#you know how white people will never fully understand what racism is like and therefore will always make mistakes

[batsarebetterthanpeople]

Because I’m seeing on my twitter some people talking about Izzy Hands wrong I’m just going to make my post about it. I have never made a post that is specifically on the race issue surrounding this particular character, just because I feel that there are black and indigenous people on this website and others saying it better than I can, but I feel like white people are getting a little defensive, so I’m going to make my take clear. I don’t know whether Izzy the character is racist or not. The jury is still out for me. He does work professionally with a lot of people of color (Spanish Jackie, Fang, Ivan, and Ed to be specific) and the indigenous tribe from episode 2 seem comfortable trading with him. However there are some scenes that objectively don’t look good for him. Those scenes being the ones in episode 9 where he’s in charge and he forces the three black members of Stede’s crew to do the most labor intensive task and the fact that he chose Black Pete (Stede’s crew, less qualified, white) over Fang or Ivan (Ed’s crew and therefore “real pirates”, more qualified, Samoan and Black respectively) for the position of first mate. And then of course there's his whole thing with needing Ed to be violent. There could be exonerating context to all of this (apparently there’s a deleted scene where Black Pete fucked his way to the top, which is a king move) But I’m squinting.

All of that being said, whether Izzy’s racist or not isn’t actually what I’m here to talk about, it’s just context I need to make this statement. Just because I’m not fully sold on Izzy being racist doesn’t mean that I don’t see where people are coming from with that take. You will never in a million years catch me dead telling a black or brown person that they’re crazy for reading race into a scene where a white man forces three black men to do physically intensive manual labor while another white guy (who is established to be bigger and stronger than those men) sits behind them doing a much easier task. You will never catch me dead telling a brown person that they’re taking it too seriously when they see a man who looks like Con O’neill telling a man who looks like Taika Waititi that he can never be anything more than a violent savage pirate and questioning his sanity. I understand the impulse to get defensive when accusations of racism are thrown out because you associate the word racism with historical atrocity that you don’t want yourself or people you care about or even your favorite blorbo to be associated with that, but when your defensiveness leads you to gaslight people of color about frankly valid interpretations of what they are seeing that’s when I stop being sympathetic.

So basically. I don’t think liking Izzy makes you racist, I don’t even think engaging in polite discourse about him makes you racist. But if you can’t see how talking down to people of color about this is racist you need to take several seats, and treating everyone who says “Izzy is racist because-” like their idiots is in fact a racist action.

#tw racism #izzy critical

[butch-bakugo]

I truly and wholely believe that white people will never truly, fully and honestly sympathize with people of color and our history of oppression unless they can look upon their specific heritage and find genocide or immoral and wrongful treatment. Like fully. And I'm gonna use my wp mixed self and my white friends and my white partner as an example. Like the only time they will ever sympathize is when either they are shown the raw truth of genocide faced by others and forced to see it's generational traumatic effects or the more likely option, their specific culture has faced some form of genuine mistreatment.

Like an Irish person who was treated as a second class citizen and understands their past with indentured servitude and same-race colonization understands me, a native American and native Canadian, better than a British scholar who knows the ins and outs of the native American genocide front to back in significantly more detail than even I do. I'm sorry if this is hard to hear or too hot of a take but it's honestly true. A white person who knows some form of genocide heritigicly will sympathize with me in my grief as a native better than a white person whose culture has never faced any kind of mistreatment based on race.

No matter how much education you receive, you just won't be able to fully sympathize. It's been shown scientifically that black student's mental health severely declines once they are taught the horrors of slavery in the us, same for native Americans and colonization, vietnamese students and the Vietnam war, Muslim and middle eastern students and 9/11, the list goes on and on. Learning about your culture's past with the horrors of racism causes literal mourning, I don't think anyone could argue against that, but the white people who've never been racially harmed will never convince me that they understand my pain, empathize or even know an ounce of it. It is simply outside of their experiences and therefore fully unknowable to them.

Some white people can. Some know it or seen it enough to get a rough look. Those aren't who I'm talking about. I'm talking about no history of harm and racial degradation. French, British, etc. You simpley won't. You won't understand it and I'm tired of letting them get away with their false empathy. No you don't understand. You never will. I mourn every time I think of how many natives were needlessly murdered. How many natives could of been alive today hadn't we been nearly eradicated. There were millions of us and I feel so alone in my grief. I feel so alone in my culture. I will never fully know my culture because of it. There are no records. There is no land. I have no country to visit. I'm sure I could find at least something but the reality is there are millions of people who can return to their cultural roots and fully envelope themselves. Who can fly far away and be surrounded by the food and drink and people who share their origin. They can read their history in large libraries and speak their language in full. They can dance their people's dances and sing their people's songs. They can live as their ancestors did. Those people are white. My people were brown. Their land is no longer their own. Their food nor drink has not survived. There aren't many of us left, certainly not enough to fill a country. Their history has been burned and erased and tortured out of them. Their languages are dead and gone. Very few of their thousands of dances survived and many are merely pieces of a shredded picture. Their people's songs have been choked from their throats. They can't live as their ancestors did without white people telling them to stop.

Alot of people like to pretend we can simply rebuild what was lost. That no more damage is being done. That what's broken can be replaced or fixed. When this isn't true. Native societies will never be the same. More damage is being done(see the challenges with icwa and cultural erasure through adoption of native children into white christian families aka residential schools lite). Our cultures are decimated. Our long and proud and expansive history prior to colonization is almost non-existent and none exists after. We are practically ghosts. We are neanderthals. We are almost extinct. Small traces of us exist in many but they simply won't know and if they do, they are encouraged to never explore it. We are dieing not by climate or lack of trying, we are a planned extinction and it's ongoing.

And I'm sorry but.... This upsets me. It upsets every native. It upsets every culture in the same condition as mine and even those with lesser damage. It destroys you. It ruins you. It makes you feel small and unwanted and like vermin. It makes you cry. And I don't think a British/Nordic or french person, the same people who caused this genocide and eratification, can understand my grief. I don't think they can or will. Not unless they are exposed to a huge degree and in the world they built entirely on corpses, it's easy to not look down to consider whose body your stepping on. You simply must walk on.

#levi speaks #im tired of hearing im sorrys and i understands #your not fully sorry and im sorrys here are complicated #its not a simple answer #and you will not understand it #even by virtue of reading my entire blog and every single time i speak of it you wont understand it #there are white people who will #white people who try and understand their poc partners white people who research these things in great depth #white people who work with these communities #white people who see the raw trauma in racism #they might have one glance of the reakity enough to sympathize but never full empathy #you dont know what thats like #you never will #some white people do by virtue of experiencing it #certain countries like polish pple #Portuguese pple #even some italian pple can understand racial injustice #wp dosent mean you arnt white just that you pass that way #some white people dont look white and thats true #but you wont get this issue #and thats okay #sympathy is still better than apathy #concerning racism

[writersmeadow]

Do not write about social issues you don't understand

A root of so many problems. Just as I believe that utter confidence in topic may create a counter-productive effect (J Maas really fucked up with "feminism" in her series), I believe that it can be wrong to force inclusion (even feed your writing for marketing purposes) of a social problem, when you clearly have no idea how. Let me explain by showing you how I dealt with ethnicity and race in my WIP.

As a white Slavic female, I understand the issues of ethnicity or misogyny, but not racial discrimination issues. This does not give me a right to disregard issues of people of colour - but because Slovakia is quite a monoracial country, it would be a very complicated topic to deal with in my writing. I have never had friends of different races and ethnicities until I moved to the Netherlands, and even there, I did not have a chance to deeply connect with e.x. African Americans. I may understand this issue from an outsider point, but unless I will have a community of people who suffer because of racism, I cannot understand it fully.

I have dealt with ethnic discrimination and stereotypes throughout different media and life experiences. I know what it is like to be portrayed as an evil mafia “rashan gopnik” Jurij the assassin, as well as plastic gold digger Anastasia, to feel like I have no right to be in an independent nation (Slovakia-Hungary, Russian Occupation), or that "I only know how to drink vodka" and be a "poor brainwashed pretty Slavic girl" etc. Thanks to my Indian friends in Europe e.x., I know how common it is to be labelled as “the cheap migrant” who should “return to their country”. Same does not go for social issues of solely racial discrimination in the country with history of racial injustice.

I would not recommend authors to write about problems they cannot understand deeply.

You can, however, gain a deep understanding and do your research before addressing these issues in your writing.

Example: As a university Japanese minor, I dig deeply into this country, study language and history and directly communicate with members of the country. Do not make a large inclusion of Japanese culture unless you are exposed and educated about the history and social issues, know Japanese people and respect their opinions on the topic. It will, more often, end up in J.K. Rowling ethnicity disaster (Viktor Krum and Cho Chang????). Mind that with more inclusion, your responsibility to do more research comes.

Ways to solve this

To deal with a complication like this in my socially-motivated writing, I decided to build the world on made-up ethnicities, where discrimination is represented by portraying it in different sources of magic. Some users of one source believe that their magic is better, even to the point of colonising and enslaving the others. This is an important aspect in my book. I believe that by making sure I will be able to portray discrimination issues whilst making sure (!)I am not stealing ethnical and racial history and culture(!) will be the best solution for someone who was not exposed to certain aspects of it.

(!) It also does not mean my book will be full of white people. I include various races in my book, this is out of question (you should also mind the stereotypes and remain respectful in your writing - not using terms "sexy chocolate skin", "smart almond eyes" etc, lack of exposure does not excuse ignorance - it is also highly uncreative). But races do not play the same role as on Earth, you ethnical identity is linked to imaginary sources.

I definitely plan to include topics of human race (and ethnicity) as an important social aspect in my next works, when I will be able to communicate with those to who it concerns - digging into other cultures, whether that will be Indian, Ethiopian or Latvian one, or racial issues of African Americans, Asians or Latinos,... For now, I do not feel brave enough to portray those topics correctly and mindfully. Therefore, I will not feed my novel off those issues - out of respect for the culture I have not been exposed to and cannot fact-check properly with.

To close this miserably long essay with, if you want to address a social issue in your WIP, dig deep, make sure to be exposed, connected and educated, beware of stereotypes and don't be J. K. Rowling and Sarah J. Maas. Na zdravie!

#female writers #social justice #book #authors #wip #writing in progress #author ramblings #social problems #inclusion #reformation of writing #writegram #book author #fantasy #writing tips #writing

[mhansenmajortwo2022]

PROJECT PROPOSAL

For my major two project, I intend to continue exploring and expanding my interest and knowledge regarding my role as a white filmmaker and how we go about talking about racism and colonial structures in our society today. 

As this has been a personal experience and progress working on this matter at uni, I want to use my journey in relation to matters I think stand out from my own experience. The ways in which we, in the Western world, have classified people and countries as either the right or wrong way of living. The prejudices that come from that and how we move forward from that. Ariella Aisha Azoulay describes in her book, Potential History: Unlearning Imperialism, that we cannot unlearn using imperialist tools. I ask, why are we still asking “where do you really come from?” and “you should go back to where you come from?”. Franz Fanon says, “O my body, make of me always a man who questions” turning what Descartes said “I think, therefore I am.” 

I want to progress from previous projects and feedback and therefore I think it is important to collaborate with someone who has experienced the matters I am talking about. As a white person, one thing you will know, that no matter how much research you do, you will never fully understand what it is to be black. My friends have been a big part of my further understanding on this matter. It has opened my eyes to things I never thought of or unconsciously have done. Therefore, I am going to invite those conversations, we have had, into this project, as I do believe conversations are key. Why are we so afraid to talk about racism? I am planning to talk to my friend who is from Guadeloupe (old french colony) which story relates quite well with Fanon coming to France, and my friend who was born and raised in England but his parents are from Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, and my friend who is Maori, native from New Zealand. 

