#and i do not want to do either with the racist undertones

[sukibenders]

Racism and misogynoir are so apparent in fandom, especially when it comes to shipping because why is it when a white male, sometimes female but I see it more with the former, character is on screen with a love interest, particularly woc, especially if they're black, and even with all the emotional scenes or just moments where they look at one another in ways different from the rest, it's met with "No, they aren't dating/the show is not going to put them together" but let the other love interest be white as well and suddenly it all makes sense? Heck, the examples I mentioned above don't even have to exist between the latter for some to STILL go and believe this rhetoric (eg. some Jace and Helaena shippers because, even if these two only interacted with a dance but yet we see Baela console Jace, after he seeks her out, apparently it's to far fetched to believe that Jacela could be a thing?!)

Sometimes it could be a headcanon that, largely, would make sense (and oftentimes was birth due to lack of respect that the poc characters could have been given by the writers *cough* TVD *cough*), and yet you'd still have people dismissing it left and right and spewing hate. At a HEADCANON! And I'm not saying that just because the other person in the ship is poc that you have to ship them, I'm not, but it's very apparent to many poc fans in fandom that unless the characters are swapping spit and doing the nasty, the possibility of them being viewed in any romantic lens feels too much of stretch even though their white counterparts don't have to jump through the same loops.

[wisheswagered]

read the ganji letter leaks... trying to decide how i feel.

[cuntylouis]

Haven't seen many people talk about it but the stuff around sexuality in this episode was so fucked up. The entire premise of the trial is the racist victim blaming narrative where Louis was a lustful predator preying on Lestat. Lestat relentlessly calling Louis to come to him is flipped around so that Louis was saying with his every action 'come to me', and when he denies it he's told he still must've done it at least unconsciously and caused Lestat to become obsessed with him. Louis' attractiveness and mere existence is seen as manipulative and seductive, and it's his fault when someone wants him, literally 'she was asking for it'. Louis and Lestat's relationship being a traditional marriage is emphasized, with Louis agreeing to Lestat's offer of companionship in church at the altar 'with a kiss of acceptance' - and thus agreeing to everything that marriage has historically encompassed for a woman, including obedience and constant sexual availability. It's emphasized that Louis not giving Lestat enough affection and not 'sharing his body' with him anymore is what directly caused the cheating and later domestice violence - with an implication that it was justified since Louis didn't fulfill his marital duties, and the audience agrees. Lestat talking about seven years of 'compromise and denial' and Santiago saying that Lestat was 'teased until he toppled' has sexual undertones too i.e. Louis withholding sex from Lestat is what caused him to lose control.

Lestat skips over the part where he bites and forcibly drinks from Louis, maybe because he's particularly ashamed of it, but Santiago saying 'to us monters, what's a bite between paramours' is a clear reference to it. When you consider that drinking from other vampire against their will is seen as akin to sexual assault among vampires, they're essentially joking about marital rape. Lestat says he's 'burdened with his maker's temper', when Magnus assaulted him and in the books Lestat calls it rape. In 2.05 Daniel said that he could 'be on his knees in a second' if Armand lets him go and in this episode Louis literally gets on his knees for Lestat begging that 'he'll do anything, be anything' if Lestat turns Claudia. I don't think either Louis or Lestat was thinking of any sexual meaning in that moment, but it's kind of hard to avoid that implication when Louis was suffering of low libido and Lestat was already very sexually frustrated with their relationship at that point. Like everything in the show is recontextualized when you know that Louis promised Lestat that he'd never leave him, and do everything he wants, and be happy if Lestat just saved Claudia. And he never left, not in those seven years, not when Claudia tried to leave in ep6, not even after ep5, even though he kicks Lestat out he still doesn't leave New Orleans or say that their relationship is over. That dissociative sex scene in ep6 where Louis pretends that everything is fine while having a full telepathic conversation with Claudia about how he's not going to leave is even more unsettling now

[ofbreathandflame-archive]

With the rise of booktok/booktwt, there's been this weird movement against literary criticism. It's a bizarre phenomenon, but this uptick in condemnation of criticism is so stifling. I understand that with the rise of these platforms, many people are being reintroduced into the habit of reading, which is why at the base level, I understand why many 'popular' books on booktok tend to be cozier.

The argument always falls into the 'this book means too much to me' or 'let people enjoy things,' which is rhetoric I understand -- at least fundamentally. But reading and writing have always been conduits for criticism, healthy natural criticism. We grow as writers and readers because of criticism. It's just so frustrating to see arguments like "how could you not like this character they've been the x trauma," or "why read this book if you're not going to come out liking it," and it's like...why not. That has always been the point of reading. Having a character go through copious amounts of trauma does not always translate to a character that's well-crafted. Good worldbuilding doesn't always translate to having a good story, or having beautiful prose doesn't always translate into a good plot.

There is just so much that goes into writing a story other than being able to formulate tropable (is that a word lol) characters. Good ideas don't always translate into good stories. And engaging critically with the text you read is how we figure that out, how we make sure authors are giving us a good craft. Writing is a form of entertainment too, and just like we'd do a poorly crafted show, we should always be questioning the things we read, even if we enjoy those things.

It's just werd to see people argue that we shouldn't read literature unless we know for certain we are going to like it. Or seeing people not be able to stand honest criticism of the world they've fallen in love with. I love ASOIAF -- but boy oh boy are there a lot of problems in the story: racial undertones, questionable writing decisions, weird ness overall. I also think engaging critically helps us understand how an author's biases can inform what they write. Like, HP Lovecraft wrote eerie stories, he was also a raging racist. But we can argue that his fear of PoC, his antisemitism, and all of his weird fears informed a lot of what he was writing. His writing is so eerie because a lot of that fear comes from very real, nasty places. It's not to say we have to censor his works, but he influences a lot of horror today and those fears, that racial undertone, it is still very prevalent in horror movies today. That fear of the 'unknown,'

Gone with the Wind is an incredibly racist book. It's also a well-written book. I think a lot of people also like confine criticism to just a syntax/prose/technical level -- when in reality criticism should also be applied on an ideological level. Books that are well-written, well-plotted, etc., are also -- and should also -- be up for criticism. A book can be very well-written and also propagate harmful ideologies. I often read books that I know that (on an ideological level), I might not agree with. We can learn a lot from the books we read, even the ones we hate.

I just feel like we're getting to the point where people are just telling people to 'shut up and read' and making spaces for conversation a uniform experience. I don't want to be in a space where everyone agrees with the same point. Either people won't accept criticism of their favorite book, or they think criticism shouldn't be applied to books they think are well written. Reading invokes natural criticism -- so does writing. That's literally what writing is; asking questions, interrogating the world around you. It's why we have literary devices, techniques, and elements. It's never just taking the words being printed at face value.

