#any connection to the Other Side

[faemesbond]

SHIT NARUMITSU VS SNS ON THE YAOI POLLS TUMBLR MODE. im not voting sorry goodbye

#usually i WOULD vote the ninjas but 1. in the twitter polls i only voted for them in the semi-finals and now the finals when i didnt have #any connection to the Other Side #but this time. Lawyers... plus they lost so fast in the other one that like id feel BAD

[ecto-stone]

Full Ghost Again.

#hachi doodle #Danny Phantom #vlad plasmius #Friend from the other side AU ?? #thinking about how food have alway been a an importance bridge to help vlad connect with people after he become half ghost #share love for cheese with his offical adopted figure in ghost zone the dairy king #come to be friend with paulina and Danny through shared food bits #suddenly lose the ability to enjoy them #or even touch any of his friend again #is rather devastating

[fayevalcntine]

Positioning Louis as the "Edwardian wife who becomes trapped by her husband" in a literal sense does no justice to analyzing his actual place and role as a Black man in his society and in his relationship with Lestat. Any interpretation or analysis you do of him when it comes to their relationship cannot be stripped of the racial aspect because it's constantly there. Texts analyzing Edwardian wives (and particularly ones this fandom loves to bring up) typically were white and the dissection of their place in societal rules are always viewed from the aspect of gender that is within these texts only allowed to white women, but never to Black men or even Black women. And gender and race become inseparable when you discuss the latter, no matter how people may view it.

This is why I can't take this approach to analyzing Louis' story seriously because if you don't consider the racial aspect in his relationship even to himself and his sexuality, what's the point? You're still centering the standards that were more placed upon white male/female couples than you're willing to look into the unique structure of Black families, religion, their view of homosexuality and how that sooner heavily influences Louis than the family's "need" for him to be sold off to an Edwardian husband. Even in Louis' own story, him and Claudia being Black is more centered on than any demeaning "housewife" comment he tries to go against from Claudia's perspective. She makes that comment once, whereas we have at least two episodes from Louis' perspective that have very blatant hints and showings of the racism he still suffers from under the Jim Crow era and how it affects his self-worth as well as his relationship with Lestat who doesn't seem to take into consideration how any of the blatant racial aggressions and objections still affect Louis and what he considers to be important to achieve in his own life.

Then there's also the pointed topic of Louis' position as a Black man who is a pimp to the Black women he has as sex workers, as well as how his position as a Black father affects Claudia, another Black girl. If you insist on Louis being centered as this "Edwardian white wife" who is confined by his implicit gender in his marriage, where does that leave Claudia and the blatant misogyny and disrespect she gets from both him and Lestat? Lestat who is her white father abuses her. Positioning Louis within the strict confines of "being her mother" doesn't do her any favors because he didn't hesitate to choke her when he was deeply emotionally distressed, nor does it make him look any better when he's fine with chopping up her diaries and then delivering them on a silver platter so that Daniel, another white man, can read and dissect. Even if he does this under the sole pretense of "doing right by her", how does it in any way help when he also can't face up to his failures towards her?

#interview with the vampire #claudia #louis de pointe du lac #i just feel like all these needless 'Lestat is the patriarchy' discussions; even when done in order to shield Louis #do him and Claudia no favors because y'all keep centering these weird strictly white standards in your interpretations #'Louis is an Edwardian wife' Louis is a Black man who was turned in 1910s Louisiana #the structural confines Edwardian wives were given really aren't the same when you take into consideration the racial segregation #of Louis' time; and I feel like the specific issues that Black men then faced when it came to 'proving' their worth when it comes to gender #are then just sidelined and forgotten as if those aren't the standards Louis grew up with #if you want to discuss Louis' placement in his relationship with Lestat it's kind of really heavy-handed even on the show #that he's a black man and that that heavily affects him foremostly in this relationship #also I'm so confused over this insane idea that Lestat is somehow the patriarchy while Louis is a woman and y'all say this unprompted #without considering how it looks when you call a gay black man a woman and a white bisexual man a guy #i feel like you can evade bad stereotypes of painting black men as overaggressive without veering off into the whole other side #while still sounding vaguely backhanded #and it doesn't make it any less weird when I see other non-black/white fans insist on this interpretation #it just comes off as y'all sooner being able to connect to Louis if you see him in a role typically embodied by white women #than to refer to the actual identity he has as a black gay man

[wildstar25]

What physical part(s) of Arsay does her partners find the most attractive! Is it the same for all partners or does it differ between them?

(also optional bonus ask of what part(s) of/about Arsay generally do they love the most, physical or not!)

