#aka monarchies can be reformed | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

ellynneversweet · 4 years ago

Note

Curious English person here. Is republicanism common in Australia? I'm wondering as it sure doesn't feel common where I live. Especially with Labour desperately trying to prove it can do patriotism in order to make its self electable.

‘Lol what’s a political opinion, sounds wanky’ — old Australian proverb.

This gets long, because I can’t leave well enough alone. Short summary of what you probably wanted to know first, and then some history.

Theoretically, a republic of Australia (especially post-Elizabeth II) is generally understood to have the support of the majority of the population. Our last Prime Minister was and is a vocal supporter of a Republic who led the pro-republic campaign in the 1999 referendum, but didn’t bring it up again in the course of his term, and the Prime Minister before him (same party) re-established knighthoods so he could give Prince Phillip an extra title, so there’s a spectrum. In practice a republic of Australia is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future, because it would take a lot of money and work to bring about, and would be largely a symbolic gesture rather than a practical one. Actually getting rid of the royals would require a referendum and constitutional amendment, and that’s not on the political table for a variety of reasons.

The general Australian opinion of the Windsor family can be summed up as follows: the Queen is a nice old grandma (depends how recently she’s been seen with Andrew), and it would be cruel to fire her in her twilight years; Charles is a useless tosser whom no one likes, although his wife is funny (depends on whether there’s a Diana retrospective trending on Netflix); the Cambridges seem stylish and wholesomely functional and are about as interesting as pro tennis players; ten years ago it was a quasi-serious joke that Harry would make a good Governor General, because he knows How To Drink Beer And Talk Shit Like An Australian, but then someone realised we’d have to pay him a bigger salary than the usual parade of retired lawyers and army officers and now it’s not funny. They get crowds when they do a tour, and the unofficial tourism advertising of having some pint-sized royal maul a wallaby at a petting zoo is considered a fair return on the cost of security when they travel here, which is the only time they cost Australia anything.

To give you some more detail:

The first thing that needs to be clarified is that that Parliament and Monarch of the United Kingdom have no official legislative power over the Commonwealth of Australia, and haven’t since 1986. The Monarch of Australia is, technically, legally seperate from the Monarch of Canada, the Monarch of New Zealand, and the Monarch of that other place off the coast of France, although by some weird coincidence all those seperate executive persons reside in the body of some old English woman. That’s bullshit, I hear you say, and, yeah that’s true, but consider this: she doesn’t actually do all those jobs. Functionally, the Head of State of Australia is an entirely different unelected executive, the Govenor General, and the office of the Governor General is careful to preserve their public position of political neutrality and independence.

There’s a bit of history here. The federation do Australia as a country happened in 1901, but between then and roughly 1930 the Colonial Office of the British government had considerable legal sway if they chose to use it, and the GG was appointed on their advice. The Australian National identity of the pre-WWII period was very much that of proud (white) sons of empire etc etc, but in 1930 the Australian Prime Minister insists on ‘advising’ the king on the next GG, and the next year the Statute of Westminster 1931 is passed, which establishes the legislative independence of, among other countries, Australia (but, because Australia is a federation of states, there is still some doubt about who has the power to do what exactly at which level of government).

Onward to 1975 and The Dismissal. Gough Whitlam of the Labor Party is the Prime Minister, and, the left having been out of power for some time, is moving quickly to institute a bunch of social reforms (RIP, sir, thanks for introducing public health care and treating the aboriginal population with a modicum of decency). The right-leaning Liberal party is seething over this, and, because they control the Senate, block supply for expenditure in an attempt to force an election in the House Of Reps. Whitlam counters with an election for the Senate and goes to the Governor General for his approval, because elections are called by the PM with the authorisation of the GG. The GG informs Whitlam that he has been dismissed as the PM, and the GG has invited the leader of the opposition to be acting PM instead. This is TECHNICALLY something the GG can do as the queen’s representative, but it’s against the spirit of democracy. It becomes a huge scandal the periodically bubbles along for years, and the reason this is relevent to the question of republicanism in Australia is the Palace Letters — correspondence between the GG and the Queen/their various offices and staff. The Queen claimed that these letters were private or personal correspondence, and thus not able to be released as a matter of public record, which caused a lot of speculation as to whether Whitlam had been dismissed on the orders of the Queen. This went on for years, and last year they were released. Long story short, the Queen did not explicitly know or authorise the dismissal, but there’s a lot of ‘theoretically, if’ in the letters, and it certainly seems like the Queen and her office were keeping closer tabs on Australian politics than was thought at the time. There’s also a conspiracy theory that the CIA staged the dismissal because Whitlam was making overtures to China, buuuuut if that’s the case then no evidence has come to light. In any case, no one wants that sort of scandal, and there are efforts made to distance the role of the GG from that of the monarch, and both from any practical power.

Onward again to 1986, the Australia Act 1986 is passed in both Australia and the UK, confirming that Australia is legislatively independent from the UK, and that the Queen of Australia is a legally distinct position from the Queen of the UK (see: James VI and I, etc). This is very similar to the 1931 Statute, but clarified that this independence exists on a state level as well as a federal level, in order to prevent states from appealing to the UK to overrule the federal government (as with Western Australia’s attempted succession in 1933).

Onward again and most recently: the 1999 Republic Referendum, aka my earliest political opinion. Labor proposed a referendum in honour of the centenary of federation. The Prime Minister in power was a Liberal (you may remember them as the party who stole the government in the dismissal). There was A LOT of debate over how, in the event of Australia becoming a republic, we would resolve the issue of the powers of the executive. Would we have an American style presidency (the Clinton impeachment was happening around this this time, FYI) or something more like the supposedly-detached monarchy represented by the GG? The proposal that eventually went to the people was a president appointed by the Prime Minister + 2/3rds of both the Senate and the House of Reps, who could be dismissed by the PM. This was a fairly unpopular take for a bunch of different reasons, not least because it managed to give the Head of State an implied mandate without actually being elected, and it was defeated by 54.4%. So, no Republic, and unfortunately, for those of us who do favour revisiting the question, it’s mostly seen as either unimportant or settled, or both. Whomp-whomp.

For my part, if we’re getting a referendum any time soon, I’d prefer it to be on section 44 of the constitution, which bars people with (potential) foreign allegiances from standing for election, which is frankly ridiculous in a country where nearly 30% of the population was born overseas and something like half the population potentially has at least dual citizenship.

#tumblr keeps eating this post #obviously this is biased and foreshortened #but hey #auspol

52 notes · View notes

mehrauli · 4 years ago

Text

Notes on Kashmir history

The way I learned about the history of Kashmir was actually living there. I’d go to the bookstores and just read books there, so I don’t have an on-hand list of online resources. Also, people would tell me stuff, which I would then investigate or not. This is going to be almost entirely from memory, based on not-that-much research, and so it’ll have huge omissions and possibly errors simply because I do not know those things. The point of this isn’t so you can read this and call yourself an expert, it’s so you know what to ask for further questions. Also, if I do link to big books people won’t read them, but maybe they will read a post.

Kashmir’s history is contentious because hindus have made many attempts to recuperate its history in order to justify their settler colonialism. The hindu mythification of Kashmir is intense. So hindus will tell you a very different story about this than anyone else. Some articles on, for example, wikipedia, consult these hindu myths as real history. This is something to be aware of when doing independent research on Kashmir.

Kashmir is not a part of India, never has been, and never will be.

