What gets me with Vel is that we see she has a good rapport with her coworkers/friends. She may sometimes roll her eyes at the other two and their antics and of course when her direct business gets interrupted she gets frustrated, but we mostly see her on good grounds with the rest of the Vees. They respect her when it comes to serious business and in that last scene of the season they all look to be very much on the same page and in it together, smiling about their future... yet fanon (if it isn't infantalizing her as you've pointed out) is constantly projecting "angry black woman" stereotypes onto her.
It's gross and in my opinion clearly racially motivated that they see her as nothing more than a "bitchy" woman of color. While the fanon I've seen also has separate gross issues with Vox and Val they are at least allowed some nuance on occasion, but I just don't ever see that with Vel, she's just an angry woman rendered to the background in their eyes stripped completely of her professionalism, intellect, and cunning. She's one of my faves and it sucks so bad to see.
Hi. :) I wrote 5 paragraphs in response to this question and Tumblr so graciously decided to delete fucking all of it. :)
The Hazbin Hotel fandom has a serious racism problem and not enough people are talking about it. Aside from the infantilization of Velvette, other BIPOC characters are put into stupid stereotypes or treated like children because either Vivzie can’t handle writing competently or the fandom doesn’t know how to behave themselves. This is especially apparent for the women, but—and this is probably the only time I will talk about him in this way—Valentino is also suffering from this shitass issue.
Firstly about Velvette, just like how this said, Velvette used to be treated like a child in canon (now fanon) and is being portrayed as only a sassy angry black woman by the fandom. This is disgusting! I don’t think I need to say that! For some reason (misogyny) the Hazbin fandom just has this thing where they take a POC person or a woman—usually both—and decide to treat them like a child. Best examples being Niffty and Velvette being portrayed as Angel & Husk’s and Vox & Valentino’s children. Niffty is 22 and Velvette is in her 30’s. And of course they are both POC. I know there’s going to be someone accusing me of just whining about racism or being like “not everything is about race” but shut the fuck up because I’m busy talking.
I think the best scene to depict Velvette’s character—even though she hardly has any scenes. It shows that she will and can respect her colleagues but for other people, you either need to give her something she wants or her respect needs to be earned. She literally sings a whole song about it.
For other characters like Niffty I have a post for her in the works so I won’t spill it all here, but I can’t in good faith talk about the racism problem without mentioning Valentino. The fact Vivzie has made her worst character into the basic tall hot hispanic/latino man with the hot spanish accent stereotype. Honestly this sort of stereotype doesn’t bother me much, there’s a few villain characters I like with it like Alejandro from TDI, but Vivzie making this a big aggressive and dangerous POC person abusing a sad little white guy just grosses me out. It’s not like the situation would be any better if Angel wasn’t white, but it really does just leave that extra sour taste in my mouth.
Also I don’t need to explain why 90% of the POC cast being fucking grey or purple or blue is bad right.
I am going to try to explain something as best i can so it comes out how i mean it but that is something i am the worse as doing. I think that when it comes time to cast rachel in pjo i think she should be white, not because of her original character or i that i think we shouldn't have diverse casting. I think that rachel being white may not have been that important in the books, if rick does it for the show it could make it a bit more layered in some sense, if rachel was white, rich, ect it would contrast to annabeth in a new way. Now when annabeth is insecure about Rachel and percy being close it is bit deeper i guess, now it's oh no Rachel feels societial beauty norms more than me because societial beauty norms are inherently racist and exclude people of color, or like if percy and rachel got together it would be like rachel is giving up more than her cause of her not being a demigod so she is putting herself into more danger, or she has money and her family is influential anf she is setting herself to lose that, ect. When this is stuff that annabeth already doesn't have like white women are constantly praised for doing a lot less than woc in many ways like in feminist movement, i also think it could leave insecurity about being in an interracial relationship, even if it's legal (cause remember it wasnt always legal in the us) it's still not completely excepted by everyone, so now if annabeth and percy get together it leaves room for insecurity about being the cause as to why percy is being treated differently together because they are together in a way that rachel anf percy wouldn't and i know rhis is a kids show but i think even if tjey don't mention it, it leaves room for people to perceive or i cant find the word i am looking for, but it would be very similar to how annabeth in the book was blond and it was don't base someones intelligence on stereotypes but in the show annabeth was black and it still carried the same message but now because poc are veiwed as less intelligent in a lot of spaces because of how they speak like aave, their hair or systematic oppression like public funding in predominantly black areas ect., it takes the same message but makes it more relatable to this time period and for more people, i think that is the best i can explain. If i said something wrong please tell me i would love to learn from it and correct i, this is just my opinion and if rachel was a woc i would not be super mad or like send death threats, (the bare minimum), i will be happy with whoever gets casted these are just my thoughts on what would make an interesting dynamic
i think i’ve learned a lot when it comes to not applying my own values to the media i consume
for my script analysis class yesterday, we discussed two gentleman from verona, and nearly every classmate of mine was up in arms about how sexist the story is.
and i'm not saying it's not, or that it's not infuriating to read. but i'm also not putting my energy into getting upset about something written 500 or so years ago. and i'm not about to put my own beliefs onto these characters that are not me. i'm going to let their choices speak for themselves, and interpret it in the context of the story.
all that said, this now brings me to the point of alastor in episode 5, and how viscerally people are responding to it. those of you up in arms about the choices he’s making, and the violent threat he gave husk, you’re missing the entire point of his character, of this place they’re in, of the story being told. he’s an overlord, and he became an overlord by killing much bigger overlords and broadcasting their deaths over the radio.
