#his heritage is so important to me you don’t understand

[emodwarfluvr]

nico di angelo: nico who is actually niccolò, a name he uses rarely, quietly, carefully. something not everyone can say, nor grasp the importance of. niccolò di angelo, son of an italian woman, brother of an italian girl, grandson of an italian man and diplomat: blood as red and vibrant as caravaggio’s death of the virgin flows through his veins, his complexion carries the faint memory of olives and the liquid they produce, a memory of where he comes from, of home. niccolò: a name of most significant power and presence, owned by many before him. before niccolò di angelo there was niccolò “ugo” foscolo, before niccolò foscolo there was niccolò machiavelli: a legacy of writers, poets who made history with the sole movement of their hand holding a quill. he, too, will carry their memory, spread his word about the generations that led to his existence. he will see the sun shining bright in the sky and bask in the light and warmth it brings, because who is he if he doesn’t appreciate the pieces of home that follow him wherever he goes? he will look at the night sky and think of galileo, of leopardi’s poems, and he will remember the loud laughter of his mamma and the tight embraces of his nonna. he will make food for his loved ones with all the passion and affection his heart can carry and, for an instant, be brought back to that one tiny, hidden street, now long forgotten, in venice, where his home once stood, and in that instant he will reminisce and smile at the consciousness that he carries his own bloodline and origins with him, always.

#nico di angelo #pjo hoo toa #bianca di angelo #maria di angelo #his heritage is so important to me you don’t understand #italy #italian nico di angelo #i could literally write essays about it i’m so serious

[comradekatara]

Ik you went into the whole stupid "nonbenders are oppressed" thing in lok in one of the asks I sent you, but it keeps on making me think about how much I wish i got to see mako and bolin's mixed earth kingdom fire nation heritage play a role in the story. Maybe if lok had the themes of atla it could go into how the two are treated differently for Mako looking more fire nation and bolin looking more earth kingdom. I think it'd be interesting if Korra keeps on hearing Amon's followers yell on the streets about how benders oppress everyone but then notice how Bolin gets treated significantly better when he pretends to be a non-bender fire national/lean into his fire nation heritage by ignoring his bending compared to when he is openly an earthbender which directly ties him to his earth kingdom heritage.

right!!! i am literally always saying this. like it’s sooo weird how lok does not understand what it means to be mixed in any meaningful capacity. neither with the kataangs nor with mako and bolin, they’re each just largely tied to the element they bend with no consideration given to the other half of their heritage. bumi doesn’t consider himself an air nomad until he magically gains airbending, despite his father literally being the only air nomad currently in existence. instead of trying to preserve his familial heritage, he completely undermines all of aang and katara’s cultural values and joins the fucking military. kya doesn’t seem to give a shit about air nomad culture either, seeing as she doesn’t even know guru laghima’s name (and he’s the wisest air nomad who ever lived!). despite apparently being an independent free spirit who values her freedom, she seems 100% affiliated with her mother’s heritage, because waterbender. even though the values of community and tradition kind of conflict with her whole “you can’t tie me down” attitude, so. um. and they never once explore how the value of, for example, hunting as an important cultural tradition in the water tribes may conflict with the value of vegetarianism and doing no harm to any living organism. these are interesting tensions that could have been explored!! but instead, tenzin is merely an air nomad who takes after his father both culturally and physically, kya is a waterbender who takes after her mother, and bumi is a…..cosmopolitan, and nobody likes him.

as for mako and bolin, they don’t even get the privilege of being the children of the avatar and the chief of the southern water tribe (i said what i said), so being mixed race in the neocolonial cesspit that is republic city would be bound to cause some tensions. but instead of actually addressing what the ramifications and complex colonial dynamics of inter/multiracial family structures in a postwar society that is nonetheless still struggling to contend with a century’s worth of global imperialism and the lingering trauma of that violence would be, they kind of just….ignore it. yes, mako is a firebender who takes after his fire nation mother, and bolin is an earthbender who takes after his earth kingdom father, and they live in a city that was once earth kingdom land that now functions as a neocolony of the fire nation, but also, the police force are all earthbenders, and there isn’t any sort of lingering racial/colonial tensions in this city whatsoever! you know how mako and bolin were orphaned as children and forced to live on the street and dumpster dive for food and eventually did labor for a gang because they had no other means of survival? are we going to question or implicate the systems that enabled those abject conditions? no, of course not. look at mako fumble two gorgeous, ridiculously privileged girls! look at bolin do the charleston! isn’t republic city FUN???

#bakedbeanchan #asks #lok crit #in the lok rewrite that lives in my head Children of Mixed Experience get the identity crises they DESERVE 😤😤 #but yeah. what a mess #analysis #bumi ii #kya ii #tenzin #mako #bolin #bolin&mako

[elains]

Azriel's association with Enalius, what it means for his arc and Illyria

This is something me and my friends have talked about off tumblr, but I wanted to write my own post about it and gather my thoughts. But here, I'll discuss a bit Azriel's character and how the revelations we witness in House of Flame and Shadow will be important to his character. (+ a little bit of Emerie).

What do we know about Enalius? From ACOSF, Emerie provides us with a little exposition when they are in the Rite, when the Pass of Enalius is brought up:

Long ago—so long ago they don’t even have a precise date for it—a great war was fought between the Fae and the ancient beings who oppressed them. One of its key battles was here, in these mountains. Our forces were battered and outnumbered, and for some reason, the enemy was desperate to reach the stone at the top of Ramiel. We were never taught the reason why; I think it’s been forgotten. But a young Illyrian warrior named Enalius held the line against the enemy soldiers for days.

Now, from the Crescent City crossover, we learned that Truth-teller and Gwydion are twin blades. They are a pair. According to the Silene History Lesson, the dagger used to belong to her father's (Fionn's) dear friend, slain during the war. A bit later, when they find Vesperus, she confirms that this friend was Enalius:

The Asteri’s eyes flared with recognition at the long blade. “Did Fionn send you, then? To slay me in my sleep? Or was it that traitor Enalius? I see that you bear his dagger—as his emissary? Or his assassin?”

Immediately before that, she also confirms that the Asteri crafted (which can either mean created, shaped forged, but we are going with created) the Illyrians:

The Asteri’s blue eyes lowered to the dagger. “You dare draw a weapon before me? Against those who crafted you, soldier, from night and pain?”

From everything, we can conclude this: Enalius was the original wielder of Truth-teller before Fionn and Theia, a dear friend to Fionn, and someone who pulled the ultimate sacrifice to keep the Asteri/Daglan from reaching the top of Ramiel. He was a traitor to the Asteri, a rebel against his masters and everything they stood for.

Enalius is the hero most Illyrians strive to mimic, the legendary figure who they all hope to one day surpass. He's a symbol of their people, even if so much about him has been forgotten — the fact that he had a dagger, Fionn's friendship, what the battle was for, maybe even how he was as a person. Brave, for sure. Willing to die for the cause.

And it's Azriel who bears his dagger. Azriel, who has such a complicated relationship with his Illyrian heritage and loaths it - and by extension, himself - is the one with this enormous legacy right at this hand. And this matters.

Still in ACOSF, we have Rhys talking with Cassian and wanting him to play Courtier, the following exchange then follows:

“What, we’re doing some role reversal? Az gets to lead the Illyrians now?” “Don’t play stupid,” Rhys said coolly. Cassian rolled his eyes. But they both knew Azriel would sooner disband and destroy Illyria than help it. Convincing their brother that the Illyrians were a people worth saving was still a battle amongst the three of them.

Azriel hates the Illyrians for what happened to him and his mother and his dislike for them is, to a degree, understandable. The thing is that Azriel, no matter how much he loaths it, is Illyrian. Maybe he's more than that (as it's pointed that Az is different in a lot of ways and Bryce wonders if he is Starborn), but at heart, he's Illyrian. Siphons, leathers, fighting, being Carynthian, his wings, his scabbard and the dagger it holds.

It was healthy, perhaps, for Az to sometimes remember where he'd come from. He still wore the Illyrian leathers. Had not tried to get the tattoos removed. Some part of him was Illyrian still. Always would be. Even if he wished to forget it.

Being Illyrian is part of who he is and his deep hatred for them only fuel his self-loathing. He would like to set himself apart, but he is not.

We can actually draw a direct parallel between Azriel and Bryce with how they regard the Fae vs the Illyrians. Bryce loathes the Fae and for most of HoFaS, she believes they are evil, corrupt, power-hungry and quite generally, not worth saving. She would leave them all to burn. Sound familiar?

And Bryce is wrong. Sathia challenges her notion, pointing out that she's laying judgement to all fae and that is hardly fair. What the one who don't deserve it? Herself, yes, but Flynn, Declan, and Ruhn himself? Do they deserve to burn too? Bryce herself acknowledges this:

Urd had sent her there to see, even in the small fraction of their world that she’d witnessed, that Fae existed who were kind and brave. She might have had to betray Nesta and Azriel, trick them … but she knew that at their cores, they were good people. The Fae of Midgard were capable of more. Ruhn proved it. Flynn and Dec proved it. Even Sathia proved it, in the short time Bryce had known her.

And this part here sums up quite neatly:

Fire met starlight met shadows, and Bryce loosed herself on the world. It ended today. Here. Now. This had nothing to do with the Asteri, or Midgard. The Fae had festered under leaders like these males, but her people could be so much more.

There are Illyrians who are kind and brave and break the mold. We see this with Emerie, who is also a woman. We see that with Balthazar, Cassian. The main point stands, though, that you cannot judge or condemn an entire race for the bad apples.

Azriel is wrong, just as Bryce was wrong, and his journey will be also to realise that his people are worth saving. They were created of night and pain (words that Azriel embodies, being a master of shadows and a torturer), but that is not everything they need to be. They can be more than soldiers. They can thrive.

And I believe this was something Enalius himself came to the believe, long ago. His people deserved more than to be slaves to the Asteri, forced to give them their power when need be, bred to live and die for them. They could be more. And Enalius died to free his people from their chains.

