#And you know what? White Western Christians still have the right to worship too!

[bat-anon]

“The world would be fixed if we just got rid of religion!” The USSR called, they’re throwing you in the gulag if you don’t give them their ideology back.

[beinfriends]

really ridiculously detailed character stats.

FULL NAME: Robert "Bob" James Goode NICKNAME(S): Bob, Beau (bio family only), Robbie (bio family only) AGE: 41 MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE: did you know that the Meyers-Brigg test has roots in eugenics? anyways ENFP BIRTH DATE: June 18th ETHNICITY: White PLACE OF BIRTH: Yellowhammer, Eagleland GENDER IDENTITY: Cis male PREFERRED PRONOUN(S): he / him SEXUAL ORIENTATION: Bisexual (heavy preference for women) RELIGION: he's one of like four people who actually worships the Dark Dragon actively, so whatever you'd call that, sure. OCCUPATION: he's a fisherman!! but he also helps tend to the Prayer Sanctuary, idk what you'd call that. FACE CLAIM: Himself, Buster Scruggs maybe

RELATIONSHIPS.

PARENTS: Barbara Goode & Eddie Lee (bio parents), Jonel & Brenda Christian (adoptive parents) SIGNIFICANT OTHER(S): Donna Hart (on and off wife) CHILDREN: Robert "Robbie" Dale Goode LEVEL OF SEXUAL EXPERIENCE: We can confirm he has had sex at least once because he has a son 👍 Really, though, he's been married for about twenty years, so what do you think? STORY OF FIRST KISS: idfk and idfc but he was probably in high school. Not that popular of a kid because he was weird as fuck but he was on the football team and that scores points sometimes. A SOCIAL PERSON? YES!! super social!! he loves chatting with people at the Yado bar all the time lol. HOW DO THEY THINK OTHERS PERCEIVE THEM? I think he's aware enough that people find him a bit odd and a bit annoying. HOW DO OTHERS ACTUALLY PERCEIVE THEM? He's right, kind of. But people do like him, he just doesn't really have many friends at all.

PHYSICAL TRAITS.

EYE COLOR(S): Blue HAIR COLOR(S): Light brown SKIN TONE: Tanned HEIGHT: 6'5" WEIGHT: 210 lbs. BODY BUILD: Tall as fuck and pretty athletic, decently muscular. He's in shape. GLASSES? CONTACTS? neither STYLE OF DRESS/TYPICAL OUTFITS: Pretty stereotypical Western style-- he's got the cowboy hat, the boots, jeans, and a Western shirt. JEWELRY? TATTOOS? PIERCINGS? None. ATHLETIC? Yep. Played football and did wrestling in high school. Probably still enjoys athletic activities like running or hiking. HOW DO THEY WALK: He probably slouches a bit just because of his height. If you look at his walk sprite, he swings his legs quite a bit while walking, so possible he has an odd gait, but nothing too out of the ordinary. HOW DO THEY SMELL LIKE: I don't know. Probably not much but soap. WHAT’S THEIR POSTURE LIKE? Not the worst, but he does have to slouch due to the height sometimes, as I said. But if he can, he stands up straight.

PHOBIAS AND DISEASES.

PHOBIA(S): I don't know if he has any really, aside from maybe like spiders or some shit. MENTAL ILLNESS(ES): I wouldn't call it a mental illness but he has autism. PHYSICAL ILLNESS(ES): None. WHEN WAS THIS DIAGNOSED? Like, age 2 or something. He was really young when he was diagnosed with it.

INTELLECT.

LEVEL OF EDUCATION: Graduated high school, did a bit of community college but didn't finish. LEVEL OF SELF-ESTEEM: A perfectly healthy amount. He's not egotistical, but he doesn't think lowly of himself. He likes himself, and that's enough. GIFTS/TALENTS: Bob is nothing if not deeply dedicated to things he gets interested in. He's great at research and collecting information on things he likes. Decent artist, nothing special though since he just sketches things for research. SHORTCOMINGS: Deeply set in his ways and becomes upset if interrupted, completely fucking clueless with emotions, sometimes a bit insensitive. He's a really well meaning guy, just a bit socially inept. He's also a fucking doormat. STYLE OF SPEECH: He speaks slowly, has a pretty thick Southern drawl. Doesn't always use correct grammar or words, but he's pretty deliberate in how he speaks usually. “LEFT BRAIN” OR “RIGHT BRAIN” THINKER: Right brain. ARTISTIC? Kind of! Like I said, he'll do sketches when he's observing or researching things, but he doesn't necessarily do it for fun. He might if he wanted to make Donna something, though, since he knows she loves art. MATHEMATICAL? He's bad at math, really fucking bad. Donna makes up for it by being very good with it, though. MAKES DECISIONS BASED MOSTLY ON EMOTIONS, OR ON LOGIC? Generally emotional, but I don't think he's completely illogical. I suppose it'd depend on the situation. MOST SENSITIVE ABOUT/VULNERABLE TO: He is very sensitive to people insulting his intelligence, or insulting his family, whether his son, his wife, or his mother. He tends to take it more personally if it's something he's close with that's criticizing him, though. OPTIMIST OR PESSIMIST? Optimistic as all hell. EXTROVERT OR INTROVERT? Extroverted.

DETAILS/QUIRKS.

NIGHT OWL OR EARLY BIRD?: I imagine he's a bit of both. He spends a lot of late nights at the Yado, but I can imagine he's an early riser, too. LIGHT OR HEAVY SLEEPER?: Heavy sleeper. FAVORITE FOOD: DID YOU KNOW THAT BOB HAS A CANONICAL FAVORITE FOOD? It's peaches. If you didn't know. He has multiple lines about peaches in the different chapters and he outright says peaches are his favorite! LEAST FAVORITE FOOD: He probably doesn't like crunchy foods a whole lot (weird texture! Especially when combined with smooth or soft foods!) but I couldn't say a thing he particularly likes. Obviously peaches have a bit of a crunchiness but that is okay. I mean super crunchy stuff like crackers and whatnots. Also anything that particularly sticks to your teeth. COFFEE OR TEA?: Coffee. CRUNCHY OR SMOOTH PEANUT BUTTER?: What did I just say about him hating crunchy food combined with smooth foods?? He has to eat smooth, crunchy would kill him instantly RKFH LEFTY OR RIGHTY?: Righty. FAVORITE COLOR?: Light blue! CUSSER?: Sometimes. Not a whole lot if he can help it. SMOKER? DRINKER? DRUG USER?: Heavy drinker. Not necessarily an alcoholic, but he spends a lot of nights at the Yado. He tends to just nurse one or two whiskies most nights, though. PETS?: None, but I think he'd love to get a dog.

TAGGED BY: old meme

TAGGING: @trouticecream, @recklessinventor, and... YOU

[zacolyn]

You make excellent points, and I hope this isn't considered going off topic, because I think Christian schools should not exist. They’re advertising a Christian kindergarten on Spotify for my nearby city and it infuriates me. These children already probably have Sunday school to deal with, but now they’re having to hear about it every day at school too. They'll have the Catholic guilt absolutely driven into their young, impressionable minds. If they continue through the Catholic school system, they're either going to grow up to be deeply angry Atheists or deeply religious zealots. They are going to have so many problems, because they won't have learned anything that could challenge their view of God. If they even learn about science and evolution, it would be with the tagline of God and no chance of separation. They certainly won't get a proper sexual education, just abstinence and shame and service to thy husband. You can bet money that they'll never see someone at school who isn't white, so they're highly likely to also become racists even just because they're not used to other skin colors (because Jesus is white, don't you know).

Speaking as someone raised Roman Catholic but was lucky enough to go to a public school, I have extreme bitterness about having been forced into the religion against my will. I didn't get a say in my baptism, I didn't get a say in whether I could go to Church or Sunday school or not. But because I was allowed access to science, it allowed me to question this stuff and probably saved me from becoming either of the extremes. I learned about the natural laws. I learned about evolution. I learned about safe sex and I was able to unpack how abusive Roman Catholicism is and then immediately walk away from it as an adult. (Also I'm still vaguely religious, I'm just part of the United Church now since they align much more with my views. Maybe I'll even stop being angry one day. Also I give worship to Sobek and Bastet as well as I can; which isn't very well, but I'm trying)

But these kids don't get to escape it. It's at home, it's at school. They only have fellow Christians as peers and they live in a Christianized culture. They're in an echo chamber. If they ever learn about other religions, it will be through the lens of Christianity and how these people are lost--yes, even the Jews!--and must be brought into the fold of Jesus Christ. They will struggle all their lives with living in a world hostile to them in one way or another and be unable to understand the other side of their viewpoints because even the Atheists will be operating from the core Christian view of 'I'm right and everyone who disagrees with me is the enemy'.

So yes, children should be taught religion, and even taught it in school, but not like this.

Children should be allowed to learn about the world, should be allowed to question and say something doesn't make sense without being shut down for not being a good little lamb. They should be given the freedom to find whatever their truth and then if they end up Atheist, they'll at least hopefully be less violent about it because they had the freedom to choose. They didn't have to break out as thick of a box because they didn't hear about God every moment of every day.

The Western world is extremely Christianized, there's no escaping that unless you live in a bunker all your life, but if the Catholic school system didn't exist, I think we'd at least see far more moderate Christians who aren't utterly insufferable, mindlessly bleating about a doctrine they were never allowed to question.

Obviously this is omitting the more extreme sects of Christianity, but it ultimately comes down to 'if you don't get the chance to learn about other points of view, you'll become an extremist in some way' and it goes without saying what a bad thing that is.

Christian schools should not exist.

"I think religion should be 18+" is such a stupid argument oh my god....

"But some kids get abused by religious figures!" Yeah and some kids get abused by school teachers. Abuse is possible in any situation where an adult has significant power over a child. Doesn't mean we should stop sending kids to school.

"But kids can't consent!" Kids can't consent to going to school either and yet we agree that it's important to give kids an academic and social education.

"But kids might get mental health issues from religion!" Do you know how many kids have mental health issues from school?? Anything can cause mental health issues. You can take your kid to the playground and a dog might bark at them and now they have anxiety. Kids don't need to be wrapped in bubble wrap.

Not to mention the extremely Christian-centric bias here...... Childhood is extremely important in so many religions, childhood is a different spiritual stage and the religious education and embracing of children is very important. It's how we ensure that endangered religions and cultures don't go extinct.

[symeona]

Idk if this is something you're even interested in hearing about, but for the majority of my very american white bread life, I thought that all of the stories like PJO and LO were cool and fun ways to spread greek mythos, while not really knowing myself the inaccuracies and disrespect these series both carry, not only to the values they claim to espouse such as anti-racism, spreading mental health awareness, and feminism, but just how wrong they get the Greek side of things too. I just feel/see more and more how majorily Americans refuse to believe that taking Greek culture and misrepresenting it, bastardizing it, and hollywood-izing it is a bad thing, and how it deserves some respect for the ancient culture it is beyond "hardy har zeus scum cheater man" and "uwu rick/smythe are the final opinion on greek mythos". It's become such a mainstream thing here for people to use LO and PJO as literal scholarly interpretations of myths and the entire reason Greek mythology is as popular today while simultaneously ignoring the work Greeks have done to make their culture known, and I myself don't know the half of their efforts. The entitlement to tell someone, from my own personal experience, that they have the right to retell and change myths to their own will just because greek myths happened to be taught in their history class therefore making it fair game for Americans is just... how can so many people who claim to be on the left not realize their own imperialism right there? And then, god forbid you ask them about anything about greek history or culture that isn't Alexander the Great or the Illiad. They know nothing of Greece's roll in WW2, or what the Ottomons did to them, nothing at all.

Sorry for the rant, but I felt you would have an opinion I haven't heard on it before and I'm trying to see how different people view this issue.

Aaaa oof. Okay..

One issue with "Greek myths" is that the version most ppl know now, was published by archeologists who interpreted the stories through their own lenses almost 100 years ago. Zeus wasn't the 'King of gods', that's some christian bs right there. The largest Temple ever found is the one for Hera in Samos. But still, all gods were equal. And myths are so different from place to place that I don't think you'll ever find the "original" story.

And don't talk to me about the Great Alexander, that monster. How ppl have hero worship for that prick is beyond me. Ironically his horse was called Bullhead.

So, you mentioned the Ottoman occupation.

⚠️ I'll mention violence.

We called it 600 years of enslavement by the Empire. And it was. The scars from that time are still with us today. When I say 'entire islands and cities were burned to the ground' I mean it. This year marks 200 years of liberty which is cool, but yeah I can't tell you what a kid feels when they look at their history and all they find is bloodshed.

Victims from Smyrna are still alive today. And if you read what happened there please be warned.

