#Anglo cultural imperialism

[biarritzzz]

Words that, if I come across them in an article, means I will stop reading and disregard it entirely:

queer (if you use that word, I immediately know you're not homosexual and that you're a poseur and a moron)

white supremacy (the biggest reversal of reality in woke discourse, it informs me that the writer has a narrow perspective or is a liar who wants their own ethnic group to dominate)

sex work (it's called prostitution, I oppose newspeak)

trans woman or trans man (another newspeak; you are an idiot for catering to a delusion when the words man and woman already exist)

racism (aka native Europeans are evil and my convenient punching bag to release my frustrations and insecurities while I ignore real discrimination from ethnic groups that are deemed untouchable in woke circles)

intersectionality (aka I'm an insufferable cunt who lectures everybody but especially white women on their supposed 'privilege' and who perceives everything through a 'privilege' vs 'marginalized' lens but fails to grasp that what matters above all else is biological sex)

LGBTQIA+ (aka I hate being clear about homosexuality and I hate the fact that homosexuality is real as opposed to made up bullshit)

islamophobia (being afraid of islam is not irrational, it's a perfectly normal reaction to an insanely violent and dangerous ideology)

fatphobia (aka I'm an obese ugly woman who is mad that people don't find me attractive so I need to guilt-trip them into objectifying me while I continue to thirst over conventionally attractive thin people)

community (that stupid word comes directly from Anglo countries and is used to pretend a group of people is all chummy with each other when it couldn't be further from the truth)

mental health (if there a word I would love to never hear again it's this one. Yes, it's normal to not be happy all the time, yes we all have bad days, no it doesn't mean you have a ''disorder' if you are feeling a bit down)

#newspeak #buzzwords #notice how these are anglo words #that's not a coincidence #then they get badly translated in other languages #or they don't get translated at all #Anglo cultural imperialism #yes I realize the irony of writing this all in English #unfortunately English is the language of the internet #I wish it weren't #I wish it were French if I'm being honest #English is such a dull language

[sroloc--elbisivni]

Fascinating article on how the datasets that train AI and the cultural assumptions they make and enforce become visible in something like smiling.

#sroloc babbles #current events #this was linked at the end of the Garbage Day newsletter i get and i thought it would be about dentistry #but instead it was a whole new dimension on anglo-american cultural imperialism i had not considered

[genericpuff]

Hello, brazilian anon here! So I have been following criticisms of LO for a while now, and Psyche and Eros caught my attention in special, because their relationship is legit a racist trope commonly applied to indigenous people: Woman of color is put in a arranged marriage or pressured into marrying a guy from her village/tribe but "falls in love" with a white dude who "saves" her from her abusive and "uncivilized" family. Think of Disney's Pocahontas. This trope is commonly used to dehumanize non-european/anglo-saxon cultures and portray them as barbaric, and is rooted in colonialism and its direct heir, imperialism, as a means for colonizers to justify and sugarcoat raping and forcing women of color to marry them. So not a good look for Rachel.

OH YEAH IT IS

(you just opened Pandora's Box by mentioning Pocahontas around me LMAO)

It's even more egregious when you consider how Rachel changed the original myth from Psyche undergoing trials on her own to her ... being turned into a nymph servant for Aphrodite. Like huh. Is that really your final draft, Rachel? Have you thought this through?

I made a very spicy post about this like a year and a half ago and honestly I think it's still worth talking about because it's incredibly telling that Psyche had her entire story uprooted and replaced with a version where she's transformed into a non-POC character to disguise herself as a servant to a woman who's already racist towards nymphs. It's got that issue of "take the black character and transform them into an animal/other being that isn't black so that we don't have to have a black character onscreen for more than 10 minutes."

And yeah, you can tell how much Rachel is absentmindedly taking from Disney without challenging what those stories were portraying or asking deeper questions to get to the heart of their messaging. Pocahontas is rightfully panned for being a very white-washed version of a story that was written in the blood shed by Native Americans at the hands of colonizers. "Pocahontas" herself, even, was not some independent native woman who fell in love with the "one good white guy" on the boat, she was a teenage girl, whose life was spared but made worse when she was forced to travel overseas to be used as a prop to justify their continued actions in murdering and colonizing the "savages" overseas; she was then forced into marriage and had to carry the children of her captors, all while being treated as an exotic spectacle by the people around her who would undoubtedly kill her at the first sign of disobedience.

Her name was Matoaka. Her life and story is not something that should be romanticized. It's a tragedy and much of what instigated it is still alive and well today. She only lived to be 21.

I don't know if Rachel intentionally referenced or ripped off Pocahontas in Lore Olympus the same way she clearly has with Hercules and Beauty and the Beast. But it's incredibly telling in how she treats the racial divide between nymphs and gods and how she's twisted the Eros x Psyche myth into what it is that even if she did watch Pocahontas, she probably never realized how problematic it is at its core in the way that it's told.

In the original myth, Psyche is a woman who's meant to represent the fickleness of vanity - the loneliness it can make one feel to be admired and not truly loved, and the destruction that can be brought about in jealousy - and her pursuit in finding genuine love in Eros, a journey she travels alone, thematically with the rest of the story.

In Lore Olympus, she's an illiterate woman of color whose only purpose is to be Eros' wife, robbed of all agency so that she can be a trophy for him to earn, a test for him to pass. It's boring and really icky when you really peel back the layers of it with Psyche's character design in mind. Even when she finally does get more agency in her task to bring down Apollo - or at the very least, keep an eye on him - it's still at the behest of Zeus who gives her immortality not as a reward for overcoming the trials she set out to pass, but so she can be his errand boy. So once again she's not capable of doing anything motivated by her own best interests (especially when she already knows how dangerous Apollo is, why is she the one who has to follow this guy around?)

So yeah, no, not a good look at all LMAO

#lore olympus critical #anti lore olympus #lo critical #ask me anything #ama #anon ama #anon ask me anything

[svltaf]

ms appleton was nowhere close to having total control over soy sauce: perspectives on food and postwar japan

there's a popular post going around this month by @inneskeeper about how a single person changed japanese soy sauce forever. i've made my own post showing why this the story is incomplete and based on some factual inaccuracies, but i will be honest in saying that i would not be so engaged in responding to this post if it were not wrapped in a shockingly reductive narrative. i'll use this quote from op as a summary of the general idea they're trying to convey:

[...] I think that it is incredibly important that more people in the world are aware that leading into the Cold War, Japan was forcibly coerced into giving total power over a significant cultural touchstone/ingredient/way of life to a single foreigner who had a complete lack of respect for what shoyu is, even going so far as to say "I want to change Japan's taste preferences". I cannot imagine a more direct and blunt parallel to settler-colonialism mindset. I truly cannot. [link]

i will attempt give a larger view of that era and convey why this singular view is at best oversimplifying and at worst an incorrect projection of other trends upon what is an almost unique event in history.