Meanwhile, if you were to ask the same of Arsay:

#ffxiv #wolship #g'raha tia #y'shtola rhul #wolgraha #wolshtola #y'shtola x wol #arsay nun #graharshtola #y'shtola calling arsay a pain in her side is very much an affectionate thing btw #and i couldnt pass up the joke of g'raha giving the sweet gentlemanly response only for yshtola to be like 'tits tbh' #her defaulting to an answer that would probably stop the conversation before she has to talk to much about her deeper feelings imo #i have. a lot of feelings about yshtola and arsay's friendship #someone who is constantly trying to build walls between herself and others vs someone who desperately wants to form real connections #its not a 'wearing that person down' type situation either #just one lonely person seeing another lonely person and hoping that they could be less lonely together #or that she could at least bring some cheer to #and idk yshtola strikes me as the type to have been like 'if they want to be my friend they have to work for it' #which arsay certainly did #i could ramble on and on how their friendship lines up so well with yshtolas character development but theres a limit to these tags #so just look at how cute shtola is with the slightest blush on her cheeks #graha is a much more complicated topic since he went from Extreme adoration to I want to be her friend but I dont think im good enough #to 100% Hero worship again to Shes my hero and I love her to Shes a person and I love her #to I love Arsay. Even the parts she can't love in herself. I will love all of her till my dying breath. #he thinks shes the most beautiful person in the world and the most important thing in his life #but he now knows how insane she's been about being everyone's hero and he really doesnt want to feed that beast #so hes trying to build her up in other ways #focusing more on the adventuring side than the saving the world side #and then there is arsay who loves so much about her partners and is in capable of narrowing it down to any one thing so its #'here let me list everything that comes to mind right now' with 0 shame or filter

[northern-passage]

i was scrolling back through a bunch of asks about lea and i stumbled upon one where you were asked "if the RO's had to chose between the city and hunter who would pick what" and out of everyone, Lea is like the only one without a doubt to save the hunter and IM SO ????? I LITERALLY LOVE THEM SM. ugh i want to draw/write a comic for that so badly now, im so deranged about the fact the lea would pick the hunter </3 im curious though, would that apply for the hunter even if their relationship is bad?? will lea always pick the hunter?

interesting question.... 🤔

i suppose it would depend on a few other things... like how bad their relationship is and also how bad the hunter's relationship is with other people. if they're just a straight up terror and making everyone around them miserable, then i think Lea would make the choice against them, in a "mercy kill" kind of way (and it would be very difficult for them). but if it's just their relationship that's bad... they would still pick the hunter.

they have that kind of blind, stupid loyalty.

#ive said before i think lea will surprise most people as the story progresses #they will side with the hunter more often than not #and the hunter is like. lea's Best Friend & vice versa whether the two of them like it or not lmfao #whereas the other companions have lived a life outside of the order and the hunter previously #is it toxic codependency..? probably. yeah #whats the point of saving the world if the cost is losing the only person that they feel any connection with (good or bad) #ask #anonymous #lea chen

[finniestoncrane]

said to my counsellor that i wasnt built for friendship because everyone always eventually just. stops speaking to me and she went “ok why do you think that is?” and then when i finished my dumb sad list she went “ok so maybe you aren’t good at friendship” and i. have never regretted spending £50 more in my life lol

#A RANT IN THE TAGS MY GOD I DIDNT EVEN REALISE I AM WRITING THIS WARNING RETROSPECTIVELY #£50 to feel like never trying to speak to anyone again or forge any connections THANKS RUTH #Ruth remember when I said that every friendship I’ve had I’ve never truly known if it’s a friendship or if it’s one sided #remember when I told you that my friend groups always had people who had a favourite and I was never the favourite #remember when I told you that several friend groups have disbanded but not really they actually just made new spaces without me? #remember that? remember my trauma? remember? #because I DO!!! #I was not born to have friends I don’t think #I can’t even make friends with other autistic people or other weird people or other queer people #I don’t even think I could make friends with a clone of myself #this is so guy wrenchingly isolating lol #like girl what do you want from me? keep everyone at arms length like I used to? #try not to let myself get attached to people in case they decide they don’t want to be close to me anymore? #please it is not great advice Ruth #THE WORAT PART is that I literally was like ‘I don’t message too much because I’m overbearing’ #and she asked where the proof was #and all I had was the complete dissolving of any relationship where I tried or tried too hard #so now I’m left in this confusing space of do I message too much or not enough because I have no happy medium #and she knows SHE KNOWS I also have energy issues and executive dysfunction stuff going on #and I know she is just trying to help and get me to think about this stuff #but it was just not the time lmao #finnie shouts into the void

[twinkodium]

Perez retirement rumours (?)

