#and a historical view mindset

[elucubrare]

What are your biggest turn-offs when reading/watching historical fiction or retellings of myths?

this is really complicated - i can put it in two boxes, both of which are packed very full.

disconnection from the material reality of the past

when characters display a very specifically modern mindset (about social issues especially, but other stuff too)

(I also get bothered by some kinds of modern language - I don't mind it when, idk, an author uses "sensible" with the modern connotation of "practical" and not the 18th century "emotional" or "empathetic", but "yeah" or "okay," or even, as i found out when someone used it in medieval fantasy, "holy shit" will get on my nerves.)

there are modern things where (made up example!) a character who's supposed to be a cook will talk about making caprese salad for a fancy restaurant in December, and someone snarking on the book will say "yeah, right, they should know better than to make something that depends on a fresh summer vegetable!" and even with greenhouses, that's pretty fair. and that's even more extreme in the past. it's 1650 in Verona, it's December, you cannot obtain fresh tomatoes. i don't think this means that people in the past were, necessarily, more emotionally or spiritually in tune with the cycle of the year, or the labor it took to get clothes, or furniture, or any other material item, and of course wealth can insulate people from some of that difficulty, but it does mean that the seasons had more direct impact on people's lives. It's possible to, for example, buy clothes ready-made, but for anything fancy, it's more likely that it'll be made to fit if it's new, or altered extensively and painstakingly if it's not. that means that tearing or staining a fancy dress isn't just an issue of looking bad - you can't just replace it, and you probably won't throw it out - you figure out how to reuse it. those concerns of access to material goods are just a lot closer to the surface of the world than they often are now.

my objections to modern attitudes about the world are not that people in the past 100% accepted the views of their contemporaries - there were always people who didn't, and it makes sense that a protagonist would be one of them. but people wouldn't phrase those objections in the same way that modern people would - say your main character doesn't want a woman accused of being a witch burned. "God's power is such that the Devil cannot give this woman the ability to sour milk" is most likely going to be more persuasive to the crowd than "witches aren't real." and sometimes that's rough - it's not super fun to read about a Roman with Roman attitudes about provincial wars, or slavery in the city, but I put something down because a Roman character said (in internal dialogue) that he was disgusted to see that a man had been tortured because "Romans simply didn't do that." Historical Romans did do that, routinely - a slave could not testify in a law court unless they had been tortured. Even with distasteful things like that, I'd much rather it just be glossed over than to have them say the "correct" modern thing. It just makes it feel too much like the theme park version of the culture.

Both of these are because of specific things I come to historical fiction for - I want that sense of alienation, the gulf of experience. I hate that most historical fiction (and fantasy set in semi-recognizable periods) characters don't really care about Honor, except as a joke, because I love when characters organize their lives around arcane rules and systems that cause tiny things to escalate into blood feud. I just think they're neat! I like it when people's worldviews are shaped by their lack of scientific certainty about what causes crops to fail! If I wanted to read about people who thought and acted like me, and had lives that were mostly similar to mine, only cooler, I'd just read contemporary fiction.

#my thoughts on...

[edenesth]

TWTHH Spinoff: Love to Hate You [Teaser]

Pairing: royal secretary!San x female scholar!reader

AU: historical au (Joseon era)

Summary: San prided himself on his knack for building easy connections with women, viewing himself as a trusted ally for the opposite gender. Thanks to his deep bonds with his mother and sister, he possessed keen insights into the female mindset. Never did he imagine facing the ire of a woman, until he encountered a resolute female scholar with a strong dislike towards men.

A/N: Once again, special thanks to my one and only, my pookie, @itstheghostofmypast, for coming up with the main concept of San's spinoff.

Main Story | Spinoff Masterlist

"I'm just trying to help, Scholar Moon," the royal secretary insisted, his arms emptying as the stack of books he was previously carrying was abruptly snatched away by the newly acquainted female scholar.

You scoffed in response, "I don't remember asking for your help, sir. I understand it must be quite intriguing to meet a female scholar for the first time. However, there's a reason I'm the first. I'm not your typical damsel in distress. I don't need saving. While you may be used to women swooning at your feet, rest assured, I won't be one of them."

San stood in stunned silence as he watched you storming off in a fit of anger, completely taken aback by your hostile response to his well-intentioned gesture.

He had stumbled upon you as you exited the royal library burdened with a stack of borrowed books, his innate helpfulness and gentlemanly nature immediately prompted him to offer assistance without hesitation. But rather than the customary grateful smile and expression of thanks he anticipated, he couldn't believe he was met with such an unexpected and vehement reaction.

Did I... do something wrong?

A court lady standing nearby widened her eyes in disbelief. "Did you seriously just say that? Do you even know who he is?"

You rolled your eyes dismissively. "Probably just a eunuch, why?" you retorted, waving off her concern. "I doubt any high-ranking officials would pay me any mind."

"Well, you're correct about that. He's not a high-ranking official, but he is someone close to the King. He's the royal secretary," she disclosed, causing your heart to nearly stop as you gaped at her.

He's the what?!

I'll do my best to get the first part out as soon as I can! Hope you're excited about Sannie's spinoff hehe as always, let me know your thoughts on the concept! <3

Tag list (1/9): Tumblr is a bitch and won't let me mention more than 5 users in a single sentence, so now my tag list looks like a complete joke🤡

@itstheghostofmypast @huachengsbestie01 @minghaoslatina @weedforthoughtz @minkiflwr |

@cheolliehugs @the-kpop-simp @writingwieny @stayatinykatsy @skzline |

@green-agent @stayinhellevator @vampzity @tinyteezer @evidive |

@vantediary @superbbananananana @kimyeolchan @chocolate-scoups @decadentstrangernacho |

@vic0921 @marievllr-abg @sunnyhokyu @seungmin-in-thebuilding @heyitsmetonid |

@sansaurora9904 @darkestacademiamindsx12-blog @myblovedjyh @professormingisglasses @newworldwritings |

@chicken-fifi @thunderous-wolf @shythinggiver @madnpan @yandere-stories |

@anxiousskylar @frobin4ever @starssongs98 @dollce-exe @jan-l |

@lovelyred2 @haven-cove @watermelon2319 @dreamingofyeo @akimkim |

@scuzmunkie @satsuri3su @mismatchfluffysocks @borntoshineateez @st4rhwa |

@ddaeing @tropicalsstuff @bts-army380 @skteezcursed @beauty143 |

@naps-over-degree @idfkeddieishot @sis-101 @lemon-sage17 @jcalicocatj

All Rights Reserved © edenesth // DO NOT REPOST, TRANSLATE, PLAGIARISE OR REPURPOSE.

#edenesth #the way to his heart #love to hate you #twthh spinoff #ateez #ateez fanfic #ateez fanfiction #choi san #ateez san #historical au #joseon era #choi san x reader #choi san x you #ateez fic

[nellywrisource]

A writer’s guide to the historical method: how historians work with sources

In this post, I provide a brief overview of how historians engage with different types of sources, with a focus on the mindset of a historian. This insight could be valuable for anyone crafting a character whose profession revolves around history research. It may also prove useful for authors conducting research for their book.

Concept of historical source

The concept of historical source evolves over time. 

Initially, the focus was mainly on written sources due to their obvious availability. However, as time has progressed, historians now consider a wide range of sources beyond just written records. These include material artifacts, intangible cultural elements, and even virtual data.

While "armchair historians" may rely on existing studies and secondary sources, true professional historians distinguish themselves by delving directly into primary sources. They engage in a nuanced examination of various sources, weaving together diverse perspectives. It's crucial to recognize the distinction between personal recollection or memory and the rigorous discipline of historical inquiry. A historical source provides information, but the truth must be carefully discerned through critical analysis and corroboration.

Here's a concise list of the types of sources historians utilize:

Notarial source

Epistolary source

Accountancy source

Epigraphic source

Chronicle source

Oratory and oral source

Iconographic source

Diary source

Electronic source

Example: a notarial source

These are documents drafted by a notary, a public official entrusted with providing legal certainty to facts and legal transactions. These documents can take various forms, such as deeds, lawsuits, wills, contracts, powers of attorney, inventories, and many others.

Here we are specifically discussing a lawsuit document from 1211 in Italy.

A medieval lawsuit document is highly valuable for understanding various aspects of daily life because in a dispute, one must argue a position. From lawsuits, we also understand how institutions truly operated.

Furthermore, in the Middle Ages, lawsuits mostly relied on witnesses as evidence, so we can access a direct and popular source of certain specific social situations.

Some insight into the methodology of analysis:

Formal examination: historians scrutinize the document's form, verifying its authenticity and integrity. Elements such as structure, writing style, language, signatures, and seals are analyzed. Indeed, a professional historian will rarely conduct research on a source published in a volume but will instead go directly to the archive to study its origin, to avoid transcription errors.

Content analysis: historians proceed to analyze the document's content, extracting useful information for their research. This may include data on individuals, places, events, economic activities, social relations, and much more. It's crucial to compile a list of witnesses in a case and identify them to understand why they speak or why they speak in a certain manner.

Cross-referencing with other sources: information derived from the notarial source is compared with that of other historical sources to obtain a more comprehensive and accurate view of the period under examination.