note: i am not an academic historian; i will do my best to provide sources, but they will mostly be secondary.

i will use the three i's presented by prof. ian shapiro of yale, interests, institutions, and ideals, as lenses through which i will provide a more holistic view of the events at hand:

tl;dr:

the united states did not have uniform interests entering the cold war and the occupiers had a varying set of visions for japanese society and economy.

both the japanese public, the american occupation, and the japanese civil government had a more important goal: preventing hunger. japan was not coerced into handing over a tradition; it was suffering the consequences of its own colonial empire-building.

both countries were interested in building a healthy consumer economy, and ultimately the tastes of the public held most sway.

the idea of "a guy" being in charge of things has been a common theme in american foreign policy, but the idea that "the guy" was singularly responsible for massive change belies american perspectives and biases that often misrepresent the truth abroad.

i - ideals

i think this lens is maybe the most sympathetic to @inneskeeper's narrative: it makes sense that a settler-colonial nation with a deep root of anglo-protestant self-righteousness and evangelical tendencies would want to impose its vision of society upon a defeated foe. that said, it is not the only ideology at play in this situation, from both japan and the usa.

let's talk about main value the united states likes to impose upon foreign societies: democracy capitalism. i think what is interesting here is that this single word can have multiple interpretations in practice, and we can use this soy sauce story to look at the diversity in opinion of what capitalism means.

first, a capitalism tied to liberal ideals: a free and open market without monopolies as a promoter of egalitarianism. this concept was brought to japan by many of the administrators in the american occupation that have previously observed or enacted roosevelt's new deal in the aftermath of the great depression. [1, p.57-58; 2, p.98] we see a focus on trust-busting and a strong aversion to any significantly concentrated capital. pre-war japan was dominated by structures known as 財閥 zaibatsu, vertically integrated groups that are helmed by a family-controlled holding company owning a set of subsidiaries in banking and industry with interlocking stock ownership and directorship. the zaibatsu structures, emerging since the late edo and early meiji periods, have become inextricably linked to building the japanese imperial war machine (though somewhat forcibly). [3] on the american side, as a result, certain american elements viewed trust-busting as a way to democratize japan through the economy. [2, p.34; 4, p.19; 5, IV-2b] this included maj. gen. marquat, ms. appleton's boss at the ghq/scap economic and scientific section (ess). [4, p.31] japan's first postwar prime minister, shigeru yoshida, and his ministry of foreign affairs, seemed to agree with the deconcentration of capital. [4, p.20] this is not to say that the americans were particularly sympathetic, as gen. macarthur and others were quite convinced of the japanese population's inability to shed its feudal tendencies; rather, the americans found an opportunity to build a new liberal, democratic society to their liking. and yes, there was some punitive intent; the united states and allies did just finish fighting an 8-year-long war against an expanding empire. [4, p.30]

opposite the liberal view is the conservative, if not pragmatic, ideal of capitalism: as a bulwark against communism. japan was an industrialized nation with a developed economy, and as far as the looming cold war is involved, the united states wants both a healthy consumer economy and one that is integrated in the new world economy (i.e. one with american interests as stakeholders). [4, p.31-32, 44] if "deconcentration" of capital, as it was called by the occupiers, were to run its course, some americans (and lobbyists linked to japanese industry) feared that japanese society would be thrown into chaos, or worse, the rapprochement with the soviets under a socialist economy. [4, p.22, 32] the victors did initially break up many of the tightly-woven zaibatsu, but the overall health of the economy was eventually prioritized as a bulwark against communism, thus the number of zaibatsu slated for dismantling was reduced, and the main deconcentration proposal (FEC-230) was disavowed. [4, p. 32]

all this debate within the american occupation, plus some interjections from the japanese business community, about the nature of the rebuilding japanese market and economy was held from 1946 to 1948. this culminated in the "reverse course," in which cold war objectives won out in occupation policy, though the free market as a liberalizing principle was not discarded. [4, p.44-46] in the same space, there existed both a punitive drive to disperse the old japanese economic engine and a desire to build a new, genuinely local, consumer society as a protection against communism.

“Nothing will serve better to win the Japanese people over to a peaceful, democratic way of life than the discovery that it brings rewards in the way of better living and increasing economic security.” - col. r.m. cheseldine, u.s. war department [4, p.44]

it is important to distinguish this from the colonialist drive, which is to capture markets and resources for the sole benefit of the homeland.

in the context of soy sauce, the release by ghq/scap of american soybeans to japan was announced in 1948, after the reverse course has taken hold. [6, p.157] in addition, kikkoman was not even a zaibatsu, it was a company with roots in family ownership, vertically-integrated structures, and eventually found to engage in monopolistic practices, but was not of a large enough scale or diversification to qualify. [7, ch.3] the list of zaibatsu is actually quite limited. [wiki] all this meant that the anti-trust case brought against noda shōyu k.k. (kikkoman's predecessor) in 1954 in the tokyo high court is an entirely domestic affair (scap handed over power in 1949 and the position was abolished in 1952). [8, p.53] that said, the 1957 ruling against noda in noda shōyu k.k. v. japan fair trade commission (jftc) was the result of an aberrant and unfavourable reading of the act on prohibition of private monopolization and maintenance of fair trade, article 3; the act was passed in 1947, when scap was in power. [8, p.53] since article 3 is quite short ("an enterprise must not effect private monopolization or unreasonable restraint of trade."), it was open to wide interpretation, leading to the argument by the jftc that price-fixing as a leading player in an industry constituted monopolistic behaviour. [9] in that sense, we can see echoes of the debate around monopolies from the occupation era.

through the lens of ideals, we can see that in the periphery of this story, there is a friction between competing visions of capitalism in practice. in that sense, while it agrees that the usa had some desire to reshape a foreign country to its own ideals, it also shows how @inneskeeper's narrative unduly reduces the american occupation to a singular actor with singular motives, and one that is akin to colonial empires in other parts of history.

research questions:

did american attitudes towards monopolies affect the free distribution of semichemical fermentation methods? [6, p.160]

what direct links can we make between occupation-era attitudes towards monopolization and japanese governance regarding the food industry?

ii - institutions

from the point of view of institutions (i use the term loosely), it's a lot more apparent how the situation has a lot more factors flowing in many directions. i will largely focus on three structures: the japanese food industry, the allied victors, and the japanese civil government.

when discussing the food industry, it's important to note that this is what sustains the inhabitants of a place; while condiments are a trivial part of sustenance, the way it is made and its ebbs and flows and shed a lot of light onto the needs of people. japan, since the early 20th century, had been a country that could not sustain itself off the resources of its home islands. as a colonial empire, it relied on food imports from korea and taiwan, and in the 20s and 30s pursued the low-lying plains of manchuria (northeastern china). this reflects in its soybean consumption as well: japan consumed about 1 million tons of soy each year in the 1930s, and at least two-thirds of it was imported from the colonies or manchukuo (the puppet régime ruling machuria). [10] within what we now call the "home islands" of japan, hokkaido, the one remaining settler-colony of japan to this day, produces the most out of all regions. [11, p.4]