Islamification

As far as I know, Islam was first introduced to Kashmir by Mahmud of Ghazni in 1015, who did not make serious progress conquering it but did station some Muslims on the outskirts of the valley. Marco Polo (who traveled asia in the late 1200s) reports that the butcher castes in Kashmir were all Muslims. This is consistent with other evidence that Kashmir’s islamification took place over several centuries, and was a bottom-up affair; butchers are a low-caste group.

The first Muslim ruler of Kashmir was Rinchan (r. 1320-1323). He was an heir to a Buddhist dynasty, who considered a conversion into shaivism, which was a form of brahminism which had entered Kashmir somewhere around the time of Muhammad of Ghazni. However he was turned away from the brahmins who considered him to be low-caste. Brahmins at this time called Buddhism “the religion of the Shudras”.

Rinchan accepted Islam instead, and took the name Sadruddin Shah, under the tutelage of the Sufi missionary Bulbul Shah. The first mosque in Kashmir was a converted Buddhist temple which instututed a twice-daily charity meal. To this day, inter-dining between castes is still a really big deal in a lot of parts of India.

Throughout the late 1300s, Sufi missionaries were active throughout Kashmir including Ali Hamidani. Other important figures include Lal Ded, who was a Shaivite poet who has been disowned by Hindus due to her emphasis on social reform and embraced by Muslims for the same reason. Ded is said to have been incredibly influential to Nund Rishi, AKA Sheikh Nooruddin Noorani, who started the Rishi Sufi order, who were social renunciates who lived in caves and helped popularise Islam.

I can find almost nothing online about this subject. There is one story that I remember about Hamidani meeting Nund Rishi. In the story, the other sayyids warn Hamidani not to meet with Nund Rishi, because he is not a sayyid and had a very unorthodox practice. The point of the story is that Hamidani ignores this advice and with his help, Nund Rishi becomes one of the most important figures in the Islamification of Kashmir. I like the story, because it emphasises the importance of social equality in the spread of Islam throughout Kashmir.

Hamidani writes elsewhere, in Volume 10 of his Dhakhirat:

One feels proud of one's self on the basis of one's pedigree, in comparison to others who are better than he as regards to knowledge and action. He understands others as his slaves. His eyes are full of anger. And the signs of his malevolence are lucid in his actions. He can cure this disease, if he realises that it is foolish to understand others low on the basis of pedigree.

Hamidani’s Dhakhirat ul Mulk is still read from mosques in Kashmir to this day.

Dogra Empire (1846-1952)

Kashmir never came directly under British rule. They won it in a war against the Sikhs and immediately sold it to a petty tyrant named Gulab Singh who instituted an overt hindu theocracy, which was characterised by unreasonable taxation, arbitrary rules, etc. During this period the brahmins, predictably, enjoyed vast social and political privileges.

As it was explained to me by a Kashmiri friend of mine, an Englishman by the name of Robert Thorpe is considered by Kashmiris to be the “first martyr” of the freedom struggle. He documented the horrific circumstances that Kashmiris lived under and called for Kashmir to come under British rule. I have a copy of this PDF, you can probably find it online yourself if you look. The circumstances he describes are absolutely horrific and mirror . Some excerpts on this post: [x]

(Some of the above excerpts are from Arthur Brinckman, a missionary who documented the same thing around the same time. My pdf is a compilation of their two papers.)

Legend has it that Thorpe was assassinated by the Dogras shortly after publishing his paper, Cashmere Misgovernment.

After Thorpe’s death, there was a famine in which half to three fifths of the population of the valley died. Not a single brahmin died of starvation during this period. It is documented in more detail in the book Hindu Rulers, Muslim Subjects.

Property remained owned by the small hindu minority, who functioned as feudal lords stipulating various forms of untouchability which are common in India as well.

Partition and the Plebiscite

The British only directly controlled about 62% of British India. The rest consisted of Princely States.

The gist of this is that during partition, most of the petty monarchies unconditionally surrendered to, and were annexed by, India or Pakistan. One notable exception to this was Hyderabad, which was forcefully invaded by India which proceeded to slaughter tens to hundreds of thousands of people (estimates vary) because its ruler was Muslim, but it was geographically isolated from Pakistan.

I don’t want to dwell on Kashmir’s case here too much because I’m not that familiar with it. I don’t personally care about the history or the legal arguments. I’ve been to Kashmir and it is manifestly obvious that Kashmir is not and should not be a part of India. Not a single person in Kashmir wants anything to do with India. When you say something to the effect that Kashmir will be free in Kashmir, everyone stops what they’re doing to say “inshallah”. It is not the unenthusiastic lackadaisical “inshallah” of the Arabs. It is an enthusiastic punctuation mark to whatever you just said, which comes powerfully from the gut, a prayer in its own right, as if to flag it as important in God’s inbox. Almost like how African-Americans can use “amen” sometimes.

Muslims in India are an outlaw class. As far as we are concerned, there is, properly speaking, no law. This is doubly so in Kashmir. If you walk around downtown Sirinagar, you’ll see a huge number of blind people and amputees, while most shops or pharmacies are raising money for charities for the blind. This is because the Indian army has a policy of shooting Kashmiri protesters in the eyes. It is not secret. The brutality of the Indian occupation is on full display. Most of the tourists to Kashmir are Indian and the brutality is part of the attraction.

So I don’t care whatever horseshit “laws” India rationalises its occupation with. India should fucking burn for what it’s done to Kashmir.

The short version of this story is, though, that Kashmir’s then-petty tyrant agreed to a temporary Indian presence contingent on an eventual plebiscite regarding whether Kashmir would go to India, Pakistan, or remain independent. Or something. I cannot stress how little I care about this.

The fact that a plebiscite was part of the original arrangement, though, does influence activism both in Kashmir and India as well as Pakistan. Pakistan, for its part, has agreed to a plebiscite in Pakistan-Administered Kashmir (PAK) as soon as India allows it to happen in IOK.

Jammu, which is a city south of the Kashmir valley proper, saw the worst violence of the partition, worse even than the annexation of Hyderabad (though, again, estimates vary in both cases and it could go either way). Unlike the case of Hyderabad, the violence in Jammu was organised by Hindu supremacist groups including RSS, the political arm of which is the current ruling party of India, the BJP. After the violence, Jammu has gone from being Muslim-majority at time of partition to 7.1% Muslim at the time of the 2011 census.

Indian Rule

I am also not too familiar with anything here up until the 90′s or so. One important figure to know here is Maqbool Bhatt, a charismatic revolutionary who co-founded the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front. He was a guerilla organiser who crossed the line of control into Pakistan “illegally” several times in order to work towards an independent Kashmir.

One event that gets disproportionate attention is the exodus of the brahmins from Kashmir. The early 90s were the start of the current insurgency, and political assassinations were carried out against people like local administrators and other active collaborators with the Indian colonial regime. brahmins were disproportionately represented among these people, because duh of course they were. But Muslim collaborators were targeted by these groups just the same. While the number of brahmins to be killed during this period was about 2-300, thousands of Kashmiris were killed by the colonial state which of course did target Muslims exclusively.

Some, not all, brahmins left Kashmir during this period. A few remain in Sirinagar, they own shops and stuff, I bought a pencil from one. They were never numerous because brahmins are never numerous. Since then, though they for their part mostly do not want to return and are well provided for in India and the western diaspora, Much of India’s current campaign of settler colonialism is rationalised as an effort to resttle them in Kashmir. The argument falls apart, however, as they themselves have no such agenda. If they really wanted to go back, they would just go back. They do not face communal violence. In addition, India has never made such an effort to resettle victims of real pogroms, like the Bombay Riots or the Delhi Pogrom earlier this year.

