that the funds used for Aaliyah programs should be diverted to helping any Palestinians who return to re-settle in the new state, ideally on their original lands which had been taken from them only a generation or two ago. I also believe in freedom of movement, that is unethical to displace someone from the place where they were born, and that there should be no enforced demographic proportions or attempts to affect who has the majority at any give time. I even think it's maybe possible for a one-state solution to still provide a safe refuge for Jews fleeing persecution in very hostile countries without privileging Jews over Palestinians; though right now I think it honestly makes more sense for us to encourage them to settle in like, New Jersey, which is honestly objectively safer for Jewish refugees than an active war zone like Palestine.

And that last part might confuse some people. How can you be an anti-zionist and also believe that Palestine can be a safe refuge for Jewish refugees? and that would be because most people don't understand what Zionism means.

Terminology

Here's some terminology:

B'nei/Beney Yisrael: This means "The Sons of Israel" and has referred to the Jewish people for thousands of years. In many languages, this is just what you call Jews. Yisrael/Israel, on its own, for thousands of years, just meant "All the Jewish People." In Jewish liturgy, any time "Yisrael" shows up it's not referring to the Land of Israel and certainly not the State of Israel, it just means "The People called Yisrael."

Bene Yisrael: This refers specifically to the Jewish diaspora in India and Pakistan, the many Jews who, upon being expelled from Judea by the Romans, headed east and settled in the Indian subcontinent. After the partition of India and the movement of Pakistan and India towards being states defined by being Muslim or Hindu, most Bene Yisraeli Jews feared persecution and moved to Medinat Israel, the US, or other British Commonwealth countries.

Benai Yisrael: This spelling generally refers to Samaritans, who are a different ethnoreligious group in the Levant region, mostly Ha'aretz Yisrael, who were never expelled and do not consider themselves Jewish though they do claim to also be descendants of the ancient Israelites, just a different tribe than the ones who became the Jews.

Bnei Isro'il: This refers specifically to the Jewish diaspora in a part Central Asia that is now within Uzbekistan, they are a subset of Mizrahi Jews called the Bukharan Jews. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union shit got really difficult for them and most of them moved to Medinat Israel or to the United States.

Beta Israel: This refers specifically to the Jewish diaspora in Ethiopia, who have always faced a lot of racism from other Jews and were more separate from the other diaspora groups because of it, thus their version of Judaism is more different than Ashkenazi or Sephardic Judaism (though it's still very much valid Judaism!!). This racism is, of course, because Beta Israeli Jews are Black. Ethiopia was kind of a rough place to live what with WWII and the famine and the wars, so Beta Israel actually was really interested in leaving Ethiopia more-so than most other diaspora groups. The Ethiopian government, however, for a long time, prohibited Jews from emigrating from Ethiopia. During the Ethiopian Civil War in the late 20th century, things got worse, with the Ethiopian government becoming increasingly hostile to the Jewish population in retaliation for horrible human rights abuses enacted by Medinat Israel, even though the Jews in Ethiopia had nothing to do with it what since they were living in Ethiopia and not allowed to leave the country by the same government attacking them. In response, Medinat Israel evacuated nearly the entire Beta Israel community to Palestine through an elaborate MOSSAD operation; and since then, some have moved to the United States. Once in Medinat Israel, they have faced lots of racism including coerced sterilization by the government; with many Beta Israeli women saying that they were told by immigration officials they would not be allowed to immigrate unless they agreed to being injected with a long-term contraceptive drug.

Ha'aretz Yisrael: This refers specifically to The Land of Israel, regardless of who is living there now or what the current government is. It's where the Kingdom of Israel from the TaNaKh supposedly was though the exact borders are under dispute. It's also where we all originated, albeit over 1800 years ago (and you can tell by looking at us that all of us are of mixed heritage now, no matter what anyone claims). This land traded hands between various empires constantly who all liked to change the name, so Jews just refer to it as Ha'aretz Yisrael rather than trying to keep up with what we're calling it these days according to whoever most recently conquered it. Traditionally, there is a prophecy that someday in the distant future, when there is no more war or hunger, a messiah will come who will lead all the Jews in diaspora back to Ha'aretz Yisrael and then all the dead will come back to life and everyone will be immortal and it's basically the closest thing Judaism has to an afterlife; and most Jews don't even believe this anymore. Some Jews believe that we explicitly should not preempt this and should avoid living in Ha'aretz Yisrael before the messiah comes.

Medinat Yisrael: This means "The State of Israel" and refers specifically to the government, the State, that has been established in Palestine, which named itself "Israel." It didn't ask us all if we wanted them to use the name that traditionally referred to the entire ethnic group as the name of their government but that's what they decided to do and now we're stuck with it. More abstractly, it can refer to the idea of "A Jewish State" of a non-specific location, it just so happens that the one that exists is also in Palestine.

Israelis: People who have been born in Medinat Israel, or have become Israeli Citizens through immigration, regardless of if they are Jewish or not. This includes Israeli Arabs and Israeli Palestinians.

Israelites: The ancient people of the Kingdom of Israel as featured in the TaNaKh who Jews, Samaritans, the Banu Israil Muslim community in Uttar Pradesh, the Knanaya Christians in Kerala, the Lemba people in Zimbabwe and South Africa, some Pashtuns, some British Nationalists, some French Nationalists, some Scandinavian Nationalists, some Kurds, some Japanese Nationalists, the Black Hebrew Israelites in the United States, and the Mormons in the United States all claim ancestry from. Genetic testing has shown evidence that Jews and Samaritans (discounting recent converts) probably do actually share a common ancestor that lived where the Kingdom of Israel was around that time but like, that's so long ago we really can't say anything for certain.

