#TOKENISM

[prokopetz]

Like, I totally agree that it's suspicious how mainstream media's alleged commitment to including diverse sexual and gender identities often only seems to extend to villainous characters, but any time somebody complains that it's a new thing I'm starkly reminded of 1990s media and its penchant for having the hero fight gangs of violent, drug-dealing punks who are inexplicably named after power tools or whatever whose demographic breakdown carefully includes one of each racial category on the latest US population census. (And also exactly one girl, who mostly just quips from the sidelines, because racial diversity is one thing, but we can't show the hero punching girls!)

[writingwithcolor]

What is Tokenism?

Tokenism refers to giving the empty appearance of inclusivity or diversity, often to avoid criticism. In writing, tokenism refers to adding minorities to an otherwise homogenous cast (think a cast of white male characters in the West) in name or appearance only, without putting in the effort to develop these characters.

The problem with tokenism is that token characters are forced to be the sole representation of their particular group. The consequence is twofold. First, undeveloped token characters often become platforms for stereotypes. Think the sassy Black friend, the smart Asian friend, etc.

Second, token characters often become creator mouthpieces. Many of us have heard someone excuse their racism by saying they have a POC friend. The token character, the proverbial Friend of Color, can be made to excuse or even promote biases about their race, ethnicity, or culture.

There is no inherent issue with having only one of a particular identity, or having a white protagonist and a POC best friend. The problem comes when you make the character a spokesperson for their identity and/or saddle them with stereotypes and cliches. To avoid tokenism, write the character from a place of empathy, make them three dimensional, do your research on their identity, and avoid stereotypes.

Further Reading:

Why We Need More Directors of Color

---

This Q&A is an excerpt from our General FAQ for Newcomers, which can be found in our new Masterpost of rules and FAQs. Take a look to learn more about writing POC representation!

-Writing With Color

[girlactionfigure]

AUGUST 5, 2024

TOKENISM 

Tokenism is the practice of selecting a person from a minority group to give the illusion of diversity or of representation of the minority group’s opinion. Tokenism is racism — or in this case, antisemitism — because it weaponizes the identity of the marginalized person to justify things that hurt that very same marginalized group. 

In other words, when you tokenize someone, you’re using them in a way that ultimately will hurt them or the group they are affiliated with. 

BECAUSE I KNOW I WILL BE ASKED…

I often highlight the voices of Palestinian dissidents, anti-Hamas Palestinians, and of Palestinians seeking to make peace with Israel. People tend to ask me a very good question: how is this any different than “tokenizing” fringe Jews?

Firstly, I want to make it clear that when I highlight the voices of “fringe” Palestinians, I am in no way claiming that they are necessarily representative of the majority. The overwhelming majority of past and recent surveys and statistics I’ve seen unfortunately suggest otherwise.

Secondly, there is a major, major difference between tokenizing the voices of Jews who minimize antisemitism, both in the Diaspora and in Israel, and uplifting the voices of Palestinians who seek to make peace. Tokenizing Jews who dismiss left-wing or Islamist antisemitism or who believe Israeli Jews are fair targets endanger the rest of us. That’s a far cry from Palestinians who wish to live side by side in peace.

Most importantly, the overwhelming majority of Jews worldwide have all the freedom of speech in the world. They are not risking their lives by sharing their views. Palestinian dissidents in the West Bank and especially in the Gaza Strip are quite literally putting their necks on the line to speak out against their tyrannical leaders. To not understand the difference between this and a Jew living comfortably in Brooklyn is a sign of privilege, of not understanding authoritarian societies. When dissidents speak, whether in Iran or the Palestinian Territories, I believe it’s the duty of the people in the free world to uplift their voices.

SELF-TOKENISM: ASSOCIATION OF GERMAN NATIONAL JEWS 

In the earliest days of Hitler’s rule, there was a small group of Jews that supported Hitler. In 1921, a Jewish man named Max Naumann founded a group known as the “Association of German National Jews.” 

