#ask ignissa

[ignissa]

So I wanted to get your take on something that's been stuck in my head recently about SU. I've seen a good number of people using the PD's zoo as material for pink being a bad person, but the more I think of the time depictions the more I think this is wrong. I keep thinking of it as a snapshot of how the humans were. Like it was their natural environment but without threats. I think this has interesting ramifications on the timeline, specifically in regards to Pearls hunter gatherer remark

Pt2. People I think humans could have grown to be co-dpendent on Gems before the war. Like that was the start of civilization for them. It could explain how we have this sliding scale of culture being referenced and how gems were shown to have left some icons in the culture behind.            

If you don’t mind, I think I’ll use this ask as an opportunity to also talk a bit more about what the Zoo actually is.

I should start by saying that I do think the Zoo is perfectly consistent with what we know about Pink. She was clearly fascinated by unusual and novel things (just look at how she interacted with Garnet and how it’s implied she interacted with humans), even though she didn’t understand them. Empathy is based in understanding and respect, but Pink clearly lacked the emotional maturity required for both things - she was never a “bad person” but she was definitely immature and motivated by selfish desires. Regardless, her motivations don’t change how good or bad the zoo actually was.

(On a related note, do you know who does apparently have the emotional maturity to understand and empathise with humans?)

So, exactly how “bad” was the Zoo?

When we talk about the issue of “human zoos” it’s worth acknowledging that they were, in the not-so-distant past, a real thing:

This is Ota Benga, a Mbuti man who was put on display in St. Louis (1904) and at the Bronx Zoo Monkey House (1906). He committed suicide due to depression at the age of 32 when it became clear that he would never return to his native Congo.

Apparently, humans don’t take well to captivity, but once you understand their needs, they’re easy to control. - Holly Blue

During her reign on Earth, Pink Diamond stole humans from their families as trophies of her conquest.- Garnet

Oh no. It was very serious. When I still served… Homeworld, I saw it myself. A private menagerie deep in space. Humans in captivity. We were never able to rescue them. We had no way to get to them after the war.- Pearl

It’s fairly heavily implied that, at the Zoo’s conception, the humans housed there were not having a good time, to say the least. Holly Blue’s words imply that there was a time when they didn’t understand the needs of the humans, and as a result the humans were difficult to control. This, however, clearly happened before she arrived, suggesting that it was under Pink’s guidance that conditions in the human zoo improved. That’s not too surprising either, given the fact that the “solution” that was decided on looks suspiciously like the way Pink/Rose herself would infantilise humans. This suggests, to me at least, that the purpose of the zoo evolved as Pink spent more time on Earth.

What was a little vanity project very quickly became a serious undertaking, likely as Pink realised the true implications of colonisation and saw the effect captivity was having on the humans in her care. It would have only taken a few generations for humans to lose their emotional and sentimental ties to home, and humans are exceptionally good at adapting to new environments. Towards the end of her time as a Diamond, Pink probably justified the Zoo as a way of keeping some of humanity safe from the horrors of colonisation and war. I definitely get the feeling that she saw humans as somewhat interchangeable, especially given that Gems seem to view gem types in a similar way. Add to that Pink/Rose’s lack of respect towards humans in general, and it’s not too surprising that she never thought to return the humans to Earth (even after starting the rebellion for the sake of Earth - we know she was living a double life for quite some time at least) until it was far too late. That’s not to say she didn’t regret it.

Garnet describes the humans as “trophies of conquest”, which is very similar to the plight of people like Ota Benga. I’d bet that these original humans suffered with similar bouts of depression and self-destructive (and from a gem perspective unexplainable) behaviour. The comparitive docility of their modern-day counterparts can be explained away as a result of nurture and a lack of selective pressures - the lack of competition (including sexual competition) and absence of risk would naturally remove any evolutionary advantage from things like predispositions towards aggression and violence. Selective breeding via the “choosening” is another explanation.

