#and shes supposed to be like ambiguously african or something

[starrysharks]

this game is a joke

[creatingblackcharacters]

No, That’s Not ‘How Color Works’. - Whitewashing

Whitewashing, as defined by Merriam-Webster:

"to alter (something) in a way that favors, features, or caters to white people: such as a) to portray (the past) in a way that increases the prominence, relevance, or impact of white people and minimizes or misrepresents that of nonwhite people and B) to alter (an original story) by casting a white performer in a role based on a nonwhite person or fictional character"

In fandom context, we know it to include:

Making someone’s skin lighter

Making someone’s hair a thinner texture

Changing someone’s nose to be thinner

Shrinking their lips

Changing the character in their entirety to be someone else

The Normalization of Whitewashing

Remember how I mentioned last lesson that despite the nature of poorly drawn Black characters, most audiences are not turned off enough to discourage the action in professional works? Similar idea with whitewashing. Not the same- unlike the Ambiguously Brown Character, which claims to have plausible deniability, overt whitewashing is usually enough to make fans speak up! But that’s the key word here- overt! It has to be “bad enough” to make enough people speak up, but as we’ve seen many a time, “bad enough” seems to have a much higher threshold for nonblack viewership (sometimes the limit doesn’t exist!)

Some visual examples

This is a link to my personal thread on a Netflix show I was watching- Worst Ex Ever. Now, while the show itself was quite enlightening, there was something I could not get over. I thought I was going crazy. And that was that no matter how dark the person of color would be in real life, the animated portions would draw this light pinkish-brown. Every. Single. Time. It's like they couldn't fathom scrolling down the color wheel. And this is a Netflix original! Netflix has plenty of money for someone to have caught this in creation. But... it was produced. And put out. And they're making more of it.

I asked all of the Dragon Age fans about the series, and uh… I didn’t know things were this bad, guys! Apparently this is a man of color, but it doesn't seem like the creators want you to know that 🤣. Jokes aside, as I’ve discussed before, the noticeable whitewashing- and that was one of many racist things I was told- was not enough to prevent sales... so why would they stop? I can only hope this new game, with all the updates, is enough to turn the tide. But the series has gone on for a while now, that if they’d chosen to do ye same olde… there clearly would not be a lack of financial support to prevent it.

Colorism as a Tool

Even when actors of color are cast, colorism often plays a role in normalizing whitewashing to audiences, even to Black audiences! People think “oh well at least they’re Black!” as if that is the only important part. It is not.

While Aaron Pierre, the actor cast for John Stewart of Green Lantern fame, is a GORGEOUS, STUNNING man, he is not the dark-skinned man that John Stewart is supposed to be and should not have been cast! To me, this is overt colorism, but clearly for many people this is not “enough” to warrant concern or even prevent the casting itself- including the studio behind the movie! Black fans have plead for years for the character of Storm to be played by a dark-skinned, preferably African, woman, and it has never happened.

It naturally happens in fan spaces as well, which is another indicator that colorism as a tool for whitewashing is quite effective for audiences. If I see one more Zendaya fan cast for Kida from Atlantis, I will scream. It’s been happening for years, and I don’t think any of the people who just want to see her and Tom on screen either understand or care that Kida is a dark-skinned character. Zendaya doesn’t look anything like Kida- it doesn’t matter if she’s Black too! Just because someone is Black does not mean they can play every single Black character! I’ve even seen people fancast Emilia Clarke of Game of Thrones fame, to which… I don’t have the words. I can’t fathom what would cause these decisions other than racism.

The Common Excuses

I must be honest. I don’t really feel like re-iterating how certain things are not okay and how to fix them, because I’ve already discussed these things in massive detail. So I’m just going to direct the excuses I regularly hear to my lessons, where you can read up on them.

“Their hair/eyes are like that because they’re biracial so-”

Relevant Lessons: 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 8, 9, 10

There is nothing wrong with having biracial characters with a range of features. I am not saying that! Because yeah, genetics do happen!

But I mentioned this in my last lesson, and I will re-emphasize here, that using biracial identity as a way to whitewash is a sinister form of racism. The intention here- the real intention- is the issue here! The idea that somehow this character can only look the way you want them to look by "diluting" their Blackness… I don’t know how you can explain yourselves out of that one.

You don’t get to use us as an excuse for diversity while still trying to maintain your preference for Eurocentric beauty standards. Black biracial people don’t always look light skinned, thin-haired and ambiguous, and even the ones that do don’t deserve to be treated as your fetish for pretend antiracism. If you just want to draw a white person with a tan, do that. But don’t change a character’s entire look just so you can work in some whiteness. If you want to claim that canon Black character’s mother was white, then I guess they inherited some of her personality because their features should not change.

“It’s my style/It’s the color-”

Relevant Lessons: 3, 4, 10

I hate all excuses for whitewashing, but I’ve grown to despise, hate, abhor and loathe this one the most as I’ve become an artist. I wish there were stronger words to describe just how much I hate the “style” and “color” excuse.

Are style and use of color oft intertwined? Absolutely. I’m not saying they aren’t. But out of everything, there are two things I want artists to understand:

1. Style does not cancel out racism! No style forces you to choose ashy greys and to change peoples’ features. That’s you! If you look at something, and it looks offensive, you change the style. You grow as an artist!

2. “Everyone who is brown will look ashy so I just-” if you recognize that your Black characters look strange in comparison to your nonblack characters, then it’s time to try something else! I don’t understand this sudden need for “realism” when it comes to color and lighting, but not when it comes to hair, for example. No one cares about realism when giving every and all Black characters wavy tresses they probably wouldn’t have, but suddenly milquetoast watercolor attempts at brown and off-putting lighting is “how it works”. That’s not fair.

The color picker is an available tool! I use it often!

Dead giveaway of purposeful whitewashing: if someone gets the outfit color palette right via color picking, but the skin color is multiple shades lighter. That means they were looking at that character and chose not to proceed.

Dead giveaway of purposeful whitewashing: if the white characters in the show are completely correct in their palettes. Again, that means they cared enough to look at everyone else… and not the Black characters.

If you use the color picker and the color picked is… disrespectful, you do not have to use that! You can simply choose a better color that is still similar to the brown that ought to be depicted!

“It’s the lighting-”

Relevant Lessons: 4, 5

If your white characters do not shine like snow in the sunlight because of your lighting, then your lighting does not make your Black characters suddenly light tan.

If your Black characters look bad in your lighting of choice- for example, putting a very dark-skinned character in electric white lighting can be ghastly- try changing the intensity or the color of the lighting. DON’T change your character’s skin color!

I'm going to show you some pictures of South Sudanese model Nyakim Gatwech. Pay attention to the choices of light, color, and makeup.

Look how BEAUTIFUL she is! Look at the choices of intensity and color of light, and how they make her look different in each image.

Now look at this image in comparison:

In this image, whoever did her makeup and took this picture did not take into consideration her skin tone. She's also under this really intense lighting. This is an example of "increasing the lighting does NOT make an image "better"". She didn't need to have lighter skin or "more lighting" to look good. She needed BETTER lighting, lighting that worked with HER.

To see this as an example in drawn art, @dsm7 makes an excellent argument for proper lighting and color, why it is an issue to use it as an excuse, and how to solve that problem.

‼️DISCLAIMER FOR NEXT EXAMPLE‼️

Okay. I am about to show y’all a fan-created example from my personal experience. It is a TEACHING EXPERIENCE ONLY. I am not including the artist’s name in this image. It happened a couple years ago, and it’s over- they’ve chosen to be who they are despite me kindly confronting them about it. The only reason I’m including it at all is because I feel like it would be remiss to have such a clear-cut, multi-level example, and not teach with it. That said, no, I am not telling anyone to act out towards them. Again, that is not what I’m telling you to do. The last thing I need is a literal lynch mob of angry nonblack viewership for trying to teach you all, and y’all sitting there watching it happen to me. Every example of whitewashing is not going to be so obvious, but I hope you learn how to spot the examples in the art you see and share.

I'm obviously a Hades fan, particularly of Patroclus- despite my disdain for the lack of effort in his canon character design. So I've seen a lot of things. That said:

“Well it’s just MY design of them-”

Relevant Lessons: ALL

The sepia coloring did not do this. The lighting did not do this. The design is the exact same as the Hades version, even down to the shape of the hair curling in the back. The only thing that is different… is the man himself.

Y'all. Y'all! You CANNOT take a pre-existing Black character and say “oh well this is my design of them” …and the design is of a whole white person. Because if the rest of the fit is the same, and the only thing that changed is the Blackness… Racism. If you’re going to “make up your own design”, then do that!

“Blackwashing”

Speaking of: I’m sure someone edgy out there thinks they’re so smart as they retort to the screen: “but if that’s not okay, then why is Blackwashing okay?” To which I say- shut up. 😐

The “definition” by fandom: making a nonblack character Black, usually an anime character, but characters in general.

Funny enough, the actual definition in the dictionary (or closest to) is “to defame”, in contrast with whitewash (as in whitewashing history). Maybe racist fans ARE using it correctly when they say you’re blackwashing their characters, when they mean you’re making them “less likable because they’re Black now”. 🤔

Anyway: Blackwashing is not real for the same reason reverse racism is not real.

Me painting these characters brown is not going to take away from the fact that there are far more of you in media than there is of me. Me saying that I ‘headcanon a character as Black with 4C hair’ is not going to make the studio go “oh! Well they must be Black with 4C hair now!” Me saying “oh I think I’d like this character better if they were Black” as a beta tester (less overtly, obviously, because I’m not racist!) will never make a studio change that character. Black viewers have minimal value in comparison to the power of the white viewer’s dollar. I could draw white characters Black every single day of every single game media… and they would still produce majority white characters. There has not been centuries- if not millennia, when we consider Jesus Christ himself, even- of purposeful “Blackwashing” with the intent of removing the original ethnicity- and thus importance- of white people. No one has ever been allowed to forget when someone is white. No one has ever been allowed to forget or not acknowledge white people.

How it could be "solved"

Personally, I love Black edits and I welcome them here. I find them creative and fun. But if you really, REALLY didn’t want us to make those edits, then naturally, we need more Black characters in all of our media!

I wouldn’t have to make edits if I saw more of me to begin with in the things I like to watch- but when we have those characters, racists act an ass about them. We’re not allowed to even be present! I’ve seen too many gamer bros mocking the existence of Yasuke in Assassin’s Creed, and he was a real ass man. But if we made a game about African peoples in African societies, how many of the gamer bros would actually play those games? Do you think there’d be as much support, when we hear so much about Black characters that are treated so abhorrently? How many games do we have where people would love their faves just as much if they were Black? I even learned that Solas was apparently supposed to be a man of color. IMAGINE how many people would not have liked that man, with the same exact plot and characterization.

Something I’ve noticed recently: apparently "Blackwashing" is not a thing when White fans “allow” it. Take this recent trend with Miku. International Miku was beloved! But if you draw any other character as Black on any other day, there will be people that are horrid about it. Ask any artist, Black artists and Black cosplayers especially, who’s ever done it what their comments are like. I’ve read entire missives akin to white supremacist drivel on how it’s somehow morally wrong to make characters Black. Meanwhile no amount of “hey maybe you shouldn’t do this” prevented the movie Gods of Egypt from being created, with a cast full of British White people.