Following Hitler’s rise to power, the Nazi regime itself never tokenized the Association of German National Jews, but the members of the organization tokenized themselves, particularly when speaking to the press. In 1933, a member of the group, Hans Priwin, issued a statement alleging that reports of the Nazis’ mistreatment of Jews were “stupid lies.” In 1934, the Association issued a statement of support for Hitler. 

The Association of German National Jews was especially hostile to the less assimilated Jews from Eastern Europe, who they considered backwards and “racially and spiritually inferior.” They were also hostile to Zionists, as they believed that they were a threat to Jewish integration into wider society. The main goal of the Association of German National Jews was the self-eradication of Jewish identity. To accomplish this sinister motive, they weaponized — and tokenized — their own Jewish identities. 

After Hitler’s appointment as German Chancellor in 1933, Jews worldwide protested, boycotting German goods. Instead of supporting the protest, the Association came out against the boycott and issued a manifesto that the Jews in Germany were being “fairly treated.”

In 1935, the Nazis declared the Association of German National Jews illegal and dissolved it. Naumann was arrested by the Gestapo the same day.

TOKENISM: HELENE MAYER

German Jewish fencer Helene Mayer is considered one of the best fencers of all time, having won gold at the 1928 Amsterdam Olympics and placing fifth at the 1932 Los Angeles Games. After Los Angeles, Meyer stayed in California to earn a law degree. In 1933, Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany, stripping Mayer, who was then banned from her old fencing club, of her rights.

Leading up to the 1936 Berlin Olympics, the United States Olympic Committee was under tremendous pressure to boycott the Games. The head of the US Olympic Committee, Avery Brundage, was a Nazi sympathizer, who convinced Germany to allow one German Jewish athlete to compete to give the impression that Jews in Germany were being treated fairly. In other words, the Nazis needed a token Jew.

Enter: Helene Mayer. Mayer had been living in the United States since her expulsion from her fencing club. Desperate to reclaim her old Olympic glory, Mayer tried out and was selected for the German team. She placed second and gave the Hitler salute on the podium. 

After the Olympics, where the Nazi press and government ignored her, Mayer returned to the United States, thus saving herself from the Holocaust. She moved back to Germany in 1952 and died a year later. She never publicly addressed her decision to participate as an athlete under the Nazis, a decision which temporarily sanitized Nazi Germany’s image. 

TOKENISM: YEVSEKTSIYA

In 1918, the Soviet Communist Party established a “Jewish branch,” with the consent of Vladimir Lenin. It was named “Yevsektsiya,” meaning “Jewish Sections of the Communist Party.” The mission of the Yevsektsiya was, quite literally, the “destruction of traditional Jewish life, the Zionist movement, and Hebrew culture.”

From the outset, the Yevsektsiya began harassing Zionist Jews. Initially, the Yevsektsiya legally abolished the “kehillas,” the traditional Jewish community organizations. Sometimes, they even burned their offices down. They shut down everything from Jewish political groups to theaters to sports clubs. They raided all Ukrainian “Zionist” offices and arrested every single one of their leaders.

Until their dissolution in 1929, they imprisoned, tortured, and murdered thousands of Jews. The fact that the Yevsektsiya was “Jewish” was central to its purpose. After all, the Soviet regime couldn’t be accused of antisemitism when those shutting down all Jewish cultural and spiritual life were Jews themselves. In other words, the Soviets tokenized the Jewish identities of the Yevsektsiya members to legitimize their systematic persecution of Jews. 

According to historian of Soviet history Richard Pipes, “In time, every Jewish cultural and social organization came under assault.”

The Soviet government dissolved the Yevsetskiya in 1929, claiming that it was no longer needed. During Stalin’s Great Purge in the 1930s, virtually all its members were arrested and executed. Some were shot by bullet, some were tortured, and others were sentenced to hard labor in Siberia. A former member even died when the prison he was in refused to supply him with insulin.

