#Hetalia's depiction of my country is a hate crime | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

peonycats · 1 year ago

Text

Apologies for taking so long- your response brought up many good points that took me a lot of contemplation and thought, which is part of the reason why this took a while.

I will begin by discussing the different readings of Hetalia, and varying interpretations about the relationship between the personification and the government. POC who engage in racebending are almost certainly aware of many of my points; but just like in my original essay, it would be an oversight if I didn’t mention such flaws in a post dedicated to the pitfalls of racebending.

Firstly, I agree with your response that the premise of my argument rests on a specific reading of Hetalia that examines the way that the state supports the ruling nation and the power relationships between ethnic groups in a country. When I say that though, I am not making the nation personification equivalent to their government. I would not make Indonesia an unabashed and uncritical supporter of Suharto, nor would I make China always agree 100% with the CCP. Like others have mentioned before, oftentimes, a great percentage of a nation’s population often disagrees with the stances of the government. It’s also reductive and can be indicative about wider biases in the fandom when you see which countries are most frequently politicized and which aren’t.

However, when the nation disagrees with and resents their government, it is almost never on behalf of a minority they share the country with. In almost all cases, the majority population disregards the rights of the minorities until they themselves have suffered 'enough.' The truth is that at best, the ruling ethnicity fails to be adequate minority rights advocates, and at worst, actively contributes to the oppression of the minorities and gives the government their explicit or implicit approval to continue, even if they may otherwise disagree.

Focusing on personifying the nation, therefore, does not necessarily mean they do not whatsoever personify the state, because just like in real life, there is not a clean divide between the nation and the state.

This leads me to my next argument, one point you brought up already- if nations were to be associated with their government, that would mean that a large portion of them were, or currently are, anti-Semites, or any form of bigot.

Even beyond the obvious fact that many people use fandom as a form of escapism, I would be the first to assert that I do not want to see America call me slurs and tell me to go back to my country, because yes, I wouldn’t really consider that appropriate to depict in the context of Hetalia.

However, I recall a past experience where a friend told me, “I think the nations are too smart to be racist- they’ve lived lives too long to care about that sort of thing.” in relation to England. Such a statement misses the fact how, historically, to be considered intelligent in many societies meant taking on racist ideologies and beliefs. It also assumes that being more or less racist is a matter of intelligence and/or living a long life, and not, in fact, a matter of empathy or compassion for others different from you; importantly, it ignores the fact that many nations built their legacies and states off the back of racism- Would England be “too smart” to be racist all while he ran a globe-spanning empire that exploited its colonies and instilled a hegemonic global order that still affects us today?

Fortunately, my friend was informed of the implications of his words and rescinded his statement. But from this example we can see how blanket characterizing the nations as somehow above bigotry can invalidate the experience and histories of POC.

So I need to ask then- Why am I not allowed to hold such a stance? To be entitled to my feelings as a POC?

I didn’t ask him to draw or write England as a raging racist committing hate crimes, I didn’t ask him to confirm that England, in fact, held racist beliefs, I didn’t even compel him to adopt a specific reading of Hetalia that closely ties the nation-personifications to their governments.

I only told him that such a statement came off as dismissive of England’s role in establishing an exclusionary world order built upon the colonial difference, and instead of saying, “Oh, well, I don’t really see the nations as totally representative of their governments,” he was apologetic, explaining that that wasn’t his intention.

Similarly, I never asked other POC to make their white faves explicitly or implicitly racist. I never told people to harass POC who racebend for being “problematic.” I have never compelled other POC to adopt a reading of Hetalia that makes the personification closely associated with the government and all the worst sides of their nation. This is because I am aware that many POC do not follow the same stance, because for them, Hetalia is a form of escapism on what they wish their countries were, not as they currently exist.

I only stated that there were issues with racebending, and how one of them was how, in the eyes of POC who viewed the nations as avatars of their people (and as a result, their states), racebending could come across as uncomfortable and even unintentionally erasing of the prejudice and oppression they and their families have faced.

POC who racebend are aware of these implications because that’s just the reality they live in. But POC are not a monolith. What can feel empowering to one group can feel invalidating to another POC.

We must remember the original context of my first essay- much of my first post was spurred on by the racist harassment another user, irithnova, faced for expressing her personal dislike of racebending, specifically on America, a country that has colonized and imperialized her country of Philippines. Despite her disclaimers that she wasn’t stopping anyone from racebending, people felt they could strip her status as a woman of color from a nation colonized by America and imply that she wasn’t allowed to have an opinion on how her own oppressor was depicted. Therefore, I wrote my essay with that in mind, defending the right of POC to feel uncomfortable with racebending and not be seen as less POC or less progressive for it.

The response to this is “such depictions are not up to the scrutiny of outsiders,” and to be fair, that’s why in my first and second post, I almost exclusively used examples from Africa, Asia, and Europe in relation to groups I felt capable of speaking on and with the blessing of people I knew from there.

However, you bring up a salient point when you ask the question, “What divides Indigenous and First Nations people racebending to reclaim their nations from any other indigenous group?” On further reflection, I would actually agree with you- very little actually separates Indigenous and First Nations people from the other people groups I used as examples in my essay. It’s true that no group experiences 100% the same oppression of another group, but many of the groups I have discussed share many similar experiences- cultural suppression, forced assimilation, land dispossession and displacement, and suspicion and scrutiny from both the majority populace and the state.

