#and National Identity in the Age of Revolution

[fatehbaz]

was thinking about this

To be in "public", you must be a consumer or a laborer.

About control of peoples' movement in space/place. Since the beginning.

"Vagrancy" of 1830s-onward Britain, people criminalized for being outside without being a laborer.

Breaking laws resulted in being sentenced to coerced debtor/convict labor. Coinciding with the 1830-ish climax of the Industrial Revolution and the land enclosure acts (factory labor, poverty, etc., increase), the Metropolitan Police Act of 1829 establishes full-time police institution(s) in London. The "Workhouse Act" aka "Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834" forced poor people to work for a minimum number of hours every day. The Irish Constabulary of 1837 sets up a national policing force and the County Police Act of 1839 allows justices of the peace across England to establish policing institutions in their counties (New York City gets a police department in 1844). The major expansion of the "Vagrancy Act" of 1838 made "joblessness" a crime and enhanced its punishment. (Coincidentally, the law's date of royal assent was 27 July 1838, just 5 days before the British government was scheduled to allow fuller emancipation of its technical legal abolition of slavery in the British Caribbean on 1 August 1838.)

---

"Vagrancy" of 1860s-onward United States, people criminalized for being outside while Black.

Widespread emancipation after slavery abolition in 1865 rapidly followed by the outlawing of loitering which de facto outlawed existing as Black in public. Inability to afford fines results in being sentenced to forced labor by working on chain gangs or prisons farms, some built atop plantations.

---

"Vagrancy" of 1870s-onward across empires, people criminalized for being outside while being "foreign" and also being poor generally.

Especially from 1880-ish to 1918-ish, this was an age of widespread mass movement of peoples due to the land dispossession, poverty, and famine induced by global colonial extraction and "market expansion" (Scramble for Africa, US "American West", nation-building, conquering "frontiers"), as agricultural "revolutions" of imperial monoculture cash crop extraction resulted in ecological degradation, and as major imperial infrastructure building projects required a lot of vulnerable "mobile" labor. This coincides with and is facilitated by new railroad networks and telegraphs, leading to imperial implementation or expansion of identity documents, strict work contracts, passports, immigration surveillance, and border checkpoints.

All of this in just a few short years: In 1877, British administrators in India develop what would become the Henry Classification System of taking and keeping fingerprints for use in binding colonial Indians to legal contracts. That same year during the 1877 Great Railroad Strike, and in response to white anxiety about Black residents coming to the city during Great Migration, Chicago's policing institutions exponentially expand surveillance and pioneer "intelligence card" registers for tracking labor union organizing and Black movement, as Chicago's experiments become adopted by US military and expanded nationwide, later used by US forces monitoring dissent in colonial Philippines and Cuba. Japan based its 1880 Penal Code anti-vagrancy statutes on French models, and introduced "koseki" register to track poor/vagrant domestic citizens as Tokyo's Governor Matsuda segregates classes, and the nation introduces "modern police forces". In 1882, the United States passes the Chinese Exclusion Act. In 1884, the Ottoman government enacts major "Passport Nizamnamesi" legislation requiring passports. In 1885, the racist expulsion of the "Tacoma riot".

Punished for being Algerian in France. Punished for being Chinese in San Francisco. Punished for being Korean in Japan. Punished for crossing Ottoman borders without correct paperwork. Arrested for whatever, then sent to do convict labor. A poor person in the Punjab, starving during a catastrophic famine, might be coerced into a work contract by British authorities. They will have to travel, shipped off to build a railroad. But now they have to work. Now they are bound. They will be punished for being Punjabi and trying to walk away from Britain's tea plantations in Assam or Britain's rubber plantations in Malaya.

Mobility and confinement, the empire manipulates each.

---

"Vagrancy" amidst all of this, people also criminalized for being outside while "unsightly" and merely even superficially appearing to be poor. San Francisco introduced the notorious "ugly law" in 1867, making it illegal for "any person, who is diseased, maimed, mutilated or deformed in any way, so as to be an unsightly or disgusting object, to expose himself or herself to public view". Today, if you walk into a building looking a little "weird" (poor, Black, ill, disabled, etc.), you are given seething spiteful glares and asked to leave. De facto criminalized for simply going for a stroll without downloading the coffee shop's exclusive menu app.

Too ill, too poor, too exhausted, too indebted to move, you are trapped. Physical barriers (borders), legal barriers (identity documents), financial barriers (debt). "Vagrancy" everywhere in the United States, a combination of all of the above. "Vagrancy" since at least early nineteenth century Europe. About the control of movement through and access to space/place. Concretizing and weaponizing caste, corralling people, anchoring them in place, extracting their wealth and labor.

You are permitted to exist only as a paying customer or an employee.

[forkingandcountry-if]

For King and Country is an 18+ period immersion fantasy fic which seeks to combine the extensive background work and history associated with high fantasy titles such as LOTR with more ‘realistic’ storytelling and settings. It may contain distressing content like depiction of regressive attitudes (sexism, misogyny and prejudice), major injury to the characters, character deaths, blood, gore, abuse and optional sexual content. More specific warnings will be given at the beginning of each chapter.

Chapter 1 Out Now! (277k words)

Remember those long summer days when the countryside was green and life was still young, when you were but a little culver and all the world was promised for you.

But summer has ended. Amidst the furore and tumult, autumn crept in unnoticed, finding you unprepared, still a greenhorn.

Now, the old order is dead, yet the Empire endures. In this new and uncertain world, what are you willing to do for your King and Country, O little culver?

Ah little tragedies, that you could not remain in the safety of your family's country manor, that they could not shield you once again from this world.

You must take to the capital at once, like all men and women of good birth, for king and country and the glory of the commonwealth! The spirit of progress and change has swept through the nation. The heady days of revolution are long over, and the streets have been washed clean of blood and filth. Invited to serve in the King's Army and attend university as a ward of the king, you must answer the King’s call. Navigate and become increasingly entangled in the web of intrigue, gossip, violence, and ideas that swirl around the nation. Enter a society radically different from the one you were raised to expect. These are the years that will decide your fate and that of your fellow countrymen. Act wisely, for it is not often that the world is within your grasp.

Features

Fully customize your MC. Choose your pronouns, sexuality, appearance and more. Assume the identity of a citizen of noble birth and experience the story through their eyes.

Romance one of eight ROs or engage in a polyamorous relationship with a pre-selected two of them. The only possible poly route is the Young King and the Queen Ruler.

Practice and specialise in the skills of the King's Army with the option for swordplay, marksmanship, offensive galderquid and diplomacy.

Define your political leanings on the leading issues of your time.

Debate, engage and make allies and enemies with the various competing factions and interests that flock to the city.

Study at Azma University, earning your lecturers admiration for your diligence, intellect, ambition or adventurousness or cruise through relying on your wealth and ability to hide.

Help to stabilize or sabotage the Empire.

Don't lose your head.

Critical Lore*

Talent

Galder denotes the practice of magic within our nation, a discipline requiring extensive study and mastery. The ability to manipulate Galderquid, the fundamental essence of magic, is a rare and intricate skill, demanding years of rigorous training to achieve even moderate proficiency.

Every individual possesses a basic affinity for Galderquid, but those with exceptional potential are identified through comprehensive evaluations conducted by village or city physicians around the ages of 12 or 13. These assessments determine the individual's capacity for advanced magical education.

Upon evaluation, candidates are assigned a national rank based on their proficiency. Those demonstrating exceptional aptitude are offered state-sponsored education at the Azma Univetsity at the age of 18. Others are placed in various other institutions or may pursue private tutelage.

Galder is often referred to as the "fifth philosophy," characterized by its non-intuitive nature. Mastery requires adherence to rigorous methodologies grounded in reason, first principles, and established precedents. The study of Galder encompasses several specialized fields, each with distinct applications and techniques:

Sympathetic Galder: This field focuses on influencing the minds of individuals or animals. It includes practices such as illusion creation, language translation, emotional manipulation, and sleep inducement.

Transmutative Galder: Involves altering the intrinsic nature or form of objects. This process generally relies on the principle that the original and transformed items must possess equivalent 'worth.' The approximate worth of common subjects of transmutation can be found in any good transmutation book.

Invocation Galder: Pertains to the summoning and manipulation of natural elements, including water, earth, fire, and wind.

Clerical Galder: Associated with the Church, this field is predominantly closed practice. However, educational institutions provide instruction in healing and charming, which are also fundamental aspects of clerical magic.

Archery: Involves the use of Galder to manifest a bow and arrows composed of energy. These projectiles deliver significant blunt damage upon impact but they have more varied usage and techniques as taught by bow-masters.

Blade-Use: Similar to Archery, this field focuses on creating blades, swords, or daggers from Galder. These weapons inflict substantial blunt damage but they have more varied usage and techniques as taught by blade-masters.

The Second Civil War

The Second Civil War, also known as the Revolution, erupted ten years ago and lasted for two years, reshaping the political landscape of the realm. The conflict ended with the ascension of King Edmund I of House Wynd, following a tumultuous period of unrest and upheaval. The war’s roots lay in years of widespread discontent under King Wulfric I Wynd, whose governance was marked by controversial policies and growing resentment among the populace.

The immediate trigger for the war was King Wulfric's deathbed decision to legitimize his illegitimate son and name him heir presumptive, bypassing his eldest daughter, who was widely expected to ascend the throne. This unprecedented act enraged both the nobility and commoners, particularly in Redeemist regions, where it was seen as an affront to both justice and religious teachings. Protests erupted across the empire, with laborers and yeomanry deposing officials loyal to the usurper in a series of violent uprisings. Martial law was declared as the disinherited princess rallied loyal houses and nobility to her cause.

The rebellion gained a critical leader in Marshal Walthe Courtney, a veteran of the unpopular Eleven Years’ War. Courtney’s military acumen and strategic alliances with peasant uprisings turned the tide of the conflict. Alongside the Princess’s royal forces, his army executed a series of decisive sieges, culminating in the Siege of the King's Seat, where the usurper was overthrown.

The war concluded with a great council of the great houses instituting sweeping reforms. Though the monarchy was retained, it was bound by a codified constitution, the Grand East Code, ensuring limits to royal power. Tragically, the Princess died on the battlefield, leaving behind a will that named her youngest brother, Edmund, as the rightful heir. She bypassed their older brother, Cassian, whom she described as “too choleric and red-blooded in his aspect for the duties of kingship,” appointing him as regent until Edmund came of age at 18.

The post-war reforms sought to balance power and placate the revolutionary factions led then by Courtney:

Parliamentary Restructuring: The previous weak bicameral parliament that had been unable to prevent the amendment of the Act of Succession was replaced by a unicameral National Assembly with expanded suffrage for yeomanry and laborers owning sufficient land. Eligibility criteria were simplified, and elections were set to occur every eight years.

Military and Noble Oversight: Nobles' heirs were required to serve as wards of the king for 24 months upon reaching the age of 18, receiving military training and living in the capital. This was framed as a means to unite the realm but also served to prevent rebellion and strengthen Edmund's legitimacy.

Expanded Education: Azma University, previously exclusive to the nobility, was opened to all individuals of suitable skill, broadening access to education and opportunity.

General Walthe Courtney, hailed as a war hero, was appointed Lord Protector with sweeping powers to some extent by the demand of the peasant army he'd led. He served as Commander of the Armies and a critical stabilizing force throughout Edmund’s reign and Cassian’s regency. The King’s Council was restructured to include the elected Premier, who could recommend cabinet appointments, although the King retained the final decision. Early in his reign, King Edmund has established a precedent of accepting the recommendations of both the Premier and the Lord Protector, balancing the demands of reformists and royalists alike.

The King's Army and Azma University

The King's Army, colloquially known among the common folk as the Small Army or King's Life Guard, serves as a voluntary armed force in peacetime within the Empire. Its primary role is to function as a national guard, maintaining peace and order across the extensive and diverse territories of the Empire and swear loyalty solely to the King.

During periods of peace, the King's Guard is comprised of volunteers who contribute to the stability of the nation. However, in times of war, the monarch is vested with the authority to implement conscription, thereby obligating the great houses to raise men to fight for their king.

Following the Great Council of 421, significant reforms were introduced regarding service in the King's Guard. Those heirs of great houses are now required to complete two years service and training within the King's Army as wards of the king although this time can be commuted upon ascension as Lord/Lady Paramount of their house. This training is relatively light compared to full military training, designed to balance the economic and educational responsibilities of these citizens with their military duties.

Azma University is a theological university founded in the year 262AR by Trista of Azma, a master of theology and galder and was recognized by the King as a royal college in 289AR. It's Faculty of Theology is unrivaled across the entirety of the world and is considered one of the foremost institutions for education in galder, theology and philosophy.

Azma admits its students on the basis of the national ranking system and the census taken each year, those students with a sufficiently high natural affinity for the study of galder are offered a place in which to study it beyond the common extent offered by tutors and hedge-witches.