TODAY 

NETUREI KARTA

Antisemites today continue to uplift fringe Jewish groups to deflect from accusations of antisemitism. The Neturei Karta, for example, are a staple at pro-Palestine protests, despite the fact that they share just about zero values with the progressive left, given their sexism and homophobia, among other things. Their membership does not surpass 5000 people, and they are considered so fringe that even other anti-Zionist Orthodox groups, such as the Satmar, have disavowed them, issuing a cherem (censure, similar to excommunication) against them. The Neturei Karta have friendly relations with the Islamic Republic in Iran and even attended a conference in Holocaust denial in Tehran. 

JEWISH VOICE FOR PEACE, IFNOTNOW

Surveys consistently show that between 80-95 percent of Jews support the existence of the State of Israel. Yet politicians and activists often uplift anti-Zionist Jewish groups such as Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow as though they are representative of “true” Judaism. These groups have a long history of regurgitating the propaganda and glorifying, excusing, or justifying the actions of terrorists and terrorist groups responsible for heinous attacks against Jews around the world, including October 7.

HOW NOT TO TOKENIZE JEWS 

#1 Before you amplify a Jewish person, pause to think: is there anything in it for you? Are you amplifying us because you care about what we have to say or because our words validate your pre-existing opinions?

#2 Some discussions are intracommunity discussions. You don’t need to speak for us, over us, or weaponize intracommunity discussions to demonize the Jews you dislike.

#3 You cannot adequately support Jewish people if you are not open to hearing about our experiences, even when they don’t align with yours.

#4 Listen to many Jewish voices, and not just voices that you always agree with. It’s also important to listen to Jews of diverse backgrounds, races, sub-ethnic groups, social classes, genders, sexual orientations, and more.

This also means that if you disagree with a person about a topic unrelated to Jewishness or Judaism, you should still be willing to listen when they talk about their Jewish experience. People — Jews included — are multifaceted individuals. You might not always agree with us, but you should understand that no one can speak to the Jewish experience better than we can.

#5 No Jew — not a single one — deserves antisemitism. Antisemitism is not a valid punishment for bad behavior; it’s an ancient, senseless form of hatred that has gotten innocent people murdered for thousands of years. All Jews deserve protection from antisemitism, no matter how good or bad their views and/or behavior. Additionally, antisemitism targeting Jews you dislike always spills over and hurts other Jews. If you do not pursue safety for every single Jew, you are not an ally.

#6 To adequately represent the views of the Jewish community, share the views that are representative of the majority of the Jewish community, not fringe opinions. Don’t uplift a minority voice to pretend that that’s how all of us feel.

#7 Understand that Jews can very much perpetuate antisemitism. Agreeing with a Jewish person doesn’t mean you are not antisemitic.

rootsmetals

Olympics x As a Jew crossover

Sources

[agentfascinateur]

"Nothing anti-Semitic about opposing genocide"

- Lela Tolajian

To us, progressive Jews, it appears elected officials who proudly stood by Donald Trump after he refused to condemn neo-Nazis and dined with anti-Semites value our voices only when they can tokenise a select few to fulfil their political goals. Conflating anti-Semitism with criticism of a modern apartheid state is dangerous historical revisionism. 

[odinsblog]

Qwhite interesting. Where did all of those “black jobs” that Trump promised disappear to?

[screamingfromuz]

I finally figured out why the response from the global left made me so angry.

Jewish leftist, including myself, never hesitated to condemn the Israeli government and Israeli citizens for their treatment of Palestinians. for example- I know were I was in Huwara. I was calling out the brutality of the pogrom done by right wings extremeness, criticizing it, calling for punishment of the terrorists, warning that this escalation of violence would do nothing but continue the violence. we did not try and justify it as a neutral response for the murder of two people, no, I knew that this kind of behavior has no excuse.

and we did the same every single time. the Israeli left always knew where it was when the Palestinians were the victims of violence, we often stood right there next to them.

and the leftist of the world loved it. held us up to prove that they are right, "you see? even they agree! free Palestine!"

and we expected the same. we expected that if the horrors will come to us, the global left will support us. We knew that they struggle since Israeli missiles hit while Hamas/Hezbollah/Jihad missiles get intercepted by a system that costs millions to operate. but surely, they kept saying that they would have spoken out if the Jews are in danger, they will stand with us in our grief.

and then came October 7th.

and we were shown once again that we are nothing but a token.

people celebrated the attack, and even those who did notת hesitated to condemn it. It was people being butchered in their own homes, a fucking war crime! all while they were hurling hundreds of missiles at civilian targets! at homes, at playground, at hospitals!

and yet, if it was not celebrating, the global left was silent.

