#how he was perceived in terms of nationality and what he considered himself as would make for an intriguing post

[acrossthewavesoftime]

Those moments when you unexpectedly happen across something you only know about because of or through your niche special interest...

I was just reading an article on the election results in Northern Ireland in my first language and was surprised to stumble across Samuel Graves' hometown.

...Which in turn reminded me of my suspicions that back in the olden days when the local constituency was called Londonderry County instead of Mid Ulster, Samuel was involved in a little bit of election fraud with the local candidate, one Thomas Conolly.

I still need to go and visit the relevant archives one day to satisfy my curiosity in that regard.

#r rambles #samuel graves #sam graves saturday #election #northern ireland #how he was perceived in terms of nationality and what he considered himself as would make for an intriguing post #18th century #british history #irish history

[distortedkilling]

I'm sorry if this is a too deep question out of nowhere, but on your HCs, how do you think the curses (and mahito especially) perceive gender? Mahito uses masculine pronouns in canon, but do you think he identifies with a specific gender? Is agender? Is interested in studying the importance we humans give to it, or thinks it's too stupid and unecessary? Does he comprehend certain prejudices that humans have due to gender ideas? I was also going to include asking about sexuality too, but I think this is already a pretty big ask </3 have a good day S2

Feel free to ask anything you like! I love deep questions.

With curses in general I think the context matters - as in, the type of curse they are. Say a curse exists that was born from the suffering women have endured, I feel like that curse would be more attached to the associated gender because its existence and nature surrounds that gender specifically. Whether that curse has the sentience or care to identify as said gender is another thing to consider. How a curse presents itself could be directly related to that gender its nature is associated with, or it could be a more ambiguous thing that covets aspects of the specific gender despite being something more akin to agender.

I think it comes down to the nature of the curse (why the curse was born to begin with) + the level of sentience of the curse (if it possesses the awareness to care about gender). I think a curse lacking sentience/awareness that identifies as a gender is likely echoing its nature without consideration - like a ghost looping in the place it died. Curses seem to echo "gibberish" about what made them or is related to their birth.

By default I lean towards the 'no' zone of curses perceiving gender to the degree humans do. While gender can be important to the type of curse it is, gender doesn't actually serve a purpose beyond that to them. It's entirely a human construct in terms of identification. Gender serves a reproductive purpose, sure, but how many curses are out there making babies? I ask that because curses, as we know them, lean more into negative and destructive habits than positive and creation based ones.

The context of a curse is what can give them a gender association, but a curse possessing sentience to some degree is what can define their perception on gender - if they even have one.

With Mahito I think he understands humans value gender perception. I don't think he personally cares deeply on the matter himself in terms of identification, but he likes the way the male form feels more-so than the female form. From the angle I write him from, I feel like he's agender but likes to be masculine presenting in body to a degree.

(Side note: I have a running theory way off to the side on the fact he was more masc leaning because human hatred, fear and betrayal in history has been more knowingly caused by men and patriarchies. That's not me saying women haven't done shit things in history, mind you, since Mahito isn't really bound to any one gender doing one. But predominantly in history, regardless of country even, we see male leaders of nations or clans being the ones to decide the fates of others. Betraying their people, enslavement, forcing their people into war, murdering for their own gain or enjoyment, etc. and the greater documentation we have of it regarding men over women.

It made me think that maybe Mahito's development into a masc leaning build was influenced by that. But he also keeps his features feminine leaning because plenty of women in history have also done wrong. Both in the past and present day - whatever the span of energy was that built up enough to make him. Or remake him (again and again).

It's a very tentative thing I'm considering because obviously it Doesn't Sound Great on paper. But Mahito is a little bit of a scholar of sorts, between human psychology, philosophy and (in my opinion) having some manner of interest in history - I can see him kind of playing with this angle because it could feel right to him to embody aspects of what birthed him. Presenting as a feminine man also is its own topic that inspires stupid amounts of hatred in people. Seeing as Mahito likes to make people upset, uncomfortable, etc. I can also see him forming his body based on that.

And while I know a person's art style is liable to change here and there and what not - I find it fun to think that Mahito is just shapeshifting himself a little here and there. Thins his muscles, gets a little leaner now and then, sometimes gets more bulky. Adjusts depending on his wants or if he thinks it's necessary to.

Anyways, these thoughts in here are just tentative ones I'm musing on because I'm trying to factor in the things that birthed him and how they've played a role in humanity. So take this section in parenthesis with a grain of salt for now.)

Back to your inquiry, I think he'd be interested to learn how humans perceive it and what the fuss is all about. The subject of gender in the modern era sparks a lot of negativity between those who are going unheard and those who are obtuse on the matter. I think Mahito understands gender in the form of human reproduction and doesn't inherently think more on it beyond that. If someone corrected him on how their identify he'd take a second to consider their physical form and if it was based on that or based on their mental perception of themselves. Either way, I don't really feel like he'd have a care in going along with how someone identifies as, since gender to him isn't a huge deal. On top of that, his interest in psychology and philosophy surrounding the subject is probably the saving grace here that would have him be interested in going along with it. Because without that, he really wouldn't care and would call someone whatever came to mind. This isn't to say he's a nice curse, btw. Mahito will likely make rude jokes at the expense of someone. Gender, orientation, whatever regarding all that isn't really off limits if he wants to be mean in some way.

I think Mahito has a good understanding on the prejudices that exist. While he has no real attachment to gender as a curse and just decides based on his whim of what he likes at the time, he understands the value humans have with it and the negativity that generates because of the subject. Hell, he was probably born from a decent chunk of the hatred ignorant people have on the subject and the hatred (and fear) people on the other side of the debate (nonbinary, trans, etc) also experience. Mahito sees this issues humans face and thinks they are silly things to squabble about. But hey, they are generating negativity and kind of proving his own ideology so he isn't about to complain either.

Also feel free to ask about sexuality! I'm pausing this answer without that part because I'm not wholly sure what about it you'd like me to address. If you mean how curses or Mahito perceive sexuality? Or if he associates with that-- like similar questions here just flipped for that subject or something else. So rather than presuming I'll let you feel free to ask if you'd like so I can give the inquiry the attention it deserves.

If I didn't answer something enough, feel free to specify and I'll clarify my thoughts further. I don't mind at all.

Mind anyone who gets this far, this is just my own opinion of how I write Mahito. It's fine if you disagree with any part of it. ^^

Thank you very much for asking! It was lovely to answer.

#also sorry if any part of this sounds short or ignorant when covering the topic. i was trying to keep concise to the inquiries and not delve #too deeply into the subjects outside of the character in question. i have my own very long history with gender identity stuff so any vague #descriptions isn't from an actual ignorant point but because i didn't want to delve into certain aspects or account for the nuances #of the subject when mahito's perception of it is more simple. this way the answer can be about him vs my opinion(s) on the topic xD #have i disclaimed this post enough?? lmfao #asks #headcanons

[zerogate]

Although these stories were edited and rewritten many times before they came into their final biblical form, it is clear that the old stories about Israel’s God in the Yahwist source portray him as a powerful deity who related to the Israelite tribes as he would relate to servants. Abraham refers to himself as YHWH’s servant, who seeks favor from YHWH by preparing and serving him water, bread, meat, curds, and milk (Genesis 18: 1–8). Jacob is identified as YHWH’s servant when he talks to the angels of God at Mahanaim. He begs YHWH to save him from Esau’s wrath so that Jacob’s offspring will grow exponentially, to continue serving YHWH according to YHWH’s wishes (32:1–5, 9–12).

Not only are the leaders of the old Israelite tradition memorialized as servants of YHWH; the entire tribal nation is identified in these terms as well. The nation of Israel is YHWH’s servant, a people who have been chosen by YHWH to be his slaves, to bring him gifts, and to offer him sacrifices. As such, YHWH calls Israel a “worm” and an “insect” completely dependent upon him for help. In fact, Israel’s very existence, even the provision of such basics as water in a desert land, is completely contingent upon YHWH’s favor (Isaiah 41:8–17, 43:22–24, 44:1–3).

[...]

When they disobey his direct command, YHWH becomes worried about the fact that the distinction between God and human has started to blur. Their insubordination signals to YHWH that his creatures are becoming like gods (3:22). Afraid that the insubordination might continue and that they might also eat from the tree of life and actually become immortal, YHWH throws them out of the garden and binds them into a mortal life of submission, pain, and endless toil to produce food from infertile land to feed both human and God (3:16–23).

In the old Yahwist story cycle, there is randomness in YHWH’s dealings with the humans he creates, an arbitrariness that, more than fair dealings, showcases YHWH’s power. It is not long before YHWH regrets creating humans, because he perceives an evil and violent streak in them. Would they revolt against him? So he decides to wield as much violence as he can muster and to destroy all humans, beasts, and birds with a flood— except the righteous Noah and his family, whom YHWH favored (6:5–8).

When new generations of humans arise after the flood and begin to build a city with a lofty temple, YHWH investigates. What he finds disturbs him. Human beings were united and cooperative, successful builders, creating a temple that would allow them access to the very heavens that YHWH inhabited. YHWH considers their success threatening to him, as they are vying for a station among the gods. “This is only the beginning of what they will do,” YHWH says. “Nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them” (11:6). His solution? He confuses their speech so that they cannot communicate with one another. Unable to communicate, the people become divided. They leave the city and its temple unfinished and scatter into the countryside.

Next, without explanation, YHWH selects from among all humans one small tribe, the righteous clan of Abraham, to honor him. Eventually, some of the inhabitants of Sodom begin to distress YHWH, so he ventures down to take a look. When Abraham discovers that YHWH intends to destroy the neighboring city, he is upset. What are the ethical implications? He demands to know whether YHWH intends to kill the righteous people along with the wicked. Yes, YHWH had planned to get rid of them all. Abraham negotiates with YHWH on behalf of the righteous living in Sodom, so that at least YHWH’s righteous servant Lot and his family can be removed from the city before YHWH rains down sulfur and fire and destroys everything there (18:23–33, 19:12–26). Later, YHWH tests how much Abraham fears him by commanding Abraham to kill his son Isaac and make a burnt offering out of him. Abraham complies and lays out his son. YHWH is satisfied and spares the boy’s life just before the knife can be plunged into Isaac’s flesh (22:1–14).

The old cycle of stories about Moses is equally erratic and violent. Immediately after YHWH chooses Moses to be his prophet, he meets Moses on his way back to Egypt. The clandestine night visit triggers a brutal but unsuccessful attack by YHWH, who tries to kill Moses, evidently because Moses was not circumcised. A ritual to ward off demons protects Moses from sure death at YHWH’s hand (Exodus 4:24–26).

When the Hebrews cast a statue of a calf as an object of worship, YHWH is incensed and tells Moses that he has decided to destroy them all and to turn only Moses’ descendants into his nation. Moses convinces YHWH that it will make YHWH look bad if he destroys the very people he just rescued from Egypt. He reminds YHWH of the promises he made to his servants Abraham, Isaac, and Israel. YHWH relents. Rather than annihilating them, he sends a plague as the punishment for their sin.

Moses takes it upon himself to have the sons of Levi kill with swords three thousand offenders, whom he identifies as their brothers, friends, and neighbors. The violent vengeance of the sons of Levi acts as their priestly ordination into the service of YHWH. The cost to be YHWH’s priest, according to Moses, is the lives of their sons and brothers (32:1–14, 25–35). Again and again throughout these narratives, YHWH acts out of wrath, revenge, regret, and jealousy as only a being of supreme power can. He is the ultimate warrior god, crushing those who are the enemies of his favored people along with any who displease him. He lords it over his servant Jacob as only he sees fit, punishing innocent children for the transgressions of their ancestors four generations removed. He makes weal and creates woe (Isaiah 45:4–7). Like the Greek gods, YHWH does things because he can do them.

[...]

Perhaps his most complete portrait is painted in the book of Job, where YHWH allows his servant Job and Job’s family to be brutalized by Satan, even though Job is properly blameless, upright, and fearful of YHWH. The only condition YHWH puts on Satan’s violence is that his servant Job himself must remain alive. Yet, throughout all the sufferings, horrors, and killings that Job endures, he refuses to blame YHWH because, Job reasons, what YHWH gave, YHWH may take away. In the end, Job’s response to it all is personal humiliation. Job covers himself in ashes and repents for his lowly, despicable status, for his mortal mind that cannot know the workings of the mind of an all-powerful God who can do anything he wants with the creatures he fashioned from the dust (Job 1:21, 42:1–6).