You can identify with a character's trauma and still understand that their badly written. You can read a story, hate everything about it, and still like a character. As I stated a while back, I'm reading Fourth Wing; the book is terrible, but I like the main character. The worldbuilding is also terrible, but the author writes her PoC characters with respect. It's not hard to acknowledge one thing about the text, and still find enough to enjoy the book. And authors grow when we're honest about what worked and what didn't work. Shadow and Bone was very formulaic and derivative at points, but Six of Crows is much more inventive and inclusive. Veronica Roth's Carve the Mark had some weird racial problems, but Chosen Ones was a much better book in terms of representation. Percy Jackson is the same way. These writers grow, not just by virtue of time, but because they were critiqued and listened to that critique. C.S. Lewis and Tolkien always publically criticized each other's work. Zora Neale Hurston and Langston Hughes had a legendary friendship and back and forth with one another's works which provides so much insight into the conversations black authors and creatives were having.

Writing has always been about asking questions; prodding here and there, critiquing. It has always been a conversation, a dialogue. I urge people to love what they read, and read what they love, but always ask questions, always understand different perspectives, and always keep your mind open. Please stop stifling and controlling the conversations about your favorite literature, and please understand that everyone will not come out with the same reading experience as you. It doesn't make their experience any less valid than yours.

[ot3]

Hi, I just finished the AA trilogy with my bf and we fell in love with it! I found your blog the other day, and it sometimes feels like you're the only one giving correct takes on these characters' writing and the minutiae of everyone's inner worlds (or the fumbling of, see Godot).

I just got here, but, something that's been bothering me about the fandom's approach to the sequel trilogy is like... the imperialist undertones are glossed over, or swept under the rug. Researching "The Dark Age of the Law" and beyond puts a sour taste in my mouth. And with Khura'in the country vs Kurain the village? It all feels racist at best (the concept of the Divination Seance gives me squick). If you have the time, I'd love to hear your thoughts about AA5 and AA6 in relation to the world of AA as a whole. Thanks again for all of your thoughtful and nuanced takes on this series!

so glad to hear you guys liked the games!! thank you for enjoying my posts, i always appreciate it.

the tl;dr of it is that i do think they are genuinely bad enough additions to the franchise that they have signed mainline ace attorney's death warrant. picking out the dark age of the law stuff and aa5 and the imperialism in aa6 you've pretty much honed right in on my two biggest critiques

however i do want to say that although they're being bundled and sold as a 'second trilogy' that's not quite accurate either experientially when playing the games or from a development perspective. aa4 had scenario design/creative direction by series creator shu takumi, with the art director being kazuya nuri (responsible for character design for rise from the ashes in the series previous to this); aa5+6 was spearheaded by takeshi yamazaki, who had been with the franchise since its first game, with the slightly less tenured takuro fuse on art direction/character design. yamazaki and fuse are not without skill, but i think they're both significantly less skilled than takumi and nuri respectively and. it really shows.

pair that with the fact that aa5 and 6 fundamentally do not follow up on any of ace attorney 4's established characters or plots more than superficially, i don't think it's particularly useful to critique 4-5-6 as if they're a single body of work in the same way the trilogy is. apollo justice isn't a perfect* ace attorney game but it's a good one.

anyway i think buying into the 'dark age of the law' stuff in ace attorney 5 necessitates cheapening all of the events preceding it. the implication that 1. the law wasn't that bad before but it Is Now and 2. a single case was the tipping point for whether or not the entire legal system would be bad just ruins the times when ace attorney has managed to acknowledge corrupt systems as a massive source of problem for the everyman in the past

i think this screenshot from the dark age of the law wiki page says a lot:

For starters, that phoenix quote. He would not fucking say that. I don't think there has ever been a point during or leading up to phoenix's career where he thought the legal system had 'glory' he would then want to restore it to. you seem to get it so im not gonna harp on this too much on this but. jesus christ

then, then there's fact that even by stating the most basic details about the franchise's events undermines the whole premise. like okay notice that the corruption that happens during the trilogy/investigations spinoffs is coming from all of the actual agencies that represent law and order/the system: the prosecutors, the police, and the prosecutorial investigation committee. however in aa5 the thing they choose to paint as responsible for supposedly unprecedented levels of corruption in the legal system is defense attorneys resorting to more drastic means, and the general public; aka not the people who are responsible for upholding the legal system but the people who are victimized by it and in opposition to it.

i don't think this was an intentional choice as much as it's just sloppy, inconsiderate, and contrived writing.

aa6 is just flat out racist. 'imperalist undertones' is i would say the gentlest way you could phrase it. like. japanese characters going to a made up south asian country that needs to be taught how to govern itself to quash its internal rebellion is like. so high on the yikes meter.

making a bunch of fake 'ethnic sounding' nonsense names filled with apostrophes to make them into silly sounding english phrasing was a disastrously tone deaf thing for the localization to do. they're really unforgivable. the worst of it all is probably "Inga Karkhuul Haw'kohd Dis'nahm Bi'ahni Lawga Ormo Pohmpus Da'nit Ar'edi Iz Khura'in III" i'm unsure if the names are quite as offensive in the original japanese because i haven't looked too much into what they actually are and have a really limited knowledge of the language. but. this name in japanese is "インガ・カルクール・ククルーラ・ラルバン・ギジール・ホフダラン・マダラ・ヴィラ・ヤシマ・ジャクティエール・クライン３世" which is written in katakana. katakana is, in contrast to kanji and hiragana which are used for writing japanese, used to phoenetically transcribe foreign languages or to write loan words. so the foreign-ness of this character is being emphasized here in the original text as well.

the supposed cultural inferiority of the khurainese people is baked into the game at pretty much every level, down to the gags. khura'in has the 'plumed punisher' show, which is actively criticized by the characters in game for just being a cheap ripoff of the steel samurai. they don't even get to have their own tv.

i believe the reason the racism is pretty much glossed over a lot in the fandom is for several reasons. for starters, ace attorney fans overall tend to fall into three camps: 1. people like me who fucking hate these games, refuse to acknowledge them, and would retcon them out of existence if possible. 2. people who have found things they like about the game and have a Good Version of the characters and plots that they have constructed in their head and 3. people who view all of the hate on these games as completely overblown

the first camp Does talk about how the game is racist but we're all already in agreement about that so it's kind of preaching to the choir and a bit redundant to keep going on about. the second camp tends to acknowledge the stickier aspects of the game but focuses on making content around the elements they like rather than critique. the third camp is the type to throw the baby out with the bathwater re: critiquing a thing they like. it's all haterism to them. but either way i think its kind of fucked up how many people will be like 'aa6 isnt that bad you guys are just mean' without even acknowledging these complaints.

anyway the khura'in country vs kurain village thing is really weird to me it shows both a lack of imagination and a disregard for the series' own established lore. why would a girl from a village where almost everyone is a spirit medium need to go to a place where only, like, two people are mediums to train.

i will say though that the divination seance is kind of one of the only things i found about aa6 to be an interesting addition. for a franchise with ghost summoning and murder solving, the two have a kind of hilariously low amount of overlap so i found the idea of bringing ghost bullshit into court really fun. mechanically speaking, the divination seances also felt a LOT better to play than the mood matrix segments of aa5.