#f1 #sergio perez #I have no clue if this is true or not #we’ll see but it’ll stir things up #because who is going to get that empty rbr seat? #bringing up Daniel and signing Liam to at? #can’t see any other options #we have Felipe on the side yes but straight to a top team? unlikely #hmmm… interesting *in Lando’s voice* #max verstappen #<- just cuz it’s connected to him in a way

[unknownmothergoose]

inflorescenic alters: two or more alters that are connected and either cannot or simply choose to not function without each other.

examples include; two unrelated alters that always co-front together. a team of alters that all share the task of gatekeeping. two alters that consider each other siblings, and refuse to be separated.

this is a term for CDD systems please credit if used i do not consent to reuploads to archives, pinterest, or wikis

[ID: the left image is of a four stripe flag with even stripes in the shades green, gunmetal blue, pink-tan, and lavendar. in the center, there is a hyacinth emoji with a thick black outline.

the middle is a four stripe flag with even stripes in the shades green, gunmetal blue, pink-tan, and lavendar. END ID]

#system flag #system term #system coining #actually DID #DID system #osddid #osddid flag #did alter #alter term #CDD system #sys #SHRUGS. MADE THIS FOR OUR LITTLE FREAKS THAT FRONT TOGETHER. THEY'RE LIKE BONDED GUINEA PIGS I SWEAR. #.goose coin #Just a note: this can apply to romantic; platonic; familial; or any other feelings of strong connections #this is for ALL alters that function 'together' or as a unit but aren't a side or sub system

[fanghuas]

gu xiang saving that singing girl and kicking ass, then being surprised that she doesn't get in trouble just because "she was in the right" will forever be one of my favorite scenes in the show tbh

#soph rewatches woh #just. how clear it is she expects the yueyang sect disciples to protect these assholes #bc she grew up in a place where being strong matters more than being right #and because all she knows of the 'righteous' sects is their corruption #especially given her connection to luo fumeng #so of COURSE she assumes the 'righteous' offenders will be exonerated #who cares about some unimportant singing girl eh? #who'd believe her over them? #and the thing is that 90% of the time she'd be right #and despite having no hope that anyone would take her side she STILL does this #potentially jeopardizing her plans to get into yueyang sect as well #she's just so GOOD #she grew up in a boiling pot of fear and second-hand trauma #and people who adored her but that meant keeping her alive first #teaching her to keep herself alive at any cost #and she is still so fiercely determined to protect others #maybe because the people who love her protected her. maybe because she knows they couldn't always protect themselves

[vaguely-concerned]

the ultimate act of futility it is to argue about the rightness or wrongess of the jedi and their world view only through a watsonian lens with in-universe information, without taking into consideration the doylist perspective that this is fundamentally a cosmology constructed by a guy whose self-described religious views are those of a 'buddhist methodist' who was hopped up on campbell. friends we are never going to get something entirely coherent out of this b/c what went into it wasn't either and that's fine, that tension is probably part of what makes the franchise so enduringly interesting, please stop tearing each other apart I'm so tired

#like yeah the jedi philosophy gestures at buddhism but also... anakin is born through immaculate conception #there's some christianity all the way down nonsense going on here too. it's complicated and weird and so interesting! #not conducive to drawing definitive final conclusions on anything within tho #star wars #I've been thinking a lot lately about how 'falling to the dark side' seems to have a lot more to do #with falling from grace than any ideas I've seen connected to buddhism (not that I'm an expert in either religion haha) #anakin is an antichrist figure who gets saved by one startling moment of grace and love -- not through awakening #I'm generally a jedi-enjoyer btw my main grudge against them is how few rivalling force traditions we get to see (especially light side) #there's apparently quadrillions of living souls in the gffa at any given time. are u telling me there isn't more variety than that??? #r u telling me the jedi have a monopoly on truth? does no one not named something like 'darth deathandplague' have other interpretations?

[sluggybasson107]

[Image Description: A digital sketch of Lui Ohwada from Digimon Adventure 02: The Beginning. In dark lighting, Lui's left arm reaches towards his right eye under the eyepatch. His head is at a 3/4ths angle towards his right. His uncovered eye stares directly at you. The background is black. End Image Description.]

All the things you said Forever and ever You'll be like a scar on my face I found myself out of control I don't know why you've been so cruel I found myself down in the hole With something to say Come back in time Now it's fine I am on my own again

Happy Birthday Lui 💜 @beginningobserver

#02tbluibirthday2024 #also OBSESSED WITH LUI AND HIKARI AS FRIENDS #Since Hikari works with kids and Lui had a difficult childhood #they've both volunteered at local centers to help children who don't have proper support. #Lui wasn't as skilled as Hikari in the beginning and struggled to connect to many kids. With his scar and awkward personality #Lui doesn't connect with any kids and is often seen as intimidating #it isnt until hikari decides this kid needs lui's help #for context this kid is quiet and gets overwhelmed by the other children v easily so they separated themself from the group #hikari encourages lui so he finally tries one last time #after sitting with the kid he talks until they go out of their shell #eventually the kid bonds with lui and refuses to leave his side #(lui doesn't wanna admit it but he almost cried after the kid gave him a hug before leaving that day) #i want to draw this comic so bad but i dont have the time ahh #Lui Ohwada #Digimon #Digimon Adventure 02: The Beginning #myart

[kuivamustekala]

I often think about the vast differences of formality between Finnish and Japanese. Like the two languages aren't even remotely similar as far as grammar goes, but they can sound pretty similar and they have a lot of false friend words. Outside of the languages, Finns and Japanese folks can find a good few similarities in shared values, I especially recall my Japanese teacher back in the day talking about how much she loved the fact that Finns aren't afraid of casual silence. They're very different countries, and the cultures overall are very different, but what I'm getting at here is that the two countries can find a surprising amount of common ground

so it's just kinda funny to me that in Japanese there's nigh endless nuance to politeness and familiarity and respect shown in how you address other people, and in Finnish you come across as weirdly formal and stilted if you refer to the person you're talking with as anything other than "you".