Is Azriel Enalius's blooded descendant? I'm not sure, but he doesn't need to be. Azriel is Enalius successor because he will finish what was started. He'll uncover the secrets of the past, what his people were in truth, what Enalius rebelled for, what he stood for, what the Blood Rite truly means - which he only got a glimpse of.

And this is where I think Emerie will also come in. She's s one of ACOSF most relevant characters and the first female Illyrian to be Carynthian. I think Emerie will also become an inspirational figure to the Illyrian women, another of these what they coud be. What they can be. And more importantly and that is just a theory, what they were.

Orestes was a warrior. What if so was Carynth and she was woman? The name always struck me as similar to Carina, which is the name of a constellation and commonly used by women. It would be ironic and another shaking revelation to the Illyrians that Carynth, for whom their greatest warriors are named after, was a woman.

Does that mean all Illyrian women must become Valkyries? No, but some might wish to follow this path whilst their society takes its time to catch up. They already shook the status quo and with Nesta poised to have a big role (andthe Valkyries along her), they will continue to do so.

Azriel will uncovered the lost history of Vesperus offered him all the clues he needed to start looking. His journey to find out this secrets will lead to him facing his own demons, confronting his loathing for his people and, in doing so, he will make peace with himself.

#hofas spoilers #azriel #shout out to yaz for helping me fish the quotes #my meta #acotar #acosf #emerie #illyria

[real-fire-emblem-takes]

Soren is one of my favorite characters of all time (and tied w/ Dimi for my fav FE character) because he’s like. Really really funny if you think about it. This prince of two nations with draconic heritage and a tragic backstory isn’t only not the main character, but also you can go through the whole of Tellius learning very little about him if you so choose. HE doesn’t even really give a shit about where he came from he just wants to be w/ Ike. I feel like in any other FE game and most JRPGs in general his backstory would graduate him to significant plot point at least but Tellius is so based that it’s like nah. Like don’t get me wrong Soren is super important to understanding parts of the story (Why Rajaion ended up in Ashnard’s clutches, the whole branded debacle, Almedha’s *actual child*) but he’s never the focus. I just think that’s awesome. Of course it means like a bunch of people have some terrible takes but I guess that’s the price for having a rly cool character. I love Soren he’s so epic. He’s even gay

He's even gay

#fe #fire emblem #soren fire emblem #fe9/10 #fe9 #fe10 #radiant dawn #path of radiance #fe tellius #fire emblem tellius #tellius #fire emblem path of radiance #fire emblem radiant dawn

[ashdreams2023]

Hi, I love your posts a lot and i was wondering if i could make a request. I checked your master list just incase someone asked it already and i didn’t see it.

Could you do a loki x reader, where loki is nervous to reveal that he is a frost giant to the reader and when he does reveal it the reader finds him like cute and pretty. Just lots of fluff and cuteness :)

(You can do a gn or fem reader i don’t really mind).

Have a good day/night! :)

My good looking boy

Loki x fem reader

Loki walks back and forth in his bedroom, he has been thinking about this sensitive for ages now.

He looked down at his blue frosted hands, his veins looked so pale and greenish, disgusting in his own eye.

You wouldn’t want to look at this everyday, right?

But he couldn’t hide this forever and he promise to share every detail about himself with you, regardless of how mad and twisted it may come off as.

You deserved to know and whatever happened afterwards…well he didn’t want to think of anymore outcomes because all of them ended the same in his head.

Alone.

"Loki? Am I early? I saw the door open and let myself in" you walked in and phased at the darkness of the room "Why are the lights off?"

Loki swallowed and leaned his back on the wall "Darling before you turn the light on I want you to know something"

You tilted your head confused "Is something wrong? You sound stressed about something"

"No i…actually there has been a secret that I feel you should know before we go any further in our relationship, it is a sensitive topic that no one here knows about but Thor"

"Oh my god are you sick?! What’s happening" you walked towards his figure who’s standing in the dark but he lifted his hand up stopping you from getting closer.

"No, listen to me you need to understand how important this is to me"

"Ok…tell me then"

"I am, Loki oddinson but I am also Loki laufeyson and with that comes a great burden, and I don’t to cheat my way to your heart, I want you to see the other side of me, my ugliest secret"

You blinked as the lights turned on and your eyes landed on him, his skin blue as the sky, his eyes red as Ruby’s and you could see the Smokey cold air surrounding the area he stood.

"I know it looks and I know you deserve much more better than this but I just couldn’t hide this from you anymore and you have all the right to leave me if you wish" he let out a breath and waited for your response, he expected the worst of the worst.

"Does it hurt you? I mean not being in your natural form all the time?"

Loki opened his mouth then closed it "No, not really, the only downfall is getting bothered by the sun easily"

"That’s it?"

"Yes?"

You sighed then approached him slowly, you looked up at his face, his features looked different but not unfamiliar, he was still your Loki, your same old god of mischief.

"Will I get hurt if I touch you?"

"You’ll probably get frost bites dove"

That didn’t seem to stop you from hugging his middle though, he was cold but nothing you couldn’t handle "I don’t care what form you have, I’ve seen you literally turn into ancient creatures, you think I’ll be phased by blue skin and red eyes? Don’t be ridiculous now! I would never leave you!"

"But…but I’m ugly"

You pulled away and crossed your arms "You’re still my hood looking boy, whatever you look like because at the end of the day I love you more than you could ever imagine and I’m happy you’re telling such an important detail about your life, it’s your heritage and not something to feel ashamed about"

Your words stuck him like an arrow in his heart, he felt choked but held himself together "Are you sure, you still want to stay with me"

"One hundred million percent, I don’t care if you look like a lollipop because jokes on you my standards now are YOU"

"….don’t let stark hear you he will be disappointed" he snorted.

You smiled shaking your head "you so nervous, honey you can trust I’ll love you regardless and no matter what, I promise so stop sulking in the corner and come spend some time with me pretty thing"

"Oh you and your flattery" he rolled his eyes walk up to you, the skin color coming back to his face the look you knew first came back into view.

"Smoothies?" You asked.

"Deal" he grinned at you.

#loki laufeyson x male reader #imagine #mcu #loki laufeyson #loki #loki x reader #loki imagine #fanfic #mcu loki #loki/y/n #headcanon #loki layfeyson x you #loki layfeyson x reader #loki laufesyon x reader #loki fluff #loki friggachild #loki friggason

[ladyylavenderrr]

Talked about this in an ao3 comment so I’m repeating myself, but I always interpreted Mila’s rant to Garak in A Stitch In Time about assimilating into Cardassian society as very telling about what the nature of her relationship with Tain might be like.

Tw: sexual assault and a whole lot of internalized racism

After Garak returns from Bamarren, he’s being forced into the Obsidian Order and Mila is the one to walk him to their headquarters. She tells him “Understand, Elim-you are being given the opportunity to move above the service class.” The opportunity here is emphasized again and again in this scene.

When Garak tries to contradict her implication that the service class isn’t valuable or desirable, she becomes furious, speaking with a passion we haven’t seen her express ever before and don’t see expressed again. I just want to highlight the exact passage I find most important.

"Listen to me!" she said with a passion that startled me. "You are my son and you are a Cardassian. Not a Hebitian. Look around you!" she commanded. I did. We were in the great public area which is surrounded by the buildings that house the power of the Union.

"Hebitians did not build this. Cardassians did. Your father and I serve and maintain, but we do not influence or guide the destiny of the Union. You could. That's why you must submit right now! Do you understand me, Elim? Once we walk through that door," she indicated the one that led to the subterranean levels of the Assembly building-to the Obsidian Order-"you must submit to your fate."

Mila is a Hebitian woman and yet she obviously rejects that heritage and culture. She’s directly juxtaposed with her brother, Tolan, who is desperately trying to keep his identity alive. Meanwhile, Mila assimilates as much as she can. She demands Garak do the exact same. She glorifies the acts of Cardassians (in this case I’m using “Cardassian” to mean non-Hebitians). Most importantly, she tells Elim to submit, submit, submit. Whatever is about to happen to him, it’s going to elevate him from service class and Hebitian to upper class and Cardassian, the dominant and powerful racial category in their society. The message is obvious. The best thing a Hebitian can do is assimilate and submit to Cardassians.

I always saw this scene as a sort of extension of her relationship with Tain, or what it could be like. Her dialogue here obviously reads as her projecting onto Garak in some way, that’s very clear. She’s telling him to submit to the Order, yes, and the racial and class divide of their society, but more importantly, to Tain and his whims. After all, he’s the one at the very core of Garak being forced into the Order. And Tain very much represents this racial hegemony of Cardassians. He’s directly contrasted with Mila, Garak’s other parent, he literally lives above her and her Hebitian family, he has a collection of ancient artifacts from other cultures collecting dust in his study like some kind of commodity.

Mila wants Garak to submit to the racial and class hierarchy by assimilating, just like she does. She also wants him to submit to Tain, because he and that hierarchy are the same. So then, can we assume she has also submitted to Tain?

We don’t know much about the relationship between Tain and Mila, and what we do know (her being his employee) doesn’t scream perfectly consensual. This interpretation makes that dubious consent a lot more dubious I know.

To me, this scene makes me view the relationship between the couple as Mila having more directly submitted to Tain by being his lover, because it’s an opportunity (there’s that word again) to have some kind of power, to be near that racial ideal, to be more than a mere Hebitian, and more importantly, because she simply won’t ever fight back against the racial and class hierarchy (Tain) she’s trapped in, unlike her brother. What Tain wants, Tain gets. What Cardassians want from Hebitians, they get, so why fight back? This is the only way to survive for Mila and it might just bring her some kind of power, no matter how small.

Their relationship is a sort of microcosm of how Mila navigates being Hebitian. Cardassians dominate her and she doesn’t fight back. And even if she cares about Tain (the way she talks about him in TDIC makes this likely to me), they both know she can never be his equal and she’ll always be expendable to him.