Documents of the episcopal archive of Ivrea

Let's take the example of a specific legal case, stemming from the documents of the episcopal archive of Ivrea. It's a case from 1211 in Italy involving the bishop of Ivrea in dispute with Bongiovanni d'Albiano over feudal obligations.

This case is significant because it allows us to understand how feudal society operated and how social status was determined.

The bishop's representative argues that Bongiovanni should provide a horse as a feudal service. Bongiovanni denies it, claiming to be a noble, not a serf. Both parties present witnesses and documents supporting their arguments.

Witnesses are asked whether the serf obligations had been endured for a long time. This helps us understand that in a society where "law" was based on customs, it was important to ascertain if an obligation had been endured for a long time because at that point it would no longer be contestable (it would have become customary).

The responses are confused and inconsistent, so witnesses are directly asked whether they consider Bongiovanni a serf or a noble. This is because (and it allows us to understand that) the division into "social classes" wasn't definable within concrete boundaries; it was more about the appearance of one's way of life. If a serf refused to fulfill his serf duties, he would easily be considered a noble by bystanders because he lived like one.

Ultimately, the analysis of the case leads us to determine that medieval justice wasn't conceived with the logic of our modern system, but was measured in oaths and witnesses as evidentiary means. And emerging from it with honor was much more important than fairly distributing blame and reason.

Other sources

Accounting source: it is very useful for measuring consumption and its variety in a particular historical period. To reconstruct past consumption, inventories post mortem are often used, which are lists of goods found in households, described and valued by notaries to facilitate distribution among heirs. Alternatively, the recording of daily expenses, which in modern times were often very detailed, can lead to insights into complex family histories and their internal inequalities - for example, more money might be spent on one child than another corresponding to their planned future role in society.

Oral source: in relation to the political sphere, it is useful for representing that part of politics composed of direct sources, that is, where politics speaks of itself and how it presents itself to the public, such as a politician's public speech. However, working with this type of source, a historian cannot avoid hermeneutic work, as through the speech, the politician aims to present himself to a certain audience, justify, persuade, construct his own image, and achieve results. This is the hidden agenda that also exists in the most obvious part of politics.

Iconographic source: it concerns art or other forms of "artistic" expression, such as in the case of an advertising poster. They become historical sources when it is the historian who, through analysis, confers upon them the status of a historical source. Essentially, the historian uses the source to understand aspects of the past otherwise inaccessible. The first step in this direction is to recontextualize the source, returning it to its original context. Examining the history of the source represents the fundamental first step for historical analysis.

Diary source: diaries are a "subjective" source, a representation of one's self, often influenced by the thoughts of "others," who can be close or distant readers, interested or distracted, visible or invisible, whom every diary author can imagine and hope to see, sooner or later, reflected on the pages of their writing. Furthermore, they are often subject to subsequent manipulations, and therefore should be treated by historians only in their critical edition; all other versions, whether old or new, foreign or not, are useful only as evidence of the changes and manipulations undergone over time by the original manuscripts.

Electronic source: historians use Wikipedia even if they often don't admit it out loud.

This blog is supported through tips here on Tumblr. If you’d like to support me, please consider giving a tip.

#writing advice #writing help #writing reference #writing tips #creative writing #fantasy worldbuilding #fantasy writing #worldbuilding #worldbuilding tips

[maaarine]

How accurate is the new Napoleon film? Sorting fact from fiction (Andrew Roberts, The Sunday Times, Nov 19 2023)

"Sir Ridley Scott’s long-awaited movie Napoleon will have a great effect on how the French emperor is viewed in the popular imagination.

So it was with some trepidation that I watched it.

Would it reproduce the old Anglo-American historical stereotype of a jumped-up Corsican tyrant, or might it recognise that in fact Napoleon created the Enlightenment’s institutions, many of which last to this day?

For here was an opportunity to change the tired conventional view of Napoleon put forward by so many postwar Anglophone historians that Napoleon was essentially merely a prototype for Adolf Hitler.

Sadly and somewhat predictably for an 85-year-old whose mindset was formed by the Second World War, Scott has gone for the intellectually discredited stereotype of a dictator who goes mad with hubris. (…)

Scott has remarked before that “f***ing historians” don’t know what happened in Napoleonic times because “they weren’t there”.

But in fact there is a plethora of believable first-hand accounts from people who were indeed there, used by historians to discover what happened.

What these first-hand accounts tell us is that Napoleon was a witty, highly intellectual and attractive personality, whose reforms changed first France and then Europe for the better.

Whenever his armies entered European cities they liberated the Jews from their ghettos, giving them civil and religious liberties.

He was therefore precisely the opposite of the malignant, humourless, Jew-hating Führer. (…)

So firm is the assumption that Napoleon’s psyche had “run wild” that he is given the line to Joséphine: “I must begin my march to Moscow.”

Yet the whole point of the 1812 campaign was that Napoleon had no intention of going more than 50 miles inside Russia, in what was intended to be a three-week campaign.

As he crossed the river Niemen, there was no “march to Moscow”.

There are plenty of people in history who have a Napoleon complex, but Napoleon himself was not one of them, despite what Scott and Kirby might say.

This show also assumes Napoleon lost in Russia solely because the weather got cold in winter, as if the highly intelligent and well-read emperor did not know it would.

No mention is made of the typhus that killed 100,000 men, which Napoleon could not have foreseen.

At one point in the movie, Joséphine forces Napoleon to say: “I am just a brute that is nothing without you.”

Quite apart from the appalling syntax, the line, like so many in this visually stunning but historically tone-deaf film, fails to ring true.

Yet it is not from thousand-page biographies that the mass of people take their history today, but from movies like this.

Henceforth, therefore, Napoleon Bonaparte — the great world force of the Enlightenment who ended the French Revolution and dragged country after country out of ancien-regime torpor and into the vibrant 19th century — will merely be a brute who was nothing without his Joséphine."

#article #napoleon #napoléon #napoléon bonaparte #napoleon bonaparte

[trans-cuchulainn]

let's be more positive about books for a while! here are some queer historical romance novels that i've been rereading recently that i think do something interesting with making characters feel historical in their mindset and worldview, but are also fairly progressive, diverse queer books that are, frankly, a delight to read

this is by no means exhaustive and to be honest i could put almost anything by cat sebastian or kj charles on a list like this so this is purely the highlights of what i've reread in the past week to take my mind off work, and why i think they're interesting from this specific angle

cat sebastian, the ruin of a rake (turners #3)

this is technically the third in a trilogy but they're only very loosely connected, so you don't need to have read the others if you don't care about knowing who all the background characters are. the others are also good though

why it's interesting: features a character who has had to painstakingly study and learn the rules of polite society in order to claw his way up to respectability, and is now deploying those skills to help another man repair his reputation. shows the complexity of those rules, the social purposes they serve, and the work that goes into living by them, as well as the consequences of breaking them. also explores some of the financial side of aristocracy, and features a character with chronic illness (recurring malaria following repeated infections as a child in india) whose feelings about his illness are very relatable without feeling overly modern.

kj charles, society of gentlemen series.

this trilogy is closely related plot-wise and best read in order. all three explore cross-class romances and characters struggling to reconcile their political views and personal ethics with their desires, in the aftermath of the peterloo massacre, with a strong focus on the political role of the written word. first book is long-lost gentleman raised by seditionists / fashion-minded dandy teaching him to behave in society; second book is tory nobleman submissive / seditious pamphleteer dominant who've been fucking for a year without knowing the other's identity; third book is lord / valet and all the complicated dynamics of consent there with a generous side-helping of crime.

why they're interesting: close attention to the history of political printing and the impact of government censorship and repressive taxes on the freedom of the press; complex ideological disagreements that aren't handwaved as unimportant; examination of trust, consent, and social responsibility across class differences and in situations with problematic power dynamics; most of the characters are progressive for their time without feeling like they have modern attitudes. the second book, a seditious affair, deals most strongly with the revolutionary politics side of things, but all tackle it to some extent.

kj charles, band sinister.

look i'm probably biased because this might be my favourite KJC. it's a standalone about a pair of siblings: the sister wrote a gothic novel heavily inspired by their mysterious and scandalous neighbour whose older brother had an affair with their mum (causing scandal); the brother is a classics nerd. the sister breaks her leg on a ride through their neighbour's estate and can't be moved until she heals so they both have to stay at the house and find out if the neighbour is really as scandalous as he seems.

why it's interesting: discussion of atheism and new ideas about science and creation (very shocking to the brother, who is the viewpoint character); details of agriculture and estate management via main LI's attempt to grow sugar beet, as well as the economics of sugar (including references to slavery); "unexpurgated" latin and greek classics as queer reference points for a character who nevertheless hasn't quite figured out he's queer; material consequences of society scandal

bonus: wonderful sibling dynamic and a diverse cast including a portugese jewish character, which i don't think i've seen in a book before

i will add to this list as i continue to reread both of their backlists! (bc i have read them all enough times and in close enough succession that they blur together in my head unless i've read them very recently)

#néide has opinions about books #kj charles #cat sebastian #queer historical romance

[bonefall]

Clan Culture: Familial Terms and the Mi/Ba System

[ID: A brown tabby and a ginger tabby laying together]

A Clan is a large, extended family of cats, knit together by blood and mentorship. In Clanmew, a Clan directly translates to "Whole Family"-- Ulnyams, further divided into an individual cat's Gan (birth-kinships) and Nyams (created-kinships).