-- April D. DeConick, The Gnostic New Age

#quotes

[fr-martin-gospel-reflections]

21st August - ‘Will there be only a few saved?’ Reflection on today’s gospel reading (Lk 13:22-30)

Twenty First Sunday in Ordinary Time

We would all consider the language of telling people to go back to where they came from to be very offensive. It suggests a readiness to exclude from our circle those who are perceived to be very different from us in terms of their racial origins or deeply held convictions. As human beings we have a common humanity, which is God-given, that should be the basis of a willingness to be present respectfully to each other in all our differences. With reference to that language of going back to where you came from, at a fundamental level, we have all come from the one God and we are all going back to God. As human beings, we are all made in the image of God. Our calling is to become that image in the way we relate to each other. For us as Christians, that means following in the way of Jesus who was the perfect image of God, relating to each other in the way he did, in the power of his Spirit.

What was distinctive about Jesus’ way of relating to people? In contrast to many of his fellow Jews who were keen to draw a rather narrow circle around those who were acceptable to God, Jesus tended to draw a much wider circle. He wanted to embrace and include as many as possible in his circle, in God’s circle. He shared table with people who were regarded by the religious experts as beyond the embrace of God’s favour. That is the context for the question that is put to Jesus in today’s gospel reading, ‘Sir, will there be only a few saved?’ It was really a question about God. Jesus was being asked, ‘How wide is God’s embrace?’ ‘Will God gather to himself a large or small number at the end of time?’ Jesus does not answer the question directly at first. The direct answer to the question comes only in the last statement that Jesus makes to his questioner, ‘People from east and west, north and south, will come to take their place at the feast in the kingdom of God’. In other words, the great patriarchs of Israel, Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and the prophets will play host to a gathering that will be truly cosmopolitan and universal. Here is God casting a very wide net indeed. Jesus’ answer to the question, ‘will there be only a few saved?’ is ‘no’. The feast in the kingdom of God will be a truly crowded affair. There will be nothing exclusive about it. All sorts of people will be there from the four corners of the earth, including people that many of Jesus’ contemporaries would never have associated with. There will be a quality to this gathering that reflects the length and breadth of God’s loving embrace. Jesus draws a very wide circle when it comes to God’s guest list and, by implication, he calls on us to do the same. Jesus is being true to the very generous vision of Isaiah in the first reading. There, Isaiah imagines people coming from a whole variety of nations to the Temple of Jerusalem and going on to serve as priests and Levites there, without having to become Jews first.

In the remainder of his reply to his questioner, Jesus implies that, whereas God does not wish to exclude anyone from the heavenly banquet, it is possible for people to exclude themselves. He suggests that the one attitude people need to be wary of is complacency. It is the attitude of those in the gospel reading who say, ‘Lord, open to us. We once ate and drank in your company; you taught in our streets’. The breath of God’s loving embrace that Jesus portrays is very consoling, but it is not to leave us complacent. We can’t just free wheel into the banquet of eternal life. There is a narrow door that we need to go through so as to enter into the wide open spaces of God’s life forever. A narrow door requires a certain effort to get through it. It demands a certain focus and concentration. In one of the other gospels, the gospel of John, Jesus says of himself, ‘I am the door’, and he calls on us to enter through him. Entering through the door that is Jesus implies not entering through other doors that don’t lead to the fullness of life Jesus desires for all. Whereas the Lord is always drawing us to himself, the language of striving to enter by the narrow door suggests that we have to choose to allow ourselves to be drawn. We have to put effort into going through that door of life, into walking in the way of Jesus, especially when other ways seem easier and more attractive. To enter through that narrow door, we may need to rid ourselves of some unhelpful baggage that holds us back and blocks our way. In the story of the prodigal son, the father was waiting ready to embrace his son and give him a place of honour at the banquet of life, but, at some point, the son needed to come to his senses and begin the journey home. When we keep striving to enter through the door that is Jesus we too will find ourselves caught up in God the Father’s loving embrace.

[adlbeay]

I wanted to talk about the themes in the Walk in the Dust event. The story of Arknights has always had a high level of thematic consistency, but it’s especially prominent in this event. I feel like a lot of the discussion of the story in certain places comes down to “lore” and surface-level plot details, so I wanted to get this out there somewhere.

The two big ideas that are covered in Walk in the Dust are that of revenge and the homeland. Let's talk about revenge first. Long post and story spoilers under the cut.

In the beginning, we are introduced to Elliot, aka Passenger, who by the time we meet him, is an aimless husk of a man. He is utterly empty inside despite being the most powerful figure in the Reefsteep black  market, with vast wealth and political influence under his thumb. Having completed his decades-long quest to slay everyone who was involved in betraying his teacher, he has no more goals for his life. After killing  the Lord Ameer of Ibut, the last of his targets, he realizes that the revenge he had been pursuing was ultimately empty, that the weapons he built and the schemes he engineered to that end no longer moved him. Even the death of the Lord Ameer didn't matter one bit in the political landscape of Sargon.

As for the Sargon army... We live in different times now. The ruling  Padishahs simply care not about what is happening here in this barren  wasteland. My guess is that it matters not to them whether it's the  father or the son that's in charge. Actually, to tell the truth, it  hardly matters to me either.

Ultimately, no one cared if the Lord Ameer was murdered or simply  died in an accident, not even Elliot himself. Sargon continues to be exploited by the Columbian military and the ruling Lords. Professor Thorne remains dead. His research, once entrusted to Elliot to prevent  it from becoming a weapon of war, has nonetheless been used by Elliot  himself to bring even more death. Now, 22 years later, Passenger sees  finding Kal'tsit as his only path to salvation, so that she can once  again give him a purpose like she did when she rescued him the first time.

Folinic's mom, Lillia, also shares the same kind of story. Her husband was killed in Chernobog when the count decided to purge the researchers working on the sarcophagus device. Among the children of the families broken up by this incident are Lyudmila (later Crownslayer), Alex and Misha (later Skullshatterer), and Luisa (later Folinic). Lillia finds Kal'tsit after months of searching, intending to take revenge on  Grand Duke Vanya not just for her husband, but also for Luisa, who never got to know her father because of it. Kal'tsit tries to talk her out of  it, even during the final phases of the plan, but Lillia's mind is set.  She entrusts Kal'tsit with taking care of both Luisa and Lyudmila, as  she knows she won't be able to come back to live a normal life after  this. And... she succeeds. Although it is Kal'tsit who ultimately administered the poison, their plan works flawlessly and Duke Vanya is finally dead.

Except it still ended up being completely meaningless. The Grand Duke was in a glorified nursing home already near the end of his life, and if Kal'tsit didn't kill him then some other conspirator from the Ursus  political backstage would have done it anyway. He was already crippled and blind, and as we find out during the confrontation with the Emperor's Blade, even Kal'tsit only agreed to Lillia's plan because it  defused the conspiracies of other powerful figures who would have used  the Duke's death to spark another rebellion. The only thing that Lillia ended up accomplishing was making sure that Louisa would grow up without both a mother and a father, and Lyudmila would never get the answers she really wanted about her family's death. And, although she ended up not doing it, she was even also planning to go back to Chernobog to kill  Sergei, Alex and Misha's father, for his betrayal.

And this carries on through the future outside the event. Crownslayer ends up joining Reunion because she thinks it will give her the answers  she wants and avenge her father. Folinic almost lets her anger at Atro's death get her into a confrontation with Wolumonde. In the end, Crownslayer is stopped by Kal'tsit and Folinic is calmed down by  Suzuran, but we might be able to imagine what would have happened if  they managed to carry out their vengeance.

The theme of homeland is one that's intrinsically tied to Kal'tsit and has at least a bit of relation to the broader story outside of the event. It's harder to talk about since it's not clearly  split into individual stories like previously, but there's at least one character that exemplifies this theme the most: Old Isin.

Old Isin is appropriately to his name, old as rocks. He remembers being a servant to some lord of a long-lost city that very few even know once existed, and spends his time telling fortunes while trying to seek out people who, like him, also share that past. According to Kal'tsit, the city's people were scattered when it was destroyed, and now only Isin even remembers the origin of the name "Reefsteep". Even then, Isin only has vague memories, and believes it to be his unforgivable sin that  he has forgotten so much about the city.

Old Isin originally helps Kal'tsit and Elliot because he hopes that  she can help him remember about the lost city, and thus absolve his  "unforgivable sin". And Kal'tsit indeed does help him. Isin begins to recall the conquests of armies a thousand years ago, something even with  his age he should not have been a part of, much less remembered.  Kal'tsit dispels the illusions clouding his memory, and reveals that  what Isin remembers is only the stories that the padishah recounted to  him, that the glory of his old city was only a memory of another memory. In truth, the city in Old Isin's memory was merely a stepping stone for the padishah's ambition to conquer the uncharted deserts, and was abandoned just as easily when that campaign failed. His homeland's glory was just an illusion created in his mind by the padishah's charisma.

Which brings us to the Emperor's Blade. Wherever he stands is the dominion of the Empire of Ursus. Whatever he does carries out the Ursus Emperor's will. Or at least, that's how the Royal Guards imagine themselves, single-handedly carrying out their homeland's legacy. Kal'tsit lays it out clearly:

Kal'tsit: Tell me, what does the current Ursus Emperor think of the Pine Valley affair? Or do you mean to tell me the seeds of that uprising, the origins of the crisis were all the will of the Emperor? Feel free to keep deceiving yourself, but the truth is the young emperor is unaware of the events that transpired there. You believe he has no  need to know. You... all of you seek a bygone era. You are just caught up in the former emperor's grand vision!

As does Patriot in Chapter 8:

Patriot: I fought with your fathers. Your strength and tactical acumen are no less impressive than theirs. But you look at the Ursus of those times with rose-colored glasses. What you see is nothing more than your wild fantasies.

The Royal Guards are described in not too unclear words as soldiers  who probably believed too much of their own grandiose affect. They are unparalleled fighters, to be sure, but it isn't hard to infer that those words about executing Ursus's will and each Royal Guard being his own nation are words intended to strike fear into their enemies rather than  statements of any real truth. Indeed, if you know anything about the internal politics of Ursus, the idea of "Ursus's own will" can be seen as more of a nostalgia at a bygone era when Ursus was, or at least seemed, united in conquest under the previous Emperor. The perceived glory of their homeland is what motivates the Emperor's Blade, but like with Old Isin, the truth behind it is shaky at best.

We also have the contrast between the retired veteran at Pine Valley  and Grand Duke Vanya. While talking to Witte, the veteran cuts off one of his own fingers, claiming that the scars he has suffered in Ursus's wars, once considered symbols of his glory and honor, were ultimately meaningless, and he wants this self-inflicted wound to be his only legacy to Ursus. At the same time, the Grand Duke is postulating about how the seeds he had sown in the winter would give birth to beautiful flowers. Even though his actions and the crimes he committed never bore fruition, he is convinced even in death that Ursus's soil will bloom.

The issue of a real or imagined homeland, and its loss, is also  shared by the Sarkaz as a whole not only in this story but in the main story and many other events. It's even arguable that Rhodes Island's mission to help the Infected was originally inherited from Babel's goal of establishing a stable homeland for the Sarkaz. After all, as pointed  out in many places, the Infected and Sarkaz share much of the same discrimination.

Sarkaz Mercenary: Home...? How could us devils... us Infected possibly have one... Kal'tsit: The Sarkaz have tried to rebuild 'Kazdel', their home for centuries, though they have never succeeded. Everyone has a different idea as to what the term 'homeland' means, but as it stands right now,  Kazdel is perhaps as close as you can get to the term's original meaning.

And in Twilight of Wolumonde:

Armed Infected: We’re going home? To what home?

Mudrock: Kazdel. There may be no place for Sarkaz outside of Kazdel.  But in Kazdel, there is a place for you. Not because of tolerance. But because there is... nothing there. Kazdel... is where the homeless go. A land of rootless people.

So what does all this have to do with Kal'tsit?