It could be argued that Garnet wasn’t privy to all of the details of the Zoo, but Pearl certainly was and her own word choice paints a similar image. The word menagerie has some very specific connotations:

The aristocratic menageries are distinguished from the later zoological gardens since they were founded and owned by aristocrats whose intentions were not primarily of scientific and educational interest. These aristocrats wanted to illustrate their power and wealth, because exotic animals, alive and active, were less common, more difficult to acquire, and more expensive to maintain.

The focus on the exotic can even be seen in the humans that were chosen to live in the Zoo:

We see a whole range of skin, hair and eye colours here, as well as variation in height and build. There is a clear suggestion here that humans weren’t just randomly grabbed from a single community, but were specifically selected to be as diverse and exotic as possible (I mean 6000 years ago the genes for blue eyes, pale skin and light hair were fairly new and rare - they would have really needed to go out of their way to find one of every colour, so to speak). Garnet calls the Zoo “insidious”, meaning “proceeding in a gradual, subtle way, but with very harmful effects". This implies that the humans were gathered over a fairly long period of time, perhaps even continuing after the beginning of the rebellion.

Was humanity dependent on Gem technology?

The most likely answer is no. We have nothing that suggests this was the case. Beyond the Zoo, gems had no reason to interact with humans at all; going by Aquamarine’s reactions gems don’t seem to have any problem considering humans sentient, they simply don’t value sentience to the same extent we do. I think, with the exception of the rebellion, it’s fairly unlikely that gems ever co-operated with humans in any way. Gem technology wouldn’t have ever been particularly valuable to humanity; their materials are useless unless you can learn to replicate them, the only technology that could have helped humans survive would have been light-years away at the Zoo, and even exploring gem-related locations would have been dangerous. Most gem locations are inaccesible to humans and non-gems don’t seem to be able to operate warp pads.

The only gem tech we’ve even seen humans use are the Replicator Wand (used by Onion) and the Warp Whistle (used by Greg). Now you could certainly make the argument that the Warp Whistle was designed for non-gem use and is therefore evidence of co-operation between gems and humans, except we already know that humans were involved in the rebellion so it doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about the situation between humans and Homeworld gems.

We see examples of gem-related iconography in human culture, so I think if there was any part of human culture that was effected by the presence of gems it would be folklore and mythology. Even then, the only concrete hint we get is in the money (which is extra interesting now we know that it likely depicts Steven’s gemstone), which could be handwaved as a reference to Rose Quartz and whatever involvement she had with the country’s history.

The state of Human Civilisation

All things considered, 6000 years ago really wasn’t that long ago. Humans had already reached more-or-less the same distribution as modern day (with the exception of a few islands) and plenty of early civilisations had moved beyond the hunter-gatherer lifestyle and on to agriculture and organised society.

The official guide places the start of the gem war 5,500 years ago, so the time period we’re looking at is around 3500 BC. The state of human society at the time depends pretty heavily on where you look in the world. For example Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq) had already been fairly advanced for about half a century at that point; they had basic writing, mathematics, civil law, knowledge of various sciences (astronomy, hydrology), boats, pottery, the wheel… They were also just entering into the bronze age. The native American inhabitants of the Delmarva Peninsula (presumably the closest real-world equivalent to the area around Beach City), as well as the Koreans, on the other hand, did not generally practice agriculture, didn’t yet create pottery, had no written language (and would continue to not write for several thousand years after that), and lived as hunter-gatherers and nomads.

Indeed, it is a possibility that the gem presence on Earth either accelerated or set back human development, but there are simpler explanations. It’s likely that the hunter-gatherers Pearl refers to are the aforementioned native American and Korean tribes. In any case hunter-gatherers exist to this day in small pockets. Besides, we don’t actually know when Gems first arrived on Earth (and it can be assumed that Pearl was among the first) - Gemkind could have easily had run-ins with humans at much earlier dates, via scouts for example. Things like writing, mathematics, law, science, etc. were developed independently by many different civilisations, so even if one group was set back by dependency, others simply would have eclipsed them in technological development.