in general, i think the biggest weakness of the mainline franchise under takeshi yamazaki's stewardship is its misunderstanding of stakes. both aa5 and 6 prioritize more bombastic and impressive on paper material stakes. oh no! the ENTIRE JUSTICE SYSTEM BEING GOOD OR BAD depends on this one case! on no! we have to DEAL WITH REBEL INSURGENTS! complete horseshit when there is not competent and functional enough character writing to get us emotionally invested here. yamazaki seems to think bigger is better, and that just simply isnt true for something like ace attorney

i've pointed this out in the past when critiquing aa5 and 6 but if you look at the actual material stakes on the line in ace attorney, they're at their highest after rise from the ashes. ousting the corrupt chief of police is the most impressive and impactful thing phoenix does with his career (arguably until the jurist system, but definitely in the trilogy.) but that's not the big Finale case for his character arc. his finale case is defending his college girlfriend; a nun who lives in the mountains, whose conviction would have had zero implications on the larger fabric of ace attorney's legal system. because takumi's writing clearly shows that he understands what makes a plot impactful is the emotional stakes the characters have invested in the events.

before taking over the main franchise, takeshi yamazaki was responsible for the miles edgeworth investigations spinoffs. i do enjoy both of those games - aai2 in particular is really strong. yamazaki does a great job with edgeworth's character arc even if i have some specific gripes with the duologys writing. i think theyre solid additions to the franchise. but you can see traces of this sort of misalignment in narrative priorities here as well. for example, the last case in aai1 is notorious for still going on for, like, an entire hour or two past the time when the last remaining plot point we care about has been revealed. because yamazaki seemingly had no understanding that That was the thing the case should have been about, and that should have been the final mic drop of the game. it just keeps going! he didn't know the game was done and he added a bunch more bullshit busywork after it that no one likes!

so yeah. without going into anything even as specific as how individual plotlines or character arcs were mishandled in aa5/6 that's really my overview What Went Wrong of those games.

[comicaurora]

I have no clue how else to possibly get this message to you, but a channel named Endemion used a clip of your Kaiju video in one of their recent videos and tried to spin a narrative that you were a woke activist who was trying to dig into things too deep to claim that everything was racist when you said that King Kong was very likely an allegory for racist undertones because the film you were talking about was a movie made back in the 1930s. I just don't want a bunch of people to come try to slander your channel

I was just messaging to try to get this message to you, you can delete it if you ever read it

Not sure what you would do with this info, I'm just trying to give you a heads up because I enjoy your videos thoroughly and I don't want somebody bad-mouthing you and siccing their fanbase on you because they found a clip online or took a clip from you and purposefully left out context, and don't care about contacts and just want to use it to further their narratives that everything is ruined because of "those dang woke morons"

Sorry if I made a step too far by contacting you

I appreciate the concern, but there's a number of reasons this doesn't worry me, foremost among them anyone who thinks "woke" is an insult or a dealbreaker is someone who wouldn't last long in our audience who I want nothing to do with anyway. And on the flipside, if someone is so fragile that a cold take about a movie made in the 1930s that everyone from contemporary viewers to Quentin Tarantino thought was allegorically sus is enough to make them flip their lid and park me in their brain rent-free, they'll want nothing to do with me either.

The concern is appreciated, but the fact is I accepted years ago that some people will never like me or what I do, and if they can't manage themselves enough to stay away from the things they hate, that's nobody's problem but theirs.

[cerastes]

So ig my question is why don’t the Chinese or Japanese markets care much ab this?

I’m going to answer this from perhaps a different angle than expected, prefacing this with “completely generalizing is easy and stupid” so we’re not going to be doing that.

Now, without you knowing, you’ve probably seen a hundred Things You Should Have Cared About, like caricatures or vilification of Korean people in Japanese media, without realizing you were looking at that. Sayonara Zetsubou-Sensei, I hear, has plenty of that “hidden” in some of its jokes (I share this anecdotally as I have not read that, only heard of this). Some years ago, think about how a lot of tension existed because of Attack on Titan’s imperialist/nationalist undertones that the average Westerner couldn’t immediately grasp. Yuuki Yuuna Is A Hero was a fun watch for me right up until its nationalist undertones, well, overtones registered to me as entirely intentional and sincere.

But if it doesn’t register as an issue to you, why would you see it as an issue? It can very well BE an issue, you just don’t even consider it could be one because you lack cultural background or, well, “cultural fucks” to give, let’s call it. It’s invisible ink, right in front of you, but you don’t see it.

So, flip it around. There’s racist Chinese/Japanese people, there’s progressive CN/JP people, there’s people that don’t really care either way or see it as an issue the same way Uncle Cleetus from the U.S. may or may not be aware of Chinese violence against natives, even if he is aware and cares about U.S. violence against natives.

It can always just be an issue of “that is so very distant to me that I can’t really put Caring Power on it given all the things closest to me that I have to put Caring Power into”.

It’s not about whether these things matter or not — I think they do matter — but inevitably the majority of people think more locally in terms of cultural fucks to give, so, they just don’t really care either way if they have more darker skinned characters or not, I’d say for the majority of people over there.

And, in the context of gacha, they are selling desirable designs, and what’s considered desirable by that demographic, going by their market studies and other such data, is probably light skinned anime girls, thus, that’s what most gacha characters are going to be, with anything straying from that being tangibly a risk. Because these games are made by corporations, not entities that ever claimed to be trying to be progressive.

If Chinese players wanted more variety of Chinese Character in, say, Call of Duty, with dialects and other local cues, John Call Of Duty probably would not give a shit, nor would the majority of Call of Duty players in the West, even those that can be perfectly progressive. It’s like that.

[mysterycitrus]

You’ve talked about how fandom treats jtodd & dick, so what are your thoughts on how fandom treats dick & tim?

There’s this post that’s asking about people’s batfamily hot takes, and I was scrolling through the reblogs bc I love drama. One of the “hot takes” was calling dick a bad brother bc of the bruce lost in time comic era. Specifically saying that fandom excuses dick’s shitty behavior towards Tim bc his dad (Bruce) died and because of the stress of taking care of the city by himself. While Tim was hurting because of the deaths of Kon, Bart, Jack, Steph, and Donna (idk why they included Donna as Tim’s grief and not Dick’s??) and therefore Tim’s & Dick’s hurt and stress aren’t the same. According to this person, Tim was going through it and Dick was making it worse.

Now, I’m not going to claim I know how everything went down since I haven’t read those comics yet, but this feels like a gross misunderstanding of the arc.

