Tumgik
#cw discussion of racism
rawliverandgoronspice · 10 months
Note
Okay so this has been on my mind for awhile and I wanted to get my thoughts out there. Regarding the topic of Rauru and Ganons relationship, I feel like rauru has kinda been bashed? people seem think that rauru in memory 6 (I believe) had a bit of a god complex, and that he was disrespectful. I feel as if rauru kinda had a right to act the way he did.
Rauru had wanted to become Allie’s with the gerudo. Not necessarily because he wants them to serve him but more for resources. Or more likely knowing Ganon he was attacking hyrule. The reason why I suspect this is because during the molduga incident rauru and Sonia seem to be very familiar with theses types of attacks. So it’s likely Ganon had ordered monster attacks on them before. Likely the attacks were getting to much for rauru and Sonia to handle; on top of establishing hyrule, rauru sent out messages for Ganon to join the kingdom in order to stop the attacks. Or another reasoning is that the gerudo were likely suffering. Ganon has been shown to not always prioritize his people. And knowing from past games the gerudo desert doesn’t have much resources. We can kinda see this in Totk they seem to only have hydromelon and voltfruit (I highly doubt that the gerudo had men at the time bringing them food from hyrules fields). If you’ve talked to rauru on the sky islands you’ll know that rauru is actually a very sweet and sympathetic guy, so I believe this could be a possibility.
Moving forward to raurus attitude during their meeting.Now rauru wasn’t exactly the nicest during the meeting, but I don’t really blame him. Rauru probably annoyed that ganon has been ignoring his letters and putting his people in danger. Also Ganon was very sketchy during that entire meeting and was rude in his tone.
Why did Ganon bow? Ganon and rauru are not equal, yes they are both kings but rauru has massive amounts of power and has a much larger land mass. (and zonia are kinda gods) but I don’t think the reasoning for Ganon bowing is because he less than or non equal to rauru. More like he was apologizing and giving rauru respect for the countless times he’s ignored him or tried to kill him.
More of raurus tone in the meeting Again I think he was really fed up with Ganon and rauru seems very non confrontational (he apologizes in the sky islands that the constructs attack link, and ask link not to be angry because they can’t understand) rauru likely wanted it to get into ganons mind not to attack the kingdom again because rauru had a lot of Allie’s and power and will attack Ganon if he pulls a stunt.
Ganon vs the gerudo. This part is a little off topic but, lots believe rauru is low key kinda racist towards the gerudo. But if this was true why was gerudo sage working with rauru? I don’t think that the way rauru acts is how he acts to all gerudo. The sage of lighting very obviously doesn’t like Ganon. The reasoning  could be my first point. And later on after the imprisoning war the gerudo still stuck with hyrules side.
That’s all I have for right now, sorry if it’s all jumbled up I tried to make it coherent. Anyways I appreciate you for reading this :3
-🔺
Hi, thanks for the lengthy ask!! I'm sorry for the lengthy answer this beckoned, but I think this conversation is pretty important --even beyond Zelda and this specific case. We're talking themes and tropes and framing!!!!
I will try to reply to all of this in a way that kind of threads through several layers of why people have been bashing Rauru, me included. I will try my best to explain why I dislike this character, and try to parse out why I am this miffed by Tears of the Kingdom's storyline overall.
The long story short is: I don't dislike Rauru as a person (I mean, I also would tbh), I dislike him because of what he represents.
I think the waters did muddy a little in the "discourse" recently, and it's a good thing to take a step back and re-explain where I'm coming from (me personally, not going to speak for anyone but me here).
Also, before jumping in: this is not a condamnation on anyone who enjoys this story or these characters, nothing is unproblematic, it's fine, everybody does what they want, all of the things. I like the game and I keep playing the game in spite of being harshly critical of the ideas pushed forward. Also: it's fine to digest this and come back later (or not at all) if that feels like a lot, or if some of these ideas don't immediately click. But it's also partially why I think it's important: this game is aimed at a young audience, and one who might not have all of the keys to decipher what's going on, which is why I think it's quite irresponsible (which is the charitable interpretation) on Nintendo's part.
Anyway. Too many words underneath the cut.
Tumblr media
The Story
So, first of all, I want to say that I believe you completely and fully read the situation as Nintendo intended it to be read. This is the text of the game (aka, the story taken at face value). You picked up on every single safeguard put into place to have Rauru and Sonia act in the most justifiable way possible, and have Ganondorf, on the other hand, act as a duplicitous, power-hungry and downright insane as they could have made him. In the reality of their universe, and only taking into account what is given to us through the narrative, trusting it comes from a neutral place and isn't influenced by anything, everything you said is 100% correct.
Rauru and Sonia WERE acting in self-defense, and were even kind not to turn their incommensurable power against the invading army.
The kingdom Rauru built as a demigod IS a paradise and they WERE very generous to invite neighboring nations to bask in their wealth and its technological and natural blessings (and the results of their extensive mining and why are there killer robots everywhere if this world was such a peaceful paradise uhh let's not ponder about this too much). That Ganondorf was too prideful and envious to accept IS a sin that rests solely with him.
Rauru IS a brave hero that sacrificed himself to seal the invader that killed his beloved wife.
Every single Sage IS extraordinarily devoted to protect both Rauru's lineage and their own lands, and gleefully pass down that duty to their ancestors --all thanks to Zelda, heir of that blessed royal line who returned to the past and made them promise to fight alongside Link to seal the Evil once more.
The gerudo WERE (apparently) oppressed, as they decided to fight under Rauru's authority freely (so against their own chief??) and, also, must make amends for having put Ganondorf in this world in the first place? ( I think we are already starting to see some contradictions --were you always victims or did you start this conflict in the first place? what is your place in all of this? why don't we ever get to know?)