So Greece went from 600 years of occupation and slavery, to the Balkan Wars, to ww1, to civil war, to ww2, to more civil war, to martial law/ dictatorship in the 1970s, and now .. well, let's say, we've had democracy for 50 years. My dad was a kid during the Polytechnic Uprising where tanks ran over children in front of their parents.

I hesitate to say Greece is part of Europe or 'the Western world'. Because during each one of these tragedies the Allies watched my people burn and die. Should they have the authority to claim our history as their own? I don't know.

Anyway, I hate to leave you on a sad note so I'll just add that, during the wars Greece let women fight, look for Bubulina and Manto Mavrogenous. Those two were high ranking officers.

And for a funny (kind of) anecdote: Greeks celebrate the 28th of October as "Ochi day". And the story is that during ww2 an Italian ambassador told our prime minister "hand Greece over to us and there won't be war". Our prime minister simply told him "Ochi" which means "No." Though actually, he said "Alors, c’est la guerre." (So, it's war.) And then people ran out in the streets chanting "Oxi" cause you know... Fuck Mussolini. We actually won the battle with the Italians so sksksksk

I love this story cause it's so.. Greek. We said "Nope." And then celebrate it every year by singing very offensive songs about goofy fascists. It's great. If anyone wants to write a story in modern Greece, please know that every kid knows this song by heart.

Here are the lyrics translated, though I realize it's hard to comprehend. We have too many creative words. Macarona literally means Macaroni-man for example.

[writingwithcolor]

Patrilineal Jewish girl, Sephardic culture

@feminismandsunflowers said:

hi! my character is a patrilineal Jewish girl in the usa, she didn't convert but still considers herself Jewish. her mom is Christian. her g-grandmother/father were undocumented refugees from Europe (antisemitism) and her g-grandmother was v closed off abt her origins but my character's dad thinks she said something abt being Sephardic. her fam has a fair amount of Sephardic culture. but could she claim Sephardic culture to any extent if they don't know? trynna get a handle on how to present her.

"My character's dad thinks she said something about being Sephardic"

and

"her fam has a fair amount of Sephardic culture"

are inconsistent statements. 

The first statement sounds like the only indication Dad has of which Jewish culture they are is a statement he's not even sure about ("thinks"?) and the second statement sounds like Dad considers himself Sephardic and practices Sephardic traditions.

So, to me personally, this would depend on the level of Sephardic cultural practice she grew up with. If she grew up with those traditions and Dad sharing them with her, then yes, that's who she is. If Dad isn't even sure he's Sephardic and what she practiced in her upbringing wasn't distinctively Sephardic in any way, I have a hard time seeing why she should claim the culture if she's not even sure if her ancestors were Sephardic.

Disclaimer that the Reform position is to 'count' patrilineal Jewish people as long as they were raised in the traditions. This is not the Orthodox position but I am Reform.

--Shira

I'm also a bit confused about this situation. I think it would be helpful if you start by specifying where in Europe the family comes from and what anti-Semitism they were fleeing from. I'm Ashkenazi and not the most knowledgeable about Sephardi history, but as far as I know it wouldn't make sense for a Sephardi family to be seeking asylum from the pogroms in Russia or Poland, for example. I guess it could make sense if they were from Spain, France or Italy, but we would have to know more, and I'm wondering if this isn't a 'trace your logic' situation. Why do you want them to come from Europe? *Quickly cracks open a Claudia Roden book* Sephardi Jews have origins in many North African and Middle Eastern countries, such as Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Syria, Iran and Iraq just to give a few examples. If you want Sephardi characters, why not represent those cultures instead of re-hashing the same Euro-centric Jewish stories?   

In terms of whether she could claim Sephardi heritage of any sort if they don't know, I'm interested in what Sephardi followers think. Religion-wise, I don't think there would be too much of a problem with it. Yes, Sephardim are more lenient on some things and stricter on others, so by picking the wrong one she may be following some of the rules wrong, but that's just a matter of tradition really. If someone was a ba'al teshuva and had no way of finding out which population their family came from, I imagine a rabbi would advise to choose one and stick to it without worrying too much about which one. I don't know 100%, though. 

Culture-wise, I don't know if this is what Shira was getting at but I wonder if it would be cultural appropriation due to Ashkenazi Jews being more likely to be white-passing and getting more media representation. Is Jewish lineage enough to claim Sephardi traditions and culture, or do you need to know for sure that you're Sephardi - that will be for Sephardi followers to decide. 

To build on Shira's disclaimer:

I'm Modern Orthodox and I would describe your character as someone who is not halachically Jewish, i.e. not in Jewish law. In most situations, this would be a technicality for me and I wouldn't hesitate to treat her as Jewish if she identifies as such. In particular, with her family history it makes sense that she considers herself ethnically Jewish and the legacy of discrimination is part of her identity - that's not something we can erase or overlook. It would be different if my kid wanted to marry her, I think (not that I ever plan to be one of those parents who would disown their kid or something for marrying out but I'm not going to pretend I completely wouldn't care, either). Then I might be hopeful that she may formally convert, especially if she had always lived as Jewish anyways.

 Other things she may experience if she hangs out in Orthodox circles: a few people might act like jerks and be iffy around her like she's 'not really Jewish', probably the same people who are pro-Trump and mansplain why women's exclusion from parts of Orthodox worship is actually protecting us. On the subject of women's exclusion, if you have any male characters with a similar parental background, they can't get an aliyah in shul or count towards a minyan - the character you're describing couldn't anyway, though. 

Hopefully if your other Jewish characters are nice people, they take to heart the teaching that you should rather throw yourself into a fire than humiliate someone else in public. When I was a student, there was a patrilineal man in our community who once entered the shul just in time to be the tenth man, making a minyan. A Chasidic man in the congregation quickly stood up and said "Oh no, I left the gas on!" and left. That way no one had to make a whole song and dance about the other guy not being allowed to count. Patrilineal Jewish followers, feel free to add more! 

-Shoshi 

I'm going to add some things here, about the terms Sephardi and Ashkenazi, that I think might be partially tripping the author up.

Sephardi and Ashkenazi are terms used to describe the traditions that a person follows. Those traditions are heavily linked to the land where they rose up, and to parentage, as people are typically encouraged to follow the traditions they grew up with. However! Converts exist, and converts are usually encouraged to join in on the traditions in their community. So, as an example, a person can be from anywhere in the world, of any racial or ethnic background, convert in a Conservative synagogue, and follow Ashkenazi traditions. A person can be from a place that is usually seen as very Ashkenazi-heavy, like Germany, and then end up converting in an esnoga (synagogue) in Spain, and practice Sephardic traditions. Either of those converts might have children, and those children will take on their minhagim (traditions), and will be a part of the culture their parents joined just like their parents were.

It can be confusing for many people because the terms are so often conflated with ethnicity, which is in turn conflated with genetic lineage. The trouble is, the groups they describe are older than the modern, western conception of race, and ethnicity,  and we don't completely fit into these categories. Ashkenazi Jews don't all come from Europe, even their ancestors might not. In the US it's been estimated that at least 12-15% of American Jews are Jews of Color, and those JoC are very, very often Ashkenazi. Some converted, some didn't, but they are still following the traditions, and are still Ashkenazi.

So it's fair to say that the traditions of Sephardim grew in the Iberian peninsula, and North Africa, but they also moved along with those Jewish people as they dispersed, and were expelled. Jews from Portugal fled to the Azores, but also to the Netherlands, where there is a large Sephardic presence, right in the middle of a space that is assumed to be all Ashkenazi! Scores of Jewish people from Morocco moved to France. Then too, people marry folks from other groups. Often they will pick one family's traditions to follow, but sometimes they mix and match, and sometimes they end up moving somewhere else and taking on those traditions.

Because so many people have traditions that match their genetic background we've begun using the term Ashkenazi to mean strictly white, European Jewish people. Sephardi we have taken to mean strictly white, Iberian Jewish people (which doesn't even include the massive number of North African Sephardim). We've forgotten entirely to cover Mizrahim (a tradition associated with the Middle East), or the Romaniote, or Cochin Jews, or any number of other groups. Yes, genetic background accounts for a large portion of those people, but it doesn't map completely, and it's important not to forget that.

This complexity is why the statements Shira drew attention to:

"My character's dad thinks she said something about being Sephardic" "her fam has a fair amount of Sephardic culture"

Don't make sense. You would know you are Sephardic, because it's something you do first, and may be, secondarily, directly linked to something in your ancestry.

Finally, since you are showing a patrilineal Jewish person, I really encourage you to show them consistently engaging with their Jewishness, and actively participating in Sephardic culture. I'm the Conservative one here, and my movement, and Sephardi tradition (there are no movements for Sephardim, just varying observance) don't allow patrilineal descent to give a person Jewish status halachically. This is not something I endorse. Patrilineal descendants really struggle outside of Reform communities, to be seen as Jewish, and often to just be treated with respect, so it's important that you give this character every opportunity to participate, and show who they are.

-- Dierdra

[larktb-archive]

Hi! I'm too shy to come off anon, but I need your help understanding something. I hope I'm not bothering you!!

I don't want to interact with anyone who is a fascist, but I'm not entirely sure what makes someone fascist. Can you please explain it to me?

I know I could look it up myself, but I know that not all definitions online can be correct and I just want your perspective;;

Thanks!

Hi anon! Well, fascism comes in many forms so “sussing out who’s a fascist” is technically a little harder to do than having a simple checklist. After all, doesn’t a White Supremacist have different beliefs to a Japanese fascist? And doesn’t a Japanese fascist have different beliefs to a Wahabist? These beliefs clash don’t they? Well, yes and no. Sure the surface level beliefs are different but the underlying core beliefs of these groups are actually quite similar; it’s the specifics which are different. Even though it isn’t a “bible” on what is fascism and shouldn’t be taken as gospel, Umberto Eco has an essay called “Ur-Fascism” which contains 14 points, which can help us identify whether certain beliefs are fascist no matter the specifics of their belief system. I’ll explain the points in short and give some examples. Quick disclaimer, I am not an expert on fascism or any of the ideologies I’ll discuss by any means so if you aren’t taking Umberto Eco’s writing as the 100% correct truth, definitely don’t take mine as that either (this is how you should treat most sources tho):

1. Cult of Tradition and 2. Rejection of modernity

I put these two together because they’re kind of inseparable. This is basically the idea that there was a “glorious past” that people need to return to and modernity is a corruption of that “glorious past”. In British fascist thought, this past is generally the 19th century at the zenith of the British Empire or mid-20th century Britain. The latter is more common for people who wish to be a little more PC with their writings; instead of trying to use a by-gone era that pretty much no one alive can remember, they use a much more recent time with nostalgic ideas of “the good old days” which doesn’t seem threatening on it’s surface but is dogwhistling for a time when there weren’t as many immigrants in the country.

You may have seen the “reject modernity, embrace tradition” meme and it’s pretty much the most obvious incarnation of this idea. Similarly you may seen people online use “degenerate” as an insult. If you look at the meaning of the degenerate it means “having lost the physical, mental, or moral qualities considered normal and desirable; showing evidence of decline”; it’s microcosm of these ideas put into a single insult. This is why you tend to see conservatives use it more than progressives.

I’d also argue that terfs obsession with 2nd wave feminism and their utter rejection of intersectionality and modern feminism is another manifestation of this idea. 

3. Action for actions sake

This is less detectable in terms of individuals but still important to note that these people tend to support action without a cause. Sure the insurrection at the white house earlier this year was action, but it had no substance behind it. It was action for actions sake, which is why any principled leftist didn’t support it. Fascists will tend to openly just call for action but won’t be very specific about the purposes of the action; as long as they agree with the ideology behind it they’ll support it. It’s why fascists love harassment campaigns and mindless acts of terror. Take Wahabist terrorist orgs like Al-Qaeda or ISIS, it doesn’t matter if bombing an Ariana Grande concert has no point, the only point is the action itself.

4. Disagreement is treason  

This one’s pretty self explanatory, they will ostracize you if you disagree with them. Again, terfs tend to do this, and I had a long conversation with an ex-terf I called a dumbass, who basically said that she was ostracized by them and mocked for having different beliefs (hope she’s doing well actually). There’s numerous stories from ex-terfs like this.

5. Fear of difference

There’s a tendency for fascists to group people into “us” and “them”. “They” are considered to be intruders who need to be removed whereas “we” are the people who deserve to be here because it is “our” right to be here. In Zulu Nationalism, this tends to be any non-Zulu speakers who they deem to be “Shangaan” even if they aren’t actually Tsonga, it’s just a pejorative at this point. If you see vague references to the “elite” without any reference to who they are and what makes them “elite”, this is tends to be a dogwhistle for Jewish people. Western Fascists have very little issue with the workings of capitalism itself or the accumulation of wealth by capitalists, they just don’t like “them”, taking “our” stuff. Any references to “us” and “them” is pretty much a red flag.