Sabra (pl. Sabrim): Jewish people who have been born in Medinat Israel; which is what a lot of people mean to refer to when they say Israeli.

Aliyah: When a Jewish person immigrates to Medinat Israel, they call it "making aliyah." Someone who has made aliyah becomes an Israeli but not a Sabra.

Anyway, that's all super easy to remember right? So here's the misconception: Many people believe that Zionism is the belief that B'nei Yisrael should live in Ha'aretz Yisrael but actually Zionism is the belief that B'nei Yisrael should live in Medinat Yisrael, which happens to be located in Ha'artez Yisrael but it didn't necessarily have to be. Zionists, in turn, have helped Bene Israel, Bnei Is'roil, and Beta Israel emigrate to Medinat Yisrael (among others in B'nei Yisrael). Benai Yisrael was already in Ha'aretz Yisrael before the Zionists established Medinat Yisrael in Ha'aretz Yisrael. Simple, easy to remember.

Could You Please Say That Again in English

There is a misconception that Zionism is the belief that Jews from across the diaspora should all live together in the Land of Israel, AKA where Palestine is now. They might even think it's just the belief that the country called Israel should be allowed to exist at all, and that the Jews who live there should be allowed to continue living there. But that is not what Zionism is.

Zionism is the belief that Jews should live in a Jewish State, which is to say, a nation-state that is majority Jewish and controlled by Jews and only or primarily Jews1. It is explicitly and openly a colonialist venture. The Zionist movement originally didn't even care if the proposed Jewish State was in Palestine, although it was definitely always their top choice.

Theodor Herzl was the father of modern Zionism as we know it. In his manifesto, Der Judenstaat, Herzl talks about how establishing a Jewish state would be this magnificent replication of European colonialism and would elevate the Jewish people to the level of the Western Civilizations. He proposed that the Jewish state be established in.... Argentina! Well, he also proposed Palestine, but he thought Argentina might be more practical.

In fact, here's all the locations that Zionists proposed might be good places for The Jewish State to be established:

Grand Island, Erie county, New York

Uganda

Palestine

Argentina

Siberia

Crimea

Cyprus

Kenya

Manchuria

Madagascar

British Guiana

Ohio

Ethiopia

Tasmania

The Polish provinces that had previously been annexed by Russia

Jordan ("Eh, close enough to Palestine?")

Saudi Arabia

The Dominican Republic

Greece

Albania

Australia

Eastern Prussia/AKA what is now that weird exclave of Russia.

Kiryas Joel, New York

Quebec

Alaska

Vietnam, which was actually offered to David Ben-Gurion by Ho Chi Minh himself, which supposedly David Ben-Gurion dismissed by just saying "for obvious reasons, this was unacceptable."

G... Germany... Just... right in Germany... which I'm sure all the Jews would feel very safe doing.

There are many flavors of Zionism, certainly. Liberal Zionists believe in having a liberal democratic capitalism state. Religious Zionists who basically believe David Ben-Gurion was the aforementioned messiah. Labor Zionists who believe that the Judenstaadt should have socialist collective farming or something. The current flavor of Zionism that dominates Israeli politics and is the ideology of the ruling Likud party is Revisionist Zionism which believes first and foremost in having a strong military to defend the Jewish State, that "the ability to shoot" is the most important thing, and that the Jewish majority in the Jewish state must be maintained through violence in order to keep Jews safe. They are also territorial expansionists and believe that Medinat Israel and Ha'Aretz Yisrael should map 1:1 to the fullest extent, which is to say, they believe in annexing Palestine, and chunks of other neighboring countries as well. Likud also came into power by assassinating a sitting prime minister, which is cool. They'll claim that they're not responsible but the assassin was a member of the Likud party, so, like, take that as you will.

Let me be clear, all flavors of Zionism are colonialist ideologies, but the Revisionist Zionists are downright fascists. The Irgun, the armed militia that the Likud party grew out of, openly praised Adolf Hitler and said that they would only fight the Nazis because they are antisemitic and a threat to Jewish people, not because they disagreed with anything else that the Nazis were doing. They said that the anti-semitism of Nazism was the "shell" that they would discard, but they would keep the "Anti-Marxist Kernel" which they admired in Nazism. Here is a citation for this because I know many people might struggle to believe this, but it's in like the first thirty pages of this book.

I do not believe that all the Jews currently living in Medinat Israel should be deported, especially not the sabrim or the refugees whose entire communities moved there looking for a place where they wouldn't be persecuted. I think it's always wrong to displace people from where they were born, whether they be Jewish or Palestinian, and that it's important for people to accept refugees and immigrants. But I don't believe in Zionism, because I do not believe in a Jewish State. I do not believe in maintaining a Jewish majority. I do not believe in ethno-states or theocracy or ethnotheocracy. I do not believe Jews are entitled to owning all or any of Ha'aretz Yisrael and I do not believe Jews should be aspiring to replicate Western Colonialism. In fact, I believe that colonizing and displacing the Palestinian people from their land is morally wrong and contrary to the ethics of Judaism. Thus, I am anti-zionist.

Zionism is not believing it's OK for Jews to live in the State of Israel; or that it would be cool for Jews to live together in our ancestral homeland; it's believing that Jews should control a State of Israel as a privileged class with a unnaturally maintained majority. Zionists believe Jews will never be safe unless we control the government to exclusions of everyone else. I disagree. I think diversity is good and it's possible to live in harmony with other peoples. The Zionists disagree with me. I think they're racists and, these days? mostly fascists.

OK so, wait, how the hell do so many Jews believe in Zionism then? Most Jews are pretty anti-fascist given the whole holocaust thing, right?