This IS the story of Tears of the Kingdom. A story of a great sacrifice that happened in the golden mythical past (confirmed as unquestionable truth through the archeology motif), done by benevolent godly figures of royal blood and immense power they would never abuse, giving their everything to bring Light into a broken world corrupted by the degeneracy of Evil, echoed by the devotion of nations who swore fealty to that divine being and must now renew their vow in the present to defend their lands and Hyrule at any cost. Also, the impossible and magnificient suffering of the princess, whose tears lead to a trail of truth into the very land, informs the current population about why they're fighting now; she's at once a hero of the past and a martyr in the present, completely incapable of acting on her own, carrying with her the blade that will slay the crushing and violent sway of Evil for good and bring eternal peace into the land (Evil who uses her own appearance to cause chaos and violence against her own people --the blasphemy!!). The title of the game reflects this too: the Tears of the Kingdom are hers. Zelda is the kingdom here, and her pain/the pain of that mythical past is what is centered.
Also Ganondorf IS green so it's not racist okay let's stop right here and unpack all of this mess, because BOY oh boy oh boy oh boy.
oh boy.
Tumblr media
The History
Now comes the time to point out the obvious, but that bears being repeated: this is a fictional story. It's a story crafted by a very powerful game company set in Japan. It's a story crafted by a huge number of people, who debated for years how to best tell it, why, and what for. Every single choice made in the narrative is purposeful, has been weighted against other options, and was picked over what could have been virtually anything else. Again, I want to state that I don't know if any single person took these decisions, probably not entirely, and it's even possible Nintendo didn't realize (I doubt it heavily tbh, but I'm sure there are people in the team that didn't get it or didn't see the issue), but a certain kind of story was crafted in the end, and it's the one we got.
One word that has been tossed around a lot as far as TotK's story goes is ✨ imperialism ✨, and I want to pause and take a second to analyse exactly what we mean by that and why I think it's painfully relevant here (and, honestly, I think another word would be very very relevant here also, but it's the kind of word you keep for after you're done with your argumentation not to scare off the unconvinced audience --but, to anyone who reads and might have picked it up already, yeah.)
In our real world of Earth 2023™, we have seen quite the number of extraordinarily powerful nations becoming gradually larger, engulfing neighbors, breaking apart, and leaving the buds of new future empires behind them. Hell, there's a number of them existing right now, even if they don't call themselves empires and don't have literal emperors at their head anymore (though Japan does, and it is important here). Of course, no nation, especially nations striving for expansion, worldwide legitimacy in culture and power, and their own understanding of "greatness", would ever call themselves anything but enlightened and justified. After all, the Roman Empire brings aqueducts and infrastructure to the lands they conquer, China unifies disparaging regions struggling under constant barbaric attacks, France and Spain converts local populations of the "New World" and save their souls from eternal damnation (wow thanks guysss), the British Empire brings industrial revolution uhhh everywhere please don't ask what was the cost, Africa sure loves everybody ripping their culture and lands apart and were so super glad to receive whatever "civilization" is supposed to mean when their literal people were being pillaged away to keep on building said empires using their blood as mortar, the URSS protects neighboring nations from the Evil Capital/West, fascists want to purge the world of anything they consider impure, the US brings freedom to the world and the whole world is grateful forever!!!
Everyone always has an excuse, and everyone is always kind of semi-mandated by God (in the largest possible sense; divine responsibility would perhaps be more appropriate, it's kind of the idea that with great power comes responsibility, while defining what responsibility means and inflicting their conclusions to conquered lands to squeeze even more value out of them) to do whatever the hell they want to others, claim their lands, their bodies, their minds, their culture --and demand gratefulness on top of it all to avoid having to feel bad.
There is a large body of fictional works that are dedicated to boister the image of the Empire. Every single empire has a number of them; their goal is often to mythologize, in some form or another, the story of their expansion. It often flattens every nuance, paints the actions of the empire as the natural order of the world and its opposition as morally malignant, their leaders are charismatic, benevolent, powerful and self-sacrificial. Often, it invokes previous empires to cast the current one as inheriting a grace that was tragically lost and must be restored through war, hard work, and healthy natality --I'll dip into the forbidden comparaison but Nazi Germany loved its greek myths of Sparta and Athens (and modern day fascists still do), or the Napoleon Wars so they could retell the story of their own empire by invoking a legacy of moral diligence and ethnical greatness being restored. But the pattern is often very similar: we used to be Great, a tragic event due to both external invasion and internal corruption precipitated our golden age into chaos and degeneracy, and now we must fight off current day corruption to restore the Glory of the old times we lost --all of this under the benevolent gaze of our leaders, whose mission is a direct or indirect intervention of divinity into mortal lives. It is righteous and glorious to fight/die for the nation (and its leaders) and protect it from the uncivilized, who are inhuman and exist solely to trick us, corrupt us, attack us and assimilate/destroy us.
Are we starting to notice some similarities here :) :) :)
Tumblr media
The Narrative
There's two conversations running in parallel here.
The first one is the least important in my opinion, even though it's the one we tend to focus on a lot as theorists/enthusiasts/enjoyers of media: is Rauru oppressing the gerudos, and does that inform Ganondorf's actions?
Honestly? Textually? Probably not.
There are arguments to be made (and that deserve to be made) about the insane power imbalance, there are a lot of suspicious aspects that deserve to be picked apart like the address and deference of Ganondorf towards Rauru, the whole mining thing that I don't see being discussed much but could be a huge part of it --there are ancient mines in the gerudo region after all; since when? what's the history here?-- the strange masks the Sages are to wear when Zelda, as a direct descendant, isn't wearing any, etc etc. Lots of other posts have been made about the million tiny red flags that litter the game, but I think that if we take the game at face value, they barely matter. I would love them to have been placed with intent (and they maybe were as a desperate attempt by an employee trying to inject grayness back in the equation and if that's the case I SEE YOU random gamedev and I love you and you did the best you could <3), but to me that's more a case of wishful fan thinking (including mine tbh) that any concrete argument that the story is secretely about Rauru being imperialist and this costing him everything. There are some hints of a more nuanced world (the Horned God, the Bargainers, that some NPCs are invested in monsters are creatures worthy of study and awe --tho almost all of them ridiculed in some form), but these demand that you go out of your way to collect them and make the connection yourself. Can this even qualify as subtext? As in: the story under the story? As much as I wish this was the case, I don't think so. We can't make the case that it's a simple story for children that isn't trying to say anything grand while also demanding people to make insane mental gymnastics on their own, without any help on the game's part, for it not to be a blatant endorsement of imperialist thinking.