I read a colon by a Danna Frank she described how an Israeli women who study in Yell was shaken and crying the entire day, and no one asked for her well being. Frank herself received messages from friends abroad during that day, and one of them asked after the well being of Palestinian waiters in Ramallah and offered them prayers and not ask after her own fucking sake. Seeds for Peace, that always had what to say at the beginning of any Israeli operation, stayed quiet for days, when they did post something, it was to call against violence from both sides, not even mentioning the massacre. and there are so many more instances.

It hurt so much because it was a betrayal. a prof that we are only cared for when we are either a token or dead.

We stood up again and again and again for the rights of others, against our own deeds, and when it was our people left dead on the ground, the quiet was disturbed only by the sounds of celebration.

We should have known

The Israeli left and the Jewish left stand alone in the global stage.

We now know who are allies are.

[eretzyisrael]

[spot-the-antisemitism]

Reading this book, which the pro-Palestinian movement championed and a quick search of the author showed he's Israeli OK, so I decided to see what "myths" he decided to counter

Ok sure, yeah, I dont think anyone really think Israel before its establishment was empty. From other blogs Ive seen, it's already pointed out that there were Arabs in present Israel. But the entire chapter just skates over Ottoman/Arab imperialism of the Holy Land and then just say: all of sudden, Palestine was a prosperpus Muslim land

This is going off the wrong footing, I say. The chapter seems to suggest that Christianity invented Judaism and the idea of the Jewish people. In a way, this entire chapter seems to propagate the idea Zionism is the idea of Christians, not the Jewish people. Ironically, it just makes out the Jewish people as mere pawns of Christianity and that the entire Zionism project is Christianity's idea. The chapter generally omits Jewish indigenity to Israel and other archaeological evidence.

Im skipping over the other myths like "Zionism is Judaism", "Zionism is Not Colonialism", "the Palestinians left voluntarily", "the 1967 war was a war of no choice".

"Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East" - the first half mainly covers and claims how Israel is actually an authoritarian state just because it has military conscription and the everyday IDF soldier can overlord over an ordinary Palestinian

On the chapter: "Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East" - the first half mainly covers and claims how Israel is actually an authoritarian state just because it has military conscription and the everyday IDF soldier can overlord over an ordinary Palestinian

"Israel is not a democracy because it actively kills Palestinians during its existence" - Er, Im not sure how that argument holds because, well, the US is still a democracy but also kills people so well. So do they expect a democracy *not* to kill people? Yeah, I know there are issues about Israel's treatment of Palestinians as an occupier of the West Bank, but that does not in any way demote Israel's status as a democracy

Oslo chapter: I take more issue with the claim that Egypt and Jordan were willing to "legitimise the Israeli's takeover of Palestine" because its just fluff to say: they invaded Palestine to prevent Israel from being established and they lost

"The idea to partition is a Zionist idea and the Arabs boycotted partitioned efforts" - the Arabs has zero intentions of allowing Israel to exist. To them, Palestine is Arab

Im dead. The author, as "an Israeli historian" claims Hamas is a legitimate resistance organisation. Im so done with this book

...Were there even Jewish settlers in Gaza before the withdrawal? And oh look another "Gaza is a concentration camp" claim

Curious to note how the Palestinian struggle is actually 150 years. Not 76 years as the mainstream Palestinian movement claim. And yeah, pushing the idea that Israel should change it mind

The last chapter on the Two-State solution (and its conclusion) just go on to rant about how Israel is a settler state and we should recognise that Israel is evil (and imply Israel should be destroyed) as we toss the two-state solution into the bin