Here's the thing that I think a lot of people miss. Most Jews living in Medinat Israel didn't really have a choice, and they have nowhere to go back to either. Before WWII, Zionism was not very popular. You can find so many historical documents of Jews making fun of Zionists as "wanting us to waste a lot of money and go die in the desert." Jews across the diaspora weren't exactly doing stellar but for most of them, they were living in society and the way the Zionist framed things (whether or not it was true) was that settling Ha'Aretz Yisrael was gonna be this whole colonial venture of building up new cities from scratch and working the land and farming and being survivalists and shit. When everything is already so precarious, why risk what you do have for a hypothetical thing that sounds exhausting and risky?

But in the mid-20th century, well, their hands were forced. The holocaust happened, and entire communities were wiped out. The Lithuanian village my great grandmother's family was from? After they left, the holocaust killed 100% of the Jews living there, and then the Soviet Union displaced all the Lithuanians, demolished all of the buildings, and just built an entirely new settlement with new people living there. In fact, they did this to the entire Marijampole metropolitan region. The Marijampole region as my great grandparents knew it is just gone. Lithuania once had some of the most Jews in the entire world, with some parts like Majiampole being super-majority Jewish. Of course the Jews in Marijampole didn't find Zionism particularly appealing, they already had their majority Jewish city, why build another one? In the year 2000, there were only 3600 Jews left in all of Lithuania. The city of Minsk in Belarus? It was once 55% Jewish, and no, Zionism wasn't very popular. The Nazis killed 90% of the Jews living in Minsk. The rest of the Jews all emigrated to Medinat Israel or the United States. Minsk is now less than 1% Jewish. Minsk is where my grandmother's parents had been born, but the Minsk they knew is gone entirely. After the Nazis killed all the Jews, and WWII destroyed most of the city, the Soviet Union basically just built an entirely new city and settled new people there who weren't Jewish.

And what were the Zionists doing at this time? They were evacuating refugees. When the Nazis are on your trail, you don't really ask where you're going. The Zionists said "Hey, looks like living in Europe isn't going so well for you, wanna come settle Palestine with us?" and the Jews of Europe said "SURE, FINE, GET ME THE FUCK OUT OF HERE, ASAP." Remember, the argument of the Zionists was "Jews will never be safe if they don't control the State" and now were extending their hand presenting themselves as the only way to escape the holocaust. Remember, also, that a lot of countries were refusing to take holocaust refugees, or setting very limited caps on how many they would take. The Zionists said "come here, all of you, no matter what."

A lot of the state-building the Zionists were doing was before the holocaust, and they were certainly building popularity the further they got along, but the holocaust was when their huge population boom happened, it was when they hit critical mass, it was when the majority of Jews came to sympathize with the Zionist project. The holocaust became the perfect example for the Zionists to use to argue that the Judenstaadt is necessary. This was a rhetorical trick. If you read Der Judenstaadt this was never the original concern of Herzl. Herzl believed that the Jewish State should be a technocracy run by corporations using Jewish immigrants as cheap loyal workers to turn a profit. But, hey, Herzl didn't foresee WWII.

Now, all that? That's just the Ashkenazi Jews and some Sephardic Jews. But let's talk about the Mizrahi Jews. The Mizrahim are the Jews who didn't travel too far from Jerusalem after the Romans expelled us. They lived in the Middle East, Central Asia, the Arabian Peninsula, Iran, Egypt, even Palestine (it's not like the Romans were still keeping us out forever.) Under most Muslim governments, Mizrahim were given the status "people of the book" and considered a sort of protected second-class citizen. While not as privileged as Muslim citizens, they were still able to attain a pretty comfortable and stable middle-class life. Again, why would Zionism appeal to you? Sure, you weren't top of the food chain, but life was fine enough.

But when Medinat Israel declared independence and started pushing out all the Palestinians, all the neighboring Muslim nations were outraged (and rightfully so!) Unfortunately, they retaliated against the Mizrahim who lived within their borders, who had nothing to do with Medinat Israel but were blamed for it anyway. Many Jews were downright expelled from these countries, or were forced to move to Medinat Israel through negotiated "population exchanges" where Medinat Israel deported thousands of Palestinians to neighboring countries who in turn deported an equal number of Jews to Medinat Israel. This is a violation of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

This same story is repeated throughout the world. Once the State of Israel was established, people could finally tell the Jews to "go back where you came from." Entire communities emigrated, whether to flee existing persecution, new persecution that is arguably the fault of the Zionists, or were just absolutely terrified of being next, after seeing what was happening in the rest of the world.

If you tell most Israeli Jews to "go back where they came from" the question they'll ask back is "and where exactly is that? Is that not here? Because those other people told me to go back where I came from and sent me here." They'll say "you're insane, why would I do that, did you see what happened to us there?" They'll say "The place I'm from doesn't exist anymore. It was destroyed. Everybody left. It's gone." They'll maybe even say "I'd love to, but I'm not allowed to."

Here's another way to think of it: The Israeli Jews are like a child who was beaten growing up and grows up to be violent and angry and to believe that being strong and intimidating is the only way to protect themselves. They are fiercely loyal to Medinat Israel because it took them in when they lost everything. They believe the fascist Likud narrative because to many of them, it is their own lived experience. They thought they would be safe, then they faced violence, and then they were forced to flee. Medinat Israel was the only guaranteed safe place to go. Perhaps you could try to emigrate to Canada or the United States but passage wasn't guaranteed and that would still be colonizing someone else's land. Medinat Israel guaranteed they would be brought in and even given help to settle. It was a deal they couldn't refuse. And besides, haven't the Jews always lived on someone else's land? Weren't they always unwanted wherever we went? What was different this time in that sense? How were Palestinians different from Germans or Ethiopians or Moroccans? The Zionists would say: "The difference is this time we are stronger than they are. This time we will be in charge."