(especially not the kind of game that repeats 3 different times back to back that Sidon didn't talk to Yona because he was afraid to lose her like he lost Mipha --honestly what's up with this writing I don't get it, BotW didn't act like its players' brain was this unplugged, ANYWAY)
The story is about Ganondorf being duplicitous and monstrous and destroying the beautiful kingdom of the past, and us preserving our modern day kingdom from its corrupting influence by recruiting allies and friends in that fight. We are given a plethora of situations that paint him as inhumanely cruel and chaotic, and none that breath even the suggestion of a critique towards our heroes. He's evil: we must stop him.
Now comes the second conversation, and one I think is more important: is this entire storyline built off imperialist tropes that were created to oppress and exploit marginalized populations in real life while justifying the violence inflincted upon them?
In my opinion, yes. Undeniably so.
I am not so much invested in Rauru being racist towards Ganondorf; I am invested in the real life Nintendo videogame being racist towards the idea that Ganondorf represents: the scary foreigner that will lead to the fall of civilization if we let him in.
(and perhaps this was Rauru's hubris all along: to believe he could let a scary (male) foreigner in and then trust him to remain docile.... a little too much. And then he reaped what he sowed.
checkmate liberal.
This makes an uncomfortable amount of sense and I kinda hate having made the connection tbh)
This is especially true when it's the second time around that this exact storyline is represented, and I believe it to be much more insidious this time around --because now, gerudos are our friendssss and feel great shame and personal responsibility towards that aspect of them that once rebelled. Meanwhile in OoT, a majority of them were onboard with Ganondorf as their leader and explicitely did not want to be assimilated in the kindgom (Nabooru being specifically painted as one of the exceptions). I go more in depth about all of this in this pre-TotK post about gerudo culture. We had plenty of conversations about orientalism and islamophobic representation in videogames since; it was A Thing at the time, the turn of the century was particularly egregious in that regard. But It's not 1998 anymore, and I personally believe it's pretty inexcusable to rethread that same ground beat by beat without batting an eye at any of its implications (especially since they have done better since; even Twilight Princess, who gave him very little grace overall, dared to criticize hylians through Midna, Zelda and even Zant --and Wind Waker towed the line rather beautifully between the part of him that was human and the part that was monstrous, and the tragedy of these two cancelling each other out constantly). I was expecting much, much better than what we got --I didn't even dare to imagine they would just double-down on that aspect and make a worse version of Ocarina of Time to reintroduce the character.
This is also partially why I'm so uncomfortable with the green skin situation: can you imagine how this scene would have felt like, with the single brown-skinned guy having a central role in the game kneeling in front of a white old man with a droopy mustache (which was Rauru's first iteration in the series, and the one I always keep in mind when having these conversations) and his blonde wife, and Zelda being "hmmm he's evil for sure"? And then he 100% is, with no justification or reason beyond an urge to consume the entire world --even this, which is not uninteresting, remaining completely unexplored in a 150+ hour open-world game that decided to focus on everything under the sun EXCEPT Ganondorf's motivations and his relationship to his own people? Can you imagine how obvious of a racist caricature Ganondorf would have been just by keeping his skin a normal brown (not to pretend he's not already super coded as Foreign in every possible way)? The man is intimidating, uncomfortable to be around, he's greedy and power-hungry, he's insane, he comes for our lands and our women and oppresses his own and also corrupts everything through either infiltration or literal disease. Also he's uhhh the Devil, for good measure.
As much as we can rationalize and embrace these parts of who he is as fans, there's no ignoring how icky this entire situation really is.
Tumblr media
So, to tie everything together.
There are three readings of this game competing in my head.
The first one is: the textual interpretation. Rauru is self-sacrificial and a victim, Zelda is deeply brave and an icon of the empire's longevity and deep-rooted history, Ganondorf is utterly inhuman and must be destroyed at all costs. What the game says it is --and what it is.
The second one is: the critical interpretation. That this story sounds awfully convenient for the prosperity of the Empire (here the empire being Hyrule), paints Zelda, the current leader, in a weird fanficky way by literally sending her back to the past with her super cool ancestors and allowing a military victory in the present while also being a martyr to the cause and being much more of a symbol than a person, and nobody even bats a fucking eye in the direction that Hyrule might have been questionable in any way --everyone is so happy to be a vassal, see? Let's not unpack why the king of the zoras prefered hiding himself than facing the consequences of what would happen if Zelda really did attack him out of the blue (this plot point is insane, but its potential is too good so therefore it's illegal and immediately dropped). Let's not unpack the absolute insane amount of abuse false Zelda gets away with by virtue of acting as the princess of a sacred bloodline (but she's nice, right? because that's how you want to make a sure a ruler won't hurt you: praying they will be nice). There are enough red flags to doubt this world, its reality, the complexity of these people's inner lives. The rejection of the notion that any sort of flaw or problem could exist within the system makes it borderline dystopian in my opinion (especially when compared with BotW's Hyrule, which had problems who led to its own downfall and were the fault of nobody but their own actions as Ganon is portrayed more as a natural event than an actual, malicious person), and this is the first reason why I don't like Rauru: the entire world revolves around this goat-kangaroo-furry man's chiseled navel. Everyone is, quite literally, a faceless tool in the glorious and tragic story of his lost empire (or they're women here to become sacrificial objects serving the fights of men; or they're Ganondorf, who's a non-person and an antagonistic object lacking any interiority or humanity, and the narrative being completely uninterested in that), and only his bloodline and his vision for the future really matters. Not that Rauru thinks like this --but the game does. And so, it's hard for me not to see him as either the most narcissistic person ever if we accept him as the narrator of this story, or a flat propaganda machine built for an even greater cause (Hyrule, the Empire).