From what I’ve seen, fandom tends to invalidate and villainize Dick during this time in favor of Tim. Dick is not being excused, in fact he’s being blamed for things that are either not his fault or just made up in order to whump Tim. Idk that “hot take” just rubbed me the wrong way because of how one-sided it was, and I guess it made me wonder about your thoughts about Dick & Tim since I tend to agree with your opinions lmao

fundamentally the issue is this — dick grayson existing and being a good person is an obstacle for fanon angst. dick grayson being a good brother means that jtodd can’t just slot into his pre-existing relationships with tim and cass and damian. dick grayson being a good friends means that he’s close with the titans and the league because he’s competent and trusted. dick grayson being kind means that he didn’t abandon tim, he was literally trying to keep everything together after bruce’s death.

not to try and make it a grief olympics but as much as people talk about everyone tim has lost (and i think they must have been talking about dana winters in that post?) people seem to forget that dick’s city just got nuked + the fallout of nightwing 93 + donna dying + jade dying + the titans falling apart + he was just locked in arkham himself. like… his dad has just died, he’s had to fight off his brother who’d just tried to kill both tim and damian and been given custody over a kid who doesn’t trust him

red robin 2009 has done irreversible harm to tim drakes character. people using that as the starting point for reading about him is bad. it’s a comic about a grief spiral, and it isn’t an amazing depiction of him either. but even then, people just seem to love straight up fabricating what’s in it.

dick tells tim that therapy might be a good idea. tim tells dick that he’s leaving because he trusts dick to let him do what he needs to do. even at his lowest point, dick is who he trusts most. those takes that’re like “tim drake was at his lowest point and then jtodd sees him and realises that he’s cool actually and they bond #jasontoddisagoodbrother #dickgraysonisabadbrother etc” because they like to posit that dick threatened to throw tim in arkham are so silly

that’s even ignoring how people just straight up lie about damian’s actions and how weird everyone is about ra’s al ghul. no, tim isn’t the only one he refers to as detective aside from bruce. no, tim isn’t one step away from being a mass murderer. no, damian didn’t try to kill tim— he was reacting to tim being suspicious of him. tim was beefing with a ten year old. why are u being so mean to the ten year old? (We Know Why)

ur right — it is extremely one-sided. im not one to pretend that canon is flawless by any means, but acting as though fanon is better just because someone online came up with it is also stupid. there are many many racist undertones with how jtodd and tim are interpreted, both separately and with each other. a lot of it is yaoi baiting dynamics, that a lot of fans don’t seem to want to admit. i won’t comment on how white people writing jtodd as latino and tim as asian can be Bad but like…. it’s all tied up together. people want these two characters to have suffered the most, because that justifies everything fans want them to do. they want them to be wronged. they want their idea of justice in their name

[booksandpaperss]

How Stranger Things (poorly) handles racism as a topic compared other heavy topics it successfully tackles

before we get started, I would to direct you all to some other accounts who have already discussed this that you should check out either before or after reading this post: @wewebaggit @googoogagaeyes @elekinetic and anyone else please feel free to tag yourself or another account that’s discussed this and I’ll happily boost it

Content Warning for in show examples of racism and discussions of racism, as well as mentions of homophobia and the AIDES epidemic

.

. While we're discussing historical accuracy in stranger things and homophobia + ignorance being present even in well meaning characters, I want to point out that if the writers of the show weren't so squeamish about addressing racism in any in depth way, than this type of historical accuracy would be for racism too.

what I mean by this: in this sense, the show is not consistent. It's clear that the writers have done their research on 80s homophobia and how openly prevalent it was, if the AIDES allegory in season 2 and the way homophobia was very clearly present in seasons 1 and 2 (it still is in seasons 3 and 4 but the first 2 seasons showed it in the scope of the entire town), but racism was just as overtly prevalent, and yet the writers have neglected to address it in the same thoughtful and coded way. if the show was just as consistent about racism as it is about homophobia, than the white characters would be at the very least shown as ignorant just like the straight characters are.

and I'm not going to say that it's completely ignored, because that's not true:

-in season 2; mike makes an ignorant comment that implies Lucas should have been Winston because he's black, and Lucas calls him on it. There's also the very racist undertones (that are practically overtones) of Billy's treatment of Lucas. -There is almost nothing in season 3 except for a jokey joke when Nancy says the whole party is her family and the receptionist, who is a black woman, gives Lucas a skeptical look.

-Season 4 is a little better, with the implications (key word: implications, I'll come back to that in a moment) of Lucas's season 4 arc being that he was trying to fit in because he didn't want to be racially targeted and bullied for being a nerd at the same time anymore, that he felt like even more of an outsider compared to the rest of his otherwise all white friend group who, as far as he knows, are all cishet and giving him shit for wanting to lessen how much he's perceived as an outsider because he's automatically seen as even more of a "freak", and his friends just weren't getting it because they were white and ignorant. So the writers aren't blind to race and racism.

However. None of the examples that I've just listed are addressed later in any in depth way; not like the homophobia is. The only one that's even remotely delved into instead of simply being glossed over is Lucas's s4 arc, and even that is still very flitted around and left up to interpretation of the audience.

The writers seem to have a very "hit and run" sort of policy with addressing racism. They clearly know they should, and they at least seem to know that having a black character in an 80s setting with a cast of mostly white characters inherently creates a lot of racial subtext-

-for example, the very loud subtext of Jason (a white boy much older than Lucas) seeing Max (a white girl) in a trance alone with Lucas (a black boy) and immediately assuming the worst + Jason's white friends tackling an 11 year old black girl to the ground: subtext that I'm still not sure if the writers and directors were even aware of bc they never addressed it and their track record isn't great-

-but they hardly do anything about it.

I'm not surprised, considering this show is headed by two white men, but what really gets me is that they all truly could have tried harder. Like I said earlier, it's clear they've done research and put thought into addressing homophobia (it still could've been handled better but that's an entirely different conversation), and it's evident from Max's s4 arc that they also did research on Depression, PTSD, and the impacts on someone of their abusive family member dying. So the lack of care and thought put into addressing racism in the same way is clearly more than ignorance (which would still be bad, when you're writing a show this big in 2023 with topics like this you're actually, shocker, responsible for making sure they're addressed properly, ignorance is a choice at that point), its just fucking lazy. they don't care. And this not caring is inherently harmful on a show this big and frankly, I'm tired of so many viewers and people in this fandom straight up ignoring this fact, just like the show runners.

And I haven't even covered the complete lack of effort put into Patrick's backstory, or the fact that Erica is very much the sassy, mature for her age black girl stereotype (she deserves so much better). Oh, And we can’t forget the copaganda.

I'm glad that season 4 started to explore the dynamic between Lucas and Erica and expand on both their characters, and from the looks of things that will continue in season 5, so the writers have a chance to do their research, actually put effort more effort into the sinclair sibling’s characters, and improve, and I'm hoping they will but as of right now I don't trust them to, and won't unless they prove me wrong.

TDLR; the main issue is that Stranger Things is clearly a show that addresses topics like depression, abuse, homophobia, and racism, but the racism part is neglected compared to the others, just like how Lucas and Erica's characters are handled poorly compared to the white characters,. it's lazy, horribly insensitive, and racist in and of itself. There's a clear bias, and even if it improves in season 5 we still should be talking about it, and more white people (yes white queer people included, we are not exempt from this discussion, if anything we should care just as much about it as when we’re talking about homophobia) in this fandom need to start listening when black and brown people do talk about it instead of just waltzing through and ignoring it for your own peace of mind.

also I should clarify that I myself am white, I made sure I did research before making this post in order to talk about this accurately and consciously, but if I made any mistakes or said something insensitive or used an incorrect term or anything else, feel free to correct me and I will readily fix it

as a final note: please check my rebligs of this for links to more posts that talk abt this issue

[ppppxseur]

characters that i believe are black

what are my qualifications you may ask? i'm black. thats it those are my qualifications

also if i see a single comment about "blackwashing" i will lose my SHIT, i swear to god

also theres no fandom order for this so good luck trying to figure out what's coming next

MINA ASHIDO (MY HERO ACADEMIA)

she breakdances, she's spunky, she's energetic. she's deffo one of those black girls who wears cookie monster pajama pants to school and adopts shy kids cuz she doesn't have that type of shame

like... need i make myself clear enough?

also she definitely has some sort of vitiligo

IZUKU MIDORIYA (MY HERO ACADEMIA)

i mean... he has no father. horikoshi practically screamed in my face that this kid is black as fuck.

he deffo cant cook tho, which i like to think is something that bakugou teases him relentlessly for

also this boy is tenderheaded as fuck and cries when mina does his hair

LUCINDA (APHMAU MCD/MYSTREET)

LOOK AT HER. look me in the eyes and tell me RIGHT now that that is not an albino black woman

you cant, im simply correct on everything

god i miss my girl. lucinda you deserve the world and you deserve all of the screentime and i cannot believe that bitch aaron SNATCHED the screentime that was rightfully yours

THE STRILONDES (HOMESTUCK)

"but do you mean all of-" YES. ALL OF THEM. they are all black and they are all jewish hussie told me so himself, argue with the GODDAMN wall.