And it is sad. It is horrible. It is tragic. It is miserable that so many people who have been the persecuted minority themselves would turn to becoming the oppressor. That victims of genocide and displacement would turn to genocide and displacement as what they believe is the way to protect themselves. And they are wrong, too. This is not necessary. The violence is not necessary and is evil. Palestinians and Jews have so much in common culturally, spiritually, even genetically. We could have lived together in peace and become the best of friends. If only the Zionists had been willing to live together in peace. But peace is not possible within their ideology. The Zionist ideology is inherently one of state violence. There is no way for one ethnic or religious group to control a state without persecuting a minority, and forcing them to remain a minority through violence. Zionism is the belief that Jews cannot be safe unless Jews have a monopoly on violence within a given region.

And what of the Jews in diaspora who support Zionism? The Americans and Canadians and Argentinians and Brits who do not wish to move to Medinat Israel but support it in everything it does uncritically? The younger Jews, the fourth or fifth generation immigrants, we don't have much attachment to whatever shtetl or city our families came from, it's easier for us to see the horrors and evils of Zionism for what it is. But for our grandparents and great grandparents, they remembered those shtetls and cities, they had family and relatives there, and they listened on the radio as all of those people died, as their old world was destroyed completely. Nobody wanted to talk about Marijampole or Minsk to me. They are gone. It's best not to ruminate on them. Jews have been displaced every generation with no attachment to where we were, I was told, so why does it matter.

To these Jews, Medinat Israel represents having one place in the entire world where the Jews are safe. One place that will always accept them as refugees if America or Canada or Argentina doesn't work out.

It is an unfortunate and tragic reality that most people will put their own safety and needs over the safety and needs of others when they feel that they are under threat. The place of empathetic breakdown is that at some point you say to the true Zionist "Don't you see that what you're doing to the Palestinians is wrong?" and the true Zionist says "Yes, it is wrong, and it is also necessary for us to survive and that is more important."

And they are wrong. Had the Jews fleeing to Palestine just treated the Palestinians with respect and dignity, as equals who deserved this land, as the owners of this land who had a right to it, then Jews would actually have been safer. Solidarity is safer than animosity. Palestine was a former British colony achieving independence for the first time in centuries. The Jews and Palestinians could have worked together to rebuild a new country based on mutual respect and dignity and solidarity.

But, alas, that is not their mentality. Their mentality is one of a beaten child. And so seventy years pass and you ask the American Jew living in the suburbs of New York "do you support the State of Israel? Are you a Zionist?" and they say "Uhh... I guess I'm a Zionist. I don't really know the history. But I want the Jews there to be safe, that's important to me. They shouldn't have to leave."

Zionism isn't just colonialism, it's worse, it's millions of historically persecuted people turning to fascism because of generational trauma. It demonstrates that just because someone is from persecuted minority, doesn't meant that violence and power can't corrupt them just the same.

Because the Zionists have convinced us that those are the only options, that co-existing is impossible, that friendship and solidarity across differences is impossible. Zionists created a narrative that if the Jews do not hold absolute power, then they'll have to leave. But it's not true. They are wrong. Peace is possible, if we can just believe in it, if we can loosen our grip on power, if we can be willing to pay reparations. I truly believe that that is possible.

In-turn, anti-zionism is not the belief that Jews shouldn't live in the Land of Israel. It's the belief that Jewish people shouldn't be trying to establish an ethno-state or replicate colonialism.

#zionism #israel #palestine #jewish

[zeldahime]

Highway to Pail Day 4

[Day 1] [Prev] [Next] @do-it-with-style-events

February 4: I don't trust trees. They're shady.

Pestilence was making her way through the countryside again, and it rather dampened Crowley's mood. The bloody blasted plague was sweeping through England, making it difficult and depressing to travel even for a demon who wasn't able to contract human diseases, since nobody but him knew that and revealing otherwise was likely to get him discorporated. There was also the matter of the damned (literally) horse, a great hulking black stallion that despised Crowley and was despised in return. Blackie had tried to throw Crowley twice in the last hour, and had only failed because Crowley had miracled himself to the saddle.

He had to go tempt someone in Hull, of all the godforsaken places. Surely just living in Hull was punishment enough; no need to bring eternity into it.

Since he was heading north anyway, he figured he might try to make it over to see how Manchester was coming along this decade, and since that made an extended trip, he checked to see if Aziraphale needed him to pick up anything while he was out.

"Ah, a new set of orders just arrived for me this morning!" Aziraphale had said, bustling over to his desk. "Well, let's see. I've a spot of divine ecstasy to deliver in Hull from the last set; I've been putting it off but you know the poor lady must deserve it: living in Hull is trial enough for the soul. Hmm, Plymouth--ah, American Plymouth rather--, Swansea, Geneva... oh, here, there's one in Lincolnshire as well, you'll like this one, dear. 'Divine inspiration to more accurate human understanding of the underlying laws of the universe," that's much more your area than mine I should think, natural sciences and all that."

It was indeed much more Crowley's area; he liked hanging out with scientists and philosophers, the kind of humans who asked clever questions about how the universe worked and why. Aziraphale always gave him the good divine inspirations, cloaking it in ignorance of the physical laws that had always been second-nature to Crowley, though Crowley knew Aziraphale had enough understanding to carry them out himself. It was one of the reasons the Arrangement worked so well, he thought; they did each other little favors like this, gave each other jobs that were a bit fun.