And then, the third one: that Nintendo would put out a game that is so deeply embedded in imperialist and orientalist language and tropes, so invested in its traditional and patriarchal values, so uncurious about the Other and so critical of it while refusing to look inward, is not neutral (yes even if the game is super fun and has other great qualities, I do believe this game is a monumental achievement in game/level design and in optimization/tech art while also being a trainwreck in quest and narrative design). This rethoric is not neutral, especially when addressed at the West at large --especially right now, with such a global uptick in traditionalist values overall, and Japan not exactly being spared. I won't pretend to be knowledgeable enough about Japanese history and culture to pick up all the little nuances of what is going on here, but I know enough to recognize that such stories do play out a certain understanding of this country's history, its fears and its difficulties to reconcile with its own (very recent) past as a colonialist empire --both the terrors it unleashed on others and the terrors that were unleashed upon it as it was dismantled. Instead of exploring that subject, every potential for nuance and conversation and self-criticism is slammed shut immediately, often at the cost of their own characters and the depth of their quest design/writing. The unearthed past agrees with its current understanding of itself; there is nothing discovered that leads to being questioned and reconsidered. Everything wrong is the fault of a single, corrupting entity that can be identified as Foreign and Other. There is a literal Heaven (zonai and civilized, Rauru's) and Hell (monstrous and corroding, Ganon's). None of this is neutral. Especially when infused in a game targeted for a young audience lacking context.
Tumblr media
So I hope this very verbose answer helped a little to parse out what is being criticized at which level! Thank you for giving your thoughts, and I hope mine were clarifying to a degree.
I understand it can get a little confusing; but a lot of the urge not to take this scene at face value is born from the knowledge that nothing is ever that simple in real life, that these sort of self-serving narratives often hide horrific amounts of systemic harm underneath its perfectly curated presentation, and that, well. Some Zelda fans, especially the older generations that were invested in these characters and their re-imagining, expected Nintendo to be less..... like this.
And the wake-up call stings a little more than we would have liked.
(again obligatory disclaimer that I'm not saying TotK is Bad or should be Cancelled or that you're Bad for liking it --but it's still important to explicitly talk about how themes like these are being utterly glossed over when I don't think they would have been if they'd come out of a new IP, and not with the huge nostalgia cloud that envelops The Legend of Zelda and has people being extremely uncomfortable at criticizing the ideas the series can sometimes champion --though the series never veered in that direction nearly as hard before in my opinion)
330 notes · View notes
rosacarolina · 3 months
Note
I've read your pinned post and wanted to say something, as a white girl but also a South European: the "homestead" term is historically bounded to white supremacy, yes, but only in those countries of the Western world that actively participated in colonialism and built their economic fortune on slavery. I'm a contemporary history graduate and I can assure you NOT ALL OF WESTERN WHITE COUNTRIES WERE INVOLVED IN COLONIALISM. Go ask a Hungarian, a Moldovian, an Albanian if their grandparents were white suprematists because they owned a homestead and they will laugh. Also, some European peoples were themselves victims of colonialism. So please please please when you all talk about specific historic issues consider learning how to divide nowadays political discourse from actual historic work. "Fancy" political discourse has most of the time nothing to do with serious historic researches (at least, in European universities; I cannot speak for the level of academia in the US...).
I am also a history graduate student at a european university, but thank you for this ask anyway. I don't disagree with your general point-- that colonialism is not a strictly racial divide with white people being the colonizing party and all non white people the colonized. Like that's definitely true. When speaking about the term homestead, i am discussing it as a white supremacist dogwhistle, not saying that anyone who grows their own food is a racist. i would expect that the words agrarian subsistence farmers in hungary, moldova and albania used to describe their homes and their lifestyles would not be "homestead" because it is, an english word.
Consider also that this is a tumblr aesthetic blog and not a historical research conference, where the focus of discussion is, in fact the "fancy" (whatever that means in this context) political discourse which pervades the space and has pervaded it historically.
I'm sure as a student of contemporary history you would understand the historical connections between colonialism, white supremacy, and "blood and soil" rhetoric which used the visuals and languages of pastoralism. this is what i am referring to when i say that homestead is used as a dogwhistle.
also, the idea that a country or a people being subjects of colonialism means they cannot also, at the same or another time, be the perpetrators (or beneficiaries) of it is laughable. i would say that yes, EVERY western white country was involved in colonialism, to varying degrees, at the same time that some are/were subjects of it.
my apologies if this response was disorganized; but i found your assertion that political discourse (which i take from context here to be discussions of the current effects and manifestations of colonialism) not only is but should be largely divorced from serious historical study to be misguided at best. In fact I find it difficult to think of an example wherein the discussions are unrelated.
25 notes · View notes
sounwise · 2 years
Text
Tumblr media
“Segregation’s ‘Daft’ – Says Paul” (in the Tribune [Sydney, NSW], November 4, 1964)
From an interview with Tom Spence of the Daily Worker
[Full transcript beneath the cut:]
-
THE Beatles want very much to help the fight against apartheid, but their problem is fitting in a free show.
“I may be putting my foot in it,” said Paul McCartney, “but it would be an idea to give them the proceeds from the premiere of our new film. We’re starting shooting next February. But, then, it might be booked already.”
Said John Lennon: “We’d do it because we agree with them.” (Those opposed to apartheid.)
It’s hard to think at a Beatles Press conference. A discussion on apartheid and segregation in the U.S. is virtually impossible.
Anti-apartheid
But, if you are lucky enough to get near them, all you can do is persevere. It’s not that they don’t want to talk, they just don’t have the time.
“We are willing to do a concert,” said Paul between camera clicks.
“What’s that?” queried George Harrison, by his side.
“Anti-apartheid. A concert for anti-apartheid.”
“Oh yes. A good thing.” Their attention was whisked away by other questions and ogling camera lenses.
They made their first public appearance since their American tour at the Bradford Odeon last week. It was the opening night of a series of one-night stands which will take them around the country.
Chaos. Flash bulbs popping, cameramen jockeying for position and jostling journalists poking each other black and blue in the ribs.
It is John’s 24th birthday. My five-year-old daughter, Karen, presented him with a birthday card. A horde of cameras clicking. “Smile,” and “Look this way.”
Stage fright. She forgets to sing “Happy Birthday” and clings, instead, to John’s neck.
“Stand her on the table,” suggests the photographer, somebody else shouts. “Hold her hand.” Back on his knee. The boys sing the song for her.
More camera work. American singer Mary Wells is with them now. A voice shouts above the din: “The last pictures. If you have any more questions, ask them now.”