That leads me to my next point: What should I have done? Were I to carve out a specific exception for Indigenous and First Nations people and Jews, I’m sure you would again be able to identify the flawed logic and inconsistency of such an argument, because fundamentally, there is no way to argue my arguments without the possibility extrapolating them onto any other group that’s suffered oppression from another nation and its state. I tried to not single out groups or “take a stance” on situations I was not familiar with by using examples of nations and peoples I was familiar with. But that doesn’t stop others from applying my arguments about racebending, particularly, the problems of having the personification of a nation-state also speak for a group it oppresses, onto any number of other groups.

You may respond to that with “such a statement generalizes the experiences of colonialism and imperialism” and to be sure, no group undergoes the same experiences of persecution; to treat them as such is to treat them as interchangeable, something I specifically pointed out and criticized in my original essay. But just as you questioned what kind of criteria excepts First Nations people from other indigenous peoples around the world… Are the problems of having the personification of the nation-state speak for the same groups it oppresses any less applicable to any other group that has also faced suppression?

Take for example, the fact that multiple oppressed people groups have been able to come together and realize that despite their different histories and contexts, much of their struggle and fight against the state and society that oppresses them was mirrored in other peoples’ struggles; does that not say something about how there are parallels between marginalized population’s histories and experiences? Shared traits in the struggle against the modern state’s disenfranchisement and exclusion of minorities?

To respond to me saying “I believe the personification of the nation-state shouldn’t speak for the groups it also oppresses” with “(you are) generalizing imperialism, colonialism, and prejudice” is to then implicitly reject the possibility that we cannot identify similarities in our struggles for recognition and to be seen as full human beings, that we cannot identify commonalities in the states that oppress us and show solidarity despite our differences.

Obviously, we should not speak over each other, and I specifically went out of my way to avoid doing so via with my examples; but the truth is that my arguments can be applied and adapted to any number of groups and the nation state that oppresses, and yes, we may feel differently about conflating our representation with the state that oppresses us and the resulting implications. But that does not diminish the validity of my arguments and with all due respect, just because someone is aware of the implications and chooses to racebend regardless to reclaim does not necessarily change or lessen those implications for others.

We can recognize that racebending comes from a personal place and out of a desire to reclaim one’s nation, and I’ve stated before that I didn't want to deny the emotional catharsis that POC may get from doing so. But moving past that, does racebending still not paint an optimistic, if incongruous image of how truly inclusive and welcoming many nation-states were and are, even if it comes from a personal desire for how the nation should be, and not how it is? You may be fine with that and still feel represented and fulfilled, but are other POC not allowed to feel uncomfortable with this, particularly when it relates to their own oppressors?

I am not saying we shouldn’t get a say in how our communities are depicted. What I am saying is is that whether or not we feel fulfilled by such depictions doesn’t resolve the problems of the personification of a nation-state also speaking for a group it marginalizes.

I agree with you that the majority of the fandom has moved on from Himaruya’s inconsistent depiction of the relationship between nation personifications and governments; I would include myself as part of that section of the fandom that ignores a large portion of the canon material. However, I find it absurd to so quickly dismiss the mere possibility that some people, especially POC, when presented with a series about nation-state personifications, will choose to look at the personifications through a more political lens and see them, as such, as political entities.

Nobody is obligated to share this view of Hetalia, especially POC; but the original context of this essay was written to defend a fellow POC who suffered racist backlash and harassment for simply expressing an opinion about how she felt about depictions of her oppressor, America. I have never told POC that they need to stop feeling represented through racebending. I have never told POC that they needed to disavow their white faves as ‘racists.’ I never once told POC how to navigate through their trauma.

I simply said that there were some issues with racebending, issues that racebenders were most likely already aware of, and that these issues could result in other POC feeling uncomfortable and invalidated, and that that should be respected.

Why then, am I, and by extension, irithnova and any other POC who’s expressed their feelings about racebending, not allowed to feel this way and express our feelings about our trauma and experiences?

Does the mere expression of our feelings jeopardize other people’s reclamations that much?

Does it warrant painting us as anti-POC and siding with white supremacy in the process?

Separating Representation Between the Minority and the State

Here, I will clarify my stance on personifying minority and diaspora communities as separate from the central nation-state, with the help of @dahliamorena, who is herself indigenous Mexican. This is only a clarification on my position, so feel free not to read it.

There used to be, and honestly continues to be, a phenomenon of Hetalia headcanons about “APH Native America” or any number of indigenous personifications existing prior to European colonization before eventually perishing to make way for the United States, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, or any number of colonial states. These headcanons, in the opinion of one indigenous person, perpetuate colonial myths about indigenous peoples being something of the past who were wiped out to “make way” for the new states, and ignores the fact that these indigenous communities continue to exist as living communities who maintain their culture and way of life, like Tlaxcala and the Navajo nation. So even though you could make a case for these personifications dying during the Columbian exchange, both her and I prefer not to because of the reasons stated above- for her, personifying the indigenous nations as alive regardless is an act of reclamation and empowerment, and emphasizes their continued existence and resilience in the face of the state’s efforts to assimilate them.

Sure, it’s biased. But I would rather stress indigenous communities’ continued resistance and their existence as living, breathing cultures that change and grow than other narratives that position them as purely of the past, unchanging and unmoving.

What I have described is not one-to-one with Jewish people and their history, nor am I saying the same approach can always be applied towards two different groups. But my point is that when I advocate for personifying minority communities as separate from the state, I am not telling groups who’ve suffered genocide and ethnic cleansing attempts, “tough luck, you get nothing.” Rather, I am saying the act of personifying those communities regardless can be an act of reclamation that celebrates survival and continuation.