ARADIA / DAMARA MEGIDO (HOMESTUCK)

my favorite weird girl <3

"but the megidos are asi-" WHY ARE YOU IN MY HOUSE. SHUT UP.

first of all the fact that damara's typing quirk was just Straight Up Japanese (and not even GOOD japanese either) is NOT the best fucking look if you want to potray another race. but also people can be biracial that is a thing and i hc the megidos as being blasian.

there is everyone happy? good now lets keep going

NEPETA / MEULIN LEIJON (HOMESTUCK)

(my second favorite weird girl)

(my THIRD favorite weird girl)

i dunno. theyre my faves. i love them. therefore they are black. i feel like i dont need much explanation other than that

KARKAT / KANKRI VANTAS (HOMESTUCK)

ugh. the thing that sucks about ones with family (or... i guess in the trolls case, the closest thing of "family" you can get) is that you have to make them all the same race or otherwise you have to explain the weird shit

kankri is lightskinned and uses his white passing privilege for evil.

also before you even THINK about trying to pass off white vantas: LOOK at their fucking storyline. just LOOK at it.

(before i move on from homestuck, i just wanna mention a quick side note: i didnt include gamzee or kurloz for one Very Obvious reason and thats the fact that, just like damara and her incredibly broken and bad Japanese as hussie's horrendous attempts to include other races in homestuck, i simply believe that the notion of all purple bloods being naturally incredibly violent is Not A Good Look. especially adding in that the only reason why gamzee is pacified is because he's doing the troll equivalent of hard drugs. and you can make an argument because... well.. what about kurloz? and to that my response would be WHAT ABOUT HIM? because i dont remember dick diddly and SQUAT about him and i dont really care.

so yeah i didnt include the makaras because while i do believe they are black i dont believe theyre the best representation because the only reason why people think that is because of the incredibly racist undertones of it)

ANYWAY i'm doing ONE more because this thread is already so goddamn long

POPPY AND VIVA (TROLLS)

the silliest girls possibly in the entire universe. i think they're black and hispanic mixed (im thinking maybe dominican or cuban)

ANYWAY! end of this long ass fucking thread. i cant believe my first fucking post on this account was this monster of a thread

anyway, follow me if you like any of these fandoms ig

[exemplarybehaviour]

actually, one of the most fascinating things about debunking posts to me is when people turn around and just add new misinfo to the post. for example, this one on the origins of STIs. here's some tags:

#yeah its from people eating infected monkey brains - This is likely about the theory that HIV came from wild chimps via hunting practices. It's also a racist stereotype. Bushmeat (basically, hunting wild animals) is of concern for epidemiologists because of the risk of disease transfer compared to more controlled livestock practices, BUT attacking consuming bushmeat as morally bad or "uncivilized" is a common tactic to spread xenophobia and racism. "Eating monkey brains" in particular is a common racist trope in Western media.

#I learned about this in school#the way that dominoes had to fall in line for thousands upon thousands of years#for those two diseases to mix in that chimpanzee’s stomach is actually insane#and it happened on such a small island before the contact travelled up river to a city - I genuinely don't know what this person is talking about, but they also provided a link to the CDC's page on HIV so they're likely talking about HIV.

The evolutionary origin of HIV is SIV (simian immunodeficiency virus - that's from monkeys and apes). SIV is blood born, and was likely spread to a human when someone with an open cut handled butchered meat infected with SIV. There were actually multiple jumps from primates to humans, but the variant that went on to become a pandemic likely happened in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo. There are also rarer HIV strains that came from other "jumps" across Africa, none of which were on islands. There isn't a way to be 100% sure, but the evidence discussed in the linked article suggests the jump that eventually led to a pandemic happened in a major city (Kinshasa) and the increased urbanization (more people interacting) and railroad travel helped it spread. Framing HIV origins as something that could only happen on isolated islands and traveling on rivers, when rapid disease spread is often the result of large populations able to move feely in urban environments, is both incorrect and also has xenophobic/racist undertones.

I don't know what this person means by "two diseases" "mixing." I do want to note that people frequency give unverifiable sources like "in school" or "my professor said" to legitimize incorrect information, either on purpose or not. It's a yellow flag you should look out for.

[blacclotusss]

I Could Not Prevent It

Claudia

Ah...the death of the vampiress Claudia...the day I have been dreading since...season one if I'm being quite honest with you. Before all of the murder plotting in episodes six and seven, before things went downhill halfway through episode 4, and before she even appeared on screen for the first time. My Claudia...my babygirl. When I learned about this show, I looked up all the characters and what happens to them, and it made me nervous that she was a child and would die in such a painful way. But, when I saw that she was aged up and would be Black, as her Daddy Lou would be as well, I was immediately protective of her and wanted nothing but the best. There was this delusional thought I had that maybe they would change the course of her fate and she'd be able to live as she deserves, but at every corner she turned, there was something else lurking and waiting to capture her; from her being turned, to Charlie, to Lestat and his nonsense, to Bruce, and all the way up to Armand and the Coven. Even before she was brought into Louis and Lestat's lives, the life she lived was one no person, let alone child, should ever have to go through. And then, she comes into this situation where the both of these men are turning her against her will for their own selfish reasons. I've always felt that way: Louis wanted something to fix after blaming himself for the riots and Lestat didn't want to lose Louis. Period. But, Claudia made the best out of her situation and was brilliant and defiant, doing her own thing despite what many told her she should do or act like. All the way up until her last moments in the flesh on Earth, she never backed down. And I absolutely love her for that, always will love her. She is such an amazingly written character in this show and I hope to see Delainey in so much more after this! 

The Trial

If this makes me seem biased, so be it, but none of what happened during that trial that came out of Lestat's mouth moved me. He knew exactly what he came there to do, but wants to get caught up in the moment and emotions when retelling the story. Goodbye! And for him to sit there a try to reveal "the truth" about what happened also did nothing for me. Lestat still had a part in everything that happened, EVERYTHING. That changes nothing! The retelling of the story was shit and so was that so-called apology because how can you apologize to him and not her? You put that girl through so much, verbally and physically abusing her. Asked if she would be a lap dog, let your mistress call her a dog, put your hands on her more than once, and threw her assault up in her face when she was trying to escape. Where is her apology? And had the audacity to look like that as she died. Save the tears and as Louis said "Fuck you!" Y'all can let that move you and have you kissing his feet if you want, but it changes nothing. He's still a piece of scum watched her die as she looked to him for help (Delainey's words) with tears like you didn't come here to watch her die. 