I hope this analysis and interpretation makes sense

#star trek #ds9 #deep space nine #elim garak #enabran tain #mila garak #asit #a stitch in time #andrew robinson #media analysis #tw sa #tw internalized racism #it’s about submitting to power instead of fighting #it’s about valuing assimilation and submission so much you can’t even save your son #it’s about your son being the product of your desperate attempts to gain approval #he has cardassian blood in him but can never reach the ideal #always just off the mark #too Hebitian

[saintmeghanmarkle]

Lady C Tea YouTube 1/25/24 (a few nuggets paraphrased by me)

Greetings from Castle Goring,

Lady C, the gruesome twosome made an appearance for the Bob Marley movie premiere in Jamaica. I am hoping you have something spicy to say about it. A friend of mine saw Harry and Meghan at the Half Moon hotel on Monday. They were being trailed by one photographer so I am sure we will see paparazzi photos of them. According to my friend who saw them, Harry had a scowl on his face and looked miserable. Meghan was loving everything and spoke to my friend. I don’t think Meghan knew who they were. My friend felt pity for Harry. Can you imagine….Harry has said many times he hates photographers yet everywhere they go, a photographer follows them. They were there for the Bob Marley biopic film which is backed by the Bob Marley estate. I hear the movie is very good and worth watching. This film is very important to Paramount Pictures. They had their CEO there, Brian Robbins and his wife, Tracy James. Brian is also the President of Nickelodeon. I understand Meghan was very eager to be photographed with them. Also there was Andrew Holness who is the Prime Minister of Jamaica, who we know was also photographed with Harry and Meghan. Shall we take the gloves off and discuss the nitty gritty? First of all, I was told she looked several shades darker than normal. Several people commented how fake tan she looked and felt she did this deliberately to showcase her African heritage. Many people were offended by their presence. Harry and Meghan were the President and Vice President of the Commonwealth Trust and felt Harry and Meghan could do nothing positive for the Commonwealth – only race bait. I have covered in a previous video how Meghan’s race baiting ruined William and Catherine’s trip to Jamaica. This placed Andrew Holness into a difficult position. Meghan and Harry only took a photograph. By the way, Meghan was not invited to the premiere. She was #6 on the call sheet for Suits. #1 on the call sheet for Suits would have been invited. Harry was invited. Anyway, people are up in arms about this visit – in Britain and Jamaica. People were wondering why there were there at all? They had nothing to do with the movie. Did you notice how Meghan was a good mother for her kids on the night of the Living Legends award? <parody begin> “I am not getting my closeup, you aren’t getting my presence. Just make sure you put John Travolta in his place for dining out on Mom’s memory. Who does he think he is? He is not a star. Saturday Night Fever? Grease? I was the star of Suits. <end of parody> I have spoken to a lot of people. Harry was invited to this premiere – not Meghan. Ironically, this is what the QEII wanted Harry to do. She wanted Harry to visit the Commonwealth and encourage racial inclusivity. The people in Jamaica used to really like Harry and they still consider him a member of the Royal Family. Harry was viewed as a member of the Royal Family attending the premiere. Meghan’s mixed race heritage is helpful for the Royal Family. So very oddly, this came off like a Royal visit. In the 1950’s, Jamaica has at the head of racial inclusivity. Andrew Holness is a politician and politicians like to be #1. He has to take the view that Jamaica should be a republic. He is a centrist and we don’t know what he really thinks about things privately. Most Jamaicans don’t care if the country is a republic or a monarchy because they will still be in the Commonwealth. And the Royal Family is very supportive of Jamaica either way.

This Redditors Note: Lady C went into tremendous detail about the people she knows in Jamaica, the politics, and Jamaican culture. She is very proud of her heritage so please watch the video if you would like to hear her entire remarks.

Lady C, there is a comment on Quora that Harry and Meghan are no longer living together. Well as I said, Harry was seen on Monday and he looked miserable. Meghan looked very happy. I don’t like to listen to gossip. I think they are two peas of the same pod. “They are bound by their failings and it’s not that easy to escape from them when HIS children are involved.”

Lady C, so a sick child did not stop them from flying to Jamaica? When will they realize people can see through their lies? People like them never learn. People with their disorders are incapable of learning, it is part of the sickness. People like Meghan think they are so clever and so able to hoodwink everybody. Harry and Meghan are an exhibition in dupes who think they are duping but really they are only duping themselves and each other.

Lady C, are Harry and Meghan trying to undermine King Charles with the visit to Jamaica? It seems they are trying to get work with Nickelodeon. Does think mean they are not able to get work from WME? I suspect Harry and Meghan would have open delight if they could damage the monarchy. I don’t think they could ever destroy the monarchy and I think what is happening is they are only destroying themselves. I don’t think they do anything unless there is something in it for them. They didn’t attend this premiere to hurt the King, they did it to enrich themselves in some way. William Morris Endeavor hasn’t been able to get Meghan anything have they? Nickelodeon knows they can’t turn nickel into platinum. It is a diminishing level for both of them. Don’t think they didn’t go to Jamaica without incentives. And the incentives are becoming less and less. The incentives they would have had 4 years ago would have been much higher.

Lady C, at the Living Legends dinner there is video of Harry being shown his table and you can clearly see him say, “I am expected to sit here?” Could it be that he acted out on the podium? Quite possibly. He was definitely off his demeanor and upset about something. We don’t know exactly why Harry was off that night. Could have been a combination of things including Meghan’s absence. <Parody Begin> H - I have to stay home and take care of the babies. You know the babies that I carried for 18 months a piece. I am a wonder of nature. I carried the babies for 18 months each and returned to the figure I had!!! <end of parody>

Lady C clarified a story that (on the night she danced with John Travolta) Princess Diana really wanted to dance with Mikhail Baryshnikov but he had surgery on his knee and could not dance. Nancy Reagan arranged for John Travolta to ask Diana to dance. She also danced with Clint Eastwood, Neil Diamond, Tom Selleck and President Reagan that same evening.

Lady C says Harry colludes with Meghan for publicity whether he likes it or not. And their appearance in Jamaica created publicity for the movie which is why they were invited. Their presence does not impact Jamaica positively or adversely. Harry and Meghan are all about publicity.

Toodles Sinners!

post link

author: daisybeach23

submitted: January 26, 2024 at 09:15AM via SaintMeghanMarkle on Reddit

#saintmeghanmarkle #markled #sussexes #meghan markle #harry and meghan #prince harry #archewell #megxit #duke and duchess of sussex #duke of sussex #SaintMeghanMarkle #fucking grifters #Worldwide Privacy Tour #Backgrid #voetsek meghan #walmart wallis #archewell foundation #duchess of sussex #markus anderson #soho house #yacht girl #clevrblends #clevr blends #meghan and harry #doria ragland #WAAAGH #pay for play #high heels harry #rent a royal

[fierce-little-miana]

I really like your fic and I'm love how you do Chizuru and Kaoru relationship. I must admit I'm was very disappointed with how they handle Kaoru in the game, like no kidding he did horrible things and wanted to make his sister suffer but at the same he was a victim of abuse. I wanted a route for him - platonic of course - where he and Chizuru would make up or at least come to a understanding

Thank you so much for the kind words about my fic. It is always super nice to hear some feedback on it. If you like how it focuses on the Kaoru&Chizuru relationship you might have a nice surprise in the coming days (provided that you do not hate modern AU).

I perfectly understand your frustration with how Kaoru was treated in the game (though I am even more frustrated by how he was dispatched in the movie!).

I have only finished Okita's route (good ending only - I don't have enough time to play right now) in the Hakuoki: Stories of the Shinsengumi version, but I am super eager to receive my copy of the Switch version so I can play Sannan's route and the other one (Yamazaki? Sakamoto?) in which Kaoru plays an important role. I want more Kaoru content!

That being said, I did not find the content I got in Okita's route to be frustrating at all. I think Kaoru is a well-written and coherent character in it. He is not sane, he does horrible things, his goals are megalomaniac and very probably unachievable even if everything went as he wanted, but it all makes sense. He can't come back from what happened to him, he is stuck in a headlong rush. There is no escape. He is a well-executed tragic character.

I love tragedy so I love Kaoru. I love him even more because having him as a villain sort of anchors Okita's route as a route deeply centered on Chizuru and since she is sort of the main character you know… Well, narratively the oppositions "ChizuruVsKaoru" and "OkitaVsKaoru" are super interesting to me.

So I don’t mind that Kaoru is a tragic character who could not escape his cruel fate. Even if some days I believe that there was a short window in which he could have been brought back toward the light (I might write a fic about this idea one day). Other days I truly believe that Kaoru was too far gone the minute he decided to take control of the Nagumo clan to ever come back from the path he had decided to travel.

(This is basically me about Kaoru)

But I totally agree with you about something super important: Kaoru is without a doubt a victim of abuse (child abuse from when he was seven, and the game is not clear on when this stopped, sometime before the beginning of the game? sometime in 1864 taking advantage of the political turmoil in Tosa han?) that might very well have a sexual and scientific experimental dimension. That abuse ended in blood when Kaoru killed every authority figure in the Nagumo clan that wasn't him. Generally speaking every important character in the game is more or less given a redemptive action (even if that one action does not rehabilitate the entire character) that sort of acknowledges a "what could have been" scenario. Kaoru is not given that grace. The thing that comes the closest to this is his conversation in the forest by the Yukimura village with Chizuru after she has regained her memory. He is calm and apparently open during it but he is still hellbent on his "evil" plan and, for Chizuru, this conversation is more a corruption offer than a redemptive gesture from her brother. Plus we discover later that he is still lying to her about things at this point (notably about her being able to "keep" Okita).

Having the poster child for horrifying child abuse being among the very few irredeemable characters is… a choice? As I said, Kaoru’s character is well-written and coherent but the optics of that are not super good.

I too would very much enjoy a sibling (platonic) route that would explore their relationship and Chizuru oni’s heritage. Also, but this is because I am fucked up stories enjoyer, Kaoru’s route bad end could be a non-platonic ending. A bit on the same tone as Shiraishi’s Adonis Ending in Collar x Malice in which he is still with Hoshino but both characters are merely nightmarish shells (or everything they feared they could become) of what they were before.