#finland and japan in general are a fascinating duo of countries to me #because in some ways theyre so similar. and in others theyre like night and day. #also shoutout to that same japanese teacher for telling us that its not a safe bet to go /too/ formal either #because that can be seen as mockery (and she did side comment that 'you guys can understand that right?' and the class just went haha yea) #so she told us that if we're unsure just go for a default level of polite and let your finnish accent shine #she was fun i wish i had been able to take japanese classes in any other way instead of #once a week over adobe connect for an hour and a half #it was fucking impossible to retain anything like that #pärsunaal

[wonder-worker]

Queen Margaret (of Anjou) had written to the Common Council in November when the news of the Duke of York's coup was proclaimed. The letter from the queen was published in modernised English by M.A.E. Wood in 1846, and she dated it to February 1461 because of its opening sentence: ‘And whereas the late Duke of N [York]...." However the rest of the letter, and that of the prince, is in the present tense and clearly indicates that the Duke of York is still alive. The reference to the ‘late duke’ is not to his demise but to the attainder of 1459 when he was stripped of his titles as well as of his lands. If the queen’s letter dates to November 1460, and not February 1461, it make perfect sense. Margaret declared the Duke of York had ‘upon an untrue pretense, feigned a title to my lord’s crown’ and in so doing had broken his oath of fealty. She thanked the Londoners for their loyalty in rejecting his claim. She knew of the rumours, that we and my lords sayd sone and owrs shuld newly drawe toward yow with an vnsome [uncounted] powere of strangars, disposed to robbe and to dispoyle yow of yowr goods and havours, we will that ye knowe for certeyne that . . . . [y]e, nor none of yow, shalbe robbed, dispoyled nor wronged by any parson that at that tyme we or owr sayd sone shalbe accompanied with She entrusted the king's person to the care of the citizens ‘so that thrwghe malice of his sayde enemye he be no more trowbled vexed ne jeoparded.’ In other words the queen was well informed in November 1460 of the propaganda in London concerning the threat posed by a Lancastrian military challenge to the illegal Yorkist proceedings. Margaret assured the Common Council that no harm would come to the citizenry or to their property. Because the letter was initially misdated, it has been assumed that the queen wrote it after she realised the harm her marauding troops were doing to her cause, and to lull London into a false sense of security. This is not the case, and it is a typical example of historians accepting without question Margaret’s character as depicted in Yorkist propaganda. Margaret’s letter was a true statement of her intentions but it made no impact at the time and has made none since. How many people heard of it? The Yorkist council under the Earl of Warwick, in collusion with the Common Council of the city, was in an ideal position to suppress any wide dissemination of the letter, or of its content.

... When Margaret joined the Lancastrian lords it is unlikely that she had Scottish troops with her. It is possible that Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, sent men from Wales but there was no compelling reason why he should, he needed all the forces at his disposal to face Edward Earl of March, now Duke of York following his father’s death at Wakefield, who, in fact, defeated Pembroke at Mortimer’s Cross on 2 February just as the Lancastrian army was marching south. The oft repeated statement that the Lancastrian army was composed of a motley array of Scots, Welsh, other foreigners (French by implication, for it had not been forgotten that René of Anjou, Queen Margaret’s father, had served with the French forces in Nomandy when the English were expelled from the duchy, nor that King Charles VII was her uncle) as well as northern men is based on a single chronicle, the Brief Notes written mainly in Latin in the monastery of Ely, and ending in 1470. It is a compilation of gossip and rumour, some of it wildly inaccurate, but including information not found in any other contemporary source, which accounts for the credence accorded to it. The Dukes of Somerset and Exeter and the Earl of Devon brought men from the south and west. The Earl of Northumberland was not solely reliant on his northern estates; as Lord Poynings he had extensive holdings in the south. The northerners were tenants and retainers of Northumberland, Clifford, Dacre, the Westmorland Nevilles, and Fitzhugh, and accustomed to the discipline of border defence. The continuator of Gregory’s Chronicle, probably our best witness, is emphatic that the second battle of St Albans was won by the ‘howseholde men and feyd men.” Camp followers and auxiliaries of undesirables there undoubtedly were, as there are on the fringes of any army, but the motley rabble the queen is supposed to have loosed on peaceful England owes more to the imagination of Yorkist propagandists than to the actual composition of the Lancastrian army.