Additionally, any nation contains multitudes: US state personification series are popular for a reason. Sub-personifications can be used to explore the diversity of one nation, and their mere existence doesn’t inherently mean they’re any “less” of that country. Sub-personifications also allow us to get more specific with what exactly we’re personifying, as even members of ostensibly one ethnic group have markedly different experiences- For example, rather than personifying the Chinese diaspora in Indonesia as one entity, we could personify specific Chinese-dominated areas to better reflect this diversity in minority experience. Sub-personifications don’t even need to have a significant cultural difference to justify their existence- look at micronations! And that only matters if you follow canon to begin with! If someone can personify their tiny obscure town in the middle of Missouri, then the sky's the limit for what can be personified.

Again- you may not be comfortable dividing up representation between different religious groups. That is perfectly fine. But I am not telling ethnic groups who’ve suffered ethnic cleansing and exclusion that they have to sit back and let the other people who haven’t suffered ethnic cleansing do everything instead.

One supplementary note- Jewish people actually have been included in the Myth of Multiculturalism. In fact, one of the pictures I put in the section about the Soviet Union's ethnic minority policy is specifically from a Russian-speaking children's picture book praising Jewish communities for joining collective farms and thus, assimilating to the Soviet program of land collectivization. The Soviets even created the “Jewish Autonomous Oblast” in eastern Siberia to resettle Jews after depriving them of their traditional trades following the Communist takeover. Of course, as you’ve said, this didn't stop anti-Semitism from running rampant in the USSR, and Jewish people continued to be surveilled and suspected of having divided loyalties from both authorities and non-Jewish Soviet citizens.

"Evreiskii kolkhoz (Jewish Collective Farm), for example, shows a new collective farm peopled by former Jewish craftsmen who have abandoned their obsolete lifestyles for a new beginning on the land. The book was written to debunk the stereotype that Jews are incapable of farming. On the Ne unyvai! (Don't Lose Heart!) collective farm, Jews even turn their hands to pig breeding."

God willing, this will be my final response to this discourse; you’re welcome to continue it amongst yourselves 👍

RACEBENDING NATIONAL PERSONIFICATIONS: A TREATISE

DISCLAIMERS:

I AM NOT WHITE, I AM A POC. I am not writing this because I’m a butthurt white person who gets pissy when someone makes my white faves nonwhite and thus unrelatable to me for ‘some’ reason.

I AM NOT PERSONALLY ATTACKING ANY INDIVIDUALS WHO RACEBEND OR IMAGINE THEIR NATIONS TO HAVE A DIFFERENT ETHNICITY THAN WHAT THEY DO IN CANON; ON A SIMILAR NOTE, DO NOT ATTACK SUCH INDIVIDUALS FOR ME. This is a discussion of general fandom trends and a larger phenomenon, the issue I am talking about cannot be solved on an individual to individual basis.

I AM NOT TRYING TO STOP FIRST NATIONS PEOPLE FROM RECLAIMING THEIR NATIONS. As I am not First Nations myself, I would not wish to deny what these individuals emotionally and mentally reap from reclaiming their nations.

I AM NOT THE “POC AREN’T ALLOWED TO HAVE FUN AND SEE THEMSELVES IN THEIR FAVES” POLICE; I AM NOT YOUR MOM, DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. Again, this is a discussion of fandom trends and a larger phenomenon. I think it’s almost always worth examining why we do the things we do and the reasons behind a trend.

I AM NOT AGAINST RACEBENDING IN GENERAL. This is specifically an essay on racebending in nationverse Hetalia and other personified nations fandoms.

PREFACE

As stated before in my disclaimers, this essay is not intended to be a condemnation of individuals who participate in racebending. Rather, I intend to make a macro-critique of wider structures and patterns. For this reason, this essay is not accusing anyone engaging in racebending of holding any specific belief. I cannot stress enough how much I do not know you, the hypothetical reader who engages in racebending.

Again, my intent is to critique wider structures and patterns.

This essay is a conversation I would like to have with other POC and other marginalized groups, especially POC based in white, Western countries. Thus, I ask people not included in the above groups to refrain from weighing in on this.

ALTERNATIVE GOOGLE DOC LINK HERE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Difference in Reception for Racebent versus Non-Racebent Characters

The Inherent Politicism of Personifying Nations

The State of POC Representation in Hetalia

The Assumption of Interchangeability in POC Experience

The Myth of Multiculturalism

“It’s Just Fandom, Why Are You Trying to Control POC Who Just Want to Have Fun and Want to Represent Themselves?"

Conclusion

The Difference in Reception for Racebent versus Non-Racebent Characters

I will start this essay off with an acknowledgement of my station in the Hetalia fandom and how it uniquely equips me to talk about this topic – I am very fortunate to enjoy a follower base that primarily follows me for non-Western characters, whether they be canonical or my own original characters. As someone who mostly posts non-Western characters, I can confirm that there is a wider disparity in reception between drawings of my white characters and non-white characters. The following example is not from myself, but from the artist miyuecakes who similarly focuses on predominantly non-white, non-Western countries. You can see there is a drastic gap in the amount of notes that post focused on five nations considered to be non-Western versus a drawing of Female America.

Stating this fact of the fandom is fairly noncontroversial. I would also assert that the following statement is equally true, however given recent reception, is far more controversial: “There are far more instances of racebent canonically white/Western characters, which receive far more traction than their non-racebent counterparts, whether canonical or not.”