#hakuouki #hakuoki #nagumo kaoru #yukimura chizuru #yukimura kaoru #anon ask #the twins #i am a simple woman I see en irredeemable goblin with a tragic arc and he becomes one of my faves immediately

[emmedoesntdomath]

emme i am in need of assistance.

i need to be dragged kicking and screaming back into the newsies fandom, please and thank you

you know what? fine, sure, let’s do this. 

in this fun little drag-you-by-your-ears-and-force-you-to-listen-to-me, we’ll be talking about javey. 

obviously, javey is the lifeblood behind most of this lovely fandom. look at your own account. besides the synchronized dance numbers, it’s about the most the majority of us agree on (with a few exceptions, but we love them anyway <3333 /j)

but why is javey such a phenomenon to us? why is it that big of a deal? let’s explore that. 

javey is, in simple terms, something that can quickly become revolutionary. 

don’t understand what I mean? consider it-

most of us headcanon jack to be a person of color. whether he’s black, or of latinx descent, jack is not normally white. in a lot of cases, people don’t even believe english to be his first language. with these very intentional choices, you are already taking marginalized groups, and giving them a voice. groups, that for most of history, have been shunned, or outright ignored. and to see jack kelly, a character not defined by his parentage or skin color, simply *living*. making choices, mistakes, wrong decisions, without being turned into a performative political message by a major corporation. he’s just jack kelly. and his existence speaks louder than words ever could. 

and all of this can be said before we even mention what else he could represent, could mean to all of us. 

he’s a kid from the streets, or the more modernized foster care. he’s not the sad, lonely, discouraged orphan kid that needs saving. no, jack kelly is going to get off his ass, and do it himself. he’ll run away. earn a living. he is our defiance, he is our rebellion and independence. 

he has dreams, big ones. ones that we relate to. he wants to run to santa fe? well, guess fucking what? we do, too. wants to be given a little respect, a little worth? maybe we relate to that. 

he is the poster child of found family. and I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but we’re all pretty big on that in this fandom. 

so, let’s put it this way- jack is a lot of us. most of us, maybe. 

but so is davey. 

davey is a canonically (or maybe not, but I say it’s canon) jewish character. in a world that reeks of antisemitism, that is ridiculously important. he, too, represents more than just himself. there is a whole history of a people hated and brutally punished for simply existing. he is another character who isn’t restricted, forced to be but yet another stereotype or one-note idea, but who just exists. you don’t realize how huge that is. representation and the explicitness of modern media is great, and very much needed. but it is just as powerful, if not more so, to let a character be without making it a display. 

to compound this all, he is the epitome of religious struggles. our davey has internalized homophobia, self-hatred, and more crises in faith than he has time to count. and I would say at least half of the people that I have met in this fandom can identify with one or more of those things. that’s valuable. especially when you consider that a lot of those things are essentially taboo in a number of regards. 

he’s from a working class family. he’s not rich, not swimming in bills. he’s missing school every day to go to work so his family might eat the next week. and that’s a reality for a lot of people. 

putting them together, we have- a man, a person of color, who has seen the shit end of life that a lot of other people do, falling in love with another man, one burdened with mental struggles and a heritage that carries just as much weight as the heaviest, in a time period when it was literally illegal to do so. 

they are people. they are representations. they are silent messages to the world. they are love. they are queer. they are happy. they are a family. they are revolutionary. they aren’t wrong. they aren’t broken. they aren’t hate. 

javey thrives because they are us, and by letting them thrive, we are hoping we will, too. 

(newsies, with more layers and deeper meanings than one could have ever hoped for since 1234)

ta da. 

#newsies #92sies #uksies #livesies #jack kelly #manhattan newsies #west endsies #davey jacobs #david moscow #david jacobs #jack x davey #javey #javey newsies #javid #newsies broadway #jeremy jordan #ben fankhauser #michael ahomka lindsay #ryan kopel #1992sies #newsies 1992 #gay newsies #gay #jack kelly newsies #francis sullivan #newsies david jacobs #christian bale #emme’s bad ideas

[thewrothode-if]

I understand being disappointed. But at the end of the day, you have to use your imagination when dealing with Text based IFs anyways, so it’s literally not at all hard to imagine Tanned Skin as being of darker complexion, if you wanted to- that’s what I did. Didn’t even think twice about it after that.

(Ofc dear writer when I create my character art, I’ll respect what you have in mind for MC ethnic wise 😊)

Also, I think the term racist needs to stop being used so loosely. Just because you don’t feel included. Y’all (as in readers) tend to get emotional over little things and this is why so many writers quit, scrap stories for new ones or disappear. Express yourself without being harsh. Otherwise it just comes off as “I’m angry, because I’m not getting what I want, so I’ll try to make you look bad”.

There are a good few IFs who only allow certain skin tones based on location and or set ethnic heritage of MC. Because It might not seem like it but setting is as important in fiction, just as it is in non fiction. If any ounce of realism is to be included, that means some things will be excluded. It is what it is.

—-

Now moving to more positive feedback, I personally love your game so Far, I’m excited for more. Please don’t let responses as such dissuade you from continuing; or put any doubt in your mind about YOUR game. I can already tell that this IF will be amazing and I could quite honestly see it doing numbers based on the original response to your intro post. 🖤

For your own well-being I’d just ignore people who think like that of you. Delete the ask if possible and don’t even respond. I know not saying anything can be hard, but sometimes it’s best to not explain to people who already seem to have their mind set.

Hi, I'm back!

I took a short little break and ended up moving countries. 💀

But don't worry, I'm here again and I want to say, that this will be the last time that I talk about this topic (but I will discuss it if the time calls for it). It wasn't really that big of a deal, people sent questions and one person got a little too upset, but I'm just a little tired talking about the same thing over and over again.

I don't want to lose the motivation to write this story so I will distance myself from asks people send that I feel will do so (just a heads up).

With that being said, thank you everyone who went to my support:

And everyone who did research and displayed it to me! I have looked over the link and the TV show (both very very interesting and yes, I will be watching, hehe).

Once again, thank you everyone and let's put this behind us! 😭

#thewrothode #this is the last time I talk about race guys 😭 #love you all

[catofoldstones]

People who believe in ashford theory and then link it to Aegon vi because 'alliance' are like those who make far fetched theories about Jon marrying Asha, Arianne, Margaery or all three etc. because 'alliance'. Why, when, how? Nobody knows. Believe me i have read these theories on the hellsite called westeros.org. No foreshadowing, no sense, no reason, just vibes.

Wait there are people writing serious metas about Jon and *checks notes* Asha…? I mean I understand Arianne (no i don’t, not from a non-aesthetic standpoint at least) and Margaery (in fanfics). But why would any of them marry Jon for …. an alliance?

Asha is already married, most probably with a kid on the way, and most likely the future ruler of the Iron Islands. Arianne is already the heir apparent to the whole ass kingdom of Dorne, why would she want an alliance with the North and not the neighbouring lands or even Essos (like her mother)? Same with Margaery, why would she not marry someone politically important to her family and the Reach? Why North?

If they’re thinking that Jon will lean into his Targ heritage and take over the IT, wouldn’t that be with Dany? (acc to their logic) so alliance goes straight out the window there as well.

I mean it’s all fun and games when you’re shipping them because you might like them together but it’s another thing to straight up claim them to be more probable than the one ship you don’t want canon. At one point you have to ask yourself if you’re writing these metas because you genuinely believe in them or simply because you want Sansa out of the way.

#don’t get me started on Westeros.org buddy #it’s filled with self-assured assholes who’ll try and convince you the world’s a cube #they’re big brained men who hate little girls #i mean you couldn’t scroll through a paragraph without coming across sansa hate and/or her being written about inseparably from the hound #if you saw sansa san/san would only be a line away #sigh #jonsa #anon asks t

[blackswaneuroparedux]

coastalcurmudgeon asked: Hi, would you mind pointing me towards any articles, books, video essays  etc that make reasonable modern pro-monarchist arguments? When queen Elizabeth passed a few months ago it got me wondering why not just the British but several other wealthy democratic nations  hang on to their monarchs. I'm from the US so it's a little difficult to understand the monarchies perspective off the bat and you seemed a good person to ask about where to find good arguments for it. Thanks and have a nice day

I want to thank you for asking such a simple question but one that many of us don’t really give a thought to. We get sucked into the tittle tattle of court intrigue or the tawdry gossip of the latest royal scandal made public, partly because it’s a visceral pleasure to see those above us squirm in discomfort,  and partly to see them bleed - perhaps to remind us that they are as mortal and as fallen as we all are.

In the wake of Queen Elizabeth II’s death, the question of monarchy is brought sharply into focus. The sombre and reflective tone of the tributes to the late Queen Elizabeth II suggests the esteem in which she was held, as well as the apparent popularity of Britain’s constitutional monarchy. But it was not always so, as the queen herself was fully aware. She might have remained more or less beyond reproach, but her family-members have not. Often the Windsors seemed like a bad soap opera, attracting derision and resentment in equal measure. Yet, like their ancestors, they have slogged on regardless. Other monarchies have been toppled, or cut down to size, all over Europe and beyond.

We focus on the institution and its rituals and trappings without asking the underlying question of why? Why do we believe in the institution? It’s a question that even ardent monarchists find hard to answer properly.

The hard leftists of course do know why they want to get rid of a monarchy in the name of some vague and unrealised ideal of equality and freedom from tyranny as well in the name of democracy. They do so out of historical ignorance given that the constitutional monarchy does exactly that and has been paradoxically a guarantor of these ideals through custom, heritage, and the rule of common law. For them it’s better to destroy than it is to build as Roger Scruton once said. Being historically illiterate, they don’t fully understand the folly on pulling one thread runs the danger pulling the entire tapestry of a nation apart.

I don’t want to caricature all them with one brush because not all leftists believe in the destruction of the monarchy in Britain. Some understand its value and even harmonise it within their leftist beliefs.