Visually, I would like to move away from working only digitally (animations) and do some actual filming as I do want to show all aspects of me as an artist. I would like to use film as the medium because, initially, that is what I am mostly passionate about when it comes to technique and visual consideration. I would like to do 16 mm black and white and to do animations scratching into the film. However, I do wonder, as the technology behind the development of analog was based on white skin and has a history of being very racist, if it is inappropriate to use this medium for the project. I am thinking of experimenting with a multi screen installation for the set up. 

My projects rely heavily on the research process as well but I do think I have built a quite strong foundation for me to explore these matters. I will continue on reading and doing my research on different theories but I feel ready to experiment with the visuals which also do challenge me as I am a bit uptight when it comes to making decisions without knowing how it relates to the subject or how it is going to look like.

[sibyl-of-space]

this is very much a working-through-white-tears vent post so i encourage most of you with better things to do & who dont wanna read that shit to just keep scrolling

I’ve been having a lot of fun experimenting with editing cosplay photos recently. I don’t think this is much of a secret lmao. It stemmed from a combination of a few things - an obsession with a shitty camcorder from 2004 that reminded me of how differently older technology captures and interprets light, a desire to frame my own work in a way that appeals to me rather than the “norms” of the massive cosplay “community”, and an interest in pursuing photography as an additional artistic hobby that will help broaden my understanding of composition, colors, lighting etc. that will hopefully also inform my other artistic outlets.

I’m also very much aware that there is an important, ongoing discussion about editing and photographing Black cosplayers. I’ve seen a lot of fantastic resources on the subject and have wanted to try my hand at this as well, because while I’m having the time of my life editing my own photos, and my girlfriend also gave me some of hers to edit (and I’ve had a blast with all of this), I’m very much aware that me and my girlfriend are both white. My only experience editing folks with even slightly darker skin than mine is some older photos with my roommate back when we cosplayed together. I want to go back and re-edit some of those too, but that’s getting somewhat unrelated to the point I wanted to talk about.

One of my (Black) twitter mutuals recently posted selfies/at-home photos of a cosplay she did recently, and I decided to try my hand at editing one of them taking into account what I had learned from various resources about skin tones etc. but also experimenting with the kind of very extra shit I do with my own photos. (I toned it down a lot because someone else was the subject, lol.)

So, here’s where I fucked up, and I totally acknowledge I fucked up, but I wouldn’t be writing this treatise if I wasn’t still feeling bothered by it because I don’t know how to healthily accept criticism and that is a lifelong issue I still haven’t really managed to tackle...

I sent it to her in DM’s (was definitely not about to post a photo of someone else without their permission, even my ass knows better than THAT) and said that I have been practicing photo editing but only of white subjects and I liked her selfies so I tried my hand at editing one of them. I also said something along the lines of “I’m sorry if this makes you uncomfortable and if this crosses a boundary please let me know I won’t do it again” - and see, that right there is the problem, I clearly had some inkling this could be taken as inappropriate and yet instead of asking her permission FIRST I elected to ask potential forgiveness LATER. Anyway, her response was essentially “hey, I appreciate this and like what you did, but please ask first next time. I would have said yes but it’s always good to ask.”

And I think the reason my reaction to that was so negative, even though she has every right to draw that boundary and I know she has every right to draw that boundary, was because I had considered it almost the same way I would consider drawing fanart of something a friend likes, in the sense of “hey I was practicing my art but I made this one with you in mind”; and so my intentions were to do something thoughtful for someone while also practicing my art. So there is a non-insignificant part of me that was a little hurt that it wasn’t entirely received that way on the other end, that it was perceived as something a little more invasive, because that wasn’t what my intentions were at all; but it was received that way at least in part and for that I definitely felt guilty.

But, and again I acknowledge this RATIONALLY (I’m just posting this here because feelings are not rational), someone else taking a photo of you and re-interpreting it to their own liking, especially on a topic that is racially charged when that other person is white and will never know what racism feels like, is a lot different than just “here is some fanart I drew for you lol.”

And also - I am absolutely calling myself out on my bullshit here - when I edited those photos for Sabrina, I asked her first. So I KNEW that consent was important because I offered that to Sabrina, but didn’t for this Black cosplayer. Part of me defends this decision to myself, in the sense of “I edited the latter a lot more respectfully and kind of went wilder with Sabrina’s,” and “I am infinitely closer to Sabrina so that project was a lot more personal and the other was more of an exercise”, and while these are both true I think it says a lot that I interpreted one of these as an exercise. It makes it clear as day my intentions probably WEREN’T entirely just “doing something nice for someone” and were a lot more about being perceived as a Good And Woke Ally or something. I saw a post about editing Black people and instead of putting that into action via respectful dialogue I just jumped in and did something under my own direction with absolutely no collaboration with the subject.

There is another part of me that doesn’t understand how someone else editing your photos could feel invasive, like “hey I took this thing you made and gave my own spin on it but you don’t have to accept it if you don’t want to” (I’ve had some photos I posted edited by a friend spontaneously, some I liked some I didn’t but it always was cool that they spent the time to do that), but again - there is a racial element here I must acknowledge that I cannot pretend to fully understand what it’s like being on the other end. And my own personal boundaries are not universal.

The good news is I am enough of a reasonable adult to have responded to her with just “of course, I’m sorry for not asking before this time” and nothing else, and taking my big long tantrum Feelings TM elsewhere (here). But I did need to work out all my big long Feelings TM because I needed to really scrutinize where my negative response came from, which elements do have some validity and which - most - are a purely defensive response to real criticism that I can learn from.

This is a big reason I came back to tumblr - being one of the only social media outlets where long form venting works, it’s a healthier outlet to work through messy Emotions than a twitter thread for the world to see that can easily be taken out of context and be seen as performative etc. I also have a journal but typing is a lot faster than writing, so.

A N Y W A Y. . . I will say I’m pretty happy with how the edit came out, and I look forward to photographing and editing more Black subjects in the future but only with their full and informed consent.

Edit to give her boundaries the last say here -- her stance was completely reasonable, in fact she was nicer than she needed to be, and I hope she genuinely did appreciate it despite wishing I had asked her first, and wasn’t just saying that to make me Feel Better because she definitely doesn’t owe me that.

#personal #you know how white people will never fully understand what racism is like and therefore will always make mistakes #but need to NOT burden poc with our feelings when we do make mistakes and get called out #thats what this is about

[readwithlivvy]

tw// r*pe, r@cism, misogyny

let's talk about piper and hazel.

first, let's consider frank and leo, the other only confirmed poc out of the seven. they are both fully chinese and mexican, respectively, while hazel and piper are mixed race.

riordan's justification of that is that they are mixed because of their godly parents. however, this doesn't happen to frank and leo and it's never explained why they're not mixed either.

piper and hazel also have very eurocentric features, for example piper has:

colour-changing eyes that are usually blue or green

lighter skin

hazel has

cinnamon coloured hair (practically red)

gold eyes

light skin

now all of this can be traced to their godly parents, the colour-changing eyes for aphrodite changing her looks, the gold eyes for pluto's power over riches. but it's conveniently forgotten that riordan said that demigods don't get any dna from their godly parents.

he uses that excuse for allowing demigods to be in relationships without it being considered inc*st and then said that the gods don't have any other dna they pass down to their kids except for powers, which makes sense.

then, he contradicts himself by saying that hazel and piper are mixed because of their godly parents. this, to me, doesn't make any sense except if for he wanted to justify the fact that he made two woc half white without taking into consideration that in his own writing that was impossible.

why he chose to do that, i really don't know. i don't know if he thought that non-white features aren't beautiful, or maybe his characters should stand out by having "magical" features that are linked to their godly parents.

i also don't know what this didn't relate to leo and frank, who don't have light coloured eyes or eurocentric features. and honestly, i don't want to make accusations that will make people mad.

but to me it seems that his reasoning is rooted in misogyny, that the women need to be partially or fully white to be seen as beautiful and men's looks don't matter and therefore their race doesn't matter.

riordan always feels the need to to comment on the looks of the women in his series, like how annabeth looks beautiful in battle, and how "embarrassingly low cut" piper's dress is. he often sexualized his female characters, as seen when he described piper as "softly curved in all the right places", or her claiming scene, or making annabeth accidentally say something about flashing leo.

he also doesn't do his research, at all. piper cuts her hair, puts feathers in it, and carries around a cornucopia. he makes her half cherokee, while ignoring that you can't be half cherokee. he sexualizes her, an indigenous girl, while ignoring the history of indigenous women and girls being r*aped by white men.

^^also the thing about piper cutting her hair, he did that while there's history of young indigenous children being taken from their families and having their hair cut off even though it's sacred for them. it was horrible for riordan to include this

hazel was alive during the segregation. she should have some trauma from that. she comes back alive to the modern world and she adjusted immediately, with her life when racism was incredibly prominent being ignored. there's one single comment about her grandmother being a slave, but that's completely glossed over and put in for comedic purposes.

i understand that riordan is a middle aged white man, but he should at least be able to read and learn about the cultures and people he's writing about.

even if he doesn't want to do this intentionally, his writing is woven with misogyny and racism and i think he should be held accountable without him saying that it's a fantasy world and he can do what he wants.

#piper mclean #annabeth chase #percy jackson and the olympians #hazel levesque #anti rick riordan #rick riordan criticism #rick riordan #leo valdez #frank zhang #percy jackson #heroes of olympus

[rantrambles]

Ever get so upset you make a Tumblr account to vent?

I haven’t even listened to The Penumbra Podcast yet but it’s on my list because it’s insanely popular and the cosplays I’ve seen are hot as hell (A+ to all the cosplayers I’ve seen you’ve done great work). Now, with the recent news surrounding the podcast, I’ll wait till it’s done if I ever do get into it. I’m Asian and part of the LGBT community but I’m not nonbinary so I can’t say much about the trans represention in the art but I wanted to add my two cents on the matter as a person of color and someone examining the situation from the outside. Also, before I get deeply into it, I’m not the only person of color with opinions on this matter so if people have their own frustrations and criticism with the racism in The Penumbra Podcast and/or the new artist they hired, definitely listen to them too. These are my own personal opinions, and I’m sure other people will disagree and that’s fine. We’re all going to have different views on this so bear that in mind. Also, feel free to correct me or add anything if I’ve missed some information. Here’s a great breakdown of the whole situation for those that don’t know what happened. Finally, I was very hesitant to post this, but I felt it was important because I make a statement at the end on how race should be presented in a podcast format so if you are interested in making a podcast and want to have a diverse range of characters, please skip to the end to read those thoughts.

I’ll start off by saying, I’m not even that upset with the new artist that The Penumbra Podcast hired. I know that statement alone is controversial but I don't personally know them, and I’m not going to judge who they are as a person by a few pieces of art they’ve made. They are the least of the problems that I have here. Since the announcement and the backlash, I’ve been scrolling through the artist’s Instagram account and I can tell why people find the designs offensive, but I’m also comparing the designs to the artist’s other work, and I honestly believe that’s just their style. They’ve exaggerated the features of just about every character they’ve made, regardless of race or gender. From what I’ve seen the sharp angles and overly round curves in the anatomy that make some of the character’s features more jarring are how they prefer to draw. I’m sure they’re capable of drawing more realistic proportions but for the most part they’re art aims to call attention, be bold, and create distinguished features. Not inherently a bad thing on its own.