In all, the book is a nothingburger really. Just pedalling various pro-Palestinian myths about Israel (ironically, for a book claiming to dispel myths about Israel) and throwing any nuances out of the window. And this is supposedly written by an Israeli

Well, an Israeli leftist. But perhaps have gone so far down the spiral and became a self-hating Israeli

Two things, 150 years ago there was a movement by Muslim arabs to separate from Ottoman Turkey so yes the struggle is longer than “when the Jews came”.

there were NO jews in Gaza before the six days war war because Gaza was Egypt then and Egypt forbid Jews there. Occupying the Sinai was seen not as s strategic buffer zone but elaborate revenge and abuse by inflicting Egyptian arab Muslims with having to not only live WITH Jews but be temporarily ruled by them

also love the infantilizing of “Jews have no power, they are Christian pawns against Muslims”, his tankie students in exeter must Looove to hear that he has no power and they control him snd other jews

He’s an ex-pat.

while you did an excellent breakdown on the book, I looked up the author

Did he flee or was exiled? The tankies that run Wikipedia won’t tell me

Womp womp womp

let’s see what landed him here. I bet it’s the book

It’s not?! Huh so he’s a BDS shill that moonlights for SJP. Wonder which one of his two patrons commissioned the book. Remember this guy sees himself as nothing but a pawn for goyim

HE WAS EXILED FOR ATROCITY PROPAGANDA!!!!

case closed, propaganda dismissed. He does not speak in my name

[wesleysniperking]

Usopp, Representation, and the Black Experience: My Perspective (maybe TL;DR)

Disclaimer: This post reflects my personal interpretation and connection with Usopp's character. I understand that not everyone may share the same perspective, and that's okay. This is just my own take based on my experiences and thoughts about identity and representation.

When it comes to Black characters, I’ve noticed a recurring theme where they often distance themselves from their non-Black friends or take time away due to personal struggles. It’s a reflection of the weight they carry, and sometimes there’s even some regret for doing so. I can think of plenty of shows that have touched on this, and honestly, I get it. A lot of Black people, myself included, feel the need to face things alone, likely because of deep-rooted issues tied to our history, upbringing, and the challenges of navigating predominantly non-Black spaces—especially when tokenism is involved.

I’ve been that person, and in many ways, I still am. My sister and mom often joke that Usopp feels like a Black guy with a lot of “white” friends. They also mention how Black men, especially those in subcultures like the hipster scene, often juggle two social circles. My cousin, a big One Piece fan, is the perfect example of this. Even Jacob Gibson, who plays Usopp in the live-action series, gives off a similar vibe.

I know this might come off as blunt or even as a generalization, but to me, Usopp reflects a part of the Black experience. He’s like the Lando (or Finn) in Star Wars, Link Hayes in The Mod Squad, Noah in Young Riders, and Marcellus in The Originals. He’s the Renee in Ally McBeal, Tucker in Danny Phantom, Black Panther in Avengers, Cyborg in Teen Titans, Gerald in Hey Arnold, James Rhodes in Iron Man, Chris Washington in Get Out, Ben in Night of the Living Dead, and Christopher in Scrubs. He’s that Black guy.

Maybe One Piece could show Usopp as more than just his race, but it’s hard to ignore the connection. And that’s okay. It’s something I’ve been reflecting on for a while, and I wanted to share it.

GIF credit

[cripplecharacters]

how do you avoid tokenism if your cast is already really small? (ex. 5-10 characters). it’s a short comic/story/thing i’m working on and i want representation but i’m a bit worried about it coming off as tokenism

Hello,

Tokenism is about only making the bare minimum to appear interested in diversity or inclusion, but not actually delving any deeper.

This does often happen in a way where, for example, there is only 1 person with a certain marginalized characteristic in the cast. Like one black person amongst white people, or one woman in a cast of all men, or one disabled person among nondisabled people. But it's a little bit more than that. That one 'token' person is generally portrayed in a very stereotypical and superficial way.