Stephen Fry, a socialist in his political beliefs but still widely considered (and righty so) as a national treasure, came out in his support of the monarchy in Britain. The beloved British actor, writer and presenter admitted in a podcast with Jordan Peterson that the Royal Family in interviews that “on the face of it is of course preposterous”. But he went on to explain how they can play a key role in society. The author referred to the Queen’s weekly Audience with the Prime Minister and suggested that the US could benefit from having a Monarch. He explained how his thoughts stemmed from his belief in “ceremony, ritual and symbolism”.

Fry told the podcast: “I look at America and I think if only Donald Trump and now Biden, if every week they had to walk up the hill and go into a mansion in Washington and there was uncle Sam in a top hat and striped trousers.” He explained how “uncle Sam” might be the US equivalent of a Monarch and described him as “a living embodiment of their nation”.

Stephen Fry added: “More important than they were that’s the key. He [uncle Sam] is America, the President is a fly-by-night politician voted for by less than half the population and he has to bow in front of this personification of his country every week. And that personification, uncle Sam can’t tell him what to do, uncle Sam can’t say ‘pass this Act and don’t pass that Act and free these people, give them a pardon’. All he can do is say ‘tell me young fella what you done this week’ and he’ll bow and say ‘well uncle Sam’.”

He suggested how uncle Sam might reply “oh you think that’s the right thing for my country”. Fry concluded: “Well that’s what a constitutional monarchy is and of course it’s absurd but the fact that Churchill and Thatcher and everyone had to bow every week in front of this something.”

The author went on to claim that “empirically look at the happiest countries in the world that’s all you need do and they happen to be constitutional monarchies”. Fry finished up by listing Norway, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Japan as some of those "happiest" places who have monarchies.: “They’re always right up there on the list. Now it may be that we can’t find the causal link between the constitutional monarchy but it might just be something to do with that.”

I happen to think Stephen Fry is right. For these reasons yes, but there are much better ones too.

It’s first worth stating it helps to understand what kind of monarchy are we talking about? A surprising number of countries have ruling monarchs but not the same role or power. It’s important to break down the distinctions between the types of monarchies that exist today. Generally, there are four kinds.

In the constitutional monarchy, the monarch divides power with a constitutionally founded government. In this situation, the monarch, while having ceremonial duties and certain responsibilities, does not have any political power. For example, the UK’s monarch must sign all laws to make them official, but has no power to change or reject new laws. Example of countries that follow this are United Kingdom, Japan, and Denmark.

In the absolutist monarchy the monarch has full and absolute political power. They can amend, reject, or create laws, represent the country’s interests abroad, appoint political leaders, and so on. Such countries Said Arabia and Eswatini and even arguably the Vatican (the Papal office is like an absolutist monarch but of the church).

In the federal monarchy the monarch serves an overall figurehead of the federation of states which have their own governments, or even monarchies, ruling them. These countries include UAE and Malaysia.

In the mixed monarchy there is an unusual situation wherein an absolute monarch may divide powers in distinct ways specific to the country. Here Jordan, Liechtenstein, and Morocco are stand out examples.

To many contemporary critics and political progressives, monarchies seem to be purposeless antiquated relics, anachronisms that ought to eventually give way to republics.

On the contrary, nothing can be farther from the truth. Monarchies have an extremely valuable role to play, even in the 21st century and beyond. If anything their number should be added to rather than subtracted from. To understand why, it is important to consider the merits of monarchy objectively without resorting to the tautology that countries ought to be democracies because they ought to be democracies.

There are several advantages in having a monarchy in the 21st century. First, monarchs can rise above politics in the way an elected head of state cannot. Monarchs represent the whole country in a way democratically elected leaders cannot and do not. The choice for the highest political position in a monarchy cannot be influenced by and in a sense beholden to money, the media, or a political party.

Secondly and closely related to the previous point is that in factitious countries like Thailand, the existence of a monarch is often the only thing holding the country back from the edge of civil war. Monarchs are especially important in multiethnic countries such as Belgium because the institution of monarchy unites diverse and often hostile ethnic groups under shared loyalty to the monarch instead of to an ethnic or tribal group. The Habsburg dynasty held together a large, prosperous country that quickly balkanised into almost a dozen states of no power without it. If the restoration of the erstwhile king of Afghanistan, Zahir Shah, widely respected by all Afghans, went through after the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001, perhaps Afghanistan would have more quickly risen above the factionalism and rivalry between various warlords.

Third, monarchies prevent the emergence of extreme forms of government in their countries by fixing the form of government. All political leaders must serve as prime ministers or ministers of the ruler. Even if actual power lies with these individuals, the existence of a monarch makes it difficult to radically or totally alter a country’s politics. The presence of kings in Cambodia, Jordan, and Morocco holds back the worst and more extreme tendencies of political leaders or factions in their countries. Monarchy also stabilises countries by encouraging slow, incremental change instead of extreme swings in the nature of regimes. The monarchies of the Arab states have established much more stable societies than non-monarchic Arab states, many of which have gone through such seismic shifts over the course of the Arab Spring.

Fourth, monarchies have the gravitas and prestige to make last-resort, hard, and necessary decisions - decisions that nobody else can make. For example, Juan Carlos of Spain - now in disgrace but not in the beginning of his reign - personally ensured his country’s transition to a constitutional monarchy with parliamentary institutions and stood down an attempted military coup. At the end of the Second World War, the Japanese Emperor Hirohito defied his military’s wish to fight on and saved countless of his people’s lives by advocating for Japan’s surrender.

Fifth, monarchies are repositories of tradition and continuity in ever changing times. They remind a country of what it represents and where it came from, facts that can often be forgotten in the swiftly changing currents of politics.

Finally, rather counterintuitively, monarchies can serve up a head of state in a more democratic and diverse way than actual democratic politics. Since anyone, regardless of their personality or interests, can by accident of birth become a monarch, all types of people may become rulers in such a system. The head of state may thus promote causes or stir interest in issues and topics that would otherwise not be significant, as King Charles’ views on architecture and climate change proved. Politicians on the other hand, tend to have a certain personality - they are generally extroverted, can make or raise money, and have a tendency to pander or at least publicly hold to pre-defined mainstream views. The presence of a head of state with a psychological profile different from a politician can be refreshing.

Most of the criticisms of monarchy are no longer valid today, if they were ever valid. These criticisms are usually some variation of two ideas. Firstly, the monarch may wield absolute power arbitrarily without any sort of check, thus ruling as a tyrant. However, in present era, most monarchies rule within some sort of constitutional or traditional framework which constrains and institutionalises their powers. Even prior to this, monarchs faced significant constraints from various groups including religious institutions, aristocracies, the wealthy, and even commoners. Customs, which always shape social interactions, also served to restrain. Even monarchies that were absolute in theory were almost always constrained in practice.

A second criticism is that even a good monarch may have an unworthy successor. However, today’s heirs are educated from birth for their future role and live in the full glare of the media their entire lives. This constrains bad behaviour. More importantly, because they have literally been born to rule, they have constant, hands-on training on how to interact with people, politicians, and the media.

In light of the all the advantages of monarchy, it is clear why many citizens of democracies today have an understandable nostalgia for monarchy. As in previous centuries, monarchy will continue to show itself to be an important and beneficial political institution wherever it still survives.

Constitutional monarchies are undoubtedly the most popular form of royal leadership in the modern era⁠, making up close to 70% of all monarchies. This situation allows for democratically elected governments to rule the country, while the monarch performs ceremonial duties. Most monarchs are hereditary, inheriting their position by luck of their birth, but interestingly, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, technically serves as a Co-Prince of Andorra - a fact I enjoy making my good French republican friends squirm in discomfort. But France remains resolutely a republic despite many other European countries being a constitutional monarchy.

Monarchy has a long history in Europe, being the predominant form of government from the Middle Ages until the First World War. At the turn of the twentieth century every country in Europe was a monarchy with just three exceptions: France, Switzerland and San Marino. But by the start of the twenty-first century, most European countries had ceased to be monarchies, and three quarters of the member states of the European Union are now republics. That has led to a teleological assumption that in time most advanced democracies will become republics, as the highest form of democratic government.

But there still remains a stubborn group of countries in Western Europe which defy that assumption, and they include some of the most advanced democracies in the world. In the most recent Democracy Index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit, six out of the top ten democracies - and nine of the top 15 - in the world were monarchies. They include six European monarchies: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and the UK.

It remains a historical paradox. These monarchies have survived partly for geopolitical reasons, most of the other European monarchies having disappeared at the end of the First or Second World Wars. Their continuance has been accompanied by a steady diminution in their political power, which has shrunk almost to zero, and developing roles that support liberal democracy. What modern monarchies offer is non-partisan state headship set apart from the daily political struggle of executive government; the continuity of a family whose different generations attract the interest of all age groups; and disinterested support for civil society that is beyond the reach of partisan politics. These roles have evolved because monarchy depends ultimately on the support of the public, and is more accountable than people might think.

Understanding this paradox of an ancient hereditary institution surviving as a central part of modern democracies is a key part of understanding why monarchies persist and will continue to exist.

I’m going to confine answering your question to constitutional monarchy because it’s what the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe is. This is partly to narrow the wide question to something more manageable but also reflective of the fact that each country is different with its own unique history of customs, traditions, and heritage, and practices of governance, that make up the unique quality of the monarchy in question.

I’m just going to give you a general recommendation list rather than a deep academic dive into political theory. But then theory is no good without practice. History is the best place to start to understand some of the things I’ve already highlighted.

1. The English Constitution by Walter Bagehot

I know I said to start with history and here I’m recommending you begin with reading a book on constitutional theory and practice. But hear me out.

First published in 1867, this remains the indispensable guide to the role and purpose of the British sovereign. The text by Walter Bagehot (who was editor of The Economist for 17 years) is often mistaken for an official account of constitutional monarchy. In fact, it is a lively argument on how Britain’s old institutions should cope with the coming of mass-democracy. It was in this spirit that Bagehot contrasted the “dignified” parts of the constitution - the monarchy and the House of Lords - with the merely “efficient”, the Cabinet, MPs and the like. In the new age of mass-politics, he considered that the role of the monarchy was to “excite and preserve the reverence of the population” for the country’s institutions and government. Although monarchs might not have executive power anymore, they maintained three rights over “efficient” politicians - “to be consulted, to encourage and to warn”.