Because of the ancient cultural practice of Kitten Stealing and its modern-day replacement, the Queen's Rights, Clan cats have developed a surprisingly progressive view of adoption. There are many ways that couples incapable of producing their own biokits can find children to raise, leading to the Mi and Ba System.

The Mi is the primary parent of the kittens, the one who is the "legal" decider of the important choices regarding the children. The Ba is the secondary parent. These are not gendered; it does not matter who gives birth in this situation, if either of them even did.

Glossary:

Kin: Gan vs Nyams

Parents: The Mi/Ba System

Types of Love: Friendships, Mateships, In-Laws

Offspring and Siblings: Runt-ness, Litter Order

Gan Starter Set: Auncles, Cousins, Grandparents

Ancestors and Beyond

FAQ (Last Update: 10/5/23, Mi/Ba questions)

Kin: Gan vs Nyams

Blood relation is simply Gan. Historically, this would apply to the family of whoever raised you before you were apprentice-aged, the point where "Clan Loyalty" was supposed to set in. Gan includes everyone within three degrees of separation; Grandparents, auncles, and first cousins.

In a Clan, which is supposed to act as a whole family, Gan that "clots" can become a danger to the fabric of society. Mentorships serve an important purpose in "breaking" the coalition that Gan naturally creates, encouraging relationships outside of the bubble.

The rough Clanmew term for "nepotism" is Byykabrawk/Byykabraw/Byykabr-- the 3-stem verb for "Scab-forming."

Nyams in contrast is the relationships forged through life, and applying this term is a choice. Nyams is applied to most of your Gan, a good mentor, apprentices you remain close to after their graduation, and beloved friends.

Nyams is largely considered more important than Gan, both for the health of the Clan overall and for the ability to 'cut' bad Gan out of your family... but cats have their own stances on this. There are some that even argue that unchanging Gan is always above the conditional Nyams.

Keep your ears pricked for this mindset; it can be an indicator of deeper, more hidden beliefs.

Gan = Blood-kin

Nyams = Family-kin

Byykabrawk/Byykabraw/Byykabr = Scab-forming/Nepotism/Loyalty to one's blood over one's Clan

Parents: The Mi/Ba System

The one constant for all Clan kittens is that they are expected to have a Mi.

A "Mi" is a primary parent, the one that spends the most time in the nursery looking after the kitten. This is a non-gendered term; there are many reasons why a non-birthing parent may be the Mi of their litter. It also doesn't necessarily refer to whoever suckled the kittens.

There will be one Mi. To have multiple cats 'competing' over being a Mi is not considered a good or 'cute' thing, at best it means that one of the parents is unnecessarily shirking on supporting the Clan and their mate, and at worst, it means they're using their kittens as pawns in a domestic argument.

Two parents that, for some reason, have nearly equal time split between their kits will typically choose one parent to take 'Ba' for clarity.

In the case of a Mi who can't be responsible with their kits, such as if they become sick, die, or commit neglect or abuse, the Ba is socially expected to become the Mi. A terrible Mi can even be "evicted" from the nursery entirely, if they were particularly cruel to a child.

(BB!Rainflower is an example of a cat who earns this punishment.)

The "Ba" is a secondary parent, but still one that is actively involved in their child's life. Ba can also spend time in the nursery and take their duties a bit easier. In the case of polyamory, there can even be multiple Ba!

Mi Limit = JUST ONE.

Ba Limit = As many as you want.

A cat that spends no time with their children is not a Ba. To try and imply that a bioparent that did not raise their kids is a "Ba" is something that supporters of Thistle Law do in order to conflate Gan with Nyams.

The title can even be rejected entirely; as Bramblestar did to the Three, and Breezepelt eventually does to Crowfeather.

Relevant biological parents are given the same terms as wild animals that don't care for their young; Usually Mwaow, an egg-laying mother that deposits its eggs and leaves. Though, occasionally Wairre (a buck or boar that had access to several females) is used for "sires" specifically. Wairre is more derogatory than Mwaow.

"Honor Sire" is most often used for a cat that donated material for a pairing to have children, though due to the nature of the Queen's Rights, the true identity of these cats is usually kept secret. The word for them in Clanmew is Kurruaow, Honor-Egglayer.

(In English, Honor-Dam and Honor-Sire are sometimes used depending on if they gave birth or sired, but Clanmew has no distinction.)

An Honor Sire is not a Ba, nor a Mi. Do not use these terms for Honor Sires unless they are specifically co-parenting.

In the case of parents that can't provide milk to their kittens, they will often have a third person step in to nurse the kittens. This person is referred to as a 'suckler', Ssuow. In Clanmew it has a connotation of favor-giving, and can be used outside of parental contexts in that way. A sucklemate is called a Ssuwi.

A mentor, auncle, Educator, den-helper, or any other parental figure who you consider important to your development, yet was not a Mi or Ba, is called a Yyan. It is an honor to be someone's Yyan!

Mi = Primary parent

Ba = Secondary parent

Mwaow = Biological parent, egg-laying animal that doesn't care for its young, slightly derogatory

Wairre = Biological sire specifically, a reproductive buck or boar, very derogatory

Kurruaow = Honor Sire/Dam/Parent

Ssuow = Non-parent who nurses a kit; associated with doing a favor.

Ssuwi = Non-sibling sucklemate.

Yyan = Non-Mi/Ba parental figure.

FAQ on the Mi/Ba system

"are Mi and Ba gendered terms?" no.

"can Mi be used for male or nonbinary cats" yes.

"What happens if the Mi is changed halfway through?" a Ba becomes the Mi

"What if Mi dies when kit is almost apprentice aged" a Ba becomes the Mi

Types of Love: Friendships, Mateships, In-Laws

In Clanmew, love is not is not a verb, it is a noun. You don't love someone like an action, it 'exists' for them. The largest, most powerful word for love is Mirri.

Mirri isn't inherently romantic, but it can be. It's everything. It's concern, compassion, adoration. Love must exist for your Clan, the cats in it, your nyams, and so on.

Other forms of love are "below" the Mirri, contributing to it. Kind of like different springs that spill water into the same pool. EVERYONE contributes to Mirri, just by existing in the fabric of Clan society.

There are FOUR types of love below Mirri in Clan Culture; Ardor (Sseeo), Trust (Wrarri), Enjoyment (Piwarri), and Righteous Love (Yyaawr)

Ardor = Sseeo Passionate attraction, in the 'honeymoon' romantic crush way. Ardor notoriously fades over time. It is considered very powerful, but something that by nature doesn't last. For a good example of Ardor, Fallowtail claimed she had this type of love for Reedfeather when she had his kits, and that is why she has no love for him now. This made perfect sense to RiverClan, home of the Queen's Rights. Ardor that lasts is a rare and special thing.

Trust = Wrarri Personal, platonic affection. Rapport built between friends, mentors, mates, family. It's not until recently that this has also come to apply between Clans, too. A very strong, reliable kind of love; it is considered traitorous to have a lot of this for someone in another Clan. Bluestar had this for the Forget-Me-Nots, and them for her in turn... but also, it was more than Wrarri. It was Piwarri, Sseeo, and even Yyaawr. They were everything to her.

Enjoyment = Piwarri You know when you find someone entertaining? Or you have a particular friend you love playing a specific game with? You wouldn't fight for them, but you may do them a favor, especially if it means you get to hang out more often. THAT is piwarri. This is used a LOT with inter-Clan friendships. Piwarri is considered easy, soft, and friendly, but not strong like Wrarri is. It is something that can contribute to Mirri, but is also not a threat to it. Buddy-love.

Righteous Love = Yyaawr When Firestar received a life "for the love of a mother for her kits", he was getting 20 kilos of this slammed into his face. It's a difficult translation, because it isn't just for a mother and her kits. It's righteous anger at injustice, the fury in seeing smashed songbird eggs. It's the need to protect helpless things. It's love that makes you sacrifice your food for for kittens, or a leader's lives for their Clan. Sometimes, a person's yyaawr for you can be suffocating. It's not always welcome. ThunderClan identified Millie's feeling towards Briarlight as yyaawr. Brambleclaw (though he, obviously, was mostly saying it to upset her) accused Squilf of wanting to receive one-sided yyaawr over mutual wrarri.

Love in Clan Culture can be understood through these four ideas. Family is Trust and Righteous Love. Courting is Ardor and Enjoyment. Co-Parenting is Piwarri and Wrarri. Together, they all form Mirri.

Mate = Irre Someone that you would share a nest with. You can have multiple mates, but it often becomes logistically limited by how big you can make a single nest. They also don't HAVE to be romantic. If you would call them a 'spouse,' they're your mate.

Significant Other, Partner = Iwaw Co-parents, particularly close friends, a metamour of a mate in the case of polyamory... people who are significant enough that you would consult with decision-making, but you wouldn't describe as a 'mate.'