And this whole trial had such a racist undertone to it, from the descriptions to the depictions on screen. It just gave me "Hey look at the Black people provoking this white man to make him do these things." Literally everything, down to the cutting of the Achilles tendons, the way they treated Madeleine versus Louis and Claudia, etc. Just a tragedy all around. 

The final goodbye between Louis and Claudia...my God. It's the way that they didn't have a great greeting (that turning moment was not pretty, either version) and they only had a small moment of happiness between them before they were pulled apart. I already knew Louis was lying when he said in the previous episode that he did not feel anything when she left, but seeing them grab for each other (as well as his demeanor when speaking about her in Dubai) told me they loved each other; they've always loved each other. Yes, they butt heads, but you could always feel the love between them and I hate that they didn't get a proper departure. Lastly, my favorite moments in this episode were between Claudia and Madeleine. Madeleine being so out of it, to the point of not even understanding what was going on until the end, and still choosing to be with Claudia. Oh the waterworks! I'm so glad Claudia had someone that was all in with and for her before her demise. She, and the audience at home, was finally able to see and know what a Gothic romance is. This is immortal and eternal love between those that care and understand one another. I absolutely bawled when the both of them met the Sun and I don't think we'll ever see something so pure like that in this genre. I'll miss them both. And Louis...blow that theatre to pieces! 

Armand

Now you sir...what the hell are we going to do with you? I just...the man barely said anything this episode and he still managed to get under my skin. How strong are these vampires that you, the oldest one in the bunch and most powerful, cannot move nor prevent this from happening? Or did he really want her gone like I suspected he did last week? My money is definitely on the latter because he would have Louis all to himself and that seems like the goal with these men Louis cuddles up to. And he said Sam was guarding the gate, and no offense to Sam, but I'm sure Armand would be able to take him. But, what really got me was Sam was also seen helping put Louis in the coffin down stairs so what's the truth Armand? I guess we'll have to wait until next week. But, I did want to circle back to the racism, but in the fandom and not the show because I'm noticing the same pattern between everyone's reactions to the show. Y'all are on Armand's neck (warranted) for his role in this whole thing, but let the white man waltz on stage and let those tears fall and y'all are falling for it. I saw a video from a creator today, along with other tweets, calling Louis a master manipulator and how they'd known how evil he had been all this time. What? There's no way we're all watching the same show, not when you've come to that conclusion. There is zero consideration for Louis' feelings and thoughts at all. Y'all let your attraction to white cock cloud your judgement every time and it's sick to see. I hope you have no friends or family that have gone through anything like that because I'd steer very clear from you all.  

Season One Revisits

As I expected before the trailers dropped, there were two season one revisits in this episode. However, I don't feel as strongly about them as I thought I would and maybe it's because I overly analyzed those scenes before this. To me, the Claudia turning scene showed Louis' desperation for something to make him feel better after blaming himself for the riots. Him begging and pleading on his knees simply fueled just how broken he was. The most chilling part, however, was him dragging her like a child running around the house with a doll in tow. It's as if Claudia was his property, and you can even see that with him wanting her turned in the first place. With the episode five revisit, it didn't  change anything for me at all. I took it as Louis simply defending his child as was shown in season one and Lestat losing his temper and going overboard. He still had the upper hand and he knew it, he admitted it himself. It just feels like they brought it back up for no reason...why are we having Louis retell this again? He's already said what it was and how he felt. There was no reason for him to relive these memories once again in such a short span of time. I get it was for the plot, but at what cost? How many times do we need to hear the abused recount their abuse? 

[genericpuff]

I've come to the stunning realization-

-that Lore Olympus is basically to the webtoons industry what Youtube Kids is to Youtube.

And I'm not talking about the general "Youtube Kids" label, I'm talking about those videos - Elsagate, Johny Johny, Cocomelon, Mickey Mouse tattooing Spongebob or whatever other weird example you can think of - which are explicitly designed to game the algorithm, turn views into money, and most of all, gain and keep the attention of the one demographic that won't question what they're consuming - children.

!!!!THIS POST HAS FAST PASS SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

I mean, this is undoubtedly just a tinfoil hat theory, but think about it:

Bright oversaturated colors that are attention-grabbing.

Meme faces and 'lol rAnDoM' humor even when it doesn't suit the situation at all.

Art that's all around ugly and cheap on a technical level but still stands out due to its color design and prioritized advertising.

Vapid surface level scene-to-scene writing that doesn't connect or have any meaning in any coherent way.

One-dimensional projection characters who are easy to manipulate and sway for audience sympathy or anger even if those opinions change on a dime based on actions in the moment.

Cliffhangers that are less like true cliffhangers and more like clickbait. Episodes nowadays tend to be filled with drawn out plotlines, vague hints that can be applied to just about any school of thought, and non-sequitur memes to fill the time until they can hook the reader with another cliffhanger to keep them coming back next week.

Coin prices have gone up but episode length, substance, and quality have noticeably gone down. Even if they reach the same panel count they usually have, dialogue is minimal and pacing is brutally inconsistent to the point that plot progression is often non-existent.

Banner ads that run constantly, often in the first or second (or both) slots, with push notifications and pop-up ads also becoming more frequent whether you're subscribed to the comic or not.

And underneath ALL of that, we've got blatant objectifying and sexualization of female characters regardless of context, misogyny that claims to be progressive, racist undertones, borderline fetish content that constantly toes the Terms of Services line, normalization of problematic/toxic relationship dynamics, a creator who's more interested in 'getting back' at critics than writing an actual story, and underlying messaging both from the characters' and the creator's behavior that encourage witch-hunting, rejection of accountability, and blind devotion.

All this is essentially why I've given up consuming LO entirely, beyond just on a critical level as of late. There was a time long ago when I stuck around in the hopes it was going to get better, that maybe it was just going through a "rough patch" as some stories do. After that I stuck around because I wanted to see how it could possibly pull off its ending. And then after that, I simply stuck around for the laughs and community banter. But now I don't even find it funny anymore, the punchline of how bad it is has gotten incredibly old. And at this rate, as much as we'd like to believe it's going to end in its third season as it's been mentioned in the past, we also were told it was going to end between 100-200 episodes prior to that - the way it's going, I can't even stick around "for the ending" because LO is going to be around for as long as WT tries to milk it, despite it no longer having a heartbeat.

As much as I've loved talking shit about this comic and it's undoubtedly the main reason so many of you followed me here in the first place, I'm not going to lock myself in some kind of purgatory hell just to be proven what I already know is going to happen - either the comic continues on forever, doomed to be a lifeless mascot for the zombie corporation that is WT, or RS eats shit while trying to stick the landing with a plane that has no functional parts.