In the ending cutscene, Passenger asks Kal'tsit whether this "Rhodes  Island" is yet another passing persona to be used to accomplish a goal and discarded when it's complete. Like the persona of the Trusted  Advisor, or the Servant, or the Laterano Cleric, will she abandon Rhodes  Island as well? Kal'tsit initially puts up a front saying he has no  right to ask, then bluffs about having thousands of answers, but is pushed by Passenger saying he'll even accept a lie. In one of the only times we get to see Kal'tsit faltering, she actually has no answer to this.

Unlike the other characters we see throughout the story, Kal'tsit has no homeland. No matter how fake or illusory it is, Old Isin and the Royal Guard have something to believe about a place where they can belong. The nobles in Victoria, as incompetent as they appear from the outside, are dedicated to defending the peace of their home despite having no ruler. Even the ostracized Sarkaz can ultimately go back to Kazdel, as unpleasant as that might be. But while Kal'tsit wanders the earth to keep the homelands of others from falling into chaos, she has no homeland of her own to go back to.

In one of the trailers for Chapter 9, we hear a recording from Theresa, addressed to Kal'tsit: "I hope this Rhodes Island can be a place to call home, a place you can always return to."

#arknights #arknights spoilers #kal'tsit

[aenor-llelo]

Your c!techno c-ptsd post made me curious about your c-ptsd takes on c!phil if you’re willing to do a similar post about him!

Sure!

c!philza’s got A Number of interesting things trauma-wise to talk about just from his history on the server (wilbur’s death, the butcher army), and I’ll use the multiple phil asks in the inbox to cover it, but for now let’s pick one similar to my point about c!techno, since i think that’s what you’re looking for.

C!Philza’s behavior suggests he was already predisposed to traumatic responses in line with C-PTSD before he even joined the server.

(Note that in the case of phil and techno, i specifically say C-PTSD rather than PTSD. There’s a difference. PTSD is caused by one traumatic event (such as, for example, what phil went through on november 16). C-PTSD is caused by sustained and repeated trauma.)

Also, much like how CC!technoblade’s game habits have implications on C!techno, CC!ph1lza’s habits have their own on C!philza, and we keep that in mind.

now philza isn’t as “textbook” as techno’s more militaristic trauma responses but he still has some trauma-flavored patterns.

-self isolating. 

essentially, he acts under the assumption that he is alone, and others will treat him as alone. 

alot of his on-screen time is spent in isolation doing constant work, even in the wake of recent of ongoing events that directly concern him. he disappears into work to busy himself- and failing that, he’ll disappear altogether. after wilbur’s death, he canonically deliberately walked into a blizzard for a few days just to try and ground himself. 

he disappears for long stretches of time even after incredibly concerning events and makes no assumption other people would care about his whereabouts or wellbeing.

-altered response to harm and danger

as pragmatic as he is in terms of survival, he’s also relatively flippant about harming himself to achieve something he wants. he, without hesitation, broke his ankle monitor by shoving himself into magma. that is not something a person would consider an immediate option unless they were on some level already desensitized to harm or the prospect of self-harm.

-”inappropriate” emotional responses

trauma alters a person’s ability to respond to future stressful or traumatic events. this does not necessarily mean they respond more dramatically.

Towards most other characters, he gives little indication of emotional transparency or honesty until it explodes in dysfunctional verbal outbursts.

his most common outburst is laughter. philza laughs and smiles alot. even when clearly upset. even after saying incredibly upsetting things. this is of course due to CC!ph1lza just being Like That, but this translates in c!philza as someone who laughs as a nervous tic when experiencing high emotions in general.

he’s also shown incoherent outburst (screaming after wilbur’s death), as well as verbal snapping that comes “out of nowhere” from outsider perspective (”you’re dead to me” in response to “i still love you, grandpa” and the infamous “my first day on the server- i killed my son!”)

-disproportionate reaction to stress and grief, violent tendencies

externally he does not grieve at all, but his actions and comments imply he has a habit of being extremely violent to perceived threats. in general he’s very violent minded with the implication of it being due to having been desensitized to violence.

this guy compulsively culls mobs without necessity and was completely prepared to kill villagers for “looking at him funny” (read: perceived as threat).

even his conversation with sam about his immortality was an indirect threat on sam’s life over... being called an old man. (dwelling on his age and immortality appears to be a minor stressor for him, considering this moment and how uncomfortable fundy calling him “grandpa” makes him feel).

-dysfunctional attachment

he displays, for better or worse, little emotional responsibility to people, even to people he likes (such as tommy or ghostbur), but in turn he also acts on his own with no assumption of a support system. 

I’m not saying that he’s wrong for not acting the best to everyone, but i am saying that he seems to have difficulties forming attachment in the first place, even when he acts friendly- which has caused him to form non-reciprocating relationships (again, tommy and ghostbur, and possibly tubbo) where people are more attached than he is. he’s also, like techno, very sensitive to perceived betrayal, emotionally disengaging as soon as he’s been burned (see his relationship with fundy).

 And then with the people he does attach to. OH BOY.

Much like techno, this man is beyond ride or die for his extremely small in-group. the “fellow survivor” mentality i mentioned in my techno analysis  applies here as well. 

he associates techno’s survival and safety with his own, essentially feeling as good as safe so long as techno is, regardless of his actual current situation.

while techno’s most obvious indicator of attachment is through the sharing of resources, philza’s most obvious indicator is through acts and service. this man will protect his chosen “fellow survivor” to the bitter end, he will destroy entire nations and not even blink.

What unfinished symphonies have you seen come to ruin over eons, angel. what did you lose to survive it.

#dream smp #dsmp #dream smp spoilers #dsmp spoilers #dream smp meta #dsmp meta #dream smp analysis #dsmp analysis #c!philza #c!phil #philza #dream smp philza #ptsd #cptsd #trauma #character analysis #feel free to add on or dispute my takes! #ask for my takes. anon is open #aenor-llelo

[sokkagatekeeper]

[parallel originally pointed out here]

it goes back to book one the way aang, katara, and zuko are set up to be the main thematic triad of the show, all three of them sharing the qualities of being idealists at heart, generally guided by a strict moral code they impose upon themselves, impulsively heroic at times to the point of naivety, and the belief that they have a great destiny to fulfill, for better or for worse. all of them have a certain legacy, a certain chosen one-ness to them, whether they are aware of the fact the entire time — aang as the avatar and the last airbender; katara as the last southern waterbender — or they have an idea, but aren't aware of the full picture until later on — zuko's legacy from both sozin and roku.

a triad is, of course, not made out of the dynamic of three characters together, but rather the individual pairs, then the function them three manage to balance out. in other words, it does not work like a/b/c but rather a&b / a&c / b&c. aang and zuko share, among many others, the weight of a crucial mistake they made in the past and are desperately trying to fix — mistake that, eventually, leads them to fully become the person they were meant to be; the meaning of identity as what you choose to be every day. zuko and katara share the most intense part of the triad — the rage and grief and anger, as well as the faith, hope, willingness and passion that comes with being a hero; they are the emotional fuel, the drive. aang and katara share the most intimate part of the story; of being a child, and a victim, and standing up despite and maybe because of this — both child survivors of genocide, finding solace in each other as each other's first and best friend, and as a grounding prescence in the midset of the cruel reality of war. when all three different dynamics are combined, you finally get the thematic triad — the three characters that embody the themes and values the show intends to portray and represent. the three of them are indoubtedly the heart of the show, and this is made clear throughout the entire first season. katara as the narrator of the story, aang as the protagonist, zuko as the deuteragonist (as well as antagonist, but in terms of primary titles the deuteragonist always comes first.) they are the most important characters, the basis for every other character that comes after, etc etc.

then there's sokka.

i like to think of sokka as the fourth part of the thematic triangle. he is not essential in the way aang, katara, and zuko are in theory, but he is still immediately established as a main character throughout the first book and accordingly developed in later books 2 and 3. and it works wonders, because while sokka's designated role of the comedic relief character would generally be considered enough to make him a main character, sokka is everything aang, katara, and zuko are not. i'd go as far as to say his entire character is contructed this way.

where aang and katara and zuko are idealists at heart, sokka's pessimism/skepticism is able to protect them from a possible threat their story-structured minds might have not been able to predict, for it might not fit the narrative they construct as it fits the reality of disaster that sokka is very much aware of — which is not to say that aang, katara, and zuko do not know the harsh realities of war, two of them being genocide victims and one of them being pretty much a war veteran, but merely to point out that they believe that somehow, everything will turn out exactly as it has to be above all, while sokka... doesn't, and he approaches every situation as such.

where aang, katara, and zuko are all some sort of chosen one and often act and think according to it, sokka does not have a great destiny to fulfill nor he believes in destiny as a concept. sokka is — self-admittedly — just some guy. the avatar's friend, the last southern waterbender's brother, the son of the chief, etc etc. his strength comes from his unique way of approaching things, his creativity and intelligence and most of all his identity as fundamentally, no one. sokka grew up to believe he was disposable in comparison and he actively worked — possibly even unconsciously — to be important, to be valuable, to be necessary. he was not born great, but achieved greatness, as one might say. the weight of being no one and having to work to become somebody contrasts beautifully with aang's and katara's and zuko's and even toph's inherent specialness, especially mixing up with aang's and zuko's concept of becoming who you are meant to be because of your choices.

where aang and zuko value human life above all else, and katara will never turn her back on people who need her, sokka is never afraid to get a little dirty when he wants things to go his way, or when there's simply more important things for him to worry about. sokka has what i like to call the practical murder syndrome, not necessarily as murder — though he does quite a lot of those and is willing to let zuko, ultimate deuteragonist extraordinarie, die in a blizzard, simply because it's convenient for them at the moment — but also as the way he's not willing to go out of his way to help every wretched village they come into contact with (see: the painted lady). sokka has his moral code, surely, and he has his limits, but while aang's morals, katara's morals, zuko's morals persist through war, pain, and punishment, sokka's morals are shaped by these concepts. this brings a certain balance to the text, to the group dynamic of the gaang, to the main cast in general, and it helps broadening the audience's perception and objectiveness as well. (see: katara is the narrator, and we mostly perceive the first part of the show and most of her relationship with sokka solely through her lens, but in reality sokka was more right than wrong, and that doesn't mean katara was wrong, either. once you watch the show twice, thrice, and you begin watching it objectively, sokka's motivations and general characterization becomes clearer, and makes more sense, despite opposing katara's point of view in so many ways.)

finally, where aang and katara and zuko are impulsively heroic, sokka is a chronic planner and organizer — while katara and aang are focused on fighting the firelord as an idea, sokka worries about how they will fight the firelord, and plans an entire invasion to give aang the window of opportunity to strike the final blow. while aang wants to fight off the fire nation as his duty as the avatar asks of him, sokka knows he's in no condition to fight, and in any case, there's still no need for him to waste his energies in a fight just yet. while katara wants to help people and fight for what's right, sokka needs to remain focused on the big picture, and when this doesn't do anything for katara's heroic nature, sokka offers an elaborate plan to make katara's bringing-of-justice as doable and safe as possible, for everyone involved. while zuko wants to defend his people against the injustices he knows he could have committed in another time, as his first instinct is always help them out, it's always this isn't fair, they deserve better than this, exactly the way he did it when he spoke against the massacre of the 41st division, sokka has to physically restrain him from making the same mistake zuko made at thirteen. because it's not that sokka cares less, but he knows when to care, and the way to do so as safe as possible — sokka is always planning things ahead, one might even say he overthinks, because albeit with a good reason, sokka is, at heart, kind of a coward. he's always tiptoeing between logic and reason, and outright paranoia. he is right to be a coward most of the time, because he knows bravery is a privilege, bravery comes with a price. he is right to be a coward because aang, katara, and zuko are not, and they are right, too.

sokka manages to perfectly balance the thematic triad of the show and its individual double dynamics possibly accidentally and on his own, giving the show its own taste of sokka's arc of broadening perspectives about the world and the people in it. the same way sokka is able to offer the logic and reason heroism often lacks when needed, aang and katara and zuko's idealism and heroism affects sokka in its own way, helping him to let go of this self-critical overthinker who often commits self-sabotage, to become some sort of unconventional hero himself — achieving this balance, undoubtedly makes sokka the fourth part of the thematic triangle.