#su #su analysis #ask ignissa #justicemode

[ignissa]

During a flashback, eclipsia makes a brief comment (though a case of Ambiguous Syntax) that implies that her situation between her husband and monster lover was more complex than simply cheating on her husband and fleeing with a monster. Moon: I can't even decide which boy I like! Eclipsa: I know how you feel (I even heard a theory that the situation with tom star, and marco is a bit of a reversal of what happens with eclipsia. with tom being the royal *but demon) and marco not being royalty

This is a very good point. I feel like I’ve been much less harsh on Shastacan and much more forgiving of his actions than many other fans, mostly because I think it’s valuable to play devil’s advocate a bit in cases like these. We don’t know the nuances of the situation, so it doesn’t seem all that fair to demonise him right off the bat.

Although the way they’re presented in the box’s projection during the trial emphasises how different Eclipsa and Shastacan are visually (especially when it comes to their fashion choices), and the clip we see of him in Skooled demonstrates how different his personality, diction and temperament is from Eclipsa’s, we can’t rule out the idea that marriage and ruling the Butterfly Kingdom changed the two of them in some way. Perhaps younger Shastacan (who, it should be added, hadn’t yet been abandoned by his wife - we haven’t exactly seen him at his best) was more fun-loving, and younger Eclipsa was more serious?

So yes, while it’s fairly likely that they married for politics and power rather than love (as would fit nicely with the medieval setting the show draws influence from), it’s not impossible that there was affection between them at some point in time. Eclipsa was crowned Queen at a fairly young age, so I don’t think it was an arranged marriage (unless she was betrothed young). The “King Shastacan” that we the audience are introduced to is a man who has been left in charge of a Kingdom he cannot rightfully claim having been abandoned by his wife the rightful ruler, and left with another man’s child whose very existence threatens this position. As I’ve previously argued, we can’t look at his behaviour under these circumstances and confidently say this is how he always acted.

Indeed, Eclipsa may well have been genuinely conflicted between following the politically safe option or her heart, as she suggests to Moon. Of course, as with everything Eclipsa tells us, it’s also possible that she is lying, or at least bending the truth to garner more sympathy from Moon. Alternatively, if we look at the actual dialogue exchanged between the two of them, Eclipsa may not be specifically talking about romance:

Eclipsa:Well, it’s just you’re far too young to be queen, unless… Oh, no. Unless your mother – is she…?

Moon:[sniffles, nods]

Eclipsa:I see. I lost my mother, too, when I was not much older than you.

Moon:Ever since Mom… Um, since I became queen, everybody’s been looking to me to end the war and make all these big decisions, but I’m just a kid! I can’t decide the fate of Mewni! I can’t even decide which boy I like!

Eclipsa:I know how you feel. 

Eclipsa may be talking more about the struggles of becoming Queen at such a young age - people expecting you to know what to do, to make the right decisions under so much pressure, etc. Eclipsa is a lot like Star; imagine how Star would have felt if she had inherited the throne at the beginning of season two, around about the same time as Mr Candle Cares, where it is revealed that she is terrified of being forced to abandon her sense of self for the sake of the throne. I don’t think Eclipsa was happy in the position she was forced into, and I don’t think she had a support system to fall back on. It sorta adds a layer of bittersweetness to her interactions with Glossaryck, who would have been the only person entirely on her side throughout everything. The book and Glossaryck ended up in the hands of the new Royal Family, where he would have been forced to watch as future generations were lied to about Eclipsa and their own heritages. It’s a bit of a tangent, but I’ve previously theorised that Glossaryck wanted Eclipsa freed.

As for the parallels to the Marco/Star/Tom situation, I think there is one fairly major difference; it’s never been suggested that anyone in Mewni would disapprove of Star and Marco’s relationship. For instance, we’ve never encountered any racism towards people from other dimensions on the part of Mewmans, whereas Tom (despite Starfari introducing the idea that he is a “different type of monster”, at least politically) is still a victim of anti-monster sentiment. None of the middle class Mewmans who attended Star’s song day seemed worried at the idea of the princess being with some random person (and we know that the implication of the song got across, because both Tom and Higgs were under the impression that Star and Marco were dating). Star’s dad doesn’t seem upset about the idea that they might be dating in Camping Trip, and both he and Moon look on fondly at their awkward good-byes during Scent Of A Hoodie.