There's a quote from Caddicarus that I couldn't help but think of as I typed this up, from his nearly-decade-old review of Dalmations 3 (oh god, it's nearly been a decade since that video came out what the actual fuck-)

"And this is where I officially lost all fucking care. I realized it wasn't going to end anytime soon. It's one of those rare instances where the novelty of how awful everything is actually gets really tiresome and unfunny." - Caddicarus

[worflesbian]

right okay i dont know exactly how persistent an issue this is bc i almost never go into the tags on this website, but even ive noticed this happening so i feel like that’s justification to make a post about it. the whitewashing of julian bashir as an established Thing not just in the fandom but in official merch has been discussed before, but recently i’ve noticed the inverse happening with martok and b’elanna, a white character and a lighter latina character who people seem to often draw darker than they are in canon. and there’s like. a Lot going on there to unpack.

so this video goes into some detail about the racism baked into the origins and design of the klingons in tos, it’s very informative about the anti-asian stereotypes especially in a 60s context but i feel like it doesnt really cover the way that antiblackness becomes a more significant factor in the next gen era so like. if you didn’t know, the majority of the klingon characters in the next gen-ds9-voyager era are either played by actors with dark skin or Very frequently by white actors in heavy dark makeup. if you look up the actors of grilka, alexander, kehleyr, and sirella for example you’ll see what im talking about like the difference is Stark and these are some of the main recurring klingons across both shows. hopefully i do not need to explain why packing white actors in brown makeup to play members of a species characterised as violent, warlike and animalistic is racist. i say hopefully bc who knows with this website. anyway i’d recommend this video for a wider context on the legacy of blackface in tv!

martok is a rare example of a klingon played by a white actor who, as far as i can tell, does not have his skin significantly darkened. so to see him frequently being drawn with darker skin is uh Slightly Concerning given everything in the previous paragraph! ive even seen art where he’s drawn darker than julian in the same post which... anyway im not trying to blanket condemn reinterpreting the design of alien characters in fanart, but i am asking white fans like myself in particular to think critically as to why, out of all the white characters and aliens on ds9, martok is the one you want to do that with.

because b’elanna is not a white character i think its a slightly different situation, but at the same time she does have lighter skin and i have seen fanart of her drawn much much darker and once again, im not condeming it especially in works ive seen which explore the relationship bewteen her latina and klingon identities, but its something white fans need to handle carefully. in the voyager episode Faces where she gets split into a human and klingon version of her (dont have time to unpack all that) you can see the difference in undertones between human b’elanna and klingon b’elanna (also included a pic of regular b’elanna for reference). the brown makeup is obvious here too and if you can see why it might be racist to attribute a person’s rage and violent impulses to a part of themself that is then personified as darker skinned/more brown, then you might also see some of the wider problems going on here and can understand that this is something that demands a lot of thought and consideration.

i’d like to reiterate that this is a very complex and nuanced issue, especially considering the intersection of fictional race within the setting and the racial biases operating behind the scenes/metatextually, and i’d love to discuss it more (and to cite better sources than youtube videos when i have the time). but for now i’d just like to say yeah just ask yourself what the implications might be to drawing these characters in particular darker than they are in canon, especially if theyre the only characters you do that for, or you’re intentionally contrasting them with other characters (e.g. b/7 fanart) or yk. drawing a white character darker than a character of colour like ive seen people do with julian and martok.

[wejustvibing]

So I've been wondering why ppl think fans should be okay with the sideways and unnecessary coments about Lewis "because he's a grown man" however when it's one of his yt colleagues that are being "maligned" it's okay to speak up and defend them.

I've come to the conclusion that most ppl assume they aren't racist and therefor once they don't see racism it's not what's happening abd we're overreacting.

I'd like your thoughts on this angle because after this weekend my brain cannot fathom how in 2023 ppl cannot identify blatan racism driven decisions.

you're spot on.

they think all that is okay because it's lewis. yes, there's racism but isn't he successful? what more do you want? and that's the long and short of it. still i've rambled on.

i mean some try, but they don't realize that spotting the most obvious racism is thee easiest part. it doesn't end there. they simply do not realize the amount of mind space the color of one's skin occupies. of the person as well as the society and this sport. in case of lewis, just because he's a success story in places nobody's walked before, doesn't mean they've accepted him, in fact it's the opposite and they've proved it.

and people forget that. they will acknowledge he doesn't trust people easily but ignore where that stems from. he's a rich man why do you have to defend him? well because he's thee most successful in his sport and still not safe from bias and covert racism within his own environment? they keep missing that it's the undertones and assumptions. how they perceive him and his emotions & actions vs a yt man's. how they psychoanalyze him and stop at nothing but always end up giving benefit of the doubt to his counterparts.

i blame f1 pundits and ex drivers just as much though because they clearly set the tone with their borderline and sometimes overt racist comments, stereotypes and misgivings. the whole natural talent vs technically strong debate, the whole it's the car debate, the whole he's insecure debate, the whole he's bad for his teammates' mental health debate. these narratives have sickening undertones if you think about it. and eventually the fans pick them up and write their own fiction around it, in a way, weaponizing it.

theres this edit by his own fan/s that i keep seeing, with a caption like 'the day lewis hamilton finally earned everyone's respect' and it's just that video of him sitting in disbelief in his car after the ad21 robbery. i know the intention isn't that but the ignorance from his own fans? so the most successful f1 driver, a black man, couldn't express what he felt after getting robbed and humiliated in front of the whole entire world and that's how he finally 'earned' respect? really?

and i mean, of course, he is a grown successful rich man. it's made his life easier and he does not have the same basic struggles as the rest of us anymore but that doesn't mean he needs to pay a price for it. doesn't mean he deserves excessive scrutiny, weird as fuck narratives, harsher punishments and superhuman status in exchange. and it's always in extremes too, he'll either be held at the highest standard or just straight up insulted for being in places he shouldn't have dared to be.

tl;dr: they're mostly ignorant

[littlewomenpodcast]

Little Women Inspirations: Friedrich Schiller (With Hejar Sinem) Part 4

Niina: What you said about Schiller made me wonder if Schiller was the one who Friedrich was named after in Little Women, or maybe it was Friedrich De La Motte Foque? I have a feeling it might have been Schiller.

Sinem: Yeah, me too. Yes, that's of course my own theory, but like I said, I also think that besides Goethe, I think Schiller also may have had an impact on Louisa, because in The Robbers, I think it's called, in Schiller's first novel, there's a female character called Amalia, I don't know how to pronounce her name in English, but she is very sweet, very generous. She is like Beth, she is very kind and giving and generous, and she only wants the best for everyone. So I found some parallels between Schiller's work and Louisa's work.

Niina: That's really interesting. What was the name of that book?

Sinem: It was called The Robbers. It's his first novel, he wrote that one when he was 17.Suppose he was not allowed to write at that time, I forgot why he wasn't allowed, and I think it's funny that he made a story that is close to Louisa May Alcott’s Blood and Thunder stories, and the main character Karl is very much an archetype of the movement that was around in Germany at that time.

Niina: I was just saying that in Rose In Bloom, Mac reads Goethe, but I realized he doesn't read Goethe, he actually reads Henry David Thoreau. In Little Women, there's a moment in part one where John translates a poem from Schiller to Meg.