#iv #i've has this concept in my mind for so long #literally years. sokka was just Something Else you know #sokka #sokka&thegaang #aang&sokka #sokka&katara #sokka&zuko #i am NOT biased enough to tag this beautiful analysis of mine in a shippy way but. just know that i could. i could!!! #atla #n #aang&katara&zuko #< i KNOWW i said aang katara sokka was my favorite triad but i was lying to myself. i was lying!!! #so i'm finding an excuse to use this tag and the excuse is [checks notes] the entire analysis i just made about them. i just keep winning #Yes sokka is my favorite character Yes i would love to hear hours and hours of the interactions between a triad that does not involve him!! #in my defense it was meant this way!!! i am simply. not doing the death of the author today #analysis #01 #long post

[stellocchia]

So, I’ve been thinking: where do the characters of the smp actually fit in the morality spectrum?

We’re all always pointing out how everyone is “morally gray” in the smp, but it’s not too hard to see that the level is different in different characters, for example: Puffy’s light griefing when she first arrived on the smp is in no way comparable to Dream blowing up a country 3 times... so how about we take an objective look through this characters actions?

First let’s establish what are the categories we’ll be talking about:

Morally gray characters: they are the intermediate between a villain and a hero. They are neither wholly bad nor good. 

Anti-Hero: someone who may perform moral actions but always for selfish reasons. Basically morally gray but with bad intentions.

Anti-villain: someone whose desired ends are mostly good, but their means of getting there range from evil to undesirable. Basically they think they have good intentions, but they’re actually villains. 

Sympathetic villain: an immoral character who’s backstory/character arc makes them sympathetic to the viewers. We can’t agree with their actions, but we can understand how they got there.

This is more or less the spectrum we will be moving in, as it would actually be rather hard to define anyone in the smp as a classic black and white hero or villain (with 1 exception). Also I believe we all kind of understand what the definitions for those terms are.

In this I will be only going over the characters I know the most about as there are way too many people and, I’m afraid, it’s impossible for me to cover everyone properly as I would need to watch their povs. Anyone though feel free to add on to this! 

Also I won’t be going in any precise order because that would take more effort then I’m willing to put in, so here we go: 

Tommyinnit: He is a bit of a trouble-maker. He has been involved in the most conflicts out of everyone in the server (although he didn’t start the big majority of them). He has griefed, stolen and caused a whopping total of 3 canon deaths (1 to Jack Manifold and 2 to Dream). He has however sacrified himself multiple times for his friends (both literally and by giving up his possessions) and he apologized and tried to make amends for his worse actions. He is mischevious but he also often proved that he can be very selfless. No doubt he earns a morally gray stamp.

Willbur: He is a difficult one because of the big split between his character pre and post election. That said, while Willbur was rather power-hungry before the election he also was very caring for those under him (sometimes slipping into being downright demeaning towards Fundy). He upheald his principle of “words over violence” and mostly wanted to build a peaceful nation. After the election however (because of his declining mental health) he did turn to violence and manipulation and ended up blowing up his own country. So I’d say he went from a morally gray character to a very sympathetic villain

Ghostbur: This one is being considered separatedly from Willbur, as it has been said multiple times that they are separate entities. Ghostbur, you would think, has never done anything bad in his life, he has however hurt some people. He refused to have an actual talk with Fundy or with anyone really when it comes to what Alivebur did, hurting them as a consequence and while they are separate entities, they’re still very much connected. His intentions in general though are good, he just wants everyone to be happy, he just doesn’t realize his incapacity to fully understand other people’s struggles can hurt them at times. He has however never intentionally caused harm to anyone and tried to help whenever he did so unintentionally. He lacks the qualities that would make him a “hero” but he’s morally good 

Tubbo: While people in this fandom have a tendency to portray him as a poor innocent bean he’s not entirely squeacky clean himself. He steals regularly, he has partook in Techno’s scuffed execution attempt and organized a festival with the clear intention of killing Dream. He has however, more often then not, done what he thought was right and what he felt he needed to do in order to protect his people. Even now he’s built a safe heaven away from everyone because he wanted a safe place for anyone wh needed it. So there you go, morally gray stamp of approval.

Techno: And here I already know there will be some contentione... oh boy... anyway! Techno undoubtedly thinks he’s always doing the right thing. He thinks that destroying the governament was the only way to get rid of corruption. He thinks he’s doing something good. He has however released weapons of mass destruction (aka withers) in L’Manburg 3 time, caused the most canon deaths in the server (yep, more then Dream) and he’s been manipulative (wether intentionally or not doesn’t really matter here). In general he’s caused so much pain to so many people that it cannot go ignored. For this reasons he gets an anti-villain stamp

Phil: He’s also one of the characters deserving of a split, in his case it’s pre and post Techno’s attempted execution. Pre execution he was a mostly uninvolved member of L’Manburg, he did however help greatly with the rebuilding and tried to give a family to Fundy when he realised he needed one. He did also kill Willbur. ater the execution however he joined Techno in committing atrocities for what he percieved to be something good (”teaching how bad governament is” was his perceived goal). So I’d say he went from morally gray to joining Techno in the anti-villain gang

Quackity: He is a very complex character and I’m sure opinions about him are rather split. He joined the election to insure it’s fairness. He stayed by Shlatt’s side to try and make the governament fair until he realised that he would never be litened to and then he joined Pogtopia to take down a tyrant. He tried to protect L’Manburg in every way he could, but did get carried away with the attemted execution and the festival, even arriving to suggesting executing Ranboo. Now he wants to build capitalism and is trying to fight the Egg in his own way. He is the definition of a morally gray character

Ranboo: Another split opinion incoming here! Ranboo does mostly have good intentions (at least in his non-enderwalk state, which we won’t talk about here, because there still isn’t enough lore about it to understand it). He would like to have a united server with no conflicts. In trying to achieve this however, as he noticed himself, he actually went against every single one of the people he cares about: not sticking up for Tommy at the trial, assisting with Phil’s arrest and Techno’s execution, giving back Techno’s weapons and armour with no fight and, in general, giving him resources, helping to plan the Green Festival and so on so forth. That said all this things are “bad” from one side but “good” from the other. He has also kept company to Tommy in exile more then anyone else and he was there in the final fight against Dream. In conclusion he gets a morally gray stamp as well

Punz: Punz fights for money and his own self interest. He showed before that his alliance was with those who paid him, even though he actually seemed to care and consider Dream his friend until a certain point. He fought in a few wars but was never overly involved in the petty conflicts. He did however end up being the reason Dream was defeated (athough that was also for money). This was also before the Egg’s corruption as we won’t be considering that as part of the character since, you know, the Egg literally mind-controls people... anyway he gets to be in the anti-hero club

Sam: The warden of the prison is someone with a great work ethic (though he doesn’t seem to care much were the money are coming from once a project gets commissioned to him) and a very kind individual, always ready to offer pumpkin pie or his help to anyone who seems to need it. He’s also building a bank with the express purpouse of building an economy to take control over the server... he is morally gray as well is what I’m trying to say here

And, our final one:

Dream: This man also actually needs a split to better understand him, and that split is before and after he received the necromancy book from Shlatt. Before that he started a few conflicts (Declaring war on L’manburg and the whole railway skirmish thing) nut in general he had mostly sound objectives. Toward the start he didn’t want trouble in his server and he went to extreme leghts to ensure there wouldn’t be any (stealing Tommy’s disks, the whole declaring war etc). He did try and help Pogtopia at the start for this very same reson, because he was hoping that the two indipendent factions would cancel out each other. At one point however the objective in his actions seems to have shifted between wanting to obtain unity for the server to wanting to obtain control for himself. It’s after this shift happened that he committed his most heinous crimes (blowing up L’manburg other 2 times and all the manipulation that went on). After the shift there is not a single redeeming thing he did. He went from an almost anti-villain to a straight up villain, he is, in fact, the only one aside from the Egg that I’m willing to deine as a true villain.

#dream smp #/rp #character analysis #tommyinnit #tubbo #wilbur soot #dreamwastaken #awesamdude #punz #ranboo #philza minecraft #technoblade #quackity #and I believe that's all the ones I talked about #god this was long #long post #if anyone wants to add on with other charcaters feel free #I know I haven't added a lot of them #but I didn't feel like I knew enough about other characters to give them a fair analysis

[southeastasianists]

The tragedy of what appears could be a long-running civil war remains a distinct possibility in Myanmar today. Nevertheless, the term “civil war” itself is inappropriate. Rather Myanmar today resembles Europe during the Nazi occupation. While the sense of occupation by a foreign force had always existed in the ethnic minority areas with their well-armed insurgent organizations, there is a sense today that this is also the case in the Bamar heartland. The occupying army is Myanmar’s own national army (the Tatmadaw) which, from its foundation, has largely functioned as an autonomous state within a state. Those civilians who support the military, such as the members of the USDP, are treaters as collaborators.

Seen even from the conventional paradigm of military coups replacing a democratically elected government the reaction of the international community, and above all the “West”, is disappointing. Yet, once we change perspective to conceive of Myanmar as an occupied country then the reaction of the international community is simply irresponsible. To use a metaphor, Myanmar today is an international orphan. This is not to say, to pursue the analogy, it does not have a family. This ‘family’, in our view, can be divided into three: the kindly, but unengaged aunts, the self-serving and self-indulgent uncles and the feckless cousins.

The kindly, unengaged aunts

The first group, of kindly but unengaged aunts, is a caricature of the United States, the EU and the United Kingdom. Other countries, particularly the other three members of the Quad—Australia, India and Japan—can be considered part of this grouping. Certainly, they rapidly condemned the coup and, in some cases, introduced targeted sanctions against the generals and their immediate families. These were later reinforced to include military-linked conglomerates.

In recent years their political leaderships have heralded a pivot towards the Indo-Pacific with the aim, declared in various official strategy papers, of promoting democracy and confronting autocracy. By not making Myanmar a priority concern in their democratic Indo-Pacific posturing they have revealed the emptiness of these pompous declarations. Is there any post-coup situation in the world today of any greater moral clarity?

The failure of the Australian government to even introduce a basic system of targeted sanctions is puzzling. Cynically, in the context of Sino-Australian tensions doing so would send a clear message to Beijing on the unacceptability of its support for authoritarian regimes, while not being seen to directly criticize the PRC itself. The Morrison governments hesitancy to even provide permanent resident status to the 3,000 or so Burmese students in Australia represents a repudiation of Canberra’s bipartisan principled middle power tradition dating back to Dr Evatt.

This attitude is understandable from Narendra Modi in India in the light of his own autocratic ethno-nationalist agenda. However, it represents the betrayal of the Nehru tradition in foreign policy and, in realpolitik terms, is counterproductive given the continuing aggravation in Sino-Indian relations. Is it really in Delhi’s interest to see Mizoram and Manipur destabilized through a further influx of Myanmar refugees? In the context of Sino-Indian hostility is it in Delhi’s interest to see the PRC providing recognition, and carving out new economic benefits, with the Myanmar junta?  It is puzzling why India’s vaunted Look East Policy does not begin with its closest eastern neighbour but, so far, the Indian government has even prevented the Quad from making a clear statement on the release of political prisoners. India abstained in the 18th June vote in the UN General Assembly demanding an arms embargo and he release of political prisoners, unlike the other three Quad members who voted yes. Yet for Quad members, with their principle objective of constraining China, Myanmar is of secondary importance. This, once again is amazingly short-sighted: constraining, but also cooperating with China for mutual benefit, begins in Myanmar.

The United States bears, at least indirectly, responsibility for the coup. It was the leader of the world’s greatest democracy, President Donald Trump, himself who in propagating the Big Lie of a stolen US presidential election in November 2020 provided a rhetorical fig-leaf for would be dictators everywhere to justify their actions. Certainly, in the Myanmar case it gave occasion for Senior General Min Aung Hlaing to play by the Thai playbook and undertake a coup in order to defend democracy against democratic irregularities, corruption, etc. with a vague promise of “free and fair” elections in the future.

The junta is implementing the next steps in the Thai playbook in using a subservient and compliant judicial system to imprison the leaders of the democratic opposition, making Aung San Suu Kyi ineligible to run again. As with the Future Forward Party in Thailand, the banning and dismantling of Myanmar’s National League for Democracy, is just a matter of time.