Date/Boyfriend/Girlfriend/"We're courting but not seriously" = Sseerr When you're in a state of ardor or just dating, this is the word you use. It could become serious, or it could just be for fun. When it gets serious, even if they don't end up becoming a "mate", it becomes Iwaw.

And, lastly, there are a few terms for in-laws of each one of these stages, 3 for Irre, 2 for Iwaw, and 1 for Sseerr.

IN-LAWS OF YOUR IRRI (MATE);

Mi of your mate = Rrimi

Ba of your mate = Rriba

Family of your mate =Rriga

IN-LAWS OF YOUR IWAW (Significant Person, this CAN be a best friend.)

Mi of your SP = Iwmi

Family of your SP = Iwga

IN-LAWS OF YOUR SSEERR (Date)

Family of your date = Ssega

Offspring and Siblings: Runt-ness, Litter Order

The average size of a Clan cat litter is 2.5 children (Nia'u), and most parents will have at least 2 litters (Neewarr) in their lifetime. A cat's first litter is something to be very proud of, and the children within it are called Niak. Children of the second litter are Niawi. Any more litters than that are called Nia'eef.

Long ago, stolen kittens who were not from a particular litter were called Kurrnia, "Honor-Children." This word is not used now for reasons that are hopefully obvious.

So, having absolutely no siblings is quite rare!

You refer to all of your siblings as your Firra. The ones from a litter above you are your Kafrrif, below you are your Eefrri, and your littermates are Wifeerr.

So, in addition to having words for an older or younger litter of siblings, there are also words for your size within your own litter. Clan Culture is more concerned if you were a large kitten or a runt than your birth order.

This is because growing up, size would mean you had the upper paw in brawls, to your suckler's milk, and ability to explore the world. A bigger kitten is one that can mature faster. Runts are considered to need more protection and 'babying' to make sure they grow up healthy.

Your larger littermate is your Wikfrra. A smaller littermate is your Weefswa. If you're equally sized, you squabble endlessly over who's REALLY the larger sibling until one of your parents snaps and insists that you're JUST Wifeerr-- similarly-sized littermates.

Nia'u = Child/son/daughter

Neewarr = Litter

Niak = Child of first litter

Niawi = Child of second litter

Nia'eef = Child of third/any more litters

Kurrnia = Stolen kit, rightfully won through battle (Archaic)

Firra = Siblings (Broad term, often assumed to be innately plural and referring to several types of siblings at once)

Kafrrif = Sibling of older litter

Eefrri = Sibling of younger litter

Wifeerr = Littermate (Generic and of a similar size)

Wikfrra = Larger littermate

Weesfwa = Smaller littermate

Gan Starter Set: Auncles, Cousins, Grandparents

Kittens receive a LOT of orbital care. Even if they only have a Mi, the entire camp is expected to become acquainted with the new kits. This one stops a kit from touching a hot soup cauldron, that one explains where clouds come from (starclan ofc), another one keeps them entertained with a funny story.

And, of course, the immediate relatives of the new kitten go out of their way to make sure their new kin is cared for. Is their Mi fed? Are their Bas overwhelmed? Is someone watching them? Grandparents provide advice from their life experience, Auncles make sure their siblings know they're not alone, and Cousins are there to go through it with them.

An Auncle is either your Myami (Sibling of your Mi) or your Byami (Sibling of your Ba). They call their nespring a Rabnif, regardless of their sibling's Mi or Ba status. First Cousins are Rabir.

Grandparents are quite special. While Auncles are defined on if they are your Ba's sibling or your Mi's sibling, the labels of Grandparents are 'looser.'

Your Ami is, by default, the Mi of your Mi... but can easily shuffle around if that specific cat is not present in your life. Like a Ba, your Garrmi is any other grandparent involved in your life who is not your Ami, but is by default the Mi of your Ba or the Ba of your Mi. Finally, a Genrrarg is technically the Ba of your Ba, but more often applies to Grandparents you're more distant with.

And, like Mi and Ba, these terms are exclusive to cats who are in your life. Your father's uninvolved Honor Sire is not your Genrrarg.

Grandparents have two terms for their grandchildren. A Nini is a grandchild that they have a significant role in raising. This is especially common for kittens that only have a Mi and no Ba. "Niauga" implies a bit more distance.

Myami = Mi-Auncle

Byami = Ba-Auncle

Rabnif = Nespring/nephew/niece

Rabir = Cousin

Ami = Mi of my Mi (This can also be applied as a term of endearment. For example, Heartstar is the Ba of her kittens, but Tawnypelt is still Shadowsight's Ami)

Garrmi = Ba of my Mi AND/OR Mi of my Ba

Genrrarg = Ba of my Ba/Someone who is still a grandparent, but not a close one.

Niauga = Grandchild (General)

Nini = Grandchild (That you have responsibility for)

Ancestors and Beyond

Clan Culture doesn't typically track beyond immediate family, using the same general terms for wide swaths of distant relationships.

Great-grandparents, grand-auncles, and distant cousins are Garrmwa. It could roughly translate to "ancestor" or "relative." These are cats that a connection can be made to with some deduction, but are not relevant.

If a cat ever did become particularly close to their Garrmwa, they would replace the title with the closest approximate term. For example, Jayfeather's mentor was his grand-uncle Longtail. After a while, he was simply acknowledged as his Myami, as he was the brother of Squirrelflight's Mi.

A Sharrarram is an Ancestor. A cat of your kin that has joined the ranks of StarClan. This isn't just direct ancestry; this could include the brother of your great-great-grandfather who died of an adder bite as an apprentice.

StarClan refers to its living relatives as Shegarra, "descendants."

Garrmwa = Relative (For relatives that can still be tracked with deduction but are not close enough to be within Gan.)

Sharrarram = Ancestors (For ancient ancestors, beyond modern memory, who live in the stars.)

Shegarra = Descendant

FAQ

Mi/Ba System FAQ

"are Mi and Ba gendered terms?" no.

"What if the Mi dies when kit is almost apprentice aged?" Ba becomes Mi legally, probably doesn't change the words they use.

"What happens if the Mi is changed halfway through the childhood?" Ba becomes Mi legally but family figures out if the kit will change the words they use.

"Can the Mi of the first litter decide they want to be Ba of the next litter?" Yes that's fine! The kids will just use the title that was relevant to them.

#Clan Culture #Mi/Ba System #Better bones au #Familial terms

[usnatarchives]

Paws and Claws for the Cause - American WWII Propaganda Posters Featuring Animals 🐕‍🦺🦅

During World War II, U.S. propaganda posters wielded not just patriotic fervor but also a diverse array of animal symbolism to rally the public. Faithful dogs, regal eagles, and even the humble wildlife of American forests became emblems of the home front's dedication to victory. Let's take a leap into the past and examine the role these animals played in U.S. wartime propaganda.

Dogs: Loyal Companions in the Fight for Freedom 🐶

Dogs in WWII posters often represented trustworthiness and the protective instincts crucial to American security. A notable poster from the National Archives shows a vigilant dog alongside a call to action for war bond contributions, encapsulating the role of dogs as both companions and defenders.

Eagles: The Winged Warriors of American Ideals 🦅

The American eagle soared across numerous posters, its powerful wingspan casting a shadow over threats to liberty, and its sharp gaze fixed on aerial superiority and victory.

Wildlife: Symbols of Conservation and the Nation's Resolve 🦉

Bears, squirrels, and other native animals symbolized the conservation efforts on the home front. These posters encouraged citizens to collect and contribute materials critical to the war effort, equating everyday actions with the strength and resourcefulness of America's wildlife.

Enemies as Pests: Propaganda's Vermin 🐁

Enemy forces were often portrayed as vermin, such as rats or insects, to emphasize the threat and repugnance of their ideologies. This stark animal imagery served to dehumanize the enemy.

These posters from the National Archives Catalog remind us of the power of imagery and metaphor in rallying a nation to unite against a common foe. As we explore these historical artifacts, we gain insight into the era's cultural mindset and the enduring impact of visual persuasion.

Read more:

#national archives #wwii #history #air force #army #military

[dei2dei]

Look at all the stuff in that mansion. It's full, in that carefully-organized-by-a-designer way, and it's fantastic--and it's also utterly, horribly terrifying and makes me sad on behalf of MK1 Johnny Cage, what little I can see. Because as much money has been splashed around, as glorious and gorgeous as that Cage’s Mansion stage is… that's a showpiece, not a home.

Johnny has Sento, a true Japanese katana with a history--and it's famous enough, presumably, he'd know its name. It's on display in a really nice setup with all its elements neatly aligned and included so you can see every bit of it.  

He has a very fancy glass chandelier, and what looks like a bust of Nefertiti. Open windows and he keeps the temp at 72F. Lots of white furniture, the random vases full of sticks (aromatherapy diffusers?), a variety of bar carts. Abstract art and sculpture, and what may be a bra abandoned by the one chair and ottoman by the fireplace. One chair and ottoman. Not two, where you'd expect to cuddle up with family if you had one, or a partner. Just one.