And yeah I’d understand the issue if this were a scenario where the artist heard how these characters acted in the podcast and thought “hey, obviously this character is a black woman because they are super strong and therefore must have big muscles, no other woman could look like that” or “hey, this character has to be Asian because they act super seductive sometimes better draw them as such.” But from my understanding the race was already decided by previous official artists and a general description of the characters were already generated by the audience, similar to how The Magnus Archives leaned towards drawing scrawny Jon with black, greying hair and dark skin. The new artists couldn’t really change those features even if those features aren’t described in canon because a depiction that strayed too far from popular fandom interpretation would make the character’s unrecognizable to the fanbase. 

I think the reason this became such a big issue for most people is because the new Penumbra artist used their exaggerated art style when making these characters and people of color and nonbinary folks already see themselves drawn as these exaggerated caricatures all the time (with those images being used to further discriminate against them). I’m sure the artist didn’t mean for their art to be offensive, but that of course doesn’t change how it was received. 

According to some, the poses and expressions the artists chose did not fully represent the characters entirely and only served to further perpetuate harmful stereotypes, and I’ll have to take their word for it because I still haven’t listened to the podcast so I have no idea how the characters act. But again much of the criticism is based on the one line-up and doing a deeper dive into the artist’s work I managed to find artwork that was much less offensive. Here some art where Vespa is depicted in a non-violent pose and one where Vespa is in a threatening pose but not an overly violent one. Here is Peter drawn in a non-seductive pose. Hopefully, the artist truly does keep the criticisms in mind as they work on the new official art. I’m just not the type of person that wants to get the pitchforks out and cause this particular person to lose a job they seemed really excited about over their old character line-up, especially when that person is also part of a marginalized group.

Again, that’s just my opinion on that particular artist. Those who are offended by their art are still valid in how they feel, and the artist should absolutely take their criticism to heart to better how they represent the characters.

What I’m more upset about is that I think The Penumbra Podcast should never have released official art for their characters in the first place and that’s their mistake that they refuse to own up about. They have made it clear that the story was never meant to portray characters of colors, a fact emphasized by the fact they hired mostly white actors from the start. They only started releasing art of the characters to get a profit. And the thing is they know what they did was wrong. All I had to do was search Penumbra Podcast racism and there is a note on their website saying that they archived some old official art.

“We have discontinued all Penumbra merchandise that uses the original character designs, and in the meantime, any profits on the sales of that merchandise will go to the For The Gworls project. We also realize that the depiction of these characters as POC, while not appropriate for us to use in our marketing and merchandise, has nonetheless become personally meaningful to many POC listeners. For that reason, and because we do not wish to distance ourselves from our mistake, we are keeping these images on our website for archival purposes. Though we do want to make it clear that many of the main/featured voice actors are white and that we did not write the characters to represent any specific POC experience, you are, as always, free to imagine these characters in any way that you like.”

I went to their shop and they still sell posters and pins with the character’s faces on them, but they are donating it to a good cause so hopefully that stays the same. However, I still find it a little uncomfortable that they are still selling character merch and have plans to continue selling character merch. They have no right to dissuade the fans that already found representation in the characters, but they also have no right to profit off the representation that was built, regardless if they made the story. 

Let’s compare this to another piece of popular media. I love Avatar the Last Airbender and, I liked the ATLA voice actors just fine but there should have been more people of color doing voice acting behind the screen too. The voice actors for that show were mainly white too, however, the creators knew that they would be making poc characters. That’s what makes the difference. Did they still choose to go with mostly white voice actors? Yes. Could they have done better and pay more people of color? Also yes. But I’m not as furious at them because they did their research on the cultures they were basing the ATLA world off of and intentionally gave us a show where Asians could see characters that looked like them represented on the screen. The Penumbra Podcast did not do any of that. Again, they openly admitted that it was never their intention to make the character’s people of color when they made the podcast so that goes to show no research was made to properly represent specific cultures. The color of the character’s skin in their official designs therefore became more of aesthetic choice rather than representation, and it wasn’t even their aesthetic choice to begin with!

Race isn’t a color you can just throw onto the character because you feel like it. So I want this to be a lesson to anyone that wants to make a podcast: if you want to include poc characters please do some research into the cultures you plan to represent the way you would with any other form of media. Just because the audience can’t see the characters and just because it’s harder to smoothly introduce the character’s appearance doesn’t mean you’re allowed to be lazy on how you present the characters. Do research before you start writing the first episode and take the time to hire poc actors. Hiring poc actors is actually the least that can be done to show representation. Also, since the audience cannot visually see the race of the characters on a podcast and it can’t typically be described the way you would in a book, you’ll have to be creative. It’s not my job to say how, but my suggestions would be, before the fans come up with their own image of the character, you need to establish race in the first few episodes or release character profiles on a website so that the fans know you canonically intended the characters to be of a certain race even if you aren’t able to mention it in the actual podcast. If you are unwilling to do any of these then the best route is to avoid stating race at all and allow the audience to build their own representation into your form of media. However, once this happens, you are not allowed to profit off popular fan interpretations. You lose all rights to create official art or images of the characters. You cannot use “we have a diverse cast of characters” when you market your story. It doesn’t matter whether you created the content or not, you did not create the representation for those minority groups.

It’s one thing for fans to build their own inclusivity into a form of art like a podcast, but it’s another thing for the creators who never worked to make the representation happen to take advantage of the representation that the listeners built for themselves. Thank you for attending my TedTalk.

#the penumbra podcast #podcast #race #the magnus archives #diversity in podcasts #diversity #tpp #tpp fanart

[anarmorofwords]

Hi! You're probably not going to like this ask, but before getting into it I'd just like to say that this isn't meant as Kamala hate or anything, and I don't really want to offend.

Having said that, wouldn't it make sense that we get to see how Kamala treated Anna after she came out? It's in all likelihood one of the things that's weighing on Anna the most.

Obviously Kamala had her valid reasons: her parents aren't as liberal as the Lightwoods, she believes (knows?) their love is conditional as she's adopted, she's not white and not being heterosexual could further any treatment she's suffered from being different... Her reasons have already been listed multiple times by multiple people. Kamala has the right to stay in the closet and fear coming out. And while that shouldn't be villianised, we can't forget that closeted people can harm those around them.

If Kamala had kept treating Anna like a good friend, rumour would've sparked, and even if it was denied, she'd have been harmed by merely associating with Anna. Especially with the life Anna began leading; she could have been labelled as one of Anna's 'conquests' by the Clave. That, as we've established, is detrimental for her safety.

But at the same time, it would create a breach between Anna and Kamala. And Anna had the right to be hurt by it and weary of it when Kamala said she wanted a relationship.

If we look at it from that perspective, Anna's actions (though inexcusable in how they treated Kamala --who was also at fault for not accepting a negative for four months) make sense. Kamala wasn't only a fling of a week*, but also the girl she lost her virginity with, who asked her to be her secret (until she married Charles, after which Anna's affections would be discarded), who hid her sexuality for two years and sat back while Anna suffered from homophobic commentary, and who now wants a relationship hidden from most of the people that know her.

Kamala shouldn't be forced to come out; but the harm that can do to the women she may engage with is reflective of what happens nowadays. I can mostly think of examples with gay men, so my apologies in advance. But how many women have seen their marriages ruined by their husband having affairs with men?

Creating characters that reflect a toxic part of the 'hidden' LGBT community shouldn't be seen as hating or villinifying. Thomas isn't out and he isn't labelled a villain by the narrative --because his actions don't harm anyone. The hate Alastair gets in-universe is because of his past as a bully, not because he's gay. Matthew's not fully out and he isn't villianised --like Thomas, because the decisions he makes to keep his sexuality hidden don't impact anyone negatively.

I'll even go as far as saying that not even the narrative villianises characters like Kamala and Charles. If it were, they'd be seen more like Grace in Chain of Gold. We'd see how Kamala's actions are affecting Anna's in more ways than anger (that in itself put the fandom against Anna), and the characters would note so. We wouldn't see scenes were Cordelia empathised with Charles, nor Matthew said he loved him.

Be it as it may, Kamala and Charles represent ugly parts of being closeted that can naturally occur when someone is in their position. LGBT people are human. Humans, when put into very difficult situations (and Charles risks his career; Kamala her safety), can make decisions that harm those around them. Consequently, the people they're harming have a right to feel, well, harmed in whatever range of ways --this goes mostly for Alastair, and very partly for Anna, whose treatment of Kamala was horrible.

Readers need to understand what is pushing these 'villianised' characters to harm (again, mostly for Alastair) the more prominent characters and go beyond how they are instantly depicted. Because these are complex characters based on complex real people influenced by very ugly realities we will move on from someday, but sadly not yet.

By the way, Charles and Kamala's situations aren't that similar beyond the closeted thing, but I crammed them together because of a post I saw you reblog.

Please understand I'm not justifying Charles's actions; that I understand the pain he's put Alastair through, and know that he shouldn't ever be near Alastair. Nor am I trying to justify Anna's actions nor hate on Kamala.

I'll just finish my pointless rant by adding that I do think cc has sensitivity readers. I think she asked a gay man to go through tec (I don't know if he still revised her other books, though), and know she asked POC's input when writing someone for their culture. I don't know much beyond that, but I doubt who revises her stuff is up to her. Wouldn't that be something the publisher is responsible for (honest question)?

*I've also noticed people using the argument that they didn't know each other long enough for Anna to harbour such ugly emotions towards Kamala, but Kamala also remembered Anna pretty deeply and is 'in love' with her. I just wanted to say that considering cc writes (fantastical) romance where someone can ask a woman they met two months ago marriage, stressing over time spaces doesn't make much sense. Just my take.

hi!!

alright, where do I start? probably would be best with stating that while I can analyse Kamala's situation with what I know/see/read about racism and discrimination and reasonably apply things I've read/heard from PoC to the discussion, as well as try to be as sensitive about it as possible, I'm still a white woman, so not a person that's best qualified to talk about this.

that being said - if someone wants to add something to this conversation, you're obviously more than welcome to, and if there's something in my answer that you don't agree with or find in some way insensitive or offensive - please don't hesitate to call me out on that.

back to your points though: (this turned into a whole ass essay, so under the cut)

I don't think Anna shouldn't be able to reminiscent on Kamala's behaviour/reaction to her coming out, or be hurt by it. what bothers me is the way CC talks about it - I can't remember the exact phrasing, but the post where she mentioned this suggested something along the lines of "you'll see how Kamala sided with the Clave and didn't defend Anna after her coming out", therefore putting the blame on Kamala and completely disregarding the fact that Kamala wasn't in position to do much at all. It suggest that their situation was "poor Anna being mistreated by Kamala". therefore I'm afraid Kamanna's main problem/conflict will remain to be portrayed as "Anna having to allow themselves to love again and forgive Kamala", while Anna's shortcomings - and Kamala's vulnerable position - are never discussed. I think it would be possible to acknowledge both Kamala's difficult situation and the possible hurt her behaviour caused Anna without being insensitive towards Kamala's character, but it would take a really skilled - and caring - author to do both of the perspectives justice. CC would have to find a balance between being aware of the racism/prejudice Kamala faced/ writing her with lots of awareness and empathy, and still allowing her to make mistakes and acknowledging them. As it is however, I'm under impression that she's just treating it as a plot device, a relationship drama.

I'd say no one expects characters of color to be written as flawless or never making mistakes, it's mostly the way these mistakes are written and what things these characters are judged/shamed/

And that's - at least in my understanding and opinion - where the problem is. it's that the narrative never even addresses Anna's faults, and portrays Kamala as the one that caused all - or most of - the pain, without ever even acknowledging her problems and background.