The Biden Administration’s overwhelming priority is the strengthening and reinvigorating of alliances in Europe and in the Indo-Pacific, to both constrain China and check Russia. Objectively drawing a redline in Myanmar would be a concrete way of achieving these multiple objectives but, alas, with the withdrawal from Afghanistan and other overriding issues, Myanmar remains largely invisible in the “Washington beltway”

In Europe as a result of Brexit, Myanmar no longer has a champion in the “Brussels bubble” and even in the United Kingdom, the PRC’s turpitude in Hong Kong is the key Asian issue, alongside mercantilist policies to promote a Global Britain.  Elsewhere in the European Parliament political representatives would rather spend their time making rhetorical points on the Uighur and Hong Kong, than come to the aid of the Myanmar people who overwhelmingly ask for their support.

How can this be explained? We would suggest that the close link in Western eyes between the person of Aung San Suu Kyi and Myanmar’s democratic trajectory has been a double-edged sword.  When she was under house arrest and in opposition, she was perceived as incarnating the democratic aspirations of the Myanmar people and maintained these in the arena of public debated. However, when the democratic icon of the 1990s and 2000s fell from her pedestal due to both her autocratic demeanour and, above all, her defence of the Tatmadaw against charges of genocide in the International Criminal Court, concern with Myanmar evaporated. The orphan baby of Burmese democracy was thrown out, so to speak, with the bathwater of personality-centred politics.

Rather than acting decisively on Myanmar, the “kindly but unengaged aunts” have has chosen to delegate the resolution of the Myanmar crisis to the “feckless cousins” of ASEAN discussed below. In Europe this appeals to the somewhat narcissistic encouragement of regional integration elsewhere as well as the hubris surrounding interregionalism.  As the world’s most institutionalized regional entity the EU has a rather optimistic view of its oldest regional partner, ASEAN. Yet, to date none of the mechanisms provided in this partnership—such as EU-ASEAN parliamentary dialogue or the ASEAN Strategic Partnership Agreement—have been activated.

The self-interested and self-indulgent uncles

The second part of the family is the self-interested and self-indulgent uncles, namely China and Russia. While it is debatable whether Beijing encouraged the coup, it is clear that since it has been most accommodating in providing recognition to the junta. The PRC has legitimate security, especially energy security, interests in Myanmar and real concerns about instability on its southern borders. The paradox is that these would best be protected under a civilian administration supported by the people of Myanmar than by a Sinophobic and incompetent junta. Yet, as with Modi’s India, Beijing’s ideological blinkers on the benefits of authoritarianism has meant that the PRC is not the loveable country Xi Jinping seeks to project.

Russian behaviour in Myanmar, namely ensuring sales of its weaponry and promoting Putin’s autocratic agenda worldwide, is more perfidious and self-indulgent. Like in the Donbass and Belorussia, Myanmar provides an occasion for Putin’s macho promotion of Russia as a great power. Having largely lost both Vietnam and now India to the West, Moscow is left with Naypyidaw and Vientiane as its last Asian playgrounds.

The feckless cousins

Finally, the third group is the feckless cousins, Myanmar’s Southeast Asian neighbours of ASEAN, to whom the international community has bestowed responsibility to resolve the crisis. In our view, this misconceived sub-contracting is premised on the vague notion of ASEAN’s regional centrality. Yet, it is one thing to pay lip service to “ASEAN centrality” out of diplomatic politeness. It is another thing to actually believe that it can bring results.  “Centrality” is a question of positioning and, indeed, by default ASEAN has been the core around which other regional bodies such as the East Asia Summit, the ASEAN Regional Forum, APEC, the RCEP, etc, have been grafted. But “centrality” per se indicates to us nothing about capability or capacity, let alone political willingness.

It took almost three months after the coup for ASEAN on 24th April to organise a summit on Myanmar to which the junta leader, and he alone, was invited. Five months after the coup ASEAN’s promised special envoy has not been appointed both due to internal failure to agree on a candidate and a lack of approval from the junta itself . All ASEAN has achieved so far is to provide de facto legitimacy to the junta and buy it time. At both its emergency summit of 24 April and in the visit of two of its emissaries on 5 to 7 June, ASEAN has given legitimacy to the junta, without even any contact with the democratically elected leaders in Myanmar. It is hard to see how an even-handed dialogue can be organised between the jailers and the jailed, as calls from Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore for the release of political prisoners have gone unheeded.

ASEAN has been successful over 50 years in maintaining peace between its members. However, it has neither the “carrots” nor “the sticks” to bring about change within one of them. For example, under the 2008 ASEAN Charter there are no provisions for any member to be expelled. Above all, the sacrosanct, and self-serving, principle of non-interference will always negate the application of the seventh of the Charter’s purposes and principles: the strengthening of democracy and the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Moreover, not only is there a serious systemic issue, but there is also clearly a lack of political will to promote a return to democracy in Myanmar: the majority of ASEAN members have authoritarian or semi-authoritarian regimes. What is the interest of the Thai master of coups, ex-General, now PM Prayut, in seeing the Burmese civil disobedience movement succeed? Would it not further encourage the Thai members of the Milk Tea Alliance who periodically occupy the streets of Bangkok to continue denouncing a kindred patriarchal regime? Does the Politburo of the Vietnamese Communist Party want to see netizens succeed in virtually challenging an authoritarian regime? As for Cambodian PM Hun Sen, and Philippines President Rodrigo ‘Digong’ Duterte, aka The Punisher, democratic values are the least of their concerns. Finally, ASEAN is chaired at the moment by the Sultan of Brunei, the last remaining absolute monarch in Asia.

The divisions within ASEAN came into focus during the non-binding vote in the UN General Assembly on 18 June, calling for an arms embargo and the release of political prisoners (item 34-A/75/L.85.Rev. 1). Six ASEAN countries voted yes: Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar itself, the Philippines, Singapore and Vietnam. The other four—Brunei, Cambodia, Laos and Thailand—abstained. Divisions of this kind within a regional entity based on the principle of consensus have only one result: procrastination and a degree of immobilism, otherwise known as the ASEAN Way.

Conclusions

When an orphan’s extended family fails lamentably, fortunately there is an alternative: turning to your friends. In the countries of the “kindly and unengaged aunts” their parliaments—for example the French Senate, the US Congress and the Australian Parliament—pushing for more assertive action from their country’s respective executives. Civil society groups in Southeast Asia increasingly see the combat for Myanmar’s democracy as their own. In the West a vocal Burmese diaspora, advocacy groups, academics and other supporters are pushing to ensure that this orphan is not forgotten. It remains a moot point whether this will lead to concrete and tangible actions, such as the recognition of the National Unity Government, and international intervention of the basis of the Right to Protect will ensue.

#Southeast Asia #Burma #Myanmar #ASEAN #Foreign Affairs #Military Junta

[the1stn0elle]

Haikyuu!! Analysis

Summary:

Haikyuu!! Is a story that follows Hinata Shoyou, a first-year at Karasuno High School, and his journey as a volleyball player for the Karasuno Volleyball team. Karasuno, a once powerhouse school known for volleyball and the legend of “the Little Giant” has been dubbed as the “fallen crows” as in recent years they have failed to make it to the spring tournament or nationals. Through the series, we see the hardships and many internal struggles of the characters as they develop as players and reach for the top to become the best volleyball players they can be. Haikyuu!! Is based on the many personal philosophies of each individual character and how they perceive achieving greatness in the sport. Misconceptions abound and faulty beliefs sometimes cloud the judgment of the characters as they work to reach nationals and get first place. HQ is a comedy that can be just as heartwarming as it is heartbreaking as it has the ability to make its viewers start cheering for the other team with how well the characters are developed and characterized. We get to follow Hinata and the rest of the Haikyu!! Cast as we see them fail, succeed, and learn every step of the way.

Analysis:

Part I:

Throughout the series, up until the 4th season, there are recurring mentions of “geniuses” and “innate talent” when teams are describing their opponents. A prime example of this would be with Oikawa Tooru, the setter for a powerhouse school in Miyagi called Aoba Johsai. Oikawa struggles with trying to surpass his past underclassman Kageyama Tobio, who is currently the setter for the Karasuno VB team and is known for being a prodigy setter and “the king of the court” due to his tyrannical type authority on the court that got him into trouble at his past school. Oikawa is seen to struggle with a deep-rooted dislike and envy of Kageyama as in their middle school days Kageyama took hold of Oikawa’s position as the team’s first lineup setter. Oikawa’s ambitious and motivated disposition caused him to overwork himself as he strived for perfection to gain a foot ahead of the rising VB genius Kageyama; in the series, it is mentioned by Oikawa that he knows he might never be able to reach the skill level of “geniuses” like Kageyama and Ushijima (Wing-spiker of the Shiratorizawa VB team) but he still puts his all into everything he does so that he can try to reach a fraction of their abilities and get to nationals.

Oikawa’s character brings in a very interesting narrative to the series as from his experiences with volleyball, the audience can gather the essential purpose for Oikawa’s character. Oikawa is ordinary and he is no genius like his toughest rivals and he is aware of his shortcomings as a player and despite all the sweat, blood, and tears he puts into volleyball he may still not ever be able to overcome his most formidable foes.

It comes down to a belief that is held among many of the players that even if you put your all into volleyball there are still geniuses and prodigies that will always be able to outperform you no matter what you do because they were born with a talent that very few VB players have and hard work simply isn’t enough in the face of raw, innate talent. But at the end of the day, it is Oikawa’s rivals that have created the monstrous drive to achieve great heights and reach the top and the same can be said for many of the other characters of HQ.

Part II:

In the fourth season of HQ, the entire narrative that the series held up to this point was flipped on its head and another major character philosophy was introduced. During the nationals match of Karasuno v. Inarizaki, an important character is revealed. Kita Shinsuke is the captain of Inarizaki and while he may not particularly stand out amongst the rest of his team, he is an individual whose presence simply demands respect. Kita’s entire existence debunks the narrative of Haikyuu!! That has been based around Oikawa’s experiences with his “monster” rivals Ushijima and Kageyama. In chapter 286 Kita’s infamous monster speech takes place and the viewer’s understanding of HQ dramatically changed.

Kita describes that individuals like Miya Atsumu who are recognized for their immense talent push themselves harder than the average person, and how his hard work and dedication has lead him to his current abilities.

Kita clearly states how people aren’t necessarily talented right from the beginning and these individuals people deem as “monsters” and “geniuses” put so much time and effort into polishing their craft. He even considers it rude since it completely discredits all struggles these so-called “monsters” have put in honing their skills.

Kita’s speech about monsters and geniuses brings to add the perspective that the terms don’t even manage to graze the surface of what goes on behind the scenes of “talented” individuals. He believes that those who view certain goals as unattainable are simply falling victim to a self-fulfilling prophecy as those who give their all to reach their peak through hard work and diligence are the ones who get their efforts rewarded. This isn’t to say that hard work alone will always bring about the desired result but at least you don’t set yourself up for failure by predicting your failure before you’ve even tried. Nobody simply has everything, everyone must overcompensate for what they lack in by polishing the areas they are strongest.

Another concept that Kita brings into the series is his main philosophy on life: “I am built upon the small things I do every day, and the results are no more than a byproduct of that.” this important quote of his emphasizes the idea that the results are only based upon what has been done prior meaning it isn’t even the most important part in the process; if one works hard every day and gives it their all then there should be no doubt that they won’t perform their best.

#haikyuu!! #passionproject #kita shinsuke #inarizaki #oikawa tōru #anime analysis #manga analysis

[eloquentgifs]

DWJ Reading Project. Part I

As I said here, my 2021 resolution is gonna be READING EVERY DIANA WYNNE JONES BOOK I CAN FIND, and due to my love of making lists and taking notes, I’ve decided keeping track of this reading project here in this post, which I’ll keep updated as I make progress. It’s mostly for my own pleasure, but maybe it helps someone who wants to give it a try to this amazing writer and doesn’t know where to start.

Part II (1977 – 1981 & The Chrestomanci Series)

Part III (1984 - 1992 & Land of Ingary Series)

- Changeover (1970) I couldn’t find it, which it’s a pity because not only it’s her first novel, but it’s one of the few she wrote for adult readers. For what I’ve seen, it’s a political comedy about colonialism in Africa.