This takes place backstage, in a cramped yellow and pink room. I squeeze through to Paul McCartney.
Any chance of an interview on their American tour? “Come with me,” he says.
A dark flight of stairs. People on either side, asking for autographs, passing comments. Everyone is talking. Now an occasional scream from outside.
Sound of music as we pass the stage. The show has started. A packed and appreciative audience drowns the now-distant babble of the dying Press Reception upstairs.
In the dressing room, Paul pulls out a packet of cigarettes and we sit and smoke. Someone offers him a cup of tea.
He seems distracted by the excitement from outside. I take in the room in a hurried glance before asking questions.
Two unopened bottles of scotch stand on a table to my right. There is another table with teapot and cups.
We are in a corner, the most orderly place in the room. Cardboard boxes are piled against a far wall, pieces of equipment lie on the floor.
Other people are in the room, more are outside, protesting that they can’t get in.
The other Beatles come in. John, George and Ringo. They sit down and Ringo has a cup of tea.
I ask Paul why they insisted on a no-segregation clause being included in their American contract.
Segregation, he says, is “daft.” He enlarges on the statement: “It’s daft looking upon coloured people as some sort of freaks.
“Before we went to the U.S. someone told us they might try to segregate the audiences. We stuck in the clause just in case.”
The clause led to the cancellation of concerts in the Southern States.
Paul drags at his cigarette and thinks a bit.
“We had coloured people with us in America. There was no discrimination there. The audience loved them.
“I think the kids over there aren’t half as bigoted as their parents. They are a new generation.”
John talks about the tour[.] “The most tiring we’ve made. I wouldn’t like to do it again in a hurry.”
A quick observation about a guy called Goldwater—“Pretty silly,” says John—some small talk to Karen.
Again, why the “no segregation” clause, and why the refusal to tour apartheid South Africa? “I just think they are bad things,” says John.
“In America they accept the Negro as an entertainer. On that there is no prejudice. We didn’t see any prejudice on the five weeks of our tour.
“We had Frogman Henry with us. He was born in the Deep South. We asked him where he’d rather live, he said in the South. You see he’s an entertainer.
“But segregation. They put them behind wire or something. Why should they? They all pay the same money. We are all the same.”
John is not so sure that segregation is dying in the States. “They are born into it, and it will take long time for them to grow out of it,” he says.
Apartheid and segregation are one and the same to the Beatles. They just don’t want to know.
11 notes · View notes
nepenthean-sleep · 7 days
Text
going into irl queer spaces or the internet dot com reading people say shit like oh my bad im sorry i forgot butches and studs and masc wlw are people and are more than either "soft uwu sapphic protective head empty golden retriever girlboyfriend" or "big long strap daddy aggressive himbo dom top fuckboi"
59 notes · View notes
phoebe-delia · 10 months
Text
cw: discussion of canon-typical prejudice/blood purity/racism
I have a developing headcanon about Draco.
So I think Lucius is a piece of shit father, right? Very cold and mean and distant, and controlling. He showers Draco with gifts, but not affection, you get the gist.
But Lucius’s father, Draco’s paternal grandfather, is very different. He’s warm with Draco. He's kind. Doesn’t get angry when Draco draws on the walls, or has an episode of accidental magic, or doesn’t get the highest grade. Maybe Lucius was impacted by his mother to be the way he was, or became that way for some other reason. Or maybe his father is just better at being a grandfather than he was a father.
Regardless, Draco grows up not idolizing his mean, harsh, demanding father, but his doting, loving, patient grandfather.
His grandfather is also a raging, horrible racist/pureblood supremacist.
His grandfather sits Draco on his knee and tells him how wonderful he is, how special and "pure." He shows his prejudice in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. Draco hears him rant about blood purity shit at the dinner table. When they're in public, he notices his grandfather steer him away from anyone who he might know or assume to be a non-pureblood. The grandfather dies before the war, let's say like 4th year, but he has a BIG impact on Draco.
So Draco doesn’t (only) get his blood supremacy/racism from his father (and mother). He also gets it from his grandfather.
I think I like this headcanon because—while it's not at all easy to unlearn prejudices one sees modeled from basically birth—it's probably made a bit easier when the person you learned it from is also someone you don't like when you get older. I don't see Draco liking Lucius all that much; sure he has love for him, but even in the small scenes where we see how Lucius treats Draco, it's clear that, at the very least, he's not very nice to his son. And, in my own head, Draco doesn't have a good relationship with him, pretty much ever. So maybe, in a universe that only presents Draco's relationship with his parents, Draco could have an easier time in adulthood recognizing that he'd been indoctrinated into the blood supremacist ideology; it could be compatible with an overall rejection of his parents.
But in this headcanon, where Draco learned and saw a lot of that prejudice modeled for him in someone who showed him seemingly unconditional love and kindness and affection, how hard is that for him to grapple with? That's a reality for a lot of people; coming to terms with the fact that someone you love—someone who's nice to you—isn't "nice" to people who aren't like you. And that everything they taught you about that was wrong.
Which brings me to Drarry. Because in a Drarry universe—which is endgame in just about every universe I wanna explore—Draco would fall in love with someone who his grandfather would've hated.
Give me a Draco who has to realize that someone with whom he didn't have a complicated, toxic relationship, was also a shitty person, and that he would've HATED the person he loves.
119 notes · View notes
closet-keys · 9 months
Text
youtube
62 notes · View notes
Note
Hey just saying, but if you disqualify aot and (in your words) media with too many problematic properties, you should also disqualify harry potter, hetalia and south park. I get that this is a poll for controversial characters, but imo there's very much a line between "this character is controversial because they are a bad person or badly written in an otherwise okay media which you can enjoy critically" and "this character is controversial because the writers project their own bigoted views onto them and are openly right-leaning shit heads whose media or current presentation reflects this too"
No.
There is a discourse tag, you can read what I’ve already said about this. But I’ll summarize a few for you here anyways. There are specific reasons I removed the things I removed and allowed the things I allowed. Here they are, in roughly increasing order. Under a cut so people who don’t wanna see this/are uncomfortable with it don’t have to.