That the British monarchy survived while many of Europe’s were overthrown is in no small measure to the Windsors’ scrupulousness in following Bagehot’s advice. And, prophetically, he cautioned that the whole royal conjuring trick could only work if its dignity was preserved: “If you begin to poke about it, you cannot reverence it…its mystery is its life. We must not let in daylight upon the magic.”

The great thing is you don’t even have to buy it. Free copies exist online to download. I have my own copy because it really is a sort of bible for me when I have to think soberly and stay grounded as the latest royal scandal erupts and everyone is losing their heads.

2. Crown and Country: A history of England through the Monarchy by David Starkey (2010)

David Starkey is one of Britain’s finest medieval historians and fine prose stylist. A Cambridge historian whose lectures I used to sneak off to listen to - I did Classics - because the man was so charismatic, provocative, and damn clever. From one of our finest historians comes an outstanding exploration of the British monarchy, from the retreat of the Romans up until the modern day.

Crown and Country is a spin off from his TV series on the same subject. However the book is a great introduction to monarchy in Britain. In it he provides the reader with enough intellectual rigour to impart context, before livening the page with pithy tales of treachery or cruelty, of double-dealing or disaster. His delight at their shock value is tangible as he takes us from England's earliest status, as a barbarous outpost of the Roman empire, through to a rather uncomfortable attempt to second-guess how history will one day judge the contemporary members of the Windsor family (going up to the marriage of William and Kate).

Academic historians often complain that Starkey writes with the snappy zest of an unrepentant telly-don, but I doubt anybody else minds very much. He has a lovely eye for a good story – William the Conqueror being so fat that he could not fit in his sarcophagus, so that “the swollen bowels burst and an intolerable stench assailed the nostrils of the bystanders”, for example, or Henry II having such a tantrum that he fell out of bed and “threshed around the floor, cramming his mouth with the stuffing of his mattress”.

He also has a nice line in snarky humour. Academics have recently been trying to rehabilitate King John as a good administrator, he notes, but to praise him “for being a royal filing clerk shows historians looking after their own with a vengeance”.

Starkey’s great skill is to weave big themes quietly into a rollicking narrative, so that you absorb them almost without noticing they are there.

From the beginning, he argues, England’s monarchy has been unlike any other, divorced from imperial Roman traditions and based on an unspoken contract between king and people, and so reflecting a deep sense of patriotic exceptionalism. From Alfred, who effectively invented the idea of an English nation, to George III, who became the incarnation of bluff, beef-eating John Bull during the Napoleonic Wars, and on to George VI, the personification of quiet determination during Britain’s darkest and finest hours, successful kings have come to embody a wider spirit of national defiance. Perhaps that explains why, for all his faults, we remain fascinated with Henry VIII: he may have been a monster, but he was proudly, unapologetically, our monster.

Since it is evidently raw power that turns Starkey on, perhaps it is not surprising that once we are past the Glorious Revolution and the rule of dour, cunning, competent William of Orange, his narrative begins to flag. The House of Hanover, he says, was a “national joke” and although he clearly relishes the amorous misadventures of George IV and Edward VII, he spends barely 20 pages on the House of Windsor.

Compared with the blood-soaked warrior kings of his opening chapters, our recent monarchs have been personally colourless and politically irrelevant. But Starkey is not ready to give up on the monarchy. Just like his forebears, he points out, the current Prince of Wales has become the symbol of something bigger than himself, the cause of the environment and the spirit of voluntary service.

Nobody else could have set up such a vast empire of charitable endeavour: “Only he has the necessary combination of social and economic power and imagination to pull it off.” And here, Starkey argues, lies a formula for survival: “A new kingdom of the mind, spirit, culture and values,” which would appeal even to Oliver Cromwell.

Starkey is particularly good at explaining the shifting tone of monarchical power. After the straightforward Anglo-Saxon model, English kings had to incorporate the Norman way of doing things, with its "chivalric virus"; we then see the Tudors appear with their imperialist vision, followed by the disastrous Stuart belief in the divine right of kings, which James I subscribed to intellectually, and which Charles I paid for with his head. After that we see Hanoverian mediocrity, followed by Victorian pomp, and Windsor flexibility – changing nationality and name as wars with Germany, their ancestral home, demanded.

Crown & Country is a masterpiece of accessible history, underscored with profound scholarship: it takes the essential structure of hereditary monarchy, chronicles the struggles and triumphs of a rich panoply of carefully crafted characters and lays out the story of a nation. Above all, the author's passion for his subject, the royal tale of England, which is the backbone of this nation's story, explodes from every page. I defy anybody not to enjoy this book.

3. Blood Royal: Dynastic Politics in Medieval Europe by Robert Bartlett (2020)

Throughout medieval Europe, for hundreds of years, monarchy was the way that politics worked in most countries. This meant power was in the hands of a family - a dynasty; that politics was family politics; and political life was shaped by the births, marriages and deaths of the ruling family. How did the dynastic system cope with female rule, or pretenders to the throne? How did dynasties use names, the numbering of rulers and the visual display of heraldry to express their identity? And why did some royal families survive and thrive, while others did not? Robert Bartlett’s engaging Blood Royal tries to answer these questions by focusing on both the role of family dynamics and family consciousness in the politics of medieval European monarchical systems circa 500 to 1500 CE.

He creates an authoritative historical survey of dynastic power in Latin Christendom in western and central Europe and the Byzantine Empire (or former Eastern Roman Empire), providing an impressive level of depth while putting aspects of royalty and kingship in perspective. Each chapter brings the reader into this political world and aspects of medieval politics’ ties to family politics. Bartlett transitions seamlessly from example to example, but this apparent ease and vast knowledge reflects years of research and underscores his area expertise.

Blood Royal is an excellent book for anyone who has ever had a question about medieval European monarchy. If you’ve ever wondered how medieval marriages worked, the politics of dynastic succession, or even something as simple as what happened when the current monarch died then Bartlett’s book probably has an answer for you. Blood Royal is split into two sections, the first focusing on the specific lives of medieval royals, with chapters on medieval marriage, children, paternal relationships, as well as female rulers and mistresses. The second section covers dynasties rather than individuals. It is in this latter section that you’ll find discussions of names and numbers, pretenders, as well as heraldry and even the role of prophecy and astrology in medieval dynastic politics.

The scope of Blood Royal is immense. Bartlett includes early medieval dynasties like the Merovingians and Carolingians alongside later examples like the Plantagenets and the Hohenstaufen. Bartlett also incorporates an impressive range of dynasties from across medieval Europe, not limiting himself to just the French, English, and German royal families. Overall, it makes for a very impressive piece of scholarship from a senior historian, but one that is written in a very approachable and engaging fashion. The breadth of the coverage means that no matter where your interest in medieval Europe lies there’s probably something relevant to it in Blood Royal.

4. On Power: The Natural History of Its Growth by Bertrand De Jouvenel (1945)

Bertrand de Jouvenal is one of the most under-read political theorists in Europe today and it’s only in the last couple of decades his works have been translated into English. He wrote two seminal books pertinent to the state and how politics and monarchy mixed. I would thoroughly recommend his book ‘Sovereignty’ (1957) in that regard. How he treats sovereignty is clear and insightful and better than any academic I know. He describes how sovereignty in the modern sense can be traced back to the eleventh century, when absolutism was developed under such rulers as Philip the Fair. Before absolutism, it was acknowledged that every man had his seigniory, the king just as much as a simple farmer. The seigniory of the king was far greater, of course, but only as inviolable as that of every other person (as exemplified in the anecdote of Frederick the Great and the miller). The idea of a sovereignty that flows down from the sovereign to all his subjects was taken from the ancient Romans, and formed the basis of absolutism. One consequence of this was that democracy as we know it became possible in the first place. Before absolutism, there simply was no sovereignty that could be removed from the king and given to the people.

However I’m going to recommend his other book, ‘On Power’, as it’s book that defines the role of power and its relationship to sovereignty and where it came from. It goes into the role of sovereign or dux, and his or her shared responsibility with the larger group. This book explains how absolute monarchy is a recent concept, and as a result of the Enlightenment. It points out the hazards of absolute power within any form of government. It then goes into change v.s. distrust of initiative, and emerging liberalism. One of the best political treatises I have ever read. Bertrand de Jouvenel is unconventional, creative, very thorough and stringent. It's not easy to sum up, as the book is rather suggestive in nature. It doesn't so much tell you the solutions as make you think for them yourself. It gives you tools with which to overthink and analyse political problems, but doesn't force a solution on you.

Bertrand de Jouvenel (1903-1987) was a French journalist and political theorist. During World War II, he participated in the French resistance movement and finally took refuge in Switzerland, where he finished his masterpiece, On Power.

Jouvenel was troubled by the savagery of the war. Such a total war, Jouvenel realised, could not happen without the power of the modern centralised state. Jouvenel called this state, “Power” or “the Minotaur.” The question he set out to analyse was how this monster had grown so large. As indicated by the subtitle of the book, The Natural History of Its Growth, the analysis is meant to be positive political science, as opposed to normative political philosophy. When he wrote On Power, Jouvenel obviously knew little of the libertarian or classical liberal tradition. He has been labelled a “conservative liberal” à la Alexis de Tocqueville (whom Friedrich Hayek, it is worth recalling, does recognise as a full member of the classical liberal tradition).

The modern state has acquired a crushing power that includes war and conscription, an “inquisitorial mechanism of taxation,” and a police more effective than at any time in history. “Even the police regime, that most insupportable attribute of tyranny, has grown in the shadow of democracy,” Jouvenel observes. “No absolute monarch ever had at his disposal a police force comparable to those of modern democracies.” Power has continued and continues to grow.