I want to make clear what my statement is not saying:

Racebending is only done by white people seeking to score clout and diversity points without having to care about canon non-white characters. In fact, the vast majority of racebending in the fandom is done by POC looking for representation; given the amount of white canon nations compared to any other nation, POC who engage in racebending see it as a way of “evening” the disproportionate overrepresentation of white countries.

POC who engage in racebending are doing so to score clout and diversity points with a white audience. Refer to my above point.

Racebent canonically white characters are met with no controversy or racist/bigoted vitriol. It is fairly well known that there have been multiple harassment campaigns, particularly on Twitter, against artists and editors who’ve engaged in racebending even outside of the Hetalia fandom: see the Black Anya edit, Thumin’s artwork and resulting hate. POC being visibly POC in online spaces will always garner backlash.

On a similar note, I am not including POC cosplayers cosplaying white or light-skinned characters in my definition of racebending. Being angered by POC who cosplay characters of a different complexion is blatantly racist; anyone who is angered by this has nothing of value to add and not worth arguing with.

I am a bitter artist who is mad that I don’t receive enough notes on my posts with non-racebent characters compared to posts about racebent white characters. As stated earlier, I am grateful for the audience I’ve cultivated who specifically follow me for non-racebent non-Western content; I am also more than aware that my content is not what people who seek out racebent content are looking for, and have no interest in changing either my content or their tastes. The last thing I would wish to do is to label POC creators who engage in racebending as “the enemy” and POC creators who don’t as “my side.”

With that out of the way, I bring up this observation because I think it’s worth asking ourselves, POC specifically, the following questions: Why? Why is there this discrepancy in frequency and reception between these kinds of characters and content? Why do people racebend in lieu of focusing on existing POC and creating their own non-white characters?

The easy answer most would give is because white characters are over-represented and given more screen time and attention in the canon, so people, especially POC, will become attached to them and create variations of them that hit closer to home for them; this is especially the case if you are a POC who has had experiences living as a minority in a Western country. Some POC may also use racebending as a way to subvert national myths that have historically excluded people of color for a variety of racist, imperialist reasons. I know I used to subscribe towards a depiction of non-white passing America and Canada for this very reason.

In the rest of this essay I would like to examine and critique the practice of racebending national anthropomorphisms traditionally and typically depicted as white in the context of Hetalia and by extension other media involving similar premises. This essay argues that while racebending may be harmless for most other anime, Hetalia – by virtue of its content centering real life nations – carries political implications that are not necessarily appropriate.

I stress again that I can’t stop you or what anybody in the Hetalia fandom does. I do not have that kind of power nor the will to do such a thing. All I ask is for you to listen to the following with an open mind, and if there’s only one thing you take away from this, I hope it’s to realize that POC in particular have valid reasons to dislike racebent depictions of white nations; holding such a stance does not make them anti-POC representation and somehow no longer POC and instead, a member of the white oppressor class.

The Inherent Politicism of Personifying Nations

Firstly, I repeat that a series about personified nations is deeply political and every creative choice carries political and socio-cultural ramifications, whether intentional or not and made by the creator or the fan. Even if you mostly interact with Hetalia in a depoliticized context, others may not, and given that nationverse Hetalia is about personified nations, this is perfectly reasonable.

Let us look into the canon material of Hetalia- It is shown that nations on average have close ties to their governments, viewing them as their bosses and carrying out actions for them. We are shown that there are nations who go against the orders of their governments, such as Germany; this does not mean all nations follow in that pattern, however, and there are many who are in lockstep with their governments and their actions.

Therefore, for individuals whose ethnic groups and nations have suffered great harm from oppressor nation-states (Philippines v. United States, Indonesia v. Netherlands, India v. England), it is not irrational for them to be unsettled by their oppressor being racebent- especially when said oppressor nation-state is depicted as being the same ethnicity as the very group(s) they marginalized. This is uncomfortable for multiple reasons:

There is an implication that a member of a marginalized group possibly chose to take part in atrocities and misdeeds that the said marginalized group historically not the major perpetrator behind. In more egregious cases, a member of a marginalized group willingly chose to commit atrocities and misdeeds on a large scale against their own group.

The oppressor state personification was forced by their government to commit these grievous acts of harm against members of other marginalized groups/their own marginalized groups; thus, the personification of the nation-state, the people, has little to no culpability as an oppressor, and is instead made into a fellow victim of their own government.

This deflects blame from the embodiment of the state of being an oppressor. The suggestion here is that the state is somehow completely separate yet intertwined with the government – it was simply the government who perpetrated the crimes… the people were just unwillingly complicit. This can come across as an erasure/rosewashing of the very purposeful policies used to harm and disadvantage colonized/oppressed groups.

This can also erase the fact that in many cases, the people gave the government’s actions their tacit approval whether it was through whole-hearted enthusiasm or apathy towards the suffering of others.

In the case that the racebent nation’s minority ethnicity was historically involved in such acts, this involves highly sensitive conversations about minorities’ complicity in crimes and assimilation into the white/majority order (e.g. Chinese and East Asian settlers in Hawaii after America’s illegal annexation, Korean collaborators with the Japanese annexation of Korea, African American soldiers in the Philippines); these are extremely touchy subjects that should be had within the relevant ethnic groups, and should not be appropriated by outsiders, particularly white people, especially for fandom purposes.