6. Appeal to Social Frustration

Fascists will tend to brush upon actual issues faced by the poor today but will instead blame it on an outside force. You’ll see job loss being blamed on immigrants or vague “elites”. Terfs do this too. They’ll see young girls who are genuinely struggling with patriarchal issues and divert all that pent up rage towards trans people and the “q*eers” (which they do tend to use as a slur unlike what most people would have you think). 

7. Obsession with a Plot

Everything is a conspiracy! The election was rigged! 9/11 was fake! that fucking pizza place/this furniture company is a sex ring! All of these are supposedly plots by the deep state who are trying to do... something or other. You’ll notice these “Plots” don’t actually have a purpose, but the fact that there is a plot itself is the issue. This is a way of engendering paranoia in the group while also feeling that there is a constant war against you even if there isn’t. This is also why, despite news sources being pro-capitalist the right will swear up and down it’s leftist media which is controlled by “them” (usually just meaning Jewish people).

8. The enemy is both strong and weak

“Trans people have infiltrated academia and the only reason people refuse to see gender as an immutable biological concept, is because they’re too afraid of the trans cabal to say anything. But also everyone can tell trans people are crazy and haha you have a high suicide rate.” It’s contradictory that’s the point. They need to feel that they’re both counterculture but also they need to be winning at all times so that contradiction is necessary. Also the use of the word “cabal” is a pretty big red flag for all forms of fascism.

9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy, 10. Contempt for the weak, 11. Everybody is educated to become a hero and 12. Machismo and weaponry

All of these are kind of interrelated so I’m grouping them together (also this is already fucking long as hell so I don’t wanna bore you any further). You’ll tend to see a love for the military or at least military aesthetics when looking through fascist blogs. Guns aren’t just a tool for fascists, they’re representative of masculinity and the necessity of violence. Pacifists and anyone who refuses to fight are weak and therefore are “degenerate”. If you do not fight, if you are not willing to fight, you cannot be a “hero” (an ubermensch or a matyr). This comes with the fetishization of violence instead of the recognition of violence being an means to an end, and the worship of individuals rather than of communities and organizations. Take Japanese fascists and their lionisation of the imperial military and their desire to once again have an actual army.

Terfs don’t necessarily fit these roles except for arguably 10 considering how much they seem to look down upon the mentally ill and those who commit suicide and surprisingly 11 since that involves the hatred of non-standard sexual activities and terfs hate non-standard sex (this is from the most vanilla bitch who is very uncomfortable with kink but understands its not inherently good or bad). I have a feeling this is more so because terfs are mainly women (there are male terfs ofc) whereas this was written for male led organizations. 

13. Selective populism

When fascists talk about “the people” they tend to mean “the people we like”. “The working class” can be translated to “this cishet white christian man from Minnesota who owns land but hey he lives in a rural area so he’s working class right?”. They’ll also tend to have “tokens” who will suddenly become the mouth piece of the entire community they’re supposedly representing even if no one in the community asked them to (i.e. Milo Yiannopoulos). 

14. Ur fascism speaks Newspeak

They speak in terms which are both inaccessible to anyone outside of their circles whilst being so simple that once you learn them it becomes easy to understand. They abhor any form of “academic” speech so you’ll rarely see them source things (unless those things happen to agree with their views, which is rare but Jordan Peterson is popular for a reason) and if they do source things they probably wouldn’t have read them fully and will rely on you also not reading them. This is to limit any critical thinking so that your brain is basically jellified into an unquestioning organ which only responds “yes” or “no” and only appeals to a higher authority without any form of reasoning involved. This is why they complain about “the lefts memes being too wordy”... because they’re used to not having to read (this is somewhat tongue in cheek but heyho if the boot fits).

And that’s the 14 main features of fascism, if anyone is displaying multiple of these ideas then they are most likely fascist, and if an organization or group continuously replicates these ideas, then they are definitely fascist. I hope this wasn’t too long but like I said... very complex topic. (Also hopefully this is written well, it’s 10 PM and I am surviving off Irn Bru energy drink). Hope this helped!

[humanhanson]

Update! (3 weeks of school)

It's been about 19 days since I've made an update to the blog and a lot has happened! The pictures above show the school, Kona Christian Adventist School, that I am serving at for the year! Yes, you can see the ocean right from the school. Living on an island, especially Hawai'i, has been incredible! Benefits include beach access, amazing fruit, and consistent temperate weather! 😄

The 1st day of school started at 6:30 AM as I followed the other teachers aid (she's from the island) in the large white van I was given to transport students to the school. 10 minutes later I picked up the 10 students, and after checking each one for Covid-19 symptoms and/or a temperature, we were on our way!

Week 1

The following week was ALL learning. Learning how to engage with the students and teach them practically. Learning how to listen to 5 different children at once and give them the attention and love that they need and deserve (that's real). Learning how come up with lessons on the spot (this is it's own issue in and of itself 😅). Learning how to lead worship on a ukulele that I had played a total of 2 times. Learning how to cook, clean, and maintain a house all to myself. Learning how to be alone. Learning how to rest.

At the end of the fist week I got the chance to meet the other missionaries on the big island of Hawai'i; all working on the Hilo side (the opposite of Kona). Pictured from left to right is Anna, Shelly, and Stephanie! It was such a blessing to not only meet people on the island that were my age, but also people who had been going through the same experiences that I had been. Dealing with difficult kids, feeling joy in serving and helping the students learn, laughing and sharing about unique the personalities of each student, and just being open about our experiences so far.

We took the sabbath to get out and explore. We saw beaches and beautiful views over the western side of the island as conversation flowed from family to deep spiritual topics and then back to core passions, creativity, and expression. Those girls really made a beautiful impact on my weekend, and I'm so thankful they came to visit!

Weeks 2 & 3

The afternoon of that second Monday since starting at the school, I got the text letting me know that a student in my van had tested positive for covid-19 and that the entirety of school would be held on zoom for the next two weeks. What followed as a fun, but difficult two weeks (minus a couple of days) of adapting and preservering through technical and attention issues. Zoom has been a blessing, we definitely connected, but I know these kids are meant to experience learning in a rich and dynamic learning environment, where they aren't fighting to keep their attention on a little Isaac on a screen.

We did 4 hours of zoom for a school every day. Because of the wide range of students we did everything from sing songs together, too doing exercise and movement to sustain our energy for the final 2 hours.

It was quite challenging to address every child, keep their attention, and give them the learning stimulus that they needed to learn new things; to push their mind beyond what they already know. During the main, learning part of the day the students were separated into 3 separate virtual rooms: K-2, 3-4 and 5th-8th grade. In the K-2 room, if there was a student that could read, there was most certainly another student that didn't know their alphabet. If one student knew how to perform addition with large numbers, there was a student that still couldn't count past 20. Challenging... but not impossible :)

As you can see by the picture above, we made the most of it! I feel closer with the students than I ever have before and I know the students are just as excited as me to be having class back in person on Monday. God really helped comfort and strengthen me through the last 2 weeks and I know that I wouldn't have been able to teach the way I did without his help and guidance.

I found this sunset, or rather, this beach after the hardest day of teaching yet. I could feel myself on the zoom that day loosing the will to stay excited and engage the students. It felt like I was the only one holding up the burden of taking care of the kids.

It seems I have a habit of taking up burdens I myself cannot carry.

The true nature of those burdens I try to carry is not about about my volunteer mission but instead the impossible standard of perfect productivity and progress. And deeper still is the lie that I have to reach some perfect production point, some arbitrary pie in the sky where I can do everything and be everything for everyone, before I'll be worthy enough to be loved and accepted.

There's a different voice that speaks in opposition to those lies.

He says,

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest."

"You accepted and loved fully, right now."

"You are right where you need to be."

"I am taking care of you right now, and I will never stop caring for you."

"look at the beauty I have created just for you Isaac. You can stop carrying those burdens now. It's going to be alright."

"You can rest."

[alatismeni-theitsa]

Thanks for bringing the racebending to my attention. I never considered that it was harmful towards the origin culture. I considered that it was kind of strong to claim that sort of race thing in a way, but maybe that comes from the more.. christianity? view of where there isnt a direct way that God looks, except any way the person perceives. That's probably what I thought, too, until just now reading your answer to someone else. So.. it's not okay? 1/?

I honestly want to understand as my perspective on this now changes. It makes total sense why it would be entitled of someone to do such a thing, and how it's inconsiderate of the actual origin culture that the deities come from now that I'm thinking about it in this way. So again thank you for bringing this up and answering that other anon. I have some things to revise in my head on this, as I honor Apollo and Hermes, I want to make sure that I get accurate and do my research.

I really enjoy being able to read your experiences and I think it's important as, someone outside the culture, gets to experience and understand more to be as accurate and non... whats the word... inappropriate with representing such a thing, I guess I can say. If that makes sense.__________________________________________________________

Thank you for sending a message and for listening to the opinion of Greek people. (I am not the only one with that opinion, many of my 500 followers also share the same ideas.) Anyways prepare yourself for a looooooong analysis! So, get under comfy blankets and take your tea/coffee next to you!

To begin with, there are Greeks that don’t mind but those are usually Greeks who have close contact with the American way of thinking through social media. Or some that don’t care because the approach our mythology in a kinda superficial way? I am not saying this to offend any Greeks who don’t mind the racebending. Every Greek has the right to have a relationship with their culture according to their own standards. Those people who think racebending is ok are usually no less patriots than the ones who do. However, those who don’t mind the race bending are extremely rare to find. 

If I go to my 50 y/o aunt and announce to her that foreigners depict Demeter as Black she is gonna lose her mind. I have also asked the opinion of Greeks who are not into social media or groups where Greek mythology is discussed by foreigners. When they were informed of the racebending the first thing they said was “but... why??” and they couldn’t fathom how this could help anyone. The second thing they say is “But the Gods are white!” explaining that our ancestor have depicted them as Caucasian for centuries and we, as Greeks, know no other depiction of them.

I assure you, it has nothing to do with white superiority - which is a myth anyways. Greeks can be perfectly racist to people who are pastry white :P If you racebended the gods into any other race, we would still have a problem. It’s all a matter of respecting iconography and tradition. It would be ignorant of even us Greeks to change the depiction of the gods when our ancestors were very clear in their art about their race. It was also clear in antiquity that the gods had bodies. I am in another computer and I cannot access my files, but I had a file for a philosopher who tried to argue against the public opinion that the gods didn’t have bodies. But the majority of ancient Greeks believed that the gods had a physical presence.

Also, race matters for Greeks as it does for most of other cultures. You expect Nigerian deities to look like the average Nigerian, yes? Because they were created by a homogenous Black population. You think the same for Indian and Chinese deities, yes? It makes sense for deities and public figures from a certain culture to look like the people of that culture. I think it’s common sense. Turning an old Nigerian deity into a Chinese, would’t represent the Nigerian people any more. For similar reasons, we don’t want our important heritage figures changed. (In case a warrior was described as Black African in our ancient texts, then of course we wouldn’t have a problem with keeping that figure Black).

You are correct when saying that the race bending comes from a Christian point of view. I think many hellenic polytheists/pagans/wiccans haven't managed to escape the Christian logic. In Christianity we have accepted for many centuries that saints and important figures would be viewed with different races, so people can come closer to them. For example, there is a Chinese, Native American, Mexican (different tribes), Black Jesus etc. Most of the times they are also dressed in the traditional regalia of the respective culture. It's a thing for the last 200 years at least. 

Even Greeks depicted Jesus kinda white (he has an olive skin complexionand brown hair, which is closer to the Greek standards). And this happened since the Byzantine Empire. We even call the Virgin Mary "Mother of all Greeks" (apparently Mary has a particular interest in our nation xD) We have made her into a Greek mum. But we kinda have the freedom to do this because Christianity is an international religion which is alive for the last 2.000 years, so these changes come organically.

On the contrary, almost nobody has worshipped the Greek gods since 500 AC. The religion was been dead for almost 2.000 years, until Western classicists made it a popular. Now people who have no actual contact with the Greek culture start worshiping those gods. Don’t get me wrong, I believe any foreigner can worship the Greek gods! The thing is that most of the foreign worshippers don’t see the Greek gods as part of the culture that created them, because of the Americanization of the gods in the media and the complete stripping of the Greek elements from them.

But gods are still part of the Greeks’ heritage. Many ancient traditions and myths have kept from the ancient years, we have the names of gods and the gods are still used as symbols here. Our culture hasn’t died, as many westerners (perhaps subconciously) believe. It is alive and evolving, despite foreigners usually ignoring us. So, the ideas about our ancient religion have been involving with us, becoming part of our national identity in a unique way. 