And so here Crowley was, fighting with a horrible horse in the middle of nowhere during a plague year looking for a sheep farm. This part was not fun. This part, to be very clear, totally sucked.

Thankfully, Aziraphale had already interpreted Heaven's shaky-at-best approximations at where things on Earth were actually located, and given Crowley an address and a decent map of the area, so he located the sheep farm -- Woolsthorpe Manor, the map said -- with little difficulty aside from Blackie's enmity and a general sense of unease and malaise in the air.

He dismounted, setting Blackie to graze and to behave himself under threat of being sold for meat and glue, and took a moment to case the place. Sheep and pastures; biggish house and a bunch of sheds; orchard with some fruit trees. Aziraphale's orders hadn't been very specific about how the intervention should be achieved, but there'd been some balderdash about natural beauty and the circular nature of God's Plan For Life On Earth, and Crowley noticed an apple tree on the edge of the orchard, near to a window; he bookmarked that thought.

The target was called "Yitzhak the Lizard" in Aziraphale's orders, so he and Crowley supposed he was most likely called Isaac, but the family living at Woolsthorpe Manor was called Ayscough. Crowley suspected it would take a bit of detective work to figure out which servant Isaac was, and was still deciding how to approach when a young man in his mid-twenties jumpscared him.

Introduced himself as Isaac Newton, too, so that solved that.

Using just a touch of a glamour to make his presence seem a bit more natural and less like a potential vector of disease, Crowley chatted with the young man for a good while. Isaac was the grandson of the widow Ayscough, a student at Trinity College, sent home due to the plague, interested in optics and the laws of motion and, more than anything else in the world, mathematics. He showed Crowley his notebook full of notations, letters with little dots over them equaling other letters, which Crowley couldn't follow, and explained the logic of it, which Crowley could. Heaven, he thought, had wanted Aziraphale to arrange a divine intervention into Isaac's mathematics, but Isaac had that well in hand already: it was well beyond what anyone else on Earth had thought up, and he was still a student.

As evening drew in, young Isaac invited Crowley to supper and shelter for the night, which he accepted politely, and to board Blackie in the stables, which he accepted with vicious glee. Making Blackie someone else's problem for a bit always put a little varnish on their souls while also relieving him of needing to lift a finger or deal with the damn horse.

As they passed through the orchard, Isaac ran his hand through the leaves of low-lying branches. A gardener yelled across the field not to disturb the apples, to which the young man just smiled.

Well. Crowley knew a thing or two about apples and Plans, and the kid had wondered why things move the way they do.

As they passed under a lovely straight Flower of Kent, Isaac Newton disturbed the leaves and a large, green, perfectly round apple miraculously imbued with insight into the observation that "things fall down" fell out of the tree and smacked into his skull.

As he stopped to rub his head while Crowley tried not to laugh at him, the young man asked: "I wonder how far an apple could fall? Not just from the tree, that is, but why not from as high as the moon?"

Crowley just smiled enigmatically, which Isaac took as encouragement, and mentally began drafting a memo for Aziraphale to send back up to Home Office.

---

Author's note:

Everything's as close to accurate to real life Isaac Newton and Woolsthorpe Manor as I could get it, except his personality (which I understand was curmudgeonly in his old age, but I have no idea about him as a youth) and the fact that he didn't *actually* have an apple fall on his head, probably. 1666 was indeed the year he first started developing both calculus and the law of gravitation.

I'm sorry for picking on Hull! I'm sure it's a lovely city. I chose it as the place Crowley was going for a temptation (and a divine ecstasy) because that's the place specifically called out as an example of the arrangement in the book, and so is Crowley getting free reign over Manchester (page 50 in my paperback). And hey, if he's already going north....

The actual pun didn't quite make it in, but hey! Trees!

#my writing #do it with style events #highway to pail #crowley #crowley good omens #good omens #good omens fanfiction #the arrangement #isaac newton

[numbknee]

Why do you think Kyman gets so much hate? I can understand some things about what people don’t like about it but some of the things they say, the harassment is so out of pocket. Especially on Tik Tok! It is like a battle ground out there and they all will shoot you down immediately if you SAY anything. I just wanna love Kyman without it seeming like a punishment 😭😭

Dude I totally feel you. It's so much easier to live and let live so I don't understand how these ppl have the energy to be so aggressively hurtful all the time. This has been said before ad nauseum but for god's sake, it's JUST a fucking tv show. I'm too old for this shit.

(longer explanation under the cut! like... extremely long lol I'm so sorry my thoughts about this have been building up for a while 😅)

I think the extremely aggressive kyman hate is a symptom of growing poor media literacy and the larger "purity culture" trend that's been present online for a while now. It's very reminiscent of American Evangelicalism or Puritanism, where members of the church have to follow a very specific set of rules for behaving and thinking and if you deviate from those rules in the slightest, you're shot down immediately by the community and shamed for being sinful and blasphemous, all to keep you on the "righteous path" and avoid burning in hell for eternity. This is why so many puritanical christians in the US hate themselves for doing what most of the world sees as normal behavior, and simultaneously force that self-hating worldview onto others to "save" them. (For example see this video by FD Signifier on youtube explaining how hardcore religious ppl/conservatives are doomed to be bad in bed because they see sex as "evil" when in reality it's a normal part of human behavior 😬 It's long but very good).

Though, it's important to note that ppl who think this way may not even be christian themselves, but the behavior is so pervasive in american culture that you absorb it even if you're not a puritanical christian. (for example, to quote Ian Danskin, athiests may think "I don't believe in god, but the god I don't believe in is Jehovah). Tons of the first generation of white USAmericans were exiled British puritans who were kicked out of their home country for essentially being self-righteous assholes and trying to force their shit worldview on everyone else lmao. And I think because so many online spaces are so USAmerican-centric, people from all over the world have started adopting that purity culture as well.