When it comes to disabled characters that are tokenized in this way, often it's something like... the blind character is totally blind plays the piano and relies entirely on their hearing and requires everyone to describe colors to them and is the only person who befriends an 'ugly' creature because They Don't See The Difference, and no one shares basically any of their traits, and they never mention knowing anyone else who is blind. Basically, a list of tropes rather than a character with their own personality that meshes with the personality of the rest of the cast.

You can avoid tokenism by creating the character and actually keeping in mind how their disability (or any other marginalized characteristic, but we are a disability writing advice blog after all!) affects them and their life, and also giving them a life aside from that. You can make sure that they have relationships with the rest of the cast (good or bad!), that they have things in common with some of them, and that they have a fully formed personality that isn't just [insert disability here].

Something that can also help is the character mentioning someone else they've met that has a disability similar to them – like mentioning their cousin is also deaf, or that they met someone their age in physical therapy, or that they inherited their condition from their parent, and if you can mention a way that they are also different from your character too. Like, "Yeah, my best friend from elementary school had cerebral palsy too. She didn't need to use a wheelchair like me, but I did help her out whenever we had to use scissors."

Basically: Your character should be more than just a collection of Disability Tropes. They should be a person that fits within the cast, and as developed as anyone else.

Hope this helps,

– mod sparrow

[icedsodapop]

If you want to find out if a celebrity you support/stan supports Palestine and Ceasefire (and various other progressive causes) because you want to make an informed decision on whether you want to continue supporting said artist is understandable. But if you want to know if your celebrity fave supports Palestine because you want to feel morally superior for stanning/supporting said celebrity and prove this supposed superiority, that is tokenism and you can fuck off.

[prokopetz]

Like, obviously representation in fictional settings is a good thing in principle, but it can also go down some very entertaining rabbit holes. I've noticed this recurring pattern with superhero-themed tabletop RPGs where the author wants the setting's lore to represent a wide range of identities, but most of the word count goes toward statting up supervillains because the player characters need someone to fight, and of course their identities need to be relevant with respect to their supervillainous activites, or else that's tokenism, so they end up with a rogue's gallery full of members of visible minorities whose minority status is somehow the reason they became supervillains, and now the author's like "oh no, I made all of my villains too sympathetic, I need to fix that" – except they overcorrect in the opposite direction, and now the setting's flagship supervillain is a guy named Captain Racism.

[writingwithcolor]

What Makes an Ethnic Villain "Ethnic" or "Villainous?" How Do You Offset it?

anonymous asked:

Hello WWC! I have a question about the antagonist of my story. She is (currently) Japanese, and I want to make sure I’m writing her in a way that doesn’t associates [sic] her being Asian with being villainous.  The story is set in modern day USA, this character is effectively immortal. She was a samurai who lost loved ones due to failure in combat, and this becomes her character[sic] motivation (portrayed sympathetically to the audience). This story explores many different time periods and how women have shown valor throughout history. The age of the samurai (and the real and legendary female warriors from it) have interested me the most, which is why I want her to be from this period.  The outfit she wears while fighting is based on samurai armor, and she wears modern and traditional Japanese fashion depending on the occasion. She acts pretty similar to modern day people, though more cynical and obsessed with her loss. She’s been able to adapt with the times but still highly values and cherishes her past.  She is the only Asian main character, but I plan to make a supportive Japanese side character. She’s a history teacher who knows about the villain and gives the protagonists information to help them, but isn’t involved in the main plot otherwise.  Are the way I’m writing this villain and the inclusion of a non-antagonist Japanese character enough to prevent a harmful reading of the story, or is there more I should do?

Why Does Your Villain Exist?

This makes me feel old because David Anders plays a villain with this kind of backstory in the series Heroes starring Masi Oka. 

I think you want to think about what you mean when you say: 

Villainous (In what way? To whom? To what end?)

Harmful (What tropes, narratives and implications are present?)