This place can seat dozens. There are at least four discrete seating areas (maybe five?) on the bottom floor, plus the infinity pool, and an outdoor porch/patio. Then there's the second floor and all its seating that we can glimpse. It’s made for filling with people, and not in a lived-in dinner parties and kids running around kind of way.  This is a place you fill with people for parties. It's a place you expect to need dozens of chairs and bottles and bottles of liquor for your get-together. But there's very little Johnny on display. 

It's all about external appearances- the bust of Nefertiti is a well-known piece of art, and historically she was considered an icon of feminine beauty. He's got one of the world's most beautiful women to look at, a fancy Japanese katana, and yet all of it smacks to me of a man who is desperate to find pleasure, to chase the high in acquisitions and throwing big parties and having lots of people, to drown and forget the emptiness inside.

We don't see pictures of people here. No photos of family, of a girlfriend, or even of himself (no posters or award photos on the wall). Johnny is a man on his own, and anyone who comes to his place is an ephemeral guest, leaving very little of themselves behind. What there is of him is hidden away from public view, where perhaps only a few guests would get to see--and if we're stripping down to bras in the main space and then heading to skinny dipping in the pool, it'll be a wonder if they make it to a bedroom. There's no dining room here, or kitchen (that we see)--all those private areas are hidden. All public-facing here, all carefully cultivated and maintained for appearances.

I think this new Johnny, the little bit we've seen, is hungry for something. He wants something and he doesn't know what it is. Acting lets him chase that; maybe he'll find what he's missing in a role, in a mindset, in a co-star. Maybe he's tried to buy things and see if one of them will fill the hole in him, but nothing takes. Maybe if he surrounds himself with enough people, he'll meet The One (or two, if it's a poly situation). But right now... he's flying solo. This isn’t a place you raise a kid in, curl up with your significant other on a couch in front of the fire and laugh or watch TV (is there even one?).

It's an ostentatious display of wealth and a desire to be a party animal, to be the one people come to hang out with, the social butterfly that has alcohol and plenty of space. I think Tony Stark would absolutely be comfortable in a place like this (in fact, that's what my first thought was - MK/MCU mashup when?), but what we're missing is the equivalent to Tony's lab and bedroom. There's no passion here on display, nothing that makes this an individual, unique home that says "Johnny Cage" on it. He's presenting a face to the world, and hiding the rest away where he has to be a real person who eats and sleeps. There’s a scene in the MKX comics where Sonya is gearing up for an op in their kitchen, and the incongruity is great, Johnny stumbling out in fuzzy slippers and bathrobe and her checking her gun with the fruit bowl on the counter. That wouldn’t happen here; that’s too human, too vulnerable, for this Johnny.

Until - I hope - he meets The One, and realizes that he can stop chasing after external happiness because he’s got somebody who makes all those paintings and awards pale in comparison. Someone who's worth putting another chair next to the fireplace for, maybe making that pristine mansion a little messy for. Someone who's going to shake him down to his well-heeled shoes and upend his world. And if MK1 isn't going to give him someone, well. That's what fanfic is for.

#mortal kombat #headcanons #johnny cage #mk1 #character analysis #meta #i want it to be cageblade i really do #and that's what fanfic is for

[pal1cam]

decolonization presentation

So for context, this is regarding a conversation I had a few weeks ago with one of the cofounders of an international organization that I volunteer at.

I spoke to the cofounder, and we were discussing the Palestinian cause in general, but more specifically the ongoing Gaza genocide.

From our conversation, I understood from her that she as a cofounder of this organization had the means to speak out about Palestine and have the organization and all of its platforms, be a space and a place for raising Palestinian voices, yet as she is not extremely educated on the topic, she does not know where to start or what would be the proper way to advocate for Palestine… (especially that doing so could get the organization into legal trouble because it’s in a European country with very strict pro israel policies and laws)

We agreed on having an online meeting where I create some sort of presentation to educate her on the Palestinian cause, and why it’s historically and morally important to speak out about Palestine and educate her on some of the highlights in Palestinian history, especially modern Palestinian history.

As a Palestinian myself, it is quite hard to pick and choose what are the most important points and bullet points that I should include in this presentation that i’ll be making very soon, so I thought that I should take this to Tumblr to take ideas from everyone on here, because I would also love to hear from non-Palestinian folks that are educated on the Palestinian cause to any degree what they think on how I could educate this individual on the Palestinian cause…

so I need your thoughts and opinions on the following points :

What are the most significant reasons why one should speak out about Palestine from a moral perspective?

What are the most important historical events in Palestinian history that I should mention besides the 1948 Nakba?

How do I convince this person of the importance of speaking out about such a humanitarian crisis? (because it’s important to me that they advocate for Palestine because they’re convinced of the importance of this cause, and not only because of me being a Palestinian active member of the organization)

How do I emphasize on the point that speaking out about such a cause is more important than worrying about the criticism that comes with being pro Palestine?

What are some easy-to-understand & informational/educational and preferably short pieces of media that I could recommend to this person so that she would be motivated to learn more about the Palestinian cause?

I would appreciate all & any suggestions by anyone on here wether you’re Palestinian or Non-Palestinian, and if you feel like sending me a message with all of your ideas rather than leaving them in the comments section, please feel free to do so !!

PS. if the meeting with this cofounder is successful, there will probably be another meeting held for me educate other staff members of the organization including the other cofounders, so by contributing to this initiative you’d be making a change in the mindsets of many people who come from various backgrounds and cultures, which means they might also spread that awareness and knowledge in their own wider social circles, and that way your contribution doesn’t stop only at changing 1 person’s way of viewing the Palestinian cause :)

#palestine #from the river to the sea palestine will be free #gaza #free gaza #gazaunderfire #save gaza #gaza strip #gazaunderattack #stand with gaza #free palestine 🇵🇸 #help if you can #stand with palestine #gazan genocide #gaza under attack #gaza genocide #war on gaza #save palestine #palestinian history #long live palestine #palestina #free gaza 🇵🇸 #from the river to the sea 🇵🇸 #🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸 #i stand with palestine 🇵🇸 #filistin 🇵🇸 #give me ideas #give me suggestions #please help if you can #please help #helpgazachildren

[fictionadventurer]

Little House in the Big Woods is a masterful depiction of the simple joys and mindset of very early childhood. Which, oddly enough, makes the book work better for me as an adult than as a child. As a kid, I saw this as one of the lesser books--there are some fun moments and interesting stories, but nothing really happens. As an adult, that's one of the main draws--nothing happens! Laura gets to see the frost on the windows and play with her cousins and get Christmas presents and look at the pictures in the animal book and play house and nothing goes wrong. It brings back those innocent, simple joys of very early childhood in a way that's much more welcome now that I'm much further away from it.

With an adult's perspective, it's also easier to catch more details about the wider world surrounding that little cabin in the Big Woods. The family ties binding together the adults. The historical context of the 1860s. You catch the fact that they're choosing to live like this--the rest of the world is pretty advanced, but they're living on the very edges of civilization where you have to do things for yourself in a way few other people do.

As a kid, I just saw the historical moment as "pioneer times where they live like this because they haven't invented technology." As an adult, I know that there's a ton of technology already being invented at a faster rate than ever before, and even here on the fringes of society, it's got a huge effect on how they settle the area. They buy machine-made traps to catch animals for a huge fur industry (at least, I don't see a local blacksmith making these). They use a complicated threshing machine. They buy machine-made cloth and cane sugar and have little store-made knickknacks. Their way of life is pretty heavily dependent on a world where railroads and steamships can rapidly transport goods around the world, which is a huge reason that life changed so quickly during Laura's lifetime--the world was already pretty modern, and just had to get out to where she was. It's a perspective that added a lot of depth to my view of the setting.

The book's also better from an adult viewpoint because it's not just the story of early childhood, but it's a woman in her 60s looking back at her early childhood--nostalgic for it in the way a lot of adults are nostalgic for a time when the world seemed simpler and safer--which makes the perspective oddly relatable.

I can still see why it's less exciting than the other books--even apart from the lack of deadly perils, Laura's extremely young age means she's not an active protagonist. She's just watching life while other people go off and do things. Most of the events are things we hear about--Pa telling stories of his childhood or of what he's done during the day. Laura doesn't, for instance, go out to the bee tree--she sees Pa get the wagon and then come back and tell her about it. Even this simple event is something that Laura's not actively watching, which makes her perspective feel a bit disconnected from the world.

But for all the story's flaws and virtues, the very best part of the book is how much love goes into it. Laura is writing this out of love for the family that gave her such a childhood. She'll pause to note Pa's laugh, or talk about how pretty Ma was while making hominy. She loves the landscape, delighting in the details of every season. She loves the daily tasks of farm life. She's not just detailing things like cheese-making or churning because these skills are dying out, but because she's lived her life on a farm and takes genuine joy in the details that go into completing all these tasks. She loved farming so much that she spent years writing a column about farming life, and that absolutely comes out here.