Power is “command that lives for its sake and for its fruits.” State rulers want power and the perks that come with it. But, Jouvenel explained, in the very process of being self-interested, Power also benefits its subjects compared to what would be their situation in the anarchic state of nature. To gain their support and to make them more productive and taxable, Power provides its subjects with security, order, and other public goods. This is an old philosophical idea dear to defenders of absolutism, but it carries an analytical value of its own.

From Antiquity until the 16th or 17th century, Jouvenel argues, three ways existed to limit Power: divine law, fixed customary law, and powerful social authorities such as the ancient or the medieval aristocracy. All these were overcome. Divine law was brushed away by modern rationalism. Fixed customary law was replaced by changing laws made by absolute monarchs and, even more, by democratic parliaments. The aristocracy was stripped of any power.

Sovereignty, Jouvenel explains, is “the idea… that somewhere there is a right to which all other rights must yield.” The king claimed sovereignty against the aristocracy. Once the aristocracy was defeated, “the people” invoked it against the king. The king was simply replaced by the people or, in practice, by its representatives.

Jouvenel conceives liberty as “the direct, immediate, and concrete sovereignty of man over himself.” It is not participation in government, which is “absurdly called ‘political liberty’.” He forcefully argues that no regime other than aristocracy is “equally allergic to the expansion of Power.” Between the fall of the Roman empire and the modern nation-state, kings had to negotiate grants in aid from the aristocrats in order, for example, to fight wars, which were limited for this very reason. General conscription was unknown and impossible.

Jouvenel argues that liberty has aristocratic roots for it came from aristocrats who had the means and the will to defend their own liberty against Power. Liberty “is a subjective right which belongs to those, and to those only, who are capable of defending it.” It was certainly “a system based on class,” with all the drawbacks that this implies. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a modern prophet of democracy, suggested that slavery might even be the necessary counterpart of free and independent citizens voluntarily devoting their time to public affairs. To eliminate the independent social power that the aristocrats represented, kings allied themselves with powerless individuals such as the common people and the new capitalist bourgeoisie. Aristocrats were replaced by “statocrats,” individuals who derived their authority only from their position in the service of the state. The new democratic citizens would soon fall under a Power much more encompassing than that of the local lord.

A crucial idea of On Power, which can also be found in Tocqueville, is that instead of restraining Power, popular sovereignty reinforced it. Democracy was conceived by its early theorists as liberty and the rule of law. But another conception, which won the day, identified democracy with the sovereignty of the people. In this conception, democracy replaces the rule of law by the people’s good pleasure, which in practice means the good pleasure of its elected representatives and the government bureaucracy.

The popular sovereign became the new king, but without the restraints that law and aristocracy previously imposed. Liberty diminished since “[e]very increase of state authority must involve an immediate diminution of the liberty of each citizen.” Like ancient philosophers, Jouvenel sees aristocracy, democracy, and tyranny as the only feasible regimes.

5. The Role of Modern Monarchy: European Monarchies Compared edited by Robert Hazell and Bob Morris (2020)

No new political theory on this topic has been developed since Walter Bagehot wrote about the monarchy in The English Constitution (1867). The same is true of the other European monarchies. So this is a welcome update in terms of what’s happened in the last 150 years or so across Europe. It’s actually the brainchild of a project coming out of the Constitutional Unit at University College London. The book is excellent and is written by experts from Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the UK. It considers the constitutional and political role of monarchy, its powers and functions, how it is defined and regulated, the laws of succession and royal finances, relations with the media, the popularity of the monarchy and why it endures. This collections of essays written by academics is the first comparative study of its kind and broadly asks with their formal powers greatly reduced, how has this ancient, hereditary institution managed to survive and what is a modern monarch’s role? What theory can be derived about the role of monarchy in advanced democracies, and what lessons can the different European monarchies learn from each other?

The public look to the monarchy to represent continuity, stability and tradition, but also want it to be modern, to reflect modern values and be a focus for national identity. The whole institution is shot through with contradictions, myths and misunderstandings. This book should lead to a more realistic debate about our expectations of the monarchy, its role and its future. As a whole these twenty contributors notes several factors to the continued survival of the constitutional monarchy in Europe today.

Firstly, remain politically neutral. Monarchs who are too interventionist will encounter resistance and lose their reputation for neutrality. Secondly, avoid scandals, or any hint of corruption. Thirdly, keep the team small. The greater the size of the royal family, the greater the risk that one of its members may get into trouble and cause reputational damage; and the greater the risk of criticism about excessive cost, and too many hangers-on. Fourthly, Understand better the plight of the minor royals, allow them a means of escape and equip them to enter careers commensurate with their abilities. They lead lives of great privilege, but lack fundamental freedoms: the right to privacy and family life which ordinary citizens take for granted, free choice of careers, freedom to marry whom they like. Fifthly, keep in your lane. Although hereditary, the monarchy is accountable, just like any other public institution. The most high profile example is King Juan Carlos of Spain, now in exile and the subject of prosecutorial investigations. But he is not alone: other monarchs who stepped out of line have also lost their thrones.

Arguably the biggest factor of all is how accountable the monarchy is to its subjects - as paradoxical as that sounds. Accountability of the monarchy in a democracy is vital and necessary. Individual monarchs can be forced to abdicate; and support for the institution as a whole can be tested in a referendum. During the twentieth century there were 18 referendums held on the monarchy in nine European countries. It was through referendums that the monarchy came to an end in Italy and Greece, and was restored in Spain; and through referendums that the future of the monarchy was endorsed in Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg and Norway. The monarchy may seem the very antithesis of a democratic or accountable institution; but ultimately continuation of the monarchy depends on the continuing support of the people for the roles it is seen to undertake. And people can be equally fickle with emotions as they can be reasonable and grounded in common sense.

I would also recommend two videos you can watch online which basically saves your from reading the above - or watching it may inspire you to go and read the books (which would be my intention).

1. Monarchy by David Starkey (TV documentary series)

Monarchy was originally made by Channel 4 as a British TV series that ran from 2004–2007. It was written and presented by the historian David Starkey charting the political and ideological history of the English monarchy from the Saxon period to modern times. The show also aired on PBS stations throughout the United States. You can watch the series on YouTube.

The first episode looks at discusses the early history of England and the birth of the Monarchy. It looks migration of the Anglo-Saxons into Britain and discusses some early rulers including. It looks at the roles of Aethelbert and his Frankish wife Bertha in the Christianisation of Britain. It examines the dominant reign of King Offa of Mercia. Finally, it looks at Alfred the Great and how he united England against Viking invasion.

2. The Role of Modern Monarchy: European Monarchies Compared: book launch discussion

This is an online discussion hosted by BBC’s David Dimbleby amongst some of the main contributors of the book and the conclusions they reached. It’s very good discussion both wide ranging and insightful how modern monarchies operate across Europe.

On the face of it, the British monarchy runs against the spirit of the times. Deference is dead, but royalty is built on a pantomime of archaic honourifics and frock-coated footmen. In an age of meritocracy, monarchy is rooted in the unjustifiable privilege of birth. Populism means that elites are out, but the most conspicuous elite of all remains. Identity politics means that narratives are in, but the queen kept her feelings under her collection of unfashionable hats. By rights, support for the crown should have crumbled under Elizabeth has sometimes imagined it might. Instead, the monarchy thrived. And it continues to thrive and thus maddening the bourgeois woke elites and perplexing trendy decolonisation academics.

Writing in the 1860s, Walter Bagehot, The Economist’s greatest editor, noted that under Britain’s constitutional monarchy “A republic has insinuated itself beneath the folds of a monarchy.” The executive and legislative powers of government belonged to the cabinet and Parliament. The crown was the “dignified” part of the state, devoted to ceremony and myth-making. In an elitist age, Bagehot saw this as a disguise, a device to keep the masses happy while the select few got on with the job.

You do not need a monarchy to pull off the separation, obviously. Countries like Ireland rub along with a ceremonial president instead. He or she comes from the people and has, in theory, earned the honour. A dud or a rogue can be kicked out or prosecuted. To a degree, history lays down the choice - it would be comic to invent a monarchy from scratch.

However, constitutional monarchy has one advantage over figurehead presidencies that is the final reason behind Elizabeth’s surprising success: its mix of continuity and tradition, which even today is tinged with mystical vestiges of the healing royal touch. All political systems need to manage change and resolve conflicting interests peacefully and constructively. Systems that stagnate end up erupting; systems that race away leave large parts of society left behind and they erupt, too.

Under Elizabeth, Britain changed unrecognisably. Not only has it undergone social and technological change, like other Western democracies, but it was also eclipsed as a great power. More than once, most recently over Brexit, politics choked. During all this upheaval, the continuity that monarchy displays has been a moderating influence. George Orwell, no establishment stooge, called it an “escape-valve for dangerous emotions”, drawing patriotism away from politics, where love of country can rot into bigotry. Decaying empires are dangerous. Britain’s decline has been a lot less traumatic than it might have been.

Elizabeth’s sleight of hand was to renew the monarchy quietly all the while, and King Charles’s hardest task will be to renew it further. The prospect is daunting, but entirely possible. My money is on the monarchy.

Anyway, this is by no means a definitive listing of books or other kinds of resources such as online resources. But I hope I can give you the flavour of the terrain of how and why monarchies continue to persist but also thrive in today's democratic environment.

Thanks for your question.

#ask #question #monarchy #united kingdom #britain #europe #constitutional monarchy #democracy #the state #society #politics #aristocracy #governance #constitutional #elizabeth II #king charles III #walter bagehot #david starkey

[sunofpandora]

I hope you know you Native American connections... I hope they're not false. No disrespect. There are too many people out in this world that claim ancestry and like to use it on display just for title ship. It's a bore and it's enraging and all first people's who are true and original stand by this

Hi anon!

I completely agree. It’s infuriating when people pretend to have native heritage just for leverage and attention.

So I want to come on here and clarify something, and I’m about to get a little personal but I think it’s really important that people understand that I am indeed not faking my identity.