I tag everything appropriately, so if you don’t want to see something I allowed, block the tag or unfollow me. I promise I won’t be offended if you unfollow.
If a character is controversial for being bigoted or from a bigoted media, they’re obviously not gonna advance to further rounds because hate will sweep. So they will not advance and will be gone democratically, and they will certainly not win.
Even if they DID win, this poll would not be “promoting” these medias anyways because this is not a “best” character competition. It is for the most controversial. I am not presenting these medias in any positive light, let alone the characters from them. This is why these SAME medias (and others) ARE banned from my two other tournaments that try to find the “best” thing.
I CAN’T meaningfully promote these medias anyways when they are worth billions of dollars and I have like, under a thousand followers on tumblr.
There are certain medias I think are bigoted and I don’t like them. Harry Potter and South Park are two of them (I don’t know anything about Hetalia). The difference between these and Attack On Titan are, from what I’ve been told, Attack On Titan is bigoted on purpose to push a specific agenda. This is not true for the others. OBVIOUSLY I’m not gonna allow racist propaganda, for the same reason I wouldn’t allow, like, idk anything else that actively seeks to radicalize its audience towards a bigoted end goal
The purpose of removing things is to prevent harm, not to make the controversial character tournament uncontroversial. Because if you remember, I actually DID remove a Harry Potter! Because she is a racist caricature and it would harm people to see racist imagery, language, or propaganda all over my blog. It does not harm anyone to read the words “Ron Weasley” or whatever. It’s not like I’m including a list of every slur the author has ever said underneath each character post. If I’m wrong about some character and their image IS bigoted, let me know! I’m more than happy to make this blog into a safer space for people in that way. But I’m not removing it for being controversial in a way where the actual post content is non-harmful and tag-blockable.
If you still disagree, you can send this ask again off anon and then we can talk and I’ll listen. But I’m not taking orders from some anon saying what I should and should not do.
32 notes · View notes
angorwhosebabyisthis · 5 months
Text
there really needs to be a name for the trope where a piece of media makes a very obvious fantasy stand-in for an irl marginalized group--or just straight up people from an irl marginalized group--so they can conflate them with their oppressors, whether directly or with sly innuendo and imagery to evoke it. this is never used as an opportunity to explore lateral violence, let alone done so with sensitivity; it's bait dangled in front of an audience who's just aware enough of political movements, structures, and ideologies to go Ideology Very Bad and instantly shut off any examination of the messaging behind it.
(which is, often as not, either shifting the blame to marginalized people so the audience can hate demographics they're already comfortable with hating instead of grappling with the discomfort of real privilege being called out or held accountable, 'so the horrific and violent bigotry leveled at that group irl is totally justified and we should Do More of That Actually,' or both.)
like. i keep seeing this over and over and over. don't get me started on how SF/F media in particular seems completely unable to restrain itself from having at least one black character in a setting that breathes anywhere near fantasy racism say and do just the most ungodly racist shit ever. every time, jesus fuck, it's awful.
this trope is not at all limited to racism or antisemitism--it shows up for pretty much any marginalized group you can think of, BOY i have rants in me about a lot of portrayals of abuse survivors in various media i'm into--but it seems to pop up most blatantly and obviously for those. and fascism in general, which, i HIGHLY recommend these excellent essays for a more articulate and in-depth analysis of than i could give in a paragraph of one post. they're fantastic go read them and come back. especially the second one.
more specifically, it's a special favorite of these fucking people to evoke this with nazism. so the closest term i've got to what i'm describing is naziwashing, which i think is still useful as a descriptor of a subset of that phenomenon but again does not nearly cover all of it. so i'm a bit stumped.
14 notes · View notes
iamnmbr3 · 5 months
Note
Hi. How do you think the universities could step up to help solve the tensions between students and punish those that support terror groups and bigotry?
That's a great question. Like any antiracism and deradicalization effort this won't be easy. Especially when bigoted attitudes have obviously become so entrenched and normalized on many college campuses. It'll take time to fix unfortunately.
Some things that colleges can do are:
Have a 0 tolerance policy for faculty or staff promoting conspiracy theories or supporting terrorism or bigotry of any kind. This should be obvious and yet we have incidents like a Cornell professor calling Hamas terrorists butchering innocents "exhilarating" or a Stanford professor who humiliated Jewish students by forcing them to stand a corner. Incidents like that should result in immediate termination (something that so far has not happened with either of these Professors). In ALL cases. Advocating for terrorism or displaying malicious antisemitism or Islamophobia or racism of any kind like this should not be tolerated and should result in loss of employment. These professors have tremendous power to shape students minds and if they are using their position to abuse students and promote bigotry and lies they should not retain a teaching position.
Students who engage in pro-terrorism activities or use language advocating violence or spread hate speech should be subject to having their offers revoked. A few years ago Harvard revoked an offer to a student who was found to be spreading racist and inflammatory commentary on social media - including using the n-word. Students making similar types of violent statements targeting Muslims, Palestinians, Jews, Israelis, or any other group should be treated similarly. Differences of opinion on complex issues are fine but hate speech or actively supporting terrorism should not be tolerated. Also students who commit violent acts like physically assaulting other students on campus should be expelled.
Students should be given the facts that will allow them to understand these issues and avoid being radicalized into bigoted hate groups. Universities must ensure that courses that touch on this subject matter and DEI training equips students to do things like differentiate between activism and terrorism, to understand that Hamas is not Palestine and in fact oppresses people in Gaza, to recognize and to guard against antisemitic and Islamophobic behaviors. They must ensure that no course materials promote misinformation. How many of these students chanting even know the difference between Gaza and the West Bank? Or between Hamas and the PLO? How many know Jews are indigenous to the Levant or understand the full history and context of the Holocaust? Ignorance breeds bigotry and radicalization and Universities are meant to be giving students the facts and the tools to analyze complex questions.
I'm interested to hear other people's thoughts. What do you think should be done?