(I will discuss insiders racebending nation-states to their ethnic group that have suffered mistreatment and oppressed by said nation-states in “The Myth of Multiculturalism.”)

Additionally, racebending may end up justifying those very same crimes, especially in the case of settler colonialism. For example, during French rule of Algeria, the French government began a program of confiscating Algerian land from indigenous Algerians and giving them to French and European settlers. Over the course of two centuries, more and more land was taken away from indigenous Algerians, forcing them to move to the margins of society, where they were barred from accessing employment, higher education, and the other societal amenities.

Many would be able to identify how personifying Algeria as a white, French individual would be erasing indigenous Algerians and implying that the French settlers represent all of Algeria. However, conversely, making France an Algerian man is also playing into colonial French propaganda. The French viewed Algeria as part of France and the French homeland itself, unique even among other French African colonies, and made plans to make Algeria a full-fledged French province, or department. To make the national personification of France Algerian then, is to suggest that this belief was and is correct, that the Algerians are a part of the colonial core of France, even if the intention is to represent the modern day Algerian diaspora in France.

IMPORTANT: I will expand on the politics of representing diaspora populations in the section “The Myth of Multiculturalism.”

Given all of these reasons for why POC may justifiably react negatively to a racebent white nation personification, some may argue against these with:

“Why is it that when the nation is white, they never have to deal with any of these heavy discussions of imperialism, bigotry, oppression, etc, but when they’re racebent they suddenly have to? Why are they suddenly politicized when they’re racebent?”

My response to that is that they were politicized, even when they were white because the act of personifying a nation is inherently political; to ignore a white nation’s history of oppression is a politically charged move in of itself. Are we really depoliticizing POC when we racebend a white nation and try to maintain that same ‘depoliticization’ and omission of historical oppression but this time for a POC face? To racebend a white nation is to refuse to contend with the contradiction of transforming an oppressor class to the very group they marginalize - making racebending an inherently political act. It is not necessarily that whiteness is unpolitical but rather that an active refusal to deal with this contradiction makes the political implications much more obvious.

Additionally, this rebuttal raises another question- Were we to completely forget about a character’s background as the personification of an oppressor state and the political weight of that, would that truly solve the problem of POC being politicized? I don’t think so- In the current world we live in, POC are always political. But exclusively racebending oppressor states makes no attempt to depoliticize non-Western POC states, creating a divide between POC that get to be “depoliticized” and POC who don’t based on their proximity to the West.

The State of POC Representation in Hetalia

Some would argue with the points of my last paragraph saying that I am not including POC who both engage in racebending but also create non-Western POC OCs; if equal attention is given to both, there would be no division between racebent Western POC who get to be humanized and non-Western POC who don’t, right?

To answer this we must acknowledge wider trends in racebending in Hetalia. Consider the following: When somebody has a North African! Romano, how many other North African nations (canon or non-canon) do they show appreciation for? Create content for? Expound the same amount of mental and creative energy for? Furthermore: If they do have another North African nation(s) they create content for, are they allowed to exist as their own separate beings, and not purely exist to be North African! Romano’s tie to North Africa?

Chances are, Romano is reduced to being the token brown character in a largely white cast and isn’t allowed to ever exist without whiteness surrounding him. This is a very diaspora experience, but I find it unfortunate that in a piece of media that enables us to explore any number of cultures and experiences over all of time and history, we (and I’m including myself as another POC who grew up in a primarily white environment) are unable to imagine ourselves outside of this setting and celebrate ourselves without having to exist against a white mainstream. Stories about white engulfment are allowed to exist and should be told, but why is this so common? Why do these stories disproportionately outnumber POC stories where whiteness is minute or absent?

As my audience is intended to be mostly POC, I will not elaborate on the following scenario too much, but I will ask us to scrutinize the ethics of it. What about cases where white individuals racebend some of their white favorite characters and position them as POC representation in lieu of actually focusing on POC, non-Western nations, canon or not? Does this not have implications about what kinds of POC and diversity are considered more palatable and appealing?

Furthermore, when another North African nation does exist alongside racebent Romano, their character and depiction is almost always heavily dependent on their relationship to Romano, a Western nation. This still perpetuates the same inequality I was talking about earlier where POC nations are humanized based on their proximity to the West, whether because they personify a Western nation or happen to have a relationship with a Western nation.

We should not just be talking about having “more” non-white representation, but also the quality of it. It is completely understandable why some POC may not be satisfied with the representation most racebent content provides, even beyond the reasons outlined previously; this type of representation excludes POC who do not have a relationship to the West, and is still largely focused on the West.

IMPORTANT: I am not saying that contact with or influence from the West makes POC somehow “less POC” or that stories from Western-based diaspora are a “diluted” form of representation. I will expand on this in the section “The Myth of Multiculturalism.”

“Well if it’s not good enough for those POC, then they should just mind their business and make their own representation! There’s plenty of non-racebent content out there!”

Many POC do exactly that- creating their own representation without racebending. However, as established earlier, racebent white characters receive far more attention and feedback compared to canonical non-white characters, despite the fact that both depictions fulfill the purpose of “representation.” This can be especially disheartening in a fandom that already heavily tokenizes canon POC nations, whether it’s India being presented as the “nanny”/surrogate parent in Commonwealth group art or Seychelles as the “adopted child of color” in FACES family. To POC content creators, it feels insulting that the wider fandom, rather than developing POC canon characters (or taking advantage of the source material’s potential by making OCs) and viewing them as representation, the fandom chooses to racebend Western nations and celebrates them instead.