Then, at the very end, we have a line that's my contender for one of the best last lines in all of literature. Laura's watching her family and the firelight as Pa plays his fiddle in the cozy little house, singing about remembering the days of long ago. And this sixty-some-year-old woman, looking back at her childhood, bringing back a vanished world for the children of today, ends with a paragraph that perfectly sums up the bittersweet truths of the story--that childhood thinks it will last forever, that time will pass in the blink of an eye, and that memory and storytelling can, in their imperfect way, make the past immortal.

She was glad that the cosy house, and Pa and Ma and the firelight and the music were now. They could not be forgotten, she thought, because now is now. It can never be a long time ago.

#little house in the big woods #little house #laura ingalls wilder #maybe this should have been a bullet point list but it turns out i got a lot of paragraphs in me

[thatlittleegyptologist]

On places like tiktok and youtube shorts I have seen an increase in AI generated videos. By far the most popular genre i have is history/ historical conspiracy. How do you feel about people essentially auto generating fake history?

I mean, how I feel largely doesn't matter because I'm no one.

The problem we have with the over proliferation of memes/AI/short form content is that it discourages the viewer to seek anything deeper and with more and more people relying on this content for news/facts/entertainment.

We already know the dangers of how social media gives tiny serotonin boosts, which keep us coming back for more (see: doom scrolling, and outrage baiting), so we get addicted to only seeing things in very short bursts. Long form content, which would likely discuss things with more nuance but doesn't give a person that serotonin, boost i.e. it's boring, so people abandon it for the short form and don't read anything longer that would likely contradict the short video they saw. They implicitly trust what they see to be true, and therefore will spout that until it becomes 'fact' because of course it is they saw it on TikTok right? (see the post I reblogged yesterday where someone said 'oh there's a third shaker in a historical condiment set and no one knows what it is' in a tiktok...and...it was immediately debunked but no one on tiktok is gonna know that because they've just scrolled away for their next serotonin hit).

This goes in hand with the trend over the last decade or so of actively saying derisive things about academics (from any background) that are usually dressed up in the guise of progressive language, but is more or less the anti-intellectual rhetoric we've seen from those who'd prefer you didn't listen to academics. You know the stuff 'academics are hiding X from us', 'academics don't want you to know this', 'academics hate X group of people'. This sort of behaviour allows those who can play on your ignorance to further manipulate you by discouraging you from seeking more information because you now no longer trust the exact people who could give you the right information. It's an Us vs Them mentality, which has proved so lucrative in partisan arguments. You see it here on Tumblr all the time in the 'if you like X show you're bad an irredeemable and you must be blocked, but if you agree with me you're good and righteous'. Or the way people will treat headcanons about history as fact. Someone, way back in 2011, headcanon'd Hatshepsut as trans because they were trans themselves and they liked how she used both pronouns. I remember that post well. Somehow it morphed into 'no she's definitely trans and all those Egyptologists who are like 'hang on wait what no that's not how that works?!' are in fact terrible people who are denying you the truth and are transphobes' (yes, this is a continual fight that several Egyptologists have here and no matter how we phrase it someone claims we're covering something up and it's Frustrating). But again it's the 'you either accept our way of thinking or you're a bad person' mindset. It's all facets of the same behaviour.

So how do I feel about it? Helpless. I can try and try to get people to listen, to maybe stop and think about things for a second before they just blindly parrot it until it becomes a 'fact' that I can no longer fight without someone insulting me. But the people making this content do not care about whether it's true or not they just want the views and I cannot fight against people who wish to lie to you for the superficial boost having thousands of views on a 20 second video gives them. It is exhausting. I can't stop them from doing it, so all I can do is be prepared to sit here and write another long cited post where I have to explain that the truth is far more complicated and nuanced than you will ever get in short form content.

[boxx-sama]

Small Yuno Rant

CW: Abortion, mentions of sexual activity, mentions of suicide

Why Yuno Kashiki is NOT just “a girlboss”, as she has been mischaracterized by the Milgram fandom for who knows how long.

Oh boy.

I think most of you are already aware of the treatment Yuno gets by the fandom.

“Yeah girl, you abort that baby!”

“She did nothing wrong, she’s a girlboss!”

“She doesn’t regret anything!”

Well, to that, I say:

Do you know ANYTHING about Yuno, really?

These are all highly watered-down statements that prove that people see Yuno merely as some sort of feminine icon who did what was right for her body. And, that is right to an extent. I am pro-choice. But I don’t think they realize how unhealthy Yuno’s cravings were, how messed up her mindset is, and just how jaded she is.

I will debunk these statements one by one, so without further ado, let’s go.

Abortion in Japan, and Yuno’s Family

I’ve done my research on this, and I can easily say that getting a proper abortion in Japan is absolute hell. Taken from this article, an excerpt reads:

In Japan, abortion is essentially a crime except for certain indications. These indications have to do with mental illness, hereditary disease, leprosy, threat to the health of the mother, and pregnancy resulting from rape or threat. These indications entered into force under the eugenic protection law of 1948. On January 1, 1991, a new regulation became effective that shortened the duration of pregnancy termination from 23 weeks of gestation to 21 weeks in view of the advancement of medicine that made it possible for prematurely born children to survive outside the uterus.

Despite the limited availability for abortion, it is definitely seen as a crime by Japanese people. It is known that women are supposed to be held responsible for the death of the baby, not the doctors or pills that may be taken.

And even then, the chance of a proper abortion is slim. For example, birth control pills. The pill is not covered by Japanese Health Insurance, and the cost is approximately 3,000 yen per month. That is about $20 USD. Yuno is not struggling for money, either, as revealed by her T2 VD:

“I'm not pitiable. My family gets along super well. And I'm not particularly struggling for money. I decided, of my own free will, to do it because I felt that it was necessary for me.”

This adds evidence to my theory that Yuno did not want to be publicly shamed for having an abortion at such a young age, and as such, went to more extreme, private methods to rid of the baby; the latter of which I will get to later.

As I previously mentioned, abortion is looked down on in Japan. A few reasons for this include cultural influences, societal expectations, and historical factors, which contribute to a certain level of stigma. Traditional values emphasizing family continuity and societal norms may influence perceptions.

In a previous theory I had, I stated that Yuno had a highly religious family, and her own morals went against theirs. However, she loved her family, so she tried to seek a “cure” to her depression through sex. Many interrogation questions can add to this theory:

Question 4: Do you believe that god exists?

Answer: Obviously not.

(Note: The original TL had just said “no”, but Yuno has でしょ at the end of her sentence, and this can be used to emphasize a phrase or question, to my knowledge. As such, I changed it to be more fitting!)

Question 9: What do you think of your family?

Answer: I love them.

Perhaps she did everything behind their backs not only due to possible religious/traditional views, but because she wouldn’t want to be seen as someone who is “bad” for chasing after her ideals. On a slightly seperate note, this theme is fairly prominent in Umbilical:

Am I a bad girl? Please don’t answer What do you want to do? Please tell me

There are like more examples from the second trial interrogation, so if there are any let me know!

What Yuno Did + Her Regret

I think everyone has a general consensus as to what Yuno’s “murder” is. She participated in compensated dating, got pregnant at some point, and had an abortion, most likely by jumping off a set of stairs to kill the baby and herself.

This can be inferred by her Undercover shot, where she is standing at the end of her apartment balcony, seemingly holding her stomach from behind:

And not just this photo, but this brief shot from Umbilical:

(Fun little detail, but the whole aesthetic part of her MV is designed to be pink like a uterus and the balloons/white specs flying around may be sperm? Which implies she was “drowning” in warmth. Interesting.)

But wait, why would Yuno take herself as well as the baby? I like to think of it this way.

During her compensated dating, she met a man that she liked. One man who saw her for her, and not a complete facade. These dates, where she seems more like herself, are with said man—

The school uniform Yuno, as well as yellow Yuno.

It’s known that Yuno does look less happy in her other two personas by the second bridge, so I think she was more comfortable playing a lively character with this client because it felt more close to how Yuno wanted to represent herself.

So, progressing to Tear Drop, this man wears a gray coat. I saw a theory that I agree with once but forgot the source of it, so I’ll simply state it. I think that the Yuno in lingerie is representative of herself, and the Yuno in her uniform is the client. They keep and having sex and loving each other, but Yuno is betrayed when she finds out the man was using her for money and left her due to the pregnancy and then her life comes crashing down after. I’m kinda shortening this because this was supposed to be short but ended up long instead.

Does Yuno regret what she did? Yes, to an extent.

And anyone who doesn’t read into her character should really reconsider it!

#box talks #milgram #milgram theory #milgram project #yuno kashiki

[wilwheaton]

“I remember reading in, what, 2014 or 2015, about these people who were trying to game the Hugos, and didn’t seem to like what science fiction had become. I thought they were people with a chip on their shoulder who probably weren’t good enough writers to win awards without doing something like this. If you want to be a good writer you have to put in the work, and these seemed like people who had chosen to be aggrieved rather than do the work. They wanted to win, and for foreign books and women to become much less prominent. The people who seemed to be shepherding the majority of the ’Puppies’ around wanted Hugo awards, and it was easier to get a bunch of people to pay for supporting memberships and vote for them than it was to write stories good enough to win them.”