White characters in TLH make mistakes and fuck up - because they're human and they're absolutely allowed to - but the thing is, non-white characters aren't afforded that privilege. Anna's behaviour is never questioned - none of it, shaming Kamala for not being able to come out, dismissing her desire to be a mother, or any of the questionable things she did in ChoI. Same with Matthew, James, Thomas. Alastair and Kamala however? they're constantly viewed through their past mistakes, and forced to apologize for them over and over, forced to almost beg for forgiveness. Moreover, those past mistakes are used as a justification of all and any shitty behaviour the other characters exhibit towards them now, which is simply unfair and cruel. They're held to a much higher standard.

So I'd like to say that yes, Kamala was in the wrong to keep nagging Anna after numerous rejections, and she was in the wrong to not inform Anna about Charles prior to them having sex - but that doesn't give Anna a free pass to constantly mistreat Kamala. And let's be real, Anna isn't stupid - while at 17 she could be naive and uninformed, I can't imagine how after years of hanging out with the Downworlders and numerous affairs and being out and judged by the Clave she's still so ignorant about Kamala's situation. I definitely think she's allowed to be hurt, but to still not understand why Kamala did what she did? Anna isn't blaming her for not telling her about Charles earlier - which would be fair - but instead for refusing to engage in an outright romance with her. She's being ignorant - and consciously so, I think.

Overall, I think you're definitely right about how coming out - or staying closeted - can be messy and hurt people in the process, especially in unaccepting environments/time periods, and I've seen enough discourse online to know there will never be a verdict/stance on this that will satisfy everyone. I, for one, would really like to refrain from putting all the blame on a single person - but, at least the way I see it, CC is pointing fingers. maybe not directly, but she is. Kamala, Alastair and Charles have no friends or support systems, and the only people in the narrative that defend them are themselves (ok, Cordelia does defend Alastair from Charles, but not from shitty takes about him and his "sins"). Also, sorry, but I don't like how you say "hid her sexuality for two years and sat back while Anna experienced homophobic comments" - it sounds very much judgemental. Kamala had every right to do that? The fact that she slept with Anna doesn't means she owed her something, and certainly not coming out and most probably destroying her life, or even defending her at the - again - expense of her own reputation, or more possibly safety.

As for Charles - it's a different issue here, at least imo - I fear that it'll be implied that his refusing to come out will is his main "sin", and therefore not something he can be judged for, which ironically, will be villainizing, but mostly will mean his actual sins are dismissed. This is where the scene with Cordelia feeling a pang of sympathy for him comes into play, and it worries me. I've never hated Charles for not wanting to come out, but rather for, let's see - grooming Alastair, disregarding Alastair's needs and feelings, disrespecting his mother, being a sexist prick, being low-key far-right coded "make Shadowhunters great again" etc.

As for sensitivity readers - I'm no expert, so I don't think my input is worth much. From what I've gathered from multiple threads/discussions on twitter, tho it is probably consulted/approved by the publisher, many authors push for that - and authors less famous and "powerful" than her. I'm not a hater, but seeing fandoms' opinions on much of her rep, I think she could do better. Because if she does have sensitivity readers, then they don't seem to be doing a great job - maybe they're friends who don't wanna hurt her feelings? Or maybe she thinks a gay guy's feedback will be enough for any queer content - which, judging by the opinions I've seen from the fans, doesn't seem to be true.

Again, these are mostly my thoughts and I'm more than open to reading other opinions, because *sigh* I really don't know how to handle this.

Bottom line - I really really don't want to be hating on the characters in general, playing God in regards to judging the struggles of minorities, or even criticising the characters too harshly for being human, flawed etc. What my main issue is is how CC handles those complex and heavy topics.

I hope I make sense and this answer satisfies you somehow - I also hope someone better equipped to answer might wanna join this conversation.

* I desperately need a reread of TLH before I engage in any more conversations like this, but I didn't wanna leave you hanging. So yeah, I might be remembering things wrong. Again, let me know, I'm very much open to being corrected as well as to further discussion.

* I use she/her pronouns for Anna because that's what she uses in canon

#the last hours #tlh #alastair carstairs #shadowhunters #the shadowhunter chronicles #anti charles fairchild #is this anti anna? #kamala joshi #ariadne bridgestock #chain of iron #chain of gold #spilling the tea

[vkelleyart]

For well-meaning white American friends/followers struggling to understand black anger.

Disclaimer: I’d like to begin by saying that this message should not in any way be interpreted as implying that all looting/violence has been committed by protesters, especially since criminal gangs, anarchists, and white power groups have been caught coopting violent protest with the intent to undermine the struggle for racial justice. Nor is it meant to diminish the tragic effect that looting/violent protest has had on the very marginalized communities that need the most help. It is simply a window into a perspective you might not have considered or explored, which I offer in hopes of cultivating empathy.

It may make you uncomfortable to read this. Please bear with me.

Systemic racism is a term you want to get familiar with. It's larger and more insidious than black people being killed and brutalized by law enforcement, which should give you an idea of just how big a beast we're dealing with. Now, this is important: We ALL are immersed in systemic racism every day of our lives and, especially if you are white, you will not be able to see the ways in which you benefit from the oppression of black people.

I can feel your tension from here––the voice within saying “not me.” This is not what you wanted to hear. You're not a racist, you think to yourself. You have friends of color. Maybe family, too. You'd never intentionally harm a black or brown individual on the basis of their skin color. 

You're a good person. I'm not here to argue that particular point.

That said, please integrate this concept. If you are white, you are benefiting from systemic racism, which hurts black and brown people. It is sewn into the fabric of our culture. It's entrenched in everything you take for granted, from your property to your education to your access to healthcare and food. Moreover, systemic racism is specifically constructed to protect you from being able to see its effect on your life and the lives of people of color. 

In other words, you have a blind spot, by default. It's not your fault you have it. You were born into this culture made to shelter you from its evils. 

It also doesn’t invalidate any trials or injustices you have experienced as a result of any other marginalized facets of your identity, since discrimination can also happen due to class, ability, gender, orientation, etc. But it does mean that your skin color doesn’t compound your risk of being killed/brutalized/imprisoned within a definitively racialized justice system.  

Now that you know this, it's imperative that you realize you are not an authority on the experiences of people of color. You have not lived it. You do not know. To pass judgment on the despair of black people is to reinstate and protect white dominance. Which is a definitively racist thing to do, even if you’re not aware of it.

Follow me here.

One way systemic racism oppresses people of color is by codifying the law in such a way that literally prevents people of color from overcoming their own oppression. By extension, law enforcement historically has functioned as the arm of white supremacy, enforcing laws that by and large serve to protect white dominance and insulate white culture from its own racial self-awareness. 

Consider the ways police once functioned to enforce Jim Crow laws and segregation. These patterns didn't just erase with legislation. After the Civil Rights movement, bigoted lawmakers buried inequality deeper into the law, coated it in sanitized legalese, and assigned punishments designed to disproportionately imprison black bodies compared to whites.

This is the legal system that police enforce regardless of whether the officers themselves are white or black. That alone would be enough to indict law enforcement for their hand in perpetuating systemic racism, but it's clearly worse than that. "Bad apples" abound, with FBI investigations revealing the infiltration of KKK and other white supremacist organizations into police forces across the United States. There is very little leadership when it comes to finding these bad apples, prosecuting them, and preventing their existence in the first place. 

Now try to understand that the problem is bigger than bad apples who will brutalize black individuals and execute them without a trial. You need only compare how meek entire swaths of police officers were in the presence of armed white men spitting in their faces demanding the end of the COVID lockdowns to the ferocious way they tear gassed and pelted with rubber bullets the black lives protesters who were on their knees.

When you lack ancestral wealth, when you are born into a world that resists your right to agency, independence, access and dignity in every single possible way, and then makes it impossible for you to stand up for your right to all those things, these are the conditions that spawn violence. 

Looters who say this is about more than George Floyd are correct. It's not just about George Floyd. It's about forced subjugation in all ways, shapes and forms, being denied the right to exist in public, being denied access to wealth, prosperity, healthcare, etc.

It's about knowing, hundreds of years post-slavery, that your body still does not belong to you. To walk with a target on your back. Every. Single. Day. To struggle to protect your children from a world that does not value their promise. 

In the comfort of your home, try now to imagine the despair. The hopelessness. The abject terror. The anger over trauma that began in your childhood but keeps happening over and over and over again and therefore can never heal. 

White people can never fully understand because it is not our lived experience––it's theirs.

When you are white, you are safe, seen, protected, and included in a legal system built to insulate you at the *direct expense* of black individuals. That's why all this sounds so radical. Only people of color have insight into this reality, but instead of listening, we keep telling them to stop interrupting our lives with their desperation to be seen.

How many of you have either said or heard someone say these things? Each one reinstates white dominance:

"How could he kneel during the national anthem? That's so disrespectful!"

"How dare they stop traffic and make me late for work!"

"Listen to that thuggish language! If they want equality so badly, they should rethink the way they talk to us!"

Now is the time to silence your judgment. You have no right. You have no clue. People of color do not owe you their patience, their kindness, their time, or their obedience. You've taken from them your whole life and yes, you were unaware, but you were complicit.

What you can do (which will have the long term effect of mitigating violence) is amplify their voices. Support their businesses. Post their bail. Vote them into office. Use your protection, your privilege, your voice to demand change like YOU are the one in the crosshairs. Nothing will change without good white people owning the struggle for equality, and in a racialized world, we cannot expect the courtesy of being asked nicely.

ETA: This barely scratches the surface, I know. There is so much more to say regarding how racism overlaps with homophobia, ablism, sexism, transphobia, to oppress and endanger black lives. Wherever you reside on the spectrum of privilege, I just hope this provides an inroad to further introspection before you share a critical meme or pass a sweeping judgment on the anger of your POC neighbors. <3  

#op-ed #black lives matter #long post #tw: racism

[tepkunset]

@avatarfandompolice​​​ is a blog that likes to misuse progressive language in attempt to make ignorant, racist posts sound more intelligent than they are. While most of their blog consists of arguing about ‘zutara,’ (which I recently learned is a ship name for Zuko and Katara from an anon), there is also a large number of posts and reblogs under the premise of being “hot takes” on how unfair it is to address racism in fandom and in media.

Avatarfandompolice is very sensitive about people pointing out that Avatar: The Last Airbender is not, in fact, flawless. That a show made by two white men featuring Asian and Indigenous characters and influences is fully capable of getting things wrong. That their western colonial views are influences all on their own, and it shows. Rather than listen to fans of colour point out things like these posts for example: [Link] [Link] [Link], avatarfandompolice has decided that such things must simply be fake, and has made multiple posts complaining it. This is not just regular ignorance, this is wilful ignorance. The dismissal of critique simply because they cannot fathom not everyone being able to handle the amount of issues they are freely educating others on, or people holding the ability to like something overall while also pointing out where it could be better.

It is my firm belief that you should never absorb media with an uncritical eye. If this was the case, if people just accepted everything given to them, then we would never see any progress. We need to be able to look back at something and say here’s what we did right, and here’s what we need to do better with.

The argument that A:TLA was made in 2012 and therefore should not be analyzed with a modern understanding of the world is downright hilarious, too. As if we aren’t taught to write literature analysis on books and plays that are centuries old in school. In particular regards to the whole cop thing... if anyone reading this seriously thinks that hate and fear of the police is just a 2020 trend, you can meet me in the pit. I was four years old when I learned how terrifying cops are. If your experiences differ, let me tell you that does not make them universal. And as for all the 20-somethings talking about it today, well, gentle reminder that as said by avatarfandompolice right here, the show aired in 2012. Little 10-year-old kids don’t have social media, (at least I hope they don’t,) and unless they grew up experiencing first-hand police terror, probably were not aware of it at that age. I do not know why avatarfandompolice insults people's ability to grow and learn. I can only guess it’s jealously from their lack of ability to do so.