Now, South Park is extremely popular (duh). It's been around for decades so it has a ton of fans both old and new. Unfortunately a lot of new fans, especially young people, follow the show for very different reasons than the average normie/not-terminally-online viewer does. They take the characters out of their original context, use them like dolls to make their own stories and fan content, and ignore all the other blatantly controversial shit that's been going on in the show since day 1 (which is why so many exclusively make blasé creek fanworks imo). They want to keep their thoughts "pure" and only engage with content that's approved by the puritanical online community

It's extremely fitting but also sad that Cartman is the scapegoat for everything wrong with South Park, both in the show and in the real world. Either ppl don't want to acknowledge he exists, or ppl latch onto him and project all of that puritanical hatred toward him or anyone that likes his character. Hell, even I'M guilty of this kind of thinking before I watched the show and understood Cartman's character better.

Kyman in particular is a target BECAUSE it involves Cartman, but also because people boil it down to shipping a nazi with a jew which, at the surface level, seems horrible! But if you've ever actually WATCHED the goddamn show, you know that is an extremely reductive and inaccurate interpretation of their characters. It's horribly poor media literacy. These ppl CANNOT seem to comprehend that you can enjoy watching a character who's a "bad person" without condoning their actions, and that enjoying the shipping dynamic of such characters DOES NOT make you a bad person by proxy.

A huge role of fiction as media is to explore ideas that may be harmful in the real world in a safe way because... *gasp* it's imaginary!! It makes you think and experience emotions you may not have the opportunity for otherwise! However, in the eyes of puritans, the fact you're even thinking about something like that makes you a sinner. It's a thought crime, which is why they consider us mentally "sick" for shipping kyman. So, they send hate at the drop of a hat and publicly vilify kyman shippers to reinforce that behavior with each other, all to say "Hey look at me!!! I'm a Good Person! see how much of a Good Person I am??? I'm gonna go to HEAVEN, and YOU'RE going to HELL". Like I said before, it's not that they necessarily believe in heaven or hell, but that's the general root of the behavior. It's performative puritan dog-piling. Also, because they haven't even fucking watched the whole show, they conveniently ignore all the other horrible shit the show portrays because random kyman shippers online are easy targets while Matt & Trey are gajillionaires who are essentially un-cancellable for things they do on the show at this point because, to quote Trey: For anyone to go up and go "Did you see this thing on South Park? That was really offensive" someone's gonna be like "Dude shut up 😒 that's just South Park".

Geez man this got super fucking long lmao. But my advice is to please take care of yourself because, and this super cliché to say, but FUCK the haters dude 🖕🖕🖕 You're engaging with media that brings you joy and exploring interesting ideas with a community of awesome artists/writers/meta-analysts and more. This is supposed to be FUN!! Anyone who tries to take that away from you or shame you into stopping is a fucking immature, holier-than-thou asshole who needs to get a fucking life. The block button is your friend, so use it early and often. You have the power to curate your own online space, and you shouldn't subject yourself to dealing with these dickheads (this is a big reason why I don't have a tiktok lol)

Good luck dude, and keep on shipping kyman 😎🤘❤️💚

#ask #anon #kyman #jesus h christ this is so long ajsfklsdf rip #lots of thoughts to get off my chest. yeesh #my post

[thecomicsnexus]

MIGHTY MORPHIN POWER RANGERS / TMNT II #1-5

December 2022 - May 2023

By Ryan Parrott , Dan Mora, Raúl Angulo, and Ed Dukeshire.

It's the sequel for the miniseries that was successful enough to have action figures!

The Turtles and the MMPR band together to stop Krang and Rita Repulsa, but a betrayal by their human ally leaves them without powers. And then things get creative...

SCORE: 8

I just want to put in writing that true leaders admit when they are wrong, so the dialogue above is not worthy of Leo.

Alright, let's move on to the actual story...

I was running against two challenges while reading this story.

I am pretty ignorant about Power Ranger lore. I have watched some episodes, a movie and the horrible reunion special, but other than that, I may miss some references.

It has been a long time since I read part one, so apart from certain elements of that story that I remembered, I was kind of constantly catching up.

And you really need to have part one fresh in your mind to read this one... they are basically the same story.

A thought occurred to me while reading this... what is going on with Casey Jones?

He used to be the not-very-bright American hero (think of Jack Burton from "Big Trouble in Little China." And that kind of adaptation used to be the case. But lately, Casey has been a little less temperamental, and sometimes smart enough to avoid getting into conflicts (think of the Rise movie, the IDW version and its spin-offs, like this one).

Classic Casey wouldn't have gotten himself in this situation. But given how much this universe borrows from the IDW continuity, I guess that Casey would behave like this.

Isn't it great when you find four morphin' devices that match the colors of the turtles?

The Turtles and the Power Rangers being able to morph all at the same time was already great, but the book manages to surprise with yet another creative twist... that I'll explore after the break...

Although, if you have already seen the covers, then you know what's coming...

I think the book really came together at this point. With (a very 2012 inspired) Splinter coming in to teach the new mutants how to fight with their new bodies.

And then this happened... man, those toys will sell themselves.

In general, the art in this book is stunning. It may not be high art, but it does what it needs to do, beyond expectations.

Shredder also gets a chance to morph again (it would be a crime if he didn't).

The zords in general look amazing. I guess if you are a MMPR artist, you really need to know how to draw robots... and humans.