After 2.000 years of the religion’s “death”, foreigners become enamored with Greece again. But not our Greece. They become enamored with a part of our culture that hasn’t existed in millenia. They study the culture only till the Roman years and then they skip 2.000 years of evolving cultural identity and go straight to the 21st century western (west Europe/America) ideals and societies.

You can only imagine how it seems to us Greeks, when foreigners suddenly remember us again and, on top of that, they don’t become part of our culture but they insist that a part of our culture (in its ancient form) becomes tailored to their own standards. And now foreigners ingore our own point of view, because, as they have done the last 2.000 years, they keep on ignoring us :P (I mean they as a people, greatly generalizing here). Please see that post for how disconnected a Greek feels about the modern Greek religion, and the analysis that comes with it. (Link)

Similarly, imagine if suddenly the Nigerian culture became a trend in Greece and now some Greeks become interesting in the old (almost dead to Nigeria) worship of Orishas. And now they want to depict the Orishas as White, because they, themselves are white and maybe white deities reflect better the racial situation in Greece. Wouldn’t that be disrespectful, though? Not only because the Black becomes White, but because we would take an inactive worship from the Nigerians and add our own politics to it.

Our situation is also kind of special because for the last centuries every country that has become interested in our culture has abused it. They have stolen antiquities from us and northwestern Europe but also in the US have no problem having those stolen artifacts and displaying them. There is a tradition of foreigners claiming to “love” Greece but they are really in love with our ancient aesthetic and they don’t give a shit about the Greeks who preserve the culture and even die to protect their antiquities. 

So we are used to this kind of treatment and it hurts extra when it’s happening again. But we are also desensitized. For some reason a person can be dressed as a Greek deity for Halloween and we won’t bat an eye. At the same time, I see people from other cultures defending the importance of their figures, when foreigners dress up as them for fun. 

I don’t understand how we consider this disrespectful for any other culture but if it’s the Greek we don’t care. Why could this be? Perhaps because many Greeks have come to see their own culture as public property. Perhaps because it is what the prominent international media tells us and maybe because we are used to selling our culture for profit (we are a tourist country) and we only see it as merchandise. 

Let me add I am not only fascinated by my own cultures but also cultures around the world. It makes no sense to me that people want Gods of color and their only solution is to make the Greek gods Black. Have we forgotten the numerous rich cultures of Asia and Africa?? There are a ton of deities there who, if you want to draw Afrocentric art for example, will be great inspiration! It reminds me of a publishing house which put POC in the covers of western classic books (thus kinda turning the white main characters into POC only in the cover) while not promoting books from POC or books featuring POC. I think it’s counterproductive.

I think that’s all I have to say for now! Feel free to ask more questions if I haven’t covered you! And if you have more thoughts you can drop them in my ask box.

Also, one question for you before you leave. You mentioned “I considered that it was kind of strong to claim that sort of race thing in a way”. Can you explain to me why? I would like to understand better people who think this way. Then maybe I could explain more effectively to them that their race bending practice isn’t as helpful as they think it is.

P.S. Even saying “races” of people exist is considered deeply racist in Greece (and Europe). I mention that as potential food of thought. For us there are only hues of skin colors, not races, so our social politics are different. 

[wheelygoodteddys]

I don't want to do this!:

I absolutely hate writing about religious discrimination!

Frankly, I wish that I wasn't putting fingers to keyboard about any discrimination.

I also desperately don't want the focus to be on discrimination against everything Islamic and Muslim.

However, sadly, it's the most venomous hated that I have ever encountered, second only to racism against the black human beings of our world.

All my life I must have lived under a rock, maybe I live under a rock now, yet the vileness and outright lies that come out of those obsessed with hating all Islam and Muslims, plus anyone who stands up and says this is wrong, is obscene.

I am disgusted in the way these people respond.

I have had differing opinions with both Muslim men are women yet been addressed with respect and politeness. They are peaceful and not intimidating in any way.

Speak to a person who is anti Muslim, they refuse to listen to anything that may contradict what they want to believe, they will call you a liar and slander you. They intimidate and bully, call you names, question your mental stability, stalk your FB and target your children. The insults and illogical reasoning is unbelievable.

I am horrified that there are people like this in the world!

More horrifying still is for once I can see the appeal in hating the West.

Imagine a young Muslim man, born here, and rather then allowing him to explain what his religion means to him, to try and teach people, that hate everything about him, that he deserves to be not discriminated against, he gets told what his religion is, he is called a murder, a terrorist, a paedophile, a Mysoginist, etc. His sister is spoken to about her husband beating her, being oppressed, asked if she still has her clitorus, threatened with physical abuse, has her hijab torn off, threatened with rape, told she is a bad mother because she sells her baby girls to be raped by old men.

And no matter what they say to try and explain their actual beliefs the abuse flows. And this is from their own countrymen.

Mate, I would want them all gone too! Be honest, who wouldn't!?

Yet if they report abuse or complain about their treatment they are accused of wanting to change things. "They come here and try to change everything", is the cry from the haters!

1) There is NO law that insists that ALL women wear a Burqa in Saudi Arabia: Hijab is only compulsory for Muslim women. Anything else is a choice for those in a practicing Muslim family.

2) Women are not allowed to get an education in Saudi Arabia: I urge you to look up any TV broadcast from local Saudi Arabia telecasts. Women, in hijab, reading the news. This suggests an education. However, both men and women are encouraged to gain knowledge in Islam.

3) WTF does Saudi Arabia have to do with every other Muslim world wide, especially in Australia?

4) FGM (female genital mutilation) is an Islamic practice: Far from it! The Islamic religion urges that both men and women enjoy sex and that a man sexually pleases his wife. FGM is a tribal practice. However, MGM (male genital mutilation) has and still is widely practiced in Australia.

5) There is NO "no go" zones in Australia!: This urban myth was started by a female, Canadian Islamphobe. It was said to be proved when the police removed her from Lakemba for disturbing the peace. The police weren't working for the Muslims to enforce their "no go" zones! How ridiculous. Others tell totally unbelievable stories about women walking there and being spat on for not wearing hijab. Firstly, not all Muslimah wear hijab, even in Lakemba. Also there are numerous non-Muslims that go to these fabled areas to eat, visit, shop, do business, etc. This rumor is absolutely ludicrous!

6) Muslim women are oppressed, even here in Australia!: It is naive that there is no abusive people in any religion or walk of life, however, Muslimah are not oppressed as perf the usual course. Quiet the opposite! Historically, and as it is today, Muslimah have the freedom to do and be whatever they want, just like Muslim men. There is no distinction between what male and females can do. In fact, men are encouraged to wash their own clothes, cook and do housework. Also the Qur'an makes it very clear that the mother is the head of the household.

7) It is always claimed that Muslims want to change things: Yet, the question, "what have they actually changed?", goes unanswered. Muslims are required to live by the laws of the land, and as such, really don't want to change anything but the way they are treated. Especially how the women are treated. Our hero Islamphobes always target women and children because Muslimah are more recognizable.

8) Why are these people so threatened by the hijab or niqab?: For fuck sake it's a piece of material! It's not what's on a woman's head that oppresses her. However, who are those that want to oppress Muslimah? Muslim men or the Islamphobe? I say without hesitation, the Islamphobe! They don't ask a Muslim women how she feels, they don't ask what she may want to wear. They rarely comprehend the meaning of the hijab to a woman but rather try to twist it into some sexually perverse. They proclaim that Muslim women shouldn't wear a head covering. As Australia is a free country, with a freedom of religion and freedom of lawful individually, the real oppression and discrimination, is telling Muslim women what to wear.

9) Telling Muslim women what they are: The idea that, to Islamphobes, Muslim women are stupid and therefore, don't know that they are oppressed, would have to be the most Mysoginist slap in the face ever! All I can say is, "at least Muslim men know a woman's worth is awesome".

10) Muslim men marry girl babies of 5 to 6 years old and Muslim mothers allow it: Firstly, American is the place booming in child brides at the moment. With some states having no minimum age for marriage and also no divorce for women. Compared to Malaysian Clerics, years ago, raising the age of concent to 18. Also contrary to European/western/Christian culture, women have been granted divorce since the 700s in Islam.

11) Women wear the Burqa in Australia: This is actually one of those urban myths, started by Pauline Hanson. To see a Burqa in Australia would be very unusual. Most Australian Muslimah are from cultures that don't don the Burqa. The Burqa is an Afghan tradition and is very rare in Australia. Then why fight "ban the Burqa"? In one word, principle! It is against a woman's basic rights to tell her how much she can or can't wear, within the laws of public decency. There is also a security argument, as a Burqa is rarely worn that argument is rather moot.

12) Muslim men have lots of wives and children and just live on welfare: This is so silly that it's laughable. Once again, it is rare for Muslim men to have more than one wife these days as it is financially impractical. Also most Muslim men prefer one wife. In Australia, on average, the Muslim family consists of 2 children. With all this being said, usually Muslim men and women are educated and professional people. If not they strive to own businesses. The stupid welfare claims are unfounded and actually go against most Muslim traditions and cultures that have a hard work ethic.

13) They come here are get more welfare than Australians with no waiting period: This information can be researched on government websites. There is a waiting time for new Australians, Muslim or otherwise, which often means charitable families that sponsor them and take them in during this time. When they do receive any benefit, before getting on their feet, it is no more or less than anyone else.

14) They receive a thousand dollar iPhone and designer clothes as soon as they arrive: Is this one even worth answering? I just shake my head in disbelief!

15) Muslims have been Australians for generations: It amazes me how many people actually believe that no Muslim is Australian born. The history of the Islamic people in Australia predates white colonization. Islamic men from Indonesia travelled down and through Australia. There was intermarriage with the Indigenous peoples and even revertion to Islam by some. A more constant move to Australia, by those of the Islamic faith, started in the 1800's.

16) All Muslims are the same because they read from the same book: this is like saying that all Christian denominations are the same because they read from the same book. Most know that this is not the case.

There are many different varieties of Muslim. Yes they have the Qur'an yet addition books vary between the sects.

There are 72 different sects, numerous sects within the main sects, different traditions, different cultures, different regions, different regions, different countries and different families.

As for the Qur'an: there is the subject context, further context, overall context, historical context and spiritual context. Then all the different ways it is interpreted. Also interpretation can be manipulated and cherry picked to suit an agenda or bias. This can be said of the Bible also.

Where interpretation is important is in the understanding of Arabic. To translate a language as complex as Arabic into simple English leaves the meaning truly lacking.

For example: Islam is a very sexually moral religion. Men and women are not meant to sexulise each other, There is no unsupervised dating and dressing is modest. However, it is commonly thought the men will receive a bus load of virgins to have an orgy with in paradise. However, "virgin" more correctly translates to "pure". This is a "spiritual" context and "heavenly beings/angels is probably a better translation into English.

17) Muslims want to kill all Jews and Muslims. The Qur'an tells them to kill all Christians: Unfortunately people are so off the mark on this one. Islam actually says that Muslims cannot destroy a place of worship nor hurt religious "ministers". The Qur'an refers to Christians and Jews as the "people of the book". In fact, the only other women a Muslim man is permitted to marry is either a Christian or a Jew. The wives of these two religions are also not expect to revert as they are seen as sisters to Islam. Christian and Jewish men and women are thought of as brothers and sisters to Muslims.

There is a long list of urban myth, propaganda, rumors and out right lies that are used as ammunition against Islam and Muslims.

The arrogance of the Islamphobe is to tell a Muslim what their faith is! With no other religion would a person, outside that faith, verse another in their religion.

[ruminativerabbi]

Christchurch

There was something creepy and unsettling about settling into Purim this week as we were all still reeling from the news about the mass shooting last Friday at the mosques in New Zealand. Yes, it’s true that at the heart of Purim is the encouraging story of how a plot to murder innocents was thwarted by a combination of cleverness, bravery, and extreme chutzpah on the part of Mordechai and Queen Esther. But how could that happy outcome provide comfort for the Muslims of New Zealand (or, for that matter, for New Zealand’s Jews, who could surely just as easily have been the shooter’s victims) given that Haman’s plot failed utterly, while last week’s attack took the lives of fifty innocents at worship? There is something to learn from that comparison, though, but it has to do more with the villain’s motivation in both stories than with how either turned out in the end…because what motivated Haman to plan a nation-wide pogrom openly intended to annihilate the Jewish community in his time and place is more or less precisely what motivated the alleged shooter in New Zealand—at least judging by the so-called “manifesto” he emailed to more than thirty recipients, including the Prime Minister’s office in far-off Wellington, just minutes before the attack on the first mosque.