... Two differing accounts of the Lancastrian march on London are generally accepted. One is that a large army, moving down the Great North Road, was made up of such disparate and unruly elements that the queen and her commanders were powerless to control it.” Alternatively, Queen Margaret did not wish to curb her army, but encouraged it to ravage all lands south of the Trent, either from sheet spite or because it was the only way she could pay her troops.” Many epithets have been applied to the queen, few of them complimentary, but no one has as yet called her stupid. It would have been an act of crass stupidity wilfully to encourage her forces to loot the very land she was trying to restore to an acceptance of Lancastrian rule, with her son as heir to the throne. On reaching St Albans, so the story goes, the Lancastrian army suddenly became a disciplined force which, by a series of complicated manoeuvres, including a night march and a flank attack, won the second battle of St Albans, even though the Yorkists were commanded by the redoubtable Earl of Warwick. The explanation offered is that the rabble element, loaded down with plunder, had descended before the battle and only the household men remained. Then the rabble reappeared, and London was threatened. To avert a sack of the city the queen decided to withdraw the army, either on her own initiative or urged by the peace-loving King Henry; as it departed it pillaged the Abbey of St Albans, with the king and queen in residence, and retired north, plundering as it went. Nevertheless, it was sufficiently intact a month later to meet and nearly defeat the Yorkist forces at Towton, the bloodiest and hardest fought battle of the civil war thus far. The ‘facts’ as stated make little sense, because they are seen through the distorting glass of Yorkist propaganda.

The ravages allegedly committed by the Lancastrian army are extensively documented in the chronicles, written after the event and under a Yorkist king. They are strong on rhetoric but short on detail. The two accounts most often quoted are by the Croyland Chronicle and Abbott Whethamstede. There is no doubting the note of genuine hysterical fear in both. The inhabitants of the abbey of Crowland were thoroughly frightened by what they believed would happen as the Lancastrians swept south. ‘What do you suppose must have been our fears . . . [w]hen every day rumours of this sad nature were reaching our ears.’ Especially alarming was the threat to church property. The northern men ‘irreverently rushed, in their unbridled and frantic rage into churches . . . [a]nd most nefariously plundered them.’ If anyone resisted ‘they cruelly slaughtered them in the very churches or churchyards.’ People sought shelter for themselves and their goods in the abbey,“ but there is not a single report of refugees seeking succour in the wake of the passage of the army after their homes had been burned and their possessions stolen. The Lancastrians were looting, according to the Crowland Chronicle, on a front thirty miles wide ‘like so many locusts.“ Why, then, did they come within six miles but bypass Crowland? The account as a whole makes it obvious that it was written considerably later than the events it so graphically describes.

The claim that Stamford was subject to a sack from which it did not recover is based on the Tudor antiquary John Leland. His attribution of the damage is speculation; by the time he wrote stories of Lancastrian ravages were well established, but outside living memory. His statement was embellished by the romantic historian Francis Peck in the early eighteenth century. Peck gives a spirited account of Wakefield and the Lancastrian march, influenced by Tudor as well as Yorkist historiography. … As late as 12 February when Warwick moved his troops to St Albans it is claimed that he did not know the whereabouts of the Lancastrians, an odd lack of military intelligence about an army that was supposed to be leaving havoc in its wake. The Lancastrians apparently swerved to the west after passing Royston which has puzzled military historians because they accept that it came down the Great North Road, but on the evidence we have it is impossible to affirm this. If it came from York via Grantham, Leicester, Market Harborough, Northampton and Stony Stratford to Dunstable, where the first engagement took place, there was no necessity to make an inexplicable swerve westwards because its line of march brought it to Dunstable and then to St Albans. The Lancastrians defeated Warwick’s army on 17 February 1461 and Warwick fled the field. In an echo of Wakefield there is a suggestion of treachery. An English Chronicle tells the story of one Thomas Lovelace, a captain of Kent in the Yorkist ranks, who also appears in Waurin. Lovelace, it is claimed, was captured at Wakefield and promised Queen Margaret that he would join Warwick and then betray and desert him, in return for his freedom.