I want to make clear again what I am not saying with that statement:

POC who engage in racebending are doing so to score clout and diversity points with a white audience. Again, it’s a fact that the vast majority of racebending is done by POC looking to create their own representation.

POC who engage in racebending should all go stan Seychelles and Cuba instead. This is an extremely individualist solution to what is a wider phenomenon. I do not blame POC based in Western countries for feeling disconnected to the few POC nations we have in canon.

Racebent POC content is more popular than content of non-racebent white characters.

What I am describing here is how an audience (the Hetalia fandom) receives two creations, both made by POC in the pursuit of creating more representation, and the difference in reception. The difference, it seems, is that the wider fandom deems certain kinds of POC representation more appealing, and thus, certain kinds of POC worth focusing on.

The Assumption of Interchangeability in POC Experience

Earlier, I mentioned that one of the possible reasons for POC to engage in racebending is the desire to see an iteration of their favorite character that is closer to their own reality and lived experience. Therefore, some may choose to racebend a white character to embody a marginalized minority in the country instead so they can share more experiences with the formerly white characters.

Here, I will not be dealing with the practice of POC racebending their own country to their own ethnicity, which is the focus of the next section. Instead, I will be delving into the practice of POC racebending another nation to embody a minority (one which they do not belong to) for the purposes of ‘putting themselves in their interpretations.’ I argue that to do this requires assuming a certain level of interchangeability between POC experiences.

First and foremost, POC are not a monolith- we lead drastically different lives depending on our ethnic backgrounds, where we live, our socioeconomic class, our political and racial context, and etc. Therefore, we cannot presume that our experiences of marginalization mean we’ll always succeed in properly representing other minority groups elsewhere; in fact, the goal of projecting our own life experiences onto them means that there will be an obstacle to properly representing these minority groups.

Take the following example: Imagine a Chinese-Malaysian individual greatly enjoys the character of Spain. Wishing to better relate to him, the individual racebends him to be also Chinese. However, a great deal of historical, cultural determinants and nuances separate the experiences of Chinese people in Spain and Chinese people in Malaysia. There are similarities, yes, but this Chinese Malaysian cannot hope to properly represent the Chinese population in Spain if their primary goal remains self-projection. Now imagine that our Chinese-Malaysian individual wished to racebend England to be Indian; an even wider gap separates the experiences and history of Chinese people in Malaysia and Indian people in England, making it even less likely that our individual will succeed in representing the experiences of Indian people in England.

Another point to consider is that attempts at racebending certain national personifications to represent minorities in the country end up erasing representation for the majority population of the country. For example, there has been a historical Japanese community in Peru that dates back to the 1800s and made a large impact on Peruvian culture. However, it would still be inappropriate to make a Peru OC that is mostly Japanese in race, because besides just being not representative of the 99.9% of non-Japanese Peruvians, it would also be taking representation from Peruvian mestizo and indigenous peoples, who make up over 80% of Peru’s population.

This isn’t even taking into consideration cases where nations are racebent to personify ethnic groups that do not have a numerically significant or historically significant population.

“So what if it’s inaccurate? I just want to self-project onto my favorite character!”

If that’s your response, then I encourage you to read the section “It’s Just Fandom, Why Are You Trying to Control POC Who Just Want to Have Fun and Want to Represent Themselves?” where I address assertions of "fandom is not activism" and similar points.

For now, I will ask you to consider the feelings of those very minorities you are ostensibly representing, even if your primary intention is to project your own experiences onto a character. Chances are, they also suffer from little to no representation that depicts them in inaccurate and unflattering ways.

Hetalia is a media property supposedly centered around exploring and learning about other cultures, but so often fails to accurately and sensitively depict many cultures and nations. Should we not show them the grace that canon Hetalia fails to provide?

The Myth of Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism is typically defined as a celebration of a nation’s ethnic diversity. This is generally considered to be a good and progressive value to have, but a closer and more critical look at multiculturalism in practice suggests that not even a value directed at xenophobia is immune to in-group out-group biases. When enacted by the state, multiculturalism is less an acceptance of diversity as it currently exists (especially in regards to non-indigenous ethnicities) and more an assimilation of these “foreign cultures” into the dominant national one.

For example, Singapore has built much of its national identity as a “multicultural” society. This is shown through government policies in language and education, where the languages of the 3 ethnic groups (Chinese, Tamil Indians, Malays) are all officialized and the government promotes education for ethnic minorities in their mother tongues. However, the label of “multicultural” hides the reality of power inequality between the various ethnic groups. Minorities face pressure to display literacy in the language and culture of the Chinese majority for greater societal acceptance and inclusion. In fact, the assertion that Singapore is a multicultural society that treats its ethnic groups all equally, is often used as a cudgel to shut down any allegations that Singapore fails to live up to this national identity. As my audience is intended to be predominantly POC, especially those living as minorities in Western nations, members of my audience are of course familiar with insistences of “But Canada/United States/etc is a melting pot society! Racism isn’t a serious issue, POC can’t be treated poorly in those countries.”

By racebending a national personification to be part of a marginalized population, this is making a political statement by asserting that the marginalized population is in fact a part of that nation, and has always been, despite historical exclusion. The act of racebending is an overly idealistic and uncritical agreement with multiculturalism, without considering how the value actually applies in practice. It rosewashes the reality and existence of cultural imperialism enacted on immigrant/outsider groups.