Azma has in recent years, following the second civil war and the increase in punishment by religious courts for physicians who attribute false rankings, with an increased student cohort particularly from the yeomanry and international scholars though the large majority of the general cohort remains largely consisted of the children of nobility.

Beyond its Faculty of Theology, Azma University is one of the foremost institutions driving forward the development of innovations regarding farming and building, mechanics and the engine'ering class that has developed in major cities across the Empire.

Situated in the capital city, Azma University benefits from its central location in what is often regarded as a hub of youthful energy and societal activity. Its reputation as a center for young nobles and genteel individuals enhances the college's role as a key venue for social introduction. It is frequently heralded as a place where the most advantageous social and matrimonial matches are made, positioning it as a pivotal institution in shaping the elite's social landscape.

The Empire

The Empire, as it is commonly known, is a vast realm governed by the Nine Paramountcies and the Imperial Household, all of whom rule from the King's Seat. This grand structure of power was forged between the years 23 ANU (Anno Non Unitus, or Year of the Ununified) and 1 AR (Anno Rex, or Year of the King) through the conquests of King Adan I, who earned the title "the Unifier."

From its inception, the Empire adopted an expansionist stance, which has characterized much of its history. This policy of territorial growth has been met with widespread approval among its citizens, largely due to the substantial wealth and resources it has brought to the nation. As the largest empire in the world and the unifier of the continent, it has established itself as the dominant lingua franca of common, further solidifying its influence and stature.

Throughout the Empire's history, the Imperial Household and the title of King have primarily been held by House Galagar, reigning from 1 AR to 399 AR, and later by House Wynd, from 399 AR to 438 AR. There have been instances where other houses acted as regents, temporarily holding the title on behalf of House Galagar, such as House Champion (348 AR-352 AR) and House Abbey (9 AR-13 AR & 154AR-155AR).

Despite its vast wealth and dominance, the Empire has faced relatively frequent rebellions in its paramountcies where calls for independence have persisted. Historically, these uprisings have been met with swift and overwhelming military responses. However, recently in 399AR during the Wyndham Rebellion, King Hendrick the Conqueror succeeded in overthrowing House Galagar and replacing it with his own house who have led the empire since.

*The lore detailed here is accurate but also only extends as far as the protagonist's knowledge of these subjects at the present time of the fic, some detail will be lost or may have been withheld from the MC and they may have misconceptions.

Romances

When the advisors are not praising his good sense, nor the bards his mirth, the church his piety or the poor his generosity, the question emerges just who is King Edmund I Wynd?

The young king thrust into a position of power who uses it as well as he knows how, having learnt from the mistakes of his grandfather and father and the long shadow of war that is still cast over the continent?

Or is he merely the figurehead, installed after a turbulent civil war, a king whose true authority has been surrendered to the councilors around him, contenting himself with the trappings of kingship rather than its substance?

Alas who is to know?

Name: King Edmund I Wynd

Age: 21

Height: 6'5

Appearance: Edmund stands at a 6'5, noticeably lanky although his seemingly permanent jaunty posture appears to cut an inch or two of him. He possesses short bronde hair styled in such a fashion that it appears wind-swept and fashionably ruffled with various products used to achieve the effect. He possesses a lean athletic physique although it is evidently achieved through some sort of diet or exercise for aesthetic rather than being muscles created by years of work. He nearly always has a relaxed expression with a smile and his pale face is framed by his grey eyes.

(he/him) poly-route, solo-route

Tropes: Life of the Party, Commitment Issues

-

Could it be that she, the queen consort, wields the true power behind the throne, acting as a surrogate for her kind lord, who never could bring himself to grasp the reins of authority?

She possesses the strength and allure of a king in her own right. Under her vigilant oversight, the king’s armies have routed the empire's foes, and now her gaze turns inward, determined to root out the treacherous elements within the realm.

Yet, amid her march towards peace at the end of a sword, there are those who seek to see her order destroyed. How long can it last? A queen consort without an heir, without children, lacking a direct claim to the throne, aging, and some even question her bond with the king himself.

Name: Veronica Abbey-Wynd

Age: 36

Height: 5'9

Appearance: Veronica stands straight at a tall 5'9 although her heels often push her to 5'11 or even 6'0. She has long wavy chestnut brown hair although more often than not it is in an updo of some sort for practicality. She has a healthy physique with faint lines and wrinkles, with an olive skin as well as doe-shaped deep brown eyes. Somehow a picture of beauty and severity, all the soft lines of her body somehow harsh.

(she/her) poly-route, solo-route

Tropes: scary hot, masc women

-

Walthe Courtney, Commander of the King’s Armies and Protector of the Realm, emerged as a formidable figure in the Second Civil War. Leading the rebels with unmatched martial prowess, he earned the acclaim of being the finest swordsman in the land. His valor and leadership were instrumental in overthrowing the usurper-king and restoring order to the fractured realm.

In the aftermath of the bloody conflict, he was celebrated as a folk hero—a commoner who rose to lead his people to victory and bring about a semblance of peace. His contributions were rewarded with knighthood and elevation to nobility, an ode to his honour.

Now, as Protector of the Realm, Walthe ensures the continuation of stability with a steady hand. Yet, despite his efforts, a persistent thorn remains, a challenge beyond even his considerable grasp, casting a shadow over his otherwise successful stewardship.

Name: Walthe Courtney

Age: 43

Height: 5'11

Appearance: Walthe has short, practical wavy black hair streaked with grey throughout, reflecting years of experience and hardship. their muscled, well-built stature is a testament to their years of service. He has warm tanned skin, indicative of his heritage being from the centre of the continent. His light green eyes stand out against his rugged features, with a determined, piercing gaze.

(he/him/they) solo-route

Tropes: The Stoic, No Sense of Humour, Heroic BSoD

-

From the day his family and house declared for the usurper-king, it was clear that Lorn Greenspan, the youngest of seven brothers, would be sent away as a ward.

Only eight years old, he had to play his part, leaving behind the familiar chill of his home—its cold peaks and harsh landscape fading from sight. He was a pawn in a conflict he could scarcely comprehend

His father had told him plainly that he must be strong—because until the day their house bent the knee, Lorn would remain a ward, and his father had no intention of surrendering.

Forced to adapt, Lorn became useful, talented, indispensable—not out of love for those his family would call captors, but out of necessity. Now, he stands as your closest advisor and a member of your house in all but name—cool, calculating, indifferent. Yet beneath that icy exterior burns a quiet resolve. Though he never expects his father to yield, he is determined to see his homeland again, even if it means waging war to bring it to heel.

Name: Lorn of Greenspan

Age: 18

Height: 6'0

Appearance: Lorn has a thick head of dark chestnut hair, gently wavy, it is always styled fashionably with pomade and volume. He has a tawny complexion and almost amber, brown eyes that if you didn't know him you'd think were perpetually concerned and caring rather than probing and scanning. Though under his stylish clothes you couldn't tell it, his body is lean and athletic from harsh training.

(he/him) solo-route

Tropes: advisor-turned-lover, secretly-in-love, black cat

-

The unbroken line of Galagar Kings may have fractured at Kirston Wall, but the proud Highland rulers never truly relinquished their claim. To them, Hendrick the Conqueror and his descendants are nothing more than traitors. Yet, they understand that a king's throne is grounded in the right of conquest, and so they bide their time, quietly assembling their forces, tempering their men, and honing their blades.

Preparing for the inevitable clash, they drill relentlessly through lashing rain and violent gales, each generation more convinced of their righteousness and the frailty of their enemies. The realm may slumber in uneasy peace, but in the Highlands, war is always on the horizon.

Kent Galagar, the young Lord of Kirston, was shaped by this belief from childhood. His father, his grandfather, and his great-grandfather—all were kings in their own eyes, their thrones stolen by usurpers. To Kent, acknowledging this truth makes you an ally, a friend. To deny it brands you an enemy, destined to be crushed when the time comes.

For Kent, proud, arrogant, and stubborn as he may seem, the world is divided by a simple truth: those who support the Galagar claim, and those who will fall before it.

Name: Kent Galagar

Age: 18

Height: 5'9

Appearance: Kent possesses a mane of thick, raven-black hair, often left loose or tied back with a leather strap. His skin is scattered with freckling, with a pale complexion. He has piercing blue eyes and a gaze that can shift from arrogant levity to fiery determination in an instant. His powerful frame is unmistakable, with broad shoulders and a chest that strains against the fabric of his tunics. His physique is defined—broad-shouldered and muscular, but not overly so, with a build that suggests both agility and power. His movements carry the confidence of someone who knows his strength and is unafraid to use it.

(he/him) solo-route

Tropes: Intense, enemies to lovers, jerk with a heart of gold

-

The nobility are arrogant, cruel, greedy, scheming, and foolish—qualities Arfryn has learned all too well through her peripheral access to them. Her current place among them is no accident but the product of the sweat, blood and tears of her entire family.

Born to a guildman father and a common mother from the east continent, Arfryn witnessed firsthand how the shifting tides of national conflict mirrored the fortunes of her own family. Every struggle either bolstered their wealth or teetered them on the brink of ruin, a fate shared by the yeomanry at large.

Her father, Jasper Caldwell, is the first Premier elected from the Small Parliament, a yeoman elevated by the newly enfranchised class. He has—in no uncertain terms—made it clear that his own position hinges on the peace of the realm.

Arfryn, understanding these dynamics, sees through the superficial grandeur of the nobility. Though she finds them to be the very embodiment of arrogance and folly, she is determined to bend them to her will. For now, she plays the game—offering smiles, be gracious, and dance while they are watching.

Name: Arfryn Caldwell

Age: 20

Height: 5'11

Appearance: Arfryn has a striking presence with her rich, deep brown skin and loose, jet-black braids that cascade down her back. Her eyes are a penetrating dark brown, revealing a sharp intelligence behind a charming, amiable demeanor. She dresses in elegantly simple fabrics that highlight her natural grace—always muted and refined to suit her surroundings but always at the very forefront of courtly fashions. At 5'11 her movements are deliberate, blending seamlessly into the nobility’s world, designed to make her easy to like and hard to hold grudges against.

(she/her) solo-route

Tropes: Steel Magnolia, Dark Feminine

-

In public Dean Champion is everything a Lady-Knight should be, prodigiously skilled with both galder and weapons, valiant, chivalrous and extremely popular amongst all who meet her or have the chance to witness her in action.

She like many knights is also spoiled to a fault, her suits of armour gleaming and her squire-boys tasked with keeping them so, as they are expensive and extravagant. Indeed she wears them because all people like a performance.

In private, Dean has dedicated herself entirely to her studies at Azma University, determined to learn all there is about the study and practice of galder and perhaps indeed the deeper secrets that only the great masters know—all the better to become both loved and indispensable to the state.

As the younger sibling of a line with many children, she does not expect to ever inherit and nor does she ever want to, she is entirely content with her career as a tourney knight and the life she's lead in the King's Seat thus far. Indeed Dean has long been utterly convinced that she'd make an awful Lady Paramount, she is convinced utterly that all those like her that revel in the spectacle, the fervor of battle and tourney alike are utterly unsuitable for such position.

Name: Dean Champion

Age: 19

Height: 5'9

Appearance: Dean has long deep auburn hair, typically braided for both practicalities sake and fashion, with strands often escaping to frame her face. Her skin is fair as if she'd somehow escaped the sun of both her home and the tourney. Her hazel eyes are bright and framed by dark eyelashes. Dean's build is athletic and commanding, showing off the results of rigorous training and combat practice, yet she carries herself with a grace that befits her status as a renowned Lady-Knight. Her entire demeanor projects a sort of graceful confidence, like that you'd expect of a Prince of ages past.

(she/her) solo-route

Tropes: The Lady and Knight, Knight in Sour Armour

-

Fran has long understood that she commands little respect at court—indeed, as a bastard, she finds herself dismissed even within her own family. Yet there is one, a young Lord who is but a child, who gave her legitimacy, who looks up to her, and has earned her unwavering loyalty. Her beloved little brother.

It is for him that she accepted the king's invitation to the King's Seat, to train in the King's Army. She wants to be his eyes, his ears, and his sword.

True loyalty is a rare commodity among the highborn, for what do they owe anyone but themselves and their own appetites?

She is content to endure their scorn and wear the title "Loyal Hound" with pride. After all, what insult lies therein? A good hound is strong, lethal, obedient, loved, loyal, and free to roam so long as it always returns. And return to him she will.

Name: Fran Radwell-Cadderly

Age: 18

Height: 5'7

Appearance: Fran's dirty-blonde hair is cut short, falling just above her shoulders—a length chosen for practicality rather than fashion. Her complexion is fair, lightly sun-kissed from time spent outdoors, with a few sun-spots across her nose and cheeks. Her eyes are a dull blue-green, carrying an intensity that contrasts with her otherwise unassuming features. Her build is lean and wiry, reflecting a life of rigorous training, with a strength that belies her slender frame. Though she dresses simply, her presence is commanding, a blend of quiet confidence and restrained power and it makes her feel much bigger than the 5'7 she stands at.