Lt. Colonel Bume, in a rare spirit of chivalry, credits Margaret with the tactical plan that won the victory, although only because it was so unorthodox that it must have been devised by a woman. But there is no evidence that Margaret had any military flair, let alone experience. A more likely candidate is the veteran captain Andrew Trolloppe who served with Warwick when the latter was Captain of Calais, but he refused to fight under the Yorkist banner against his king at Ludford in 1459 when Warwick brought over a contingent of Calais men to defy King Henry in the field. It was Trolloppe’s ‘desertion’ at Ludford, it is claimed, that forced the Yorkists to flee. The most objective and detailed account of the battle of St Albans is by the unknown continuator of Gregory’s Chronicle. The chronicle ends in 1469 and by that time it was safe to criticise Warwick, who was then out of favour. The continuator was a London citizen who may have fought in the Yorkist ranks. He had an interest in military matters and recorded the gathering of the Lancastrian army at Hull, before Wakefield, and the detail that the troops wore the Prince of Wales’ colours and ostrich feathers on their livery together with the insignia of their lords. He had heard the rumours of a large ill-disciplined army, but because he saw only the household men he concluded that the northerners ran away before the battle. Abbot Whethamstede wrote a longer though far less circumstantial account, in which he carefully made no mention of the Earl of Warwick. … Margaret of Anjou had won the battle but she proceeded to lose the war. London lay open to her and she made a fatal political blunder in retreating from St Albans instead of taking possession of the capital.' Although mistaken, her reasons for doing so were cogent. The focus of contemporary accounts is the threat to London from the Lancastrian army. This is repeated in all the standard histories, and even those who credit Margaret with deliberately turning away from London do so for the wrong reasons.

... The uncertainties and delays, as well as the hostility of some citizens, served to reinforce Margaret’s belief that entry to London could be dangerous. It was not what London had to fear from her but what she had to fear from London that made her hesitate. Had she made a show of riding in state into the city with her husband and son in a colourful procession she might have accomplished a Lancastrian restoration, but Margaret had never courted popularity with the Londoners, as Warwick had, and she had kept the court away from the capital for several years in the late 1450s, a move that was naturally resented. Warwick’s propaganda had tarnished her image, associating her irrevocably with the dreaded northern men. There was also the danger that if Warwick and Edward of March reached London with a substantial force she could be trapped inside a hostile city, and she cannot have doubted that once she and Prince Edward were taken prisoner the Lancastrian dynasty would come to an end. Understandably, at the critical moment, Margaret lost her nerve. ... Queen Margaret did not march south in 1461 in order to take possession of London, but to recover the person of the king. She underestimated the importance of the capital to her cause." Although she had attempted to establish the court away from London, the Yorkist lords did not oppose her for taking the government out of the capital, but for excluding them from participation in it. Nevertheless London became the natural and lucrative base for the Yorkists, of which they took full advantage. The author of the Annales was in no doubt that it was Margaret’s failure to enter London that ensured the doom of the Lancastrian dynasty. A view shared, of course, by the continuator of Gregory’s Chronicle, a devoted Londoner:

He that had Londyn for sake Wolde no more to hem take The king, queen and prince had been in residence at the Abbey of St Albans since the Lancastrian victory. Abbot Whethamstede, at his most obscure, conveys a strong impression that St Albans was devastated because the Lancastrian leaders, including Queen Margaret, encouraged plundering south of the Trent in lieu of wages. There must have been some pillaging by an army which had been kept in a state of uncertainty for a week, but whether it was as widespread or as devastating as the good abbot, and later chroniclers, assert is by no means certain. Whethamstede is so admirably obtuse that his rhetoric confuses both the chronology and the facts. So convoluted and uncircumstantial is his account that the eighteenth century historian of the abbey, the Reverend Peter Newcome, was trapped into saying: ‘These followers of the Earl of March were looked on as monsters in barbarity.’ He is echoed by Antonia Gransden who has ‘the conflict between the southemers of Henry’s army and the nonherners of Edward’s. The abbey was not pillaged, but Whethamstede blackened Queen Margaret’s reputation by a vague accusation that she appropriated one of the abbey’s valuable possessions before leaving for the north. This is quite likely, not in a spirit of plunder or avarice, but as a contribution to the Lancastrian war effort, just as she had extorted, or so he later claimed, a loan from the prior of Durham earlier in the year. The majority of the chroniclers content themselves with the laconic statement that the queen and her army withdrew to the north, they are more concerned to record in rapturous detail the reception of Edward IV by ‘his’ people. An English Chronicle, hostile to the last, reports that the Lancastrian army plundered its way north as remorselessly as it had on its journey south. One can only assume that it took a different route. The Lancastrian march ended where it began, in the city of York. Edward of March had himself proclaimed King Edward IV in the capital the queen had abandoned, and advanced north to win the battle of Towton on 29 March. The bid to unseat the government of the Yorkist lords had failed, and that failure brought a new dynasty into being. The Duke of York was dead, but his son was King of England whilst King Henry, Queen Margaret and Prince Edward sought shelter at the Scottish court. The Lancastrian march on London had vindicated its stated purpose, to recover the person of the king so that the crown would not continue to be a pawn in the hands of rebels and traitors, but ultimately it had failed because the Lancastrian leaders, including Queen Margaret, simply did not envisage that Edward of March would have the courage or the capacity to declare himself king. Edward IV had all the attributes that King Henry (and Queen Margaret) lacked: he was young, ruthless, charming, and the best general of his day; and in the end he out-thought as well as out-manoeuvred them.