I’m relatively infamous in the mod circle for not caring too much about dimensions of “harm”. The concept is relative and varies widely between people and cultures. I don’t see much value in framing motivations around “What is less harmful?” I think for me, what matters more is: 

“What is more true?” 

“Are characteristics viewed as intrinsic to background, or the product of experiences and personal autonomy?”

“Will your portrayal resonate with a large audience?”

“What will resonate with the members of the audience who share the backgrounds your characters have?” 

This post offers additional questions you could ask yourself instead of “is this okay/not okay/harmful.” 

You could write a story where your antagonist is sly, sadistic, violent and cold-blooded. It may not be an interpretation that will make many Japanese from combat backgrounds feel seen or heard, but it’s not without precedent. These tropes have been weaponized against people of Japanese descent (Like Nikkei Japanese interned during World War II), but Japan also brutalized a good chunk of Asia during World War II. See Herge’s Tintin and The Blue Lotus for an example of a comic that accurately showcases the brutality of Japan’s colonization of Manchuria, but also is racist in terms of how Japanese characters are portrayed (CW: genocide, war, imperialism, racism).

You could also write a story where your character’s grief gives way to despair, and fuels their combat such that they are seen as calculating, frigid and deeply driven by revenge/ violence. This might make sense. It’s also been done to death for Japanese female warriors, though (See “Lady Snowblood” by Kazuo Koike and Kazuo Kamimura here, CW: sexual assault, violence, murder and a host of other dark things you’d expect in a revenge story). 

You could further write a story where your antagonist is not necessarily villainous, but the perceived harm comes from fetishizing/ exoticizing elements in how her appearance is presented or how she is sexualized, which is a common problem for Japanese female characters. 

My vote always goes to the most interesting story or character. I don’t see any benefit to writing from a defensive position. This is where I'll point out that, culturally, I can't picture a Japanese character viewing immortality as anything other than a curse. Many cultures in Japan are largely defined by transience and the understanding that many things naturally decay, die, and change form.

There are a lot of ways you could conceivably cause harm, but I’d rather hear about what the point of this character is given the dilemma of their position. 

What is her purpose for the plot? 

How is she designed to make the reader feel? 

What literary devices are relevant to her portrayal?

(Arbitrarily, you can always add more than 1 extra Japanese character. I think you might put less pressure on yourself with this character’s portrayal if you have more Japanese characters to practice with in general.) 

- Marika. 

When Off-Setting: Aim for Average

Seconding the above with regards to this villainess’s story and your motivations for this character, but regardless of her story I think it’s also important to look specifically at how the Japanese teacher character provides contrast. 

I agree with the choice to make her a regular person and not a superhero. Otherwise, your one Asian character is aggressively Asian-themed in a stereotypical Cool Japan way (particularly if her villain suit is samurai-themed & she wears wafu clothing every so often). Adding a chill person who happens to be Japanese and doesn’t have some kind of ninja or kitsune motif will be a breath of fresh air (well, more like a sigh of relief) for Japanese readers. 

A note on characterization—while our standard advice for “offset” characters is to give your offset character the opposite of the personality trait you’re trying to balance, in this case you might want to avoid opposites. You have a villainess who is a cold, tough “don’t need no man” type. Making the teacher mild-mannered, helpful, and accomodating would balance out the villainess’s traits, but you’ll end up swinging to the other side of the pendulum towards the Submissive Asian stereotype depending on execution. If avoiding stereotypes is a concern, I suggest picking something outside of that spectrum of gentleness to violence and making her really boring or really weird or really nerdy or a jock gym teacher or…something. You’re the author.

Similarly, while the villainess is very traditionally Japanese in her motifs and backstory, don’t make the teacher go aggressively in either direction—give her a nice balance of modern vs. traditional, Japanese vs. Western sensibilities as far as her looks, dress, interests, values, etc. Because at the end of the day, that’s most modern Japanese people. 

Sometimes, the most difficult representation of a character of color is making a character who is really average, typical, modern, and boring. 