(time for some math: [10] states that about 949 000 tons of soy sauce was consumed in japan per year in the mid-1930s. a quick look at soy sauce recipes reveals that 1kg of soy produces about 4 litres (and assuming about 4kg due to density of water) of sauce. with the 4:1 ratio, we can therefore estimate that about 237 000 tons of soy was used per year to make sauce immediately before the war.)

the end of the japanese empire meant losing direct access to those production areas: manchuria was returned to china, and korea and taiwan were placed under various allied (usa, china, ussr) administrations. with japan needing to supply its troops over an ever-growing front line, caloric intake by the average japanese already dropped well below necessary levels for an adult by 1944. [12] by 1946, the defeated nation was at the brink of starvation. american analysis towards the end of wwii determined that soybean production in the home islands could not rise beyond its pre-war levels without sacrificing other land use. [11, p.5] in order to survive, the soy industry needed to replace about 70% of its sources in short order without encroaching upon other agricultural sectors necessary to sustain life. there was immense pressure.

regarding the allies: the japanese empire was largely carved up by three victors, china, the ussr, and the usa. the ussr, having been the least active in the defeat of japan, with its most important contribution being the verbal threat of invasion, was not actively threatening aside from the spectre of spreading communism (as mentioned in part i). china, on the other hand, regained the lands that produced much of the food japan was consuming. while the republic of china (ruled by the kmt) was still in power, it was able to continue supplying food to neighbouring nations. [14] however, civil war broke out between the kmt government and the communists almost immediately after the end of wwii. [13] 1948 saw active fighting in northern china, thus hampering any exports of food; the kmt régime collapsed and fled to taiwan in 1949, and the communist government stopped all trade with the western bloc at the outbreak of the korean war in 1950. [14] with china being unable to supply japan, there is only one remaining option for food imports: the usa. soybean imports in the usa was generally coordinated by the garioa program and through private trade. american exports of soybean to japan skyrocketed from 6000 tons in 1946 and 34600 tons in 1947 to 119500 tons (about 12% of pre-war consumption) in 1948, 152500 tons in 1949 (almost all imports to japan that year), and 305000 tons in 1950. [15, p.67, 69] japan itself likely produced between 300 000 and 450 000 tons of soybeans each year, which meant that in 1947-48 japan was consuming definitively less than two-thirds of its pre-war consumption. the soy industry as a whole, and certainly the soy sauce industry, was in a desperate state.

unlike the collapsed german and italian régimes, the japanese government retained a functioning structure after the rapid end to hostilities in the pacific theatre. [16, p.194] this meant that instead of being tasked with the groundwork of running a country, the allied powers had an existing civil government to administer directives and policies; the u.s. eighth army served as an enforcement and reporting arm of scap. [16, p.195-197] during the war, from 1939 to 1942, the imperial government instituted various food control laws that collected and distributed food from producers under a quota system. [17, p.221] such quotas, as as well as rationing, persisted in the immediate months after allied victory. however, with the surrender of japan, public confidence in the government plummeted, significantly hampering its ability to administer food. the average caloric value of rations in tokyo could only fulfill about a third of an adult's needs; hungry city-dwellers increasingly opted to buy on the black market (which had poached imperial military stock) or physically go to the countryside to acquire food directly from farmers outside of government rationing. [18, p.30-31; 19, p.835, 843] scap policy directed the japanese government to "reinstate" agricultural quotas, and in 1946, it issued the emergency imperial food ordinance which empowered government expropriation of food for the production quota and enforcement of such policies; the u.s. eighth army participated in enforcing the policy within the civil administration. [17; 18] the yoshida government,the first democratically elected administration in the new state of japan, was keenly aware of the necessity of food in rehabilitating japan, as well as the importance of competing against the black market in order to once again establish the rule of law. [18] as such, the tight government control of domestic food production lasted much longer than in other industries, causing pressure for "non-essential" segments like the seasoning industry.

(as an aside, in line with certain ideas discussed in part i, scap directed land reform which redistributed much of the arable land in japan, increasing productivity of land and eliminating the interest of large landowners thought to be threatening to democracy. [18])

as discussed in my previous post, chemical alternatives to fermented soy sauce have been developed since the early 20th century. [6] during the war, substitute methods (especially amino acid-based ones, e.g. hvp or mixed hvp-honjozo) replaced fermented honjozo* methods as resources became more scarce. [20]

*honjōzō (本醸造) means "genuinely fermented".

in early 1948, it was announced that 20 000 tons of soybean meal would be made available by the eroa fund for the purpose of making seasonings, to be allocated by ms appleton at ghq/scap. [14; 6, p.159] this amount is only about 10% of the soybean consumption of soy sauce manufacturers before the war. on the surface, for an industry marginalized by the need to stave off starvation and maintain social stability, securing the imported soybean meal can be seen as a life-or-death situation. however, given the wartime state of sauce production, the struggle to acquire the soybean meal is more akin to an attempt to return to fully soy-based fermentation methods. the invention of the semichemical #2 method which increased soy usage productivity and secured most of the soybean meal for the soy sauce industry can be seen as a faster intermediate step to return to traditional fermented methods used before the war. it's also important to note that over 80% of soy sauce in japan has returned to traditional honjozo production, and that large companies such as kikkoman and yamasa have attempted to return to honjozo methods as early as the late 1950s. [20]

from this point of view, it does not seem particularly apparent that a single administrator had the power to change an industry, but rather her decisions were the impetus for developments to happen within the domestic industry. ultimately, japan's soy sauce industry was suffering the consequences of its industrialization and the failure of its colonial experiment. in a wider view, we can see this as a detail in the friction between two imperial projects. (consider this: out of the major parties involved, japan, china, usa, ussr, and other minor players in the pacific war, gb, netherlands, france, all of them entered the 20th century with imperial projects.)

research questions:

are there japanese sources that can verify production and imports during the 1940s?

there was a soy sauce control corporation formed by the imperial government in 1942 (全国醤油統制株式会社) that dictated resource allocation and quotas for the soy sauce industry. it seemed to have only been dissolved in 1948. what was its role after the war and what relationship did it have with scap?

iii - interests

as for interests, i will limit its scope to answering "who materially benefits." the groups at play are generally the same as the previous part, so i will be brief in elaboration.

the most obvious interest is that of the japanese public: their main material benefit in the late 1940s is to be nourished enough to stay alive (see part ii). while soy sauce is an important part of japanese cuisine, as a condiment, it is a nutritionally trivial part of its diet. it is then understandable, that japanese society and scap would be willing to temporarily sacrifice an immediate return to traditional production in favour of methods that would leave more food for direct consumption.