(she/her) solo-route

Tropes: Guard Dog, Loyal Companion, Golden Retriever

Additional

Dashingdon Demo: out now!

Cogdemos Demo: out now!

Pinterest: not yet available

Art: not yet available

Feedback Survey: not yet available

All Asks and Reposts are appreciated, work will be slow but steady and a demo should be ready shortly!

ask me lore questions please, I have far too many notes on this.

[opbackgrounds]

The Romanticism of One Piece I: Definition

Part II Full essay posted on AO3 here

“Romanticism is the star which weeps” —Alfred de Musset

One Piece is a Romance. It’s the title of the opening chapter as well as the first volume, and was liked enough by Oda that he recycled it for the first chapter and volume after the time skip. Sprinkled throughout the story Luffy and others will declare certain moments to be romantic. But what does that actually mean?

If you go to website for Mirriam-Webster and scroll down to the fourth definition, you’ll read that romance is “a: marked by the imaginative or emotional appeal of what is heroic, adventurous, remote, mysterious, or idealized 

b: often capitalized : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of romanticism”

It’s this second aspect of romance that I want to focus on today, because while One Piece is imaginative, and emotional, and adventurous, the roots of the manga dig much deeper than these superficial traits and tap into the much bigger movement that at one point dominated the Western World. 

As with many things, Romanticism is a concept that at its face seems quite simple, but the more you try to pin down specifics the more it squirms into something amorphous and difficult to define. In his lectures on Romanticism, Isaiah Berlin described it as, “the greatest single shift in consciousness of the West” before spending an entire hour of his introductory lecture trying to distill it down to its purest essence. In the Romantic movement we find our modern ideas of imagination, childhood, and sentimentality. Its influence dominated everything from politics, philosophy, poetry, literature, art, music and architecture. From the Romantics was born the Nationalism of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, which would lead to tragic results in the 20th. It spanned Europe and America, the Western world alight with hope after the French Revolution only to watch with horror as it was followed by the Reign of Terror, Napoleon, and the wars he brought to the rest of the continent. 

Pinpointing dates is difficult, but for simplicity’s sake it’s easiest to put it as lasting from approximately the mid 1700s through the mid to late 1800s. As Romanticism was a pan-European movement, it didn’t hit every place at the same time. It swept from France through Europe and eventually America at its own pace, blooming and dying independently of one another, with various precursor movements such as the Storm and Stress era in Germany, as well as holdovers lasting well after the golden age ended, the last embers clinging on until the First World War. Romanticism picked up the local flavor of wherever it went, the Romantic ideals of France related but not identical to the Romantic ideals of Germany, just as the Romanticism of William Wordsworth wasn’t the same as the Romanticism of Lord Byron. 

When attempting to define Romanticism, it is perhaps easiest to see it in what it was trying to push back against. As with every movement, the Romantics were in conversation with the past, in their case the Enlightenment thinkers of the 17th and early 18th centuries. The Enlightenment as a movement is just as difficult to pin down as the Romantics, but on the whole it said that there was one, specific way men should live their lives, that there was a formula for happiness and improvement of the human condition using reason, science, and an appropriate methodology. While the various Enlightenment figures all disagreed what that methodology was, for the most part they all agreed that it existed. It favored cold, hard logic, a celebration of science and of learning, and was hopeful for a future where humanity could better itself through its own effort by understanding the universe in which it lived. 

The Romantics looked at all of this, and said…no. 

There are other factors to consider when discussing Romanticism, such as the increase in urbanization following the Industrial Revolution and the political instability brought on by corrupt, crumbling monarchies and the revolutions they spurned, but in my mind this defiant no is the beating heart of Romanticism. It’s a philosophy that emphasizes the self over all, prioritizing feeling over reason and experience over logic. In fact, to the Romantic, there was no knowledge without feeling.

Institutions such as the church lost some of their power even as the Romantics became more obsessed with spirituality and the occult. The idealized, pastoral past of their beloved romantic ballads was yearned for even as revolts broke out against the monarchies that ruled in those stories of old. There was veneration of the child and the so-called Noble Savage, who were free from the corrupting forces of society and civilization. Freedom was the rallying cry, with abolition, women’s, and animal rights movements all stirring within this time period, but there was no greater freedom than the freedom of self. To do what you wanted when you wanted to do it.

There was a preoccupation with individual genius, and there was little that could bolster one’s career more than living fast and dying young. The Romantic world was one where death was frightfully common, with the increased density of the rapidly growing cities leading to frequent breakouts of disease even as populations boomed. Nearly half of children didn’t live to see their fifth birthday, and for those who did survive to adulthood, the political instability of the time made the future seem uncertain. Better then, to reject the all-consuming industry of the modern age and the cities that seemed to destroy more than they built in favor of spending time alone in the glories of nature and their own imagination, living as they pleased, beholden to no one but their own conscience. 

You’ll notice in the examples that I quote that most are white men and most of these men were well-educated. It’s a simple fact that the opportunities they were afforded were different than women and people of color, and their voices were amplified as a result. While there’s been increasing scholarship in recent years to diversify the canon, and there’s good fruit to be found in that regard, it must be acknowledged that the worldview shaped by the most famous Romantics is limited by this singular perspective.

That being said, there can be a more universal application to Romanticism, and One Piece proves that. The defiant no to the binding chains of society and the enthusiastic yes of personal freedom is something that we all feel at one point or another, and it’s what makes up the core of One Piece. Romanticism is a cosmic wanderlust, the ability to poeticize everything both great and small, the neverending search for, well…that depends on the person. But the important part is that they do search and they do dream. And it’s that search that I want to explore in more detail as I dig into specific aspects of Romanticism, and how One Piece applies.

[whencyclopedia]

Alexandria: The City that Changed the World

"Alexandria: The City That Changed the World" by Islam Issa is a biography of a city. It explores the history of Alexandria, Egypt, and its place in our collective memory. It is in part history book, essay, and travel guide, suitable for casual readers. Issa covers up to the 1952 Egyptian Revolution through the lens of his family history. Along the way, he describes the physical city, from the waterfront Qaitbay Citadel where the Lighthouse of Alexandria once stood to the congested downtown.

The book begins with Alexandria's founding by Alexander the Great after he conquered the Persian Empire. Like its legendary namesake, the city was destined for fame. Its strategic and symbolic value made it a coveted prize of world conquerors like Augustus, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Admiral Nelson. The city witnessed the death of Cleopatra, Christianity's triumph over paganism, the rise of the Islamic Caliphates, and the Industrial Age. Even today, Alexandria is an important center of trade, culture, and industry.

The Ptolemaic dynasty, who ruled Egypt in the interim between Alexander and the Roman Empire, transformed it into their crown jewel. Through institutions like the Library of Alexandria, the city became a capital of knowledge and scholarly collaboration. The combined civilizational heritage of East and West birthed a unique urban culture and architectural marvels. This wealth and cosmopolitanism attracted the artistic and scholarly communities that shaped the city's image.

Issa is a professor of literature and history at Birmingham City University, and his family lived in Alexandria for generations. The result of his experience is a powerful monograph on the city’s cultural significance. It is firmly rooted in historical fact, and it is easy to pick up on Alexandria's personal importance to the author. In the prologue, he recalls his father's old stories about Alexandria's former glory, and how they took on new significance for him as he confronted the legacy of Alexandria as an adult. The memory of the ancient city lives on as part of Egypt’s national mythology, inspiring modern-day monuments and legends.

Rather than repeating myths, Issa seeks to critically examine them in light of factual evidence, allowing both the real and imaginary Alexandria to exist side-by-side. At the beginning of the book, there is a series of maps depicting the city at different points in time, from its foundation to the 21st century. It also contains a collection of photographs, some capturing the city today and others portraying its historical sites and artifacts. While intended for casual readers, the book has endnotes and a bibliography to point readers in the direction of further study.

The author concludes the book with an examination of Alexandria's identity and Egyptian national identity in the present day. In contemporary Egypt, there is broad support for historical preservation, but politics determine which histories are deemed worthy of preservation and which are censored. Environmental changes and the rapid construction of an ever-growing modern metropolis on top of the ancient city threaten archaeological efforts. As has been true since the city’s foundation, what is believed about Alexandria’s past – and what it means to be Alexandrian – is constantly changing.

Continue reading...

[duchesssoflennox]

"The Monarchs of Queen Victoria’s Legacy"

Wilhelm II was the first of Queen Victoria's grandchildren to ascend to a throne, becoming German Emperor in 1888. His reign initiated the lineage of monarchs descended from Victoria. The last to be crowned was Marie of Romania in 1914, marking the end of an era for Victoria's royal progeny.

Queen Maud of Norway holds the distinction of having the longest tenure as Queen Consort among Queen Victoria's grandchildren, with a reign that spanned 33 years. Her time on the throne was characterized by a harmonious blend of British heritage and Norwegian culture, leaving a legacy of benevolence and cultural patronage. Conversely, Queen Sophia's role as Queen Consort of the Hellenes was the briefest, lasting just about 4 years due to the political upheavals of World War I and Greece's National Schism, which led to her husband's abdication. Despite the short span, her resilience and dedication to her royal duties remained unwavering.

The execution of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna was a deeply tragic event, reflecting the brutal reality of the Russian Revolution. On the night of 16-17 July 1918, she and her family were executed by Bolshevik revolutionaries in Yekaterinburg. Alexandra witnessed the murder of her husband, Tsar Nicholas II, before she herself was killed with a gunshot to the head. The violence of that night brought an abrupt and grim end to the Romanov dynasty, extinguishing the lives of the last imperial family of Russia in a stark and merciless manner. Her death marked the first among Queen Victoria’s crowned grandchildren. In contrast, Queen Victoria Eugenie of Spain lived through the upheavals of the 20th century, witnessing the restoration of the Spanish monarchy. She passed away in 1969, the last of Victoria’s crowned grandchildren, her life reflecting the dramatic changes of her time.

George V’s United Kingdom, a realm where tradition blends with modernity, continues to stand firm. The monarchy, a symbol of continuity, has weathered the storms of change, its crown passed down through generations, still reigning with a sense of duty and connection to the people.

Maud of Norway’s legacy endures in the serene beauty of Norway, where the monarchy remains a cherished institution. Her reign, characterized by a quiet strength and a nurturing presence, is remembered fondly, and the royal house she helped establish continues to flourish.

Margaret of Connaught’s Swedish monarchy, into which she married, stands resilient. Though she never became queen, her descendants uphold the traditions and values she embodied, maintaining the monarchy as a pillar of Swedish national identity.

Victoria Eugenie of Spain saw the Spanish monarchy navigate the tumultuous waters of the 20th century, enduring a republic and a dictatorship before being restored. Today, it stands as a testament to resilience, with her bloodline still on the throne, embodying the spirit of reconciliation and progress.

In stark contrast, the fates of other monarchies were marked by tragedy:

Wilhelm II witnessed the fall of his German Empire in the aftermath of World War I. His abdication marked the end of an era, and he spent his remaining years in exile, a once-mighty emperor without a throne, reflecting on the lost glory of his realm.

Sophia of Hellenes experienced the disintegration of the Kingdom of Greece amidst political upheaval. The monarchy, once a symbol of national unity, was abolished, leaving her and her family to face the harsh reality of a world that had moved beyond the age of empires.

Alexandra Feodorovna’s Russian Empire crumbled during the Bolshevik Revolution. The tragic end of the Romanov dynasty saw her and her family executed, their fates sealed by the tides of revolution that swept away centuries of monarchical rule.

Marie of Romania’s kingdom, once a beacon of hope in the aftermath of World War I, eventually succumbed to the forces of history. The monarchy was abolished after World War II, and the royal family faced the stark reality of a republic.