In response to this insurgency, the Indian government began to heavily promote a “pilgrimage” to the Amarnath cave as a tourist attraction. The Amarnath "pilgrims” are the worst and most obnoxious people I have ever met in my entire life. They are drunken (in a place that is 97% Muslim where alcohol is illegal, in full view of the heaviest military occupation in the world), obnoxious, light firecrackers (in a fucking warzone where a Muslim would be killed for it), disrespect the property of the people they stay with, etc.

Since 5 August 2019, there has been no internet in Kashmir and all industry has been shut down. Real journalism is impossible and press and TV media are nothing but mouthpieces for BJP. At first this was rationalised by a false-flag discovery of weapons outside the “pilgrimage” route, because all terrorists like to bury their weapons in the ground outside of where they plan to use them, for convenience, like squirrels hiding acorns for the winter. India quickly dropped this pretense and just maintains an “everything is normal” line now, although there has been no internet or economic activity for over a year and schools have been converted to military bases while the environment is destroyed (not even for “development” purposes, think USA and the buffalo).

At the same day of the internet shutdown important parts of the Indian constitution were repealed which allow Kashmir to maintain some semblence of autonomy with an aim towards implementing a settler-colonial West Bank model; various things have been proposed to the effect of Hindu settlements guarded by the military and this is all completely brazen and open while the colonial administration has started granting residence to non-Kashmiri migrant workers.

Migrant workers have not faced legal discrimination; the only implications of this are that they can now own property in the Valley and vote in local elections. There is a similar statute in the neighbouring Indian state of Himachal Pradesh where only Paharis are allowed to own property or businesses, despite most of them actually in practice being run by Kashmiri and Tibetan refugees. In Kashmir there is no such contradiction. Businesses are Kashmiri-owned, Kashmiri-run.

This is with an eye to demographic change in the valley by way of which Indian rule can be legitimised through the above-mentioned plebiscite. Again this is all completely in the open, though supplemented with “what about the Kashmiri pandits!!!!” wailing. Pandit is another word for brahmin.

The militants are not bad guys. The people of Kashmir do not fear them and in fact pray for their success. The funerals of martyrs are very well-attended and before the current blockate, India used to shut down the internet on the days of their martyrdom anniversaries. Local people graffiti their names on walls and name streets after them.

The movement for a free Kashmir is an uncomplicated freedom struggle against a brutal military occupation.

See also: Understanding the Indian Occupation of Kashmir

#Kashmir #Hinduism

9 notes · View notes

teatimeatwinterpalace · 5 years ago

Note

Hello ! Can you tell me about Charles I, King of England? I am curious about this king. Thank you :)

Sigh, my problematic fave... Charlie boy got greedy and forgot he ruled England not France lmao.

No but no shade, of course it is more complicated than that. Charles is a very controversial figure. A number of Protestant historians have condemn him and his reign. He is often depicted as cold, indecisive, or even as a tyrant. Even though there is a certain truth in each of this qualifying adjectives, I tend to agree with historians who have written a more nuanced portrait of Charles without erasing the shaddy things he did because he did cross the line of legality. I like this quote from Katie Whitaker : "Charles was the last medieval king in Britain, a man imbued with all the ideals of chilvary, who believed he was appointed by God to rule." And here lies the tragedy. His reign was a defining moment where two conceptions of power came into collision : the divine prerogatives of the King against the privileges of Parliament.

Charles as a child had a weak constitution, some historians stated he was suffering from rickets. At some point, he conquered this physical infirmity however his speech came slowly and with difficulty and until his death he had a stutter. He spent his childhood in the shadow of his strong and radiant older brother, Henry, who he loved dearly. When Henry died in 1608, Charles was eleven, he had an excellent education, he studied French, Latin, Spanish, Italian, Greek, theology, drawing, dancing, fencing... His father, James I, was very much interested in the education of his children and one of the first letter Charles wrote to his father was : "Sweete, Sweete Father, I learne to decline substantives and adjectives, give me your blessing, I thank you for my best man, your loving sone York". In his late teens he spent more and more time with his father even though he despised his "decadent" Court. He was religiously devot and of a strong moral stance which reflected in his Court when he was king. The guiding principles was order and decorum. Contrary to his father, he was also eager to play the role of an international statesman, which made his situation with Parliament even worse. However, he lacked confidence which caused him to be influenced by the ideas of the people he most trusted: Buckingham, his father... James could read the room, Charles unfortunately not so much. After James' passing, he started taking some of his father views to an extreme. However, it's important to note that when he came to power in 1625 the situation was already tense :

His father had a patriachal view of the monarchy. He wrote political treatises exposing his own views on the divine right of kings, stating :"‘Kings are justly called gods for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power on earth". This kind of discourse didn't sit well with the House of Commons which was already sensitive on the matter of its rights and privileges. Parliament thought it had a traditional right to interfere with the policy of the realm. And so the political atmosphere soured quickly between both parties. For instance, when Parliament tried to meddle with the Spanish marriage negociations (between Charles and the Infanta of Spain) James was furious.

Parliament had considerable leverage : was the one holding the purse strings. This proved to be a thorn in the side of EVERY Stuarts rulers and it’s why throughout out the 17th century, England was shy with its foreign policy. Unlike the French King who was doing whatever he wanted, the English monarch had to beg subsidies to Parliament. Schematically, here was the usual scenario :

King opens a new Parliamentary session because he needs moneeey, the House of Commons says maaay be but before we reeeally need to discuss something else *push his own agenda*, *criticise the royal policy* (rumor has it that you can still hear the king muttering not agaaain), thus ensues many excruciating negotiations and conflicts which usually ends up with the king saying fuck you and either proroguing or dissoluting his Parliament (this hot mess found its peak during the Exclusion Crisis, was a real soap opera lol).

Again, it is schematical because even in the House of Commons some MPs were content with James' patriachal views. Anyway, at the core, it was truly a battle between royal prerogative and privilege!

THEN, you add the very sensitive matter of religion, its impact on politics was huge.

There were the Anglicans and Presbyterians which didn't see eye to eye. Yet compromises were made which made coexistence bearable for some while others fled to Europe or in the colonies in order to set up their own independent churches. James had hoped to bring the two Churches together and to create uniformity across the two kingdoms (Scotland & England). He tried to establish a Prayer Book similar to that used in England but faced with great opposition, he withdrew. (but guess who tried to follow daddy’s steps but didn’t withdrew?)

And last but not least... who the English despised the most above all? The followers of this boy right here...

... CATHOLICS, satan's minions on earth.

With the outbreak of the Thirty Years War in Europe the fear of Catholicism was very much alive. Charles and Buckingham pushed James to summoned Parliament to ask for money to finance a war with Spain. The very much anti-Catholic Parliament agreed to the subsidies but unfortunately the expedition failed. James died, and Charles at the age of 24 had to deal with the consequenses.

Relations between King and Parliament deteriorated quickly. There were the matter of war + Buckingham had negotiated a marriage for Charles to Henrietta Maria, the sister of the French King, promising that she would be permitted to practise her own Catholic religion, and that English ships would help to suppress a French Protestant rebellion in La Rochelle. Obviously, Parliament was furious especially towards Buckingham and Charles was forced to dissolve Parliament. For the King it was a direct challenge to his right to appoint his advisers and to govern. The Privy Council started to consider ways of raising money without the help of Parliament : forced loan, ship money... let's say that from here it started to go downhill.