the next interest to discuss is that of the soy sauce industry, and its desire to return to honjozo (traditionally fermented) production after a period of scarcity during and after the war. it is important to note that regarding the 20 000 tons of soybean meal to be allocated by scap in 1948, the competitor to the soy sauce industry for those resources is the amino acid industry (msg, etc.). [6, p.159] with soybeans hard to come by, the soy sauce industry would have been under immense pressure to aquire the soybean meal distributed as aid. with kikkoman's development of semichemical #2 method, the scap decisionmakers reconsidered an earlier uneven distribution of soybean meal in favour of the amino acid producers. [6, p.160] what resulted next was talk between representatives of the two competing industries, facilitated by the americans. [6, p.160] it is important that taste trials were conducted, with wide support for the new semi-chemical method by the polled public. [6, p.160] at every step of the decision-making process, japanese interests were consulted by scap.

it is also important to mention the "japan lobby" in washington a set of interest groups and lobbyists representing japanese business as to illustrate the bidirectionality of influence in postwar japan. [21] this group arose from the aftermath of the first zaibatsu dissolutions. some key achievements of their advocacy activities include the disavowal of the fec-230 policy proposal from the allied powers (against gen. macarthur's wishes!), and adding revisions to scap's economic deconcentration program. it is plausible that this lobbying set had influence with scap and washington regarding soy sauce, given the tight-knit nature of the japanese business class. that said, the direct link between the japan lobby and soy sauce, should it exist, necessitates further research.

i think it is necessary to analyze from the lens of interests @inneskeeper's claim of the united states occupation forcibly seizing and making changes to a traditional food industry. it is known that the united states seeks to build a strong consumer economy that is open to american investment and imports of american products. [18, p.40] given that the soybean meal managed by scap in 1948 was aid, it would've been in the american interest to support either industry, since they would both eventually rely on american imports once the period of scarcity ends (china would soon cease ot be a reliable exporter of food). there is nothing related to soy sauce that would've been against american interests, business or political, whereas food scarcity has been a real problem facing the japanese and allied administration. in this case, the chief american interest is to stabilize japan as a society against two perceived social enemies: communism on the left and a renewed militarism borne of resentment on the right. with the task of placating a hungry and defeated populace, producing large amounts of soy sauce that is palatable to the public using minimal aid material would be an interest in and of itself for the americans. i think it could be argued whether comments made by americans about how easily japanese tastes can be swayed are insensitive and out of line, but it is also true that the public had much more pressing needs than condiment purity.

@inneskeeper also mentioned the yakuza in some of their posts as a possible interest group involved. the informal economy grew to encompass all strata near the end of the war and immediately afterwards; most urbanites were forced to use the black market to stave off hunger. [19] the yakuza, mafia-like organizations that would operate somewhat openly in the decades before the war, entered the fray as groups that managed informal vendors. [22, p.632] racketeering became rampant in the years immediately after japanese surrender due to shortages and irregular flows of necessities such as food, but as the economy recovered entering the 1950s, the yakuza moved to more conventional underworld enterprises such as as gambling, prostitution, and nightlife. [22, 23] it also moved towards the underbelly of political life, becoming an actor in anti-left politics. [22] we know that the changes to soy sauce production happened in the small window between the end of the war and the earnest start of economic recovery, so it is possible that parties involved would have to deal with the yakuza as a necessary source of material. however, since their sights are set on the industries traditionally associated with the underworld, it would be a stretch to say that they had any real say in the proceedings of this development beyond being one additional obstacle to the soy sauce industry in acquiring ingredients. that said, using a singular product can be very useful as a window into how the yakuza may have coerced informal food distribution channels.

research questions:

what specific outcomes were agreed upon at the "shoda-ouchi conference" between the soy sauce and amino acid manufacturing industries? [6, p.160]

how did the japan lobby affect or facilitate changes in the soy sauce industry?

how did the yakuza affect the informal food economy?

iv - individuals

one thing that made the original story by @inneskeeper so appealing to the tumblr public is the proposition that a single person may have changed japanese soy sauce forever.

it bears repeating that major industrial changes (and i would challenge the categorization of this soy sauce happening as "major" in comparison to the general state of japan in the 1940s) are often the culmination of many small decisions from a wide set of actors. what is interesting about the idea of a singular "manipulator" is that it mirrors a common trope in american foreign policy: the idea of "our guy" (e.g. "our guy in afghanistan" [24, p.277], "our guy in panama" [25], etc.), that is, a singular handler for american interests in a foreign theatre of operations. in this case, since the country at hand is managed by an american occupation, "our guy" in the japanese soy sauce industry is an american, ms. blanche appleton. while american policy sometimes prefers to use this paradigm, it does not necessarily mean it works, not is the wishful american imagination correct when it comes to situations on the ground (see citations above). this trope may also possibly be borne of the oft-cited concept of "american individualism," a value that is as much a contradiction (how can a single person be free to change the world as they see fit, while also live in a world free from the will of others?) as it is a real part of american culture.

in the faulty narrative of ms. appleton, we also see a similar contradiction: how can a foreign woman who is allegedly willingly unfamiliar (as it turns out, probably not true [6, p.160]) with the native culture be in total control of an entire element of its cuisine? what is the meaning of "total power": did she personally decide taste profile of the condiment to her tastes, coerce various native parties to the will of the americans (what will?), or facilitate the solution to a complex resource distribution problem? in any case (except the fancifully implausible first case), what is the singular role of ms appleton? did power flow from her, or through her? perhaps a more interesting way to look at this problem is to ask what would have happened if someone else were in ms. appleton's place. would their personal influence be significant enough as to change the outcome? if so, what would have been the extent of the changes? (we can maybe look at the facilitation of the "shoda-ouchi conference" as one point. [6, p.160]) conversely, what would have remained the same as the various parties involved influenced the situation?

a more helpful view is to see the balance between the ideas, institutions, and interests behind each decision that would paint a more complete picture of this historical era. perhaps it is not as flashy to break down a chapter in culinary history as the convergence of multiple influences, but it is the one that does history most justice.

discussion questions

this is for the test

how significant was the dearth of food in late 1940s japan to this situation, and what similar adaptations of food cultures occurred in other post-wwii nations?

what factors from imperial japan, whether before the sino-japanese war or during the war, influenced this situation?

is there any part of this development that forshadows the economic rehabilitation and subsequent growth of japan in the latter half of the 20th century? if so, how?

what american attitudes were at play in this situation, and what japanese attitudes (if you're familiar) were involved as well?

what influence did china, as the originator of soy sauce, a major source of food in east asia, and a significant allied power, have on postwar japan and how did it influence the development of the japanese variants of soy sauce?

what was the influence of the japanese public's tastes?

bibliography:

apologies for the weird mix of ieee inline and mla bibliography formats, ieee works best with hypertext but doesnt make much sense for non-stem subjects.