[deadpresidents]

GEORGE WASHINGTON •Washington: A Life by Ron Chernow (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •His Excellency: George Washington by Joseph J. Ellis (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •George Washington: A Life by Willard Sterne Randall (BOOK)

JOHN ADAMS •John Adams by David McCullough (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •Passionate Sage: The Character and Legacy of John Adams by Joseph J. Ellis (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •John Adams: Party of One by James Grant (BOOK)

THOMAS JEFFERSON •Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power by Jon Meacham (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson by Joseph J. Ellis (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History by Fawn Brodie (BOOK)

JAMES MADISON •The Three Lives of James Madison: Genius, Partisan, President by Noah Feldman (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •James Madison: A Life Reconsidered by Lynne Cheney (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •James Madison: A Biography by Ralph Ketcham (BOOK | AUDIO)

JAMES MONROE •James Monroe: A Life by Tim McGrath (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •The Last Founding Father: James Monroe and a Nation's Call to Greatness by Harlow Giles Unger (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •James Monroe: The Quest for National Identity by Harry Ammon (BOOK)

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS •John Quincy Adams: American Visionary by Fred Kaplan (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •John Quincy Adams: A Public Life, A Private Life by Paul C. Nagel (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •The Lost Founding Father: John Quincy Adams and the Transformation of American Politics by William J. Cooper (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •The Remarkable Education of John Quincy Adams by Phyllis Lee Levin (BOOK | KINDLE)

ANDREW JACKSON •American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House by Jon Meacham (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times by H.W. Brands (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •Andrew Jackson, Volume I: The Course of American Empire, 1767-1821 by Robert V. Remini (BOOK) •Andrew Jackson, Volume II: The Course of American Freedom, 1822-1832 by Robert V. Remini (BOOK | KINDLE) •Andrew Jackson, Volume III: The Course of American Democracy, 1833-1845 by Robert V. Remini (BOOK)

MARTIN VAN BUREN •Martin Van Buren and the American Political System by Donald B. Cole (BOOK | KINDLE) •Martin Van Buren and the Emergence of American Popular Politics by Joel H. Silbey (BOOK) •Martin Van Buren: The Romantic Age of American Politics by John Niven (BOOK)

WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON •A Child of the Revolution: William Henry Harrison and His World, 1773-1798 by Hendrik Booraem V (BOOK | KINDLE) •Mr. Jefferson's Hammer: William Henry Harrison and the Origins of American Indian Policy by Robert M. Owens (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •The Carnival Campaign: How the Rollicking 1840 Campaign of "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too" Changed Presidential Elections Forever by Ronald G. Shafer (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO)

[yayroos]

anyway i've been saying this in like replies and tags but here's my take on the MCR thing here's my theory ok

so according to the caption under the video

a) it's been 17 years since the band The Black Parade was sent to the MOAT

ok so 'MOAT' is clearly an acronym but also they were sent there they didn't go, so someone did this one way or another.

b) In that time, a great Dictator has risen to power

ok so the fascist and the regime came about at some point after The Black Parade was sent away - if it was fairly soon after, then i would say the MOAT is probably complicated fascist political prison for people who might be useful someday. I don't know what it stands for but i have a vibe of what it is.

c) bringing about "THE CONCRETE AGE", a glorious time of stability and abundance

ok so that's a song title. like. come on.

d) in the history of DRAAG.

so 'DRAAG' is another acronym, presumably for the name of this country. It's phrased to imply that the country existed before the regime, but fascists like to make shit up to make themselves look good, so I'm gonna say maybe there was a very different place called that in the past and then the regime took over and is basically co-opting that because that's what regimes do

e) His Grand Immortal Dictator wishes to celebrate our rich and storied culture, fine foods, and musical entertainments by welcoming you to these great demonstrations of power and resolve.

politicians across the spectrum and for a very long time have taken and twisted and used music and culture to serve their own ends. This happens all the time. Other people have said it better in the last day or so but like think of who's played what songs in campaign rallies and on tv ads and shit over not just recent election cycles but for 30+ years at this point. This is a constant of politics, and only gets amplified when fascism enters the picture. This is propaganda, this is using people's memory of what The Black Parade used to be before to give legitimacy to the regime.

f) And lending voice and song for the first time in six thousand two hundred and forty six days,

that lines up with the 17 years, and IRL with their last Black Parade performance and 'the black parade is dead'

g) their work privilege ceremonially reinstated

this tells us a huge huge amount about the nature of the regime and makes it clear that the band was, we'll say, forcibly retired, at some point

h) will be His Grand Immortal Dictator's National Band... The Black Parade

the regime and the dictator have claimed them, even though we know from the start they 'were sent to the MOAT' before the regime actually rose. That means that after 17 years and a complete change in regime, the cultural identity still tied to The Black Parade is still valuable enough to bother wheeling them out at this point. That's a long time for a seemingly inactive band to stay relevant.

Knowing what we know about MCR and politics and the current political moment, The Black Parade then were political enemies of the rising regime. They've been off hidden away somewhere but the people still remember their music, which makes them prime material for the quiet little rebellions from which revolution grows. The regime then gets word of this, and brings the band back to a) take away the power of it being from before by rebranding it under their own banner, and b) try and squash the resistance by demonstrating that their rallying cry is actually totally on the regimes side (no don't worry about how they were 'sent to the MOAT' 17 years ago they were totally on board the whole time...)

So The Black Parade will perform, but we know MCR and we know Gerard and we know the moment we're in, so that's not the whole plan here. The show will start heavy on the regime themes, but the band will break out somehow and instead of doing what the regime plans for and shutting down the rebellion, it will fan the flames and tear the whole thing down.

[ivan-fyodorovich-k]

As I witnessed the despair and incomprehension of liberals worldwide after Donald Trump’s victory in November’s U.S. presidential election, I had a sinking feeling that I had been through this before. The moment took me back to 1989, when the Berlin Wall came down, signaling the beginning of the end of Soviet Communism and the lifting of the Iron Curtain that had divided Europe since the end of World War II. The difference was that the world that collapsed in 1989 was theirs, the Communists’. Now it is ours, the liberals’.

In 1989, I was living within a Warsaw Pact nation, in my final year of studying philosophy at Bulgaria’s Sofia University, when the world turned upside down. The whole experience felt like an extended course in French existentialism. To see the sudden end of something that we had been told would last forever was bewildering—liberating and alarming in equal measure. My fellow students and I were overwhelmed by the new sense of freedom, but we were also acutely conscious of the fragility of all things political. That radical rupture turned out to be a defining experience for my generation.

But the rupture was even broader—on a greater global scale—than many of us realized at the time. The year 1989 was indeed an annus mirabilis, but one very different from the way Western liberals have framed it for the past three decades. The resilience that the Chinese Communist Party demonstrated in suppressing the pro-democracy movement in Tiananmen Square turned out to be more consequential than the fall of the Berlin Wall. For Russians, the most important aspect of 1989 was not the end of Communism, but the end of the Soviet empire, with the withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan. It was thus the year that Osama bin Laden proclaimed the jihadists’ victory over the godless U.S.S.R. And 1989 was also when nationalism began to reclaim its political primacy in the former Yugoslavia.

The return of Trump to power in the United States may prove another such instance in a period of enormous political rupture. If liberals are to respond effectively to the challenge of a new Trump administration, they will need to reflect critically on what happened in 1989, and discard the story they’ve always told themselves about it. The means of overcoming despair is to be found in better comprehension.

From a liberal point of view, comparing the anti-Soviet revolutions of 1989 with the illiberal revolutions today might seem scandalous. In Francis Fukuyama’s famous phrase, 1989 was “the end of history,” whereas Trump’s victory, many liberals assert, may portend the end of democracy. The year the Berlin Wall fell was viewed as the triumph of the West; now the decline of the West dominates the conversation. The collapse of Communism was marked by a vision for a democratic, capitalist future; that future is now riddled with uncertainty. The mood in 1989 was internationalist and optimistic; today, it has soured into nationalism, at times even nihilism.

But to insist on those differences between then and now is to miss the point about their similarities. Living through such moments in history teaches one many things, but the most important is the sheer speed of change: People can totally alter their views and political identity overnight; what only yesterday was considered unthinkable seems self-evident today. The shift is so profound that people soon find their old assumptions and choices unfathomable.

Translated to this moment: How, just six months ago, could any sane person have believed that an aging and unpopular Joe Biden could be reelected?

Trump captured the public imagination not because he had a better plan for how to win the war in Ukraine or manage globalization, but because he understood that the world of yesterday could be no more. The United States’ postwar political identity has vanished into the abyss of the ballot box. This Trump administration may succeed or fail on its own terms, but the old world will not return. Even most liberals do not want it back. Few Americans today are comfortable with the notion of American exceptionalism.

In the aftermath of Trump’s victory, some political commentators grimly looked back to the 1930s, when fascism stalked the world. The problem is that the 1930s are beyond living memory, whereas the 1990s are still vivid to many of us. What I learned from that decade is that a radical political rupture gives the winners a blank check. Understanding why people voted for Trump will be little help in apprehending what he will do in office.

Political ruptures are achieved by previously unimaginable coalitions, united more by their intensity than a common program. Politicians who belong to these coalitions typically have a chameleonlike ability to suit themselves to the moment—none more so, in our time, than Trump. American liberals who are gobsmacked that people can treat a billionaire playboy as the leader of an anti-establishment movement might recall that Boris Yeltsin, the hero of Russia’s 1990s anti-Communist revolution, had been one of the leaders of the Communist Party just a few short years earlier.

Like the end of the Soviet era, Trump’s reelection victory will have global dimensions. It marks the passing of the United States as a liberal empire. America remains the world’s preeminent power, yes, and will remain an empire of sorts, but it won’t be a liberal one. As Biden’s spotty record of mobilizing support to defend the “liberal international order” in the face of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated, the very idea of such an order was for many critics always a Western fiction. It existed as long as the U.S. had the power and political will to impose it.

This is not what Trump will do. In foreign policy, Trump is neither a realist nor an isolationist; he is a revisionist. Trump is convinced that the U.S. is the biggest loser in the world it has made. Over the past three decades, in his view, America has become a hostage, rather than a hegemon, of the liberal international order. In the postwar world, the U.S. successfully integrated its defeated adversaries Germany and Japan into democratic governance, international trade, and economic prosperity. This did not apply to China: In Trump’s view, Beijing has been the real winner of the post-1989 changes.

Trump’s second coming will clearly be different from the first. In 2016, Trump’s encounter with American power was like a blind date. He didn’t know exactly what he wanted, and American power didn’t know exactly who he was. Not this time. America may remain a democracy, but it will become a more feral one. Under new management, its institutions will likely depart from the safety of consensual politics and go wild. In times of rapid change, political leaders seek not to administer the state, but to defeat it. They see the state and the “deep state” as synonymous. Illiberal leaders select their cabinet members in the same way that emperors used to choose the governors of rebellious provinces: What matters most is the appointee’s loyalty and capacity to resist being suborned or co-opted by others.

In Trump’s first administration, chaos reigned; his second administration will reign by wielding chaos as a weapon. This White House will overwhelm its opponents by “flooding the zone” with executive orders and proclamations. He will leave many adversaries guessing about why he is making the decisions he does, and disorient others with their rapidity and quantity.

In 2020, Biden defeated Trump by promising normalcy. Normalcy will no longer help the Democrats. In the most recent example of an antipopulist victory, Donald Tusk triumphed in Poland’s 2023 parliamentary elections and returned to be prime minister, not because he promised business as usual but because his party, Civic Platform, was able to forge a compelling new political identity. Tusk’s party adopted more progressive positions on such controversial issues as abortion rights and workers’ protections, but it also wrapped itself in the flag and embraced patriotism. Tusk offered Poles a new grand narrative, not simply a different electoral strategy. Civic Platform’s success still depended on forming a coalition with other parties, a potentially fragile basis for governing, but it offers a template, at least, for how the liberal center can reinvent itself and check the advance of illiberal populism.

The risk for the United States is high: The next few years could easily see American politics descend into cruel, petty vengefulness, or worse. But for liberals to respond to this moment by acting as defenders of a disappearing status quo would be unwise. To do so would entail merely reacting to whatever Trump does. The mindset of resistance may be the best way to understand tyranny, but it is not the best way to handle a moment of radical political rupture, in which tyranny is possible but not inevitable.

Back in 1989, the political scientist Ken Jowitt, the author of a great study of Communist upheaval in that period, New World Disorder, observed that a rupture of this type forces political leaders to devise a new vocabulary. At such moments, formerly magic words do not work anymore. The slogan “Democracy is under threat” did not benefit the Democrats during the election, because many voters simply did not see Trump himself as that threat.

As the writer George Orwell observed, “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” The challenge of apprehending the new, even when the fact of its arrival is undeniable, means that it may come as a shock to liberal sensibilities how few tears will be shed for the passing of the old order. Contrary to what seemed the correct response in 2016, the task of Trump opponents today is not to resist the political change that he has unleashed but to embrace it—and use this moment to fashion a new coalition for a better society.

[jovianwishes]

Hetalia and the myth of the Dutch independence war: a mini essay/rant

One thing I often see go by in the Hetalia fandom is the notion that the 80 years war/the Dutch Revolt was an independence war against the Spanish and solely that, sort of American Revolution style. This is not surprising, since for many years, over two hundred, this notion has been pushed and propagandized here in the Netherlands. But, modern historians are now pushing a different view on the 80 years war: the independence of the Dutch Republic was completely accidental and not the intended goal.

Ever since I began studying history in university this has been quite a special interest of mine. So I'd like to shed some more light on this new look at the 80 years war and why it actually makes complete sense. First of all: before the 80 years war there was no interest or idea that the Dutch provinces form 1 nation together. In fact, all the provinces, and especially the cities, were highly independent ever since the beginning of the middle ages. They all had their own identities, coin and even language sometimes. These provinces (which by the way, were their own countries (editors note: with which i actually mean duchies, counties, bishoprics, etc) but for ease I'm calling them provinces) and cities have centuries of history with each other as allies, rivals, and sometimes even conquerer. In generally, none of them really liked the other. The concept of a united Low Lands came *solely* from the top, from those that colonized the provinces (e.g. the Habsburgers, but before that as well with the Burgundy's).