So yeah, it seems like part 3 is to be expected... and I am okay with that.

The only thing that felt weird to me, is how the Turtles and the Power Rangers seemed to hang together all the time, despite this story taking place weeks after the first one. But given that this is a different universe, I guess anything is possible?

Reading this story made me think hard on why I decided not to buy the crossover figures... maybe if there is a wave for this sequel, I may consider getting some dimension X power rangers... we'll see...

#comics #review #tmnt #teenage mutant ninja turtles #post modern age #2023 #2022 #mmpr #mighty morphin power rangers #dan mora #idw publishing #idw comics #boom comics #boom studios

[comicweek]

Ángel Manuel Soto on Cultural Specificity in Blue Beetle

Rafael Motamayor : There is a cultural specificity to the film that we haven't really seen before in superhero movies, and the Reyes family members aren't just Pan-Latino, but specifically Mexican. Why was this important for the film?

 Ángel Manuel Soto: I think we've been psychologically and pathologically inculcated a fallacy by the hegemony that our specificity is not universal, that the white and gringo are universal. The truth of the matter is that we're all universal if we embrace our true selves. We Latinos watch Korean movies, Japanese movies, European movies, and we connect with their specificity because Latinos were never given that change because we were told you couldn't, and I never agreed with that feeling, that thought. It is an institutionalized philosophy, and Hollywood has perpetrated it.

So for me, I wanted to start from the premise that the universality of our cultures exists in our specificity. And if we are honest and free to be authentically us, and we don't have to be like someone else, it can still reach a general audience even if they don't look like us. To me, it was important for writer Gareth Dunnet-Alcocer as a Mexican, for me as a Puerto Rican, and to the actors as Mexicans, to be themselves, to allow this to be a movie where we take ourselves seriously, but also enjoy ourselves and express ourselves freely. To me, it was important to not have to reinvent the wheel at the first try, but to instead use nostalgia to make a throwback to the movies we liked as kids and insert ourselves in those scenes as the heroes of the movie, embracing authenticity. After, we can reinvent the wheel.

The only thing that could have prevented this was the studio, and from the beginning, I told them if they were going to tell me how big the explosions were going to be, they could not tell me how Latino my movie was going to be.

RM: One thing I love was the references to cultural touchstones like "El Chapulín Colorado" and "María la del Barrio." Could you talk about those references and introducing these things to a wider audience?

AS: Just as we consume other countries' popular cultures, we can't leave other people ignorant to the things that connect us as Latinos, because though our countries have their own idiosyncrasies, truths, and specific cultural identities, there are also more things that unite us within a Latin American collective. For me, it was very important not only to pay homage and honor that first Latin American hero we all collectively grew up with, but highlight that a Mexican in Querétaro like Gareth, and a Puerto Rican like me, being so far away, still can say that our first exposure to a superhero was El Chapulín, because he was in every Latin American's home.

So we thought, why not embrace the characters or elements that are specific, which also have a Pan-Latino appeal? And through that, we can celebrate the intersectionality of our cultures. It doesn't have to be Mexican for me to say it is also mine, it is also yours. Same with Puerto Rico: Reggaetón is no longer ours. It belongs to the world, even if it came from there. Same with "Maria la del Barrio," and novelas. The references in the movie are both a celebration to the things that unite us collectively as Latino, and also references we are canonizing in this fictional world.

RM: Speaking of Carapax, his story is fascinating in that it brings in the real history of the School of the Americas. Can you talk about the decision to bring in that part of the story?

AS:

To me, it was important to explore that in Hollywood, Latinos are always introduced in the middle of the paragraph. We enter a scene and we're gangsters and narcos, we are violent and dishonest people, and no one questions why that is. And when a movie or a show explains why, it just says that we are like that because that's our nature. So, we've never been given the chance to explore the history of blood behind the violent behaviors in Latin America. And, come on, you don't have to be a rocket scientist or an erudite to do a simple Google search and learn about Yankee interventionism, and why that interventionism started in 1954 to protect the American [United] Fruit Company in Guatemala.

It was important for me to be able to show this villain who is not just Latino, but indigenous, and show why he is the way he is to a certain point. Because even though he is responsible for much of his actions, the reason why he is a villain is because his trauma was weaponized. And when you see it, you understand he is a victim of the endless perpetuating of violence in Latin America by the CIA through the School of the Americas, but no one talks about that. No one talks about the start of neoliberalism in the School of the Americas in 1973 with the murder of Allende and the placement of Pinochet.

It was important that the film reflected that reality that is not taught at school. It is why Susan [Sarandon's character] represents the Military Industrial Complex, and the rampant imperialism that exists in Latin America. She is a person that has been perpetrating trauma, and then using that trauma like the School of the Americas, which trained the locals so they'd invade their own people. There is nothing more nefarious than that, so it was important to me to have that exist in this movie, if only for a minute. Using fantasy to raise curiosity could help us be better informed and more emphatic.

When I joined the project, I wanted the movie to be somewhat anchored in realism, in real traumas that Latin America has experienced historically. But I wanted it to be recent, not to just go all the way back to Columbus, though we do tumble a statue of Columbus in the movie. We talk about the more recent and relevant history, the one that is not talked about, but should be remembered so it is not repeated.

And the name is a bit ridiculous, and some people may not realize this is actual history, so we intercut Carapax's flashbacks with archival footage of the School of the Americas to make it clear this is real. RM: The character is also indigenous, and you bring Carapax's native language into the movie, too. AS: Yes, we had him unlock his memory, and his language. It is an allegory for how colonized or imperialist education works overtime to erase our history and make us forget where we come from, because it makes it easier to control. We wanted to make this situation where, at the end of the day, his memory is freed and he can look back to the source of the trauma, and understand everything that happened to him. His being able to talk in his native tongue is the most explicit way to show that he could return to his origin and empower himself by that origin, to close that chapter and sacrifice his own master for the greater good.