Now let’s address their defences of whitewashing, which is easily the most backwards reaching I’ve seen on this issue in a while. Primarily their defence relies on four repetitive “points” —

Fake minuscule percentages to downplay the high prevalence and extremity of whitewashing in the fandom

Deflecting the addressing of whitewashing with rapid-fire fake scenarios and claims of “reverse racism” / “blackwashing”

Claiming whitewashing isn’t real because people only care about it with Katara

Claiming that calling out whitewashing in fandom is wrong because it hurts artists

I have only so much as dipped my toes into the A:TLA fandom, and even I have seen a lot of whitewashed fan art. If you do an image search for fan art, I guarantee within the first couple rows of results, there will be in the absolute least, a few examples. The idea of these artworks not substantially lightening skin is also just plain inaccurate. Just from a quick Google search, this is literally the first result for ‘Avatar The Last Airbender Katara fan art’:

Avatarfandompolice is also hyper-focused on the lightening of skin, and seems to be under the impression that this is the only component of whitewashing. I come to this conclusion because when someone pointed out the equal prevalence of depicting these characters of colour with Western European features instead of their actual eyes, noses, etc., they rip a giant turd out of their ass and scrawl the words “but stereotyping” over it. No, not all Asian peoples and Indigenous peoples look the same. The original poster made no such claim of this at all. Avatarfandompolice jumped to this conclusion all on their own... (which really says a lot in itself). It is entirely unrelated to the point. The point being the erasure of how these characters look, in favour of giving them whiter features. And guess what? This does hurt. But I’ll get to that below.

The lack of understanding of whitewashing is on full display when avatarfandompolice talks about “blackwashing”; the idea that colouring characters with darker skin is just like whitewashing. Firstly, there is no such thing as “blackwashing.” “Blackwashing,” “brownwashing,” etc. does not exist because it is a false equivalency to whitewashing. It is a false equivalency to whitewashing because white people are not even in the slightest loosing representation when a white character is re-imagined as a racial minority, whereas when racial minorities are re-imagined as white people, they are taking away from what is already very little representation for us. If we lived in a world where the statistics of representation were not so drastically disproportionate, then there would be something to talk about. But if you are really wanting to support equality, you should focus on equitably supporting those who actually need it, not white people. As for specifically depicting characters like Sokka and Katara with darker skin than what they have in the show, the same applies, (so long as it’s not racebending them as we really shouldn’t be taking representation away from each other, and the artist avatarfandompolice ridicules above has done no such thing,) because colourism also exists within nonwhite communities as well.

As for the fake questions about cosplaying, the answer is really simple: Cosplay however you want, but don’t make pretending to be a different race part of your cosplay. If you want to cosplay Katara, you can do it without painting your skin darker, aka brownface. If you want to cosplay Zuko, you can do it without editing yourself to look East Asian, aka digital yellowface. The racist history behind this is an internet search away, but I suppose that is too difficult for avatarfandompolice to do.

Avatarfandompolice has made multiple claims that people must not really care about whitewashing if they only call it out for Katara. It is laughable at best, and sad at worst, that this is the conclusion they come to, and not the fact that unfortunately Katara just happens to be subjected to more whitewashing than other characters. I assume this is from a mix of her popularity as well as being a WOC and not MOC. This is not to say that whitewashing does not exist with male characters—not in the slightest. Half the images on this “10 fan art pictures of Sokka that are just the best” list from CBR are whitewashed. Only that across fandoms, whitewashing is more prevalent in female characters, by my observations at least.

Finally—and this one pisses me off the most—avatarfandompolice claims that whitewashing is no big deal, but calling out whitewashing is too harmful to justify. How fucking dare you put the feelings of artists who can’t handle critique of their work (that they publicly share) over fans of colour, who are constantly subjected to seeing our identities and looks not being worth respecting. As if it doesn’t imprint on your mind from a very young age how only villains ever have your facial features, because they’re ugly and I guess that means you’re ugly. As if there is something wrong with you. As if respecting you is regarded as extra effort, and not just common courtesy.

Whitewashing is a form of colourism, which is a form of racism. It is the favouritism, unconscious or not, of white features and the erasure of visible characters of colour. It is not fandom drama. It is not being too lazy to focus on “real issues” because it is part of a real issue. It is yet another part of why fandom spaces are so uninviting to POC. We live in a society that favours lighter skin. Corporations make fortunes from selling products to bleach your skin, products to contour your features away or go as far as surgery, all to meet beauty standards set by and influenced by white colonizers. That does not exist in A:TLA, and that’s called refreshing escapism. But it’s hard to escape that when the fandom constantly reminds you otherwise. It is a perfect example of how the classic “just let people enjoy things” complaint is nothing but disguised racism, because it’s only ever said regarding white fans’ enjoyment, at the expense of fans of colour.

None of the characters in A:TLA are white. Redesigning them and recolouring them as if they are, be it out of accident or intent is wrong. If you get called out for it, apologize, learn from the experience and do better going forward. You’ll also improve your art this way.

Beyond excusing whitewashing, avatarfandompolice has overt racist posts as well. A Black fan said they like to headcanon Katara as being partially Black; “I swear Katara was a sister. Im convinced there ain't no way she didn't have some black in her.” Avatarfandompolice jumps in saying “She's literally an Inuit but ok” as if being an Inuk person means Katara can’t possibly also be Black. The OP never claimed Katara was not Indigenous, simply that they also saw her as Black. Black Indigenous peoples exist. Black Inuk peoples exist. It is overtly anti-Black to say otherwise. But what even is the point of talking to avatarfandompolice about that? You know, you would think in trying to put such a front up of caring about the Inuit, they would do the most basic learning of the proper grammatical use of Inuit and Inuk. (As is the case with a great many Indigenous Nations, Inuit is both the Nation and plural. Inuk is singular. “An Inuit” / “Inuits” as avatarfandompolice has used just makes their dressed-up racism all the more pathetic. It’s similar to as if you said “Chinas” instead of “Chinese”.)

But all this is nothing, nothing compared to the worst post I had the displeasure of seeing. In a single post, avatarfandompolice manages to squeeze in insult against low income people, Mexican people, Jewish people, and Black people in a mockery of financial help posts. Absolutely disgusting, childish behaviour from a place of privilege. As someone who has had no option but to make such a post before, more than once, let me fucking tell you that the embarrassment and desperation when in that situation is unparalleled. It is not done lightly. It is done when you are at the last resort of having nothing but hope that the combined generosity of others will be enough to save you and your family. And what adds a whole other level to the odiousness of avatarfandompolice’s post is that they specifically targeting low income minorities to boot. Because we’re all poor beggars, right?

All in all, for someone who prides themselves in calling others ignorant, avatarfandompolice has to be one of the most obtuse fandom blogs I have ever scrolled through. They are as vile as they are pathetic, and my sincere sympathy for anyone who has been unfortunate enough to interact with them. It has been a while since I so strongly recommend blocking someone.

#avatarfandompolice #atla #atla fandom #racism #whitewashing #long post #fit for a queue

[m143ui]

A MESSAGE TO THE PJO FANDOM

so hello friends on the other side

I understand some of the major concerns regarding characters like piper and the feather and hazels description but when you bring Leo and Reyna into the fucking conversation I have lost all respect.

ANYONE CAN BE ABUSED, ETHNICITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT

LATINO CHARACTERS

Reyna is not a negative stereotype, she isn't defined by being latina and neither is Leo, he isn't a stereotype simply because he’s latino and was abused. also him being called an elf was because he was short, which had nothing to do with him being latino. also the mamacita comment like y'all hide under the label “progressive” but ignore that mamacita has been a thing in Latin American communities for a fucking while. its not an insult dammit. its something that happens in our communities!!! its like saying muchacho y'all don't see men bitching about that.

also shocker I read the mamacita comment and I can proudly say I didn't go

“RICK YOU RACIST BITCH”

things that actually happen in communities aren't racist

and before any of y'all come at me with the usual you’re white excuse, hello friends im Peruvian and Paraguayan.

I don't think he’s perfect but bitching about characters like Leo which gave many of my Latin American friends hope for similar characters destroys your “listening to minorities” argument

also the lol “hes Mexican taco bad” argument like I live in Mexico we eat tacos like every fucking day. its literally a fact. and Leo isn't just defined as taco man.

believe it or not us latinos respect rick because he gave us role models and characters like us. we don't define a character by one line and instantly call discrimination. like yes a asian character can be snobby it has nothing to do with ethnicity. y'all are making this about ethnicity. an asian character can be anything, just like a white character or a black character or a gay character. people are not simply defined by their labels like ya’ll think. y'all are just a bunch of easily triggered snowflakes that can't live with that. they can be influenced but in the end labels are labels we are all human and should be treated as such.

LGBT REPRESENTATION

another thing Reyna was never officially a lesbian that was YOUR interpretation not riordans. IF HE DIDNT STATE IT , SORRY HONEY IT ISN’T CANON! I don't care about how she was “lesbian coded” if he didn't state it it isn't canon. 

I am so sick, as a lesbian, to see people use ALL QUEER DEATHS as a bury your gay tropes, what happened to seeing us as humans? why can't we be treated like any other character? if we die we die, it isn't always “haha gay evil boom death”. sometimes fully fledged characters have to die friends.

Nico isn't a bad gay character, he’s just a normal character who happens to be gay and has suffered major trauma. HIS TRAUMA WAS CAUSED BY HIS UPBRINGING, Nico isn't a 2000′s character, he’s from the 30′s, so obviously he woudn’t be perfect with his sexuality for gods sake it was the 30′s. the exact same thing happens with hazel, she isn't a modern black woman, she's a 30′s black woman. Nico’s coming out isn't him as a 21st century teen its from the time when the GOVERNMENT KILLED YOU FOR BEING GAY

also saying there are no lesbian characters? like wow look emmie and jo don't exist. Lavinia doesn't exist. poison doesn't exist. thanks fam you really make yourselves look smart here. simply because rick never said the word gay doesn't mean the gay characters don't exist friends. they are just labeled as what gay characters should be labeled as.... human.

LESBOPHOBIA & RACISM

im not educated in muslim or black culture so I won't mention characters like sam and hazel and piper because I respect and I am highly critical of what rick put in his books to describe these specific minorities.

HOWEVER saying rick is a lesbophobe, a homophobe, a racist a sexist cis guy is like do y’all wanna be taken seriously? use arguments don't hide behind words.

rick isn't a perfect writer but y'all really don't know how to criticise, y'all just hide behind big boy words and back it up with no evidence, just opinions.

rick doesn’t have the best minority rep out there but he is damn well trying and I respect that unlike all you fucking idiots.

SHIPS

now onto ships.... yay

frazel: im not gonna censor it like you pussies, believe it or not 13&16 year old relationships exist. they might not always be healthy but they exist. to deny this is to be stupid

solangelo:  another ship that is censored..the main argument I've seen is that it isn't developed and will isn't even a character... he was in last olympian and lost hero not my fault y'all have fish brains. I don't care if you dislike it but don't be like “ANYONE WHO SHIPS THIS IS AN ABUSIVE WHORE” like wow you always preach about accepting all ships and then throw this? also if you hate solangelo because of the “abuse” but ship percico like hi friends Nico is 4 years younger than Percy.. if y'all hate frazel because of the 3 year age difference y'all should hate this too.