Assuming the authorities have the right man, which they seem certain they do, the shooter seems to have been motivated by a set of grim fantasies that society needs seriously to address. Admittedly, the seventy-four-page manifesto is a long read, although nowhere near as long as the 1,500-page screed penned by Anders Brevik, the man convicted of murdering seventy-seven people, mostly high school students, in a shooting rampage on the Norwegian island of Utoya in 2011 and whose writing covered many of the same topics covered in the New Zealand shooter’s manifesto. (Brevik’s unabashed motivation in undertaking his act of mass murder was to get his book read by the public, an incentive so real in his mind that he actually referred in public to the shooting as his personal “book launch.”)

At the heart of both documents is the deep-seated fear of replacement, a theme most Americans first heard about when the white supremacist marchers in Charlottesville shocked the world back in 2017 by chanting “Jews will not replace us,” a slogan so foreign to most that even I, who consider myself more than knowledgeable about anti-Semitic tropes, did not understand it properly at first. (To revisit what I wrote last fall about eventually coming to understand what the slogan means to those who chant it, click here.)  Nor, I finally seized, was this just a creepy mantra intended solely to unnerve or to upset, but actually a slogan fully expressive of the idea that serves as the beating heart of white supremacist paranoia. The concept itself is simple enough: that the policies promoted by liberal Western democracies that permit immigration from third-world countries, encourage racial integration, promote (or at least permit) interracial marriage, justify ever-descending fertility rates as the result of personal decisions with which the state may never interfere, endorse access to abortion as a basic human right, and enact gun control laws intended to declaw the basic human right to bear arms—that these policies are all part of some mysterious global effort to replace “regular” white people (i.e., working-class whites who belong to Christian churches they either do or don’t attend) with people of color in general, but particularly with Muslims from third-world countries.

The white supremacists of different nations promote different versions of this theory—but they all derive at least to some extent from the 1973 novel by French author Jean Raspail, Le Camp des Saints, in which an ill-prepared host of Western nations, primarily France but others as well including the U.S., are at first slowly and then decisively overwhelmed by immigrants from the Indian subcontinent, Western Africa, and Southeast Asia. Eventually South Africa is overrun too, as is Russia, with the result that the world as we know it comes to a decisive end even before the book does. (The book is available in English in Norman Shapiro’s translation as The Camp of the Saints, published by Scribner’s in 1975 and still in print.)

And that specific fear—that faceless hordes of dark-skinned people of various ethnic and national origins are just biding their time on their own turf until the misguided members of the liberal establishment in eventually every First World country blindly and stupidly open the gates without caring who comes through them or what those people stand for—that is the underlying emotion that appears to have provoked the mosque bombings in New Zealand, the mass murder of high school students in Norway, and any number of violent incidents in our own country. When white supremacists talk about the fear of being “replaced,” that is what they mean.

It’s not entirely untrue, of course, that immigrants—and particularly in large numbers—alter the face of the host country that takes them in. That surely did happen in our own country after successive waves of immigrants in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries fundamentally altered the face of American culture. But in the case of our own country, the overall effect was essentially salutary because those groups who came here en masse were composed of individuals, three of my four grandparents among them, who were for the most part eager to embrace American culture and who had no interest at all in attempting to impose the culture of their countries of origin on the citizens of the nation that granted them refuge and took them in.

The accused shooter is an Australian, which adds a strong dollop of irony to his fear of replacement given that both Australia and New Zealand are dominated by cultures brought to those places by imperialist immigrants from Europe who rode roughshod over the actual culture of the actual people they found living in those places when they arrived en masse in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. But I’m thinking that the real issue isn’t whether cultures do or don’t, or should or shouldn’t, evolve as time moves forward and the ethnic or racial make-up of the populace alters. On a more fundamental level, the issue has to do with the ability to see strangers as individuals rather than as a faceless horde.

The fear of being overwhelmed is probably a natural response when newcomers are seen not as individual men and women—people with children, who need jobs, who want to play a useful and meaningful role in society, who like to swim or to paint or to make music or to cook, who have their own set of fears and anxieties—but solely as part of the groups to which they belong.  And there is irony in this anxiety-driven world view as well because, by refusing to see others as individuals, such people eventually start thinking of themselves in that way as well and end up retreating deeper and deeper into their own communities. This in turn leads to the phenomenon that Canadian author Hugh McLennan once famously called “two solitudes,” a baleful situation in which contiguously situated groups have almost so little contact with each other that they quickly forget that the people on the other side of the line are individuals with whom they could easily engage if they wished. And so the path is laid for once-great countries to become balkanized shadows of their former selves as the sense of national identity that once held the citizenry together slowly erodes and becomes ever more fragile. Eventually, the nation collapses in on itself and something else emerges from the ruins…but the chances of that new entity somehow not facing the same issues of mutually antagonistic solitudes within its borders is nil. And so begins the spiral down towards dissolution and disunity born of fear. It does not—perhaps even cannot—end well!

In the history of the West, the Jews have played the role of the perennial other, of the tolerated alien. The outpouring of sympathy in the Jewish community over the last week for the Muslims of New Zealand—a community that I seriously doubt more than half a dozen Jewish Americans even knew existed before last week—derives directly from that sense that, in the end, what drives the kind of violent animus against Muslims gathering for prayer that exploded last Friday in Christchurch is different only in cosmetic terms from the kind of explosive violence so often directed at Jews. So we add Christchurch to the list of gun-violent massacres in religious settings that already includes (to reference only attacks within the last decade) Charleston, Pittsburgh, Sutherland Springs, and Oak Creek. And we brace for the next attack, which will surely come unless we can find a way to force the haters to look directly at the objects of their antipathy and see, not a faceless horde, but men and women made in the image of God. That sounds so simple when put that way, and so obvious. But you cannot make blind people see merely by forcing them to open their eyes and face in the right direction….

[diabolikgrimreaper]

Unpopular opinion, ignore if you are religious.

Okay, can I rant?

I dislike western religions.

Explanation:

I believe that the individual is okay; you can practice and it’s non of my business. But the actual church and the figureheads disgust me. More specially, the Mormon (church of latter-day saints). If somebody identifies as Mormon, I lost likely won’t care. But I HATE the fact that CHILDRWN ages 12-17 get shamed for exploring sexuality and sometimes get asked sexual explicit questions by the higher-ups. It’s disgusting. Those higher-ups are the reason for higher rates of teen suicide, more specially LGBTQ+ (but it isn’t limited to), in Utah.

Also, the phrase that people of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), “hate the sin, live the sinner” actually makes me sad inside. I come from a mild Catholic area. Actually, my area is prodinately Catholic. However, nobody is extreme with their beliefs... but I was always told that sin was evil, it was disgusting, and that every bad thing that I do, the lord will be watching me, and if I don’t atone, he will be disappointed.

Partially, I blame that phrase as the reason why I am depressed and fucked up now. That phrase roughly translates to “I don’t hate you, I just hate who you are.” Because in the eyes of the church, some sins such as homosexuality are dirty. And I am bisexxual. And this confused me as a preteen, because I didn’t realize I was bi at the time and I thought that something was wrong with me. I had a depression because I couldn’t accept myself in the eyes of the lord... and I’m CATHOLIC. Catholicism is one of the BEST of the WORST with churches.

I can’t believe how awful it must be for transgender people or homosexuals in a church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism) or the Jehovah’s witnessss.

Also, I believe that having one all white, pure and powerful God is a very toxic concept. Because you formulate your life around that God, and you give everything to him, but what does he do for you? Tell you you’re a sinner? Oh, right! He gives you life. But what about all of the sadness and grief that comes with life? Doesn’t he love all his children? So, then, why does your all white and pure God make children want to kill them selves or something that they were born with? Why does world hunger exist? Why does cancer/illness exist? Why can’t we all be happy?

How did the light be created before the source?

Why is there no evidence of Noah’s arc and the flood?

Do you truly love all your children?

Why is there no biological, geological or just in general scientific evidence of creationism?

Again, this is not a hate statement. I don’t hate the people under these churches, and the people who call themselves by those names... but I dislike what the church teaches and how violently and fiercely they indoctrinate the youth. I feel bad and it makes me sad.

I am still struggling with depression 3 years after leaving the church I still have the guilt of being homosexual ingrained in me and I’m trying so hard to shake it off. I, too, was indoctrinated.

Edit:

I do acknowledge that faith gives people hope and closure, and that is why I don’t care if the people worship the God or not. However, the religious figures, the representatives and the people behind the mask are usually the ones that are homophobic, amasoginsitic and racist. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, do a quick google search. Though, I think that you should do more research into this, like I did. Also, I’m still doing my research. So I could add to this later.

[wellplacedrocket]

I Visited the Mormon Temple Square and it Really Reminded Me of BioShock Infinite

I don’t go on a lot of (read: any) religious touristy sort of adventures, so maybe the Mormon Temple Square isn’t all that weird in the grand scheme of things. But I’ll be damned if it didn’t give me hints of Columbia, the city in BioShock Infinite. Hear me out on this.

I want to caveat before I go further that it’s probably gonna seem like I’m really picking on Mormons here. I’m not. Mormonism is absolutely no weirder than any other religion, and there are plenty of Mormons (probably most of them) who are much smarter, more hardworking, successful, and better to their fellow man than I am. If you roll your eyes at scripture of Moroni, but turn around and worship Jesus or Vishnu or Odin or Buddha, and follow the World of God as explained to you by Muhammad, then your cognitive dissonance is so thick, so dense, that it must throw off compasses. I don’t think religious or spiritual people are stupid for being that way.

Anyway.

I was in Salt Lake City with a few hours to kill, and figured the Mormon Temple Square would be the one thing I couldn’t get anywhere else, so why the hell not? Let’s get my Mormon on. Many of the buildings in the Temple Square are made with this gorgeous white granite that pops up nearby, and so to the eye a lot of it looked like the White City of Gondor.

The visitors centers are small museums that lay out the history, scripture highlights, and current tenants of Mormon theology.

As a kid, I was raised Catholic-lite, but I’ve never been to the Vatican, and I wonder if there’s similar stuff anywhere else among worldwide Christian churches. That Noah’s Ark museum in Kentucky, maybe? The tone of much of this stuff seems to be to reassure outsiders that hey, Jesus is still just the best! He’s the best, you guys. We’re not any different from your local bake sale-having church people at all! In fact, there doesn’t seem to be much that explicitly tries to contrast with other Christian sects whatsoever, until you get to the Book of Mormon (the actual Book of Mormon) stuff that takes place in the Western Hemisphere.

A lot of this stuff came across to me as a “here’s how to be” kind of children’s book in museum form. It’s not really propaganda, I guess, because conduct prescriptions are what religions are supposed to do. However, the exhibits and artwork they had showing important people in Mormon scripture and the paramount religious events in their lives started giving me weird, familiar vibes.

A 19th century New Yorker who has some sort of religious awakening, begins to preach, gathers a cadre of like minded true believers, establishes a hyper-ardent offshoot Christian sect in the U.S., insists upon racism as one of the pillars of this new theology, is revered as a prophet to his people, gains power and respect (which he abuses), and begins an exodus of his followers out of American society to found their own civilization which will eventually prove hostile to the U.S.? Oh, you thought I was describing Joseph Smith or Brigham Young? Well, surprise, it’s (also) Zachary Hale Comstock, villain of Bioshock Infinite.

I’m not the first to draw this comparison. Here’s a much better article than I could hope to write from an anonymous blogger who claims to be an ex Mormon. And Bioshock creative head Ken Levine mentioned in a Mother Jones article:

There’s a bit of Joseph Smith in [Comstock], a bit of Teddy Roosevelt…Roosevelt was a very progressive figure in many ways. But he was also what you’d probably call a neoconservative in his view of America’s role in the world. So I have trouble comparing Comstock to him directly. Also, I’d have trouble just comparing Comstock to Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. I mean, the American-centric nature of the religion that he forms has some similarities to Mormonism, but there’s nothing in the Mormon church that approached the level of sinisterness you’d find in a Comstock.

In the game (where the next bunch of linked images are from), Comstock is a religious figure with a hyper-nationalism for his own vociferously racist vision of America, which never actually existed and is more twisted than even our own real history. There’s a part of the game where you play through a museum dedicated to the history of Columbia, the city-state Comstock founded, and it puts a very religious sort of spin on the founding of the United States and points in its history. Abraham Lincoln is called “The Apostate” and is remembered as an insidious Satan figure, while John Wilkes Booth is a saint. The Confederate Army, being the true soul of America to these zealots, is led by the angelic spirit of George Washington. The locals are generally hostile.

