#and i really dont care to continue explaining the basic structures of white supremacy as people desperately try to figure out a way to

[uselessheretic]

Okay, so there’s a few things here I think are worth discussing so sorry for however long this is to anybody’s dash I’m clogging lmao

First, I know this probably goes without saying, but New Zealand and Australia have very different histories between the two of them especially within the context of the treatment of the indigenous population. From an American POV, I’m not sure many people here realize this and assume that since they’re near each other and both talk funny that they’d be 1 for 1 representations of each other, but the development of colonialism is starkly different especially because of the sheer brutality and sadism of Australia’s violence. There’s other core differences as well including Australia’s unique history of being colonized by convicts, and the difference in cultural development of their indigenous population (Aborginal Australians have been chilling there for about 60,000 years while the Māori migrated to NZ in the 1300’s!)

I wanna be clear that what my post is discussing is specific to the way white supremacy, masculinity, and violence interact and how the social roles enforced by them serve a purpose of reinforcing racial categorizations. When I am talking about colonialism, in this context, I am sticking towards a more strict definition of what colonization is and am not referring to how we view it in a contemporary context. During this period of time colonialism is active and literal as race is still being defined and the borders of whiteness figured out. It isn’t a blanket statement of “every white person is a colonizer” at this period of time because that’s just not true, at least not in the sense of its use today where even white people not currently acting as active agents of colonization are still passive recipients of its benefits and often descendants of colonizers.

I don’t find it useful to analyze things based off of “this just has suuuuch colonist vibes!” or “maybe he’s not a colonizer, but this feels like colonizing to me!” or whatever. Colonialism isn’t a vibe and it isn’t anything that makes a poc feel bad it’s an actual system of oppression. I would like to encourage white allies in particular to be accurate in their use of these words especially when contradicting poc on its application because idk that feels like colonization to meeeeeee!

Which I just want to clarify so we can draw a line between “Izzy does this cruel hurtful thing” vs “Izzy is colonizing Ed” as statements. A white man telling an indigenous man how to behave is, of course, always going to be shitty, however, being shitty =/= colonization. What I’m looking at isn’t the validity of Izzy’s entitlement, but the contradiction behind saying that Izzy wants Ed to be violent because of white supremacy.

It's true, Izzy values Blackbeard's intelligence, and that does go against the colonial caricature of Maori men. Nonetheless, we have seen that Izzy considers Ed impulsive, and that he sees himself as needing to 'manage' Ed. And the fact that Izzy values Ed's intelligence doesn't entirely cancel out the fact that Izzy is demanding Ed be violent and Ed doesn't want to be.

When it comes to Izzy viewing Ed as impulsive, it’s just kinda silly to say that Izzy takes this view because he’s racist. I mean. Ed is impulsive. Full stop there is no argument here Ed is an impulsive person. Ed gave up a 20+ year career in piracy to run off with some guy he met maybe a month ago who literally dumped in within the next 24 hours (puposeful or not.) Ed asked Jack to whip him in the balls! The balls! This doesn’t detract from the fact that Ed is an intelligent person, and Izzy doesn’t act that way either. Even in episode 4, what he’s asking from Ed isn’t to go shoot people, but to come up with a plan. It’s possible to recognize someone as impulsive, but also value them for their brilliance. It doesn’t detract from them as a person either, but demonstrates complexity.

And with Izzy “demanding Ed to be violent” when Ed doesn’t want to be it’s just? That doesn’t equate to racism. That’s Izzy being shitty, but it’s also being shitty while asking Ed to do his job. People can be shitty without it being racist, and asking poc to do something they don’t want to do isn’t inherently a racist act.

We could instead say that Izzy does this out of racist biases, but to what purpose does this actually serve?

Out of everything, this is what I wish white people would examine the most. When analyzing interactions of racism, how are the narratives being crafted used to uphold white supremacy? Because, once again, white supremacy does not function in a way where it demands for moc to be violent for violence’s sake. This isn’t just a fluke of the upper class, but consistent throughout, where the narrative of violence forced onto moc functions as an excuse to either civilize or genocide. There is no version of white masculinity which places itself in subordination to moc and that includes white working class masculinity.