For the matter of religion, unfortunately the caution of James I was replaced by Charles' desire for uniformity. Moreover, the King was interested by the Arminian group which was an alternative to the rigid Calvinism : the emphasis was on ritual and sacraments and they rejected the doctrine of predestination. Howerver, for many English, this group had too much ties with Catholicism. Also, some of them were great supporters of a heightened royal power which freaked out a lot of people who feared a sort of takeover. Of course, as often with fears and phobias, it was out of proportion with reality. Nonetheless, for many, Arminian meant : Catholicism + absolute monarchy = tyranny. When William Laud (the Arminian leader) became Bishop of London in 1628, another stormy Parliament session took place. Charles decided to prorogue it but the Commons refused and they passed the Three Resolutions which condemned the collection of tonnage and poundage that Charles was doing without their consent as well as the doctrine and practice of Arminianism. Charles dissolved the Parliament and proclaimed he intended to govern without the Parliament until it calms the fuck down. This proved to be a significant breakdown within the system of government and the situation got a whole lot worse.

It's already a lot right? BUT HANG ON because in this very healthy anti-Catholicism atmosphere who Charles married? A FRENCH CATHOLIC PRINCESS. It made the crown more vulnerable and perhaps a lot of things would have been different if she had been Protestant but damn they were good together!!! The romance of Charles and Henrietta Maria is one of the greatest love stories in history. At first one could say it was a mismatched couple : a Protestant King with a Catholic Princess. Their differences and lack of understanding made their earlier years together complicated and turbulent. There were lot of quarrels and yet, they fell passionately in love. Their daughter, Princess Elizabeth wrote an account the day before Charles was beheaded and she said: “He bid us tell my mother that his thoughts had never strayed from her, and that his love would be the same to the last.” Lina wrote on her blog her top 10 favourite titbits of info of love and heartache about Charles I & Henrietta Maria, go check it out ;)

This is getting too long lol I'm not going to get into what most historians called his "personnal reign" and the civil wars. I just hope that this couple of informations made you want to find more about Charles and his time :)

Don't settle for just one book about him because as I said at the beginning, he is a very controversial figure and lot of biographies (not so much with the recent ones but still) tend to insist on his supposedly taste for "tyranny" and romanticise the role of Parliament (aka the whole Whig historiography). Charles' reign sparked off a revolution where new ideals of liberty and citizens' rights were born HOWEVER it was a matter of decades/centuries for these ideas to penetrate society and every strats of the political spectrum. The Parliament's ideology of the 1620-1640 (and then during the Restoration) had a very nostalgic vision of politics. The idea of reform was light years away from these ultraconservative men.

But to be honest even outside Parliament. When you look at men such as Fénelon, Bolingbroke or Montesquieu. They were all convinced that a restoration (often of a magnified past) was the only response to the evils of their time. Reform in the early modern period, whether it was religious or political, was thought as a restoration. It's in mid-18th century that the shift happened, the future was at last conceivable. Anyway, all of that is to say that I'm a bit wary of all the authors who depict the MPs of this period as great reformers, who fought against the tyranny. They were mostly conservative men and very attached to THEIR priviliges.

#answer #am i going to hell for making this photomontage of pope urbain viii?#probably #was it worth it?#yes

33 notes · View notes

deodatasslawson · 5 years ago

Note

I just have a couple of Love Nikki questions: 1. How did you come to the conclusion that Nidhoog is a Marxist/Leninist(I actually agree, ftr) 2. What do you think of Louie and what do you think is his Ennagram #? Thanks!

1) Short version: Nidhogg has that BTE (big tankie energy).

Long version: I came to the conclusion that Nidhogg is a Marxist-Leninist by analyzing the lore as well as educating myself on various kinds of leftism (since I am pretty much a communist, anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, and anti-fascist), including Marxist-Leninism, as well as being a history buff in general.

In Love Nikki, it's pretty obvious that Nidhogg was fucked over by both the monarchist/fascist/feudalist regime in the North (probably based off Tsarist Russia) as well as the imperialism from the Apple Fed (aka Miraland's version of 'Murica), Cloud Empire, Pigeon Kingdom (which is clearly Western Europe and/or the British Empire), and possibly Lilith Kingdom (though it's probably nowhere NEAR as imperialistic as Apple, Cloud, or Pigeon are if that is the case) through the policy of the Blood Curse that are mainly of benefit to those four nations rather than North, Wasteland (cleary based off of the Middle East/West Asia, Africa (especially Northern Africa), India, South Asia, and pre-colonized America, all places that experienced absolutely horriffic and violent oppression (like torture, slavery and genocide levels of violent oppression) from the colonization and imperialism from Europe, especially from the British Empire), and Ruin.

So aside from being from a country that from what I am certain has not just a tyrannical king, but also tyrannical warlords vieying for power, much akin to some really fascist monarchy that has a lot of feudalistic traits, and also having to deal with the Blood Curse (which not only mainly benefits Apple, Pigeon, Cloud, and Lilith, which are the places that have the most benefit from the Blood Curse because they are the wealthier and more powerful nations in Miraland, but the elites, monarchs, and wealthy people (basically the ruling class and bourgeoisie) are able to get away with imposing violence, both literal and especially structural violence on just about everyone else), arguably has one of the most fucked up and traumatic backstories in the game, despite being a villain and hated by much of the fandom (especially on tumblr) because of it.

Like, here's a rundown of what happens in his childhood:

His father, who was probably an asshole, emotionally neglected him and put very high expectations on him

Said father ends up getting falsely accused of treason by other warlords and Nidhogg ends up not only becoming homeless, but becomes an orphan and has no family at like 5 years old because of this

Nidhogg is pretty much a homeless, impoverished orphan until he is 13 years old, which by then his teacher (Louie's father) adopts him as a son alongside his own son Louie, who is a year younger than Nidhogg is (basically the first time he's had family since he lost his biological family due to his bio dad falsely being accused of treason) and starts training to be a royal knight

Nidhogg ends up being ostracized by his peers during training despite being very talented and close to Louie and his father (and as someone who grew up being ostracized by many of my peers due to being autistic, that shit fucking hurts)

A coup happens and it ends up being incredibly violent and Nidhogg and Louie end up losing their father to the effects of the Blood Curse, while the people who were behind the coup did not because they had the money to pay for a drug that suppresses the Blood Curse

Like it's pretty obvious that Nidhogg has pretty severe C-PTSD and possibly even a personality disorder due to that fucked up childhood as well as the structural oppression he experienced growing up, which is why Nidhogg is an enneagram 8 (ESTJ 8w7-3w4-5wcp6 sp/so).

And the lore in the Cloud Tea Party welfare event gave us even more evidence that Miraland is a dystopia and an oligarchy (like it is absolute HELL for those who are marginalized, as seen in some of the contestants that Nikki goes against in the Nine-Day War).

And I do think Nidhogg realizes that there is no way in hell you can reform a system that relies on imperialism and oligarchy at all. That the only way to change it is to bring forth revolution. And it is impossible for revolution, ESPECIALLY one that is political in nature to be peaceful and non-violent, thus why Nidhogg ends up starting a war and ends up killing Lunar in the process.

2) Louie is pretty hot (though I do think Niddy is a bit hotter imo) and is kinda relatable, and I could probably see him as an anarchist/anarcho-communist type. As for MBTI and Enneagram, I think he is probably either an ISFP or INFJ 1w2-4w5-cp6w7 so/sp.