Solutions to Avoiding Whitewashing!

1) Using References!!

Do I think you should know what Black people look like? Yes. We’re humans. It’s 2024. Everyone knows what we look like when it’s time to hate and discriminate against us, so you know what we look like when it’s time to love and depict us. If you’re on Tumblr, you have access to the Internet. ESPECIALLY if you’re in the U.S., as Black people are the source of damn near every piece of online pop culture. If you can find my dialect to make my jokes, you can find pictures of me.

Would I rather you use a reference every single time so that you can only strengthen your depiction of my people? ABSOLUTELY.

Anyone on the Internet telling you not to use a reference or that you shouldn’t need a reference? Unfollow them. You don’t need that negativity in your life. Why would you deprive yourself of a tool to create? The greatest portrait painters in history had to look at their subjects! You are not getting paid nearly as much to do this as Hans Holbein, and he had to stare at Henry VIII correct else lose his head- you can pull up multiple references. I’d far rather be judged for using hella references than be judged for being a racist!

Part of the issue is people draw what they’re used to, what they’re comfortable with (thus last lesson). But if what you’re used to is not what someone will look like… That’s not okay. Their features are not the issue, your skills are the issue. Learn! Practice! There is no rush. No one is rushing you to be perfect at drawing Black characters, and no one is rushing you to post them. You can just practice! If you’re not a professional, you can take as long as you need to draw! If you need to draw that piece of hair over and over until you feel like you have down the shape, you do that! If you need to use a tool that would draw the hair for you, you get that tool!

If you want to post, you can say you are practicing! If you make clear you are practicing, then be willing to accept that people may have feedback. I’d far rather deal with someone saying they’re unconfident and practicing, than someone posting a whitewashed caricature and closing their ears because “well at least I’m trying!”

2) Empathize! Care about actual Black people when you create a Black character!

Imagine, if you will, in the Twilight Zone: you went to an artist, and you asked for a white character (I typed in “regular looking white dude” on google). There’s hardly ever any white characters, you’re so super excited about this one! You paid good money, because you’ve seen just how amazing this artist creates! They’re so good at drawing characters of color! But no matter how many times you ask, they send you back an image of… Assad Zaman.

That man might be fine as hell! Gorgeous! Beautifully done! Chef’s kiss. Stunning! But… He’s not white. That’s not what you asked or paid for. You can’t even fathom how they mixed this up, they don’t even look alike! And when you confront them, they gaslight you, they call YOU the issue for not understanding how you can’t tell that this is a white man! They would never get this wrong! They have white friends, you’re the racist! But you’re not stupid, and you have functioning eyes- you can SEE what this drawing looks like! And… It’s not you.

It’s dehumanizing. It’s being told that there’s a “better way” to look like you, and that’s by… Not looking like you. You, as you exist, are what’s incorrect. Your identity is incorrect, not their drawing. It’s better to have thinner hair instead of an afro or locs, it’s better to have lighter skin, it’s better to have a straighter, thinner nose over a round one, and smaller lips.

And what makes it worse is knowing that people who don’t look like you? Probably won’t care. They won’t be willing to see- not unable, but unwilling- that playing with this caricature is harmful, that they’re propagating harm by not acknowledging it. They’re letting you know that your humanity means less to them than the clout received with a whitewashed or half-assed Black character, and that people will applaud them for that ‘attempt at inclusion’. And people will applaud! They will be entertained by the mere performance! And that hurts.

I’m going to say this, and it’s awkward and I try not to say it directly on here, but… Having Black friends and/or being around actual, real life Black people would help. I can tell from some of the questions I receive that Black characters and their traits- especially things like our hair and our cultures- are being treated as… alien concepts. But even if, for whatever reason, you legitimately don’t know any Black people, you do not need to know us individually to care about our humanity as a whole! Even if you do not know we’re there, we are, and we could possibly see your work!

By acknowledging Blackness and making room to understand what it means- and that includes how we can look- you are doing the bare minimum of acknowledging our personhood. If you cannot do even that, you don’t need to be drawing us.

Conclusion

Here’s the thing: if you want to draw a white man with tanned skin, do that. Just do it! You do NOT have to erase me to have more of you! There is not a single fandom where the majority of the white fans ever said “gee, not another white guy!” It simply doesn’t happen. God knows we wish it did sometimes. You will always have an audience for white characters. There’s no danger to any of you of “being erased”.

(Without putting on my political hat, I will say that a lot of white people who consider themselves to be far from white supremacist will express beliefs in line with great replacement theory if you push them hard enough. It is unfortunately not as uncommon an idea as you might think. I would do some self-evaluation.)

People are going to notice that you only ever draw white people, but… To be frank, that has never stopped anybody from being successful. Again, Jen Zee, at Supergiant with the terrible dark-skinned characters… Still has a job. at Supergiant. A professional studio. Dragon Age. Multiple games of consistent whitewashing and racist writing. Still going. If racism prevented creation and popularity, I wouldn’t have to have this blog. Alas, that is the society we currently live in.

But if you ACTUALLY want to depict Black characters, if you ACTUALLY want to do right and be respectful- not because you want the clout, but because it’s the right damn thing to do- then you need to commit! This means drawing them as they are meant to be! Accept that you’ll likely lose some fan base, who was there (whether they were aware of it or not) for the white and lighter skinned characters. Accept that this means that trying to appeal to those people by whitewashing characters is 1) wrong, 2) racist, which is 3) something you chose to do when you could simply have just… Drawn more white people.

I’ll say it again: antiracism is hard. It’s hard doing the right thing in a society that rewards racism so easily. It’s really hard knowing that people will stop supporting you or caring as much about your work when you start including Black characters as actively as you do white ones, especially if you start talking about the importance of it. But in my honest opinion, I’d far rather be someone that cared about others, with genuine fans, than someone that was racist for the fleeting internet clout of strangers. And that may be less ‘hopeful’ than I normally am in these lessons, but… People make choices. And people who have been informed- as you are now- are aware of the choices they are making. It’s the thought that counts, but the action that delivers- let’s choose better actions.

[literary-illuminati]

2024 Book Review #5 – The Tusks of Extinction by Ray Nayler

I read Nayler’s The Mountain in the Sea last year and, despite thinking it was ultimately kind of a noble failure, liked it more than enough to give his new novella a try. It didn’t hurt that the premise as described in the marketing copy sounded incredible. I can’t quite say it was worth it, but that’s really only because this novella barely cost less than the 500-page doorstopper I picked up at the same time and I need to consider economies here – it absolutely lived up to the promise of its premise.

The book is set a century and change into the future, when a de-extinction initiative has gotten funding from the Russian government to resurrect the Siberian mammoth – or, at least, splice together a chimera that’s close-enough and birth it from african elephant surrogate mothers – to begin the process of restoring the prehistoric taiga as a carbon sink. The problem: there’s no one on earth left who knows how wild mammoth are supposed to, like, live- the only surviving elephants have been living in captivity for generations. Plop the ressurectees in the wilderness and they’ll just be very confused and anxious until they starve. The solution: the technology to capture a perfect image of a human mind is quite old, and due to winning some prestigious international award our protagonist – an obsessive partisan of elephant conservation – was basically forced to have her mind copied and put in storage a few months before she was killed by poachers.

So the solution of who will raise and socialize these newly created mammoths is ‘the 100-year-old ghost of an elephant expert, after having her consciousness reincarnated in a mammoth’s body to lead the first herd as the most mature matriarch’. It works better than you’d expect, really, but as it turns out she has some rather strong opinions about poachers, and isn’t necessarily very understanding when the solution found to keep the project funded involves letting some oligarch spend a small country’s GDP on the chance to shoot a bull and take some trophies.

So this is a novella, and a fairly short one – it’s densely packed with ideas but the length and the constraints of narrative mean that they’re more evoked or presented than carefully considered. This mostly jumps out at me with how the book approaches wildlife conservation – a theme that was also one of the overriding concerns of Mountain where it was considered at much greater length. I actually think the shorter length might have done Nayler a service here, if only because it let him focus things on one specific episode and finish things with a more equivocal and ambiguous ending than the saccharine deux ex machina he felt compelled to resort to in Mountain.

The protection of wildlife is pretty clearly something he’s deeply invested in – even if he didn’t outright say so in the acknowledgements, it just about sings out from the pages of both books. Specifically, he’s pretty despairing about it – both books to a great extent turn around how you convince the world at large to allow these animals to live undisturbed when all the economic incentives point the other way, a question he seems quite acutely aware he lacks a good answer to.

Like everyone else whose parents had Jurassic Park on VHS growing up, I’ve always found the science of de-extinction intensely fascinating – especially as it becomes more and more plausible every day. This book wouldn’t have drawn my eye to nearly the degree it did if I don’t remember the exact feature article I’d bet real money inspired it about a group of scientists trying to do, well, exactly the same thing as the de-extinctionists do in the book (digital resurrection aside). The book actually examines the project with an eye to practicalities and logistics – and moreover, portrays it as at base a fundamentally heroic, noble undertaking as opposed to yet another morality tale about scientific hubris. So even disregarding everything else it had pretty much already won me over just with that.

The book’s portrayal of the future and technology more generally is broader and less carefully considered, but it still rang truer than the vast majority of sci fi does – which is, I suppose, another way of saying that it’s a weathered and weather-beaten world with new and better toys, but one still very fundamentally recognizable as our own, without any great revolutions or apocalyptic ruptures in the interim. Mosquito's got CRISPR’d into nonexistence and elephants were poached into extinction outside of captivity, children play with cybernetically controlled drones and the president of the Russian Federation may or may not be a digital ghost incarnated into a series of purpose-grown clones, but for all that it’s still the same shitty old earth. It’s rather charming, really.

[douglysium]

Is FGO's Andromeda Black?

I already talked about this on Twitter So I figured I would mention this here and it was originally a sort of response to people criticizing for someone assuming Andromeda was some sort of gyaru.

I appreciate that people are aware of Andromeda’s Aethiopian / African origins in FGO but tbh I think there’s something to be said about how FGO design usually approaches drawing black people / features. Sure I think Andromeda is black but if you where to grab a random non-fate fan before putting FGO’s Andromeda, Amakusa, Emiya Alter, and Suzuka Gozen (Summer) in front of them with no context and asked them “Which of these characters is black?” or "Which of these character an African figure?" I hesitate to say that they would be able to tell you consistently.

I’m not saying no character can ever be racially ambiguous or everything can fit cleanly into little boxes at all times but as tempting as it is to say someone not realizing Andromeda is black is merely the ignorance of an audience member I can’t help but think that Fate also primes such expectations with how they often approach black characters in general. I think parts of the internet do bend over backward trying to deny a character being black when it makes sense but I also ask when is the last time Fate has idk drawn really curly hair or dreads? Like seriously think about it.

(Lenora maybe isn't the best example because I think she plays into some stereotypes but the point here is to look at the hair texture)

So, I think as good as the conversation about Africa in Greek mythology is to have and how easy it is to blame it on the audience (which is not completely unjustified) I think we also have to question how Fate itself primes the audience or may handle things in such a way as to increase the chance of miscommunication. And this is not to say that it’s always Fate’s fault or that black people can never have straight hair and / or lightskin black people or what have you, but i find Myself having to debate whether a character is black or not in fate way more often than I have to debate if a character is black in other media. I think the weaknesses that Fate has with these kinds of designs is something I don’t see with Magic the Gathering or Pokemon or even Digimon. Outside of specific characters I don’t see people arguing Marvin Jackson from Digital-Police is a gyaru or Lenora isn’t black.