The idea of the violent moc is used as a tool of control and conditioning. When speaking of it under a lens of anti-colonization, it’s a stereotype that’s utilized to justify the civilization of the population, or when that becomes too much work, give reasoning towards their extermination. White people aren’t hyping up moc’s violence because they think it’s more fun to have that as a boss. They do it to justify their dehumanization and give themselves the excuse to enact violence back onto them often through the police state. These stereotypes aren’t vibes or applied willy nilly, they serve a function within white supremacy and it’s important to understand this and how it all connects together.

Ugh this is getting long but a few things I just want to point out real quick

I just want to point out that this isn’t an accurate summation of the above text outside of the context of Ed/Izzy. Sorry, but I do think it’s important to not decontextualize this as being a statement regarding white men’s projections onto Māori men, and then summarize Māori masculinity as being about gentleness and compassion.

The full paragraph is:

This is the author speaking not only towards mainstream media portrayals of Māori men, but of the self-imposed culture of masculinity that has become normalized because of colonialism. When talking about the necessity of recognizing Māori culture as also being one of love and compassion, it is in reference to specific cultural tenets and it feels inappropriate to separate and simplify them especially when this part of the paper is addressing Māori boys learning of their culture outside of colonialist influence.

Many people read robe!Ed as feminine, even transfeminine. I think all of those readings are valid. I think Ed is flailing around desperately trying to work out who he is when he's had the rug pulled from under him. What's important to me in this context is that Ed is trying to be gentle, creative and incredibly fucking vulnerable and open.

Please be careful with what traits you associate with femininity and how that is applied to moc because none of these things are feminine outside of a white western context, and it’s frustrating to see western centric viewpoints and language around gender be applied to neutral acts. Crying and vulnerability isn’t something that’s viewed as feminine in all cultures! When we apply this viewpoint, we are also acting as agents of colonization and forcing western ideals onto moc.

Okay, so the paper about the formation of NZ masculine identity is a bit dense and covers a lot of ground. I think it’s a good resource to view as a way of contextualizing masculinity within the country and how that’s applied to its Māori population.

When it’s discussing the white working class and masculinity, it’s referring not just an identity, but a fetishization of the working class aesthetics. It’s a bit more complicated than just saying “NZ was colonized by the working class” and is another one of those areas where NZ’s history differs radically from Australia’s. Since Australia is infamous for the whole convict thing, meanwhile. NZ was a religious colony also colonized by missionaries. Within the country, part of what the paper discusses is how this working class narrative is utilized by the upper class and British colonials as a way of reifying class positions and incentivizing them to continue to exploit their labor.

Race on a global context is a bit funny, where over the last few centuries, race has become more simplified over time. There is a stratification of racial hierarchy where whiteness is broken into layers of acceptability, especially within a British context.

The intersection of race and class is often complicated, especially when trying to apply this to a character like Izzy who isn’t a kiwi. It’s hard to try and situate him in a situation of exploitation like this when trying to discuss him as an agent of colonization when he isn’t acting in that specific role. Of course working class white men are exploitative of poc, but we need to actually locate Izzy’s position within this accurately which isn’t as a kiwi colonizer, but as a Brit.

When I point out that Izzy’s brand of masculinity isn’t one that white supremacy is promoting as an ideal, that isn’t to say that it’s impossible for working class masculinity to be oppressive towards moc, but that there are specifics way that this relationship develops. Upper class British masculinity acts as a role model that both the working class and moc are thought of as lesser under it. Moc specifically are thought of as a project by upper class Brits to civilize. Especially in a NZ context where missionaries were attempting to force Christianity onto the population.

This same relationship doesn’t exist between working class white men and moc. The relationship between them is one that is antagonistic, as a dynamic that is purposefully set up by the upper class as a way of maintaining class positions. Again, when looking at what ideals are being promoted by white supremacy, it’s crucial to think of how this benefits the people in power.

White working class men and moc are pitted against each other throughout history not just by their communities and infighting, but through law. The most famous and instrumental case being of John Punch, the first person on official record to be forced into enslavement by the basis of his race. When three indentured servants escaped, all three were subjected to lashings, but only one was sentenced to life enslavement due to his race. This is one of the turning points in history where you see how relationships of solidarity become fractured as racism offers incentives to be maintained by white people also marginalized under systems of oppression.

This is relevant, because through this you can see the ways that white working class men utilize the brutalization of poc to better their own position within society. Example: how the Irish became assimilated into whiteness through the NYC race riots and the murder of more than 100 Black people.