Racebending can therefore accidentally act as multicultural propaganda, especially when the invokement of multiculturalism is used to stamp out valid critiques of othering and racialization by ethnic minorities. (E.g. “Singapore can’t have problems with racism against Malays! Singapore himself is Malay!”)

IMPORTANT: If you want to argue that nation personifications are not inherently representative of their government, refer to the section, “The Inherent Politicism of Personifying Nations.”

“Well, POC based in Western countries will naturally feel more connected to their Western countries than their homelands, often because of those policies intended to break their connections to their homelands. Why can’t they racebend to reclaim? To feel connected to their Western countries in contrast to their realities of ostracization and othering?”

I have already discussed why other POC (those affected by a white regime’s actions) would be uncomfortable with the implications of tying a POC/marginalized group with said white regime’s misdeeds in the section “The Inherent Politicism of Personifying Nations” so I will not discuss it here beyond mentioning it.

Firstly, I must acknowledge that this argument is fundamentally an emotional one. I do not want to deny what POC in Western countries emotionally derive from racebending the nation-state, even as a fellow POC based in a Western country. Instead, I will approach this argument from another angle.

I ask the following: When trying to represent our experiences as diaspora and minorities, why is personifying a diaspora/minority community not a popular option? The act of choosing to personify a community is inherently political, and we can use it to empower ourselves as diaspora or minorities. For example, by personifying diaspora communities, we can acknowledge that diaspora experiences are different enough from those in the ‘homeland’ to warrant another personification, and also avoid accidentally justifying colonial possession of those ‘homeland’ states.

Additionally, by personifying diaspora/minority communities, we can 1) better reflect our unique day-to-day experiences of being racialized and separated from the mainstream, 2) avoid many of the earlier uncomfortable implications of minority collaboration in majority perpetrated acts and condoning colonialism, and 3) stress our independence and autonomy despite the efforts of the state and majority population to take that away.

To put it another way, why are there so many stories of minorities striving towards being included, or from another angle, subsumed, into the white nation-state despite its frequent rejection of them? Again, what does it say that these narratives of “inclusion into a historically white nation-state” disproportionately outnumber POC narratives where whiteness is minute or absent?

IMPORTANT: I am not singling you, the hypothetical POC diaspora individual who engages in racebending, out. I am asking about wider patterns of representation in media.

“But by personifying diaspora and minority communities separately from the personification of the nation-state, isn’t that basically saying that minorities will never be seen as part of the nation-state? That we will never be included when people think of our nation state?”

I believe this response takes too narrow a perspective on what multiculturalism is and “being part of a nation-state means,” and thus views having separate personifications as ‘justifying’ or ‘promoting’ our exclusion from the nation-state when it may not be the case.

Look at it from this way- Is it not also problematic to have only one avatar for, say, America, and thus imply that there is one true way of being “American?” Having multiple American personifications, in contrast, is a more true depiction of the realities of being American, and more true to the values of multiculturalism; it instead suggests that there are many ways to be American, that we don’t have to be subsumed into the mainstream to be considered “American.”

“Isn’t that functionally the same as different interpretations of the same nation-state coexisting? Why can’t fans just all have a different Alfred/America specific to their own experience who are all equally considered American?”

Once more: I am not trying to stop anyone from doing anything. That’s not within my power to do so. I agree with this statement that largely, having multiple American personifications and multiple America/Alfred fulfills the same purpose of showing that to be American means something different to everyone. However, the reason I advocated for the former approach is because it achieves the same goal with a lot less uncomfortable questions and unique benefits (minority autonomy), as detailed above.

“It’s Just Fandom, Why Are You Trying to Control POC Who Just Want to Have Fun and Want to Represent Themselves?”

First off, I am presenting this essay as a conversation with other POC because I want to make it explicitly known that my position here is not that of a white person seeking to silence POC and lecture them about what is and is not good for them. Secondly, it's because I want to talk about racebending as it currently exists in the Hetalia fandom, something mostly done by POC who wish to represent themselves and create the diversity missing in the source material. I believe pointing out that white people who are uncomfortable with POC characters or only racebend for self-centered reasons likely have a racial bias is obvious, especially to other POC, and wish to progress the conversation beyond this. This is why my discussion on racebending is moving beyond white bias.

As part of centering this as a discussion among POC, I am also assuming good faith from my interlocutors, that their desires for representation and diversity are sincere, and that I don’t look down on them. I hope then, that this assumption of good faith can be afforded to me as well- that my interlocutors believe me when I say that the last thing I want to do is control POC, as a fellow POC.

Having gotten all of that out of the way, let's address some rebuttals to the arguments I've made thus far.

"Who are you to decide what kind of representation resonates with POC?"

You're right. I can't decide what kind of representation resonates with POC. Again, I am not intent on controlling POC, and again, I recognize that many of the arguments in favor of racebending white nations come from an emotional place; I can’t control how POC feel, even if I wanted to do that.

However, it's precisely because of this that I've made my arguments based on factors other than emotional ones, such as the political implications and questioning the inclusivity racebending provides us with. POC joy and happiness is crucial in the face of a system that seeks to crush and suppress us. But from one POC to another, it's not much of a discussion if your response to my points is simply, "Well, it makes me feel represented and happy, and that's what matters most." If we argued based on that, we could go all day. Am I not a POC myself? Do the feelings and happiness of POC who are uncomfortable with racebending not matter? For that matter, who are you to tell the people whose families and people have been historically affected by white imperialist states to stop disliking racebent versions of those imperialist states?