Like if you look at Sid Story’s Mansa Musa design for example I don’t think there’s really anyway for someone to misinterpret that she’s not black without looking like they are purposefully trying to troll others for engagement.

(Shout outs to illust_ringo (https://twitter.com/illust_ringo))

Like yeah, there is a lot of racism in some parts of the Fate fandom but Fate itself did also make a bunch of Detroit jokes with Emiya alter and clearly realized they made some sort of mistake with design since they’ve been walking back on some subtle stuff so I can only give FGO itself so much grace in that context. I love Fate but I think if we want to have a productive conversation we need to acknowledge the racism within Fate itself and how that can attract certain people or set up certain expectations (even with the censorship of characters like Emiya Alter).

I guess what I’m also trying to say is for some people if you give an inch they’ll take a mile. If you give even a little bit of a possibility that a character isn’t black, even if they’re supposed to be, some people are going to take it and I think that there’s some stuff Fate could be doing more often (even if not all the time) to help prevent misconceptions from occurring and prevent me from pulling out an essay or history lesson on why a character is or should be black almost every-time they release and African servant.

While I ended up talking about some of the ways I think Fate could do better I don’t think it’s always 100% their fault. Like I said if you give an inch some people will take a mile (and some people don’t want to ever count Egypt as part of Africa for some reason) but I also think there’s stuff they could be doing to help curb this. I also don’t think it helps that Fate barely touches any black figures around / outside of Egypt but that’s for another time (where’s Yasuke?! Im on my hands and knees begging).

Anyway, those are my thoughts because quite frankly one could go on all day with almost infinite ifs, ands, or buts and numerous exceptions and when the responsibility is more on the designer or more on the audience or how there are always exceptions, considering racially ambiguous people and designs, etc but this is from Twitter and my brain hurts so I'll spare you an entire chapter book's worth of thoughts. I figured this was also fitting to go over during Black History Month.

Extra Thoughts

There are a couple of other points I would like to mention though. Some people have argued Andromeda is a win because they didn't depict her as white and I'm not sure I completely agree? Yes, it is a major win that they didn't do that thing where they only look at how white Europeans from the medieval century depicted her and used pale skin as a symbol of beauty but there are some fan translations of her profile and it says this " A tomboy princess who prides herself on her swimming ability. Ethiopia (Aethiopia) is said to mean "land of the sunburnt people"[1], however, it does not necessarily correspond to the nation of Ethiopia which exists today."

So yes, Aethiopia does not correspond perfectly to Ethopia but it still refers to parts of Africa and Africans. Quite frankly, this part of the profile reads like a summer servant and while it might be easy to say "Fate gave her dark skin so it's a win" I also worry that what happened is that they interpreted "land of the sunburnt people" as a tan and took the depictions of white Andromeda and interpreted it as a sort of tan. Which is a doubt I REALLY REALLY REALLY wish I didn't have and I can't stress this enough. I so desperately want to believe that they are saying Andromeda is at least black but like I said I think we have to be honest that Fate's depiction of black and African people adds a lot of room for doubt. I think her skin is naturally tan at least and while she does indeed have dark hair in some of her ascensions it ends up turning blonde. You could maybe argue this confirms that she actually isn't a gyaru since most stereotypical gyarus have blonde hair but even with that in mind I think the way Fate handles Andromeda and just black designs in general can often fall a bit flat or unclear and sometimes I think fans are doing a lot of heavy lifting with good faith readings (including me).

This is not me saying Andromeda is white this is me saying that Fate pretty consistently falls short with these designs which feeds into a room for doubt. Like I said, I just want Fate to be more willing to include some black features more often so I'm not constantly having to pull up a small dissertation on why a character is black. It would be nice if there were just a few more of their black characters that I could point to and have no doubts about and not need to debate anyone.

Also, Fate just has a SERIOUS whitewashing problem and a weird relationship with blonde hair quite frankly. It feels like sometimes it's an obsession. Like when they made it so blonde hair was a sign of divinity for most of the Babylonian gods. Something that has a lot of Eurocentric baggage with the history of associating often white / "aryan" traits with purity, beauty, goodness, divinity, etc.. Not to mention, that in my opinion, Fate seems like it is basically going out of its way to avoid black historical figures most of the time unless they have do Egypt. Yes, I know about Strange / Fake and Nzambi but they barely touched most of Africa and even outside of Egypt they haven't really even mentioned characters like Yasuke outside of some fan-submitted design in one of their gag mangas. Combine this with designs like Emiya Alter and the controversy around that and I can't help but be left wanting a bit more of a bare minimum somewhere even if there aren't a lot of black servants.

Greeks and Pigment

Since someone is inevitably going to bring this up. Yes the Greeks do technically depict Andromeda with light skin even way back when but I just happened to take an art history class so I know a bit about this.

Greeks did this weird thing where they sometimes depicted women with light skin and men with dark skin so if you really wanted to commit to that argument then someone like Perseus for example would have to be black or at least dark-skinned. To me it can hold about as much wait as arguing a man has blue skin and a girl has pink skin because people associate those colors with boys and girls.

For reference, here’s a pot depicting Perseus and Andromeda from 575-550 BCE on an amphora from Italy. If someone did want to argue Andromeda was white than they would need to argue Pereus is black or something which is to say Greek art and skin tones can be weird.

Andromeda wasn’t the only Greek mythological figure from Ethiopia (such as Memnon during the Trojan War) and the Greeks had settlements in African areas like Egypt and traded with Africans. Additionally, the myth of Helios explains why dark skin tones exist (so different skin tones are literally incorporated into their myths) so I think based on context even with art like this we can assume the Greek culture generally probably knew about black people. Also, Andromeda's profile clearly alludes to the idea that the designers and writers probably know Andromeda is from Africa too.

Ending

Idk, I try not to come off as a debbie downer or seem like the only enjoyment I get from Fate is when I bash it but I feel like some people are getting really caught up in praising the design or the individuals who are probably misreading Andromeda's race or ethnicity and not seeing the bigger picture itself. Something that limits the productivity of the conversation. I also think that where possible we should maybe push for more clearly black designs to prevent things like this from happening. I know that's usually not going to happen because FGO is a Japanese game for a mostly Japanese audience but you never know who's paying attention or who you might inspire. I also think that some of us maybe shouldn't be settling for scraps or half gestures as often.

Andromeda does do well with not just depicting her as Perseus white but at the same time I think everyone also just has REALLY low standards (including me) so even that little bit was a surprise. Which is depressing when you think about it. This isn't me saying you can't like Andromeda or that every character needs to have their race plastered on their forehead but it's very clear that Fate's design philosophy has some major pitfalls and weaknesses (especially with depicting black people) and I think it could be taking some simple steps to resolve them. It feels like every time FGO releases a black character the same cycle happens in the community and I'm not really sure it's going anywhere because people end up debating about what is basically a symptom showing up within the fanbase without addressing the actual source and elephant in the room itself, FGO and maybe even Fate in general.

There are also even people in Japan who at least kind of care enough to try to depict black people in a less ambiguous fashion that isn't racist or a stereotype (like Jinkei who has literally worked on FGO: https://x.com/jinkei_bunny/status/1759352092467364240?s=20).

BHM

Anyway, happy Black History Month. I urge you that while criticism is good and healthy positive reinforcement is also great and just as important. There's no point in ever only paying attention to the negative but never fostering the positive.

In the spirit of positivity and being the change you want to see in the world here are my Yasuke and Shaka Zulu fanservant designs

Demon Saber: Yasuke Full Profile- https://douglysium.tumblr.com/post/735141544541208576/mori-ranmaru-wikipedia

Grand Lancer Candidate: Shaka Zulu Full Profile- https://douglysium.tumblr.com/post/721643569180557312/douglysium-douglysium-douglysium-grand

Steel Berserker: John Henry Unfinished Profile- https://www.tumblr.com/douglysium/735103259781578752/steel-berserker-john-henry-wip?source=share

[horizon-verizon]

The Greens may have stolen the gold from King’s Landing, but it was Rhaenyra’s job as queen to come up with an adequate solution. She failed miserably. She overtaxed the smallfolk instead of the nobles. That caused the city to turn against her which led to her being overthrown. She let her paranoia consume her and ordered the execution of Nettles and Addam, both of whom were loyal to her. She did nothing when the smallfolk stormed the dragon pit. Therefore, it’s clear that the message of the story is that both Aegon and Rhaenyra are bad people and rulers, and that we aren’t supposed to choose sides.

*EDIT (5/31/24): Rhaenyra suffers from really bad sexist writing on GRRM's, not just the maesters', part and it undermines his own point.* And no, she doesn't need to be necessarily "moral" like Dany to be a deserving ruler.

The point of her story was to highlight how no matter how good or evil or morally ambiguous a person you are, if you are female, you are subject to losing a power men are just granted. Or usurped. And this is inherently wrong. Rhaenyra chose to go to war rather than give up. This is valuable. Visenya was not thinking "for the realm" or for the benefit of smallfolk or outside of her family, yet she as so many fans bc she was not passive or restricted by "madness". She has less sexist writing.

Consider what @azureflight says down in comments as well.

If Rhaenyra weren't a woman and if I were to go about this as if we take F&B how GRRM--not Gyldayn--wrote it, I'd agree. It's actually how GRRM chose to write Rhaenyra that gives rise to all the issues with her people (and I) have had and will continue to have.

But since she is and this Dance is about misogyny and how it ended with the realm losing its dragons and making women lose more power, I disagree.

Also, read this POST.

A)

You: "She did nothing when the smallfolk stormed the dragon pit."

This is the passage of Rhaenyra's response to the Storming:

As soon as word had reached her that the Shepherd’s savage flock was on the march, Rhaenyra sent riders to Ser Balon at the Old Gate and Ser Garth at the Dragon Gate, commanding them to disperse the lambs, seize the Shepherd, and defend the royal dragons…but with the city in such turmoil, it was far from certain that the riders had won through. Even if they had, what loyal gold cloaks remained were too few to have any hope of success. “Her Grace had as well commanded them to halt the Blackwater in its flow,” says Mushroom. When Prince Joffrey pleaded with his mother to let him ride forth with their own knights and those from White Harbor, the queen refused. “If they take that hill, this one will be next,” she said. “We will need every sword here to defend the castle.” ("Rhaenyra Overthrown")

I hardly call that "nothing".

And this is something most people would have done, which is already a lot once you consider that when she first tried to "arrest" the Shepherd, she ended up losing many 10 guardsmen & loyal soldiers. Other soldiers and gold cloaks were at the different points/city gates to protect them from any invaders (which includes the greens). By the time the Shepherd came back to rile the KLers for them to finally be inspired to storm the Dragonpit--not long after this mob-killing--she was already shorter than soldiers than ideal. We also have to remember that the Blackwoods, riverland supporters, etc. PLUS Cregan and his Northern men were not in KL at this time. they were either fighting the greens outside in other territories or they were still traveling to KL/the crownlands!