#love nikki #lnduq #nidhogg #love nikki meta #lnduq meta #love nikki spoilers #lnduq spoilers #marxism leninism #marxist leninist #suzy talks #suzy answers #love nikki discourse #lnduq discourse

12 notes · View notes

spiritmaiden23 · 4 years ago

Text

“why isn’t your zelda a princess?”

short answer: because i like the twist that she’s not a princess and like tetra probably feels uncomfortable with the titles, she’s just a normal girl who’s happier to protect the triforce and her people as they rebuild their life on The Surface/Hyrule let her be happy for once pls ;v;

long answer: dO YOU KNOW HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE FOR THEM TO NOT ONLY COLONIZE BUT TO BUILD A KINGDOM AND CHANGE THE GOVERNMENT TO ABSOLUTE MONARCHY THAT LOZ SERIES SEEMS TO HAVE CONSIDERING IT’S SOMEWHAT BASED ON MIDDLE AGES EUROPE? AND THAT WAS THE NORM GOVERNMENT FOR THE MOST PART BEFORE REFORMS AND OTHER JUNK??? We have no clue what government Skyloft had compared to that maybe a new one than what we have irl but still it takes time to establish a new one so we can’t just crown her queen and call it a day when there're various factors that go into this. And on top of that, more than likely, there are some skyloftians who aren’t ready to leave the islands just yet and she wants to give them time to let them come to The Surface as the tales that everyone grew up with is still within their minds aka where they all think that nothing’s down there. Logically, with Link and Zelda back along with Groose, there are some who know that logically there is something there but still it’s natural fear of the unknown that’s holding them back. The colony they’re building for those who are able to come down is small as most of the population is still debating on whether they should stay or go. She understands this and doesn’t want to rush them into coming down here. And well, while she accepts the fact that she’s Hylia it takes her sometime to get used to take a look at her speech where she acts like Hylia is her own person before going “ah right that’s me I’m talking about” and she changes “so hylia... i mean, so i...” so like... the idea of her ruling is new territory for someone who comes from a normal background. You can argue that she’s wise beyond her age esp with her memories returned to her but it’s still a position that she doesn’t want unless she absolutely has to take it. She said so herself, she wants to live on the surface and protect the Triforce that’s what will make her happy. Also *Gestures to the era of prosperity where the kingdom is first established and it’s ages after her time*

#headcanon.#feel free to headcanon that she becomes a princess after the game like that's the fun in this #my headcanon is that my zel is a guardian of the triforce #since the sacred realm wasn't even created until way way later #someone has to keep watch and that someone was her!#she was just a normal girl before ss and more than likely wanted some normalcy back #despite knowing that she can never go back to those days.#ANYWAY I HAVE TO GET READY FOR WORK SO THAT'S ALL SHDSAD

3 notes · View notes

nuwrld · 3 years ago

Text

Celebrities endorsed a pro-cop billionaire for mayor in a city they don't live in. Pay close attention to how celebrities in L.A. are deeply aligned with Political Evangelicals (Republicans/Conservatives/Moderates) who are deeply aligned with Billionaires who are deeply aligned with domestic and foreign fascists (Russia).

Imagine trying to shape politics by undermining democracy as if it were just another endorsement deal? Imagine saying you support criminal justice reform while being pro-Right/pro-Cop, Miss K-K-K?

These people are disgusting. As Republicans become more and more swayed by corporate interests, it's only natural for politics and celebrity to merge. We've seen this in the past Reagan, Jesse Ventura, Trump, Dr. Oz, Arnold...

In a country with systemic-caused social immobility whereby money becomes fetishized because no one has it, anyone who is symbolic of money is going to be treated as "special." This harkens back to Kings and monarchies declaring they exist by divine right so they can justify a "royal welfare state" AKA the people they oppress fit the bill for their lavish lifestyles and serve them despite monarchies contributing nothing. They are simply more entitled than you are. This kind of thinking prevails today but it is obscured.

When people fetishize money to the point of zealotry, it's only natural that The Wealthy become empowered not just in the socio-celebrity system but in the political system as well. Anyone who has wealth is ascribed an unearned intellect and qualification because they have been "chosen by God" (aka their parents plundered people going back at least two generations but the reality is not the perception obvi). Celebrities have built-in fanbases, relationships with conservative-backed corporations -- all they need is an electoral block that believes this is enough to qualify them for office. Such voters have been and are being groomed.

Conservatives subscribe to "divine right" because such a concept was always white supremacy -- that your blood entitles you to treatment others do not receive. It's the very loadstar of Republican ideology: "I can has, you can't has. Why? Because: me."

Expect more famous people to run for office and align themselves with politics not because they care but because they are entitled. Why? Because: money.

1 note · View note

aporeticelenchus · 7 years ago

Text

Gilbert and Sullivan three-sentence plot summaries

I’ve been promising @oceannocturne a brief Gilbert and Sullivan guide for a while, but it turns out that the “brief” part is tricky. I wanted to make a post with short summaries – no more that three sentences each – and a few song recs for each opera, but that quickly grew way too long for one post. So, here’s a post that’s just three sentence summaries for all the extant operas, for anyone who wants a quick idea of what’s going on in each of them. I’ll try to do a series of follow-ups with some specific songs linked and put in context.

The Sorcerer (aka The Love Potion AU) Alexis is marrying his beloved Aline, and he only wishes everyone else could be as happy and as in love as he. In fact, he wishes it so much that he hires the sorcerer John W. Wells to drug the entire town with a love potion! Chaos, predictably, ensues.

HMS Pinafore (aka Class Hierarchy and Boats) Captain Corcoran is the well-bred and well-mannered captain of the Pinafore, and he’s delighted when Lord Admiral Sir Joseph offers to marry his daughter Josephine and elevate the family station. But Josephine loves a member of her father’s crew, the simple sailor Ralph. Fortunately, love can level all rank (but not that much), and a British tar is any man’s equal – or so Sir Joseph always says!

The Pirates of Penzance (aka Look You All Probably Know This One Already) Frederic is the slave of duty, and in duty’s name he has served out an apprenticeship with a band of pirates, despite passionately longing to lead an honest life. When his term is up, he seeks out new love and plots to destroy his old piratical associates (in the name of duty). But the pirates still have a claim on Frederic, and he’s torn between his duty as pirate apprentice and his loyalty to his fiancée Mabel and her family.

Patience (aka ~*~Aesthetic~*~) The ladies of town all love the tragical aesthetic poet Bunthorne, who has in turn sworn his love to the milkmaid Patience, the only maiden in town who dislikes him. When Patience’s childhood friend (also turned poet) Archibald returns and confesses his love for her, Patience falls in love for the first time – but as she’s been told that love is completely selfless, she believes that she must love the odious Bunthorne rather than the too-wonderful Archibald. Meanwhile, a regiment of dragoons, who were all betrothed to the local ladies a year ago, are stationed in town and can’t figure out why the ladies are chasing a pair of poets instead of them.

Iolanthe (aka Parliament Fairies) The Arcadian shepherd Strephon has a secret – he’s half-fairy (from the waist up), and his mother Iolanthe was banished from the fairy court for daring to marry a human. Strephon loves Phyllis, but her guardian the Lord Chancellor is determined that she marry a peer (and secretly wishes to marry her himself!). A misunderstanding between Strephon and Phyllis leads to clash between the fairy court and the House of Peers, and the angry fairies makes Strephon a member of parliament and head of both parties, able to pass whatever legislation he chooses!