All of this stuff is understandably batshit, because they were trying to write a villain in Comstock. I’m not saying Mormons are or were evil like this guy. I’m saying it seems pretty likely that the devs took Mormon lore, cranked the evil and steampunky sci-fi up to 11, and out came Comstock and Columbia.

The American founding fathers appear in Mormon religious works, notably in writings by Wilford Woodruff, fourth president of the LDS Church, describing religious visions:

The spirits of the dead gathered around me, wanting to know why we did not redeem them ... These were the signers of the Declaration of Independence ... I thought it very singular, that notwithstanding so much work had been done, and yet nothing had been done for them ... I straightway went into the baptismal font and called upon brother McCallister [sic] to baptize me for the signers of the Declaration of Independence.

The LDS Church is extremely PR conscious and has left doctrinal, institutional racism behind, but it’s a poorly kept secret that the early days didn’t look too good. Unlike the populations of other Western Territories (Colorado and California in particular), the Mormons mostly took a pass on the Civil War, though to their credit, there isn’t much evidence to suggest explicit sympathy for the Confederacy. However, here’s Brigham Young:

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. The nations of the earth have transgressed every law that God has given, they have changed the ordinances and broken every covenant made with the fathers, and they are like a hungry man that dreameth that he eateth, and he awaketh and behold he is empty.

And now here’s Comstock:

What exactly was the Great Emancipator emancipating the Negro from? From his daily bread? From the nobility of honest work? From wealthy patrons who sponsored them from cradle to grave? From clothing and shelter? And what have they done with their freedom? Why, go to Finkton, and you shall find out. No animal is born free, except the white man. And it is our burden to care for the rest of creation.

The Mormons flirted with armed rebellion but eventually backed down when the United States and local native nations made it clear they were not fucking around. Joseph Smith, a 100% legit, honest to God prophet to his people, had some pretty dark things to say about the U.S., especially the godless northeast cities:

Nevertheless, let the bishop go unto the city of New York, also to the city of Albany, and also to the city of Boston, and warn the people of those cities with the sound of the gospel, with a loud voice, of the desolation and utter abolishment which await them if they do reject these things. For if they do reject these things the hour of their judgment is nigh, and their house shall be left unto them desolate.

And here’s Woodruff again, in a prophesy “confirmed” by Young:

While you stand in the towers of the Temple and your eyes survey this glorious valley filled with cities and villages, occupied by tens of thousands of Latter-day Saints, you will then call to mind this visitation of President Young and his company. You will say: That was in the days when Presidents Benson and Maughan presided over us; that was before New York was destroyed by an earthquake. It was before Boston was swept into the sea, by the sea heaving itself beyond its bounds; it was before Albany was destroyed by fire; yea, at that time you will remember the scenes of this day.

Well, here’s a scene in Bioshock Infinite that shows a time-travel flash forward to the future year 1984, what Comstock will do if not stopped. He floats Columbia right over New York and starts bombing:

How the hell do they not get shot down? Sci-fi weapons or shields, I’m guessing. Columbia imagines if a civilization of religious secessionists hadn’t decided to chill out in the end, the way the Mormons did.

If you need any more convincing of the connection here, in BioShock Infinite, one of the protagonists who the player spends a lot of time with and who drives the story is Comstock’s daughter Elizabeth. She is kept a gilded-cage prisoner and wants out of Columbia, and much of the action is about helping her to escape. SPOILER ALERT FOR A 5-YEAR OLD GAME: Elizabeth’s parentage isn’t what it seems, she was actually given the name Anna at birth. Well, there was a famous ex-wife of Brigham Young, one of 55, who decided she wasn’t about that life, alleged domestic abuse against Young and filed for divorce (both a huge deal for their time), and ultimately wrote an autobiographical account called Wife No. 19. This woman’s name? Ann Eliza Webb.

No doubt you could substitute any other religion and find similar parallels to BioShock Infinite in art and lore, but the Americanness of the LDS Church is what sells this idea to me, how both the real life Mormon church and the fictional characters and civilization draw from the cultural fundamentals of this country, as well as our absolute worst elements. The obvious difference is the Mormons wrestle with the racism and violence in their church’s past, and for sure try to do good works in the world today. Not so for Comstock and Columbia. But that’s part of what made them such compelling villains.

[shark-myths]

Church: Video Meta

This morning it is my great privilege to present a true piece of Peterick scholarship: an intensive examination of the Church video by my dear @leyley09!

I came into the FOB tumblr fandom (as opposed to all those ‘normal’ people out in the world) via two screen-based fandoms - Sherlock and Supernatural - so I am used to overanalyzing camera angles, immediate cuts, and music layered over images. And with a song and a video like Church, it’s impossible not to put some of that to use.

It’s important to remember with any kind of film media that someone has chosen what we are seeing. No one does anything in a single take. Multiple versions of every shot were filmed, and someone specifically selected the ones we get to see because those shots do the best job of telling the story that person wants us to ‘hear’.

For most films or tv shows, that’s generally the director, possibly with some writers or producers thrown in depending on the project. We at The Peterick Institute would like to point out that rumor has it Pete exerts a lot of creative control over the music videos. I’m going to go with “someone” and let you all jump to your preferred conclusions.

continued below the cut!

  We open with one of our protagonists approaching a building before running into Pete. On a surface plot level, there is no purpose for Pete in this scene. The first few seconds were enough to establish that this guy is someone we’re supposed to be watching. So what is the point of having him run into Pete and drop his phone?

Since you’re reading this post on this blog, let’s assume there’s a deeper explanation, shall we?

It could be that the protagonist is a representation of Pete. They are dressed in similar colors. This guy is approaching a building that Pete appears to be leaving. He could be representing a younger version of Pete, one who is on his way into the phase of life that “current” Pete is exiting.

But what about the phone?

The dropping of the phone could represent the temporary loss of communication, which we all know was pretty much the hiatus.

Let’s move on to the building. First point - that is not a church. I've spent way too much of my life in "church", and churches don't have walls like this:

You know what does? Mausoleums (which was nicely confirmed in the behind the scenes video)

There is a major difference between a church and a mausoleum. You go to church to worship. You go to a mausoleum to lay someone to rest. (“you only get what you grieve” … )

(And sure, maybe they just picked it because of the cool stained glass, but how disappointing would that be?)

Let’s go back to that initial image for a second:

That’s right, humans of all sorts, that’s Patrick Stump looking like a Byzantine icon.

Ex: One of my favorite icons from the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul. (Patrick’s just got a bigger halo.)

In addition to reinforcing the idea of “holiness” - in western/Christian iconography, only the most holy (“you’re holy to me”) are given a halo - a big, bright circle also does an excellent job of drawing your attention to whatever is inside it. It’s like a bright white bullseye.

Patrick is not the only one who gets caught dead-center in this halo. Less than a minute into the video, so does Pete:

What else is happening at this precise point? Patrick is singing "swallow it for me".

Let me repeat an idea from earlier: someone decided that this ^^ is the mental image you should pull up every time Patrick sings "swallow it for me". (I’ll wait while you process that.)

While Patrick is singing the first verse and Pete’s being holy for swallowing (look, they said it, not me), we meet our other protagonist. Together, these two make up a pair of doomed lovers (the second pair of doomed lovers we’ve seen represented in music videos for this album alone). They appear to be of different ethnicities, which is still frowned upon by some (ignorant) people. So, perhaps they are symbolic of other "non-traditional" relationships?

We cut immediately from their affectionate reunion to this:

To run with our subtext, we’ve cut from Guy-representing-Pete kissing his girlfriend to Patrick in a halo singing “trust me that’s what I will be”.

“Oh the things that you do in the name of what you love” layers directly overtop our doomed lovers being spotted by someone spying from an upper level, someone who is not pleased to see them together. It’s clear they’re taking a risk being together in public, but people do a lot of things (make a lot of risky choices) when they’re “in love”.

Cut immediately to this:

For our surface level plot, Patrick in a coffin singing “you were doomed but just enough” is pretty obvious foreshadowing - this couple is doomed because someone is going to die. But why not throw a few extra layers of subtext on that, just because we can.

First, I want to introduce another layer of sub-plot. Remember Pete, from earlier? Leaving a mausoleum (a place you go to lay someone to rest, to grieve) for no apparent reason? Can it be a coincidence that Patrick is the *only* one we see in a coffin?

This Patrick here, this is not the current “version” of Patrick. This is not 2018 Patrick’s aesthetic. In addition to the suit jacket and the fedora, he has obviously had makeup applied. While this does also emphasize the idea that he’s supposed to be dead, it also harkens back to a time when Patrick had more pronounced cheekbones. (This is by no means a negative observation; people change over time in all sorts of ways, and THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.) There has been some debate among the three of us contributing to this meta about what period this is supposed to represent, but personally, I don’t know that the specific time period matters. I think what’s important here is that a past version of Patrick has been laid to rest. WE WILL COME BACK TO THIS.

In addition to the foreshadowing for our doomed lovers, if that particular line is supposed to throw back to anything besides "I'm half doomed and you're semi-sweet", I don't know what it is.

Let’s move on to The-Guy-In-Charge.

We at The Peterick Institute refuse to think it is anything less than intentional that this guy appears in a similar outfit to that worn by “God” in the Youngblood Chronicles. Someone with a lot of power who walks into a “church” to punish people for a forbidden behavior? That’s a pretty common viewpoint. He’s also making a “prayer” gesture with his hands post-phone call. But it’s not exactly like “God”, is it? It’s just the outer layers that are the snappy white suit. Underneath, he’s wearing a dark shirt. To me, that reads as someone who just thinks they’re god - someone who thinks they’re that important, thinks they rule over your whole world… someone like a record label executive who might think they get to decide who you can and can’t be romantically involved with in public, perhaps?

Plus the ‘villain in a white suit’ trope is very common to Pete’s favorite pop culture time period. And when has Pete ever been able to resist a pop culture reference?

FUN FACT INTERRUPTION:

If you pause just right, you can get Pete making this face at the same time Patrick’s singing “I’d get on my knees”, which isn’t related to anything really, it just makes me giggle.

Next, our “villains” enter directly out of a bright light - bit like the “light at the end of the tunnel”, yes? This really just reinforces the idea that this is some kind of “divine justice”....or at least justice that thinks it is divine.

Our star-crossed lovers attempt to escape. They clearly know that this was a possibility. They knew being together was dangerous. They must have thought they were safe in this crowd because they weren't being the slightest bit discreet, but they weren't.

It’s fairly easy to see that, while they’re trying to hide in a back room, our lady protagonist takes off a necklace and puts it on her boyfriend. But it happens very fast, and it’s difficult to see what’s on the chain. It took me several viewings and a lot of frame-by-frame skipping to figure it out -- it’s a ring. (Seriously, just when I think this video can’t get any more painful.) She pulls it out from underneath her choker, so it’s something she was hiding.

These two aren’t just hiding a relationship, they’re hiding the nature of that relationship, the seriousness of it. So why reveal it now? And even better question, why follow the ring with a shot of Patrick in the coffin?

You've got to have a lot of nerve to drag someone out into a group of people, into a well-lit public setting, AND THEN KILL THEM. These guys had the perfect opportunity to stab our protagonist in the back room, and Guy-In-Charge chose to drag him out of there, shove him into the crowd (getting everyone's attention), and then stab him. That's a helluva statement. That isn’t a small statement for a small audience ("I don't want you to be with this particular guy"); that’s a big statement for a public audience (“this is what happens to people who don’t follow the rules”). This is someone being made an example in order to scare other people.

When our hero gets stabbed....he doesn't bleed right. That's not what fake Hollywood blood looks like; that's not what actual human blood looks like. I’ve seen some suggestions that it’s glitter. It is sparkly. But frankly, even if there’s glitter in it, the color/consistency looks a lot like the shitty grape juice I've spent most of my life drinking for Communion. (**After seeing the BTS video, there’s definitely a liquid involved.) WE WILL COME BACK TO THIS MOMENTARILY.

The last thing you see in this video is Patrick-in-the-coffin. Not the woman who's just seen her boyfriend murdered, not the two of them together in some kind of Romeo-and-Juliet style final embrace. No, the last thing you see is what appears to be a younger version of Patrick laid out like a wake. That's the impression they have chosen to leave us with, the one image they want to linger on our minds along with the final line of the song, “I’d get on my knees, yeah”.

So we’ve seen one layer of story - a pair of lovers torn apart against their will, a couple who are willing to risk everything to be together, a relationship that ends in conflict due to outside forces. If you’re familiar with shark-myths’ Tryst Theory, this could not fall any more in line. (If you’re not, um, this is basically it without the details.)

And underneath this surface layer, we have a past version of Patrick being laid to rest with only one visible mourner:

And the thing that we are supposed to associate most with this “dead” Patrick?