10 notes · View notes
makiruz · 3 months
Text
No, but the alleged victims of rape of October 7th is straight up out of The Birth of the Fucking Nation, that movie also used the threat of sexual violence against white women to justify the murder of black and indigenous men in the USA; it's been part of the white supremacist playbook for actual centuries now, the idea that the brown man is a barbaric beast out to rape white women so the white man has to kill him (it's why gringxs have so much anxiety around black men dating white women)
And it's what these fucking zionists are doing with the supposed rape allegations, portray Hamas, and by extension all Palestinian men, as brutish rapists that must be stopped by the righteous Israeli men for the sake of women; and just like with the USA, the allegations are fake! I mean, it's very likely sexual violence has taken place, as that's a factor in war, but the mass rape zionists are crying about was proven as fake, it didn't happen, they made it up, it's bullshit
And then they double down, by crying that people don't care about Jewish women when we correctly point out the allegation is fake and Islamophobic propaganda. It's the tears of white women that get black men killed, the Ultimate Karen move
5 notes · View notes
torntoblivion · 2 years
Text
middle eastern (specifically turkish person) here and i want to add my own two cents in the whole sumeru discussion.
TW I WILL BE TALKING ABOUT A RACISM EXPERIENCE!!
reminder that if you're not middle eastern/south asian, don't speak over us thank you.
first of all, the skin colors. the middle east is a diverse area, for example me, my mom and sister are very pale but my dad is brown skinned and my other sister is tan. fyi all of us are fully turkish. if you walk around istanbul, you can see many different people. pale, tanned, brown, dark skinned, different eye shapes, different nose shapes and etc.
i don't need to explain why it's wrong that hoyoverse only bothered to make npcs tanned, made zero dark skinned characters and whitewashed dehya and candace.
don't y'all dare defend hoyoverse by saying its a chinese company, that's no excuse if they aren't gonna properly represent us then they shouldn't have made the nations inspired by real life.
about changing skin tones, blackwashing!! does!! NOT!! exist!! i think y'all are just playing dumb about why whiteashing is not the same as making a character tan/brown/dark.
firstly, blasians exist. secondly, white people should let poc enjoy what they could have and headcanons are NOT a bad thing. unlike whitewashing, it does no harm whatsoever. so stop bitching and let us have something.
i was so excited when i found out that sumeru was going to be inspired by middle east, we don't get represented often and if we do, it's filled with shitty stereotypes or just simply inaccurate. i was so happy to see familiar named npcs, i rlly was.
don't get me wrong, i love sumeru's design, music, story, gameplay, the food, dancing and the characters but i also acknowledge the problems.
a little side note about pronounciations, i'm aware that pronouncing words drastically different from your language is hard. i sometimes have a hard time pronuncing the liyue names but i try my best and be respectful. even turkish people have a hard time pronouncing my real name when they first hear it. in short, as long as you're trying your best and being respectful, it's okay if you can't pronounce them correctly.
also paimon refusing food was so iffy to me, i mean this is paimon we're talking abt and some of the comments she made was so frusturating.
about kusanali, i'm not sure if she's supposed to be inspired by something bc people have different opinions on it so i'm not commenting on it.
now about dori, her design is not bad at all but not exactly accurate. i can see where the clothing are inspired from but i'm making no comment on the genie bc muslims and arabs should decide if it's offensive or not. about her personality, i hate it. it's stereotypical, making her a scammer and greedy. don't cry abt me making everything abt race bc guess what!! stereotypes are harmful a surprise right /sarcasm
like i mentioned my dad is brown and majority of my family are muslims. i will never forget the time at the airport my dad got randomly checked but not me, not my sisters or my mom. just my dad and i never understood until i got older. guess why this happened? bc my dad isn't pale like us and doesn't have an european name.
i love genshin impact, it has been my hyperfixation since may 2021 and i rlly enjoy it. i hope hoyoverse will do better and listen to the rational part of the community.
i also hope people will read this and understand why we are upset. if you have anything to add or if i got something wrong please please speak up!! all i'm asking everyone to be respectful and civil while discussing this.
66 notes · View notes
mogai-sunflowers · 11 months
Text
okay i will never NOT believe that trans men and transmascs face specific oppression. i believe in the existence of transandrophobia/whatever name you use for it. and i DON’T think it’s transmisogynistic to acknowledge that, like, at all.
but i literally can’t stand the community that talks about it on here because time and time again i’ve seen so many of them say the most insensitive, blatantly misogynistic stuff without getting called out. like these are things i’ve seen some of the major people say on here without any repercussions (many of them include criticisms of white women, which im not saying is bad, but a lot of it isn’t genuine criticism, it’s just misogyny hidden behind criticizing white womens racism)
- “i’m tired of hearing about cis women’s trauma with men” (i understand that many transphobic cis women use their trauma to shit on transmascs, but this is NOT an acceptable way to say that without any consideration to its implications)
- soooo much stuff from white transmascs about how Black and brown men get policed, but ALWAYS implying that the same thing doesn’t happen to Black and brown women (I will always acknowledge Black and brown mens’ unique issues, but the erasure of police violence against Black and brown women is such a huge issue that it bothers the fuck out of me to see them only ever bring up police violence when it’s about Black and brown men)
- “if cis white women just wanted to vent about sexism, they’d just text their best friend, not make “womens only spaces”, that’s just because they want to have the most power in the room” (cis white women, and in fact all cis women and white women, should be held accountable for the racism and transphobia they can perpetuate, but to imply that they’re all power-hungry and just want to oppress others, that they can’t also experience misogyny and want safe spaces to discuss that, is DISGUSTING. also, you’re right, the point of those spaces IS to have power, because we largely don’t have that in a context with cis men, having power to be yourself for once isn’t a bad thing to want like huh???)