CONCLUSIONS AND SHIT

not every character minority or otherwise is gonna be the way you want them to be, believe it or not any character can be anything, black characters can be loud, white characters can be loud. if they're only loud because “haha black” then THATS an issue not the simple existence of a loud black woman who has a loud personality.

y'all be here bitching about drew and I've never heard the asian perspective of this? just a bunch of black and white people telling asians they should be offended. was that just an uno reverse?

also last point stereotypes aren't always a negative thing and y'all need to get that in your heads.

anyway stay mad hoes <3

from a sane Peruvian <3

EDIT

I saw this beauty and had to comment on it

“having LGBT characters experience abuse and violence. nicos forceful outing rubs me the wrong way, especially because hes called a coward for being in the closet. its violent and kind of disturbing to make your gay character come out of the closet by force. maybe write better. additionally, alex's abusive father and subsequent homelessness because of her being trans is badly written.”

oh noooo gay characters can't deal with homophobia anymore ! like I can tell you have never been punched for being gay. is it bad to showcase how trans and gay ppl are 40% of homeless youth? or is even mentioning that discrimination? believe it or not some of us live in countries where people try to kill us. you have an advantage and it shows. about the coward thing... 

was FUCKING CUPID A GOOD CHARACTER? NO? I REST MY CASE. CUPID IS NOT SEEN AS A GOOD PERSON THEREFORE HE IS NOT A GOOD PERSON GET THAT IN YOUR THICK SKULLS.

 YOU HEARD IT HERE FOLKS LGBT FOLKS DONT GET FORCED OUT OF THE CLOSET 

#NEVER HAPPENS IN REALITY. 

JUST BECAUSE YOU WERENT FORCED OUT OF THE CLOSET DOESNT MEAN OTHER PEOPLE HAVE THAT SAME LUXURY. 

maybe stop spewing bullshit <3

(so I get that this scene can remind people of being outed and it can hurt them however this scene was never intended to be a good thing it literally says Nico is scared of facing his emotions)

EDIT NUMBER 2

oh boy rick really pissed off the snowflakes that I share a fandom with

“give Nico to the gays” no? he would be a femboy and they would yeet his trauma like ssrsly?

also hate rick? bitch no one is forcing you to read his tweets.

death of the author is such a toxic thing like the mans is alive boo he aint going nowhere..like What the fuck 

EDIT NUMBER 3

anyway final thoughts on this :

nico insn’t Uwu gay and its an insult to his character

Reyna is not a lesbian canonically (neither is Thalia)

Leo and Reyna are not racist

none of ricks characters are  written as insults to their communities

and if I see one more “but ....phobia/ ...ism I will do very illegal things

peace lol

RICK RIORDAN UPDATE:

congratulations rick antis! you have successfully harassed a  56 year old man into leaving social media! wow so progressive!!!! this totally won't backfire or anything!!!

all jokes aside all of you who harassed rick to the point of someone else taking over his social media should feel ashamed

#anti rick riordan #uncle rick #rick riordan #percico #solangelo #frazel #rick riordan criticism #rick riordan critical #percy jackon and the olympians #heroes of olympus #house of hades #caleo #anti caleo #riordan critical #riordanverse #antis please interact #I wanna see if anyone can counter my arguments #quarantine has been boring #things I've learned about the anti riordans is that they are spineless little wokeskolds #pipabeth #percy jackson #discourse

[posallys]

I haven’t said or reblogged anything on this topic yet because I’ve been struggling to find the words to express how deeply disgusted I am by this entire situation, and I wanted my words to be said before I reblogged anyone else’s.

I’m not going to sit here and pretend that I understand what all of the native, muslim, and other people of color this fandom are feeling right now.  As a white female, I’ve never had to deal with racism personally, but what you are all experiencing right now is unpalatable and quite honestly sickening.  

When I was younger, like so many other young readers, I believed that the representation that Rick was giving in his books was so cool.  I’ve always had the mind set that it doesn’t matter what you look like, or which divine figure you choose (or don’t choose) to believe in, or even who you like and are attracted to.  I was raised to like a person based on their personality.  So, as a child reading books by him, I was thrilled that my favorite author was making an effort to include everyone in his work.  

This was, of course, before I grew up and fully developed a little thing called critical thinking and was able to see the faults in his works.

The fact that he had the audacity to tell the very people that were hurt or offended by his shameless stereotyping and microaggressions that he “strongly disagrees” that it was what he intended is absolutely repulsive.

The fact that he would rather defend himself and try to come up with ways to put down people of color's critiques and push off the people who are calling him out than apologize for his writing is disgusting.  He has no right to tell you how you should or should not feel about his works.  It doesn’t matter if YOU think that YOUR writing isn’t offensive, Rick.  Your writing isn’t targeted at you, after all.  

What does matter is the fact that you seem to think you know better than the marginalized groups you CHOSE to represent through your writing.  You didn’t have to, but you did.  If you’re going to put that weight upon your own shoulders, you better make damn sure that you’re doing it correctly, and that doesn’t mean only doing some 6th grade level research and basing the characters off of middle school students.

To all of the other white people on here who are defending him and are telling him to take all of the time he needs on this “break” from social media, please re-evaluate your choice.  I understand that we have never experienced racism and therefore not all of you know how to go about this situation.  You might not even see the flaws in his representation because you’re conditioned to be blind to it.  But if you’re defending him, take the time to listen to people of color and everyone saying that they are offended by the representation in his works.  You also have no right to be telling them that they shouldn’t feel this way about the representation, and if you’re defending him that’s exactly what you’re doing.  You’re defending him and his racist comments.  Open your eyes and ears, look around, and listen to what they’re telling us.  

Just because we can’t understand it completely due to lack of experience doesn’t give us an excuse to sit here and watch them fight and struggle to get something as simple as an apology for the horrible representation that they’ve received.  It doesn’t give us an excuse to sit in silence and not stand with them and support them.  Just because he may be your favorite childhood author does NOT give you the right to defend him and his racist stereotyping and microaggressions unless you yourself are racist and agree with the baleful characterizations he puts in his writing.  

If you’re going to sit here and defend him, go ahead and unfollow me right now.  I’d rather not deal with racists telling the people who are hurt by racism that they shouldn’t be upset.  

To all of my muslim, native, and people of color followers who have been offended by Rick and his writing, and everyone who is impertinent enough to stand with him, I’m deeply sorry for what you’re experiencing.  I know my apology for this doesn’t make a difference in what has happened, and you're all probably sick of hearing white people apologize for it. What you’re saying is important and needs to be heard.  Keep saying it.  Never stop saying it.  Don’t let anyone downplay the importance of what you’re telling us.  It’s not our place to tell you how you should feel.

#rr crit #not pjo #rick riordan #crit

[narrowtriangle33-blog]

Please share this article, it important that you do so. These truths have to be told.

"Bethune’s name appeared in six reports in the House Committee on Un-American Activities and five times in Senate reports on people suspected of communist activity. While she was cleared of any involvement, the message was clear: Confronting racism and white supremacy is un-American."

"This is why white people are my bellwether."

"Whenever I am trying to decide whether or not a particular movement, policy or person benefits Black America, I wait and see what white people think. While that might sound racist, there has never been a movement, policy or person that benefitted Black America who was simultaneously embraced by white America. In this country, a stance against the trauma-inducing brickbat of whiteness is perceived as a stance against America. And anyone who disagrees can feel free to prove me wrong. Name one person who fought for Black liberation who white people agreed with."

"Whenever anyone does anything that includes the word “Black,” it immediately falls under the classification of Marxist and anti-whiteness. White people hate being left out, even though they are acutely aware that there is nothing more valuable in the known universe than a white life. White people will slit a Black baby’s neck for a white woman’s life."

"Let’s just say they will beat a Black baby to a bloody pulp, tie him to an industrial fan with barbed wire and toss his lifeless body off a bridge. Is that better?"

"But I understand why they vilify Black movements with Marxism."

"White people don’t know what Marxism is."

"According to a 1970 Harris Poll, 64 percent of Black Americans had a favorable view of the Panthers, while 92 percent of white Americans had a negative view. It’s probably because a lot of members of the Black Panther were Marxists, which is different from communism. Basically, Marxism is a way to examine history, economics and societies through the lens of class, while communism is actually Marx’s economic and political theory in which...wait. For a second I started to believe that there was some logic to white supremacy."

"White people hated the Panthers because they had guns and pushed for armed self-defense. For some reason, those America-hating negroes believed “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”"

"I have no idea where they got that crazy idea from."

"Black people voting"

"Why white people don’t like it: States’ rights, something something, communism, something something it was a different time."

"When Black people marched on Selma for voting rights, they were called “communists.” The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was called “Un-American.” Of course, the 2020 election was about “socialism” because so many Black people voted."

"Southerners, conservatives and white people, in general, have never pushed for a single law to expand the electorate because they are the only true Americans."

"Critical Race Theory"

"Why white people didn’t like it: Because they don’t know what it is."

"This one is easy."

"The one thing that dumbfounds me about white supremacy is how much white people trust each other. They just trust the explanations for their fellow white people. In all this debate about CRT, I have yet to see one person who opposes CRT who can also explain what CRT is. And many of the legislators who are against funding K-12 teachers who absolutely do not teach CRT are already funding the leaders’ movement, such as Richard Delgado, the professor at state-supported Alabama Law School who wrote a little book called Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. "

"All they know is that it has the word “race” in it, so it must be bad."

"Legislators opposed the Civil Rights Act because it was “Marxist.” The House Committee on Un-American Activities investigated the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee for communism. The FBI did, too."

"In a 1964 New York Times survey, a majority of white people said that the “Negro civil rights movement had gone too far,” and a quarter of those people said their resentment was growing. They were right. Two years later, a 1966 Harris Survey, revealed that 85 percent of white respondents thought civil rights demonstrations “hurts the negro.”"

"Apparently, to white people, fighting racism is worse than racism."

"And if you think I’m kidding about white people not thinking Black people were smart, according to the National Opinion Research Center, it was not until 1963 that 50 percent of white people believed “Negroes” were born with the same intelligence as whites."

"History"

"Why white people don’t like it: Because white people might find out about some of the things white people did, which is racist."

"The fight against what politicians have deemed the Marxist, Un-American 1619 Project is actually a fight against teaching the history of slavery more accurately. And it is not new. White people said the same thing about teaching abolition. The United Daughters of the Confederacy said the same thing about the Civil War. White school districts in the North and South said the same thing about Jim Crow. And Black History Month."

"Plus if white kids learn about America’s racist past, they might start saying: “I’m not going to do that again,” and then, what will happen to white people?"

"Martin Luther King Jr."

"Why white people didn’t like him: He was a communist. He was anti-white. He was a Marxist."

"In 1966, a majority of white Americans had a negative opinion of King. When he died in 1968, 75 percent of Americans disapproved of him. Now they love him..."

"Because he’s dead."

"This is why we must never ignore white people."

"While we should never, ever do what white people collectively want, history has shown us that if something is good for Black people, white people will hate it. And if they vilify something as racist, communist or anti-white, you should take a second look because, nine times out of 10, it might be worth considering. When it comes to freedom and equality, the easiest thing to do is to see what white people have to say...

Then do the opposite."

I copied a lot of his article word for word those are Michael Harriot's words not my own.

The word's of people who commented.

"I was asking one of the few people on the Right side of politics I am still in touch with about why he hates CRT, and he sent me a link to a whole essay. It boiled down to a few leaps in logic:"

"1) the USSR used US race relations as a shield to deflect criticism of their own human rights record (“And in the USA, they hang n-words”)"

"2) therefore, any criticism of race relations was caused by Soviet propaganda (not, you know, by actually HANGING BLACK PEOPLE)"

"3) therefore any discussion of race relations was commie propaganda."