B)

The American Civil War had both sides display racism in that both white Northerners and Southerners believed that Africans and black people were inherently lesser peoples--some abolitionists still believed so and their problem was that slavery is a step too far because they believed that their God and country is based on more "graceful" ideas of freedom for all humanoids. For years, systematic methods to convince and reaffirm this belief of white supremacy through a mixture of education, entertainment, advertising, Jim Crow Laws, and structural, legal segregation.

Yes, the cognitive dissonance was/is real, but what slavery needed to end and its ending was a step towards gaining more political rights for black people. Would we rather go forward or backward? With Aegon--the only other choice other than Rhaenyra--it was way backward.

Also, while Rhaenyra was not herself a compassionate or strategic person even before her paranoia (partially because she was), she herself wasn't as terrible as she became. While her own blood purity was definitely there--this is still a feudalist world and realm--it was not the thing that started the Dance and pushed her and her family into the position to defend themselves and her to develop the paranoia she had.

Her children would have been great rulers. And if she wins, they win, because they draw their claim through her, not Aegon the Elder. Also, she seems had a huge hand in how they developed their personalities, strategic-ness, and sense of responsibility they all developed. This makes me feel even more that the fault of the Dance came from the circumstance of a woman being further denied power more than her making some decisions.

C)

1.

Bigger picture-wise, I think it's fascinating and useful to see how the imperfect victim (azureflight's comments-considering and learning more about the glass cliff) not totally digging her own grave after facing a lifetime of psychologically undermining and acting like her imperfect human self in order to survive psychologically, by the simplest means necessary, yet losing all the same because of a combo of her not being able to respond as quickly to the challenges of what's left to her to "fix". Yet given no space and time to do so. And she not choosing we Watsonianly, Rhaenyra is one particular way a victim of misogyny tries to aggrandize and gain control.

I agree that her, as the Queen and an adult, still was accountable for her own loss of focus and responsibility for the way she accumulated the taxes after the treasury was depleted. Celtigar was not the person to depend on (even here, she happened to have the wrong people at the wrong time bc the better ones already decided to go green not out of loyalty to the greens but either fear or greed), nor should she have turned against the dragonseeds.

But again, the greens depleted the treasury intentionally to make the very problem she had in KL AND Aemond burned down one of the major suppliers of food in Westeros' "south" regions: the riverlands and esp their farmer's villages and fields.

And with all that was dealt with and has to be done, I think it is very easy to see how she and most people in her position would falter. What was on her to do list:

an influx of refugees

a manic Shepherd preaching against her and calling her and Targ dragons unnatural to incite riots

rumors flying about that she killed her own sister with no valid evidence, the crowd and others blaming her for Larys' action of taking Maelor

her need to maintain relations with the lords immediately surrounding the Keep and in KL so she may be assure they continue to support her without her having to resort to Syrax and dragon fire

Me, I probably would have tried taxing both the rich and poor, but make it so that the rates are dependent on resources available to those houses. What else could she do to raise money for herself?

But with a completely empty coffer and the rumor-mongering Larys performed, I'd still likely be called "Maegor with Teats" in my having to heavily tax rich people/merchants, which goes to show how misogyny really opens one up to unanalytical criticism.

Other than that, Rhaenyra and I and the readers are very different people with different experiences and similar-but-different backgrounds--one fictional and created for a particular narrative purpose and I have the luxury of being removed from her specific situation by not being a dragon-riding princess of a super-misogynist land (after azureflight's notes below) in a situation in KL already horrid for any ruler to deal with treasury gone, missing green master of whispers who took Maleor despite the boy being safe with Rhaeyra and the rioters pulling the kid apart, refugees from Tumbleton, etc.

I also have the remove that helps me to see the bigger picture without being directly affected so I can better see how she should/could have responded to things--but because I am not a dragon-riding princess, do I really know what it's like to have lived in court and live in the middle of when chauvinism and female chastity reigned as completely normal?

2. Comparison to Daenerys "Stormborn"

In comparison to Rhaenyra, Dany proved herself both capable and more resilient against circumstances that one wouldn't pick over Rhaenyra's. Dany was abused and isolated from all that Rhaenyra had all her life, as her mother birthed her at Dragonstone and died not long after and she and her abusive brother lived traveled to several different places and with Illyrio Mopatis. These men sell her into sexual slavery. She almost died several times, once by her master-husband's own riders, in the desert while leading her own khalasar, she's targeted by those who shelter her, went through 2 miscarriages with the first being much more traumatic than the next, lost the husband she bonded with (even with him being her abuser as well), she faces Jorah Mormont's attempts to further emotionally isolate her, she's in danger every day from slavers and disgruntled men who wish to use her or destroy her, and her own husband-for-peace is plotting against her...and yet she still manages to manage an entire city and get her good-good simultaneously without totally failing as Rhaenyra did. Dany was under 15 when she went through all she went through, while Rhaenyra died at 33, so she ruled in her 30s.

Dany is so special because she comes into some sort of awareness and is thus the real change-agent. Partially because she was exiled from Westeros after Robert and the others usurped the Targs, Dany experienced having a remove from her own dynasty and family for her to see them from a more objective lens while Rhaenyra lived within that Targ-Andal paradigm from birth. If she hadn't been removed as she was, with how she tried to placate her brother for some time until she chose herself, she could have been similarly trampled under the machinations and dealing of abusive men like some Targ women. (And this was before she had her dragons, thank you very much).

Both women are constantly criticized for how they run their respective territories during heightened periods of violence or threats against them seeking to kill and usurp them. I think Dany is obviously doing a lot better than Rhaenyra, is much more concerned with how to live better for the "smallest" of smallfolk, and is Rhaenyra's superior in terms of leadership morally or strategically--while the past sentence is also correct. Dany was herself a compassionate intelligent and driven person. Rhaenyra wasn't compassionate or had true foresight or was willing to have one, but also came to be self-driven. (And why isn't Aegon or any other man expected of the same?) It happens that, with Rhaenyra's context (kids, lack of remove for perspective [not the abuse!]), she devolved into paranoia easier.

At first, Dany defended her brother and her father's claims as being automatic, and then through her removed experience, admitted that while they were usurped they also weren't fit for the rule, WHILE finding the justification of her own claim to the Iron throne through them both and her ancestry, WHILE also claiming from her own need to protect others. Rhaenyra also claims through her father and Valyrian heritage, without looking out for the disadvantaged and focusing more on herself, only succeeded in blinding herself to how looking out for other women/girls (or at least being strategic about it would have also strengthened her own legitimacy.

If for nothing else, they are coming from a similar place of needing to develop a new meaning of self and autonomy, and Rhaenyra fell into the more selfish identity. Very Jaehaerys I of her in that she chose herself over those she could have called a kind of "kin"--girls and female leaders.

I and Rhaenyra and Dany all have the shared experience of being born and raised in a misogynist society where most girls grow up having to confront and choose whether/how they will accrue power in a space that would deny them the same power, dignity, or self-respect as men are granted automatically, which does create a dearth that needs philosophical filling, so to speak. How the subject fills it is their responsibility, and different people respond to that differently and according to circumstances that both were out of their control and resulted in their own decisions. But it's always good to trace how each event both OUT of and IN their control has shaped how they view their own capabilities and the actions they took, this is analytical reading. It does not have to come with actually liking a character.

3.

However, apart from comparing her to Dany, who she falls short of obviously, I think it's worth more to investigate why Rhaenyra in her own story falls as she does instead of expecting her to be equal to Dany or Rhaegar or any other person. Who is Rhaenyra, and what makes her the way she is? That way, we find out truths about the way she was, where she faltered and failed. What exactly defined her fall and how do we, as readers and people look for aspirational behavior and principles, identify?

The idea of Rhaenyra's seeming lack of the most ideal creative pragmatism (which again, most people actually don't have) and sense of entitlement comes from these things:

the Andal-adapted-Targ attitude to its own claims of power-from-its-historical-means-of-maintaining-power in conflict with its adopted Andal misogyny to maintain itself at the expense of its Targ's women's autonomy and right to the same authority

a lack of real training that stems from that misogyny "for the sake of the dynasty"--denoting a lack of true confidence in her and thus leaving a such an effect on young Rhaenyra that she must rely on herself above all else -> I usually try my best to not get "psychological" here, but in building self-confidence, to me, she seemed to have relied and fallen back on her right to power through heritage and lineage, as most other males would feel entitled if they had been named heir and grew up as royal in a time of prosperity to legitimize herself as self-persuasion/defense mechanism

Alicent/the greens' harassment of her since she was a child and the subsequent reclaiming of autonomy by sheer, necessary tenacity

As all these things provided shape to Rhaenyra's mindset towards her claim, I don't think we should ignore how her being set against didn't feed her sense of entitlement other than Viserys naming her. Her heritage as well as her means to assure herself and claim power.

I already explained what I think about her being unstrategic or pragmatic HERE, going a more Doylist route and mostly "blaming" GRRM.

If we are going just Watsonianly, I'd say that Rhaenyra, again, was a quasi-Othello figure even by being a spoiled princess and Queen at the same time. Both Rhaenyra and Othello are figures that are given the circumstances of people doubting their placements in higher positions of military and nonmilitary power. Both develop paranoia based on the existing fear of losing that power and dignity. While Othello gains his power, self-perception of dignity, and male credit/reputation through his own means in battle victories, he also is in the position of having to constantly prove how "useful" he is to this Christian/European society that is always going to be set against him and will only allow him to have his privileges and rights if he doesn't rock the boat. It is that element of self-proving to the domineering power that Rhaenyra shares with him in that she would always be held in some contempt or condescension for being a woman who goes after male-coded power, even with her growing up to be a princess-then-ruling-Queen. Inevitably she cannot share his started-from-the-bottom/culturally foreign and racialized Otherness, but she is also Other for being a woman, a Targ dragonrider (magic) in a Faith/Andal world. Both felt the need to "prove" themselves through patriarchal ideals to keep a sense of dignity provided by the same oppressive and embedded forces/sociopolitical contexts.

In the end, both succumbed to monarchical patriarchal forces but both also have always been vulnerable and compromised in some way by those forces and given the problem of where and how to compromise to gain power/peace and space to live. I want an ideally good and smart character from anyone who finds themselves in such positions, especially when they are in the highest seat of power with the ability to revolutionize the injustices of the world. But humans are diverse in temperament and develop differently by circumstances and their own decisions simultaneously.

In this way, I think that Rhaenyra was the victim turned perpetrator who continued to be a victim at the same time. Her entitlement was both her strength & her fatal flaw, which was engendered by her decisions to respond to circumstances. But her entitlement was also hardly a fault of her so much as par for the course for someone of her rank and position.

GRRM wanted Rhaenyra to be a little different and yet similar enough from Daenerys in terms of circumstance and backgrounds--someone to surpass--and provide context/stakes for why Dany comes to being physically, historically, and narratively so that we see what can form a leader. Rhaenyra is why a Daenerys "Stormborn" is necessary while being her cause. And part of that is that remove I speak of, and sometimes that remove is forced or self-willed or something of both. GRRM goes with "both" being necessary and caused by each other in a constant cycle.

D)

That being said, while both Rhaenyra I and Aegon II had blood purist expectations and drew claims from a misogynist Targ-Andal paradigm, one is a woman who was usurped because of misogyny while the other is a man who would have plunged the realm into a worse form of it than Rhaenyra if he had more time to actually rule. Rhaenyra's death and loss were disastrous for women: (bride of fires' post).

