Heyooo so like do you think you could explain the Someya brothers relationship? It’s peaked my interest since the new songs with these two revolve around each other…
Yujiro and Koichirou aren’t related by blood, right? 🤔
Also, what do you think about the new songs that just came out?
Thank you so much for your time 💛💛 Happy New Years 💕
hi! happy new year~~!
this got kinda long so there’s a cut here for length sorry~~~
ngl i’m kindaaaaa fuzzy on the details about the someya bros’ relationship, but long story short, they’re stepbrothers (with koichiro spawning from the resident longleg tamagoro and yujiro being tae’s son, of course) who were kinda pitted against each other when it came to learning how to perform (kabuki) from tamagoro, because longleg’s gotta longleg ig.
then yujiro gets disinherited because the longleg’s still longlegging and koichiro takes to the kabuki stage by himself as the local “national treasure’s” sole heir. so, like, i’m guessing that the events surrounding yujiro’s disinherition may have led to their (frankly terrible) brotherly relationship of “an inferior older brother” and “a superior younger brother”?
though this dynamic carried on pretty much for as long as yujiro longed to perform on a kabuki stage, just like koichiro does (if we were to take the lxl movie’s word for it). then yujiro became an idol and started to work towards a different dream, breaking off from the path (kabuki) that he used to follow koichiro down, which i guess made koichiro start to see yujiro in a different light?
like, imagine you have a lifelong rival who strives for the same goals that you do. however, this rival of yours is less skilled than you, so you naturally grow to have a sense of superiority over your rival, taking satisfaction in crushing them while having full knowledge that they will never be able to beat you when it comes to your shared goals.
however, one day, your rival decides to aim for a different goal, completely ditching your shared goal and stuff, and they actually seem to be doing pretty well in their path to achieve their new goal. how would you feel?
because i get the feeling that koichiro’s initial response to that was to feel betrayed, in a “why are you running away (from kabuki)?” sense.
though, over time, koichiro seems to have gradually come to terms with yujiro’s idol activities, and their relationship naturally (albeit slowly) improved as the days passed, with them going on walks together and bickering with each other like brothers would. which, y’know, is cool of him in a way. he’s learning. he’s still kind of a brat, but he’s growing despite his past mistakes.
as for yujiro, well, he seems to have been looking out for koichiro in his own way from the very beginning? like, man chose not to go against koichiro’s mistreatment, opting to just lower his head and accept it instead.
was it an act of self-sacrifice to protect koichiro’s ego or something? heck, even in the lxl movie, he just took everything koichiro dished at him, and only fought back when koichiro dared to mock his bf aizo. which is. pretty unhealthy, yujiro bro. just tell him you have a proper brotherly love for him for goodness sake. your communication skills s u c k.
um. anyway.
tl;dr: stepbros made to learn kabuki because of their father. older bro gets disinherited, younger bro gets an attitude and mistreats older bro. this continues until older bro becomes an idol and begins to walk his own path. younger bro feels betrayed/annoyed at his older bro for “giving up” on kabuki. younger bro does eventually accept the fact that they have different dreams and supports older bro. seems like older bro has always been looking out for younger bro though, even though he doesn’t say it.
thoughhhhhh seriously, i’m not a someya expert or anything, i just like making fun of the longleg, so… if someone with a degree in someyaology could chime in, it’d be greatly appreciated~~~
as for the new songs, nagisa’s new song is the best of them all, no question. thanks for coming to my ted talk—
22 notes
·
View notes
Cw: race, genocide denial, antiblackness
Just working through some thoughts after seeing the millionth annoying "Are x group white? Discuss" tweets.
Honestly I think like 90% of discourse around race and whiteness in leftist spaces could be solved by people saying "I don't know that history well enough". Like, people when they discuss race, have these competing internal desires to treat race as solely defined by current social standings, and also point to historical oppression as evidence. Neither works. If you go purely by current social standings, then we have absolutely nothing to build off of besides personal lived experiences. I've met Italians who have had old white people call them wops. Does that mean Italians aren't white? Are Polish people not white because of the existence of anti-polish sentiments? Are Russians not white because of how often they're portrayed as villains? Are Armenians white universally bc of the Kardashians?
But then if you base it entirely off history, then you have to accept that no Jewish person has ever attained whiteness. That race is a permanent and immutable aspect of someone's character - something that just... That's just racial ideology, same as it ever was.