"4) therefore, any movement that calls attention to race is communist."

"It’s very similar to how the Communist League fired the original writer of The Communist Manifesto because he brought up ethnic minorities and racism and replaced him with Marx, outright rejecting any factor that so much as complicated their preconceived model. It also shares many of the issues raised in the “grievance studies” affair, being exegesis to elaborate and propound upon a founding scripture."

"That’s the most idiotic line of reasoning I ever heard. It’s so typical of white people as a group in this country that when someone points out some shit they did that’s fucked up that instead of you know, stopping the fucked up thing they basically say that the entity pointing out their fucked up shit is bad therefore bringing up solutions to the fucked up thing they did is wrong."

"Fuck the trolls, but if anyone is actually confused about the likelihood of any white person to trust any other white person over anyone at all who is even POSSIBLY not white, please refresh your memories regarding the multiple instances in the last several years of a Black person being anywhere near a house or building, then being approached by either a white guard, cop, or other self-important deputy of white fragility."

"In these instances, Black people are often believed to be up to no good even after they show ID proving they live in the building some white person has decided they don’t belong in. No amount of proof will have a fragile white self-deputy believing that even state-issued IDs are a real thing and this Black person lives in their own home."

"But when any white person walks by and says “Oh, this is _____, they live here”, immediately, that’s good enough to let this perceived criminal go into their home."

"Because any white stranger vouched in any sort of way."

"Literal evidence of address means nothing, but the word of ANY white person, with no proof of their authority, no hassle about “Well what are YOU doing here?!?”, just...instant belief of any white skin."

"Also, the main difference between Angela Davis and Assata Shakur is that Ms. Davis beat the system at its own game, the “proper” way. Racism couldn’t even beat her at their heavily-rigged game. Ms. Shakur ALSO beat the system, but because she didn’t get to win at a fully-rigged game, she found her own loophole and got out of this racist hellhole."

"Not that it matters, because they’re both the same to any racist. To me, they’re both brilliant heroes."

"If you asked these mouth breathers what they hate about CRT not only could they not tell you, they would call you “the real racist” for asking. There is no winning with these people because they refuse to see themselves as ANYTHING other than the good guys in any situation. It is fucking tiring to deal with this shit and yet they seem to not understand that we are more fucking tired than they are. With each comment, committee and talking point they pretty much prove that no white person could handle being anything other than well, white."

"To admit anything else would result in a reckoning. It will never happen and America will remain a racist society, with white culture pushing back and getting more extreme as each generation of BIPOC become more aware and angry over white supremacy. America will implode and whatever rises from the ashes will either be that reckoning with real change or a third world country."

Again I quoted these people

#black lives matter #justice for black people #blacklivesmatter #blm #justice for black lives #share #sharethis #sharetheword #spread the message #spread the word #marxism #socialism #communism #leftism #spread this #spread awareness #please spread this #end white supremacy #fuck white supremacy #fuck white people #abolish white supremacy

[charliejrogers]

The Trial of the Chicago 7 (Or, Sorkin’s attempt to show you how nothing has changed in 52 years)

If you know anything about Aaron Sorkin, the much-acclaimed writer/creator of television shows like The West Wing, The Newsroom, you know that subtlety is not his strong suit. So, I was rather hesitant going into his newest film, The Trial of the Chicago 7, the infamous trial of eight gentlemen accused of conspiracy to incite violence/rioting in Chicago during the notorious 1968 DNC riots. Without diving too deep into the history, August 1968 was not Chicago’s finest hour. When the protesters chanted as a warning to the police, “The Whole World Is Watching!”, they weren’t wrong. Years ahead of the 24-hour news cycle, people all across America (and across the world) were glued to the TV watching the Chicago police beat the ever-living snot out of young folks protesting the Democratic Party’s decision to support the ever-controversial war in Vietnam. The film’s subject matter is sure to draw parallels to and resonate strongly with both the protests and civil unrest that took place this past summer following the death of George Floyd and countless other Black folk at the hands of police. So despite it’s appropriate timeliness, I was hesitant to watch this movie because I really wasn’t interested in watching Aaron Sorkin (who not only wrote but directed this film) try to mansplain to me that the trial of the Chicago 7 was all about injustice! Without knowing anything else about the trial beforehand (and I really didn’t), I already knew it’s a famous case of injustice. I wanted to watch the movie to learn about the people, the humans involved, and the nuance of the situation.

The film gets off to a rough start in the nuance department. After an effective montage introducing us to six of the eight members of the Chicago 7 (we’ll get to why there’s that numerical discrepancy), we meet the character who will be the lead prosecutor of the case: a straight-laced, clean-cut lawyer played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. In an attempt to plant the seed early on that the eponymous trial is a sham, the first real scene of the film sees Gordon-Levitt meeting with Nixon’s newly appointment Attorney General John Mitchell who is pissed off that the prior AG didn’t resign from the office until an hour before Mitchell was confirmed. As retaliation, and in line with history’s understanding of Nixon’s pathologic paranoia, Mitchell decides to re-open the case exploring whether there was any conspiracy to incite riots in Chicago 1968. As JGL explains, this was something which Johnson’s AG as well as prior FBI investigations already decided did was not a viable case. The conversation that ensues is a little too on-the-nose. JGL shares his concerns that he doesn’t believe that the Chicago 7 are actually guilty, but Mitchell tells JGL, “then imagine how impressed I’ll be when you get a conviction.”

Of course, this conversation is largely a Sorkin invention, as is the weird decision to try to humanize the prosecutor played by Gordon-Levitt. I say "weird" because the film doesn’t do anything with it. We don’t get a real sense beyond that initial scene that JGL feels guilt or remorse for being a cog in the Nixon machine. The beginning of the film sets him up to be a similar character to David Schwimmer’s fascinating turn as Robert Kardashian in The People vs. O.J. Simpson. But in the end, it’s clear that Sorkin uses him just as a way in the beginning of the film to provide the thesis statement for the film, as if he were writing this script as a college term paper. This bothers me so much because it makes a late-film surprise appearance by Michael Keaton as Johnson’s AG lose a good deal of its impact. It would have been so much better if we as the audience came to the same revelation about the political origin of the trial at the same time that the defense lawyers did.

Sorkin’s lack of subtlety reared its ugly head in a few key moments that caused me to audibly groan while watching this film. Towards the end of the film, one of the more dramatic defendants, the merry prankster hippie Abbie Hoffman (played very well by Sacha Baron Cohen), is on the stand and is asked a particularly difficult question by the prosecution. He pauses. The prosecution asks what’s taking so long. Hoffman responds in a serious tone that runs opposite of his usual character, “Sorry, I’ve never been on trial for my thoughts before.” The film then slowly fades to black. I half-expected to hear the famous Law & Order “chun-chunn” sound next. That’s how cheesy and self-righteous the scene was.

The film’s ending too, where the defendants read off a list of all the fallen soldiers from Vietnam prior to their sentencing, felt a little too Hollywood to be believable… and indeed it didn’t happen that way. Elsewhere in the film, one of the more “prim and proper” defendants, the young head of the Students for a Democratic Society Thomas Hayden played by Eddie Redmayne, reflexively stands in honor of the judge’s exit as is court custom, forgetting that he and the rest of the defendants agreed not to stand. That’s not the bad part. The bad part comes later when Redmayne’s character travels to someone’s home and the Black maid who answers the door says to him, “I heard you were the only one to stand for the judge,” and then the camera just sorta lingers on her disappointment. We get it! The judge is a bad dude! Let’s move on!

Seriously, let’s move on. For all my griping, this is a very good movie. Those instances where Sorkin’s moral heavy-handedness is plain to see are so glaring because for the most part, the movie does a fantastic job of addressing the film’s (sadly still) politically controversial themes (police brutality, the culpability of protesters in starting riots, systemic racism, etc.) with a good deal of nuance. This mostly happens when Sorkin just sticks to the facts of the case, like when dealing with the whole saga of Bobby Seale, the eighth and only Black man of the Chicago 7. The day before the trial begins, Seale's lawyer required emergent surgery. Seale’s motion to have the trial postponed till he receive proper counsel is denied, as is his request to represent himself. Therefore, on trial without counsel, he frequently interrupts the court arguing about the unconstitutional nature of his trial, until the judge, played to chilling perfection by Frank Langella, becomes fed up with the interruptions and orders that Seale be bound, gagged, and chained to his chair. It’s a crazy powerful and uncomfortable scene, among the most haunting images I’ve seen in cinema. Finally, Seale’s case is determined to be a mistrial, changing the number of defendants from eight to seven. Hence, the Chicago 7.

But, the most inspired sequence of the film comes late in the movie when the defense gets wind of the prosecution’s plan to play a recording from the night of the riots where the prim and proper Tom Hayden can be (arguably) heard urging hundreds of listeners to “let blood flow all over the city.” Tom still believes that he would do well on the witness stand, but his defense lawyer (Mark Rylance as William Kuntsler) insists on showing him why this would be a bad idea. The ensuing scene sees Rylance role play the part of the prosecution cross-examining Hayden while the film intercuts scenes of a flashback of the actual events. the “truth” of that night, significantly muddies the water for this case. It by no means proves that the Chicago 7 are guilty of a conspiracy, but it certainly highlights the more human aspect of their situation. How is one expected to keep their calm when their best friend is beaten? And to what degree are people to be held responsible for decisions made in the heat of the moment?

The movie also has also interesting commentary on who should be the “face” or progressive politics, even today: the well-to-do and respectable Hayden or the in-your-face hippie comedian Hoffman? It’s an interesting question that never seems fully explored or resolved. Sorkin seems to land in the camp that Hayden’s respectability merely maintains status quo whereas Hoffman’s flagrant anti-establishment views is required for real change. But I don’t know how much of that is me just loving Cohen’s performance as Hoffman and finding Redmayne’s Hayden to be (appropriately) insufferably pretentious. Sorkin certainly gives Cohen the better lines.

Overall, this is a movie held up by its two primary strengths: its cast and its film structure. Aside from general inconsistencies of the script’s tone and the notable weakness I mentioned previously about overplaying the political motivation for the trial in the film's first 5 minutes, the film is nearly perfectly structured. We are sort of dropped in medias res into the trial and only get the facts of those few days shown to us in carefully placed flashbacks that help to flesh out the drama of the trial. It helps maintain pacing in what could have been a drag of a legal drama. 

But really, it’s the cast and their performances that sell this movie. Sacha Baron Cohen is the star in my mind, so perfectly cast as Abbie Hoffman, but Frank Langella as the septuagenarian, prejudiced judge of the case is equally powerful. Yahya Abdul-Manteen II as the Black Panther Bobby Seale lends an air of desperate seriousness to the film, Eddie Redmayne shines as that white liberal dude who takes himself way too seriously, and Mark Rylance is wonderful as the courageous lead defense attorney, particularly in scenes dealing with Bobby Seale. While the whole trial weighs on him heavily as the film progresses, his genuine concern for Seale is palpable.

I spent much of this review telling you the things that were odd about this film, and I stand by that. But as I said, those things stand out because this is such a slick production that the cracks become that much more obvious. It largely avoids Sorkin’s penchant for blunt lack of nuance and offers a story that helps to greatly contextualize the very world we live in. It’s interesting that a story that sees ten men (including their lawyers) fail to win a fight against The Man still feels like an inspiring underdog tale. It resonated well with this viewer, especially as the ending makes clear that justice is eventually served. Yet, I recognize this may be a dangerous tale to tell these days, and why I think the movie is so successful is that it gives plenty of sobering evidence to suggest that justice (both then and now) is by no means guaranteed.