#blue beetle #angel manuel soto #jaime reyes #ignacio carapax #carapax #dcu #dceu #latino

[the-owl-house-takes]

tw: transphobia, homophobia, queerphobia, sexism, suicide mention, racism mention. Long post!

https://www.tumblr.com/the-owl-house-takes/732087162542096384/for-those-who-say-belos-has-never-been-canonically?source=share

Hi! History major here. You are correct that Puritans were homophobic (mostly in regards to gay men - lesbians were generally excluded from persecution; however, this is not acceptance, so much as it is casual sexism. Keep in mind, the targeting of gay man while largely ignoring lesbians is very common practice, even to this day!) Puritans' biggest issue with gay men was that they were firm believers in God's law, and homosexuality contradicted their "one man, one woman" worldview laid out in the Bible. Gay men also might not produce children - and keep in mind how important fertility is for fledgling colonies!

HOWEVER, while Puritans did enact laws against homosexuality (called "sodomy" laws), it's a mistake to claim they were always strictly enforced. Speaking generally (and this is consistent with most - if not all - historical civilizations), Puritans didn't give too many shits about gay men unless they were public about it, or if an accusation was politically convenient.

Your other statement that Puritans were transphobic is a little more complicated to unpack. First off, it's important to note that the idea of people being able to be "transgender" wasn't really a thing until very, very recently. Trans individuals certainly existed historically, but they did not have the language to describe themselves, nor the tools / resources to define themselves, and so they remained isolated cases: community 'oddities', scandalous news segments, and - in the case of intersex individuals - legal dilemmas.

Similarly, transphobia is even newer than transgenderism. Just like the Puritans with homosexuality, as more trans people began to come out in the late 1900's and early 2000's, within America at least, there were not many people who actually gave shits about it unless it was public or convenient for them. It is only within the last couple decades, and even more intensely in the last few years, that we have gotten our more traditional anti-trans bigots - the person you think of when you hear "transphobe", essentially.

Reasons for transphobia are more difficult to pin down than the history of its existence, but I think it's super important to note that it doesn't exist just for the sake of existing - there is a very practical reason for transphobes to be hateful. Ever heard of the "Southern Strategy"? It was a mid-1900's calculated move on the part of Republicans to gain votes by appealing to racism against African Americans. It pushed a lot of white voters further to the right. We see this again now with transphobia. People's discomfort with transgenderism is being used, as I write and as you read, as a political tool to gain votes. It's pushing formerly moderate Republicans or even voters on the fence deeper into conservative right-wing territory.

That was a lot of modern information, so let's move back to the Puritans. In this time period (the early/mid 1600's) they still have no conception of what or who trans people are. Thus, they have no clear enemy to give a shit about. Hopefully now it's a bit easier to understand why it's at best inaccurate to label Puritans transphobic.

I think it also might help to illustrate the point with a thought experiment. Present a trans person to your traditional bigoted conservative in America, and what are the arguments you'll generally hear? (In between the streams of vitriol, I mean.) More likely than not: "It's unnatural" (who cares), "it's unfair to put this sex with that sex on a sport's team" (not how that works), "children are being forced into permanent changes" (they're not), "it's not what Jesus would want" (who cares), "it sets a dangerous precedent" (it doesn't), "predators will use it to enter women's bathrooms" (not how that works), "people regret transitioning" (they don't), etc etc etc.

Now, present that same trans person to a Puritan. Too bad trans people didn't exist then so we can only speculate on what a Puritan might have - oh wait they existed then and we have a whole Wikipedia article on one such individual: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas(ine)_Hall. Hall lived in colonial Virginia and was intersex. They were not systemically persecuted in the sense that laws were already in place to deny them rights; in fact, they were brought to court because they were confusing their neighbors so much! Jamestown ruled they were "both a man and a woman and must dress in male and female clothing simultaneously". The article has a lot of information on them - I encourage anyone interested to give it a read.

But that's before we got ways to transition effectively, you say, so how would your average Puritan react to a modern trans person? We have to assume they'd default to the way they treat gay men: first off, a gander through the Bible to establish precedent. Oh wait, there's nothing in the Bible with explicit laws against it, they would realize. But, they might catch on to: "Male and female he created them..." and feel that trans people are therefore contradicting God's will (just as how gay men contradict God's will that people "be fruitful and multiply"). Then, a Puritan would assess the situation with regard to what would benefit their colony the most. Are trans people producing children? Well, sometimes, but often no. Are they causing confusion and disordering society? Hell yeah! Conclusion? We'll discourage them, but also will probably just ignore them so long as they're mostly quiet about it.

Great, so that was a whole lot of boring historical word-vomit, but what does this mean for Philip Wittebane, you ask? My answer: given how queer-coded he is (this deserves its own post), and given general Puritan attitudes, I'm inclined to believe he does not give any shits about queer people. The most I could see is that he might be uncomfortable with the idea of gay men, and confused by trans people. But, again - on a meta level - his depiction as a character makes this an unlikely stance for him to take.

Lastly, I'll end this by complimenting your take that he is going along with LGBT life in the BI for political convenience. As it is with businesses, so it is with politicians - they'll sign off on anything so long as it nets them popular support! This tendency could be attributed to Belos being a manipulative person, but also keep in mind that sort of opportunism is common practice wherever power can be found.

I hope someone out there found this interesting :)

-

#long post #homophobia mention #transphobia mention #racism mention #the owl house #toh