The 80 years war started because the Spanish king began taking away the rights of cities and provinces, began taxing them heavily and started imposing trails against non-catholics. After peaceful negotiation didn't work, riots began breaking out in the south, in what is now Belgium (back then kind of the southern Dutch provinces). These riots formed a reaction that went all the way to the north of the Dutch provinces. Then the Spanish send in troops and the 80 years war was truly kicked off. Before I continue, it is also good to mention that some consider the 80 years war a civil war, which indeed had it's merits. Not all provinces and cities were in agreement with each other (in the contrary...) and religious differences caused a lot of tension within the rebellion.

So as I said, modern historians are in agreement with each other that until the last few years, there was no real interest in forming one country. The (northern and southern) provinces wanted to regain their rights, lower taxes and have religious freedom, that was their goal. The forerunner of the 'have the provinces become one country' party was William of Orange, an important noble who, although he was symbolic the figure head of the fighting Dutch provinces, did not achieve anything of what he wanted before he died. So, in the later stages of war (and, it is good to mention here that the war was not one monolith - it was a long series of conflicts stretching out many years), there came a slow realisation that the only way to win was to unite. And eventually, that is what happened. What follows was a true "Golden Age" for the Dutch Republic but also a time of *extreme* political unrest - the Republic was honestly constantly on the brink of falling apart because again, no province could agree with each other.

Anyways, I want to end this way too long post with saying that you're not wrong for depicting the 80 years war as an independence war. It's a notion that has been pushed for many years, but I would like people to consider a different way of looking at the NL. A way that considers that the provinces were just like the HRE: a collection of countries with long histories that deserve to have their own story told. I personally, in Hetalia, consider all the provinces their own personifications. Ned is for me the personification of the "Low Lands", an imagined community of trading and fighting provinces that would love to stab each other's hearts out and then steal their gold, hahah. Oh, and also, people need to remember that Belgium was an incredibly important factor in the 80 years war. The Belgian provinces, which back then were just the southern Dutch provinces, helped enormously in the fight against the Spanish but eventually they were too weak to hold up. Anyways, thanks for reading!

[nesiacha]

The Life of the Hébertist Charles Philippe Ronsin: From Playwright to Chief General of the Revolutionary Army

Charles Philippe Ronsin was born on December 1, 1751, to a master cooper in Soissons. According to Maurice Chartier, who draws on the work of General Herlaut, Ronsin may have been born into an affluent family and received an education. However, it is unclear whether he was a brilliant student, as Jacob Louis suggests, since various successive wars led to the loss of archives.

He enlisted in the army at the age of 17, in the Aunis regiment, but after four years, he left. Why? Maurice Chartier speculates that Ronsin realized the future of a commoner in the army of the Old Regime did not meet his youthful expectations. He instead sought success as a playwright. Unlike other future revolutionaries such as Collot d’Herbois or Fabre d’Eglantine, Ronsin did not achieve the success he hoped for. His works, including Hecuba and Polyxena, were staged by the Committee of Actors, but his next play, Sédécias, was rejected in December 1783. He is believed to have married before the Revolution, but the identity of his first wife, as well as what happened to her—whether they divorced or she became a widow—remains a mystery. Ronsin's past is, in many ways, shrouded in uncertainty.

He mingled in artistic and literary circles and became friends with the painter David. Ironically, his greatest successes would come in the army during the French Revolution, even though he had initially left the military for a career in theater.

Like many revolutionaries, Ronsin's involvement in the Revolution began in 1789 when he was elected captain of the National Guard of the Saint-Roch district. He quickly joined the Jacobin and Cordelier clubs and began forging friendships with figures such as Danton and Marat. Georges Lefebvre describes him as a diligent figure.

From 1792, following the fall of the monarchy, Ronsin played an increasingly significant role. He had joined the Théâtre-Français section, which played an important role during the storming of the Tuileries in 1792. He co-wrote a pamphlet with Murville in honor of the citizens killed on August 10, 1792. He was appointed commissioner of the Executive Council. Under the orders of Minister of War Pache (affiliated with the Hébertists), Ronsin was sent to Belgium to oversee the dubious Dumouriez (whose treachery would later be confirmed). He denounced the corruption of Dumouriez’s suppliers. Gaspard Monge then entrusted him with a mission in the North. When Bouchotte took over as Minister of War, Ronsin's career soared. This was the period when the Exagérés faction gained popularity and became a political force in the National Assembly (where the Enragés were more influential in the sections, especially in the Gravilliers section, but struggled to gain representation).

On February 14, 1793, Pache was elected mayor of Paris with 11,881 votes out of 15,191 voters. Bouchotte, seen as close to the Hébertists (even if he later distanced himself from them), reorganized the patriots' strongholds. As Renaud Faget points out, "The result of this policy was a significant increase in the number of employees: they were 453 in April 1793 and 1800 when Bouchotte was ousted." Pierre Gaspard Chaumette, the prosecutor of the Commune of Paris, and Hébert, his deputy, along with Vincent as the Secretary General of the Ministry of War in April 1793, filled the Ministry with Cordeliers members and sent people like Momoro to Vendée. They were the "stars" of the Cordeliers club, one of the most powerful at the time, and enjoyed a certain level of popularity.

Ronsin was appointed as deputy to the Minister alongside Xavier Audouin (an important Hébertist who later became a neo-Jacobin under the Directory) and Prosper Sijeas. His most important rise came in Vendée, where he quickly ascended from captain and logistics officer for the army to brigadier general, eventually becoming the chief general of the Revolutionary Army of Paris by the end of his life. Ronsin played a key role in the rise of General Rossignol. His rapid ascent was met with hostility from some, particularly the Indulgents, one of whom, Philippeaux, became one of his principal adversaries. Ronsin broke with Danton (possibly since the Dumouriez affair—this hypothesis requires further study). In any case, in Vendée, he reunited with his friend Momoro, who had been sent on a mission, likely with Vincent’s involvement.

The tactics used in the Vendée, particularly in the battle for Rigué, have been widely criticized (to put it mildly). The report by Momoro and Ronsin states: "We don’t doubt that a large number of complaints were addressed to the National Convention��[regarding this tactic]; the malevolent men only condemn these measures, which, as rigorous as they are, may alone create disorder in the brigands' army and finish a cruel war." It is evident that Ronsin and Momoro committed unforgivable mistakes in Vendée as I said here about Momoro https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/759184374456549376/momoros-serious-fault?source=share

Another major failure associated with Ronsin was in Lyon. He spent less than a month there and was politically aligned with Collot d'Herbois. It remains unclear to what extent Ronsin can be held responsible for the massacre in Lyon (the execution of Lyonnais citizens by cannon and disproportionate executions). However, it is known that he approved of it, as he wrote: "The guillotine and the firing squad have brought justice to over 400 rebels, but a new revolutionary commission has just been established, composed of true sans-culottes; my colleague Parein is its president, and in a few days, the artillery fire from our gunners will have rid us, in one instant, of over 4000 conspirators. It is time to shorten the process." Upon his arrival in Lyon, Ronsin wrote: "The revolutionary army entered the city on the 5th of Frimaire... Terror was painted on every face, and the deep silence I had recommended to our brave soldiers made their march even more threatening, more terrifying."

It is still difficult to know whether Ronsin directly participated in the violence in Lyon, but like many other revolutionary actors, he can be held responsible for not disapproving of it, especially since he witnessed it. That others like Turreau, Barras, Fréron, and Fouché were more corrupt than Ronsin does not absolve him of responsibility.

Despite this, Ronsin suffered from a notorious black legend, like many Hébertists, and was even demonized more than Robespierre himself. In truth, his rise was deserved because he was a competent and honest administrator who did not profit from his position. He was defamed by figures like Desmoulins, yet according to Lefebvre, Ronsin lived and died poor. He was a courageous and diligent soldier. While he was one of the leaders of the Hébertist faction (although, in reality, it was primarily Ronsin and Momoro who led the Exagérés, as Hébert backed down during critical moments, while Ronsin and Momoro went all the way), it is important to note that unlike Momoro, who primarily defended social rights and even advocated for shared agrarian property rights, Ronsin championed a radical revolution—though his views were underdeveloped—that aligned him more with the Cordeliers at that time, who were close to the Hébertists.

Lefebvre acknowledges Ronsin's flaws, noting that he could be arrogant and violent in his language. However, it was the danger facing the Republic that pushed him to adopt such an attitude, rather than any shameless ambition or opportunism (like his "friend" Turreau). I wonder if Ronsin’s break with Danton, particularly after the Dumouriez affair, did not make him more radical, along with the infernal situation of the time. Although Ronsin may not have had the military genius of Kleber or Jourdan, he was certainly competent for his rank.

Upon his return to Paris, Ronsin became one of the leaders of the Exagérés faction. In December 1793, he and his friend Vincent were arrested, notably on the proposal of Fabre and Philippeaux. They were released under pressure from the Cordeliers. This episode is detailed here. This certainly did not help with any reconciliation with the CPS (Committee of Public Safety), especially since the CSG (Committee of General Security) pointed out that there was no evidence against them. Additionally, other Hébertists had been arrested and then released. However, aside from the episode concerning the abolition of slavery, where most set aside their grudges, it seems that reconciliation was impossible. Personally, I think the faults are shared between the Indulgents, the Committee of Public Safety, the Convention, and the Hébertists.

The poverty of the Parisian working class during the winter must not have helped ease tensions, particularly for people like Momoro, who prioritized the fight (with the black market and some speculators, things probably worsened). As I’ve mentioned before, the tension was so high that the Cordeliers were preparing an insurrection attempt. Momoro presided over it and draped the Declaration of the Rights of Man in black. Ronsin supported and demanded it. Vincent followed this line of action. Hébert did as well, until he tried to backtrack when he realized that the attempt might fail. Chaumette, Pache, and Hanriot refused.

They took Carrier as an ally for this insurrection attempt, who had been recalled from Nantes for his drownings. Collot d'Herbois, pragmatically, tried to reconcile, as he was close to some points of Ronsin’s politics. Here is an excerpt from Michel Biard’s book on Collot d'Herbois:

"The Jacobin session of the 16th of Ventôse was almost entirely devoted to these declarations. In the absence of Robespierre and Couthon, who were ill, as well as Billaud-Varenne and Jeanbon Saint-André, who were on missions, Collot d'Herbois was the only member of the Committee who regularly attended the Society. It was he who went up to the tribune to denounce the behavior of the Cordelier leaders, using much firmer language than that reserved earlier for Desmoulins and those like him who were merely 'lost.' Here, if the Cordeliers were in the same situation, the leaders were nevertheless labeled as plotters, and Collot mentions the fate of Jacques Roux, who had also 'seduced' the Cordeliers and whom the Committee had had imprisoned.”

"And, in a final attempt at reconciliation, the Jacobins decided to send a delegation, led by Collot d'Herbois, to preach unity to the Cordeliers. Hébert, Ronsin, and other leaders took the walk of Canossa and, in front of the Jacobin delegation, claimed that their words had been misrepresented and that the fraternity between the two societies was not in question. Did Collot d'Herbois sincerely believe in this rather clumsy reconciliation? If there was any real illusion, it was quickly dispelled. New threatening speeches from Vincent, the discovery of anonymous posters calling for insurrection, the return of Robespierre, Billaud, and Couthon to the Committee... all of these factors led to the final decision. The Committee opted for a preventive strike. On the night of the 22nd to the 23rd of Ventôse, Hébert, Vincent, Ronsin, and other 'suspects' were arrested."

Carrier escaped this arrest because he retracted, likely sensing the change in the political wind (and I wonder if his initial support for the insurrection was opportunistic). Contrary to what the black legend of the Hébertists suggests, they did not intend to massacre the Convention but rather to recreate a day like June 2, 1793, probably by eliminating political figures such as Barère (though, of course, that would still have been illegal). During this tumultuous period, there were even “anthropophagist” inscriptions with Robespierre’s name. Elsewhere, there were posters from the Cordeliers’ Club declaring that Fabre d'Églantine, Camille Desmoulins, and a few others had lost their trust. Another was a clear call for insurrection: "Sans-culottes, it is time. Strike the general call and ring the tocsin, arm yourself and let it not be long, for you see that they are pushing you to your last breath." Other messages had a clearly royalist tone, such as one found on a public building: "Death to the Republic! Long live Louis XVII."

Those who sought to eliminate the Hébertists would mix the judgment of the faction with dubious characters. There were false rumors of plundering involving Momoro (I’ve learned, as I study law, that nowadays, sometimes, in order to discredit those being judged, some accusation files violate legal procedures and leak false information to the press to ensure the suspect loses sympathy; I wonder if they used the same method then). They were accused of "plotting with foreigners." The wives of Hébert and Momoro were arrested, and later, Ronsin's wife, according to the memoirs of Jean-Balthazar de Bonardi du Ménil. The Hébertists were condemned on false accusations, such as posting seditious posters, sabotaging food supplies, and massacring prisoners in jails. There was little evidence against them, yet the president of the Tribunal said, "Infamous, you will all perish!"