Allinson, G. D. Japan's postwar history, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004. [link]

Moore, R. A., & D. L. Robinson. Partners for Democracy : Crafting the New Japanese State under MacArthur, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2002. [avail. at libraries]

Okazaki, T. “The Japanese Firm Under the Wartime Planned Economy,” in The Japanese Firm: Sources of Competitive Strength, edited by M. Aoki and R. Dore, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1994. [link, requires academic access]

Sugita, Y. Pitfall or panacea : the irony of US power in occupied Japan 1945-1952, New York: Routledge, 2003. [avail. at libraries]

State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee. United States Initial Post-Surrender Policy for Japan (SWNCC150/4), 1945. [link]

Oguri, T. "醤油製造技術の系統化調査 Development of Soy sauce Manufacturing Technologies" in 国立科学博物館技術の系統化調査報告, Tokyo: National Museum of Nature and Science, 2008. [link; translation of excerpts in an earlier post]

Fruin, W. M. The Japanese Enterprise System: Competitive Strategies and Cooperative Structures, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1994. [link]

Haley, J. O. "Marketing and Antitrust in Japan" in Hastings Int'l & Comp.L. Rev. 51 Vol. 2 No. 1, San Francisco: UC Hastings Law, 1979. [link]

Japan, National Diet. Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade (Act No. 54 of April 14, 1947), Tokyo: National Diet, 14 Apr. 1947 [link]

Nakamura, H. "The Japanese Soybean Market" in Illinois Agricultural Economics Vol. 1, No. 2, Milwaukee, WI: Agricultural & Applied Economics Association, 1961. [link]

United States of America, Tariff Commission. Japanese trade studies : special industry analysis no. 13, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1944-45. [link]

United States of America, Strategic Bombing Survey. Summary Report (Pacific War), Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1946. [link]

Crisis, Time, 1944. [link]

Hirano, M. "Using American Soybeans in the Japanese Economy" in The Soybean Digest Vol. 12 Iss. 11, Cleveland, OH: Penton, 1952. [link]

United States of America, Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. United States Farm Products In Foreign Trade, Statistical Bulletin No. 112, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1953. [link]

General Staff of Gen. D. MacArthur. Reports of General MacArthur - MacArthur in Japan: The Occupation: Military Phase Volume I Supplement, Washington, DC: Center for Military History, 1966, reprinted 1994. [link]

Smith, H.F. (Chief, Food Branch, Price and Distribution Division, ESS, SCAP) "Food Controls in Occupied Japan" in Agricultural History Vol. 23, No. 3, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1949 [link]

Fuchs, S. J. "Feeding the Japanese: Food policy, land reform, and Japan’s economic recovery" in Democracy in Occupied Japan: The U.S. Occupation and Japanese Politics and Society, edited by M. E. Caprio and Y. Sugita, New York: Routledge, 2007. [link]

Griffiths, O. "Need, Greed, and Protest in Japan's Black Market, 1938-1949" in Journal of Social History Vol. 35, No. 4, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2002. [link]

Oya, Y. "みそ製造業の構造変化とその要因" in 食品経済研究 第30号 (Bulletin of the Department of Food Economics, Nihon University), Tokyo: Nihon University, 2002. [link]

Schonberger, H. "The Japan Lobby in American Diplomacy, 1947-1952" in Pacific Historical Review Vol. 46, No. 3, Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 1977. [link]

Siniawer, E. M. "Befitting Bedfellows: Yakuza and the State in Modern Japan" in Journal of Social History Vol. 45, No. 3, The Hidden History of Crime, Corruption, and States, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2012. [link]

Hill, P. B. E. The Japanese Mafia: Yakuza, Law, and the State, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2003. [link]

Blaxland, J., M. Fielding, and T. Gellerfy, Niche Wars: Australia in Afghanistan and Iraq, 2001–2014, Canberra: ANU Press, 2020. [link]

Kornheiser, T. "Noriega Our Bountiful Nation" The Washington Post, Dec. 22, 1989. [link]

#svlt speaks #the mysterious appearance of miss appleton

[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

[sivavakkiyar]

Cultural domination is doubtless a major aspect of imperialist domination as such, and 'culture' is always, therefore, a major site for resistance, but cultural contradictions within the imperialized formations tend to be so very numerous - sometimes along class lines but also in cross-class configurations, as in the case of patriarchal cultural forms or the religious modes of social authorization - that the totality of indigenous culture can hardly be posited as a unified, transparent site of anti-imperialist resistance.

The difficulties of analytic procedure which arise from such complexities of the object of analysis itself are further compounded by the verv modes of thought which are currently dominant in literary debates and which address questions of colony and empire from outside the familiar Marxist positions, often with great hostility towards and polemical caricature of those positions. First, the term 'culture is often deployed as a very amorphous category - sometimes in the Arnoldian sense of 'high' culture; sometimes in the more contemporary and very different sense of 'popular culture; in more recent inflations that latter term, taken over from Anglo-American sociologies of culture, has been greatly complicated by the equally amorphous category of 'Subaltern consciousness which arose initially in a certain avant-gardist tendency in Indian historiography but then gained currency in metropolitan theorizations as well. Meanwhile, the prior use of the term 'cultural nationalism', and of other cognate terms of this kind, in Black American literary ideologies since the mid 1960s - not to speak of the Negritude poets of Caribbean and African origins, the Celtic and nativist elements in Irish cultural nationalism, or the Harlem Renaissance in the United States - then endows the term, as it is used in American literary debates, with another very wide range of densities. Used in relation to the equally problematic category of 'Third World', 'cultural nationalism' resonates equally frequently with tradition', simply inverting the tradition/modernity binary of the modernization theorists in an indigenist direction, so that 'tradition' is said to be, for the 'Third World', always better than 'modernity', which then opens up a space for defence of the most obscurantist positions in the name of cultural nationalism. There appears to be, at the very least, a widespread implication in the ideology of cultural nationalism, as it surfaces in literary theory, that each 'nation' of the Third World' has a 'culture and a 'tradition', and that to speak from within that culture and that tradition is itself an act of anti-imperialist resistance. By contrast, the principal trajectories of Marxism as they have evolved in the imperialized formations have sought to struggle - with varying degrees of clarity or success, of course - against both the nation/ culture equation, whereby all that is indigenous becomes homogenized into a singular cultural formation which is then presumed to be necessarily superior to the capitalist culture which is identified discretely with the 'West', and the tradition/modernity binary, whereby each can be constructed in a discrete space and one or the other is adopted or discarded.

Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory

#aijaz ahmad #looking at this it’s actually ‘funny’ (you know not haha funny like chortle chortle uuuugh funny) #that I consider reading this text a personal ‘back to basics’

[hussyknee]

If you think being anti-communist means being pro-capitalist, it means you have a bad case of Western cultural imperialism and never heard of politics other than your own, and you should do something about that internalized colonizer bullshit before trying to call yourself a leftist. And don't ask us to educate you because we're fucking tired and you literally live in the hemisphere of the highest internet penetration and accessibility to the Anglo knowledgesphere. Do your fucking homework.

#anti communism #anti capitalism #western leftists #white leftists #global north #global south #eastern europe #imperialism #colonialism #colonization #decolonization #tankies #usamericans #brits #politics #history #knee of huss

[becausegoodheroesdeservekidneys]

So I’m interested in the thing you taught about Anglo-Saxons pushing the celts out of land- do you know how far north they pushed?

I’m Scots, and I have an interest in our history, but to be honest almost all of my knowledge of it comes from post-1000, with the exception of a few local myths about Viking raiders being scared off by a mother wolf.

So I’d love to ask what you know- and I’ll just say that, because you talk about the welsh language a lot, I would be interested in what you think of the work to revive Gaelic as a primary language of this country- my Nans all for it, but most other people think it’s not working the way it has in wales because Gaelic was never spoken across the country Welsh was- my mums family is from old Norse speaking ancestry/cities and the local area was more likely to speak French than Gaelic (my dads English with a clan surname so some Highland Clearance stuff definitely happened and also for about 50 years round about bonnie prince Charlie that name was banned/got you shot so some *shit* presumably happened)

In terms of how far they pushed, this is the map of the Heptarchy, i.e. their furthest extent:

So a bit of the Scottish south east. You see Strathclyde on there? That was the Brythonic part! This is why Glasgow is a Welsh name in origin. Cousins!

In terms of Gàidhlig revival (I'm not correcting you with the spelling, I just have friends who speak it and that's their preference lol), it's certainly a lot more complicated than it is in Wales, for numerous reasons. One is admittedly that Scotland has always been inherently multicultural - even before the Anglo-Saxons, the north was Pictish, the west was Goidelic (Dal Riada spanned west Scotland and modern northern Ireland), the south was Brythonic, and the islands have long been a spirited mix of Norse and Other. Each of those spoke their own language. Then came the Heptarchy, which birthed Scots, and then the Vikings in earnest... By contrast, Wales just spoke Welsh. Different dialects, sure, and infusions from elsewhere, but country-wide, we just had the one thing.

And then there's the sheer weight of numbers. The current percentage of the population that speaks Gàidhlig is, to my knowledge, less than two percent, which is an incredibly challenging position to be in. By contrast, the lowest Welsh ever slid to was seventeen percent, back in the Eighties, and today it's about thirty. That's much easier to pull off.

I should clarify here, of course, that I am not about to speak on behalf of Scottish people. Whether Gàidhlig is representative, whether it SHOULD be revived, those are ultimately debates for Scots to have, I'm nobody. But since you asked directly I can share my very Welsh-influenced perspective.

Firstly, any country-wide bilingualism is unilaterally a good thing. Without exception. Every country in the world should be aiming for it with *something*, regardless of what it is. There is no harm from raising a bilingual child. It's literally good for the brain.

Secondly, any language at all is a beautiful, unique thing that acts as a memory crystal for the culture and philosophy attached to it. If you lose one, you lose something important that can't be replaced. Here's an example! Translating between Korean and English pronouns is often a challenge, because Korean doesn't have the gender markers that English needs, but English doesn't have the age/social status markers that Korean needs. That tells you something fascinating about both of those cultures, and the philosophy and worldview they hold. Gàidhlig is not yet dead. There is time to save it. It is unique; it's a repository for so much of an older Scottish culture that otherwise might be lost. Why not save it?

Thirdly, why place the pressure on it to be a language spoken by all of Scotland? Does it need to be? Because there wasn't a pan-Scottish language, not until English, and that one was spread through imperialism. You won't find an alternative that was spoken by everyone. Does that mean you shouldn't bother with any of them? Well; see point one. But also...

If the issue is a lack of 'identity' - this was not spoken in my area, so I don't identify with it - it was still nonetheless a Scottish language. It's still unique and endemic to the country you now identify with. It's therefore still yours. And what's preventing someone learning something appropriately local as well? Fuck it, if you're from the south, learn Welsh. Pictish was lost - it can't be saved anymore. But it looks like it was Brythonic, so again, there's always Welsh as the closest analogue. But Gàidhlig is still Scottish, unique to the country, whereas Welsh is more pan-British.

So yeah, those are my very rambly thoughts that I have not actually pondered deeply at all. I shall now bow out of that particular conversation and leave it to the Scots

#asks #history nerdery #linguistics

[aristotels]

"english is a much simpler language to learn than most of others, especially regarding grammar" and "it takes a lot of work to learn a language" and "english being your mothertongue and you living in an anglospeaking country is a privilege considering vast majority of information, books, classes, pages on the internet etc in the western world are available to you" and "english is an imperial language" and "power the english language has is causing issues for non-anglo countries by affecting our cultures and information processing, but also the extent of its power makes it hard for people to get jobs even WITHIN our own countries" and "its good that we can understand each other" and "anglospeakers often feel threatened by information in other languages" are all things that are true and can coexist

[mswyrr]

re: Ballad and histories of musical genres

Why does Lucy Gray have that accent? A lot of Latinas and people of color have Southern accents! Why is she singing "country" music? The division of folk music in the US into some exclusively white/WASP genres is a racist invention of the 1920s - musician and historian of the topic Rhiannon Giddens has done deep research into that which has raised awareness on it:

A final explanation for Johnson’s absence from the historical record may be the most significant. It involves not his reputation but that of the music he played, with which he became literally synonymous—more than one generation of Southerners would refer to popular dance music simply as “old Frank Johnson music.” And yet, in the course of the twentieth century, the cluster of styles in which Johnson specialized––namely, string band, square dance, hoedown––came to be associated with the folk music of the white South and even, by a bizarre warping of American cultural memory, with white racial purity. In the nineteen-twenties, the auto magnate Henry Ford started proselytizing (successfully) for a square-dancing revival precisely because the music that accompanied it was not black. Had he known the deeper history of square dancing, he might have fainted. (source)

And - specific to Latine identities in the southern US - popular Mexican and Mexican American genres like corrido ballads (which often were highly critical of US imperialism and racism! Telling stories of resistance to Anglo/white supremacist authorities) and Ranchera songs are country music.