- Rina

[spottheantisemitism]

Magneto and Holocaust Inversion (Many Such Cases)

Case #1: He who fights monsters ( UXM #150 I, Magneto - Chris Claremont)

So this was my first X-men comic I got at a con at a discount so THIS was my introduction to Magneto. I love this comic to bits. It's a great scene

While this sudden breakdown is quite good there's the pieta symbolism between two jews and there's the distinct implication of "I'm no better than the Nazis" in his breakdown (you are allowed to fight me on this as not counting as holocaust inversion)

to pivot Magneto this much Claremont pretty much had to do something akin to holocaust inversion because Lee and Kirby wrote him as a fascist coded character and Claremont couldn't not have Jewish (and Romani?*) holocaust survivor who was likely sonderkommando not realize the irony of his actions.

Also we get more Magneto backstory and depth in ONE PAGE than any comic before and most comics since

Case #2: No equals (Magneto Rex episode 3- Joe Pruitt)

Listen the Genosha metaphor was clumsy when Claremont wrote it but the hands of Joe Pruitt, it sounds like a Soviet psyop about the evil colonizer Jews who like apartheid.

While Pietro is one of the few people who get to say the "you're making us look bad" line and it landing in and out of universe the way it's presented is the most simplistic argument possible

The implication of "he's gone full circle and become the oppressor" is clear and this time painfully intentional. The fact that these people are imprisoned for having legacy virus- the x-men equivalent of aids just makes it all worse

Case #3: A mad old terrorist twat (New X-men: Planet X -Grant Morrison)

^ tw for misgendering Grant Morrison who used he/him at the time of publication but use they/them now.

Many people have pointed out that part of what stings when Morrison separates McKellen from the "schizoid-conflicted" Hitler reborn terrorist twat Magneto is the former is a gentile and therefore more deserving of their respect. The implications that Magneto is like that because his ideas are dumb and out-dated mirrors the way antisemites claim that Jews are gentiles over "their made up fairy tales".

I don't think Morrison is so much an antisemite as the kind of fanenby hypocritical chud who loves the silver age (bad era to fandomize and idolize, Grant) exactly as it was. They love when THEY get to make Beast or Ice man gay but hate when a Jewish writer makes a wannabe dictator a Jewish holocaust survivor. We get it Grant, rules for thee but not for Jews. No, no they'll rewrite the character as literally Hitler to show that only Morrison gets to re-write X-men comics, antisemitic implications be damned.

Well you made one thing clear, Grant sweaty, you hate retcons and the art of Jewish writers whose politics and visions you dislike.

screenshot source:

Case #4: when your boyfriend invokes Godwin's law (House of M: Civil war #3)

I feel like Charles only gets away with this because they're such close friends (who canonically share a room) and he's been through a lot in this issue.

To be fair "you twisting semantics won't save people from fanatics who want genocide" is the BEST comeback to holocaust inversion I've seen in an X-men comic

the framing here is both of them are wrong and Magnus (that's one of Magneto's human names) is clearly in the right about this. The humans may think he's Mutant Hitler but that's because they're projecting

(sorry for making you read sideways and making you read something I took a picture of IRL)

Case #5: The oppressed becomes the oppressor (X-men 97 episode 2)

Magneto's speech in X-97 has been said as a watered down version of his speech in Uncanny X-Men 200

What is pointed out many times is the line where he claims "his own people joined the nazis to betray him". Never expanded upon, never brought up again. There are no other Jewish character in 97, no foils. It feels almost gross and tokenistic, like Marvel wanted Magneto be the good token self-hating Jews. Since at that was the only acceptable type of Jew in early 2024.

I do hope to see a course correction seasons 2 and 3 as something as simple as showing a flashback of his past or just showing a character like Kitty would go a long way to dispel the accidental implication that Magneto thinks all other Jews are evil

*While Magneto's children Wanda and Pietro are explicitly Jewish-Romani everywhere BUT the MCU in some universes like House of M, so is he. These intermarriages happened in Weimar Germany all the time so these universes are quite plausible

[blackbrownfamily]