Neil Gaiman on the Sad Puppies from a few years ago

Intro to the “Sad Puppies”:

The Hugo Awards, which have celebrated pioneering works of science fiction since 1953, have traditionally — and undoubtedly still are — the highlight of the science fiction calendar, but for a small group of agenda-driven agitators, they represent nothing more than an avenue through which all-too progressive views are disseminated and applauded. There is a particular fringe that laments the apparent "wokeness" of the Hugos, and claims that accolades are not handed out on the basis of quality, but on how politically correct the writing.

This mindset came to prominence most notably in 2013 with the emergence of Sad Puppies, an anti-Hugo faction of writers and fans bent on venting their award-related frustrations.

Sad Puppies felt — emotionally rather than evidentially — that certain demographics — namely straight, right-leaning white males — were being overlooked so that the Hugos could elevate diverse, historically underrepresented voices. This, Sad Puppies seemed to imply, was the only possible reason why certain authors weren’t being given the praise they deserved on the award circuit.

Between 2013 and 2017, Sad Puppies attempted to influence, through the use of a tactical voting bloc, the outcome of various Hugo Awards categories.

“The people who seemed to be shepherding the majority of the ’Puppies’ around wanted Hugo awards, and it was easier to get a bunch of people to pay for supporting memberships and vote for them than it was to write stories good enough to win them.”

MortalKombatFATALITY.gif

#Neil destroyed those shitty racists so completely they didn't even leave dental records

[cogentranting]

No but ok re your tags on my Belle post I've actually been thinking about why she doesn't piss me off as too anachronistic a lot and partly it's because the show is a fun fun time but also it's like. Her mother essentially runs the family, obviously being raised in a family dynamic like that she's going to come out headstrong and pushing for women's rights, and she's aware the reason she gets to do this is because she's the governor's daughter in a far off colony, she literally says the reason she could become a surgeon in Australia is because she and her family ARE the law which makes the whole situation just plausible enough! And yes she's still very sheltered she thinks her family would be chill with her marrying Jack and she doesn't understand the effects of colonialism and that makes her character not insufferable because it's clear rather than being Historical Female Character With 21st Century Views she's instead a woman in a very very specific situation which shapes her into being frightfully progressive!

Yes exactly!

Those two things are what need to be balanced to do this kind of thing well. A. Not being an altogether perfect 21st Century Liberal Feminist and B. Having the right circumstances to produce those beliefs that are unusually progress.

And then you put a gloss over it with how much fun the story is to make up for any gaps (because it doesn't matter how well you did the first two, if I feel like the character is either driven by the writer wanting to lecture the audience, or the author just not knowing how to write outside of their own mindset instead of "hey wouldn't it be fun/interesting" then its not gonna work well).

I think Elizabeth from Pirates of the Caribbean follows the same basic pattern.

#the artful dodger

[a-witch-in-endor]

i have a religon question. we all have indigenous gods, right? especially in 'the east.' do abrahamic religions see these gods as fake, or just another part of god, or djinn and demons? I know there are people who are jewish or muslim or christian living in places with a large population that follows the kind of religion that respects ancestors and hometown gods; do those people also get to pay respects to those deities? do they get a pass for that because they, too, are technically protected by those indigenous gods even though they technically converted, but they're still of that land?

(could that be applied to earth kingdom spirits, bc there's so many of them?)

Hi! You are going to get a MONSTER response here, and it might not even fully answer your question, so... apologies in advance.

I want to start with your premise about indigenous gods. I think there are two elements that strike me as needing some kind of definition or clarification.

The first is: what does "indigenous gods" mean?

Please keep in mind that I am going to discuss indigenous RELIGION here, not "indigenous" as a political term.

I think there is a faulty assumption often applied to conversations around indigenous vs global religions that assumes that "indigenous religion" is polytheistic and "global religion" is monotheistic. One issue with that, in my opinion, is that "polytheistic" and "monotheistic" just aren't as meaningful as Western academia has historically stated. They are, in my opinion (though not only my opinion!), terms laden with Protestant ideology.

Protestantism and "Polytheism vs Monotheism":

Protestant religious scholarship tends to want to divide religion into the more primal, physical religious expression vs the more otherworldly, spiritual expression. Polytheism is, in Protestant academic mindset - excuse my language here, I'm making a point - a kind of barbaric, pre-enlightened, base form of religious expression. When religion gets more refined and intelligent and articulate, it sheds those earthly elements and ends up being monotheistic. This is Protestant in origin, specifically, because it is not only about how Protestant academics viewed religions like Hinduism or European indigenous religion, it's also about how they felt about Catholics and Jews. Catholics and Jews, from that mindset, might be "monotheistic", but they're holding onto the base, unrefined physicality of the old world. Catholics and Jews like physical rituals, physical prayer, rules around eating, etc. So yes, sure, they're monotheistic, but they haven't quite understood monotheism yet.

This is obviously not a nice thing to think about other peoples, but that's not what is interesting for our purposes. What's interesting is that Protestant academia has left much of the West with the above as their understanding of how religion functions. Even many atheists, by the way, will describe atheism as just the next step on that wrung; religion starts with polytheism, which is steeped in physical ritual and is obsessed with the earth, etc, then people became monotheistic and slowly let go of those earthly things, and then people got truly enlightened and realised there's no God at all. You can hear this in how some atheists will talk about believing in "one fewer god" than monotheists - that sense of the arc of progress and development.

Now, I hope you've already realised that I don't believe that's true. But let's break it down a little:

What is monotheism, and what is polytheism?

Judaism often has ascribed to it being the first monotheists. In some ways, that's true; in some ways, it isn't. There were One-God-isms that occurred elsewhere, too. Famously, in Egypt, the pharaoh Akhenaten led a religious reformation which narrowed worship down to Aten, the sun god. Nobody can agree on exactly what this was, but it was at least a focused religious expression. Likewise, Zoroastrianism was talking about a dual nature of reality in a way that could be read as monotheistic before the Jews were.

And when the Jews began to worship God as One, it wasn't exactly a clean break. It's actually fairly clear that the worship of the one we now just call God was really a slow development of theological focus, which we might now call henotheism: belief that multiple gods exist, but only worshipping one. Then that God slowly came to represent a kind of universality, especially with the experience of worshipping a land-based deity while in exile (first exile, starting c.586BCE).

So the Jewish belief in One God is a bit like Atenism: a focusing in on a particular god. Except this time, instead of one big religious revolution, it was a very slow religious development.

And if we want to divide not only into "monotheist" and "polytheist", but also into "indigenous" and "global", we're in very murky waters.

Indigenous Religion and Global Religion

Noting again that this can get politically tense because classifications of indigeneity are politically fraught. I'm interested in what makes a religion or culture indigenous, not in what that means for us politically.

Indigenous religion is difficult to define in a sentence, and so I will not try to do that. Here are multiple things that come together in indigenous religion in general instead: Indigenous religiosity is not distinguishable from culture itself. It's born of a land and developed over time. It might have its own myths about its origin (it likely will!), but those are often contradictory in some ways, because they are descriptions of important cultural narratives rather than histories. It tends to be uncentralised and is often slightly different depending on where you are in the land. It tends toward agricultural spirituality and concepts of holy soil. It is tied to an ethnic group and is generally uninterested in ideas of conversion (either into the group or out of the group); it may even be hostile to outsiders joining.

Global religions, on the other hand, tend to be much more planned-out. A global religion is born from a person or a group of people. One can see its birthplace and origin. It is devised in order to spread, and therefore is not attached to one land or to one ethnic group (so that it can move both geographically and through conversion of others into the group). It tends toward centralisation in an organisational capacity.

So. Is Atenism indigenous? ... Well, kind of yes, kind of no. Worship of Aten is born from the land of Egypt, but having a specific historical revolution makes it seem a little outside the "indigenous" definition. But it's definitely not global either. So we've immediately located something that doesn't seem to work well in a binary sense.

Is Judaism indigenous? ... Pretty clearly "yes". It's a land-based agricultural religion born of a particular land, with strong ethnic ties, that developed over time (rather than being born of a historical moment), that isn't interested in spreading or converting and wants to be in its holy land, is uncentralised and disorganised in nature, etc. But people don't tend to talk about Judaism that way, because Judaism has survived a 2,000-year exile, which is pretty unheard of. Once you've been kicked out of the land that long, it feels like it should be a global religion. But it doesn't fit any of the critera for that.

I think that Judaism being an indigenous religion that learned to survive outside the land is part of the reason that people have such a hard time understanding what Judaism is. It seems, from the outside, like it should function more similarly to Christianity and Islam. But in most ways, it just doesn't.

(Also, it would be remiss of me not to note: there's also a lot of political discomfort around calling Judaism an indigenous religion, because most indigenous cultures haven't reclaimed sacred land after being colonised, and the Modern State of Israel a) exists and b) is acting as an oppressive force. Some people will define groups as indigenous specifically only if they are currently being oppressed within their land of origin. As an academic, I think that's a poor definition, and it's certainly not helpful for defining indigenous religion. But I understand the political discomfort.)

Hinduism is also a really interesting example of this. Hinduism is similar to Judaism in some ways, as it's an indigenous, land-based religion that learned to exist outside of the sacred land. It often gets miscategorised on the basis that it's spread geographically (and unlike Judaism, that spread was not simply by outside force). In some ways, Hinduism acts like a global religion, but it doesn't really fit the bill.