- Witch’s Business (also called Wilkin’s Tooth, 1973) It tells the story of two siblings who start a revenge/dirty work business to make some cash and ended up caught in a crazy plot of debts, witchcraft, old grudges, painting modelling and treasure hunting. I love how even this early in her career you can already find some of her creative trademarks, altought it’s not as polished as her future novels. Still, the characters and the dynamics between them are pretty good, the way everything unfolds is flawless, and it is a fun read in general.

- The Ogre Downstairs (1974) Three kids are dealing with the fact that her mother married a guy who’s rather grumpy and terryfing (the titular ogre), and that now the household includes him and his two sons. The story begins with the Ogre buying a chemistry set to each group of siblings, and they turn out to be magical, so a lot of crazy shit happens and they start to get along with each other as they have to colaborate to clean a mess after another before the ogre finds out. I must confess I didn’t enjoy that much the first half because everyone was being an asshole, but it improves as the characters own their shit and decide to be better. Magic here it’s merely an excuse, Diana just wanted us to learn empathy and how to build a good coexistence.

- Eight Days of Luke (1975) David is depressed because he’ll have to stay with his abussive relatives during the summer, but then he mets this weird kid with powers called Luke and they become bff’s. Unfortunately, Luke is also in bad terms with his own relatives and David will have to help him to hide from them. I’d say you’ll enjoy more this book if you have some basic knowledge on Norse Mythology, but tbh I think reading it without any clue about the subject might be interesting in its own way, because you’ll discover the stuff as David does. Great read anyway.

- Dogsbody (1975) This one it’s like two different premises mixed up together. First, we have this society formed by sentient stars and planets, in which Sirius was a very important figure until he’s judged and punished for murder, and we follow him while he tries to get free (and maybe prove his innocence?). On the other hand, I think Diana just wanted to write a dog POV. In any case, both ideas where combined perfectly, and the result it’s crazy good. Some trigger warnings tho: there are several depictions of animal abuse, and once again tons of emotional cruelty towards chidren (the main human character is an Irish girl being harrased and bullied by her own family because of her nationality and for having a father on the IRA)

- The Dalemark Quartet: · Cart and Cwidder (1975) It kind of reminded me of the first half of The Name of the Wind, probably because the main character is also a red haired kid who travels with his family all around the world performing with his lute (I figured a cwidder is some kind of lute?), and there’s also tragedy, politics, old foreshadowing songs and legends... But mostly because I JUST COULDN’T STOP READING, and I can’t wait to read the rest of the series.

· Drowned Ammet (1977) I thought the two previous books were rather darker than I’m used to see in Diana’s work, but this is a whole new level. It follows the evolution of Mitt from a sweet farm kid to a teen terrorist, so prepare for a main character full of hate, resentment and, eventually, self-loathing and a beginning of redemption. We also get to see his dynamic with two high born children, and it is super interesting how the prejudice and ignorance keep getting in their way so they can’t become 100% friends (as a contrast with those stories of rich and poor being bff’s without a single sign of how very different their POV of the world is, just by their different upbringings). I love friendships and found families as much as anyone else, but it is refreshing to see some realistic struggles and people caring for others even if they don’t get along perfectly

· The Spellcoats (1979) This one was very surprising, and I think it might require a re-read some time. The first odd thing about it is that it’s settled centuries before the previous books, in prehistoric Dalemark. Then the actual wtf comes from the structure itself: it’s a first person story, weaved into two wool coats (seriously, this concept is genius and so is the ending). The weaver is a girl who has to runaway from her village with his brothers and sister because they look like the people who’s invading their land, so their fellow villagers want them dead. There’s not a lot of action, but tons of little details and magic and family dynamics brilliantly written and I LOVE IT.

· The Crown of Dalemark (1993) This last book of the series brings back almost all of the characters of the previous ones, plus a time traveller from modern Dalemark, and concludes both the political/social aspect of the story and the more fantasy, mythical one. I love time travel stories so this really was my treat, because not only serves a plot purpose, it’s also used to let us know what happened with the characters of past Dalemark (although through the lense of historians, which is not as much as I would like to)

- Power of three (1976) At this point it’s clear Diana just loved to play with POVs and make us question every side of a story. I’d say this was the main theme of this book. It is present in the main character arch, who has to reconcile how he sees himself (as some average pointless dude) with how he’s perceived by others (everyone fucking loves him and consider him super wise and awesome). And it’s also the main conflict of the plot: the three races/species who live in The Moor HATE each other and constantly kill each other as animals but.... Well, it remind me to this episode of Star Trek. I love it when a story is used to show us how actually ridiculous some prejudices and bigotries are. I love it when they do it in ST, and certainly love it when Diana does it. Just let kids read and watch these things all of the time, please.

#Diana Wynne Jones #Reading EVERYTHING #2021 Resolution #DWJ Reading Project #THIS IS GONNA BE A REALLY LONG POST #Changeover #Witch's Business #Wilkin's Tooth #The Ogre Downstairs #Eight Days of Luke #Dogsbody #Dalemark #Cart and Cwidder #Drowned Ammet #The Spellcoats #The Crown of Dalemark #Power of three #CHRESTOMANCI IS NEXT

[undefined5posts]

Credit: Jordan J. Lloyd

I've been trying to dive deeper into politics, discover the genuine roots of our society, the origins of our beliefs, and the consequences of our economic system. It's a big, long, wide journey and through multiple sources such as articles, images, videos and multiple social media platforms, I've been trying to educate myself more on important subjects.

Communism, capitalism, libertarian, conservative, the left, the right, the history, the impact. It is scary to commit to everything because once you start, you simply cannot stop, once you start waking up your conscience about the horrible reality, the lies, the truths, you cannot put it back to sleep. You can't just ignore prejudice, especially when you're extremely conscious of it's omnipresence. I have continually tried to build my own opinions all while actively creating bullet point arguments in my mind because I just know that at some point I will have to defend my thinking, and I want to do it right.

Now, I am so far from being enlightened, I am a beginner and an amateur in all of those themes, but I am trying, which is the only way to start and grow.

So to tell you about my beliefs, I am a militant human rights activist, I believe in equal opportunities regardless of gender identity, sex, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, race and disability. This is a fact, not a belief, but the system was obviously not built to protect all people, its wasn't created to serve everyone equally but to grant a privilege to some and harm others. The current state of the world is not a slip, an accident or a misfunction of our brilliant system but a testament of it operating remarkably well. I believe that equity leads to equality, and I believe that we cannot "fix" methodologies that were immorally created with absolutely no honor whatsoever. I believe in reproductive rights, in legal, safe abortions for anybody who needs one. I believe in the decriminalization of marijuana. I believe that the death penalty is a despicable punition that should be banned as soon as possible. I believe in defunding the police and the military. I believe that it is a shame that I even have to talk about police brutality, I don't want to have to say that it is one of the most horrible things our world has originated, I feel extremely dense when I do because it seems like the most obvious certitude and I refuse to believe that this is a controversial statement. I believe that everything I have just stated, along with many more, isn't anything grand but the bare minimum, the bar is low, and yet, we still have the fight for basic human decency.

Humanity has become an option. We have normalized supporting people that represent everything wrong in this world under the name of tolerance. The left has never claimed to be tolerant towards hateful beings, We have never accepted homophobia, transphobia, racism, ableism and sexism. We cannot, for exemple, accept nazis, as too much tolerance inevitably leads to intolerance. This picture explains it perfectly:

I consider myself a communist/ socialist. The two terms still confuse me a little, some say they are the same, some say they differ quite a bit. What I know is that socialism is the transitional period between capitalism and communism. At the end of the day, the final result and goal is a stateless, moneyless and clasless society that will provide to each his need.

Our capitalistic society has brainwashed us way more than you may think. It is the root of so many of our issues, the underground demon of our problems. Every idea, thought, belief, and misconception of ours were all affected by our current economic system. It has sold us the billionnaire dream which is one of the most toxic things capitalism has offered. We have looked up to billionaires for way too long, why are they so idolized? Most of them come from high upper class families that can easily afford to invest in their inventions and creations. After starting up their companies and occasionnaly stealing other's people ideas to ultimately get undeserved merit, they then can start to properly exploit their hardworking employees's labour. And for unlimited hours and a minimum wage which probably won't even suffice you to survive, you will have to either pick up more shifts or a second or even third job, especially if you have a family to support. All while the CEO barely does any of the work and gets all the praise and money. So no, they don't all come from really poor families and have built everything for nothing.

The worst thing is that we've been so gaslit and brainwashed that we're proud of our own exploitation, we are wired to think that to be successful we have to suffer, work 10 jobs we all hate, constantly pick up extra hours, have 2 hours of sleep, have no free time to do anything we love, waste our entire youth, be depressed our entire adulthood, to finally have a few pennies to spend when we're eighty. We so strongly believe that this is the only right way to be successful that I don't think many of us have dared to question it's authority, and even if we do, we quickly accept that this a truth, a fact we cannot change and this is just the way things are.

We have capitalized water, food, land, forests, oceans, space, and everything in betweeen. Money is social construct and we have deliberately let it take over our lives. To think about the wasted opportunities and the misery that we have to endure so others can enjoy life truly angers me.

Also, communism is not an ideology that has every actually taken place. Despite what they say, there was never actually a communist country. However, every nation that has attempted a socialist system, for exemple Burkina Faso, has thrived. But of course, once capitalist countries noticed that, they decided to murder it's leader. So in conclusion, the only reason socialism failed is because of capitalism and it's interventions.

"As President (1983-1987), Sankara initiated economic reforms that shifted his country away from dependence on foreign aid and reduced the privileges of government officials; he cut salaries, including his own, decreed that there would be no more flying in first class or driving Mercedes as standard issue vehicles for Ministers and other government workers. He led a modest lifestyle and did not personally amass material wealth. President Sankara encouraged self-sufficiency, including the use of local resources to build clinics, schools and other needed infrastructure. [...] President Sankara promoted land reform, childhood vaccination, tree planting, communal school building, and nation-wide literacy campaigns. He was committed to gender equity and women’s rights and was the first African leader to publicly recognize the AIDS pandemic as a threat to African countries. Although Sankara became somewhat more authoritarian during his Presidency, his ideas, and the possibility that they could spread, were viewed by many as posing the greatest threat. President Sankara was assassinated during a coup led by a French-backed politician, Blaise Compaoré, in October 1987. Compaoré served as the President of Burkina Faso from October 1987 through October 2014, when he himself was overthrown."

Via:https://africandevelopmentsuccesses.wordpress.com/2015/02/28/success-story-from-burkina-faso-thomas-sankaras-legacy/

I have been reading and watching some amazing human rights activists, notably Angela Davis, Malcolm X and James Baldwin. The people that were villainized, labeled as violent and radical, when every single word that came out of their mouhs were pure facts. They are probably some of the most eloquent people I have had the pleasure of hearing. Every sentence, every argument, every single detail made so much sense and opened my mind to so many new realizations. This is the perfect exemple of how the media tarnishes the reputation of wise black women and men. I would strongly advise you to research more about them.

"Socialism & communism are demonized in the west to the point of erasing influential individuals' socialist advocacy. Heres a short list of people you may not have known were socialists/ communists:

MLK

Albert Einstein

Nelson Mandela

Frida Kahlo

Tupac Shakur

Mark Twain

Malcom X

Oscar Wilde

Bertrand Russell

Hellen Keller

Pablo Picasso

George Orwell

Shia LaBeouf

John Lennon

Woody Guthrie

Socialism & communism are not dirty words. Some of the most brilliant minds of our history were socialists and communists. Embrace it." Via @sleepisocialist on twitter

So what else can I say, capitalism has ruined our society and the way we act and think. I know a lot of people refuse to support communism because they think it's too much of a perfect ideal utopian world for it to ever actually exist. And to that I say, first of all, so you agree, it is a wonderful theory, and second of all, a world without racism, sexism, homophobia or any kind or discrimination could also be perceived as "too ideal to actually exist", but does that mean I'm giving up on talking, educating myself and others, protesting and trying to build a better future? Absolutely not. This is the objective, it would be so dumb to think that we just couldn't achieve that so let's not even try.