Corridos were fast-paced ballads that told culturally significant stories. To the sound of a guitar or a bajo sexto, a twelve-string guitar popular in the Southwest, corridos recounted epic events and retold the story of the cultural conflicts between Anglos and Mexican Americans... Corridos not only provide a graphic record of the injustices that Mexican American suffered—including land loss, cattle and horse theft, and lynchings—but also celebrated outlaws who stood up to defend the honor of the Mexican American community. (source)

Not only is the current rightwing concept of "country music" on highly commercialized radio deeply manufactured, white supremacist, anti-labor justice and a rejection of the kind of pro-equality, class and racial equality conscious music of some earlier white musicians like Johnny Cash, but the whole history of US folk music has been whitewashed and divided up dishonestly.

Lucy Gray played by Rachel Zegler makes total sense! I get why people wanted to see a Roma actress cast, but the people saying it's "weird" to see a Latina with a Southern accent singing country music are just not aware of this history.

I really like these genres and I find this history fascinating and powerful, so the way Collins has written a love letter (or love ballad?? lol) to them and their diversity is exciting and delightful to me.

#the hunger games #tbosas #the ballad of songbirds and snakes #lucy gray baird #my meta #thg meta

[athingofvikings]

A Thing Of Vikings Chapter 67: Kill With A Borrowed Knife

Chapter 67: Kill With A Borrowed Knife

Prior to the Imperial Assembly Of Law, the North Sea Empire's legal system was a patchwork of numerous local codes, ordinances, and jurisdictions, in multiple languages, and with numerous cultural and religious outlooks.  The purpose of the Assembly was to create a pan-imperial legal code that was acceptable to all peoples of the Empire, and, as with all compromises, it generally succeeded at making everyone equally unhappy, even as they recognized the validity of the compromises.  Religious law was left in the hands of the specific faiths, making the code officially secular, which pleased no one and yet satisfied everyone.  Other elements were picked from the component legal codes, including Eirish Brehon, Jewish Talmudic, Eastern Norse, Berkian Norse, Islamic Fiqh, Anglo-Saxon Common, and others, into a reasonably cohesive whole…

… the complex methods of Hooligan title inheritance, after some refinement, became the method by which titular inheritance was managed in the early and middle eras of the Empire, as the Hooligans already had influences from the Brehon, Alban, and Norse legal codes.  Pre-Assembly Hooligan title inheritance was a complex mix of elements from all of these sources, an intricate system that can be described as Absolute Primogeniture mixed with Gaelic Tanistry and Norse Elective Monarchy. 

Before the later refinements were introduced, the system worked as follows: Upon the death or incapacitation of the previous title-holder, the designated heir simply assumed the title (absent legal objections from their new subjects or suspicious circumstances), allowing for a smooth transition of power in most circumstances.  The main conflict came with selecting the next designated heir.  Heirdom was an elected position in Hooligan law, in line with Gaelic Tanistry, based on suitability and worthiness.  Heirs, at the time of selection, had to be adults without physical or mental blemish, descended either from the current or a prior title-holder, and currently a member of the clan that they would be inheriting (Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III's selection at the age of seven years was an anomaly, initiated by his father Stoick to reinforce his statement that he would not remarry as a result of his wife's legal death). 

Beyond those qualifications, the prospective clan-heir needed to be voted into the position by a majority of the individuals over whom they would rule (typically the members of the clan), with the precise degree of the majority needed depending on the heir's relationship with the current title-holder; a child of the title-holder's spouse needed a simple majority, while the child of a concubine needed six-tenths, and more distant relations needed greater pluralities.  Furthermore, the elections were handled in rounds; first the spouse's children would be voted on, one at a time in order of birth, and only if none of them were selected as the clan-heir in two rounds of voting would the elections move to include the concubine's children, and even then, only with the explicit acceptance of the title-holder.  From there, if the voting still did not find a suitable candidate, the pool would be expanded to more distant relations, with each voted on in turn until an acceptable candidate was found. 

While this system functioned well enough for the Hooligan tribe when it was a thousand people or less, it quickly ran into scaling problems as the clans grew, causing fractures to grow, necessitating the various refinements …