While he eventually lost, he/Alicent still usurped her and caused the war to happen in the first place based on misogynist principles instead of accepting her rule. that Rhaenyra lost all and lost out the opportunity to rule strengthened the notion that a female leader was undesirable AND that a woman would cause chaos for men if left to have influence and more power over them if there are no active higher powers on them even in the form of a specific will and testament, like with Rohanne Webber having to marry by a specific date or lose her right to power. Female=evil. Female ruler=herald of disorder. With such stakes, I'm not going to accept Aegon--the only other option aside from Rhaenyra in this feudal context.

The other option is a power vacuum. This society is not like Russia of the 20th century where there were people who studied political ideas of political liberties for the common man in other nations/states/territories. The riots are not revolutionary riots, they are incitements from a specific group that wishes to form their own vision of a monarchial feudal vision without dragons--which I must say, again, were necessary to get rid of the Others AND unify the previous warring states of the Westerosi kingdoms in the first place. Such does not exist in ASoIaF/real medieval societies.

Shit's complicated. Dragons are destructive, any yet this is a feudal, society where only the strongest (supernatural and ordinary) gain all and win. Dragons are useful for both ends, yet the Targs/both sides of this Dance are examples of humans who human their way into fucking shit up for themselves, but one was put out more and would have given (even unintentionally) some benefit to the realm by flouting patriarchal norms against female autonomy. Again, if we're forced to choose--and we certainly are because this state is not going to turn democratic overnight--Rhaenyra is still the one for me.

Again, I think that her dumber decisions made things worse, not that they 100% made her situation alone what it was.

Again, consider what @azureflight says in comments, which had me rethinking calling her actions "dumb" and more just inevitable.

(8/21/23):

THIS is a great post by mononijikayu about medieval queens, female rulers, the history of how women in leadership positions were made and seen as threats to the very structure of social "order", and contextualizing Rhaenyra thru Empress Matilda. I didn't even know about Matilda's husband being comparable to Rhaneyra's Daemon! PLZ READ!!!!

Excerpt:

just as much, along with these fictitious portrayals, more lies are depicted. these women are considered vixens that cause havoc to men by shifting them into desires and danger. through the written word, we see how women are cast in roles of villains in men’s lives. it is because by their conclusive thoughts, women are the only creatures that are able to turn ‘good honorable men’ into despicable creatures who do shameful, deplorable acts for the sake of women’s pleasures.    [...] itis within this narrative that ancient chroniclers declare that women were in fact the doom of men. if they were not able to control the dangers posed by the wiles of women, then the foundations of the mighty society they had built would be up in flames.  [...] as i mentioned, these factors of community are written down and preserved. and with that, the example of the ancients were the foundations by which medieval society built itself. the same concepts continued to cause the same issue within society and that was the exclusion of women from participating in the bigger picture of community and state, much so with governing states in their own right—without judgment or disapproval. 

[spaceheelies]

Do you attempt btw to explain in the paper why Marsh seems obsessed with the fact that Robert is blonde blue eyed and white? While The Beetle envies his whiteness?

tbh if people are interested i would love to post the paper somewhere and make it available so people can read it! i would love to be indulged in my mad ravings about what robert holt represents, and the historical context of the 1890s that likely informed his characterization.

i think the emphasis on holt’s white skin, fair hair, and blue eyes is pretty self-explanatory and you are definitely onto something. in my interpretation, the beetle’s 2 main victims - holt and marjorie - are stand-ins for pure white british masculinity and femininity respectively, both at risk of being tainted by the threat of the hypersexualized foreign Other. although, there is a good case for british norms being threatened from the inside as well, since holt is already in dire straits before the beetle appears due to recession/the failure of his government, and marjorie has been enabled by the men in her life to act beyond the social use-value of her gender (i.e. they have “let” her be a #girlboss). marjorie’s blonde hair is emphasized a lot too if i recall.

it’s very telling that, despite coming from Egypt, the beetle is given no definitive racial identity. holt describes it as basically a mish-mash of racialized non-European characteristics (“beak-like nose”, “blubber lips”, etc). i’m pretty sure sydney atherton just dubs the beetle “the oriental” or “my oriental friend” due to its racial ambiguity, which makes it kind of a universal avatar for orientalist stereotypes and a fear of racial mixing. “the orient” at the time basically just meant any place that wasn’t western europe or the americas. the beetle coveting holt and lessingham for their undiluted whiteness and using mesmerism to render them powerless is a gothic reversal of the relationship between the english and what is supposed to be a colonized subject. there would be something very unsettling to the victorian reader about these white men being exoticized and subjugated the way colonial subjects in foreign locales typically were. to me it’s reminiscent of, say, southeast asian or north african women being described in exotic or sexualized terms like “caramel skin” or whatever. there was a lot of anxiety around colonial reversal in Egypt in particular due to constant revolt in Egypt and the Sudan that had started basically as soon as British occupation did. a Mahdist uprising that resulted in significant british military defeats and the death of a prolific general named Charles Gordon was still ongoing when The Beetle was published in 1897. Cairo was also a popular destination for sexual tourism the likes of which Lessingham partook in, and that in itself was a source of anxiety about like libidinous non-white temptresses preying on our innocent white British men, and potentially sending them home with venereal diseases. some sources even equate the beetle’s mesmerism to a metaphorical form of syphilis

i think it’s also worth noting how holt’s english identity seems to disintegrate after contact with the beetle. when he breaks into lessingham’s house, paul basically tells him “i can tell you’re english by your facial features”, but changes his story and tells champnell at the end of the book he couldn’t tell what nationality holt was, symbolically stripping his british identity from him. there’s a whole lot of obvious dehumanizing of holt as well. marjorie even says she can’t tell holt is a human being at first when he’s found lying in front of the lindon residence, because he’s caked and mud and has - perhaps significantly - scraped most of his (white) skin off escaping from lessingham’s house.

like is it obvious how i could have written a 20 page paper on this man and how dirty everyone did him. i’m bouncing around my enclosure rn anon you opened the floodgates

[lilhawkeye3]

We need to talk about Captain Rex (CT-7567)

Alright everyone. I wanna start out by saying this is not an attack on Rex’s character or anyone who likes him as a character. This is merely meant to be educational and point out some concerns with trends in popular content. That said... I know I’m probably gonna get a lot of hate for this.

So. Captain Rex. Leader of the 501st, arguably one of the main characters of The Clone Wars series. So beloved, he even carried on into Rebels, and now The Mandalorian. And there’s one thing in specific about him that made him catch everyone’s eye— his blond hair.

(FYI: “Blond” is the masculine form. “Blonde” is the feminine form. Please don’t comment to say I spelled it wrong lmao.)

This was a big deal. They’re all supposed to be clones of Jango Fett, right? He’s got black hair. The clones we saw in the movies all had black hair. So here comes along the leader of Anakin’s battalion, the one we are most meant to follow and remember.

And this is where I introduce you to the “dark skinned blond” trope in media.

The dark skinned blond is... a bit complicated. As a whole, it is part of the larger issue of exoticism and fetishization of dark skinned characters. The white/blond hair allows them to stand out more, but also gives them a sense of Eurocentric features: thus, they have a sense of mysticism to the audience.

This can be best seen with the most well-known character that falls into this trope: Ororo Monroe aka Storm from X-Men. Her white hair sets her apart so much that the Africans in her village saw her as a goddess, and it was used as just another thing that set her apart from being normal (for context, she is a mutant).

Another time this is shown is with Princess Yue from Avatar: The Last Airbender. Here, her hair is shown to turn white when the literal moon spirit heals her as an ill newborn. The white hair is meant to show she is blessed, setting her apart from the other introduced water tribe characters and having the audience know she is someone to remember.

(Disclaimer: Yue and Storm can also be included in the ‘magical white hair’ trope, which can also include light skinned characters like Elsa from Frozen).

Most recently, another character in this trope is Usagiyama Rumi, aka the rabbit hero Miruko from My Hero Academy (Boku no Hero Academia). She is one of the top 5 heroes, thus someone important to remember, and... alongside Storm, is subject to a very large amount of fetishization in comparison to the other characters in their series. (This could be further exacerbated due to Miruko being one of the only dark skinned characters in the anime series as well).

A few other characters that fall into the dark-skinned blond trope are Aqualad and Artemis from Young Justice, Allura from Voltron, Agni in Black Butler, and even Butler in that awful new Artemis Fowl movie. It is all done in an effort to make them more ambiguous, more exotic, so you can’t really tell where they’re from but you’re sure to remember them.

[Image: Storm aka Ororo Monroe, Princess Yue, Miruko; Aqualad, Artemis, Allura, Butler. All have dark skin and varying shades of blond hair (white, platinum, yellow).]

So then we get to Captain Rex. Here we have this lead character we know nothing about at the start of the show, but he already stands out because he looks different, despite being a clone. It really doesn’t matter what the in-universe reason is for his blondness (I know people debate if it’s genetic mutation vs bleaching).

The point is this: his design is used to set him apart from the rest, to make him seem more exotic in comparison, and thus, make him the one the creators force the audience to remember.

Honestly... I don’t know. I have mixed feelings about this trope. For characters like Storm and Yue, at least there’s magic to explain it. At least you know it can’t be real. 

With characters more like Rex, who is meant to be normal (not magical)... it feels different. It felt like the creators-- specifically, the white creators-- thought he wouldn’t be good enough for the audience’s attention as a brown man unless there was something special about him. Something eye-catching. Exotic in comparison to the other clones.

It’s a strange feeling, because overall, it’s not something outwardly racist with the character development (like with Jar Jar Binks). This is far more subtle, so subtle that it’s hard to even fully verbalize. But it’s still there, and it’s a pattern, and it’s a bit worrisome, especially when concerning a character modeled off of a real person (Temuera Morrison’s appearance was not altered for his clone roles in the prequel trilogy, and Rex’s design came afterwards.).

I wish I had a conclusive ending to this mini-essay. I don’t really. There’s nothing that can be done about Rex or any of these characters’ appearances. Just... keep this in mind for the future. Often with visual media in particular, even how a character looks can influence your perception of them, often with years of history and reasoning behind it.

This has been Tea Time with Hawk. ☕️🦅Thanks for reading :)

Part 2 here.

Why I don’t think Rex’s hair is bleached.

[llendrinall]

I'm with you on how terrible we found Fantastic Beasts. Now let me ask, how would you have written/built the Fantastic Beasts storyline?

I have not watched the 3rd movie so it’s possible that they have managed to turn it all around, but to start with I would give some actual connection to the movies beyond the title and characters. Otherwise it just feels like those children books: “X goes to the park”, “X in the supermarket”, where we see the same people in different situations but they are disconnected from each other.

I probably would have gone a different route all together, but suppose Warner has already hired the actors and started building the sets so we must use at least some elements from the movies. In that case I would make a story of discovery and reflection in three parts, with narcissism being the main theme.

First movie

Newt goes to NY with his magical bag. Most of the film is the same, but we get a sense of Newt being less childish (less painfully obvious and thinly surreptitious wand waving around muggles) and a bit more selfish. However, we should like him more for it.