Princess Ida (aka #misandry) Twenty years ago, the infants Princess Ida and Prince Hilarion were betrothed, and Hilarion’s father Hildebrand is threatening war if Hilarion’s bride doesn’t appear. But when Ida’s father Gama arrives, he brings word that Ida has foresworn the company of men and converted Castle Adamant into a women’s college where no man is allowed. Hildebrand plans to march on Ida’s castle college with an army, but Hilarion hopes to infiltrate Castle Adamant himself and win Ida’s love first.

The Mikado (aka William S. Gilbert Discovers That Japan Is a Country That Exists) Runaway prince Nanki-Poo disguises himself as a wandering minstrel to escape an unwanted fiancée and search for his true beloved, Yum-Yum, only to find that she’s engaged to marry the village executioner Ko-Ko. Ko-Ko’s never performed an actual execution, and he’s been given notice that he’d better find a victim soon – and Nanki-Poo’s considering volunteering if it means he can marry Yum-Yum before he dies. And that’s all before his father, the Mikado, shows up in town with his “daughter-in-law-elect” in tow!

Ruddigore (aka SpooooOOOOOoooooky) The Baronet of Ruddigore suffers a terrible witch’s curse; the bearer of the title must commit a crime every day or else die in horrible agony. Lord Ruthven Murgatroyd should have inherited the title, but he faked his own death and lives as simple Robin, a timid and conscientious young man who (timidly) loves the beautiful Rose Maybud. But when Robin’s foster brother Richard becomes his rival for Rose, Robin’s true identity is revealed and he must live as the Bad Baronet he was born to be – or die a terrible death!

Yeomen of the Guard (aka The One That’s Almost a Grand Opera) Lord Fairfax, consigned to the Tower of London thanks to scheming relatives after his fortune, contrives to marry a random woman in the hour before his execution so that his wealth will pass to her instead. Poor Elise Maynard, fiancée of the wandering jester Jack Point, accepts the offe and marries Fairfax sight unseen, with a blindfold on. But Phoebe, who loves Fairfax, schemes with her father to free Fairfax and disguise him as her brother and a yeoman of the guard, leaving Elise torn between her old fiancé, her unknown husband, and the handsome new yeoman who’s started courting her…

The Gondoliers (aka Problems With Monarchy) Marco and Giuseppe are brothers and gondoliers, who have just chosen two beautiful ladies to marry. Right after their weddings, they’re informed that one of them (though no one knows which) is in fact the lost heir to the Kingdom of Barateria – and unbeknownst to them, that one was married at birth to Casilda, daughter of the Duke of Plaza Toro. The two agree to rule Barateria together until they can discover which of them is the true king, and as lifelong republicans they struggle to reconcile their ideals and their positions as monarchs.

Utopia, Limited (aka Corporations Are People) King Paramount of the island nation of Utopia is a king of autocratic power and absolute rule – aside from the minor fact that his two Wise Men have the authority to blow him up with a keg of dynamite if he steps a toe out of line. Paramount has decided to reform the entire nation of Utopia to be exactly like England, the country he admires most, and when his daughter Zara returns from her studies in England she brings back several Englishmen known as the Flowers of Progress. The Flowers devise a set of schemes to make Utopia more English than England itself, including turning the entire island and everyone one of its inhabitants into limited liability corporations!

The Grand Duke (aka A Not Very Good Revolution) The actor Ludwig is, along with his entire theatrical company, engaged in a revolutionary plot to assassinate the penny-pinching, hypochondriacal Grand Duke Rudolph and put their manager in his place. When Ludwig misinterprets their secret sign and spills the whole plot to the Grand duke’s detective, he pretends to inform on his fellow conspirators and convinces Rudolph to become legally dead for a day while Ludwig takes his place. But once Ludwig is in power, he changes the law to keep Rudolph “dead” and himself in charge forever, and has to deal with the ensuing tangle of obligations and commitments.

Bonus: Trial By Jury (aka The Short One) Edwin is being sued by his ex-fiancée Angelina for breach of promise of marriage after he threw her over for another woman. A completely impartial jury and wise and learned judge solve the ensuing legal tangle. This one is too short to even merit three sentences!

#GetS #the three sentence thing hits a SUDDEN DIFFICULTY SPIKE towards the end #Elenchus chats

25 notes · View notes

davantagedenuit · 8 years ago

Text

Black Thoughts

So, sometimes, I think thoughts and I will put them here in case they are entertaining, or may rouse thoughts in others, or happen to be cool, or kittens.

So, also, I watched Black Sails. (And Hannibal is still the flaming spear in my heart, please don’t you all worry.) I read meta about the historical setting and the characters’ deep thoughts and deep feels, and the GAYtude. And, in response to all this greatness, I decided I would have some arid narratology-centric thoughts. (They turn out to be cool, though.)

So. Question: Who is the narrator in Black Sails?

Ah. Not as easy as it seems, right?

I have two answers.

Answer 1: A part of me thinks this whole thing is in fact the story of Eleanor Guthrie trying to narrate the hypothetical story in which she is the only protagonist. (For simplicity and future reference: the narrator is someone who (1) produces the tale, while not necessarily being a character in it, (2) controls or influences, in some way, the events in them, (3) knows more than the characters of the story.) Eleanor wants this. She would like to have a say and the mechanics and the OCCASION to tell the tale. She would like to control SOME EVENTS about her life, SOME OF THE TIME. She also desperately, soul-eatingly would like to know more than the main protagonists of the Pirate Show AND she would like to know more than herself, possibly to tell herself, on at least SOME occasions, ‘This dude will screw you. All these dudes have always screwed you.’ But, she says it herself, there are “Too many fucking men on this island.”

Answer 2: If we want to focus on the Pirate Show rather than on the peripherical storylines, we need to go season by season. (And season 4 is special, because season 4 is war, and some characters think they are narrators, are self-aware narrators, and blood and slicing ensues.)

Season 1: Hal Gates. Yes. Take a moment to think about it. He is Flint’s Friend (the only one for a while that Flint calls by his first name, Silver does not get that, but Silver is special (aka he’s the friend who’s aware of the Friends of Flint Curse - but still WANTS the friendship)), he knows about some (all?) of Flint’s past, he does (preemptive - Billy’s FACE when Gates asks him to restrain Flint) damage control with the Richard Guthrie meeting at the very beginning, he removes his trust in Flint (because he knows more than Flint about what’s coming), he dies. - In short, Silver may have memorized one page of the book, Gates has read it, knows it by heart, made it a best-seller. (Did anyone, at any point, ship Flint/Gates? No, because Gates is, eh, not as aesthetically pleasant as someone else? But I go astray.)

Season 2: Miranda Barlow-Hamilton. This is subtle, and beautiful, and perfect, and by 2x02 I knew where it was going, but the Kiss Reveal was still fantastic in 2x05. Season 2 starts off with us thinking that Mrs. Barlow IS Flint’s origin story. It turns out that she is not (Thomas Hamilton is), but she is the narrator of it. This was, admittedly, foreshadowed by 1x04′s AWKWARDEST casually not-that-sexual sex scene (and for a moment, I swear, when I watched it, I thought I was watching some independent 80′s European film, and not Shiny New TV), later mirrored with Anne and Jack. She knows more than Flint about, well, so much everything, it’s a wonder he seems to know anything. She knows about what happened with Thomas, she knows about his feelings BETTER THAN HE DOES (because he’s all busy feeeeeeeling them), she knows about Abigail Ashe, she comes up with the Magic Peaceful Solution/Final Plotpoint that will turn to be her Tragic Violent Death. The Magic Peaceful Solution becomes the Tragic Violent Death when she realizes someone knew things that she didn’t know. (At which point ABIGAIL ASHE becomes ‘Acting Miranda’ because she writes all the good things in her journal.) -- During the first half of the season, she even seems to direct the flashbacks, casting them onto the viewer from her little house inland (aka heart of heart of Flint) like the witch she is supposed to be.