On the other end of things, I don’t think Star choosing Tom would be anywhere near as controversial as Eclipsa’s choice anyway. Firstly, Eclipsa was a married woman and a Queen - by running off with a monster she was not only breaking her wedding vows, but also demonstrating to her Kingdom that she wasn’t willing to fulfill her royal duties. Star and Tom dated (presumably for a good length of time) in the past; this was a relationship that was public knowledge and yet it’s not suggested to have been too controversial. Star even outright states in the guidebook that she feels political pressure to stay with Tom.

So yeah, I personally don’t get the impression that either choice would be too damaging to Star’s public image.

#svtfoe #svtfoe analysis #ask ignissa #shastacan #eclipsa #marco #star #tom

[ignissa]

how do you think moon felt/thought when she heard stars story of what happened in storm the castle (where she would have mentioned toffee) how do you think moon would have reacted if the fly monster told star that ludos castle now belongs to toffee and star had mentioned toffee to marcos parents so when they called moon and river they would bring up how a lizard monster named toffee captured marco wants star to come to him how would moon have reacted knowing what we do now

I think it’s rather likely that she would have reacted in a similar way to how she reacts to him in Starcrushed, multiplied by 100 if Star and the wand (and Marco, I guess) were currently in his grasp. Abject terror followed by fury. In Face The Music when she realises that Ludo has half of the wand fragment, she seems quite willing to run off on her own to beat him, so I wouldn’t outright dismiss the idea of her running in to stop him on her own, however I do get the sense that she would be more cautious around Toffee.

I certainly don’t think she would have left the knights and River to handle the situation alone, as she does in Storm The Castle. In the season one finale, she probably assumed that Star wasn’t in too much danger with Ludo and maybe just needed some backup. At the very least either Moon or River were willing to let Marco’s parents tag along, even though they can’t fight or even ride horses. Castle Averius is considered a “Royal Protected Structure” in the guidebook, suggesting it is under the Butterfly Kingdom’s jurisdiction - Moon probably just thought a show of power would be enough to guarantee the freedom of any hostages.

Moon was certainly less open about her love for her family in season one, but I don’t think there’s any doubt that she loved her daughter just as much then as she does now. During the Battle For Mewni event Moon is more or less willing to abandon her Kingdom and husband to keep her daughter safe (it sounds harsh, but I’m fairly sure River would have done the same - protecting your own children is no trivial matter). Had Moon known that Toffee was in Castle Averius, I think she would have gathered an army (and possibly the MHC) and attacked, fully prepared to do anything necessary to protect her daughter.

#svtfoe #svtfoe analysis #moon #toffee #ask ignissa #anonymous

[ignissa]

when marco used the wand he had the marks on his cheeks

One of the more common theories on that is that he gains them from his connection to Star via the Blood Moon, hence why his cheekmarks are crescent shaped.

#svtfoe #ask ignissa #marco #anonymous

[ignissa]

Now, it's a good thing Moon stopped threatening to send Star to St. Olga's because if she knew who ran the school (and who happens to be most wanted by the Magical High Commission as stated inthe book), Moon would instantly regret that decision.

The guidebook describes her as “wanted for her crimes against individuality, unlawful conjuring and employment of rogue monsters, and unlawful imprisonment of magic users”. I have to wonder if even the MHC were aware that Meteora was still alive. We don’t even know if they knew about Meteora being given to St Olga - as far as we know Shastacan may have arranged that himself. Given that Rhombulus has crystalised plenty of innocent people (Star, Marco, Pizza Delivery Man, one of the “evil twins”), I don’t put it past him and the MHC to have wanted Meteora also imprisoned. And what a twist it would be if it turned out that Shastacan sent Meteora away for her own protection, despite his clear distain towards her.

I think the mere presence of the wanted poster is meant to suggest that parents weren’t entirely aware of the methods employed at St Olga’s, and likely weren’t happy about them when the truth was finally revealed.

#svtfoe #svtfoe analysis #meteora #ask ignissa