My mother is Zuni (Zuni Pueblo), and my father comes from a black mother and an Apache father.

I will admit, I’ve always felt a bit detached from my mother’s native culture because of my own experiences with growing up.

I grew up in a very crowded house, we’ve raised a lot of children that were cousins on my mother side, and distant relatives on my father’s side, and they’ve ended up practically living with us, and I’ve called them my siblings my whole life.

Needless to say, I’ve grown up in a very ‘colorful’ household with so many different people and languages running around.

I’ve always been told I’m lying about my mother’s shiwi identity and that I don’t ’look native’ because of my black features. My mother’s hair is long, and black, beautiful and silky. My hair is curly and thick. I have darker skin than her and I’ve grown up around my father’s family.

My mother was raised in a foster home, and reconnected with her family later in her adult life. She also feels detached in a sense from her native heritage, and doesn’t speak her own language very well.

Iv’e been so blessed to have grown up around so many different cultures and experience so many different things.

I’m the oldest of 6 children, and I can only hope my younger siblings, especially on my mother’s side, will have a deeper connection with our beautiful native heritage than I ever will.

Ive always felt like my experiences as a native woman have been devalued because of my African American appearance.

I’ve been told my grandmothers necklace she gave me that wore on the reservation was ‘cowgirl jewelry’, and that because I don’t wear feathers in my hair or walk around with a painted face and facial features that look as strong as a statues, I am not native.

I can assure you, anon, that I am not faking my native heritage.

#using all my tags so everyone sees. #avatar the way of water #neteyam x reader #neteyam #neteyam sully #kiri sully #jake avatar #neytiri #lo’ak x reader #avatar fanfiction #neteyam x you

[nanowrimo]

The Importance of Filipino Stories: Celebrating Filipino American History Month

October is Filipino American History Month. With more than 4.2 million individuals of Filipino descent here in the U.S., we know there are at least 4.2 million stories to cherish and celebrate! Today’s story comes from Josie Gepulle, our fall 2022 Editorial intern and proud Filipino American. It wasn’t until I was in my second year of college that I got my first reading assignment on Filipino American stories.

At my university, I was taking a history course entitled “American Radicals and Reformers.” Halfway through the semester, I learned about Larry Itilong, a Filipino migrant laborer who went on to lead the five-year Delano Grape Strike in California and later co-founded the United Farm Workers of America.

I’m pretty sure my jaw actually dropped hearing about this. An actual Filipino American made his way into the history books, one who had a profound impact on the labor movement. 

That’s also when it really hit me: there was a lack of Filipino stories in my life.

I grew up in a small suburban Texas town. I was the first and only Filipino my community saw, so I don’t really blame anyone for their ignorance. It was frustrating, however, to receive several comments like, “Are you sure you’re Asian? You don’t look like it at all.” or “Where is the Philippines anyway?” I didn’t understand at that time because I’m proud of my heritage, but what does that mean to a world that doesn’t even know you exist? The most recognition I’ve gotten is from veterans recalling war buddies or travelers who visited Manila once.

I learned the history of the Philippines from my dad, not school. The Philippines, it seems, had no place in the story of America, despite being one of its former colonies. Even the mainstream media barely acknowledged our culture and our community. Any reference to the Philippines seemed to only refer to Manila and how the language was Tagalog. I couldn’t relate to that. My parents are from Bacolod, a city in central Philippines, where the community spoke Illongo. The narrative America wanted to tell about the Philippines, as limited as it was, was not one I could fit into.

It took me a long time to identify as a Pinoy writer. That same year at college when I learned about Larry Itliong, I attended a special event where I heard Jose Antonio Vargas, the famed journalist and immigration rights activist, and openly undocumented Filipino American, give a talk about his book, Dear America: Notes from an Undocumented Citizen. He, too, was a storyteller and writer, just like I wanted to be.

I finally realized I wasn’t alone. I didn’t need to be the author who put the Philippines in the history book. Several writers already did that for me. Carlos Bulosan wrote the famous America Is in the Heart, establishing the Filipino American perspective in literature. Then there are the writers of today, like Elaine Castillo with her book America Is Not the Heart, a clear callback to Bulosan. While Filipino Americans may have different interpretations of their identities, these stories are very much in dialogue with each other.

Each story, including mine, is only a small piece in a much larger puzzle. My own perspective that only represents a tiny fraction of Filipino history. The Philippines is made up of 7000+ islands and has 120+ spoken languages. We have our own history and mythology that existed long before the Americans came and long before the first colonizers, the Spaniards, arrived as well. While colonialism has tried time and time again to erase our stories, remembering our traditions and history is how they live on. We don’t want these stories to become forgotten simply because they’re left out of school curriculums. However, I do have to take a moment to be grateful for virtual spaces, especially those for writers. While my family is no longer the only Filipino family in my city, it was online where I met my very first Pinoy friends. Together, we traded experiences, laughing at the little tics that our families share. That, too, is an important part of the story. My friends and I aren’t famous, but aren’t those cherished moments together part of our experience as well?

And well, NaNoWriMo is the perfect time to explore your own stories, isn’t it? I remember being drawn to the challenge a long time ago, when I was a tiny middle schooler who felt so lonely in the giant world. NaNo made me believe that my story truly mattered, not just to everyone in the Philippines and America, but to me, the person who all my writing is eventually for. There’s no way I, or anyone for that matter, can accurately describe the story of every single Filipino, let alone Filipino American, out there. But you can talk about your story. Personally, I want to write characters who speak Ilonggo or grew up the only Filipino in their class. Maybe your characters will speak Cebuano or Ilocano. No matter what, Pinoys will get to be main characters! They’ll have grand adventures or share quiet moments with their loved ones. We’ll share our culture, our heritage with the world.

Together, our story will be told. Dungan ta sulat!

Josie Gepulle is a longtime NaNoWriMo fan, spending her teenage years lurking on the YWP forums and procrastinating her novel writing. She loves hearing the unique stories that come from writers all over the world and believes every voice is worth listening to. She enjoys the many different forms storytelling comes in, doing everything from analyzing TV shows to drawing her favorite characters. She can be found scribbling notes or doodling with an array of pens by her side. If you’d like to learn more about Filipino American History Month, here are some more sites to explore.

10 Ways to Celebrate Filipino American History Month

National Today

Filipino American National Historical Society

FAHM Resources and Creators to learn from (IG Post)

#nanowrimo #writing #amwriting #filipino american history month #inspiration #by nano intern #josie gepulle #motivation

[telekitnetic-art]

i hope this isn't intruding since i saw your response to a person regarding salmon run's usage of formline art. i've had similar mixed feelings about what the devs decided to do. i want to ask (in your opinion) if there are ways to correctly reference indigenous art (and in this case formline) and utilize it in ways that aren't harmful. with the assumption that the utilization isn't in a harmful/inappropriate context. feel free to ignore this however, i don't want to make anyone uncomfortable being treated as a spokesperson

Hi, thank you so much for the question! (Also sorry that my answer is late, I decided to think on the question for a couple days and then got too busy to sit down and formulate a reply 💀)

I think it is possible to utilize indigenous art and formline art in ways that aren’t harmful, but I think the main question to ask yourself before you utilize formline art is WHY you want to utilize it. Ie, is it because the art or story you’re using has indigenous characters or context? Or is it just because you want to throw it in? Learning to avoid harmful negative stereotypes is important, but it’s also important not to go too far and end up putting indigenous culture on a pedestal/aestheticizing (?) it.

The best example I have for what I’m talking about is this one OVERWATCH skin for a character called Pharah. From my understanding, the character was thought to be Egyptian (her Wiki Page even lists her nationality as being Egyptian) until this skin dropped and it was announced that she was mixed race PNW First Nations

Similarly to the SR formline, I can see that the IDEA of formline art is there; but again, it looks like the designers simply LOOKED at formline art images instead of looking into how formline itself works. Not to mention that the character in question isn’t LISTED to be of a specific nation or tribe, just “Pacific Northwest”. I don’t think Blizzard intended for their skin to be offensive or racist, but they ended up generalizing Pacific Northwest art and culture by throwing a skin of just “we looked at pacific northwest images for two hours, this is what we came up with” energy.

I read an article on the situation by Kotaku where a game director said ““Specifically when you talk about that Pharah skin, it’s really interesting because the first time that we had seen the concept art of it, we were all blown away. . . We wrestled with like, ‘OK, so Pharah is clearly Egyptian and that’s her heritage. That’s her nationality and we want to respect that and we also want to be respectful of Native American culture.’ We sort of had this moment of asking ourselves, ‘Are we being disrespectful in any way?’ The Native American parts of it feel awesome and feel like an homage and like, ‘Hey, isn’t this cool?’”

I feel like that’s the dividing line between appreciating Indigenous culture respectfully and appreciating it as an aesthetic. The director said they wanted to be respectful of Native American culture, so… why not make an Indigenous character for OVERWATCH instead of giving a skin with a conglomerate of traits that could link to PNW culture but not a specific nation to a POC character who’s not native because “hey, isn’t this cool?” and then going “wait guys she’s actually native” when the backlash starts.

Studying and researching formline art is VERY IMPORTANT TOO, ideally talk to an indigenous formline artist who is a veteran/expert. My dad always told me about how when he first started doing formline art (a logo for an event he was hosting) his mom exploded and lectured him for ages about how he was doing it wrong and he wasn’t supposed to just put shapes down willy nilly. With formline art, there can be specific rules and guidelines for specific shapes. It’s not just a random process. Utilizing negative space and shape balance is also incredibly important, and can set a beginner artist vastly apart from a more experienced one.

Consulting Indigenous people and thinking about WHY you want to utilize their culture is the main things to ponder when you consider using it for your art. I think that’s a given with most marginalized people’s culture; I don’t blame ppl for thinking it’s cool, but it’s important to be respectful for the culture as well so you don’t accidentally use it for simply aesthetic purposes.

I think that’s all I can think of, I hope this helps. Sorry for the late reply, and sorry for accidentally adding a poll

#ask #formline art #hope this helps #and sorry for replying late ^^'