Except for Hébert, all were executed with great courage. Ronsin said to his colleagues, "You will be condemned. When you should have acted, you talked. Know how to die. For my part, I swear that you shall not see me flinch. Strive to do the same." And when someone said that it was the end of the Republic, he responded, "The Republic is immortal."

The revolutionary army would be dissolved.

From what I’ve deduced, Ronsin was definitely not a saint. He did things that were totally condemnable, which, even in times of war, are inexcusable. However, that Turreau behaved as a greater "scoundrel" with the infernal columns does not exonerate Ronsin. But Ronsin was also a man victimized by a black legend even more tenacious than others— he was a competent and honest administrator, far from being a stupid man that some aid. His violent words can be placed in the context that he, too, was at his wits' end, like Marat or other revolutionaries who were exhausted from the struggle. He more than deserved his rank, even though he was not a military genius like Kléber or Jourdan. I don’t get the impression that he acted out of shameless ambition, but rather from a genuine frustration that the Republic was in danger, compounded by the behavior of certain people (primarily Danton and the Dumouriez affair). My point is that the Hébertists were demonized even more than other revolutionary factions, when in reality, they were wrongly seen as bloodthirsty incompetents. However, they have very interesting stories and have had their share of both glory and a darker side, like all revolutionary groups.

The Fate of His Wife Marie-Angélique Lequesne, Widow Ronsin

There is an important hypothesis about Marie-Angélique Lequesne ( my theory). She is said to have met Ronsin in Belgium when he was supervising Dumouriez, or she was working as a canteen keeper, according to Geneanet. At that time, since Ronsin was not yet a general, he could not marry her, and it was only in 1793, when she came from a wealthier family than Ronsin’s, that they married. Here is the revolutionary period of Marie-Angélique Lequesne:

“Marie-Angélique Lequesne was caught up in the measures taken against the Hébertists and imprisoned on the 1st of Germinal at the Maison d'Arrêt des Anglaises, frequently engaging with ultra-revolutionary circles both before and after Ronsin’s death, even dressing as an Amazon to congratulate the Directory on a victory.”

According to the correspondence of Jorris, when she remarried Turreau, this is what was said about them. A.-J. de Rivaz dedicated an entire chapter to them in his Mémoires historiques sur le Valais. He expresses his hostility toward anyone who adhered to the principles of the French Revolution: Turreau "commits the blunder of not publicly performing any act of the Roman religion"; his wife, Marie-Angélique, "has the audacity to speak of it with contempt," and she does not blush "to say that she had never been happier since she had shaken off the yoke of the Christian superstition in which she had been raised."

Unfortunately, this marriage would become horrific for her. Turreau treated her with unimaginable cruelty, even having her flogged (a horrifying detail—I recently learned that it is very likely she was pregnant with their last child when he had her flogged). She followed her husband when he became an ambassador for Napoleon. She charmed the political class of Washington, unlike her husband. She became a very good friend of Dolley Madison, one of the most important future First Ladies of the United States, and played an essential role in her political development. Dolley described her as "good-natured, intelligent, generous, plain, and curious." They got along very well.

But Turreau continued to treat his wife terribly, and no one dared confront him about it until one day a judge confronted him. In retaliation, Turreau ordered Marie-Angélique to leave the United States, forced her to live in poverty for three years, and once again, it was the judge who arranged her departure to France. She eventually divorced him. Later, Turreau forced their daughter Alexandrine into a convent, and Marie-Angélique had to fight once more to free Alexandrine, which she succeeded in doing, according to this site: https://rembarre.fr/g_tur_ec.htm. Unfortunately, Alexandrine died in poverty years later.

An even more horrifying detail: Turreau, who called Charles-Philippe a friend from the time when Ronsin was still alive, stabbed him in the back by giving him a defeat, claiming that Ronsin was the one responsible, not him (while Turreau was the one truly responsible). You can see this in this post and here.

I wonder if Ronsin introduced Marie-Angélique to Turreau when they were still friends. After Ronsin was guillotined, Marie-Angélique Lequesne Ronsin went on to endure a terrible marriage with Turreau, who treated her with awful cruelty (as you can see in one of my posts here). In this way, Turreau betrayed the Ronsin couple a second time.

Sources:

Grace Phelan

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41929594?read-now=1&seq=4

Antoine Resche

(After studying it I disagree with Jacob Louis who says that Ronsin is incompetent but it remains an interesting analysis.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41929592

[stirringwinds]

just pondering how old nations deal with the tumult of change; and i personally think that yao might’ve been the last to cut his hair short, after kiku and yong-soo. imo kiku did it first with the onset of the meiji era in 1867, followed by yong-soo during the gwangmu reforms launched by emperor gojong in the 1880-90s; the monarch is in western dress and short hair—and so is the nation. for yao, it’s not that he’s oblivious to how things are falling apart and the urgent need for reform. but he is the oldest of the three of them; he has kept long hair for thousands of years. it’s not that he hasn’t ever experienced defeat and changes at the hands of another nation—but as controversial as the manchu-style braid imposed by the qing dynasty rulers on the whole male population of china was, i think there was still that underlying sense of continuity with long hair for him; wearing his hair long became the one constant in his identity amidst all the drastic changes he’s weathered through the millennia.

and so in the wake of the opium wars, i think it fits if yao’s the one now left behind, watching his sort-of protégés turn away from his worldview symbolically. from being seen as the civilisation to emulate, by both tributaries and even enemies, to being defeated by the very same gunpowder technology invented during one of his golden ages. and kiku and yong-soo see what’s happened; the summer palace is burned to the ground, and yao is no longer the one at the centre of “all under heaven”. they followed yao’s clothing styles, philosophies, religion and kept their hair long like he did—but no longer, after this. he’s staring at the backs of their heads this time, and the only path seems to be to join them. because when it comes down to it, imo, yao won’t die on the sword of tradition for its own sake—he’s survived by being willing to change shape and form throughout history. it takes some time for him to work up to it this time, but he does, in the end— short hair and western dress it is, by the time of the xinhai revolution in 1911: ‘i have been called many names throughout many lifetimes. the empire is dead, long live the republic.’

[queering-ecology]

Chapter 11. ‘fucking close to water’: queering the production of the nation by Bruce Erickson (part 2, final)

Land

First ‘canoe’ that European colonists saw were likely Mi’kmaq gwitnn, birchbark boats designed for both ocean and river travel (318)

The colonist’s name is mentioned but the natives in these stories don’t ever get their names so…the colonist realized that to go further inland he would need the gwitn,  he needed “the boat derived of the landscape realities of the new world” (Raffan 1999a, 24) (318)

the ‘canoe’ as a symbol unique to Canada (Jennings 1991, 1) (319), reworks essentialized aspects of indigenous cultures into a symbol of national health and success” (319) and as a “gift” from natives to settlers. The canoe as unique entity, because of the exploration done by canoe, the canoe is the guard that maintains the boundary of Canadian identity.

A vague connection could be made to the American symbol of the cowboy to the American west except the canoe is more ‘natural’ for being of the land and from the native people and further substantiated in its uniqueness by its use in colonialism.

Canada as a nation has ‘perfected’ the canoe; the only way the canoe can be made perfect is through its ability to be incorporated into European expansion (320) the connection of the land to the canoe as a discourse of inevitability illustrates the privileging of the European subject as the natural inheritors (indeed, the rightful inheritor) of First Nations land…and implicitly heterosexual and patriarchal subject (320-321)

Possibility

“We cannot possibly anticipate what might happen, if we were really to consider the ten million bodies at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean "(Shannon Winnubst, 190) (324)

“Rethinking nature that is not bent toward the utility of power” (324) Opening ourselves to the possibilities of history means addressing the ways in which the ideologies and concrete practices that have formed our current understanding of nature represent more about the desired human outcome than they do about anything nonhuman (324)

Similar to really considering 10 million dead bodies in the Atlantic Ocean, this would mean really considering (as a broad list) the malicious wars over land and fur, the forced conversions, the repeated exposure to flu epidemics, the establishment of reservations and classification of First Nations as wards of the state, and the widespread physical and sexual abuse in residential schools designed to assimilate and civilize a supposed “savage” population” (324).

The Kiss of the Fur Queen is a novel by Tomson Highway, Cree playwright and novelist. Two Cree brothers are taken from their parents to a residential school several hundred miles away at the age of six, baptized into the Catholic church and have their names changed, they forbidden to speak their language and are abused by the priests of the school. They are alienated from their parents by the education and sexual predation of the school priests, but also are disconnected from the land, language and culture of their people…(the canoe plays a central role in the story, where difficult conversations about their alienation take place). As they grow up one of the brothers finds “continual inspiration” from the traditional Cree culture and discovered a “need to know the cultures that were suppressed by the residential school”. “As the crowd dances to the migisoo, the eagle, Gabriel realizes its power: ‘Gabriel saw people talking to the sky, the sky replying.” (Highway 1998) (324-326) (this is a poor summary, i apologize.)

“The movement between tradition and innovation is always fluid and uncharted” (327)

“Thus, while as a quirky national joke, the idea of making love in a canoe surely belongs to the post-sexual revolution of the later twentieth century, we need to remember that as a national symbol, the connection it strives to make between the canoe, nature,  and nation signals a sexual politic that was born of the age of imperialism. “

“As Foucault reminds us, the legacy of the Victorian repression of sexuality is held within the resistance of the sexual revolution that fails to move outside the biopower networks of modern sexuality.” (327)

[autolenaphilia]

I think a lot of the uproar whenever socialists suggest abolishing family and religion of the kind that is best expressed in this sentence: “how can you abolish religion and family, how would we then preserve traditional culture, it would mean cultural genocide and imperialism” stems from a fundamentally idealist understanding of the world. One that misunderstands Marx’s materialist view of history.

I mean idealism in the sense that ideas and culture drive history and societal change. Basically the course of history is decided by a struggle of ideas. This conflict is either peaceful in the liberal sense that people use reason to convince other people of their views, or it is waged by military means, and these military conflicts are seen as motivated by ideology, with the winner imposing their views on the conquered.

This idea is also driven by essentialist ideas literally coming from nationalism and religious “family values” conservatism, that religion, the family and ethnic identity are fundamental to human existence. And the only way for them to go away is for some authoritarian state to force people to give them up.

This creates a fantasy that abolition of family and religion will mean a totalitarian “communist state” using violence to force religious people to give up religion and breaking up families. And I presume said state waging war to force the rest of the world to give up religion and family. Literal cultural genocide with death squads. This fantasy seems to be inspired in part by Hoxhaist Albania’s “state atheism” and European colonialism forcing christianity on Africa and the Americas.

This fantasy however badly misunderstands the Marxian materialist perspective on culture, including family, ethnicity and religion, which is the basis for our predictions about the end of family and religion.

The short version is that we believe that the mode of production determines culture. Cultural institutions like family and religion and all of culture is dependent on certain modes of production, whether that will be feudal, capitalist or socialist. “The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. “ as Marx said. And that by removing the capitalist economic foundation on which family and religion as we now know it stands, a socialist revolution will lead to those institutions naturally being destroyed. People will want to abandon religion and the family because in the socialist system, it will no longer make any sense to them.

Religion acts as both moral justification of and consolation for the sufferings of a class society. A socialist society would not be “a condition that requires illusions” as Marx put it. And as Engels explained all the way back in 1847, communism will end the family “since it does away with private property and educates children on a communal basis, and in this way removes the two bases of traditional marriage – the dependence rooted in private property, of the women on the man, and of the children on the parents.“

One might object that the institutions of the family and religion have survived previous such revolutions, like the transition from feudalism to capitalism. Doesn’t that prove that they are permanent fixtures of human nature? But communism will be something radically different, as the The Communist manifesto explains:

“The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.

But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.

The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas. “

It’s a contradiction in terms to want to “preserve culture” and also want to radically change the economic foundation on which culture stands, any type of “left-wing” position that claims to do both is ridiculous. A wish to “preserve traditional culture” can only lead to a reactionary position, one in which society is kept in stasis, or somehow returned to an earlier state, a stasis which preserves both the economic foundation and with it the culture.

And of course no such stasis has ever actually existed. No economic system and its cultural superstructure is truly static, as history proves. Every culture has gone through multiple cycles of death and rebirth, the most serious are periods of social revolution that transition from one mode of production to another. But between those periods there is usually a constant process of cultural evolution. In the end all cultures have gone though a ship-of-theseus-like total transformation multiple times.

As the manifesto puts it: “What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class. “

In fact, because capitalism is not a static system, we can see changes already happening in existing societies. The widespread secularization in the most advanced capitalist countries in western Europe, for example, shows how the decline of religion can happen peacefully and naturally. It wasn’t violent repression that has caused Swedes to abandon the Lutherean Christanity that once heavily defined Swedish culture, it was because it no longer made any sense in an advanced capitalist society.