Then we get the Great Split of seasons 1-2 v. seasons 3-4. Flint loses his loves. Silver loses his leg. Given that Black Sails asks the ever-lasting Reform or Revolution question, seasons 1 and 2 are clear candidates for the reform-minded solution. (Recall Flint, in season one, walking in Eleanor’s office saying he would settle for “a friendly British governor and some universal pardons shenanigans”.) (Also flashforward to Mr Oglethorpe being described as the reform-minded man.) Seasons 3 and 4 are the revolution. Tempest, torture at maroon island, all for the cause and nothing but the cause, ”Madi, would I be enough for you?”, Long John Silver’s propaganda, culminating with the Berringer Terreur. (Another one of my crazy ideas is to try and fit Black Sails in the historiographic/quasi-mythical frame of the French Revolution. One more argument for this: the French revolution abolished the monarchy in favor of a (short-lived) constitutional democracy, which was followed by the Terror, then returned to an Emperor. Similarly, the seasons 3 and 4 are about Kings and Queens coexisting with some (short-lived) democratic pirate alliances.)

Which gives us:

Season 3: John Silver. YES. So. He is on his way to becoming Flint’s Friend, but not there yet. He still focuses on Speaking For the Men, with the downside being that speaking is now the only thing he can do. He is, and somewhat remains in season 4, the Official Oracle of what’s going on in Flint’s head. Season 3 is the story of him trying to get BETTER at his narrative. Early season 3 has him revealing to Flint how much more than him he knows (about the Urca gold) in order to assert his power as narrator. But he still knows, he realizes, relatively little about Flint himself and, unlike the other narrators, he does not already possess that knowledge but he WANTS IT. To acquire that knowledge and become full-blown narrator, he will have to, well, become so close to his character that they will become indistinguishable IN THE WOODS AT NIGHT AROUND A BOTTLE OF RUM AND A CACHE OF GEMS. He organizes the events, he produces the tale. But the tale has changed - it is not a story about a series of events any longer (Chronicles of a Revolution), but a story about a character (Tragic Idealist Biopic). At the point where it becomes obvious that this is not the story of the Pirate revolution of Nassau, but the story of Captain Flint (in the woods, with the rum and the cache), Silver stops being the narrator. He (PSEUDO) dies at the end of the season and his fate is left unknown. And, in the land of narratologic explosion that is season 4, he becomes the CHARACTER OF THE NARRATOR IN-STORY (aka Long). Come on. This is magnificient.

Season 4: Yep. Yep. My first thoughts about season 4 were that it was all over the place, that the writers were stuck trying to tie together the twelve millions storylines they had going, that everyone was changing side because The Plot demanded it. My later thoughts were that it became an artful study in fragmentation. The storylines that seemed peripherical at first became central (the Max/Anne/Jack trio fills in for the Miranda/Flint/Thomas trio, commerce (and reform) fills in for idealism). The cause exploded. The Island of Pirates has no leader and is locally managed by some, picking the pieces. So there are many narrator candidates. It can’t be Silver: he’s become the character of the narrator in-story (written in exactly this way by Billy Bones who KNOWS what Flint may not explicitly know - that the narrator is more powerful than the main protagonist, indeed that he is the only one with ANY POWER over the story). It can’t be Billy: he does have some knowledge, but it’s local and brief, and with Silver as a character of narrator, he’s got competition. (Billy is probably the postmodern salty writer who thinks he’s smart as all hell writing the writer in his own story. And turns out he’s not that smart.)

I wanted it to be Eleanor, but she’s at her most powerless, and cruelly self-aware. I wanted it to be Madi, and I think she IS the narrator of the Series of Events that hopefully leads to a revolution (but have at that point already begun to fail). But, concerning Flint’s story, the only one with the modicum of distance required to have both power over the events, more knowledge than the characters (through Weirdly Prophetic Insight) and who is not involved in the tale enough so that he’s able to tell it - is Israel Hands, CHRONICLER OF ALL-HAS-GONE-TO-HELL. He correctly identifies Silver as Long John Silver after his quasi-death. (Silver’s quasi-death, in the transformative narrative, being the threshold after which he is Long John Silver.) He sits right between him and Flint, and, big happy bear of a meta-narrative device that he is, keeps reminding Silver that the narrator is not the character, that John isn’t Long and vice versa. (He also reminds reminds Silver that Silver isn’t Flint, and Silver has a problem with that more than he has a problem not being Long.) As a bonus, he can tell the story properly because he doesn’t like the story much. (The story being Flint.) (He’s probably the grumpy editor being snarky at repetitive plotting. ‘He’s turned you around again’.)

Conclusion things: (1) Flint is not a narrator in this story. He’s a character, who has a dim awareness that his tale will be told by others, and who, at some point, chooses purposefully to surround himself with people who will tell it. (I think Flint didn’t choose Silver as a friend, he chose him as a narrator for his Glorious Fight (ALL THE ANCIENT GREEK HISTORIES WHERE GREAT KINGS HAVE SECRETARIES WITH THEM ON THE BATTLEFIELD SO THEIR TRIUMPHS CAN BE TOLD FOREVER). Silver, because he wanted accurate documentation, became very close to the main protagonist of the tale. And Flint was, once more, possibly the first time since Thomas, SURPRISED BY FRIENDSHIP/LOVE he hadn’t seen coming. Conversely, Silver paints such a feared character that he realizes, he’ll be the only one liking him. Recall the woods/rum/cache nightly conversation, and Silver being like ‘To be feared is ok, but to be feared and liked is cooler (so everyone will fear you, Captain, via my tale, while I will like you’) and Flint being like ‘*the trademark wolfish grin of death* Sounds awesome’.) -- This strengthens my idea of the Flint/Eleanor parallel. Eleanor is trying to tell her story. Flint is trying, subtle difference, but also subtle similitude, to have his story told.

(2) If Flint is a character whose origin story is Thomas, Silver is NARRATING to Madi that he IN-STORY returned the character to his origin story (the “anterior state of being” - there is a WHOLE another post for the creeping use of abstract vocabulary in this show - I think these occurrences are meta-narrative remarks, but well).

(3) The narrator is always more powerful than the character. Flint knows that (eventually). Which is why seeking out Silver as a narrator is really his first, but not last move as Deathwish Flint.

(4) I started watching Black Sails like ‘oh, a ‘historically accurate’ show with 18th century pirates who have bleached-white teeth and well-toned abs and incorrect period swearing, and, oh look, an explicit lesbian sex scene waving wildly at an intended male audience’ and I finished like ‘GAY HAPPY ENDING IN THE LAND OF NARRATOLOGIC WONDERS’ and ‘YES, JAMES, WE SHOULD ILLUMINATE OUR DARKNESSES’, and ‘ALL THE THINGS WE WRITE IN BOOKS AND THE CAPTAIN LIKES HIS BOOKS’.

(5) Re: feelings about the ending and the thwarting of revolutions. This ending is a happy ending, by all means, for Flint and Thomas and for Silver and Madi, but it’s not a good ending (unless you are, like Mr Oglethorpe, reform-minded).