Newt is, to the society of the time, completely mental. Rather than going on hunts and collecting trophies, he is recuing animals! I would emphasize that the animals he keeps have been compromised and can’t be safely returned to their habitats and since conditions and wizarding zoos are deplorable, he keeps them with him. The exception is that thunder bird he has come to release.

And that’s his goal, releasing the thunder bird, which he pursues with extreme focus. He doesn’t care about anything else which is why he is so open to Jacob the Muggle. Newt could be imprisoned* and Jacob would be obliviated into a stupor, but Newt doesn’t care about personal risks so he doesn’t care about the danger he poses to others. He is selfish that way. A generous kind of selfishness, sure, but dangerous.

I’m sorry, but the President of the MACUSA is not a woman nor a POC. It must be a white man surrounded by white men, one of whom might be either Catholic or Jewish and that’s all the diversity you see. Are there POC wizards? Yes. But not in positions of power. There is a bigger emphasis on the separation of wizards and No-Maj, with waaay more surveillance and harsher punishments. Suspicion alone may be enough to break your wand in some cases.

* And that’s how I could believe that POC wizards and witches (WWs from now on because “magicals” sounds weird) aren’t intervening in muggle spaces. They must be suffering similar levels of racism. They are tolerated, maybe they have better prospects that POC muggles, but that’s it. I can’t believe none of them would show some solidarity to the Non-Maj, unless it meant being summarily executed.

(Oh, and there would be this scene in which we see law-abiding and conscientious Tina stalking the house of an African-American muggle family. Nothing is said of it, other that Tina used to work with a muggle-born partner but now she works alone. Keen-eyed viewers will notice some hoodo trinkets in Tina’s flat, and a photograph of Tina with an African American woman, and then we will know).

I don’t remember Credence’s storyline very well, but it doesn’t matter. What is important is that Graves (powerful white man Graves) develops some sort of empathy. He doesn’t want it, but it’s there in his heart now. Maybe something with Newt’s animals. Some “beast” (look at how they say beasts and not animals) should have maimed and eaten Graves, but doesn’t because Newt is there in all his animal-loving glory. Graves gets to see the monster as merely a scared and hurt animal and learns to treat others with some decency and kindness.

That would be a nice classic movie, (prejudiced man gets over himself), but we can’t end it here. I would even allow for Tina’s scene stalking the house to be cut in order to have time for the climax: the moment when Graves realizes his society and his government may not always be right and defies direct orders by helping Credence. As I said, I don’t remember what the deal with Credence was, but Graves fixes it. There will be a personal cost to his career, but losing a promotion is nothing compared to saving a life, which is what he does. No ambiguous explosion or cloud of smoke. Credence is evidently and irrevocably safe at the cost of Graves being demoted.

There is no Gellert Grindelwald whatsoever, except maybe some government secretary mentioning they like that guy from Europe.

Second movie

Set in London rather than Paris. Newt receives the visit from a lovely, lovely, gentleman who, as it turns out, doesn’t think Newt is a fool. The charming gentleman asks Newt about the dragons, specifically the ones in Gringotts and oh, oh, Newt is against it. It’s abominable and unethical. But Newt would rather not think too much about it because, what can he do? He would rather focus on helping those he can and on spreading his thoughts on animal conservation. He is publishing a journal, although he admits it doesn’t do too well. He has twelve subscribers and seven of them openly mock his papers during dinner parties.

The charming gentleman says, but what if Newt could do something about it? What would Newt be willing to do? Would he break the law?

Newt laughs. He is forbidden from leaving the country. He is no stranger to jumping, crossing, tampering or breaking the law.

Marvelous! The charming gentleman reveals that he, like Newt, is unhappy with their society. It is weak and corrupt* and someone must do something about it. They have to fix it.

So the charming gentleman introduces Newt to some other like-minded friends and together they plan a heist to get into Gringotts and release the dragons. It is time to build a society one can feel proud of!

We get the heist, which is clever and delightful. The charming gentleman is brave, smart and powerful with his magic. There is a moment when some of the co-conspirators, and even the charming gentleman himself, get inside some vaults. This is not what they had planned! Not at all. But the charming gentleman assures Newt that he has good reasons.

They get out. And here comes the Nagini moment. Meaning I really, really, really, don’t need to see an Asian woman condemned to whatever that was in the second movie. I don’t need to have beautiful Neville kill a woman who has been turned into a snake and then a Horcrux.

But, do you want an “oh no” moment? Here it comes.

Because of the heist, Gringotts revises their security measures. That poor dragon in Deathly Hallows? The one with scars who had been conditioned to fear a certain sound? Newt’s fault. And the charming gentleman doesn’t care.

We have established in the previous movie that Newt is somewhat selfish and short-sighted. He rejects his society and cares only about his animals which is very nice. Newt is well intentioned, but that is not enough. Not caring about politics is the privilege of those in the elite (and despite Newts’ eccentricities he is very much the elite). The previous movie had Graves’ awakening. The man discovering something about himself in this movie is Newt.

Newt realizes that he must be an active participant in society. Sadly, he only realizes it after he has helped Gellert Grindelwald steal a number of very important artefacts as well as some gold to fund his project to reform Europe.

The epilogue of the movie has Albus Dumbledore visiting Newt, telling him not to be too hard on himself because he, Dumbledore, also fell for Gellert lies. And if Newt wants to do something about it, Dumbledore has some ideas.

* History fans might not realize immediately, but hopefully they will catch on the fact that all of the beautiful arguments from the charming gentleman are about weakness of the state, which is a common fascist trope.

Third movie

In which characters from previous movies are brought back without having to completely destroy their personalities.

Graves is in Europe and he pays a visit to Newt to ask for his help. Graves is using his new found empathy (that he didn’t want) to investigate a series of highly suspicious murders and incidents. The victims were all Latinas so it was dismissed, but Graves thinks there is something.

Two scenes later in comes Tina, who has quitted her job in order to track the murderer of some friend’s friend. An African American child is dead, no it was not the No-Maj, it was someone else, someone who wanted to cover their tracks and leave no witnesses and Tina is going to eat their heart.

Is it possible that Graves and Tina are after the same person? Yes and no. It is two different henchmen but Dumbledore has no trouble going beyond the small picture to see the pattern. He knows Grindelwald always had an interest in powerful artefacts, not just the Deathly Hallows.

Grindelwald has stolen the Macguffin, a powerful artefact belonging to a Latin-American community. With that and the Elder Wand he will be unstoppable. Oh no!

But! Newt realizes there is something missing. The raven is not a symbol of death in all cultures. Grindelwald might not fully understand what he has taken or how to use it.

So Graves and Tina go fight Grindelwald’s organization and be awesome together, delaying Grindelwald’s big coup. Meanwhile, Newt illegally leaves the country, goes back to NY, takes Queenie and deploys her. Because Queenie is nice. She plays the vapid pretty woman, but she is above all nice and if someone can make a hurt and distrustful community open their door to strangers, it is going to be Queenie with the help of Jacob’s bread.

And, indeed! They succeed. The bruja Latina explains about the Macguffin. Grildelwald doesn’t understand what he has stolen. It is not meant to be used like that at all.

They go back to Europe quickly, Newt relays this information to Dumbledore and he steps to his duel with Grindelwald armed with the knowledge and insight that comes from showing some measure of respect to other people for once.

(And if it seems that Dumbledore’s victory rests on other people’s work, well, Dumbledore’s main trait is his ability to earn people’s trust and devotion. But I guess Newt and Queenie could have brought the bruja with them and after a nice chat with Dumbledore she agrees to share their secrets with him, so he has the opportunity to show he is different).

Rather than having a man realize something, this movie is about the consequences of not opening your eyes: Gindelwald’s fall. It would also nicely establish Dumbledore’s best manipulative traits. If we must have het couples, Tina saves Newt’s from some mook and taker a kiss. Graves goes with the pretty Lestrange, I guess, to have a long life of morality sanctioned crimes.

(A TV show. Twelve episodes. Cancelled after the first season. Graves and Lestrange are back in the States helping oppressed communities and dodging the MACUSA and whatever the equivalent of the FBI was back then).

[bambisfuneral]

Okay this is just something I gotta get off my chest cause I’ve been holding it in for a while, and it’s not bad for once, it’s actually a really good thing.

So the topic of this is HOW ANIMES PORTRAY BLACK CHARACTERS.

So first of all, I am asian. I’m Filipina and Korean, and it’s obvious colorism and racism is an issue within the Asian community. I grew up in the Philippines with a Filipino family and they’re all very brown skinned, I’m actually the lightest in my family but that’s because of my korean side and I myself have faced colorism from my own mom.

So I’ve been watching anime since I was little, and it seems like there’s always been an issue with how animes portray black characters.

FOR EXAMPLE, Mr. Popo from Dragon Ball. I didn’t even know he was supposed to be a black character until I was 12. Now I don’t know y’all portray this, but it’s obviously linked to blackface which is a form of racism and if you try to tell me otherwise you can kiss my ass cause Dragon Ball has mad racist views in the series which is just one of the reasons why Naruto is better.

I’m not even gonna get started on how worldwide beauty standards are based on Europeanized features cause we’re gonna be here forever. But it’s a racial stereotype that people with Africanized features have overly large lips, very large/flat/wide noses, and very dark skin and many animes actually use that description and sometimes even exaggerate them even more.

Which comes my main point on why I bring up Aran. ARAN IS CLEARLY A BLACK CHARACTER, BUT YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ARAN AND MR. POPO.

Aran has Africanized features, but they’re not overly exaggerated. Though does have bigger lips, it’s not overdone to where it’s insulting, his nose isn’t as pointy as other characters in Haikyuu, AAAND PEEP HOW THE PALM OF HIS HANDS ARE LIGHTER THAN THE REST OF HIS BODY. Everybody say thank you Furudate for the attention of detail :>

Another black character I love is Atsuko from Michiko e Hatchin. She’s another great example of a black anime character that isn’t racially stereotyped. If anything, her appearance shows a little more diversity cause she has blonde hair because for whatever reason, it’s hard to believe that black folks can naturally have blonde hair.

Also her hair texture, instead of her hair being straight like most non-asian but poc characters showing they’re racially ambiguous, she has a hair type that many black people have.