In a socialist revolution, there will probably be violence, but it would largely be the reactionaries who would cause it. There was revolutionary violence against the Orthodox Church in the Russian revolution and against the Catholic Church in the Spanish revolution, but that was because the churches sided with the forces of reaction. And the men who benefit from the family, actual patriarchs, will probably react with violence towards any attempt to lessen their power. Even as we speak, men often react to women divorcing them by stepping up their abusive violence.

As for the accusation of imperialism, it’s true that this revolution will be global, because there is no other way to defeat global capitalism. “It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.” as Engels put it. But it will have to be the work of the working class themselves, which precludes a state, local or foreign/imperialist, doing it for them.

As the manifesto puts it: “In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.”

For more information on Marx’s material conception of history, just read Marx and Engels. This is basically all based on Marx’s works specifically. It’s why I don’t use terms like “dialectical materialism” or “historical materialism” or even ���marxism”, because he didn’t use those terms, those descriptions came from later interpreters of his work, but that’s outside the scope of this text.

The works I quoted above are a good starting point. The preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy has a great introduction to his views, Marx himself summarizes them in a single paragraph and the whole book is worth reading. Regarding religion, another preface that states Marx’s view very clearly is the often-quoted introduction to A Contribution to the critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right, the source of the “religion is the opium of the people” quote. The Communist Manifesto is of course worth reading and quoted at length above. Engels wrote a FAQ-style draft of the manifesto called The Principles of Communism in 1847 that quite literally answers common questions about communism, particularly relevant to this post are the answers to questions 19-23.

[merik72-blog]

What if Furina wasn't a girlfailure for 500 years? (Shorteneder Version (still long))

Off the top, I'm not a lore expert. If this doesn't make sense lore-wise, feel free to tell me all about it. Expect it, even. I just wanted to write this down because after experiencing her story, (when it dropped months ago in version 4) this idea just never got out of my head. I process media in a way where I'm constantly thinking on the level of "why did the authors make these specific decisions?", and I couldn't shake the feeling that the authors lacked a bit of imagination when considering just how long 5 centuries is. I have like over a thousand words of why I think this which includes a discussion of historicity and biblical allusion. I cut it all -- nobody wants to read that.

That being said, this is somewhere between a rewrite and like a notes document. In this, Furina is still fundamentally the same character. Her personality and mannerisms should be basically identical, even if she's more competent. This rewrite hopes to preserve the main beats of her arc: The confrontation by Arlecchino, the disaster which causes people to doubt her godliness, the trial, and a backstory which makes you pity her. I'm going to lay these out in chronological order, rather than plot order.

Backstory

Focalors told Furina the prophecy, leaving her terrified and overwhelmed. All the people of Fontaine will drown, and she will be left alone, crying on her throne. Despite her horror, some rebellious gumption rose up in her soul and allows her to steel herself. Much like Focalors before her, despite being handed a doomed situation, Furina decided that there was nothing she couldn't fight back against, even fate. Knowing that there's a flood coming, she put together a plan.

Furina decided that she would hold grand competitions every decade, gathering the greatest tinkerers, engineers, architects, anyone with interesting ideas in her nation to show off their most creative inventions, no matter what those inventions did. She would call these competitions Fontaine's Utopique Rendezvous for Industrie Nouvelleté, et Audacé* (FURINA). As their god, Fontainian culture was her privilege and responsibility to shape, so innovation and technological advancement would be placed at the core. With great patience, she would lead Fontaine from the Medieval age to the Industrial revolution. During FURINAs, as she strolled through the streets of Fontaine, the entrants displayed and described their creations to her to each would be personally judged by her. There is not a maximum or minimum of winners, there are only those who do and do not catch the eye of the Hydro Archon. At the end of the competition, she rewards the winners with her patronage to sponsor them and their ideas. These winners would come to be informally known as FURINA Scholars. She created these patron relationships usually with the goal of creating or improving a public infrastructure project or taking a particularly fascinating or promising invention from an impractical novelty to mass producible technology that anyone could use. FURINA Scholars had a hard time limit of 10 years, being required to present their progress publicly at the next FURINA by the latest. The results of these varied from practical, aesthetic, to insanely niche novelty toys you'd expect a French aristocrat to buy.

A lot of real kings and queens can't dedicate themselves to advancement in this way because their bureaucracy, the power structure beneath them, know that they don't have to be beholden to them forever. Each bureaucrat knows there will be another younger ruler eventually who would could be manipulated into giving more to them and less to the people. Not so with Furina. She would use the royal coffers however she wanted to, and nobody could speak out against her, lest they be hit with the combination blasphemy-treason from the judgement of the Oratrice Mechanique d'Analyse Cardinale.

(*This is intentionally butchered French, in line with the Oratrice Mechanique d'Analyse Cardinale. If you can't read it, it's basically Fontaine's Utopian Conference for Industry, Novelty, and Audacity. It's a funny acronym, and a bit on the nose in multiple ways, but I think it would be something she would come up with. I imagine that Furina would never call it FURINA, but over time people would start calling it "the FURINA" and eventually "the FURINA de Fontaine" in the way that people always start butchering acronyms when they become normal words.)

Every day, Furina's free time between these FURINAs was spent studying, learning, testing, and inventing in her study. If Fontaine was to be flooded by rising waters, she herself would be dedicated to finding a way to allow Fontaine to survive any flood. Out of the public eye, she found ways to spend every spare moment honing her skills and iterating her designs. She quickly learned to dismiss attendants that came to her with some spurious legislative work whenever she left the Opera Epiclese. Go to Neuvillette! She had a duty which so obviously rendered such things spurious. Paperwork? When Fontaine could be drowned any year now?

(Just as in the real story, it's implied that Neuvillette is vaguely aware that she must be working incredibly hard, but she deliberately hides her toil from everyone, including him.)

Obsessively, tirelessly, she toiled single-mindedly towards in designing super-structures capable of diverting, pumping, or otherwise controlling vast amounts of water. As she would sketch mockups of grand designs, she was thinking of public excuses for doing this rather than just using her "archon powers." It would make her seem more benevolent to say something like "I cannot be everywhere at once, and I need to be sure that the people of Fontaine shall not suffer a disaster under my rule, even out from under my watchful gaze." It was even true, in a way. Over the centuries, she carried out plans for every major Fontaine settlement's coastline and the entire capitol city to be protected by works of engineering which were equally intricate and gargantuan. At the same time, they balanced preserving the beauty of coastlines and consistency in aesthetic that is paramount for France. She directed the creations of these superstructures over generations with clarity and consistency in intent. She eventually became capable of concocting ideas that were not possible with currently invented technology, her innovation outdoing the rate of technological advancement. That meant she was not nearly finished. Waiting for technology to catch up with her ideas was always a good opportunity to update the physical build of her superstructures.

Despite her having already gathered vast and unmatched generational knowledge after her first full century of study, she still continued FURINAs to find the best and brightest minds of each generation. (If it must be done for Genshin's thematic consistency or ideology, these can all even be vision holders). These inventors who all grew up in the context of Furina's unparalleled genius had the privilege of standing on the shoulders of a giant. Innovations begot innovations, forming a virtuous loop which drove unprecedented progress in industrialization leading to evolutions in technology especially in civil engineering and hydrodynamics. As Furina's knowledge and mastery over engineering slowly but surely surpassed mortal limits, FURINAs seemed to be more and more judged based on eccentric, incomprehensible whims. With relative frequency, participants would watch seemingly impressive inventions be passed over, meanwhile random toys that just made her giggle and applaud would win. She would say "I just find these trinkets so charming!" but in truth, she saw potential in central conceits in inventions that had the chance to change the underpinnings of Fontaine's infrastructure. Or she just genuinely found them charming.

As time passed, Furina's structures continually improved to a point that they did not just avoid, but very publicly Dominated countless floods and storms that would have been disastrous otherwise. These creations legitimized her godhood and won her adoration in the eyes of the people, who wove countless folktales over the ages telling the tales of Furina's power - herding hurricanes and subjugating tsunamis. At the same time, this made her prodigious skill for the dramatic arts even more impressive through the plurality of her talents. This resulted in many full circle moments, where Furina would play herself in epics about her overcoming disasters, not that she wrote, of course. These would sometimes exaggerate her powers, like giving her omniscience or visions of the future, the perfect designs flowing freely and naturally from her hands, as though they were as effortless as breathing.

Of course, she was not truly invincible. Slowly, she started to fray. As new innovations became more difficult, technology caught up to her designs. After the superstructure renovations commemorating the 4th century of her rule, she was distraught. This was the first time she had updated her superstructures without the plan for the next one at least partially completed. She needed to spend more of her energy pondering, as just her "free" time was insufficient. This led to her to becoming more absentminded during official duties, having forgone sleep or being still caught up ruminating on how to optimize designs, improve existing technology, or apply them in a novel way, but for some reason nothing was coming to her after a few years of different experiments and trials. Even in discussions with her FURINA Scholars, they stopped having new ideas in hydrodynamic engineering projects, being drawn towards other directions where they wouldn't need to compete with god. As she crossed the 450-year mark, she was becoming increasingly aware of the fact that her designs weren't nearly enough to protect the entire country and even further from perfect. For the better part of the last century, any improvement had been like trying to squeeze water from a stone. In the last ten years, she has probably improved her latest flood barriers by less than a liter of water. 30 more years restarting from scratch over and over with her current knowledge, no meaningful improvement.

For the 48th FURINA, she decided out of desperation to hold a hydro-themed FURINA. As she walked the streets of Fontaine, talking to each inventor as they presented their work, she was distraught. A marked decrease meaningful innovation. Worse than this, she noticed that inventors were less interested in creating submissions for this FURINA. The sentiment she was picking up on was that they felt futility in even trying. What was the point of trying to innovate in a field that they can hardly understand? The cutting edge of hydro-related innovation was driven so far by Furina that they felt mortals need not apply. Who could even be given the privilege of becoming the decade's FURINA Scholars from such a lackluster field...? As always, she found a way to get out of a dismaying situation. She crowned herself as the winner, made a grandiose speech about who she was still unmatched in the domain of Hydro, and unveiled her side project of the Aquabus.

At the end of the hydro-FURINA, Furina had never felt so alone. For the first time since her first decade, she had not the faintest idea of what to do from here. Nobody did. She had already pushed to and past limit of her knowledge, of her peoples' knowledge, and the limits of material possibility in Teyvat. All of these centuries had passed her by, all these sleepless nights, all her evolutions in the design of Fontaine to fortify it, for what? A worm, wriggling on a stone, drying out in the sun. If she failed to prevent the flood now, what would any of that time mean?

Furina found herself standing in her study, towering alone above the room crowded with her innovations, blueprints, experiments. Her gaze floated over each page; her life's work surrounded her. Broken mechanisms, meaningless scribbles, trials without results. Countless wasted mines of materials, countless wasted gallons of ink, and countless wasted centuries of labor by her precious hardworking people. Not realizing she was fully sobbing, she slumped to the floor, picking up the blueprint of one of her latest redesigns. She couldn't see anything aside from bodies floating in the water. Her mind replayed the faces of every person whom she's ever worked with or learned from, whose families she met, and every child of Fontaine whom she watched grow. They died all the same. Her vision started to swirl as their faces closed in around her. They rose up all around her from the waters in her blueprints. She grasped at them desperately, begging them to stay with her. On her side, shaking, sobbing, with a bundle of ripped and crumbled papers clutched against her. For the first time since she was told the prophecy, she felt truly helpless. Out of the corner of her eye, she saw her mirror. She scrambled through a carpet of papers, trinkets, and tools to touch her forehead to the glass.

"Mirror me, I-I've been doing everything I can. Our people have been trying, too! They worked so very hard, and they've built my all of designs beautifully."

Silence.

"Please, tell me you know something, anything that I can do now. I need to know. I can't let it end like this."

Silence.

"I never imagined that... that we'd even make it this far, mirror me." Furina was sitting now. With a smile on her face, she still couldn't stop the tears as she leaned against the mirror. "They truly are my pride and joy." Barely more than a whisper, an "I'm sorry" escaped her lips.

She had been doing her best for so long, but she had certainty now. Her best would not be enough.

A real Archon would be able to overcome this. On her own strength.

Furina cursed her inadequacy, mourning the people of Fontaine in her heart. It was torture. Every day, her job was to look at all the wonderful people that she was failing every day, people whom she was dooming through her weakness. During trials, she entirely lost the ability to focus on what's happening in front of her, her comments in the Opera becoming nonsensical and detached. More often, she handed off interpretations directly to Neuvillette, and tears sometimes leaked through when doing her fan meetups. Somehow, she still managed to hide her turmoil with audacious bravado as always. She felt more internally frantic as more years came and went. It was like desperately treading treacherous waters as she needed more and more effort to simply maintain surface appearances. The 49th and 50th FURINAs were brief respites from the gloom. Despite all of the stress in her life, the silly novelties of her people could still bring her joy. But when she returned to her private abode, she found that sometimes, not every time, she didn't want to work anymore. Instead, she would lay in her bed. Stillness without rest.