I want to talk more in detail about communism, theory, human rights, etc... but I don't want to make this post any longer. I will however be posting more about it soon enough.

I know this is a little different than what I usually post, but I want to speak, tell you all my own opinions, I don't want to just repost activism related stuff. I'll continue to do that, but not exclusively. I know it won't get as many interactions as my other posts, but this is what I needed at some point in my life, and if I could make understanding some basic informations easier to some people, it'll already be a great accomplishment.

Thank you for reading.

#malcolm x #angela davis #martin luther jr #martin luther king #james baldwin #internalized racism #racism #discrimination #black lives matter #blm protests #fuck the police #defund the police #defund the military #activism #activist #abortion is a human right #human rights #oppression #prejudice #communism #lgbtq community #lgbt rights #karl marx #communist #socialism #socialist #politics #change the system #fuck the system #operating system

[alatismeni-theitsa]

(1/?) Ok, two things I need to clarify. FIRST. Apparently the KAOS series is intended to be released on 2022, but I suspect that the project is on hiatus; for a moment I thought BoZ was the rebranded KAOS, but there are two different projects.

(2/?) and SECOND, with regards to the white/whiteness thing, look, I understand that the majority of Greeks are "light-skinned" (sorry if I don't use the word white) but (And correct me if I misunderstood one of your positions) greeks don't call themselves "white" sure, maybe skin color was a component and maybe a marker of beauty standard, but not in the way America tries to frame it, I think greeks see more the ethnicity over the skin color especially when you had clashes with other people who are considered "white" like the Slavs, the german kingdoms some Turkic tribes, etc.

So, and I think we're more on a semantics issue, but from what I studied, greeks are considered white rn because of the racial modern classification, but in the 1700 and completely oblivious of the colonial imperialism of western Europe, greeks thought "white" as a gender-marker or class status. That's why I'm more prone to call someone "light-skinned / brown-skinned" than "white or black" because those labels are completely arbitrary

(And hey, even the terms light/dark-skinned I feel that are arbitrary in some way, but it encompesates a more nuanced approach rather than a 1:1 scale classification) and we think it's for the better to get rid of them, although this is more a long-term objective rather than an immediate social change, and hope we can look for an alternative to address the unique ethnic-relations across the world.

_____________________ end of ask ____________________________

Hey! Thanks for the ask! So, to get to the point:

Greeks call themselves white.

They called themselves white before Americans decided to de-segregate them, so before the 1940s. And it's because of their skin color, so it had little to do with how the Americans thought of it at the time or today. Their clashes with other white people didn't change their social politics or make their skin darker so the "white" characterization remained. Ethnicity is perceived indeed differently from how someone looks and it's important and that's where the wars come into play.

Still, the prejudice against other nations doesn't erase the "White" and "Black" aspects in Greek society. There is no inherent problem with calling people "White" or "Black" because on this side of the world it was always about exterior description, not status. It's like calling people "brown-eyed" and "blue-eyed". It's harmless. The terms are what we make them be.

The Greek-Nigerian Antetokoumpo describes himself as Black and once he said "... in a country of Whites" when referring to Greece. I mean, with their skin color, of course, Greeks are White to him. What else would they be? And how do you imagine Black people would describe Greeks eight centuries ago? Of course, people took note of stark skin differences. It is a Human thing, not an American thing.

In the US some light-skinned Greeks feel hesitant to call themselves White but that's only because of culture, not skin tone. They see they have similar cultures with people who have similar skin and characteristics to them and are socially called "Brown", so they might identify as "Brown", too. But most Greeks consider this move as a disservice to "Brown" people in the US because "Brown" denotes another social category there, and also most people who use "Brown" have faced bigotry for their skintone, while these Greeks have not. There are some light-skinned Greeks who use darker emojis just to show they are "Brown" culturally, and then you see that in their pfp they look much lighter. So, most Greeks don't approve of this move.

But maybe this last point is another discussion altogether and probably with other Greeks from the US involved, so let's leave it for another time xD

People outside the Americas called themselves "white".

The term wasn't invented in the Americas or was exclusive to it. And we never used "white" as people did/do in the US. Whoever had light skin and looked "Caucasian" and relatively light-skinned was White. And even today outer appearance, a.k.a. light skin, is the reason we call anyone White. No need to interject US social issues here.

Older works from the Middle East, (1000 Nights comes as the primary example), make the distinction between the natives and Black people. Romani people have their own old word for "White person", aka the average Greek in our case. Greeks also have an older word for Black people which is not at all appropriate today and it's a slur, but it basically categorized Black people as "Arabs" or "Arab-like". (Because the Black people the Greeks were almost exclusively exposed to in the 18th century were Arabs or at least close to Arab tribes). Of course, there is/was also the Greek word "μελαμψός" that could also be used for Black people and it's appropriate, to my knowledge. But it can describe a dark Greek person or a dark South Asian, too.

In the 1700's we were not at all oblivious to Western Europe and colonialism.

The Greek people were subjects of a great gunpowder empire, the Ottoman one, and we had communication and strong Greek communities in various countries. It's true that the diversity in Greece was very little at the time but Greeks were not oblivious to Black people. There could be the rare occasion where they saw such a person coming to the country as a foreign official, a mercenary from a faraway land, an immigrant, a pirate, a slave-trader, etc.

"White" was a gender marker in ancient iconography, not the modern one. In the 1700s being lighter could signify that you are rich and was desirable but poor people were also called "white" so it was definitely not a class status. Just a beauty standard.

Back then the need for the Greeks to describe themselves as "White" or just make a distinction between them and a much darker person (especially a Black person) was rare, so much so that we don't even have to note it in our modern history. It was because Greeks usually met people of the neighboring nations and they all looked similar.

"White" or "Black" are not exactly arbitrary terms, because they are self-identifications of people and because in our days, skin color still matters.

Surely, "light" and "dark" are relevant to where you are in the world, but a native Greek and a native Nigerian will most likely use "White" and "Black" as descriptions of appearance, if needed, because the difference in the skin tone is big and obvious. Plus, bigotry based on skin color still exists so we can't omit this aspect of our lives. So, in the different societies, it's not how you want to call people but how they want to be called.

For example, some Greeks prefer "Black" and others "Afro-Greek" (because Black can also sound dehumanizing in our society) but if you say "Today I met many brown-skinned people from my school" that's awkward at best. There is a reason I feel uncomfortable with describing people as "Brown" or "Brown-skinned" because it comes off as derogatory in my language. But at the same time, I respect the self-identification of people who categorize themselves with US terms and use it.

So, to achieve this nuanced approach you want, I think a general rule of thumb is to ask how they call a certain group of people in a foreign land you are visiting or staying and learn the appropriate terms for this nation.

#answered #race in greece

[whattheheehaw]

I’m not good at explaining my thoughts, but can you debunked the whole Jet and Zuko are bad boys claims? People always say this to keep others from shipping jetara and/or zutara or when they want to trash talk Zuko and Jet characters.

Thanks for the ask and I’m sorry it’s taken me a while to answer it! To be completely honest, I’m not great at articulating my thoughts too 😅. However, I’ll try to answer this question as best as I can (given it’s 1am and I get rambly at this hour).

Before we get into the Jet/Zuko discussion, we need to define what a “bad boy” is, because there’s many different interpretations of the term. For this ask, I’ll be using the definition of the bad boy archetype from this site:

The Bad Boy is someone who hides. Something has happened to them in the past or currently is affecting them and they deal with it by putting up an armor around themselves. This armor protects them for those around them who might be able to see who the real them is. The Bad Boy wants to hide away but he must open up to reveal himself... the Bad Boy doesn’t purposely hurt people to make them feel his pain. He rebels instead of living the life he once did. But unlike the Rebel, he doesn’t truly have a cause for his rebellion. He wants to be heard through his rough exterior without being seen.

So I’m going to start off with Zuko, because I’m much more comfortable talking about his character. And this is primarily because Zuko was one of the main characters of the show and didn’t die at the tail end of season 2.

Honestly, I can never understand how Zuko is perceived as a “bad boy” by so many people. I mean, the only time when I can agree that Zuko’s character could somewhat be interpreted as a “bad boy” is during the first half of season 3. Yes, you read that correctly. Season 1 Ponytail Zuko was not a bad boy; he was a homesick, abused 13 year old child trapped in the body of an angsty 16 year old. Season 1 Zuko might have been angsty and broody, but have you ever met a teenage boy? He never even really rebelled. I mean, sure, he did some things that Iroh frowned upon but in Zuko’s mind, he’s still a prince of his nation—banished or not—and he still holds himself to the standards of a prince. The only time that I think he truly rebels is by becoming the Blue Spirit, but even then, he had a cause for donning that mask.

The only episode that I think shows Zuko in a “bad boy” light is the 5th episode of season 3, The Beach. This is when his angst and broodiness reached an all-time high, and he constantly lashed out at Mai, Ty Lee, and Azula for no reason. The episode eventually culminated in a confrontation reminiscent of The Breakfast Club, Zuko’s honesty with himself, and a dramatic “I’m angry at myself!” line, which are all hallmarks of a bad boy character arc. However, this is just one episode out of 61 and solely focusing on one episode to analyze this guy’s character is an insult to Zuko’s redemption arc that spanned the entirety of 3 seasons.

Another reason why Zuko isn’t a bad boy is that he doesn’t do bad things to get attention. Nothing that he does is a plea for help. The “bad” things that he does aren’t bad in his mind. Capturing the Avatar is just something that he needs to do in order to get his father to love him and welcome him back home. If anything, Zuko is just a misguided person with messed up morals that were instilled in him from a very young age. Zuko has a purpose for everything that he does, and usually this purpose is his sense of righteous anger. Both times Zuko confronted Ozai and rebelled against him, Zuko knew that what his father was doing was wrong. Zuko rebelled against those Earth Kingdom soldiers in Zuko Alone because he felt like he needed to stand-up for Lee and his family. And Zuko didn’t pick a fight with Zhao just because he felt like it. He fought Zhao because that guy had personally insulted Zuko, a prince, and his honor. And Zuko could have burned Zhao at the end of that fight, but he didn’t. He already proved himself to Zhao. Zuko has compassion, and shows it to people that don’t deserve it (e.g. in the Siege of the North, Zuko tried saving Zhao from the Ocean Spirit).

And the most important reason why Zuko isn’t a bad boy is because of his redemption arc. By the end of the show, he’s developed many strong friendships and makes an effort to be open and socialize with others. He’s not afraid to share his thoughts and emotions with others. He trusts people. He’s less broody and smiles more often. He acknowledges that he’s done bad things in the past and asks for forgiveness and makes amends. Are these qualities of a bad boy? I think not.

As for Jet, I think he fits the description of a bad boy pretty well. He’s aloof, hot, and angsty. He’s quite dangerous with a pair of hook swords in his hands. He smokes cigarettes He chews on a piece of wheat to be “edgy”. He’s done questionable things like drown a village full of innocent people. He deceives people to get what he wants. He has all of the traits of any popular male protagonist from a published Wattpad “novel”.

However, I don’t consider Jet a “bad boy” because he has a specific cause for his rebellion. Most bad boys participate in petty crimes like shoplifting or vandalism just because they can. Jet? Jet rebels against the Fire Nation because he’s witnessed their destruction first-hand. He lost his parents from an attack by the Rough Rhinos, and he saw his village burn to ashes right in front of him. He actively tries to destroy a system that he thinks can only inflict pain on others. And what does he do with the people (mostly young children) that have lost their homes because of Fire Nation attacks? He takes them in and acts as a surrogate-father-of-sorts. He forms a community with these people, bonds with them, shares meals together, and secures supplies for them. He’s in charge of their well-being and makes sure that everyone is ok. And these people look up to him as a leader and a central part of their family. So Jet? A bad boy? I don’t think so.

Calling Zuko and Jet “bad boys” are terrible misrepresentations of their characters, and if you think they fall under the bad boy archetype, I would suggest a deeper look into their respective character arcs.