—Origins Of The Grand Thing, Edinburgh Press, 1631

AO3 Chapter Link

~~~

My Original Fiction | Original Fiction Patreon

#a thing of vikings #httyd #how to train your dragon #alternate history #historical fiction

[baublecoded]

“One authority recently wrote, ‘The notion of an “Angevin empire” is nothing more than a convenient invention of modern historians.’ Historians tend to reject the possibility of the Plantagenets’ collection of lands achieving permanence and political stability, seeing them merely ‘as the lucky acquisition of a quarrelsome family and not as an institution’. Although these lands are lumped together under the convenient term, Angevin or Plantagenet ‘empire’, few see much evidence for any Angevin concept of imperial doctrine or permanent union. In the Middle Ages the only true empire was the Roman Empire’s successors in East and West. Richard I and John’s seals bore the inscription Rex Anglorum, Dux Normannorum et Aquitanorum et comes Andegavorum; they had no name for the bloc of lands assembled by their father. […]

Henry II and his sons’ concept of their ‘empire’ and its permanence proves a difficult question; no concrete notion of unity for this ‘empire’ seems to have taken shape. Despite centralising tendencies in England and Normandy, the Angevin monarchs made no attempt to impose a uniform administration on their other continental territories. While Norman and English law and administration under Henry II followed closely parallel lines, he followed his father’s advice in his other domains, avoiding imposing uniform laws or institutions and ruling according to their different laws and customs. It is impossible to know exactly what notion John had of his inheritance other than a bloc of family possessions and feudal rights, source of his family’s wealth and political power. Many of his subjects, however, were coming to see the Plantagenets’ congeries of lands as ‘a curious anachronism’. […]

Scholars note too that the Angevin monarchs provided no unifying principle, no common culture that could bind their Anglo-Norman, Angevin and Aquitainian subjects together. Their ‘empire’ was a new creation, and Henry only began to construct administrative machinery in its constituent parts after the 1173–4 rebellion.”

— Ralph V. Turner, King John: England’s Evil King?

#henry ii #historian: ralph turner #angevins #need a tag … : #family firm

[cuntess-carmilla]

My other gripe with trying to force "queer" onto everyone not-a-cishet, besides what was excellently explained by this post, is that not all of us are native anglophones. Yes, even people like me who're fully fluent in English and spend a majority of our online time in anglophone spaces, I'm still a sudaca born, raised and still in South América with Spanish as my native tongue.

As a Chilean lesbian I have NO connection to the word "queer" beyond chronically online LGBT Chileans (usually white and upper class ones at that) who desperately want to emulate American LGBT politics in an act of self-colonization, who desperately want to homologate our identities with theirs. The term "queer" here has only caught on very recently, trickling down from very out-of-touch people who are more involved in the developments of LGBT communities in the imperial core than in their own fucking region, which I find extremely annoying, due to the aforementioned self-colonization and attempt to homologate Chilean LGBT experiences with American and other anglophone imperial core LGBT experiences.

Don't call me queer simply because (besides you all doing it to lesbians all the time to obfuscate our lesbianism) I'M NOT A FUCKING GRINGUE.

HOW ABOUT WHITE IMPERIAL CORE ANGLOPHONES START CALLING THEMSELVES THE MARICÓN COMMUNITY, IF YOU WANT TO CALL ME QUEER SO BADLY?

DOES IT MAKE SENSE FOR A FULL ANGLO-SAXON MAN FROM LONDON TO CALL HIMSELF "MARICÓN" OR "FLETO"? IF NOT, THEN IT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE FOR MY CHILEAN ASS TO CALL MYSELF "QUEER".

Not everyone who speaks English online was raised and/or is living in an anglophone country. Some of us are bilingual/multilingual global south bitches with an internet connection and very different cultural backgrounds from yours. Stop trying to force your queerness on me when I already have my fletería and mariconería.

*Dyke is a different case from queer because it literally just means the same as maricona or fleta so I choose to use dyke liberally in my second-language speech. <3

[sixty-silver-wishes]

kinda want to talk about "arsenic and old lace" from a postcolonial reading

So, I think "Arsenic and Old Lace" can be interpreted to say a lot about America and the duality between the perception of it and its history. When you look at the comedy from this angle, I think it becomes a surprisingly cutting satire.

First off, the two aunts can be interpreted to represent America itself. They come across as sweet and charming, but of course, they also regularly commit murder and make no secret of it. They justify their murders by calling it "charity work," which brings to mind similar justifications for imperialism and colonialism- ie., that native populations must be made "cultured" or "educated" by the colonizer. They're also xenophobic to the point of not wanting a foreigner's body mixed in with their "nice decent" bodies, who are assumed to be Anglo-American Christians (they make quite a big deal of the religious denominations of their victims). The flippancy towards America's past is even demonstrated in a line in which Mortimer claims the Brewster ancestors on the Mayflower "scalped the Indians" (literally taking part in the genocide of Native Americans), and Elaine responds with, "that's ancient history."

The analysis gets interestingly complicated when it comes to the character of Teddy. Teddy, of course, thinks he's Theodore Roosevelt, and his delusional episodes are played for laughs, but in the context of this analysis, the figure of Theodore Roosevelt is a significant part of a postcolonial satirical reading. Despite his support for American imperialism and racism towards Native Americans, Roosevelt is largely considered in popular culture, even today, to be a noble, adventurous president; just look at his portrayal by Robin Williams in the "Night at the Museum" movies. Teddy's caricature of Roosevelt is a delusion; his image of him is out of touch with reality. And furthermore, the aunts, if representing both America's image and it actions, use Teddy's delusional ideation of an American act of imperialism- Roosevelt's involvement in the construction of the Panama Canal- in order to keep up their murders.

#arsenic and old lace #film analysis #classic film #there's probably more to say here

[myrskytuuli]

At this point I think some fantasy author should just bite the bullet and write a novel where a teenager protagonist lives as a secret magic-user in our world and tries to master their skills in a magic school, but it is explicitly not an English or American protagonist, and the more they start to understand the world they live in, they more they realise that globally magic practicioners are being heavily scrutinisied and supressed by an anglo-american hegemony, which was established during England’s imperial years and has survived to this day as the “global magical hegemony” where England has an unfair advantage over all others because they stole almost all powerful magical artefacts and now refuse to give them back.

And as the protagonist gets more involved in the ways magic outside of anglo-saxon cultural sphere is being supressed, the more the reader will realise that we are referencing Harry Potter here. People will talk about “That English school” where most hegemony enforcers are alumni from. People will share urban legends that they still allow segrecation and slavery in England, and no one will believe them “because come one, we live in the 21st century” but that one character who worked with the English keeps unnervingly quiet. And there are references to a dangerous high-level enforcer with green eyes who is also a war veteran, who isn’t an evil guy, but from the point of view of the story is very much an antagonist.

And the world is built in such a way that it slots seamlessly into Rowling’s canon, but at the same time not a single Harry Potter related thing is actually named. And obviously there should be a lot of friction regarding the fact that a lot of magic traditions around the world are built around the assumption that Gender-noncomformity and crossdressing and gender-identities outside from the “mundane” two sex system are signs of magical identity, expect for the Anglo-saxon hegemony which very agressively will stamp down on those traditions.

And now that I’m stream-of-consciousness writing all this down, I realise that the story should obviously climax with a heist, where a group misfits try to break into the hidden magical floor of the British Museum and steal back some artefacts.

And the story should be an anthology between several different writers from different countries, all disillusioned HP fans.

#personal nonsense #harry potter #sometimes I drink wine and get ideas

[disacurveball]

man you really articulated my own problems with how fandom treats Kiku...sorry for venting a little but: thank you for acknowledging this as a fellow AsaKiku fan because sometimes I feel so alone as an Asian AsaKiku-er who admittedly likes a more calculating take on the alliance (especially since that alliance was built on my country's colonization by britain 😔). i don't wanna vague so much but it's real uncomfortable seeing historical hetalia fic where the other characters are roughened and calculating empires, yet it's all nooooo Kiku is actually a blushing, shy, gentle bumbling boi who could never be imperialist, it's all his government, all he just wants to be sweet and happy with England! he never thinks about other Asians, but only about England!...excuse me.

it's such a disservice to separate Kiku from his other Asian relationships too, yet i see people doing that. and this soft boi Kiku so often is employed to downplay British imperialism too by erasing any tensions he'd have with Arthur (or any version of England) over British imperialism in Asia. I don't want yellow peril villains but going too far to the other end is just another brand of awful infantilizing orientalism. if people don't want to grapple with meaner versions of the characters at all in their ships, i genuinely say...go and write a human AU. the Anglo-Japanese Alliance era is soaked in imperialism from top to bottom and people who aren't asian really gotta respect asian history and understand kiku and his relationships with other asians first if they want to play in that.

THANK YOU for your perspective anon. Genuinely such hard agree on everything you are saying here.

Kiku is such a character I feel like you really need to know what’s up before you go to write him, because there’s so much cultural and historical weight behind him. Glad someone else in the Asakiku niche is thinking this too, because as much as I love that ship, I’ve definitely seen some…questionable content surrounding those too; as someone who also prefers a more calculated take on the alliance.

And you are so correct that it’s such a disservice to separate Kiku from his relationships with the other Asian nations. Especially also when people don’t give them the complexity they deserve. I’ll never understand the people who treat hetalia relationships as blood family relations…but especially with the Asian nations that’s um. Oh that’s not— in the sense that—

Let! Kiku! Be! A! Complex! Character!

#gonna add I’m not an Asian fan I am english/irish but alwaysss gonna listen to Asian fans with how to portray those characters #my love of and characterization of Kiku stems from both my historical interests and interactions with other fans #if I’m ever caught lacking lmk bc I’ll do the proper research and change my opinion #hetalia #hws japan #aph japan #asakiku #engpan #hetalia critical