The reality is whiteness is nebulous and difficult to pin down because it serves a social function. It needs to be fluid, but it needs to justify itself by appearing as if it's immutable. It also props up European nation-building myths. Like, if the question is "Are Italians white" the question should be "Well, who's an Italian?". Who's a Russian? I know Black Russians, and Black Ashkenazim. Is the understanding they're somehow less part of those groups due to their Blackness? Because I know they would take serious issue with that. Romans (as in, Italians from Rome) are a core part of the Western nation-building myth. You can't exclude them from whiteness without whiteness collapsing. But Sicilians were ruled by North African Muslims for hundreds of years - they're noticeably darker, and their culture is distinct. So Sicilians were denied whiteness, and they were used as a scapegoat for xenophobic sentiments during waves of Italian immigration. When they had sufficiently assimilated, then suddenly Sicilians were "Italians" and Italians are white, so Sicilians are white. So you've now managed to redefine whiteness across an era of immigration to build white unity and maintain a white supremacist majority.
White Fascism is self-destructive and suicidal because it maintains rigid immutable boundaries and requires constant expansion, which means eventually whiteness WILL be a minority. Liberalism upholds whiteness by redefining whiteness over time to maintain a White social majority. When whiteness needs to be mutable, there needs to be a population that can be used as the scapegoat. (Which is also why anti-Blackness is a core component of White supremacist racial ideology - it functions as a permanent fixed class to pivot other groups' whiteness around).
That's how it functions in America. But the rules of whiteness ARE mutable, and they change based on time and region. So the question of "Is x person white" really depends on time AND location, and how their identities exist in relation to nation-building myths. And it reaches a point where asking a question like "Are Armenians white?" or "Are Balkan Muslims white?" or "Are Jews white?" stops being useful, because the point shouldn't be to reify race, it should be to point out that people who fail to fit neatly within these national racial narratives are the best possible example to show how Whiteness contradicts itself. Is an Arab white? Is a Jew white? Is a North African white? It depends, when, where, and who are we talking about?
11 notes
·
View notes
it's a headcanons night baby (they're only sort of related, so, different posts, shh). After months (maybe literal years), we have returned to Ro's series on J.in G.uangyao.
I was thinking about how in a great deal of circumstances when J.in G.uangyao likes someone - the less likely he is, almost, to accept any promises from them. Which - sounds counterintuitive, and it is, but - he knows he can't handle the emotional ramifications of someone he genuinely cares for and believes in go back on or retract their word, as they inevitably sometimes have to (and I do think he knows better than most that there is a circumstance for everything). Like everything with him - it's kind of a trust thing, though I feel even the people he trusts...will have to deal with this some, until something can resolve. Because he carries these walls with him from the beginning of his narrative - maybe from the beginning of his life.
The tragedy of his mother and the rather violent rejection from his father begins this thought process - and arguably I think, the events during, following, and after s.unshot, cements for him - that it only hurts worse and puts you in a worse position when you allow yourself to have any expectations or to believe in things that are subject to change. It's pessimistic but I think he genuinely prepares for and accepts it when people do turn on him...relatively quickly. He may or may not take measures, dependent on his level of panic and ability and energy availability to care about the outcome - but he accepts it very quickly. You can see that in G.uanyin T.emple - never let it be said that he wasn't shocked, because truly he was played, but he rolled with it, you know? Whether or not that screams repression - is a different headcanon, truly.
Likewise, I think it's hard for him to accept or consider someone's regard for him as the Solution to His Problems (tm), the sum of his worth or even a viable backup plan - feelings are fickle, feelings change, feelings can be acted - when you're stuck in a brothel, it's better to earn money yourself than to hope for someone to buy your contract. A relationship, whether that's platonic or romantic, is not a safety net he's willing to fall on. Barring his mother, he has accepted that it's easier if love is conditional, even if he is exhausted by it, because fulfilling his end of the bargain when he knows what it is is easier, safer and eons more reliable than counting on the ever elusive and easily changed thing known as human hearts. He's known to be eager to please - or rather, he's eager to bring something more substantial and demanding, shall we say, of attention and admiration, to the table other than being the blurry and mystifying concept of "a person another person likes."
5 notes
·
View notes