As a final note, I’d like to address the shipping aspect of this ask. After being in this fandom for about 3 years, I’ve seen my fair share of Zutara and Jetara fics that have played off of this bad boy/good girl dynamic. And to be completely honest, I don’t think there’s an inherent problem with liking a dynamic like that. I mean, it’s not an accurate portrayal of the characters, but I won’t discourage people from shipping something or creating fan content because they like a certain trope.

#ask #i attempted to answer something #sorry for the giant wall of text #hope this helps! #zuko #jet #atla #drunktextin #again i'm sorry if this is one incoherent babble #i'm very sleep deprived lmao

[formashimataichi]

I was talking about this with a mutual, and I kind of wanted to clarify more expansively on a stance I took a few weeks ago about why it frustrates me that people perceive the message of Taichi’s arc to be that some people are ultimately just doomed to mediocrity or failure. At the most basic level, I think it’s unnecessarily imposing a lot of expectations upon a child barely out of high school, but even beyond that, I feel like adopting such a mindset spits (for lack of a better word) on the achievements made by a lot of other characters in the sport and in the narrative. Like, Harada and Sakurazawa are two people who are well into adulthood, and they never made it to Meijin or Queen either. They got incredibly close on multiple occasions, but ultimately their opponents were stronger in some way, shape, or form. And of course, there is a despair that’s tied to that, and we’re privy to moments of frustration and sadness from both of them over those losses, but I’d like to ask, would you categorize either of them as failures? They’ve accomplished so much in their time otherwise. They’re incredibly revered veterans in the sport—Sakurazawa to the point that people have even named or intend to name their children after her—and have fostered a generation of strong, formidable students who are presently at the top of the sport. Each of them has such a vast knowledge of karuta, from different styles of play to how to maintain endurance and stamina, and that vests them with so much authority and respect from the students whom they pass it on to. And I’m not saying this to mean that they should resign themselves to only teaching and forego all dreams of winning the titles, especially considering we saw Harada vie for the title in real time despite his age and knee problems, but I don’t think it should mean any less that they didn’t win nor should it mark them as interminable failures. The fact that they have continued to compete and make it so consistently high in the sport for so long is absolutely incredible. We see that Haruka is already worried about how aging and the side effects of her pregnancies on her body is going to affect her as a player, and she’s not even as old as Harada, who has continued playing the game in earnest into his fifties. This also doesn’t touch on the dozens of other characters who are also ultimately competing for the title, like Sudou, Rion, etc. 

To bring this back to Taichi, though, I guess my point is that I find it very hard to understand why people seem so insistent upon believing that his story is about failure when in many ways his story has only just begun. Earlier, when I was placing my cards, for the first time in my life, I thought of them as dear. My friends. The goal to bet my youth on. The time we spent together. I thought of karuta that gave me all that as dear. I understand giving up on a sport if it makes you entirely miserable; that’s why Taichi had to leave the club and reorient himself to begin with. But doesn’t it seem a bit unrealistic to anyone that Suetsugu would showcase him having genuinely enjoyed playing for the first time, only to have him subsequently quit for good? Not to mention, Taichi’s progression to me as a karuta athlete is honestly incredibly frightening; he hasn’t put nearly as much time into the sport as Chihaya and Arata and yet he manages to almost completely catch up to them, all while hating the sport itself. Most people here think you’re just a kid who rode a wave of momentum to get here. But the members of our society know that you don’t have much momentum or luck. What you have is skill. It frustrates me a lot when people try to attach “failure” to Taichi’s person because the level of his achievements hardly matches up to that title. He’s an incredible force within the sport and almost manages to bridge that gap with Arata in just three years. And I realize the progression of chapters following the Qualifiers can be confusing, because it really does look like Taichi is giving up despite all of that. But I feel like you have to consider the fact that the Qualifiers was a huge event for him in terms of enlightenment and perspective—he’s a high school student about to graduate, and all of these new revelations about himself are on the table, so I don’t think it’s unrealistic that deciding what he ultimately wants to do is going to take some time and thought. There’s also very clearly a reason that Suetsugu is keeping him away from the matches physically, because imagine how overwhelmed he would feel were he to witness those matches for himself and realize that this is something he doesn’t want to let go of just yet. (I’m not sure if it’s intentional, but it reminds me a bit of Arata entering Oumi Jingu during the first year Nationals. We know how crucial physically entering the hall and seeing the matches for himself was in terms of securing his return to the sport.) The wait is agonizing, certainly, but that’s what comes with the experience of reading a monthly manga where every recent chapter has hardly covered a few minutes’ time, because nearly every minute is precious. 

To wrap this up, though, I just hope people can wait until the end of the story to criticize where Suetsugu has taken his arc rather than try to diminish its worth before it’s even reached an important conclusion. And I hope people realize how unhealthy it is to believe that your failures in high school will define you or doom you for the rest of your life, not just in terms of Taichi specifically but also in terms of what it’s saying about how you perceive the other characters. At the end of the day, I think it’s very clear that the message of the story and specifically the sport is that you have to enjoy it for yourself and believe in the people around you to want to keep playing—that’s something that ultimately almost every older character feels regardless of their wins and losses, and I think it’s a very valuable mindset to embody with regards to any sport. 

#mashima taichi #chihayafuru #*meta #this is so long i apologize i am just feeling a Lot #also please do not take this as me saying you're not allowed to be frustrated! #that's absolutely not what i'm saying #i just. hope people could have a little more faith in suetsugu #it feels unfair to assume that she doesn't care about him or that she's forgotten about him #and i honestly feel like his conversation with chitose is very impt #and foreshadowing of what he'll finally decide #but yeah anyway i hope this makes it clearer for anyone #who was confused by stuff i had said prior

[characterclasses]

Classing Avatar: The Last Airbender

Long ago, all four nations lived together in harmony. Then, everything changed when the Fire Nation attacked. Roll for initiative! 

Avatar: TLA is a world populated with rich, developed characters. So much so, in fact, that I’ve actually decided to class ten characters from the series. So flameo hotman, this is going to be a long one!

1. Aang

Let’s start with an easy one. Aang is so obviously a Way of the Four Elements Monk that it hurts. The kid grew up in a monastery, calls himself a monk numerous times, and the whole plot of the show revolves around him learning how to master the four elements. In fact, given how ubiquitous bending is in the show, it’s amazing that more characters aren’t monks as well. 

2. Sokka

Well, not Sokka, the meat-and-sarcasm guy. Sokka may not be a bender, but that’s never stopped him from stepping up and trying his best to protect what he loves, whether that be by defending his village from a Fire Nation raid with just a boomerang, or leading entire armies into battles that he strategized. Sokka might look like the token normal guy, but he’s a versatile and powerful warrior, which is why I’ve classed him as a fighter. Sokka isn’t just brawn though, he’s brains too. The guy is very intelligent (though somewhat low in wisdom, at least at first), and thirsts for new knowledge and scientific discoveries. Sokka is a Battle Master, someone who is learned not just in ancient battle arts, but academic fields as well, sometimes even obtaining artisan knowledge. Seems pretty fitting for the guy who helped invent the hot air balloon, no?

3. Katara

Katara may be a bender, but she’s not exactly a monk. Katara is a pretty spiritual person, especially after directly coming into contact with Tui and La (and Yue) in the first season. She’s also a powerful and dangerous combatant to go up against. This, along with the fact that she’s the healer of the Gaang, is why I classed Katara a cleric. Her mastery over waterbending makes her a Tempest cleric, as she reveres spirits of the sea and sky. Katara, even more than characters like Aang or Azula, is able to best embody the ferocity of a storm.

4. Azula

Speaking of Azula, this tragic, fourteen-year-old sociopath is an interesting character to class. Azula has power, and a lot of it. As a firebending prodigy, Azula’s devastating power comes naturally to her, which is why she can be best classed as a sorcerer. Her royal Fire Nation lineage makes Azula a shoo-in for the Draconic Bloodline background, too, which adds an extra layer of irony to the whole thing when you consider exactly what it was that her family did to the dragons, who they perceived as threats to their bending supremacy.   

5. Zuko

Of course, Azula isn’t the only heir to the Fire Nation, which is where her older brother Zuko comes in. Zuko is the perfect example of a redemption arc done right, so it’s no surprise that his character needs a bit more of a complicated classing to match his nuanced characterization. Like his sister, Zuko started out as a Draconic Bloodline sorcerer (in fact, it’s heavily implied that he wouldn’t have lived if he hadn't been one). But Zuko doesn’t have the innate raw power that Azula does, and to his father’s great disappointment, didn’t seem to level up nearly as quickly. After his exile, Zuko found himself with both the time and the necessity to hone his other great skill - his swords. It was at this point that Zuko began multiclassing into a rogue, specifically a Swashbuckler. This usually bombastic class may seem like an odd choice for the awkward, angry prince, but Zuko’s talents with his twin swords and his flair for the dramatic (think of the Blue Spirit persona!) actually makes Swashbuckler a pretty good fit. After his defeat at the North Pole necessitated going into hiding, Zuko began relying less and less on his firebending and more on his rogue skills to get by. It isn’t really until the middle of the third season, when he and Aang meet and learn from the dragons, that Zuko finally starts taking levels in sorcerer once again, and he grows into a bender who is more than capable of matching up with his sister. 

6. Mai

It’s no surprise that taciturn, deadly Mai is also a rogue, though not the kind that you might think. Mai is not, contrary to Azula’s beliefs, the perfect Assassin. Mai might be great with her throwing knives, but she also excels in blending quietly into the background, gaining all the information she needs until it’s time to strike, whether that be with her blades or with a well-placed word. She’s also not above seeing which way the wind is blowing and switching sides to protect herself and the people she cares about. Mai is a Mastermind to be sure, and while she’s a great ally to have, this makes her an even more formidable enemy to face. 

7. Ty Lee

Ty Lee however, is surprisingly not a rogue. This bubbly, acrobatic Fire Nation girl is a sneaky, underestimated fighter, but she’s also a childhood friend of a princess that an away to join a circus, of all things. Ty Lee’s style of combat is rooted in performance, and her performance is her combat, which is why I’ve classed her as a College of Swords Bard. College of Swords works well for Ty Lee precisely because she isn’t a bender and doesn’t use magic to achieve her results. Despite not actually using swords, Ty Lee certainly meets the criteria in terms of being a born entertainer who achieves her results both on stage and in the battlefield through daring feats of prowess and skill. 

8. Suki 

Ty Lee may have ended the series as a Kyoshi Warrior, but Suki was born one, and it shows. Everything Suki does is to protect her people and uphold the ideals of Avatar Kyoshi. This devotion to Kyoshi, both the island and the historical, near-mythic figure, makes Suki an excellent paladin. With her Oath of Devotion, Suki is determined to uphold the ideals of law, justice, and order that the history and culture of her people represent, and spirits help anyone who stands in her way. 

9. Toph

So Toph is a tough character to class, which I’m sure is something that would delight her to no end. At the end of the day though, Toph’s gleeful chaotic nature and unconventional bending make her a very unusual warlock. Like all benders, Toph’s power may be innate, but the Blind Bandit took a very unusual route to hone her skills. Toph learned bending directly from the badgermoles, the first earthbender in millennia to do so. The badgermoles gifted Toph not just with bending mastery, but with a form of “sight” with which she could independently navigate the world around her, and in this way act as her patrons. As creatures of legend that hold secrets long forgotten by mankind, the badgermoles act as a sort of benevolent Archfey equivalent, making Toph a very powerful warlock indeed.   

10. Iroh 

If Aang and his friends are the prototypical young protagonists out to save the world, then Iroh is the beloved archetype of the war-weary old adventurer who still has some tricks up his sleeves. Like Aang, Iroh is a monk, albeit a very different kind. While Iroh has a ton of raw power, he prefers to be subtle, letting enemies and allies alike underestimate him until it’s time to act. Even when he does strike, his foes don’t quite seem to grasp the full implication of what’s happening. Carefully choosing his actions like movements on a Pai Sho board, Iroh is a true White Lotus, a perfect example of The Way of the Drunken Master. He uses his facade of a tea-obsessed, doddering old man to feign incompetence and play the part of the fool in order to achieve his true goals, whether that be directing his young nephew towards the right path in life, or secretly working to bring balance back to the world. 

#dnd #avatar the last airbender #atla #aang #sokka #katara #toph #zuko #iroh #azula #mai #ty lee #suki #dnd classes #DnD 5e