Therefore:

a) "Indigenous religion" isn't always polytheistic (if that's even a meaningful term)

b) Some religions fit into neither category (such as Atenism)

c) Some religions fit into one category but aren't categorised that way by outsiders for various reasons (such as Judaism)

And to add another point: Buddhism is a great example of a global religion. Born of a historical person and moment, ease to spread and convert, not tied intrinsically to land. But try defining Buddhism according to the Protestant theistic categories. I dare you. So:

d) Global religions aren't always monotheistic

"Monotheism" and Global Religions

With that in mind, let's talk about Christianity and Islam. They are the major religions of the world. Christians make up around 30% of the world, and Muslims make up around 25% of the world. And frankly, the 15% of the world who call themselves secular/atheist/etc... I think meaningfully belong to Christianity and Islam, too. I know people often don't like that, but the idea that you have to believe something to belong to a religion is a specific religious idea that I don't ascribe to.

A lot of the time, the way that religion is conceptualised is therefore through a Christian or Muslim lens. (See: my point just above about "faith" in religion.) This has completely muddied the waters of how we discuss and conceptualise our own religions and cultures, let alone other peoples.

Your original question was about Abrahamic religion, so I'm going to try to address that here, but please keep in mind: in a question about indigenous gods, putting Judaism in the same realm as Christianity and Islam is dodgy territory and we need to walk it carefully.

"we all have indigenous gods, right? especially in 'the east.' do abrahamic religions see these gods as fake, or just another part of god, or djinn and demons?"

Judaism: Judaism is an evolution that occurred within Canaanite religion. It started with narrow worship of a local god and slowly universalised, especially when the Israelites were trying to survive outside the place of the local god. The seeds of that universalisation already existed before the first exile, which is likely why it worked. It had a confused relationship with the other local gods; outright worship of those "other gods" was frowned upon but still existed among the peoples, and that worship kind of melded into the narrow worship of the One God. You can see this in how many of the names of God that appear in the Bible are actually the names of the local Canaanite gods.

After the first exile, Judaism became more solid in its sense of theological universalism. Jonah is a great example of this as a book; Jonah was written post-exile (though set pre-exile), and it starts with an Israelite trying to run away from God. It seems absurd to us now, because we know that the Jewish God is universal, but the character of Jonah seems to honestly think he can escape God by leaving the land. The rest of the book is about Jonah's struggle to understand how his god also has a relationship with the people of Nineveh. It's a great example of the struggle of universalising theology.

(By-the-by, I think "universal theology" is a much more useful term than "monotheism", but that's a rant for another day.)

What began as a narrowing ("henotheism"), which was both pushing out and incorporating other local traditions, then had to contend with the worship of the oppressive forces of outside religion. Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans are all peoples who attacked, colonised, exiled, etc - and they all came in with their gods. The Greeks even instituted worship of their gods in our Temple. Our worship was made illegal by the colonisers. Relationship with "idol worship" was about relationship with those outside forces.

In short, the literature itself is very confused about what those gods actually are. Jews were certainly not supposed to worship them, and should go to great lengths to avoid them. (If we didn't, we probably wouldn't still exist, so: good shout.) Sometimes they get talked about like neighbouring gods, which is a holdover from the narrowing-days (where those other gods existed, but we worshipped our own native land-based god). Sometimes they get talked about as false idols created by people who are either misunderstanding reality or deliberately trying to have control over the divine (which developed more as the God-worship was universalised). The more universalised our theology became, the more we started shrugging of ideas of neighbouring gods that actually existed, and the more it became about the latter.

(Note: When Jews met religions that call a universal God something else, they would then tend to conclude that it's not idol worship. This developed when Judaism met Islam in more peaceful moments. The idea that non-Jewish religions could be something other than idolatry then came to include Christianity - but only kind of, because of the worshipping-a-person issue - and then religions like Sikhism much more easily. It's even arguable that religions like Hinduism aren't exactly "idol worship" for non-Jews, because many Hindus will describe what they believe in in universal terms - Brahman is first cause and all emanates from him - even if their worship includes references to "multiple gods". This does not mean Jews are allowed to worship that way.)

Christianity: Christianity was born in a specific historical moment, utilising previous Jewish and Hellenistic thought. It almost immediately became a religion of conversion (I would put that distinction at the year 50, with the Council of Jerusalem). Since it was born from a universalised theology, it already had the bones of the idea of a universal God; now, it also had the will to spread, both geographically (shrugging off major religious ties to the Holy Land) and religiously (not only could people convert, but people should convert). While Judaism was all about avoiding worship of other gods, Christianity became about converting those peoples.

Islam: Islam was born in a specific historical moment, utilising previous Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, and pre-Islamic Arabian thought. It immediately became a religion of conversion. In this sense, it's a lot more like Christianity than anything else, except Christianity developed most significantly after the death of Jesus. Islam got a lot more time in development with Mohammed. In some ways, I think this really benefitted Islam (though that's not to say some things didn't get... complicated, upon his death). It inherited from Christianity the sense that worship of other gods was something to be responded to with conversion.

"I know there are people who are jewish or muslim or christian living in places with a large population that follows the kind of religion that respects ancestors and hometown gods; do those people also get to pay respects to those deities? do they get a pass for that because they, too, are technically protected by those indigenous gods even though they technically converted, but they're still of that land?"

Short answer: no. Jews, Christians, and Muslims do not believe that those deities exist as separate to the universal God.

Longer answer for Judaism, because... well, I know more about lived Judaism than lived Christianity or Islam*:

(I recently said to someone IRL: I do have a degree in Catholic Theology, but I don't know anything about what Catholics ACTUALLY believe.)

It would be absolutely disallowed in Judaism to participate in worship of "other gods". Modern Jews will not believe those gods exist (at least, I've never come across that either IRL or in studies). However, Judaism does still hold that worship is a powerful thing and that Jews are not allowed to participate in worship of "other gods". Many Jews will say it's not worship of "other gods", it's just worship of the one universal God that is understood differently by different cultures. This does not change the fact that Jews are not allowed to participate in it.

(In fact, it's one of the three things a Jew should rather die than participate in. It's a little murkier than this, but basically: even under duress, even on pain of death, a Jew should never murder, commit sexual violence, or worship an idol.)

"(could that be applied to earth kingdom spirits, bc there's so many of them?)"

Yes, I think the Earth Kingdom in ATLA is supposed to function in an indigenous manner, specifically in indigenous religion as it acts over a wide spread of land. That is to say, like Hinduism, or like when you compare different arctic indigenous cultures or African indigenous cultures. There isn't a centralised force (like with the FN); it's local gods - or here, spirits - that have their own myths, etc.

Please note, I have avoided talking about nomadic cultures here on purpose, because this would be twice as long! This is not exhaustive at all. I hope it makes at least some sense.

#jew on main #judaism #christianity #islam #buddhism #hinduism #it's a world religion extravaganza #canaanites #not the kindest post to protestants #atenism

[marzipanandminutiae]

I'm asking because it's something I've been trying to figure out myself. Do you have any theories as to why there is such an overlap of TERFs and people convinced corsets are Evil? Why do these beliefs go toghter?

My guess would be that it’s because they define womanhood so much by suffering, that questioning anything they’ve been told was a mechanism of women’s suffering in the past feels like a threat to them. Even though obviously nobody who says “corsets were not universal torture devices“ is saying “women weren’t oppressed during these specific eras.” It’s a threat to their idea of what the past looks like, especially womanhood in the past, and that puts them on the defensive.

They also often hate femininity at large, and the corset tends to be seen as a symbol thereof. Even though, you know… A lot of masc presenting women in the past also wore them, simply as support garments. and even some men, for back support and/or body-shaping.

And most historical costumers and dress historians who get a wide platform nowadays tends to be feminine-presenting. So TERFs see this as feminine women (traitors!) “defending” their favorite imagined symbol of patriarchal control over women’s bodies and gender presentation, and therefore go ballistic. Even though that’s not what’s happening

(Note: not everyone who expresses these views is a terf, of course. Pop culture in general still tends to believe that corsets are inherently evil, and thus it’s a very common mindset. And not even everyone who buys into the whole “historical costumers/fem dress historians are tradwives serving the patriarchy“ concept is a terf. But as you say, there is a pretty broad overlap in that latter category.)

It’s also interesting to me what their definition of defense is. A lot of them blow a gasket if you even say “the corset is a neutral garment that served practical functions for many women, and most women seem to have felt neutrally about it, though obviously some strongly liked or disliked it” or “ I and some people I know personally find corsets comfortable to wear,”and react like you just built an altar to sacrifice goats to a corset

#ask #anon #dress history #corsets #The simple fact is that women can be relatively comfortable and able to move in their clothes and still have no voice in their government #or rights to their personal property after marriage. Or likelihood of winning a custody battle #or admission to higher education. Or income equality. Or reproductive agency #The narrative the corsets were always awful and exclusively imposed on women by the patriarchy is just not factually true #and saying that is not claiming that they weren’t oppressed