Sinem: Yes, that is very cute, and it's also very funny, because John also knows German, and it's also funny if you think about it, it's like the whole March family is very interested in German culture. I think Meg was also very eager to hear the translation a bit, and John was also like, Yeah, I'll help you translate it, or I can teach you with German, I think he said that, I'm not sure, but I think he said that, and it was also very sweet.

Niina: Yes, I have forgotten about that, I love it. It kind of goes along with my theory that Louisa May Alcott planned Jo's marriage years before she wrote Little Women, because it does feel like a natural thing to do, to introduce a German character to this family that is really obsessed about everything that comes from Germany.

Sinem: I have to say, the first thing that comes to my mind when I see people saying Louisa was forced to marry Jo off is, well, but what if she was forced? Why in the world would Louisa May Alcott write so many things about Jo’s and the March family’s love for Germany?

Niina: I think we can all agree that this really comes from that the quote that she wrote in her journal was about reuniting with her loved one in the afterlife, so Little Women is a wish fulfillment.

Sinem: Yes, that's true, when people read it, I think it's also kind of racist of them to state that he was shoveled into the novel, because, I mean, they know Friedrich is German, and it almost always feels like they dislike him, especially because he is German, even people today are like, meh, she should have stayed single or with Laurie, which, to be honest, I can't stand either. I could never stand the thought that Jo might have ended with Laurie or alone, especially after reading the chapters All Alone and Surprises, because in these two chapters, you can see how lonely Jo is, and then there are people who say she only married Friedrich because Friedrich was invented, because Louisa May Alcott was forced to marry him.

Niina: I think you are correct about the racism, because I have read so many Louisa May Alcott studies that are like, Jo should have married Laurie or Jo should have been alone. There usually is a racist undertone when they start to speak about Friedrich's character, and then they do not include these parts in Little Women, where Jo clearly loves everything that comes from Germany, or Louisa May Alcott’s adoration to Germany. In Rose in Bloom there is a Chinese character, and he marries an American girl.

Sinem: She made him marry an American because it shows how inclusive she is and while I know that many people are like, well, yes, but Louisa May Alcott had something against the Irish, while I can read a bit of it in their novels, we don't know what happened to her.

Niina: I think it was a common at the time to mock the Irish people, unfortunately. I spoke with someone who was working in the Orchard House, and they said that it was really more about the effect of the time period. I don't know. Yeah, Irish people don't really get a good reputation in Little Women, because when Amy's limes are thrown into the snow, they are the Irish girls who are picking on her.

Sinem: We don't know. But it's also kind of funny, because Hannah herself is Irish, and Hannah is portrayed in a good light, though. I agree with you. I think it is more like the effect of the time, because, I mean, if Louisa May Alcott included Chinese and Asian characters in one of her novels, had this person marry an American, and it was portrayed as a good thing, then why should she be completely against the Irish? Since Hannah was portrayed in such a good light.

Niina: I think it's the same with the Italians, because on one hand, we have Louisa May Alcott, who shows what she considered good qualities of Italians, and maybe the less good qualities, but there was lots of hate against Italians at the time period. So it's quite remarkable that Laurie is half Italian in the book, and Germans were also really disliked during this time period in America, in certain circles.

Sinem: I also think it's very important, the way Mr. Lawrence is actually portrayed. He's a very kind and giving and lovable person, but he has a flaw, in part one, we learn that his son married an Italian and he was against it. Mrs. March states that he never could like the lady, even though she was very kind and loving, and overall a very nice person, and Mr. Lawrence couldn't like her, even though she was very kind to him and all that stuff, simply because he represented, the culture or the society around that time.

Niina: If Mr. Lawrence was raised in an environment where there is lots of pre-consumption against Italians, then he would be part of that kind of generation that sort of automatically sees them as lower than he. It sucks, but that's the way a lot of people are, even still today.

Sinem: Yes, sadly, but I also have tosay, I really love how Louisa May Alcott made the interracial marriages in Little Women work so well. Whenever I read those passages between the couples, except for Meg and John, they are both American, they are still a lovely couple, though, but whenever I read them, I love the way Louisa May Alcott writes these couples, Amy and Laurie, and Jo and Friedrich, because it really gets lost in all of the adaptations. I think the only couple which gets marriage time, is the one between John and Meg, only because Meg is the first one to marry, I assume, but then, the movie-makers all like everything is about Jo and Laurie, and it doesn't feel right,

Niina: Because that's not the way things happen in the novels, and because Laurie is partially based on Laddie Wisniewski, and the more I have read about Louisa May Alcott’s relationship with Laddie Wisniewski, it more and more feels like a mother and son relationship.

Sinem: Little Women would not have been the masterpiece, as I call it, if Jo had ended up with Laurie, because first of all, Louisa May Alcott based all the characters around someone she loved, who she cared about, and it would not have been right for her to marry Jo and Laurie, because Laddie is one of the inspirations for Laurie, and she did not end up with Laddie and I don't think it will work, because I know it's only semi-autobiographical, but it would not have felt right, because in the proposal scene, which I rather call the harassing scene, in that one you see in the novel, of course, only, because why would the movie-makers do such a wonderful thing, they very much don't show that in the movies, Jo really, talks to Laurie, as if he was her child. She's like, you will meet an accomplished woman, you sensible good boy, and all that stuff.

That is really there, and the movie-makers just don't use it. Okay, the movie-makers, for me, are more likely to be after the money, because Little Women is such a beloved tale, but that's another thing.

Niina: I agree, and we will get into this chapter soon. Throughout this chapter, Jo refers to Laurie and Amy as children.

Sinem: Yes, that is also very cute and funny, and it also shows that Joehas always been much more mature than Laurie. I can't say whether she was more mature than Amy, after Amy grew up, but I think it shows that, while Jo is a free spirit and independent and, I will not say egoistic, but sometimes, she says, I only want to do things for myself. She cares very much about herself, and she also respects herself very much, and I love that she calls them children, because, first of all, it's cute, second of all, it shows that she is very much mature.

Niina: I think in part one of Little Women, Jo is more egoistic, but so is Amy, and so are Meg and Laurie, because they are teens, and when you are a teenager, your life pretty much centers around yourself.

Sinem: Yes, that's true. I also have to say, I really love how Jo evolves in the end, because many people are like, she was such a feminist in the first book, and then in Good Wives, or part two, as I call it, they are like she is so anti-feminist, and she's very man-loving, that's not the Jo we love blah blah blah, and then I'm like, I think the toxic masculinity of Jo shows even in chapter three, when she goes to Laurie, when he's sick, and she's like, why don't you invite somebody so you have company, he says, well, I don't know, the boys are too loud, etc., and then she's like, well, then why don't you call a girl, because girls are quiet and they like to play nurse.

Niina: I see what you mean.

Sinem: I get why people would fall for the idea that Jo is a feminist in the first part, but that is not the case, she loves men very much, she idealizes them, and she thinks it's a shame to be a woman, and that is the complete opposite of what feminism is about. I think it's very important that we study it, and later parts, when, for example, Laurie, her sister, and all of Beth’s deatH and twins birth, Jo grows to be a feminist, because she accepts that having feminine empathy, feminine kind of interests, isn't a bad thing, it's more a bad thing to be everything female is bad, and everything male is wonderful.

For Beth fans @fandomsarefamily1966

@princesssarisa