For white people, it is easy for them to shut down racebending, because they don't understand the experience of never seeing yourself in any form of media. I have asked white/non-marginalized people to refrain from this discussion for that very reason. But in exchange for that, we should be able to discuss the ramifications of racebending national personifications, and look deeper at the arguments for and against racebending.

"You're taking this too seriously. People giving more attention to racebent versions of Western countries versus non-racebent POC countries doesn't say anything deeper about someone's political beliefs. People just like the silly anime about personified countries, and that silly anime happens to give more attention to the canonically white countries."

To a certain extent, I get this rebuttal. We cannot solve racism or the privileging of the global north by reblogging Hetalia fanart of Seychelles and Cameroon. Everything I have described here is symptomatic of much, much larger issues that affect billions. But it's symptomatic: fandom is not immune to the ills of wider society. We do not shed our innate biases and prejudices when we enter supposedly apolitical spaces like fandom. In a series about personified nations, our prejudices and biases are naturally magnified because the source material’s nature is deeply political, dealing with history and personified nations and states.

Again I ask: What does it mean that the POC representation made by POCs is so often limited to racebending canonically white characters, in the context of the world order we live in where proximity to the West automatically confers certain privileges?

IMPORTANT: Refer to the section “The Myth of Multiculturalism” if you respond to this with “Are you saying depictions of Western-influenced POC experiences are a lesser form of representation?”

If that fails to convince you, and you still believe the inequality in reception between racebent and non-racebent nations doesn’t say anything deeper, I respond with the following- Isn’t it still worth it to try and show the same support and energy to the non-racebent, non-Western countries and their creators, regardless of whether that content speaks to you or not?

One last time, I’ll clarify what I’m not saying with that:

Stop liking America and Russia and England. I repeat, I cannot control what POC like or feel or do, and I repeat, what characters you personally like is a very individualistic view on a wider, systemic issue.

In the section “The State of POC Representation in Hetalia,” I discussed how disproportionately giving to racebent countries versus non-racebent non-Western countries is not an intersectional form of POC representation, and fails to address the underrepresentation of non-Western countries and cultures given the global colonial hierarchy. My above statement is therefore saying that if we POC want to achieve a more intersectional form of solidarity and representation, to create a fandom that’s more non-Western friendly, to generally support all types of POC creators, we should not neglect certain kinds of POC content just because it doesn’t personally resonate with us.

You don’t have to. Fandom is not activism. For many, fandom is an escape from the grim realities of the outside world. But in a media property all about exploring other countries’ cultures and histories, can we not strive for the spirit of the source material, and be a little more open-minded in exploring other countries and other forms of POC representation? Even in this miniscule way?

CONCLUSION

I would like to conclude this essay on the matter of irithnova, and the recent controversy she’s been embroiled in for stating many of the points I have made. Yes, our tones were different. But no amount of harsh tone warrants the outrage and rather racist backlash her post received. irithnova has been one of the most active voices in the Hetalia fandom speaking out against racism, from the exclusion of POC in j-ellyfish’s character polls to myrddin’s behavior. However, as soon as she, a Filipino, expresses personal discomfort with certain depictions of a nation that’s caused great harm to her people, other POC were the first to get mad at her for seeing the political implications of a POC personified America, to the point of trying to deny her reality as a feminized and racialized member of the diaspora living in a colonial European country and calling her functionally white.

POC solidarity doesn’t mean we have to all agree with each other, or even like every other POC. But I want to note the irony here of people committing the very act they accused irithnova of doing- telling her, a Filipino, that she wasn’t allowed to criticize racebent depictions of America, thereby trying to control POC.

If your response to this is “Well, sure irithnova didn’t deserve the harassment, but she was still wrong to criticize racebending because it wasn’t her place!” I would like to remind you of the following points:

Scroll up to the top and read this essay again. Regardless of tone used, there are valid reasons for POC to dislike and criticize depictions of racebent countries.

irithnova, as a Filipino living in the West and has Filipino relatives in the USA, is intimately aware of the nature of American imperialism and racism against POC. The United States promised to help the Philippines achieve independence but instead robbed it of its sovereignty, putting down resistance to its takeover and instituting American rule because they viewed Filipinos as “lesser” and incapable of governing themselves because of their race. If it isn’t irithnova’s place to feel uncomfortable (and thus criticize) racebent America, then whose is it?

Finally, I want to emphasize one more thing- First Nations/Indigenous individuals have a unique relationship to the colonial settler states that occupy their land. Like I’ve said so many times, I cannot tell any POC how to feel or what to do, and even more so in this case because I myself am not First Nations/Indigenous; I’ve only provided arguments about the pitfalls of racebending and the merits of other forms of representation. But just as how I cannot tell you what to feel or do, nobody can stop other POC feeling put off by a racebent America.

At the end of the day, despite the who-knows-how-many paragraphs I’ve spent articulating the reasons against racebending canonically white nations, I cannot stop anyone from racebending nations if they wish to. But I do hope readers come away with a better understanding of the flaws of racebending, and the benefits of looking away from the Western mainstream and looking elsewhere to represent our experiences as diaspora and minorities. If you’re someone who engages in racebending, but still chose to read this 6K word long essay on the Hetalia fandom, I can’t express my gratitude enough for hearing me out. Honestly, anybody who read through this entire post deserves an award- Thanks for reading 💖

#rb #// disk horse #// long post

274 notes · View notes