Working class white masculinity cannot function as subordinate to moc. It is defined by it’s position as above poc and maintained by their continual abuse. When looking to examples of what this looks like, it’s often one that views moc as a threat and treats them as something that needs to be suppressed or eliminated. Think of white men fear mongering about the threat of job loss due to immigration, meanwhile the actual cause is corporations having high profits, yet continuing to cut costs and lay people off.

When thinking of Izzy in this context, it’s a contradiction to view Izzy as wanting to force Ed into a racialized role by asking him to be his superior. Racism isn’t vibes, it’s an interconnecting system that validates white supremacy, and being rude and a shit head doesn’t equate to racism. Izzy weaponizing white masculinity would be less “calling Ed a pussy and telling him he wants to serve him” and more “trying to force Ed into a place of subordination or discredit his accomplishments as flukes of his physicality, not his intelligence and skill.”

Honestly, a more straight forward way this manifests would be something like Black Pete’s frustration at Oluwande and Jim, two poc, being placed into leadership positions over him where despite not having the skills or knowledge they do, still valuing himself as superior. That isn’t me saying Pete’s a racist or anything, but that’s a dynamic far more similar to the way the white working class interacts with poc.

Tbh, these conversations are a bit frustrating because of how simplistic the predominant fandom views racism and white supremacy, condensing it into soundbites when convenient, and then never contextualizing it into the greater impact of the show. This is also a level of scrutiny that is rarely applied to Stede, or when done so as quick housekeeping of vaguely acknowledging “he’s a privileged white man!” while never considering what his role in white supremacy is on a deeper level and being eager to absolve him of it quickly.

If Ed is supposed to be trying to turn into a truer self that is free of violence and wants to become a softer person, this sets up a disturbing narrative of white savioritirsm on Stede’s part. This white savior narrative wouldn’t be purposeful or a deconstruction, it’d be a deep flaw of the story where I would severely question the writing as reinforcing racist stereotypes and positioning a white man as more developed.

This also positions Ed as someone so incapable of his own thought that he’s able to be manipulated by a 5’7 loser subordinate he’s never shown respect towards as soon as his teacher of proper masculinity is gone. Stede’s brand of masculinity is no better than whatever is projected onto Izzy, if anything, it’s one that holds more power. He fits far more into upper class society than Ed or Izzy ever will, regardless of how much he cries. This isn’t a subversion of masculinity, and treating it as a more enlightened pathway for Ed to take as an alternative to the wretched working class filth he comes from would really really suck.

In the end, Ed is violent. He loves a good maim! He’s a pirate! He’s impulsive and hot headed and he doesn’t fit within the softer less obtrusive ideals of upper class white masculinity. By taking these traits and dismissing them as a cage he’s locked in that only Stede can show him out of, we are forcing western ideals of acceptability onto him. Instead, we should recognize Ed for who he is, a multifaceted and complex character with flaws who engages with multiple characters with varying degrees of interpersonal conflict.

The more I think about it the more I dislike interpretations that Izzy is forcing Ed to be violent and The Kraken coming out is Izzy fault entirely where he’s manipulating Ed to be this way because of masculine ideals. I think I said it before, but white men don’t want moc to be violent. When it comes to racial stereotypes, they’re utilized as a way to hold up specific structures of white supremacy. For Polynesia, and the Māori specifically, viewing them as “savages” who idolize violence and are a danger was used as a justification for their colonization. It was a tool leveraged against them to push for “civilizing” the native population, where the focus on their body came with two goals: 1. Justify colonialism by saying that the Māori were inherently violent and in need of English intervention and 2. Isolate their physical skill as a positive where they could then funnel Māori men into roles of manual labor.

When talking about roles of masculinity, Izzy isn’t an example of British masculinity to be revered. In Britain, class trumps masculinity where Izzy’s distinctively working class demeanor could never be held up as an ideal. This is different than in American (and New Zealand too actually!) where working class aesthetics are fetishized and appropriated. In England, however, the ideal was to be stoic. You had control over your emotions, you didn’t swear, you were refined. Izzy’s outbursts and tantrums would never be held up as ways to celebrate masculinity, they’d be looked down upon as uncultured.

It doesn’t make sense to interpret Izzy as weaponizing race to force Ed into a position of a violent moc. This stereotype isn’t one that serves white supremacy in that context. The Blackbeard we know, which is violent, wild, vicious and brilliant, is one that the British hate. It threatens their livelihood and pokes holes in their view of whiteness as absolute and impenetrable. You can’t view Izzy as aligning with colonialism while also saying that he is forcing Ed into this racial stereotype. Especially when historically, you’re looking at an incomplete and decontextualized caricature.