HE IS NOT A GOOD PERSON.
if you started this show with the belief that every character working the hotel is a good person, you’re in the wrong place. watch the good place if you’re looking for a good wholesome story about getting dead sinners into heaven, because that’s not what this show is about.
you’re more than welcome to hate him after seeing the way he exerted power over a being whose soul he owns, but you’re doing the media you’re watching a disservice by writing it off so quickly. if you don’t like to be uncomfortable watching media, watch something else. this is an uncomfortable show, it handles uncomfortable topics, and it’s going to be an uncomfortable ride, and if you’re not up for something like that, then you should take a break from it and pick up something else. you don’t have to get online and defend your own ideals while you watch a show that goes against your ideals.
one thing that has stuck with me from the latest kerfuffle i got into on twitter is like. there was one person arguin w one the homies that my bio stating i was white isnt accurate because white people cant be people of colour or a poc so putting 'white' in my bio was the reason people wouldnt acknoweldge Im mixed. and like. that shit has stuck w me
cuz to me that seems fucked up towards mixed ppl like me who have that white background mixed with some non-white identity. but thinking about it i can ABSOLUTELY understand the idea of it due to the notion that white people cannot be poc. cuz that sentence in itself is SENSIBLE. like oh Obviously white people cannot be in the non-white community, so therefore mixed people 'cannot' identify as white????
but i keep thinking about it cuz. wow that shit really pointed out an issue that is so obviously present when it comes to recognizing and acknowledging mixed people like me. Because regardless of how much of a Person Of Colour i am or how much aboriginal background i got, i look very white. I have possibly more typically white experiences than typically aboriginal ones. I have blue eyes as when i was a kid I had naturally blonde hair and there was the joke that i was the whitest in my family because of it. which despite the joke is pretty damn true. people dont see me on the street and say oh thats an indigenous person, and the extremely rare times someone sees me as non-white its usually another indigenous person yknow.
I think its like. its kinda led to this revelation of mine i suppose. On one hand i've come to terms with the idea that i am Aboriginal AND white in the sense that i cant just pick either or as both aspects of me have influenced my entire existence as a mixed person. but its really hit home on why i've struggled so much with seeing myself as being in the non-white community or recognizing myself as a person of colour. because the only 'requirement' of being a poc is Not being white. but does that instantly eliminate all mixed white and non-white people like me from being anything other than white? does that not just further the notion that mixed ppl have to just 'pick a side'? Wouldnt decrying my white identity to be a poc then just diminish my own experiences with white privilege and passing as white?
there's a post going around that says "“We need to strive to be more accepting of POC” you guys can’t even handle religion." and like. that's genuinely offensive to me lmao
Me personally if I'm refusing to lower my standards for a white-led piece of media I'm also refusing to do it for poc-led media. Like yes people of color should be able to make crappy shows and make bad art but I think people, in their effort to show support for people of color, completely throw standards out the window and it's something that I'm personally not going to compromise on just because the thing is Black-led or something. Like if there's no concern for the craft shown, if the writing is out of whack and the acting is bad and there are things that are just unpleasant to watch, why would I continue? Why would I recommend it? Some people can look past those things; I can't.
And it feels patronizing, to me, to lower those standards just because the thing is mostly about people of color. I've seen people hold back both petty and serious critiques of something they've seen because it's poc-led and again it's like they'd give the art their full attention and their full respect if it was white-led, if it was less diverse.
Yes people of color are allowed to make bad art, but how do you expect them to improve if you show them enough respect to tell them?
im too tired to elaborate rn and i already made another post on a similar topic a while back but this modern trend of only consuming "unproblematic" media and shunning media with actual discussions on immorality because the narrative isn't *punishing the bad people all the time* or god forbid, a piece of media where a good person has bad character traits and how people seem to be afraid to interact with media that actually has *problematic* views and opinions is the direct reason why liberal media is so insufferable to watch rn.
there is a really good video by The Closer Look on this phenomenon in action in a recent Dr. Who season, but basically what I mean is, liberal media (and even more outright leftist media, like my arch-nemesis, cloudpunk) are so invested in commenting on what is happening in the world and what kinds of problems there are and what kinds of bigoted people there are, but they don't give you nuance, they only give you a narrative that shows you what the author thinks the correct opinions are and don't let you think for yourself. and because some creators are so scared of nuance being misinterpreted, they create these incredibly sanitized, black and white narratives where the audience can pat themselves on the back because they consumed a piece of media where the villain was an evil CEO and that is bascially the same as activism and also a standard to define that a piece of media is *good*
reblogging a post and then seeing recommended posts bcos of this god forsaken algorithm having the goddamn worst fucking take of lesbianism (white) like. ever.