There’s so many more things I wanna say but when I actually started thinking about each individual thought, it was like they were all escaping my brain as I tried to touch up on it...... so this is all I got as of right now😔

[alberteatsglass]

lets talk about the diversity in the danger days universe (ft. dirk gently)

now i wanna start this off by saying im a white passing native bitch. if any POC want to add to this or debate my points with me i will be happy to listen and if i am in the wrong please let me know! that being said if you are white and stan val velocity this is not a post for you to comment on im so sorry my guy

okay now that thats out of the way lets get into this

the representation of people of colour in the comics is fucking shit. like sorry im not being all formal in this but lets be honest here its not good. the one not ambiguously brown character gets killed a couple pages into the first comic or even sooner. the main character who is supposed to be african american gets white washed when she is finally the main character. becky literally learn how to draw people of colour oh my FUCKING GOD.

oh and lets not forget that our canon asian representation are two driods one of which dies and the literal main villain who gets over sexualized constantly. even if that wasnt intentional it still is a glaring issue mx gerard.

and in all honesty its not that hard to write at least decent representation. im going to be bringing up dirk gently’s holistic detective agency which is such a good show oh my god i have the link to the youtube version if anyone doesnt have hulu. now dirk gently isnt a comic so of course the writing is going to be a little different, and i dont personally think that the show is revolutionary in the sense of pushing people of colour’s stories but its a good example of what danger days could have done and failed at if they wanted to keep the main character white (even though im not going to pretend like that isnt problematic)

anyway I Wanna Talk About Farah Now

in my personal opinion farah is a great character, and the characterization is something the writers team could have done with the girl. i dont want to spoil the character arch because it is super interesting and i love it to death my bi icon farah deserves the world but the world does not deserve her. her arch seems to center around her feeling like she needs to grow up to be like her family, but failing their expectations and trying to cope with that while everything goes to insanity. she started out as the black women stereotype that was just tough and didnt care, but grew to be a good character and stop repressing her feelings. im not lying when i said this lady has made me cry.

she gets to be emotional, she gets to not know what to do and she gets to tell people that. i feel like a lot of the time in media thats not show with women of colour making them not well rounded characters. which is when the girl gets put into this.

ignoring the fact that the girl is white washed, lets pretend she isnt. what is one time besides when her mom comes back that we see her genuinely have no clue what to do? besides crying hugging cherri for like one panel what emotional growth did she make? she just didnt get any actual character that i can see. she was a blank slate and honestly not good rep in my opinion. the main character trait i see is just lost and confused? and like didnt she run wild in the zones since she was 6 why is she so confused??? oh and yeah she was white washed so there goes one of our only POC characters. what the hell gerard.

the girl being a blank slate could be seen as giving the reader a point of view to see the universe but like in the nicest way possible thats lazy writing and 90% of the time an excuse for weak main characters.

cant talk about POC rep in the comics without bringing up the ultra v’s so here we mc fucking go. this is where i want to bring up the rowdy three, because the rowdy three is literally more diverse than the entire character list of danger days drink PISS.

now the rowdy three are this gang of (starting at four but i believe ends up as six? i dunno man found family is really strong in this show) reckless teens/young adults who run around and basically destroy things in a fuck cops dead fascists make no noise kinda way. be gay do crime icons.

the rowdy three is a group composed of martin, cross, gripps, and vougel. they are lead by martin who is white but the rest of them are POC. a lot like the ultra v’s. unlike the ultra v’s the characters (or character because vougel is the one who gets the most character development in season two) have an impact on the story, even more than just the token white leader.

im not going to pretend like the representation is perfect, of course its not these guys did cross and gripps dirty in the second season, but the entire rowdy three arch in the second season focuses on amanda (a canonly physically and mentally disable person) and vougel (a canonly asian person) trying to find their friends. AND MIGHT I ADD THE ARCH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ROMANCE!!!! sorry i just get to excited about these two

now lets look at the poc side characters in the danger days comics. we have volume who got killed as soon as he showed up, vinyl who does like nothing for the plot except stand there (bless his soul but sir please val just shot dee), and vaya and vamos who are icons but also the last ambiguously brown characters and serve as antagonists it seems (or at least how the comics want to show them? im not quite sure where the comics were going with them honestly)

only two of them have personalities and none of them do anything for the plot accept follow around the white guy. fantastic.

oh also this is mainly about poc characters but can i just say amanda seems like a more developed disabled character than dee? she isnt in a wheel chair or anything but her pararibulitis stops her from going out and doing things until she realizes its following her so an attack can happen anywhere. i dunno she is a cool character and as someone who suffers from hallucinations and sensory issues that mimic the fake thing they created for the show its really important to me that a disabled character is able to do something with themself instead of sitting in their radio shack and then getting shot by a white dude for plot. thats a nitpick i think i just like figured i would put it here while im ranting about the comics.

this is really long so im going to end it here because this is all i had to say about the matter but if the new comics pull this shit im revoking my gerard way stan title because he definitely has a part to play in all of this as the one over seeing the comics being made

also dirk gently’s holistic detective agency is a super good show and i need everyone to know that have a good day

[ursie]

Hot Take: If they did an adaptation of Sleepless Lady Poppy should be played by Lovie Simone or Kiki Layne

Sorta agree : I think they’re both beautiful!! But I’m like p sure Poppy is supposed to be of both Black African and Arabic descent? Like she’s mixed and her dads not white though I’m not sure if he’s Arabic specifically or “ambiguously brown” ect main point is I think a more accurate casting would be of a dark skinned multi racial (also not American) actress (feel free to correct me if wrong but I’m p sure Poppy is Afro-Arabic or Afro-North African or something similar) But again they’re both v pretty!!

Send me your hot takes/unpopular opinions

[ducktracy]

107. buddy in africa (1935)

disclaimer: this review entails racist imagery, content, and concepts. i don’t endorse any of these stereotypes or depictions whatsoever, i find them gross and wrong. however, it would be just as wrong to gloss over them and act like they didn’t exist. this review is purely for educational and informational purposes. please let me know if i say something harmful, offensive, or wrong—it is NEVER my intention to do so. thank you for bearing with me and understanding.

release date: july 6th, 1935

series: looney tunes

director: ben hardaway

starring: jackie morrow (buddy)

ben hardaway’s last buddy cartoon. buddy sets up a moving variety store shop in africa, but a pesky monkey and gorilla cause problems for our little shopkeeper.

just a normal day where a man is mowing the grass in his african village, or so we think. a pan out reveals that he’s perched on top of a house, mowing the straw roof. another gag includes a human juicer, a man twisting the bone in his hair to squeeze the juice out of the fruit in the man’s mouth. some villagers engage in a game of horseshoe, a man tossing children and using their nose rings to get caught onto the stake in the ground. as always, racial stereotypes and caricature are abound and uncomfortable.

enter chipper buddy, whistling away as he totes his trailer behind his car, advertising a variety store. a somewhat similar premise would be used in porky’s five and ten, where fish wreak havoc on his own variety store. a gorilla is hitchhiking, eagerly sticking out his thumb when buddy approaches. buddy rides straight on by, bad news for the gorilla, who dismisses him frustratedly. there’s a nice (albeit standard) gag of a monkey traffic cop and a giraffe posing as a traffic sign. the monkey directs the traffic, while a kangaroo (in africa???) stuffs litter in its pouch.

a guard waits by the entrance of the village. he spots buddy approaching and snags another villager, shaking him and ringing him like a bell. everyone pokes their heads out to see what the occasion is as buddy drives through the gates.

buddy screeches to a halt and begins to set up shop, beating on a drum, his butt, some pots and pans, greeting the crowd congregating before him with “howdy, folks! here it is!” jackie morrow’s voice acting is very cute, and it’s neat that they got an actual child actor (i believe i read somewhere that he was 9 when he voiced buddy). i think jack carr’s voice suited him more, though—it was an ambiguous child AND adult voice. it could pass for either, just like buddy’s appearance. i guess it’s just a little strange seeing buddy drive a car and own a house and talk in a child’s voice. just something very petty to nitpick at, morrow does a very good job of voicing buddy. the villagers exchange fruit for the goods as the trade ensues.

there’s another rather redundant and arbitrary shot of the gorilla hitchhiker before cutting back to buddy and his booming business. one of the villagers goes into his hut with his newfound collectibles. he twists two lightbulbs in his ears, which add some much needed light into the dark hut. he placed a lampshade on his head and reads the newspaper. elsewhere, another villager stuffs fireworks in his mouth and lights them, flying off into the distance. it’s an absurd gag, but the abruptness and almost incoherence of it makes it highly amusing.

meanwhile, our little salesman triumphantly displays some bottles. “here’s a drink that’ll cure your jitters,” he announces in rhyme, “buddy’s famous jungle bitters!” one of his customers takes the bottles buddy was holding in his hands, whereas a pesky little monkey decides to help himself, too. buddy scolds the monkey, but the monkey isn’t bothered, chattering and slamming buddy’s car door shut.

four of the villagers drink the bitters—music strikes. a man plucks his hair like a bass as they sing “marchin’ towards ya, georgia!” a very catchy song indeed with lovely vocals, but appreciation severely muddled by the blatant blackface caricatures staring you in the face. a man plays an elephant like a pair of bagpipes, a man stretches out his lips (sigh) and plays them like a muted trumpet, and a woman sings some vocals. she has some sort of pipe on her neck (it’s difficult to tell since this print is so poor in quality), and a man annoyed with her singing turns a knob that shuts her up. meanwhile, buddy merrily juggles his bottles.

two of the villagers dance, bouncing around doing handstands. obviously, this whole scene, not to mention entire cartoon is cringeworthy and painful to watch (unfortunately, this is relatively tame compared to other cartoons), but the animation is solid, very bouncy and fun. a turtle plays itself like a banjo while the four singers finish up the song. very catchy indeed.

back to the monkey, who’s proving himself to be quite the nuisance. he bangs the bottle against the car in an attempt to open it—buddy yells at him to stop and to give it back, but the monkey refuses. buddy chases the monkey around the car—he dives under the car, where the monkey pops out on top and hits the bottle against buddy’s head. buddy snags the bottle (which somehow isn’t broken) out of the monkey’s hands and spanks him. back to the harman-ising days of spanking gags! how we miss you!

accomplished, buddy releases the monkey and laughs. the monkey shakes his fist and wanders off, right back to the hitchhiking gorilla. ahhh, of course. the monkey chirps and squeals about his horrific encounter with buddy, patting his own butt for good measure. the seemingly docile gorilla scowls and rolls up its fur-sleeves (such an overdone gag, but a big guilty pleasure of mine. i can’t help but love it!) menacingly. it puffs its chest out and tips its hat forward, preparing to march along. a nice detail as the monkey follows behind, also puffing out his chest.

the gorilla and monkey come to a standstill as a guard confronts them at the entrance to the village. a lovely little bit of acting as the gorilla shrugs at the monkey for advice, the monkey punching its palm. the gorilla takes its orders and pummels the guard into the ground, the gorilla stepping on his head and the monkey poking his eyes.

predictably, buddy gets his. he’s pumping up a tire when the gorilla terrorizes him, stepping onto the tire and propelling buddy upwards. the gorilla catches buddy and slams him down onto the tire, pumping the air pump and propelling him offscreen. thusly, the gorilla snags the pump and tire, preparing to beat buddy senseless by swinging the tire like the world’s most painful lasso. the scene reads as incoherent (even aside from the poor quality) as the tire hits the gorilla instead, shooting it into the distance. a tree slingshots the gorilla back to where it was (nice rubbery animation of the tree), and the gorilla barrels right into a lookout tower. the tower collapses, trapping buddy AND the gorilla who are both unscathed. finding great humor in the debacle, the little monkey laughs at the gorilla. in a moment of camaraderie, the gorilla exchanges a glance with buddy and punches the tire. the tire sends the air pump handle rocketing, which in turn hits the monkey, who flies into the distance. iris out as foes become friends, the gorilla and buddy shaking hands.

hardaway’s buddy cartoons, in my opinion, were slightly weaker than king’s. in general, they’re all pretty bland—the titles blend together and i can’t even remember if i have a discernible favorite or not. i know i had commended a buddy cartoon relatively recently and labeled it as good, but i can’t even think of it! thus proves buddy’s blandness. this is another bland one, more than usual. right off the bat the racial stereotypes and caricatures make the cartoon an uncomfortable watch. the monkey and gorilla scenes were amusing, though. the ending battle read as incoherent and incomprehensible, i kept having to rewind it just to formulate what was going on. it was certainly creative and high energy, though, and i applaud that. the song number was nice and catchy, but that’s it. i hate to say “it could have been worse” because blackface is blackface and stereotypes are stereotypes, any inclusion at all is immediately bad. but i suppose there are cartoons out there that are more mean-spirited than this one, more of a “celebration everyone sings and dances for the fun of it and everyone gets along”, but still. not pleasant and cringeworthy. even besides that, the cartoon doesn’t have much going for it at all. you won’t miss anything by skipping.

but, as always, i’ll provide a link. obviously view at your own discretion.