Her dead eyes blinked slowly, making no tears. She pondered, "How long has it been?" When she stared down at her hands, she could still see the souls of every Fontanian leaking through her fingers. The harder she tried to hold onto them, the further they'd splatter away. If only she had more time. Time, as always, passed anyway.

Plot time

Now, this is when the incident happens. Furina just hit rock bottom as the Traveler comes to town. Everything in the plot that played out in the main story happens mostly the same. This retroactively explains why all of Furina's arguments in the Mysterious Disappearances trials are so weak. Sure, she has a lot of experience presiding over trials, and it may be a top priority for her since this Furina is also excited about the opportunity for a Grand Trial that Focalors told her about, but she is so far from being on the top of her game right now.

Over centuries, Furina built this idea of infallibility, weaving a narrative to reaffirm her godhood. Fontainians believed that because each design was crafted by Furina directly, she made sure that none of them could ever fail using her uniquely intimate knowledge of the Hydro element. When Arlecchino called for an audience with Furina about the impending incident of unprecedented scale in Poisson, Furina was not just small or helpless with no excuse. Furina imposed upon Arlecchino as a god in her own land. There was to be absolute faith in her creations. Her power over hydro would never allow a Fontainian to come to harm.

"What does a puny rat like you think you know? I've thrown out socks that were older than you. Smarter, too."

Like a true god, she gaslit Arlecchino about what information Arlecchino had regarding the flood coming to Poisson. As the Regina of All Waters, not only did she have access to more information through her national information network, she also simply understood Hydro in a way that mortals couldn't comprehend. This is one of the only times that Arlecchino would seem even a little shaken by anything.

Furina didn't refuse to take precautions because she's a depressed NEET; Furina placed herself in this position where she simply could not possibly even suggest taking precautions. That would imply to Arlecchino and by extent the people of Fontaine that there was a weakness in her absolute power over Hydro and, by proxy, her status as archon. In previous centuries, she had only ever commanded upgrades to earlier designs as technology advanced to allow her to better realize her intended designs.

This made it all the more world-shattering for Fontainians when the symbols of their god, their faith in her power, warped and bursted under the immense pressure of more water than seemingly possible in nature (this flood is mega buffed in this plotline). The damage was horrific, but would be much much worse if not for the efforts of Arlecchino and the Spina di Rosula. This was the first time that anyone has doubted her as god, and nobody who doubted even wanted to because they've had faith for so long.

The trial proceeds nearly exactly as in the game, with the additional wrinkle that her centuries of age needs to be a hint as to how she could be such a genius of engineering without being the Hydro Archon.

After the trial

After her liberation, much of Furina's story is the same. She is so incredibly burnt out after finally being free that she has the same despondent attitude as she does in the game. She doesn't really invent in her free time, as she's a bit traumatized by the memory and sensation of using those tools. Even picking up a screwdriver reminds her of hundreds of years of sleepless nights experimenting desperately with the weight of the world on her shoulders.

The only real things that would change after the Archon quest would be -

In her character quest, Furina surprises everyone by proudly declaring her return to the stage on her own, having thoroughly enjoyed her time with the ragtag troupe. After a handful of lifetimes of endless labor with a dash of theatre, having the opportunity to do theatre full time sounds like great fun. The reason that she wouldn't have started before this quest is because of her burnout and exhaustion buildup ofc.

In Roses and Muskets, just take out all the times where Furina's trauma is played for laughs, or times where she's outwardly timid in a public conversation, especially when directing. Furina's reaction to imposing in public situations should be so well trained after playing archon should be instinctual after 500 years that she never gets caught slipping by an unfortunate circumstance. In private, she can still of course be her quirky self.

At the end of Roses and Muskets, she's not awkward about receiving the trophy. She's really happy, overjoyed even, having not been able to participate in any competitions herself in Archon era.

During Lantern Rite, Furina is on Cloud 9, going crazy and stupid finally leaving the country. She is positively giggly being charmed and intrigued by every single little thing in Liyue which is different from Fontaine. She walks around the street asking people about ridiculous and mundane things, like "What wood is this fence made out of?", "Do all your boats really need sails? Where are their engines?", "What techniques were employed to build villages on all these hills?", "Where is the toilet in this establishment?... oh Me... running hydro? DO YOU NOT HAVE ANY PLUMBING-", and various other questions about architecture, technology, and everything else she'd notice as someone otherwise incredibly knowledgeable who'd been stuck in one country for centuries.

Anyway, as a thanks for reading my yap, here are some drawings of tinkerer Furina loving life

[vahvah]

Well, I think the situation around the perception of iranian history and greek history in fandom is quite similar.

Let's be honest, for most people there is only Ancient Greece (by which they mean the history of the classical greek city-states + hellenistic period + roman period, we are not particularly touching on the dark ages and bronze age Mycenaean Greece, not to mention earlier times), which they - following the manga/anime canon - separate from modern Greece. And there is modern Greece, which, in general, began its independent existence in the first half of the nineteenth century, when a small piece of territory in the southern Balkans gained independence and was called “Hellas”. At best, they have ottoman rule as a kind of “preparatory period” when the canonical Iraklis grew up, did not understand anything and did not really decide anything. And at the same time, modern Greece is the son of Ancient Greece, who loves to be nostalgic about his cool mother, who did something great there more than two thousand years ago. Cool, yeah.

Likewise, for most people there is "ancient Persia" (before the conquest of the Islamic Caliphate in the 7th and 8th centuries AD) and "modern Iran", which they count from the Islamization of the Iranian plateau. In the manga canon, we have a character called "Persia", who people unthinkingly identify with the Achaemenid state, the Parthian Arsacid state, and the Sassanid state. In fanon, he (“Persia”) actively interacts (at war) with Rome, interacts with China and India in much rarer cases, and the mangaka also mentioned that he has descendants, one of which is “modern” Iran, yes. And, of course, there is an incredible amount of time devoted to the Achaemenid period (but not the greco-persian Wars, which shocked me when researching the fandom). Cool, yeah.

But you know what's surprising? None of this makes any sense.

If we take Greece... no, we take greek culture, we will understand that it has continuously developed, without gaps, from the time of the classical polis until the present moment, BUT, if you really want to find a watershed, then this is late antiquity. Why? Because in late antiquity, the pagan hellenes, living in their separate city-states as citizens, became christian rhomeans, subjects of the vast Eastern Roman Empire (which in fact is still perceived as a Republic). The roman "imperial" identity replaced the greek polis identity - although the greek language still dominated in the East, especially after the Avar conquest of the Balkans, when the Empire lost the latin-speaking provinces. The perception of “hellenic” identity was very complex, it experienced a revival, especially in the 13th century, when the roman/latin identity began to be associated with the germans/italians/franks, enemies of the Eastern Empire, but this is if we are talking about intellectuals - the people considered themselves rhomeans. And guess what? The conquest of Constantinople in 1453 did not change anything! There was no break or fracture! The Church of Constantinople continued to be the guardian of this identity even in the absence of christian imperial power! And the people who started the Greek Revolution in the 19th century did not strive to create a small national state, no, in their eyes ALL of Anatolia and the Balkans were the historical lands of the Eastern Roman Empire, which they considered their country. The fascination with ancient pagan Greece is something that was brought from the West, which despised “Byzantium”.

And if you look at Iran, the real boundary between "ancient" and "modern" history is the conquest of Alexander the Great. Because - this will amaze many - but until the second half of the 19th century in Iran itself they knew nothing about the ancient history of the country! The first historical event preserved in chronicles and art, say, the "Shahnameh" of Ferdowsi, is the conquest of Alexander, which has nothing to do with the real one (I will only say that Alexander is considered a descendant of the iranian royal dynasty there). In Iran, they knew almost nothing about the greco-persian wars, about the Seleucids, about the parthian Arsacids and the roman-parthian wars! The real history in Iranian perception began only with the Sassanids, who were at enmity with “Rum” - but, first of all, not with Western, decrepit Rome, but with Eastern Rome! It was “Byzantium” that was “Rome” for the Iranians and for the entire Middle East until the 19th century, while the Western “latins” were the “franks”. Moreover, I want to note that the complete forgetting of the history of the country before Alexander in Iran began even under the Sassanids - largely because ancient persian was a cuneiform language, and cuneiform was forgotten (as for the iranian epic, its oldest part is eastern iranian in origin, western iranian, persian, it becomes only from the time of Ardashir the First). But the arab conquest and adoption of islam did not have such consequences! And when the revival of iranian culture and the new persian language began in the 9th-10th centuries A.D., it was a revival, albeit rethought, of Sassanian identity.

In short, while it makes sense to separate Ancient Greece from "Byzantium", it makes no sense to separate "Byzantium" from modern Greece. And the history of modern Iran begins with the Sassanids, not Islamization.

[sherrysicle]

You can tell a lot about a culture from their views on and how they enforce modesty. It is reflected in the garments people wear, but also in their laws and values. It could represent one’s faith, a history of colonisation, or a struggle for freedom and equality. In this statement, I will mostly be focusing on modesty in dress.

In India, the saree is a traditional form of dress for women, and originally it was worn over bare breasts. However, this offended the British sense of morality, and so they introduced the blouse to the saree which is still worn to this day. Like in the myth of the Garden of Eden, not being appropriately clothed was seen as a trait of the unenlightened, a sign of barbarism. This perception of the locals fostered a sense of superiority among the colonizers and reinforced the belief that they were saving the locals by transforming them from being primitive to civilised.

Interestingly, it can be said that the opposite is true now. Many people who think of themselves as modern, free from the prejudices of past decades, are opposed to modest dressing. They believe it to be a symbol of outdated ideas of the patriarchy, and viewing the cultures that still hold onto these values as backwards, and that women living in these places need to be saved.

One of these places is Iran, which was once a place where women dressed in western clothes, but now has mandatory veiling laws for women who are not allowed to go in public without their Hijab. Mahsa Amini is a woman who did not comply with this law and was arrested by morality police and beaten, which eventually led to her death. This sparked outrage, with Iranian women coming together to protest, conducting self unveiling and hijab burnings in solidarity despite the threat of police violence.

On the other extreme, the controversial French hijab ban looks at this issue from a realist standpoint. They see these garments as not only a security threat but also a religious symbol which goes against their secular values, believing that their national identity as citizens of France should come above their religious identities, and so people should not be allowed to wear their religious attire in public. Muslim women however argue that they do not understand the intersectional and cultural reasons for veiling themselves.

From a Marxist perspective, modesty, or even immodesty, could just be another marketing tactic to profit off women’s bodies. By co-opting feminist movements and commodifying values on both sides, the bourgeoisie is able to exploit women for their own gain while framing it as empowerment.

Social constructivists might believe that modesty is just a construct created to police women’s bodies. Standards of dress are always changing depending on time and place; a knee-length dress might be seen as prudish in this day and age, but go back to a few centuries ago and it would have been the town scandal. And who decided that male nipples are perfectly chaste, but women’s nipples are suddenly inherently sexual? See the “free the nipple” movement which opposed the double standards of how men are allowed to go shirtless publicly while women are not.

There’s many intersectional ways to look at this issue, but at its core it is a feminist one, especially because ideas around modesty are almost always applied to women exclusively. Like many other issues, not every feminist would agree on the same solution or answer.

First wave feminists largely followed the cultural norms of modesty at that time, fearing being seen as too radical.

Second wave feminists however fought against modesty, believing it to be tools of the patriarchy, and another way that women had to submit to men. They believed it restricted women’s autonomy and freedom. They conducted bra burnings and wore miniskirts. Many of these ideas went hand in hand with the sexual revolution of the 60s that believed in the sexual liberation of women.

Third wave feminists saw being immodest as empowering, as it was a sign of body positivity, self expression, and sexual freedom, also seen in the celebration of sex work. However, they also believed that modesty was ultimately a woman’s choice, whether it was to wear a bikini or a burka. In fact, veiling could be seen as a feminist statement. They believed women should not be judged by what they choose to wear, and ultimately being able to choose was the most important thing.

Fourth wave feminists continue these ideas but with a new emphasis on intersectionality and critiques of capitalism.

Radical feminists however reject the hyper-sexualisation of women because it objectifies women for male consumption and pleasure, and that it just plays into the male gaze. They might believe in body neutrality instead of body positivity, believing it is more important to decenter women’s appearance.

An argument against choice feminism is that any choice made under patriarchy is a choice affected by years of conditioning, pressure, and coercion from society. Can you really make a choice true to yourself when the other option is disappointing your family, being seen as a prude, or being told that you will suffer eternally in hell?

The brief states that I should include a set of conclusions, but the truth is I don’t have an answer. Yes, it is a construct, but we do live in a society, where ideas and values manifest in very real ways. As a designer and a feminist, I am ever fascinated by the politics of clothing. I do design feminine clothes, and I do design in conventionally “flattering” silhouettes. I wonder how societal conventions have shaped my taste. Unfortunately, I do not and will never know the answer. Under patriarchy, women are denied even the illusion of autonomy over their choices.