#black sails meta #I'm sorry about all the capitals this has never happened before

9 notes · View notes

thelostmikaelsondaughter · 8 years ago

Video

youtube

THE MIKAELSONS

A KINGDOM BETWEEN LOVE, LUST AND HATE…

The 16th century, a time full of trouble, fear and hope for the subjects of King Mikael VIII. Trouble caused by reforms, heretics and a king, whose judgment is clouded by his own pride. Fear of war that keeps threatening every small moment of peace. And hope for prosperous marriages that will unite hostile realms. A marriage to a foreign noble man or woman to unite England with every country that poses as a thread and the hope for the first born son to soon succeed his father.

But will this hope fall upon fertile ground? Will the Mikaelson dynasty grow to become the greatest legend of them all? Or will others unite and bring the death of a monarchy?

IMPORTANT:

IF YOU WANT TO JOIN THE VERSE, MESSAGE @THELOSTMIKAELSONDAUGHTER

TAG: THEMIKAELSONSTVDAU

Bios are recommended.

Don’t make anyone feel left out or ignored.

Be active, you will be removed from the verse after 3 activity warnings.

No godmodding.

IC drama is encouraged, OOC drama will get you removed.

First come first serve.

No set ships.

Ships can be based on ‘true love’ or an arranged marriage, but both muns have to agree to the ship aka don’t force anyone into a ship.

Verse may contain nsfw material, such as sex (ex adultery) or violence (ex sword fights)

Major plots like marriage, pregnancy, and death announced beforehand.

OCs and other fandoms are welcome.

THE MIKAELSON’S COURT {ENGLAND}

ROYAL FAMILY:

Princess Freya - open

Crown Prince Elijah - @thexmoralxmikaelson

Prince Finn - open

Prince Niklaus [rumored to be a bastard] - @anditsxsorrows

Prince Kol - open

Princess Rebekah - @mikaelsonmultimuse

LORDS AND LADIES:

KNIGHTS:

OTHERS:

THE ADAMSON’S COURT {SCOTLAND}

ROYAL FAMILY:

Prince Aryan - @hellfireprince

Princess Adriana - @thelostmikaelsondaughter

LORDS AND LADIES:

Lady Adrienne - originally from France - @wiickedmagic - Lady in waiting to Princess Adriana

KNIGHTS:

Aiden - @thewiccanmechanic

THE GILBERT’S COURT {FRANCE}

ROYAL FAMILY:

Princess Katherine - open

Princess Elena - deceased

LORDS AND LADIES:

Lady Caroline - @mscaroline-forbes - Lady in waiting to Princess Katherine

KNIGHTS:

THE SALVATORE’S COURT {SPAIN}

ROYAL FAMILY:

King/Holy Roman Emperor Damon - @damaseisotiras

Princess Jesobell - @forgottensalvatore

LORDS AND LADIES:

Lady Aurora - originally from France - @ladamedemartel - Lady in waiting to Princess Jesobell

Lady Annabelle - @thelostsalvatoregirl

KNIGHTS:

Percival - @aurorofconfidence

#opentvdrp #opentorp #open rp #opentwrp #indie rp

3 notes · View notes

silverloreley · 4 years ago

Text

A short lesson in Italian history (Part 4 - from Italy united to the two WWs and today)

(For shitty Americans who think they know better) (This is intended as a very quick crash course as my personal protest against America and its disastrous education system, I suggest to look at actual books for a more complete picture)

I have to admit this is the part of our history I like the least. There’s a lot of politics and I hate politics with a passion. At this point you may have noticed I write this mostly out of spite, to show you how foolish you are about Italy and its history, so I’ll skip over loads of boring things to get to my points (also because no one pays me for this and, honestly, I don’t think anyone will take the time to read this all in full, so whatever).

Anyway! Uniting a country that wasn’t a whole for centuries, provided that it ever was to begin with, was a huge ordeal. Savoy decided to estend its laws to the new country and called it a day, politicians divided in left and right (that are nothing like your left and right, and nothing like today’s either), made a lot of reforms, mistakes and misconsiderations. The attempt at colonialism backfired spectacularly because they tried to do there what Romans did back during the Republic and early Empire, aka improving the situation of the conquered with new infrastructures and more, without getting any gain (the polar opposite of England, basically...) and the whole thing blew up in our faces.

They also tried to make Italy united in ways people didn’t like, enforced schools in the wrong way, didn’t care enough about a lot of internal issues that needed to be addressed, politically, culturally and economically. Language was a barrier that didn’t seem it could be taken down, in South Italy latifundism persisted, North Italy was a mess, Church refused to back down and dominated people’s lives in politics as well.

The Great War (WWI) provided some surprising help in uniting people linguistically and spiritually, but the terrible losses, the lack of gain aside from getting back a couple of the missing regions that made the (almost)full unity became reason of displeasure.

We called it “la vittoria mutilata”, the broken victory, because everybody won but us. Italy came out the war with huge losses in lives, poor and abandoned. Hence the rising of nationalisms.

Now, this is delicate and I want to point out one important thing: Fascism and Nazism were two different things and still are. The ones who push them together are ignorants.

Italian nationalism stemmed from the broken victory as well as the wish to distinguish ourselves from the rest of Europe, to recover our ancient greatness (the myth of Rome was powerful, a siren song...) and rise back again as one of the moving forces in Europe. That this turned into power rule made by Fascism, and later a deal with Nazism, can’t lead to deny that there were good reasons behind its beginning. But all good reasons can lead to extremes (I mean, look at Russia and China’s communism, is it any different?).

This isn’t to justify the horrors of those years, mind you. But to point out where Hitler wanted to exterminate people he didn’t like to create his ideal world, Mussolini was a bit of a narcissist who wanted to lead a strong country like Italy wasn’t anymore, and wanted to do it the only way he knew how, with violence.

Was it right? Nope. Was the same as Nazism? Neither. Was the alliance and the subsequent aid given to the massacres wrong? You can bet on it.

Had the WWII not happened, or had Italy not allied itself with Germany, other countries wouldn’t have minded dictatorship in Italy, like they don’t mind it today in Russia, China, Turkey and so many other countries. And, well, one could even argue USA are in a dictatorship right now, so joke’s on you.

Another important thing is that Italians were the first to fight Fascism from the inside: Resistence was composed of Italians, the americans and others came only later on to “free” us, but we were actively fighting on our own, physically and culturally, against Nazi-Fascists (and I’d like to remind that, by the middle of the War, Italy was not anymore an ally of Germany but one of the invaded countries as well).

Moreover, as soon as the WWII ended, Italy did two important steps: a referendum to get rid of monarchy and the writing of a Constitution that made bloody sure extremisms and dictatorships would and could never happen again in Italy. We learn in our schools this history, we learn what led to it, to be aware of its wrongs, we teach our kids the mistakes of the past so it doesn’t repeat itself.

And it didn’t.

No government, left or right, ever managed to stay in charge for more than the allotted time, more often than not fell long before the 5 years allowed by our Constitution and no single man can choose on his own unless there are very specific and urgent circumstances (like the current pandemic, and even then, when people protest, they do what they can to improve).

Protests had not been repressed in years, we have peaceful protests of various kind nearly every two weeks that often achieve their goals. Italy is not perfect, but at least we work every day to improve.

Enjoy your “freedom”, America, but remember: I am more free in Italy today, even with all the problems we have, than you are.

#all countries matter #history #4th of july #Italy #the end

0 notes