 “I’d get on my knees”

He sings some part of that line four times from the coffin, five times if you want to count the final “yeah” after the last actual lyric.

(If you’re curious about the other things coffin!Patrick says, it’s “you were doomed but just enough” 2x and “confess my love”, so feel free to read into that however you’d like.)

Now that we’ve done our scene-by-scene breakdown, what are some other themes we’re seeing in this story?

First, I promised to address this:

Pete singing along is not a new phenomena, for sure, but singing along to a line like “confess my love” is….interesting, to put it mildly. It puts us at The Peterick Institute in mind of this quote from Patrick: “I don’t think Pete thinks of himself as a bass player. I think he thinks of himself as a singer. He sings through me.” What a lovely demonstration of Pete using Patrick’s voice to express himself.

Next, I want to touch briefly on how little we see Joe and Andy in this video. While that used to be (unfortunately) more common, more recent videos have been better about giving screentime to these guys. This was one of the first things I noticed watching this video the first time through. You're nearly halfway through the video before Joe or Andy get their first close up or solo shot, and neither of them gets centered on that halo like Pete and Patrick do. Andy gets closest, but it looks more like an accident, just because the drums are set up in front of it. It’s not the nicely centered in the frame kind of shot that both Patrick and Pete have. In addition, neither of them play any part in the coffin!Patrick subplot whatsoever, which also reduces their screen time.

This is interesting mostly as it relates to Pete. Patrick is the one signing; by default, he becomes the center of attention. One would expect the majority of the “concert” screen time to go to him. Additional “concert” screen time should be split fairly equally between the rest of the band. It is not.

You have two options for why that is. 1) The people-making-decisions are idiots and assumed that everyone would rather look at Pete than any of the other guys, or 2) it's intentional. What's the point of making the people you see most in the video besides our doomed lovers Patrick and Pete? Gee, I wonder.

 Communion --

I mentioned Communion earlier while discussing the not-blood we see when our protagonist is stabbed. I think that’s a very relevant point. For one thing, it’s one of the main rituals associated with “church”. For many believers, that ritual confers a degree of holiness upon you when you participate in it. You’re supposed to confess and repent of your sins before you take Communion; for at least that brief moment, you’re as holy as you’re going to be. (At least in the tradition I’m familiar with.)  

In addition, Communion is a fairly common part of a lot of funeral services, which is also very appropriate for our setting and subplots here.

And it’s not the first time this has come up:

In case you’re wondering why I chose only these two images, it’s because there aren’t matching images for Joe and Andy. You get a shot that is probably supposed to imply that they participated, but you never actually see them do it. (And shhh, don’t tell me that it’s probably for the same reasons you don’t see Andy eating/drinking/doing drugs in Young Volcanoes, shhhh.)

In my experience, two people dressed in white up in front of God taking Communion…...are getting married. (My dad wore a white tux in my parents’ wedding, so...)

 Death/Rebirth --

This is not an idea that is new to this album. A quick glance back at SRAR and the Youngblood Chronicles is plenty of evidence of that. We’re connecting it directly to the images of a past!Patrick though. The fact that Patrick is made to look so different in the coffin than he does in the “performance” shots is a huge visual clue.  As I mentioned earlier, I personally don’t think it matters which period of time this past!Patrick represents for each of us. What matters for the metaphor is that a past version of Patrick is dead/gone/doesn’t exist any more. As someone who was overly-churched, it reminded me a little of the idea that Christians are (IDEALLY) supposed to "die to the world" -- leave ideas/behaviors that aren't church-compliant behind them, in the past, as they are "reborn" into a sparkly new-and-improved version of themselves.

We’ve seen Patrick do this before in the Save Rock & Roll video, where he rejects the [brainwashed] version of himself and ends up in heaven, in a new-and-improved (AND WHOLE) version of himself.

To me, the depiction of a past version of Patrick - AND ONLY PATRICK - as being dead is big, huge jumping-up-and-down-with-pom-poms metaphor that the version of Patrick we’re being shown in the coffin doesn’t exist anymore.

As we at The Institute debated this issue, I received the following message from @shark-myths:

“The idea of possibilities dying out and ending *in order for them to be rejuvenated* is so key here. Like, they were doomed from the start and have always been each other's certain doom, and they destroyed each other and the band, and then impossibly and against all odds they ROSE AGAIN TOGETHER. Now there are no limits.

if you believe in peterick no end is final and no death is real.”

I read that email, minimized my browser, and looked right at this on my wallpaper slideshow:

“No end is final” indeed

To borrow one of my favorite pop culture quotes:  "And what do we say about coincidence?" "The universe is rarely so lazy."  

  Thank you Leyna!!! Your contribution to scholarship will live on forever. Just like Peterick. 💜💜💜

[mrsspidermanmaryjanewatsonparker]

It’s really obvious Joe Quesada was responsible for One More Day guys, not J. Michael Straczynski

Another reason why blaming Straczynski for One More Day is wrong?

The worst parts of it were the deal and the involvement of Mephisto.

And I strongly suspect that those elements were Quesada’s doing not Straczynski’s.

Not gonna lie some of this is based upon cultural prejudices so you’ve been warned.

Simply put the big notion that JMS would be responsible for Mephisto’s involvement is premeditated upon the idea that magic and mysticism was a major theme in his run on Spider-Man.

But here is the thing though.

Traditionally in the Western world AND in the Marvel universe there has usually been subtle lines of delineation between the kind of worldly mysticism and magic of other cultures, stereotypical ‘the wise old man from the East’, and the occult devil worshiping kind.

How many ‘wise man from the East who knows ancient magic’ have you (unfortunately) seen wherein their portrayed in a way that conveys wisdom, power and other positive attributes (not saying this means it’s not racist, but you see what I mean).

In contrast you have the people who help out Damien in the Omen movies, who’re decidedly agents of utter evil.

This applies to the Marvel Universe too. Not unsurprisingly given that these are American characters, written by American writers set usually in fictional American settings.

Consequently you have the kinds of magic and mystical sources Doctor Strange, the Norse Gods and other entities are associated with but in-universe guys like Mephisto, Ghost Rider and Damian Hellstorm are narratively coded differently. 

Doctor Strange might fight forces of evil but they are usually Eldritch Abominations akin to something from Lovecraft. They’re broad forces of nature a lot of the time and even the ones who aren’t tend to be incredibly powerful magical jerks.

The Norse Gods are more grandiose and traditionally Epic, as are the members of the Greek pantheon.

Mephisto and characters associated with demons and Hell though are often portrayed as sadistic and encounters with them have horrible personal costs that usually play out as Aesop fables of some kind.

Why is recognizing this distinction important?

Because throughout his run Straczynski on Spider-Man expressed a clear preference for the former types than the latter. Even evil characters associated with mysticism weren’t strictly speaking demonic. His concept was to emphasise the spider aspect of Spider-Man. The animal and nature connection, hence Morlun, Shathra and the Other were magical but all connected in a ‘circle of life, law of the jungle’ kind of way. 

Morlun and Shathra were evil but basically just wanted to eat Spider-Man. In the Other Peter died and was reborn as a spider in real life sheds its skin. Encounters with Doctor Strange similarly presented the forces of magic as relatively neutral, bigger than distinctions between good and evil but subject to abuse by individual people (huh, almost like it was riffing on ‘great power comes great responsibility’ or something)? 

Same deal with Loki in JMS’ run. Loki wan’t presented as evil and the force he and Spidey teamed up against was just a force of trickery and chaos, not strictly evil but a threat to public safety all the same. Even Dormammu is more an 1960s fever dream conception of evil than strictly speaking clearly demonic within a Judea-Christian context.

What I am saying is for Straczynski to then turn around and make use of Mephisto actually seems to go against his preferences in dabbling with magic and mysticism. It’s too obvious for him, too black and white.

But then we have Quesada.

Quesada who famously was raised Catholic. And not just incidentally Catholic. Catholic to the point where he is majorly associated with the most famous Catholic superhero ever who also just so happens to dress as a devil. I am of course speaking about Matt Murdock, a.k.a. Daredevil.

Providing artwork along with the writing of fellow Catholic Kevin Smith, Quesada infamously produced the Guardian Devil storyline in the late 1990s and early 2000s and thereby helped save Marvel (and secure start him on the road to becoming EIC) by introducing the Marvel Knights line of comics.

So prolific was this story that the ramifications of it are still felt to this day in Daredevil and artwork from it is still used in promotional material for the character.

And WHAT does the Guardian Devil storyline happen to involve?

It involves Daredevil believing he’s encountering the anti-christ and the death of his long time love interest Karen Page, thereby making him single, something people at Marvel were evidently interested in since the story itself tries to have Daredevil call up his ex Black Widow for sex even before Karen has died.

....Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Not convinced?

Okay.

How about the fact that Quesada once tried to justify One More Day by putting across a weird, weird story about his mother:

Let me digress for a bit, I promise there’s a point to this story.

I was raised by a very middle-class family. We went through some very rough financial times, but for the most part we were eventually okay. Both my mom and dad were old-school: To them, what was most important was that their kid had more in life and more opportunities than they had growing up. Many years ago, after my grandfather passed away, my father inherited the house owned by my grandfather. My dad was an amazing man, but he wasn’t great with money and he had a tendency to worry about things to extremes. My mom, having known him for so many years, knew this all too well. They had separated for some time and eventually reunited, so there was a lot of water under that bridge. Sometime after receiving the house, both he and my mom decided that they wanted to sell it, take the money and move to Florida, and buy a house there. My mom was especially pleased with this idea because owning a house was a proper inheritance to hand down to their son when the time came.

So, as planned, off they went to good ol’ Miami. My mom was thrilled, but only momentarily. They had some money in the bank, but my dad decided to rent a home instead of buying one. For three years, he rented, despite my mom and I encouraging him to stop wasting money on rent buy a proper home. My dad always panicked when it came to big money issues and I suspect that’s why he hesitated. But one day he finally gave in and decided to go house shopping.

After months and months of looking and finally finding a place, and then going through all of the time it took to close the deal, he did it — he signed on the dotted line. The very next day, my mother showed him a half dollar-sized bruise and lump over one of her breast. It was cancer and it was very advanced. We were both floored. How could she hide this from us? I asked my mom how long she knew she had the lump, and she said that she’d discovered it right around the time that my dad started to get the itch to buy a house. She had decided not to say anything because if my father had known that she had this medical issue, he would have begun worrying about medical bills and would have never bought the house.

I was furious at her; I understood why she did it, but the cancer eventually took her from us way to soon. In her world, she wanted to make sure that our family had a home and she put that above her health. After knowing my dad for all those years, she knew exactly how he would have reacted. The truth of the matter is that she was right — he would have stopped looking for a home, he would have worried himself sick about what was coming down the road. What she failed to see, however, was that no house, no inheritance, could ever make up the loss of her in my life.

So, to me, MJ was doing the same thing. Not only did she force the issue, but she did everything she could to make sure that Mephisto wouldn’t screw Peter in the deal. And then in the end, when Peter is at the crossroads, she gives him the okay and the confidence to join her in the pact when she simply says, “Be my hero.

Putting aside how a house isn’t the same thign as a fucking wife and relationship, that story sounds waaaaaaay too personal and waaaaaay too close to One More Day for him to just conveniently have it as an appropriate analogy to explain someone else’s  story decisions.

And frankly a story like that would turn psychiatrists’ eyes into dollar signs. 

It’s really fucked up and even more fucked up that he walked away thinking and feeling about it this way.

Basically it HEAVILY implies OMD was half about him working through his issues with his mother’s death as much as it was about him hating Spider-Man being married (and apparently wanting him to sleep with a woman called Carlie who was named after his daughter and  no I’m not making that up).

Take all this context into account and it becomes really, really unlikely that the ideas to use Mephisto and erase the marriage via a deal with him was Straczynski’s doing.

[cassiecantyousee]

Golden Calves and Golden Guns

On Valentine’s Day, something all too familiar happened in America: children were killed while at school. And then, some people, many of them Christians, became more worried about their guns than about the lives of the children themselves.

Look, America has a lot of problems. Racism, greed, sexism, pride, you name it, we've got it. But you know what our biggest problem is? Idolatry. And nowhere is this more clear than in discussions about gun control.

Americans, and especially white evangelical Christians, idolize guns.  

(Brief aside and disclaimer: I technically AM a white evangelical Christian, and someday I may write a post discussion what that means and how it's been co-opted and how I've been having an extended identity crisis about it for years, but today is not that day. Anyway, moving on.)