***/ (Three and a half out of four stars)

#trial of the chicago 7 #aaron sorkin #sacha baron cohen

[iheartginnyandgeorgia]

Inclusivity within “Ginny and Georgia” Part 1 of 3

Be wary of potential spoilers!

I want to talk about the inclusivity of Ginny and Georgia because of the amount of backlash I’ve seen from articles and social media surrounding the show and its character. 

While the show is far from perfect, I think it’s impossible to please everyone, especially when your dramedy is one of the few shows in mainstream media that touches on such relevant and important topics facing teens around America. When your show is the only one that includes this much representation it will face a lot of backlash from critics and people because the show is unable to represent everyone and what they’re going through. That being said everyone’s personal experience is relevant, which is why diversity within film and tv shows is so important. 

The show addresses topics such representation of diversity and people of color, mental health, and queer relationships. The show delves into these topics in a way that feels safe and comfortable and shows viewers that you don’t know what other people are going through.

Ginny, the lead protagonist, plays a bi-racial teenager to a white mom. This could go one of two ways, fortunately her mom, Georgia, is super supportive and does her best to understand her daughters identity and what it’s like for as a woman of color. Obviously, being one of the Black women in her rich, white community, Ginny struggles to fit in, which she has all her life. In episode 2, It’s a Face Not a Mask, you can see right away Ginny doesn’t fit in her with her friends, she narrates a scene where they’re all in the school bathroom putting on makeup besides her, “It’s a face, not a mask... I know about masks, mine never comes off” (1:43). This line followed by episode 3 (Next Level Rich People Sh*t), where at Ginny’s Sophomore Sleepover where her friends totally dismiss the fact that as a woman of color her hair is naturally curly and has less natural oils, therefore you can’t just brush through her dry hair without making it frizzy. Alas, their only worries were that MANG all looked the same for the gram. Her mom unintentionally comes to her rescue and fixes her hair telling her daughter, “How many times have I told you not to let anyone touch your hair?” While this is something so little, I think it goes to show the effort her mom makes to understanding Ginny and protecting her from people who don’t understand her. 

While Ginny experiences many micro-aggressions throughout the show, even from her friends (as white people we all have internalized racism and biases due to a lack of knowledge and education), a more blatant moment of racism from the show occurs during episode 10 (the last episode), The Worst Betrayal Since Jordyn and Kylie, when her english teacher, Mr. Gitten (a white man), takes a moment during class to acknowledge that the book they’re reading includes the n-word. He calls out Ginny for being Black and makes her feel embarrassed and goes on being racist to say that the cultural context of the word back then wasn’t bad (newsflash it f**king was). To top it off her friend Maxine just sits back silently and lets her friend experience this all because she is mad at Ginny for sleeping with her brother. Hi Maxine, your white privilege is showing! Good to know that racism is excusable just because you’re mad at your bestie.

After this Ginny runs to the bathroom to breathe where she runs into Bracia, one of the only other Black girls that attends school with Ginny. They bond over shared experiences with Mr. Gitten and the micro-aggressions they have faced from him. Bracia being called “B” because he couldn’t pronounce her name, way to show that you’re really racist by not bothering to learn the pronunciation! 

While those are problematic parts of the show, it’s intentionally placed within it as a form of social commentary and to reflect on real life scenarios that people of color and Black people experience. 

One last pivotal part of the show in episode 8, Check one, Check other. Hunter and Ginny get into a fight and they’re both say racially insensitive things towards one another. After school one day Hunter and Ginny are hanging out when Ginny complains about how Mr. Gitten was being racist for now giving her the scholarship award for paper (Hunter won despite Ginny’s paper being so poetic and creative). This gets them into a fight as they both deal with being bi-racial in their own ways- Hunter being mixed White and Taiwanese. He prefers to keep a low profile whereas Ginny prefers to speak up and vocalize her thoughts. She stereotypes him with being a “genius and a prodigy” because of his Asian heritage, it’s not okay to white-wash people Ginny you should know that as it has been done to you before. “When I went to Taiwan I thought, wow. Finally, my people. But it was this hard reality check that, no, you don’t belong here either” (38:00). Ginny’s response to this is just to be more problematic? She tells him she knows more Mandarin than him and his favorite food is cheeseburgers. Then, to make it all worse she tells him, “You’re barely even Asian!” While this is an intense scene to watch, I think that’s the point. Being a mixed person is difficult, not having people from either of your race’s fully accepting you.  

With that being said, hopefully this trend of “diversity” doesn’t end in 2021 and with Ginny and Georgia, I hope to see more media in the future that continues what they started and does it better. Social activism is not a trend, it is a necessity, especially in representing minority communities.

#diversity #inclusivity #biracial #ginnyandgeorgia

[diversetolkien]

Hey yal! Below is a submissions I received regarding my Eol and Maeglin post. My responses are indented with the grey line! OPs are not!

——————————————————————————————————

First of all, it is absolutely necessary to draw attention to the things you’re drawing attention to. Whether you are “right” or “wrong,” or whether anyone is “right” or “wrong” is beside the point of the argument in my opinion: these issues simply need to be addressed! We need discussion and different points of view and they all need to be considered and we need them now more than ever. There are clear examples that are sketchy to say the very least: good guys are fair-skinned but the evil men ((, Haradrim) are not; orcs, clearly bad guys, are “swarthy” and “slant-eyed”. However, I do believe your point about Eöl and Maeglin on June 10 are off the mark. I believe you get too carried away by the title “dark” and hang your entire argument up on that. As far as I know, there is no textual evidence that Eöl was a dark-skinned elf at all.

Hello there! Thank you for the message. I do want to emphasize that I’ve been incredibly reluctant to answer this. As of resharing my meta I received a terribly racist message from a user on the website, and will tread cautiously with addressing any messages regarding Eol and Maeglin due to that. I completely agree that we do need discussion, and I’m open for it. This is the only way we can progress. But I won’t tolerate blatant racism.

I’m not accusing you of doing such, but for future references I want to make this clear.

While you believe I may get carried away on the aspect of dark or ‘swarth’, I think it may be important to explain what racial coding is, and also to remind you of Tolkien’s history with coding and with people of color. I talked about coding on my twitter, but in short coding is ascribing real world traits to fictional characters.

This includes attributing the historical and social context to the text to prove a point.

We’ve discussed how Tolkien has borrowed from cultures aside from his own, and with The Silmarillion published in the late 70’s, it’s not impossible to see how influence from America and racial influence there have played a role in his writings.

I also wouldn’t call it being ‘carried away’, when, as we both agree, Tolkien has a history of racism directed at people of color.

And at the same time, I think it’s important to note that while you dismiss the possibility of Tolkien considering Eol dark despite the use of swarth, you ascribe swarth to the orcs and their skin tone in the same breath. I don’t see why it’s impossible for the two to mean the same thing. Not when we do have a racist author who grew up in a very racist society already using dark skin to describe evil characers. Not when Eol’s narrative of the brute mirrors that of the orcs (ie: Celebrian and the Orcs).

And regardless if it is explicit or not, Eol is still coded. Again, we know this because we have canon stories that mirror his completely. This being, again, Celebrian and the Orcs.

We can also accept that Tolkien’s constant use of “dark” to describe evil things, and “light” to describe good things comes from a place of racism. So why is there such push back when we analyze that further?

Tolkien was known to ponder about problems, such as missing words in the Germanic languages. The term asterisk-word is coined by August Schleicher for exactly this purpose: words that should have existed in a (dead) language but aren’t recorded and needed therefore to be reconstructed. For example, Tolkien doesn’t have a recollection of how he came upon the word “hobbit” but to make it fit his Legendarium he made the asterisk-word *holbytlan, supposedly an old English word meaning “hole-builders” because hobbit language was akin to Old English. This word doesn’t exist in old English but could (and maybe should) have. Tolkien also wrote a long argument about a particular difficult passage in the Beowulf-poem which you can read in “Finn and Hengest.” Now normally I would never try to talk straight what’s curved, but Tolkien is a bit of a different case as I hope the above examples show.

The case of Eöl is a trick(s)y problem that stems from the “Prose Edda” written by Snorri Sturluson, an Icelandic poet who lived in the 12th century. This is thoroughly explained by Tom Shippey in his essay “Light-elves, Dark-elves, and Others: Tolkien Elvish Problem”. A quick summary is (but one really ought to read Shippey’s essay to understand it) that there are light-elves, dark-elves, dwarves and black-elves in the “Prose Edda.” Germanic scholars such as Nikolas Grundtvig and Jacob Grimm bent themselves in all kinds of shapes to explain the “error” that Snorri made. Are the black-elves the same as the dark-elves? Are both black-elves and dark-elves dwarves? What about twilight-elves? Tolkien pulls all the different strands of this one problem together and called it Eöl the Dark Elf. He could never have done this in an academic work if he wanted to be taken seriously, so his fiction seemed a great outlet to deal with this. Maybe it was all a private amusement because Tolkien never mentioned it as far as I know.

I personally can’t recall Eöl ever being called dark-skinned. He is considered “black” due to the armour he’s wearing made out of the metal galvorn that he made himself after coming into contact with dwarves (which also ties in masterfully with the whole elf-problem, again, see Shippey’s essay), but it’s not skin colour. Eöl was called the Dark Elf because he lived in a place where the sun never came. It was called Nan Almoth, the valley of the star pool, and he loved the stars, and loved to live in the twilight. The twilight-part is important in the above discussion as well.

I understand you are trying to be informative but please don’t be patronizing. Please do not explain to me what I already know. In the future, I will not be answering messages like this again. This is incredibly rude. You are assuming I don’t know about what I made a meta about, and that’s an insult to what I’ve written.

Please read my blog fully before you attempt to whitesplain something I already know. I understand debate, but there is a clear different between wanting to have a healthy discourse, and flat out patronizing me and treating me like a child.

Back the the point; The same, again, can be applied to the orcs. The orcs wear dark armor, were tortured by a creature who is often described as dark, reside in dark areas—but we know clearly that they are coded off of people given the description of them being swarthy.

The same attribute that’s given to Eol. And again, we have a clear historical context and in-canon context. And we know that Tolkien borrows from American history, and that England itself had a huge role to play in that history.

Finally, the citation from the Book of Lost Tales (BLT) where Maeglin is called swart is problematic to me. I think it’s as much proof against your point as it is in favour of it. Many, many things have changed since the BLT was written and turned into The Silmarillion (I mean Sauron was a giant cat at first!). The BLT version of Maeglin being “swart” is a discarded  version and in The Silmarillion, a way later revision, “his skin was white”. I think it would be wrong to conclude Tolkien discarded the swart skin of Maeglin as he realised it was racist. I think he simply hadn’t figured out the elf problem of the Edda when he wrote the BLT.

I think this is all negated by the fact that Tolkien has canonical characters of color, and that they have been coded. I’m having an incredibly hard time wrapping my head around why that’s accepted, yet when it comes to Eol and Maeglin it isn’t. We can accept that Tolkien has a history of racism with people of color, based on evidence far less than what I’ve provided. Maeglin’s light skin can be attributed to the fact that his mother was light. It’s possible to have a dark parent and be born light.  

And regardless if it was changed or not, it’s incredibly important to discuss it due to the fact that it was racist, and deserves to be brought to light.

I want to stress, again, that I think your work and thoughts are important, no matter if I or anyone else agrees or disagrees. It is of the utmost importance to address issues of racism, genderism and any other kinds of ism that is out there. Discussion is what matters!