Like I said before, Māori men were stereotyped (and still are) of having their bodies and physical skills valued above all else. This came hand in hand with diminishing their intelligence and painting them as mentally deficient. There’s a specific history of European colonizers forcing Māori schools to remove academics from their program and to only teach agriculture and other manual skills like that. When the stereotype of the violent native exists, it’s one that has to be careful to not threaten the inherent supremacy of whiteness, which means it gets coupled with this idea of “purity” of the native as well. They’re violent and brutal, but that’s because they’re closer to “primitive” and are acting out on their basic instincts. Therefore, they need to be pushed into the proper career fields where their physical talents can be used productively. There’s a romanticization almost, of viewing this violence as child-like and in need of correction. Hence, the need to civilize them.

I just don’t think this context works with the way Izzy interacts with Edward. Izzy is never trying to control Edward or to position himself as above him. He values him for his intelligence and his brilliance. He never wants to captain Edward, and happily accepts a role of subordination to him. This is a position that doesn’t fit within white supremacy where whiteness can never be seen as second class to a poc. Even when valuing moc’s physical skill above white men’s, it’s done with a caveat that this proves white men’s superiority because that means they’re able to best moc based on intelligence alone.

So, we know that the masculinity Izzy presents isn’t the one that is idolize. That Edward having angry outbursts and violent tendencies isn’t working within the ideals of British masculinity. We know that Edward’s violence isn’t something white supremacy would encourage because that’s not how white supremacy functions. And we know that the way Izzy interacts with Ed is at complete odds to white supremacist viewpoints where whiteness can never be placed as subordinate to a poc.

But, if you want to see a place that this white supremacy does show up, you can look to the British navy as a much more cut and dry example of how Ed’s violence and physical ability is treated under colonization.

At no point in the show do we ever see the navy talk about Ed as someone who is intelligent. He’s the legendary Blackbeard, yes, but that isn’t said with admiration. When the navy jumps to accept Ed’s Act of Grace this is because it represents a symbol of English superiority where Blackbeard is able to be brought down and under control. In the same vein, we can see how this can also be used as a way where Edward can act as an example of the civilizing of an Indigenous man. When Edward shaves his beard, dresses in uniform, and conforms to the rules of the navy, he is for the first time exemplifying British masculinity. Ideals of stoicness, cleanliness, rule abiding, orderly. These are all things that make up British identity, not anger or out of control violence. Edward’s surrender is valuable because it signifies that the British goal of “civilizing” poc is working, and allows him to act as an example of that. This goes alongisde a history of Māori men being valued in white society exclusively for their ability in either war or sports, where there’s a precedence of Māori men in the army specifically as something to celebrate.

In a way, you can view Blackbeard the pirate and Edward, the king’s soldier, as playing out a fantasy of white supremacy where this dichotomy showcases the binary view of Māori men and their masculinity. Consider this film analysis of Crooked Earth as an exmple.

There’s a distinct polarization here, another reason why I’d strongly disagree with the assertion that Ed post-Act of Grace is living his truest, most happy self.

So, again, I just? Don’t vibe with the idea that Izzy is forcing Ed to act out a caricature of violence. I think there’s too much complexity Izzy affords to Ed for him to view Ed as a caricature, and that him valuing Ed’s intelligence is inherently at odds with the colonialist view of Māori men. More than that, I think taking away Ed’s agency and portraying him as someone who is being manipulated into violence against his will, plays into ideals of presenting Māori men as mentally deficient in comparison to white men. It continues a viewpoint that they’re simply misguided and acting out on their baser instincts. By presenting Ed as a puppet to Izzy, Ed loses his autonomy and becomes a weapon in the hands of white men. (and also opens up a LOT of questionable assumptions about what it means to then view Stede as a gateway for Ed to escape that life by presenting aristocracy as an alternative which imo would be a much more cut and dry example of how the British view moc as a project of civilizing) When in reality, Ed has purposefully crafted his image of Blackbeard as a way of utilizing his reputation in careful directed ways to elevate his pirating career.

Also, because I’m trying to encourage people to always check sources and look things up for themselves but am too lazy to do in text citations, if you want to read more about Māori masculinity, colonization, and violence here’s a few sources! [x] [x] [x] [x]

(just saying but even tho I am a poc, I am not Māori and I’m also in the process of learning more!)