It cannot be argued that no damage was done by the Lancastrian army. It was mid-winter, when supplies of any kind would have been short, so pillaging, petty theft, and unpaid foraging were inevitable. It kept the field for over a month and, and, as it stayed longest at Dunstable and in the environs of St Albans, both towns suffered from its presence. But the army did not indulge in systematic devastation of the countryside, either on its own account or at the behest of the queen. Nor did it contain contingents of England’s enemies, the Scots and the French, as claimed by Yorkist propaganda. Other armies were on the march that winter: a large Yorkist force moved from London to Towton and back again. There are no records of damage done by it, but equally, it cannot be claimed that there was none.

-B.M Cron, "Margaret of Anjou and the Lancastrian March on London, 1461"

#*The best propaganda narratives always contain an element of truth but it's important to remember that it's never the WHOLE truth #margaret of anjou #15th century #english history #my post #(please ignore my rambling tags below lmao) #imo the bottom line is: they were fighting a war and war is a scourge that is inevitably complicated and messy and unfortunate #arguing that NOTHING happened (on either side but especially the Lancastrians considering they were cut off from London's supplies) #is not a sustainable claim. However: Yorkist propaganda was blatantly propaganda and I wish that it's recognized more than it currently is #also I had *no idea* that her letter seems to have been actually written in 1460! I wish that was discussed more #& I wish Cron's speculation that Margaret may have feared being trapped in a hostile city with an approaching army was discussed more too #tho I don't 100% agree with article's concluding paragraph. 'Edward IV did not ultimately save England from further civil war' he...did??? #the Yorkist-Lancastrian civil war that began in the 1450s ended in 1471 and his 12-year reign after that was by and large peaceful #(tho Cron may he talking about the period in between 61-71? but the civil war was still ongoing; the Lancasters were still at large #and the opposing king and prince were still alive. Edward by himself can hardly be blamed for the civil war continuing lol) #but in any case after 1471 the war WAS believed to have ended for good and he WAS believed to have established a new dynasty #the conflict of 1483 was really not connected to the events of the 1450s-1471. it was an entirely new thing altogether #obviously he shouldn't be viewed as the grand undoubted rightful savior of England the way Yorkist propaganda sought to portray him #(and this goes for ALL other monarchs in English history and history in general) but I don't want to diminish his achievements either #However I definitely agree that the prevalent idea that the Lancasters wouldn't have been able to restore royal authority if they'd won #is very strange. its an alternate future that we can't possibly know the answer to so it's frustrating that people seem to assume the worst #I guess the reasons are probably 1) the Lancasters ultimately lost and it's the winners who write history #(the Ricardians are somehow the exception but they're evidently interested in romantic revisionism rather than actual history so 🤷🏻‍♀️) #and 2) their complicated former reign even before 1454. Ig put together I can see where the skepticism comes from tho I don't really agree #but then again the Yorkists themselves played a huge role in the chaos of the 1450s. if a faction like that was finally out of the way #(which they WOULD be if the Lancasters won in 1461) the Lancastrian dynasty would have been firmly restored and #Henry and Margaret would've probably had more space and time to restore royal authority without direct rival challenges #I'd argue that the Lancasters stood a significantly better chance at restoring & securing their dynasty if they won here rather than 1471 #also once again: the analyses written on Margaret's queenship; her role in the WotR; and the propaganda against her are all phenomenal #and far far superior than the analyses on any other historical woman of that time - so props to her absolutely fantastic historians

[constantvariations]

I remember someone saying "there's no such thing as a good racism allegory" and it's been bouncing around in my head for a while. I'm someone who typically thinks anything can work if given the right circumstances, but then I really started thinking about it and I believe they're right

Because if you want to talk about racism, you should just talk about racism

(This is unpolished and ramble-y, so strap yourselves in)

Racism is deeply ingrained into our society, no matter where you live. Imperialism and colonialism has ensured that no corner of Earth has been left untouched. Choices from hundreds of years ago are still being felt today. There's practically no end to the discussion of its effects on the world and its people

So, why should anyone feel the need to dress it up in cat ears?

I've consumed a lot of media where writers have consciously echoed in part some aspect of racism in their fantasy story: Bright 2017, Dragon Age, RWBY, the MCU, Harry Potter, Detroit: Become Human, etc. The biggest thing they have in common is that the narrative is told to side with the victims, but it somehow always ends up against them

It always sides with the status quo

It's confusing, maddening even, because the narrative oft goes out of its way to show how horrible the system is and how these folk don't deserve their treatment, so why are we going back to normal as if it's a good thing? Why are the people actively working to improve the system decried as annoying at best and monstrous at worst?