this is sooooo silly but i keep thinking about it. disgraced would-be-debut author cait corrain (a youtube video about that if you aren't aware of what i'm talking about). i can't remember where it was shown right now that they were talking to a biracial artist they were commissioning to draw a black character for them. for some reason they just kept wanting to like overexplain why they are going to an artist of color and how they would do a better job (why not just tell that particular artist how you appreciate their particular skills?). bc they were like well a white person probably wouldn't do as good a job on it. this might not seem like the most important thing to point out, but you don't need a reason to commission artists of color. you can just do that. there's nothing inherent to the art of drawing that would make white people less able to drawing people of color, or any person less able to draw anyone else with different features than them. especially if what you're seeking is a realistic piece; an experienced realistic artist shouldn't have trouble drawing ethnic features that they don't personally possess.
it felt like cait corrain was just very much overspeaking on troubles with racial representation in popular art. and they don't really know what those problems are or how they arise. when white artists are bad at drawing people of color, it's usually not that they just have some sort of difficulty of perceiving accurate shapes or forms. it's that their stylistic preference has a bias towards lighter skin, eurocentric features, that sort of thing. you don't have to tell an artist "i think you'd be better at drawing this character because you're non-white." like that's just so weird.
oh wait super important edit im making immediately bc i meant to say this in the original post: U CAN HIRE ARTISTS OF COLOR TO DRAW THINGS OTHER THAN PPL OF COLOR. HIRE ARTISTS OF COLOR FOR ANYTHING U WANT COMMISSIONED. U DONT NEED A VIRTUE-SIGNALLING REASON TO DO IT. u could even have them draw one of your white characters (gasp)
In the wake of the whole james somerton fiasco and inspired by this post, I wanted to share a few of my um, soft signs, like, orange flags to detect when someone is bullshitting you.
First of all, I am on the spectrum which means 1) I tend to take what people say at face value and 2) I have a strong sense of justice which makes me prone to biases, all of which combined means I am at perpetual risk of swallowing the bullshit.
So, what to do about it? You turn on the critical thinking and pay attention.
As one of my favorite youtubers, Hannah Alonzo, likes to say: "consider the source, remember the motive".
Who is talking to you?? What do you know about them?? What biases might they have?? How do they interact with your own biases?? Where are they talking from?? Is it anger?? happinness? boredom??
Also, why are they talking to you? Are they trying to sell you something?? Are they trying to convince you and why?? How do they go about the finantial motivation, if present?
If you have, in this case, a white cis gay man talking to you as it he has it the worst of the worst in the world, there's probably some exaggeration and you should start to wonder. There's a good chance he's bullshitting you.
How they talk about women and POC
No, no, stay with me. There's a rule I had back when I was dating men: Always beware of how they treat their mother. With the exception of extremes like mama's boys and cases of abuse, how a man treats the woman with whom they have that familial bond is a good indicator of how they are going to treat you. Do they berate her? speak ill of her? are aggressive or controlling? do they dismiss her opinions?
Same with creators, and by god I tell you, specially cis male creators, queer or otherwise, always always beware of how they speak of women, how they treat women, how they treat POC.
Somerton had a weird vendetta against straight women. It went mostly unnoticed. Then, he was dismissive towards lesbians and other queer women and it was once again overlooked. Then he went ahead and made sinophobic content about genres and cultures he knows NOTHING about. Again, it went unchecked. What I am telling you is IT'S NOT NORMAL. Contempt about women and non white-western cultures is not normal and if someone has them as them as an enemy or a scapegoat, they're probably bullshitting you. Take what they say and fact check it, see for yourself.
If at any point in a video or an essay you find yourself thinking "wait, really??" then it's time to fact check. Is it a bit suspicious?? is your logic telling you that's not quite how this works?? Then take to google, my friend, they might be bullshitting you. At worst, you dodge a fake fact, at best, you learn way too much about a topic you were already interested in.
Beware of the lack of nuance. I can not stress this enough. We all love monochrome, but life and societal issues are never black and white. It's just impossible, there's too many factors to consider. If you are being presented situations or anecdotes as absolute truths, you're probably being bullshitted. If it's too good to be true, it is. If it sounds waaay too convenient, it probably is.
A good researcher, a serious investigator, will always have some nuance because they have done the work and checked the sources. If someone provides you 1) no nuance and 2) no sources, THEY'RE BULLSHITTING YOU.
These are the ones I can come up with just of the top of my head, I'm sure there's more and please, add them. Remember that naivité isn't a crime, I'm fairly naive and that's made me distrustful, and these are some of the techniques I've found that help me navigate through a world of information without losing myself.