I'm sure you're all familiar with the Ten Commandments. They're a pretty big deal. Central tenets of how Christians are supposed to live their lives blah blah blah. No politician/advocate/pundit/lobbyist who calls themselves a Christian is going to come right out and say they don't support the Ten Commandments. The first two are about idolatry. When we think about idols, we’re usually thinking about the second commandment, which talks about not making images of things to worship. For a refresher, please refer to this excellent meme:

We often expect idols to be literal golden statues in our yards, but it doesn’t always look like that. The first commandment reads: "You shall have no other gods before Me." Now, when discussing Christian theology, that doesn't mean that it's cool to worship other gods as long as GOD God is first on the list. It's not "before me" like you're standing in a line, it's "before me" as in "in front of my face at all." If you're talking about importance in your heart, it's not enough for God to just win the contest. God needs to be the only competitor. Anything that you're even allowing on the playing field with God is an idol (sorry for the badly executed sports metaphors, it's Olympic season).

So we're all clear on what idolatry is, yeah? No worshiping things other than God. That's a big no-no.

When pro-gun folks talk, you often hear a lot of the same talking points. "It's our right." "It's in the Constitution." "We need to protect ourselves." “It’s about freedom.”

So let's look at those claims. First of all, "it's our right." Is it? According to who? Not the Bible, certainly. No mentions of guns in there. That would be impossible, since gunpowder wasn't even invented until the 9th century (and invented by the Chinese, not by "Westerners," for the record). Often the full phrase is "it's our right as Americans." Which, come on Christians, really? Americans aren't God. Christians in America aren't more connected to God or somehow more "special" than Christians in other countries. So let's dial back the sense of self-importance, yeah? And the Bible REPEATEDLY tells us to put down our weapons or not fight back. Turn you swords into plowshares and all that (Isaiah 2:4).

Then people bring up the Constitution. Even setting aside the fact that one of the central tenets of the Constitution is that it's modifiable; this is still a crappy argument for a Christian to make. Are you saying the Constitution is infallible? Are you saying a document OTHER THAN THE BIBLE is the indisputable word of God? I sure hope not.

Now on protection. I understand wanting to protect yourself and your family, I do. The world can be a scary place, and "taking back control" definitely feels good. But Christians are supposed to know better.  You say you speak for "God-fearing America," but you rely on weapons of death and destruction to protect yourself. You're correct that one of us doesn't trust in the Lord, but I don't think it's me. When a colleague of the Olympic runner and missionary Eric Liddel (of Chariots of Fire fame) was offered a gun to protect himself, Liddel responded: “Don’t touch it! If you have that in your pocket you will depend on it rather than God and I would refuse to travel with you.” Sums it up, honestly.

If this were all, if this were the whole discussion, there would already be a solid case for idolatry.

But.

BUT.

It’s not all. Supposedly Christian pro-gun advocates have gone so much farther than this, and it should deeply horrify us. At the most recent CPAC meeting, only a few days after the tragic events in Parkland, the executive president of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, made a statement that honestly made me want to throw up. He said that the constitutional right to bear arms “is not bestowed by man, but granted by God to all Americans as our American birthright.” What. The. Actual. Hell. This isn’t right. His worship of guns is obvious. Are Christians really okay with this kind of rhetoric? Should we really be supporting the NRA as they continue to double down on this level of theological perversion and gun worship? I definitely don’t think so.

The Bible teaches us that the wages of sin is death, and we can see this clearly in American gun culture. People would rather hold on to their earthly possessions than allow children to attend school safely.

So let me be perfectly clear: American gun culture is idolatrous. The NRA is an idolatrous organization profiting from the deaths of Americans, many of them children. Christians, why aren't we more upset? Like, honestly, I don't get it. It's so clear. It's so obvious. IT'S KILLING CHILDREN.

Now, I’m not the first person to say any of this. Nor am I the smartest. Christianity Today published an editorial stating that “fear and idolatry are our real gun problem” in 1999, after Columbine. In 2014 Patheos asserted that the idol of fear is at the root of American gun culture. After the massacre in Las Vegas, John J. Thatamanil wrote a great piece of the “American gun cult.” In an episode of one of my favorite podcasts, Impolite Company, Amy Sullivan and Nish Wiseth do a deep dive into the connection between white American evangelicals and guns. And finally, the documentary Armor of Light and the associated movement follows Reverend Rob Schenck, who begins to question if it is really possible to be pro-life and pro-gun. So if you don’t want to listen to me, you can listen to these much smarter people. And thanks for letting me get all this off my chest anyway.

I want to conclude with a personal story. As most of you know, I have been living and working in Florida for the past few years. A month or so ago, I Skyped with a middle school in South Carolina to teach them about the Florida Keys ecosystem, and discuss the effects of climate change and Hurricane Irma. The teachers were great, and the kids paid attention and asked good questions. Overall it was a great day at work. Then I got back to my regular list of tasks, and I essentially forgot about it.

Flash forward to last week, when I turned on NPR on my drive home and heard about what happened in Parkland. I was horrified, sickened, angry, and above all, devastated and sad. As someone who works in Florida, and whose job frequently involves education and outreach, I was knocked emotionally flat. I went to work the next day feeling numb, depressed, and hopeless. And then after lunch, I got a package. It was from the middle school in South Carolina. They had written me an incredibly nice note thanking me for talking with their students, and requesting that we talk again in the future. They had also sent me a school t-shirt, a mug, a key-chain, and other school gear. Friends, I burst into tears at my desk. Our students, and our educators, deserve so much better. In the midst of all my grief, students and teachers who I have never even met in person gave me such a moment of pure hope.

School is supposed to be about learning and growing. Not worrying about whether or not you’ll survive to the bus ride home.

[writingwithcolor]

Fairy Tale Retellings with POC

@anjareedd asked:

Hello, Writing with Color! First of all, thank you for all you do. Second, do you have any advice for a white person retelling fairy tales, both European fairy tale and non-European fairy tales? Is it okay to retell non-European fairy tales? I would feel bad if all fairy tales I retold were European as those are over represented, but given how much white people have erased and whitewashed other culture's fairy tales I understand if that were off-limits for a white person. Thank you!

Fairy tale retellings are my favorite thing. I love reading, rewriting and creating new fairy tale-style stories with People of Color!

As you write, keep in mind:

European does not mean white. 

The possibility of PoC in European or Western historical settings tends to throw off so many. There are plenty of European People of Color, then and today. You can have an Indian British little red riding hood and it isn’t “unrealistic.” And we wanna read about them!

Still, research the history of your settings and time period. Use multiple credible sources, as even the most well-known ones may exclude the history of People of Color or skim over it. The stories might be shoved into a corner, but we live and have lived everywhere. The specific groups (and numbers of) in a certain region may vary, though. 

How and when did they or their family get there, and why?

Has it been centuries, decades, longer than one can remember?

Who are the indigenous people of the region? (Because hey, places like America and Australia would love to have you believe its earliest people were white...)

Is there a connection with the Moors, trade, political marriage; was it simply immigration?

No need to elaborate all too much. A sentence or more woven into the story in passing may do the trick to establish context, depending on your story and circumstance. 

Or if you want to ignore all of that, because this is fantasy-London or whatever, by all means do. POC really don’t need a explanation to exist, but I simply like to briefly establish context for those who may struggle to “get it”, personally. This is a side effect of POC being seen as the Other and white as the default.

Although, if PoC existing in a fairy tale is the reader’s biggest stumbling block in a world of magic, speculation, or fantasy, that’s none of your concern.

Can you picture any of the people below, or someone with these backgrounds, the protagonist of their own fairytale? I hope so!

Above: Painting of Dido Elizabeth Belle (1760s - 1800s), British Heiress with her cousin. Check out her history as well as the movie, Belle (2013).

Source: English Heritage: Women in History - Dido Belle

 Above: Abraham Janssens - The Agrippine Sibyl - Netherlands (c. 1575)

“Since ancient times Sybils were considered seers sent by god, priestesses foretelling the coming of great events. This model serves to depict the Sybil of Agrippina, one of the 12 that foretold the coming of Christ. Notice the flagellum and crown of thrones which are symbolic objects reminding the viewer of Christs suffering.”  X

Above: “Major Musa Bhai, 3 November 1890. Musa Bhai travelled to England in 1888 as part of the Booth family, who founded the Salvation Army.” X

Above: Eleanor Xiniwe and Johanna Jonkers, respectively and other members of the African Choir, who all had portraits taken at the London Stereoscopic Company in 1891. 

“The African Choir were a group of young South African singers that toured Britain between 1891 and 1893. They were formed to raise funds for a Christian school in their home country and performed for Queen Victoria at Osborne House, a royal residence on the Isle of Wight.” X

The examples above just scratch the surface. Luckily, more and more historians and researchers are publishing lesser known (and at times purposefully masked) PoC history.

More Sources 

PoC in History (WWC Search Link)

POC in Europe (WWC Search Link)

The Black Victorians: astonishing portraits unseen for 120 years

Hidden histories: the first Black people photographed in Britain – in pictures

Let’s talk about oppression and slavery 

There is a hyper-focus on chattel slavery as if the times when and where it occurred is the only narrative that exists. And even when it is part of a Person of Color’s history, that is seldom all there is to say of the person or their lives. For example, Dido Elizabeth Belle.

People of Color were not all slaves, actively enslaved, or oppressed for racial reasons at all times in history! Dig deep into the research of your time period and region. Across the long, wide history of the world, People of Color are and were a norm and also NOT simply exceptions. Explore all the possibilities to discover the little known and seldom told history. Use this as inspiration for your writing.

PoC (especially Black people) were not always in chains, especially in a world of your making. 

Don’t get me wrong. These stories do have a place and not even painful histories should be erased. I personally read these stories as well, if and when written by someone who is from the background. Some might even combine fairy tale, fantasy, and oppression in history. However...

There are plenty of stories on oppressed PoC. How many fairy tales?

Many European tales have versions outside of Europe. 

Just because a tale was popularized under a western setting doesn’t mean that it originates there. Overtime, many were rewritten and altered to fit European settings, values and themes.

Read original tales. 

You might be inspired to include a story in its original setting. Even if you kept it in a western setting, why not consider a protagonist from the ethnicity of the story’s origin?

For example: the Cinderella most are familiar with was popularized by the French in 1697. However, Cinderella has Chinese and Greek versions that date back from the 9th Century CE and 6th Century BCE, respectively. 

Choosing a Setting: European or Non-European?

I do not see anything wrong with either (I write tales set in western and non-western settings, all with Heroines of Color). There is great potential in both.

Non-Western Settings (pros and cons)

Normalizes non-Western settings. Not just the “exotic” realm of the Other.

Potential for rich, cultural elements and representation

Requires more research and thoughtfulness (the case for any setting one is unfamiliar with, though)

European or Western Setting (pros and cons)

Normalizes PoC as heroes, not the Other, or only fit to be side characters.

Representation for People of Color who live in Western countries/regions 

Loss of some cultural elements (that character can still bring in that culture, though! Living in the West often means balancing 2+ cultures)

Outdated Color and Ethnic Symbolism 

Many fairy tales paint blackness (and darkness, and the Other) as bad, ominous and ugly, and white as good and pure. 

Language that worships whiteness as the symbol of beauty. For example: “Fair” being synonymous with beauty. Characters like Snow White being the “fairest” of them all.

Wicked witches with large hooked noses, often meant to be coded as ethnically Jewish people. 

Don’t follow an old tale back into that same pit of dark and Other phobia. There’s many ways to change up and subvert the trope, even while still using it, if you wish. Heroines and heroes can have dark skin and large noses and still stand for good, innocence and beauty.

Read: Black and White Symbolism: Discussion and Alternatives 

Non-European Fairy tales - Tips to keep in Mind: 

Some stories and creatures belong to a belief system and is not just myth to alter. Before writing or changing details, read and seek the opinions of the group. You might change the whole meaning of something by tweaking details you didn’t realize were sacred and relevant.

Combine Tales Wisely: 

Picking stories and beings from different cultural groups and placing them in one setting can come across as them belonging to the same group or place (Ex: A Japanese fairy tale with Chinese elements). This misrepresents and erases true origins. If you mix creatures or elements from tales, show how they all play together and try to include their origin, so it isn’t as if the elements were combined at random or without careful selection.

Balance is key: 

When including creatures of myths, take care to balance your Human of Color vs. creatures ratio, as well as the nature of them both (good, evil, gray moral). EX: Creatures from Native American groups but no human Native characters from that same group (or all evil, gray, or too underdeveloped to know) is poor representation.

Moral Alignment: 

Changing a good or neutral cultural creature into something evil may be considered disrespectful and misappropriation. 

Have Fun! 

No, seriously. Fairy tales, even those with the most somber of meanings, are meant to be intriguing little adventures. Don’t forget that as you write or get hung up on getting the “right message” out and so on. That’s what editing is for.

--Colette