Then you look at the people who write these storylines. The beliefs they hold, the people they vote for, which charities and organizations they give to, and it all makes sense. Centrists (at best) trying to look progressive are the ones who need to dress racism up in cat ears and rainbow freckles. They set aside the long, brutal histories and crushing systemic realities to play pretend that racism is Not That Bad and is only done by Those Bad Individuals

That's why Velvet's ears are tugged instead of culled. That's why the Mantle drunkards say mean things to Blake instead of attempting to assault her. That's why everything surrounding the SDC's labor practices is so vague as to be useless while the biggest evidence of their malice is hand-waved away by a writer who says the victim "had it coming" as if someone can deserve being branded by being too much of a brat

These stories aren't meant to make the audience question why our society works off the bloodied backs of the exploited or demands we take good, hard looks at ourselves and how we've been duped into believing so much garbage about entire swathes of people. They're meant to satisfy the people who only feel bad that these things are happening because they (white folk) look like the bad guys. It's a self-congratulatory wank about how "I'm not like THOSE guys, therefore I'm a good person!"

And then there's the characters meant to convey this story in the first place: always inoffensive, mostly aimless, "not like the other girl" types that pander to that delicate palate. Blake - a conventionally attractive, pale skinned girl in fashionable clothes - used to be passionate about equality but only in the right way, and demonizes anyone who does not conform to this mindset despite having no reasoning to back it up while never once demanding better of the privileged people around her even when they do racially insensitive things

The biggest downfall of these racial allegories, be they about cat girls or orcs or elves or robots, is that they do something that marginalized folk have been forced to endure since the dawn of time: literal dehumanization. There are tangible differences between humans and whatever the allegory is, which undermines the very fundamental fact that black/asian/queer/neurodivergent/disabled/whatever folk are unapologetically, undeniably, exceedingly human. By dressing up their plights in cat ears or spottled blue skin, you're creating theater not for the people who actually live through these struggles as a means of connecting with them and providing them a safe outlet for their feelings, but giving the people who benefit from passively allowing the system to enforce said struggles a pat on the head for not being the grand wizard

I don't really know where I'm going or how to end this, so I'll just sign off with if you're going to talk about racism, just talk about racism

#rwde #like i said this is pretty all over the place bc i know what im Feeling but not how to word it yknow? so hopefully i got it somewhat across #i am whiter than sour cream tho so if i got anything wrong DO NOT HESITATE to blast me like team rocket #this did get me thinking abt star trek specifically the ep w the dudes who are black on one side and white on the other #and they hate each other because the colors are on different sides #that might be an okay allegory since its so on the nose its dancing on your sinuses #but its not my place to say one way or another so who knows #ive only seen people play detroit but holy fuck david cage should be tossed into a pit for that absolute nonsense #this dude had robots standing in the back of busses and quoting mlk jr but had the audacity to claim it wasnt the 60s civil rights allegory #this is just a really weird thing to happen over and over again #can they just not connect w people of color or whatever their target allegory is? #its almost always black folk tho james camerons avatar had LoAdS of fun w that indigenous parody #and theres like. never any sensitivity readers to double check this shit or the target group actually doing the writing #who said 'white people love talking about race as if they got something to say'? bc that should be the slogan for every one of these deals #yeehaw ig :?

[sadhorsegirl]

fuck it posting moiraine playlist on main

#please enjoy my incredibly vibey and abstract playlist i finalized while very very high lol #i made it that way bc she is vibey and abstract. 2 me ❤️ #could have posted this days ago if i hadnt agonized over the inclusion of master hunter #feels like its a little aggressive and doesnt totally work #but i am a master hunter ive cured my skin nothing gets in nothing not as hard as it tries #vs the breakdown of like fuck off u think i enjoy suffering!!! #later in the song rly works for book moiraine at certain points. where u become so emotionally isolated to try and protect urself but #but rly u still care sososo much #i think her struggle for connection in the midst of all her planning is a big part of what makes moiraine such a strong character for me #like. any ability she has to repress her own emotions is p surely undercut by her own capacity for love #she cant help it! even if she struggles to connect with others and frequently faces rejection in the white tower #she still cares deeply for others #v boss of her u might say #anyways ramble basically over this playlist is also heavily impacted by new spring go read new spring sound of the summer #reserving the right to go back and edit this if the a side in the title isnt clear enough lol #moiraine damodred #wheel of time #music #Spotify

[urostakako]

i hate my appearance so much i hate what people think when they see what i look like because no !!! im not some oppressed or stuck up hermit who knows mothing about anything and is super traditional and conservative !! im just like you !!! please 😭

#horrors: the loneliness #i dont know guys i just. like w distant family too. the ones i want to connect with. #i feel like they look at me and think im traditional and judgy and weird but no !!! im just like you !!! im contrary !!! im just like you !! #please just talk to me once and youll see 😭 god #like theres nothing to DO and myself i get panicked when my other cousins dont answer my texts for personal reasons #and they havent been responding and as many people that im friendly with theyre not my friends #and sometimes it feels like. theres no one on my side. i dont know. </3 dont know what any of this is about. the horrors i guess #anywayz #hanancouldyounot