- “white women shouldn’t fear sex trafficking, they don’t want you” (which is a very insensitive way to acknowledge how sex trafficking affects largely girls and women of color. being terrified of being sex trafficked doesn’t make you stupid and isn’t a fear that should be mocked, whether the girl is white or not, but also, if you’re going to center girls of color in that discussion, just say that, instead of hiding misogyny behind criticizing white womens tears)
- literally outright saying that white women are the ones who continue the white race, and then pretty blatantly implying that therefore, if white women get raped by their partners, they’re still the carriers of the white race and therefore it’s a PRIVILEGE for them to get assaulted (i wish i was kidding. when i saw this post i was sick for hours afterwards. again: for the love of god, when you criticize white women and our capacity for harm, do it without blatant misogyny)
- lots of talk about how the mere existence of womens-only shelters/spaces is the problem, and not their common issues with intersectionality and transphobia. (sure, many of them have issues but that doesn’t mean their premise is bad and if you’re gonna shit on ANY woman for wanting a safe space after experiencing traumatic misogyny, then you need to shut the fuck up)
- making fun of the woman who coined the term ‘transmisogyny’ just because she has some flawed views about trans men. (she is a flawed person but julia serano is still integral to the discussion of transmisogyny and to mock anyone who aligns with her is just....... so blatantly transmisogynistic)
i’ve seen a lot more but those are the worst. i used to look up to a lot of these people but i’ve truly seen so much misogyny and especially misogynoir from them dressed thinly as criticism of white women and cis women that it’s not even funny. this is not me saying “won’t someone please think of the poor white cis women” it’s me saying that if you can’t criticize them in good faith without blatant bigotry against their gender, then you need to rethink your fucking criticisms and think before you open your damn mouth.
so yeah. just to reiterate- i literally firmly believe in the existence of transandrophobia but i can’t stand that community that talks about it in that way and though i sometimes reblog various posts from people like that, please don’t connect me to that shit because it’s quite triggering for me, i’ve had so many anxiety attacks and panic sessions from the misogyny and shit i’ve seen from them. i believe in transandrophobia but i also believe in showing basic fucking human decency to women.
15 notes · View notes
orbleglorb · 5 months
Text
i understand the "believe all victims no matter what" stance but i really don't think a lot of these ppl know how false accusations of rape have been (and still are) weaponized against men of color. that didn't just stop after we came out of the 60s. like genuinely i understand why ppl want to believe all victims no matter what and i'm not condemning that, but there should be a certain point where you look at both party's races and you look at the victim's past statements (and possibly past accusations) and you look at your town's political climate and what type of people they routinely discriminate against, and you need to re-evaluate your trust in the victim
5 notes · View notes
clonerightsagenda · 10 months
Text
Jumping back into podcast posting with a pretty heavy one, but I was talking to someone about this phenomenon recently, and so I was thinking about how Greater Boston depicts Emily Bespin leveraging white womanhood.
To start with, I'm writing this from the position of being a dfab white person who society is going to read as female. There is a long history - continuing into the present day - of white women capitalizing on being perceived as vulnerable/delicate/innocent and using that to harm Black people, especially Black men, by casting them as dangerous aggressors. I could list several examples even from recent news stories.
Emily is a young white woman who runs a successful mayoral campaign relying heavily on racist dogwhistles and white resentment. She runs as the Red Line Bride - leaning into that pure, virginal image. She scapegoats a Black teenager to cast doubt on her opponent, his aunt. (I don't recall if she knew about the plan to frame Isaiah beforehand - either she was part of the plan from the start, or she saw a Black teen arriving at the scene of a crime and immediately named him as the likely culprit due to her biases). She calls people protesting her actions dangerous terrorists and wins votes from commuters and railway workers who are mad about being inconvenienced. Once she wins the election, she kicks people out of their homes and begins a coordinated plan to make the city unlivable for poor and working class citizens, many of whom are people of color.
Whenever anyone brings this up, Emily insists she's not racist. She's married to a Black man, after all! (Ethan interrupts to say he identifies as mixed race, but she talks over him.) She may genuinely believe she doesn't harbor any racial resentment. It doesn't matter. She is consciously using her racial position and racist stereotypes to manipulate people and secure power.
America has an (increasingly legislated) determination to view racism as an individual moral problem caused by 'bad people'. Characters like Emily are often portrayed as simple bigots. And there are plenty of those out there! There are also people who are genuinely clueless and benefit from education - American society is so segregated that some white people can get pretty far in life without ever really talking to a person of color. (And boy do our politicians want to make that even worse.) But there are also many people who know exactly what they are doing, and I think Emily is a great depiction of that. (And in turn how she is a miserable and isolated person who's being used by larger corporate and political actors, because people lacking support systems are more likely to get radicalized.) Racism isn't perpetuated just because people 'don't know better' or are 'mean'. Racism is a tool that benefits the people wielding it. Emily is chillingly familiar in a way some more over the top podcast villains aren't.
Given all that, it makes me distrustful of how to interpret her ongoing mental and emotional deterioration. Is she the neglected wife of an unloving husband? Or is she doing exactly what she has shown herself to be very good at? Emily isn't a character we get a lot of interiority from, so it's hard to say to what extent the listeners are also getting played.
9 notes · View notes
rosacarolina · 2 years
Text
checked on a terf who protested my assertion that “radical feminism” is conservative and found them being super racist not a half dozen posts down. if youre gonna bullshit at least dont be this bad at it come on
68 notes · View notes
fumblingmusings · 1 year
Text
The end of the Anglo-Japanese alliance is so awful and I know Hima will never show it in canon because of how fucked it truly was and there's no real way to tip-toe around it. Like for one thing the racism behind the decision making is inescapable, for example pre WWI one opinion of the Dominions was:
Tumblr media
The Dominions form and shape a major British foreign policy perhaps for the first and last time at the 1921 Imperial Conference and you have these direct quotes from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Britain respectively post WWI:
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Which are... rough for many differing reasons.
So it becomes a question of: Who do we trust more? Japan, who was a good friend for twenty years (21 Demands aside…) or the US, who everyone wanted as a friend but who was... not very friendly at the time. Australia and NZ want Japan, Canada wants America. Britain wants both.
Tumblr media
Canada pushing and pushing (until apparently the Australian and Canadian Prime Ministers had an awful shouting match and part of me just wants to have been a fly on the wall watching Hughes and Meighen go at it but that's neither here nor there...) changes things, not to mentions vague threats from the US itself in time for the Naval Conference...
Tumblr media Tumblr media
So it all sinks with some ships. How fitting.
Tumblr media
I do admire the writers and artists who have discussed it well in the past, because it's just not an easy topic to tackle at all, especially through the lens of Hetalia.
36 notes · View notes