[prairiedust]

The Folklore of Supernatural

Part two of a series I started with this post.

I’m reposting this as the second installment of my midseason hiatus “The Folklore of Supernatural” series, even though it was originally written as kind of a long cracky way of looking at the “sleeping beauty trilogy” of episodes in season 14 (The Scar, Mint Condition, and Nightmare Logic.) The original question I was tagged into was “Is Dean actually dreaming?” and I can not find the original post about this, so I won’t tag anyone in particular (you know who you are and I love you because this was fun to write.) I posted it once in the dead of night with no tags, but I’m republishing it as part of my larger take on folklore as a theme in season 14 of Supernatural. Bear in mind that this was written before Optimism, when it became clear that these were not part of an extended dream-sequence, BUT ALSO before The Spear when it was revealed that Michael could repossess Dean. (I’m going to talk a little bit about timing and writing meta, further on.)

I want to say a couple of things before the cut, too. This is a big old Sleeping Beauty post. I know there’s a lot of SB ideas out there in the metasphere but I’ve deliberately avoided them because I wanted to get my thoughts out here and I am Very Slow. Feel free to tag me into other posts, send me asks, whatever, because I think it’s fun to talk about. However, just because this is a “sleeping beauty” meta does not mean I want to go all the way to the end of that metaphor in this series. This particular post is general audience meta. I can’t tell anyone who might read this that no, you aren’t allowed to see a DeanCas parallel in a meta which relies heavily on a romantic fairy tale and one that was a destiel fandom in-joke after Cas died, at that. I will say, though, that I see it, so if you want to duck out now because I’m a lowkey shipper feel free. Also, I can’t endorse predictions based on meta, either, even my own, even when I think there is a big neon “Texan Star” sign saying “destiel goes here;” there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone involved in the show from making a hard left when the signs said we were going right. So rather than seeing this as a defense of DeanCas subtext, let’s call it an experiment in close reading. If nothing else, it will be fun. (Bear in mind that I am a massive dork so my definition of fun involves Charles Dickens.)

Aaand... here we go.

Is Dean asleep, and have the last three episodes (The Scar, Mint Condition, and Nightmare Logic) been a dream? How can we possibly “answer” that question at this point in the show?

We’re trying to speculate about a text that is a constantly moving target. If, for instance, you start to read the novel Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston, and you know from a blurb on the back of the book that she was an anthropologist who collected African-American and Caribbean folklore, and you get to the place where the protagonist Janie’s second [redacted] ends, but there are a lot of pages left ahead of you, and you think, wow if this happens a third time, I have a theory that the third [redacted, go read this book] would be special based on what I know about folklore and the “rule of three,” well by the end of the book you will know whether or not you were right. Janie either finds a third [redacted], or she doesn’t, and it’s either special, or it’s not.

Supernatural has not ended, so there is no way of saying “Oh, the main theme we are supposed to take away from this show is ____.” I mean, we can put big money on “family” but still. With a television show, it’s hard to even say, “The over-arching themes in this season are____” until the season finale, because it is a text that is being written, filmed, and published serially. The fluid nature of subtext in serial literature was something I studied under a Brit Lit professor– she said, when we set out to read David Copperfield, that sometimes themes in Dickens concluded early or evolved late, or didn’t pan out, because Dickens changed his mind or was pressured by readers to maintain a character that he hadn’t planned to keep around (I think that character was Micawber but I can not find a shred of evidence anywhere, even in my notes from my Brit Lit class, because she kind of mentioned it in passing and I didn’t like Dickens very much when I was younger, so obviously I didn’t learn it well.) And even when you get to the end of a Dickens serial, you still might not get closure– he totally rewrote the conclusion of Great Expectations because his friends wanted angst with a happy(ish) ending.

But this particular “sleeping” symbolism that has been pointed out is really, really structurally sound and can be very well supported. What it means is (shrug emoji)

Going back to the first post in this series, the support for this reading comes from an understanding of folk tales. I’ll be primarily using European Sleeping Beauty stories, as that is what is most accessible to an American/Western audience. And, it was deliberately alluded to in the text of the show. But first let’s talk about formula tales in more depth because that is what sets this theme up in the very first episode of season 14.

Michael met with three different beings in the season opener Stranger in a Strange Land and asked each of them “What do you want?” This is in no uncertain terms a formula tale found in folklore all over the world, and you know about the rule of three even if you’ve never actually acknowledged it. In Goldilocks and the Three Bears, for instance, Goldilocks tries two bowls of porridge before finding one to her liking. She tries two chairs before settling on Baby Bear’s chair. She tries two beds before falling asleep in the one that was “just right.” There were three challenges, two of which failed and one that satisfied her. Goldilocks is an original work (and please read the Wikipedia article, it is fascinating how many revisions this story has gone through, and in fact “Goldilocks” wasn’t even the original main character) but it was based on a folk formula and has entered American oral tradition. Similarly, in the German folk tale The Three Little Pigs, the first pig’s house is destroyed because it was made of straw, the second house failed because it was made of sticks, but the third house was made of brick and withstood the huffing and puffing of the wolf. So the pattern in the rule of three is often two challenges that fail or are flawed and one that finally succeeds or satisfies the necessary conditions. For short, I’m going to call this grouping 2/1. In the Michael story, 2/1 is human, who fails, then angel, who fails, then monster, who Mikey likes. In addition, there is a primer to the rule of three in that first scene, just to make absolutely certain that the audience notices it-- Michael has Jamel guess his identity three times.

This 2/1 formula could be just something Dabb did because he wanted to do it. It’s ancient, and Michael is an ancient being. But. Can it also mean that “folktales” is a theme on the show now?

As the saying goes, “Once is an occurrence, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern.” Folklore continues into the season in many different ways.

In Gods and Monsters, the scene where Dean shakes loose and punches the mirror probably lit up everyone who saw it with “mirror mirror on the wall” vibes, from the story of Snow White. The enchanted mirror is such a common “trope” in folklore that it has an index number that folklorists and others use to refer to it in their scholarship– it’s Aarne-Thompson index number D1163. So, another solid subtextual reference to folk tales. There is so much more in that episode about storytelling and retelling and  the concept of sequels, but that’s for another discussion.

We get to The Scar and Jack mentions Sleeping Beauty and no lie I ascended for a full minute. “Sleeping Beauty” is Aarne-Thompson-Uther Classification of Folk Tales number 410 because this is another story that is found freaking everywhere. (I have to make an aside about the use of the term “folk tale” just because it is in my nature not to leave things like this ambiguous– it isn’t completely certain that the Sleeping Beauty we know of Brothers Grimm and Disney fame is 100% for shore an oral tale, or at least isn’t a tale that got a little finessed when it was first written down. See, a guy in pre-Renaissance Naples named Giambattista Basile included a version of it in a collection of child’s tales hundreds of years ago (it’s horrifying btw, cw for non-con at the very least if you go looking for it) then Charles Perrault (of Puss in Boots fame) got hold of it and rewrote it in French, and folklorists are pretty certain that the story of “Briar Rose in the Forest” that the Grimm brothers collected was the Perrault story that had made its way back into oral tradition in Germany. And, like, it’s not a huge reach to say that the history of the Sleeping Beauty story that is explicitly mentioned in the show’s dialogue by Jack is more subtext about how stories are transmitted, how they are told, what happens when they get loose in the wild, etc. That’s how allusions work, and that’s coming up in my third post.)

So, three times means green light to consider “folk tales” an official thing this season, at least for a while. And the cherry on top is that Sleeping Beauty was the third story referenced. It’s neat.

But NOW. On to THE question the OP posed:

Have the last three episodes been Dean’s dream?

I’m going to pass up surface mentions of dream states and solely focus on the actual “sleepers” in these episodes in order to get at the allusion’s architecture.

In Nightmare Logic, the sleeping beauty OP has identified is Sasha’s father, who is locked in a dream-state by a djinn. In Mint Condition, the sleeping beauty is Stuart, who is in a mysterious coma-like sleep after an attack by a possessed chain-saw. In The Scar, Lora is in a sleep-adjacent death-state after being hexed by a witch. (I saw that her name on the iTunes subtitles is “Lora” which is a variation of Laura but spelled this way evokes “of lore” and that was pretty neat. Another tiny detail that bolsters the theme.)

Is Lora really a sleeping beauty, though, and why is that important?

Remember our rule of three pattern that we were given in the premiere– 2/1. Two people in this group will be more similar to each other than to the third. Both Stuart and Sasha’s father are alive, while Lora is technically all the way dead when she is in the sleep-like state. Superficially, Stuart and Sasha’s father are men, whereas Lora is a woman. Just throwing that out there. If I were writing this post for a grade, that right there is called “padding for word count.” But it is also a valid point, so we’re going to use it. Neither Stuart nor Sasha’s father are shown to resume consciousness by the end of their episodes– Stuart not at all, and Mr. Rawlings only stirs fitfully. Lora is revived when Jack breaks the spell. On the other hand, Stuart is never in continued danger in Mint Condition after his “touch and go” operation (he’s presumably safe inside the salt circle) and is expected to recover naturally, whereas both Mr. R and Lora will die/stay dead if the threat against them isn’t neutralized. Mr. Rawlings is similar to Lora because they are both under “medical care”– Mr.R is ostensibly in hospice and Lora is in the Bunker’s sick bay, and to top things off Stuart is the only one who was treated by an actual doctor: Mr. R‘s nurse was a djinn and Cas is not a doctor he just played one on TV.

The thing about close readings is that anything you can argue is probably valid, but one thesis might be better supported than another. I’m really really tired and there might be more differences and similarities that I am missing. But when you’re gathering the evidence to support a theory about a text, you can end up going a bridge too far and you’ll find yourself staring into the void, completely unable to make any progress, so at some point you just have to stake out your foundations and start digging. (Yeah, I mixed metaphors, I mixed three of them, it’s awesome, get off me.)

So. There is more evidence that Stuart and Mr. R are more similar to each other than either one is to Lora. If we apply the 2/1 template, Lora is the character who satisfies the parameter of being “odd man out.” That still might not make her a sleeping beauty for the purposes of answering the “Is this Dean’s dream” question, and here’s why.

(This is the speculation part. I love this stuff, but again I offer the caveat that using subtext to make plot predictions in Supernatural is like trying to write on a cloud with smoke. Anyway.)

If she’s the sleeping beauty, the subtextual message is that Dean might actually be dead (or might have to die to satisfy the condition that Michael is destroyed.) That possibility was brought up in both 14x01 and 14x02, before Dean came back. And eugh no one wants that. It also means that we had to have read these three episodes backwards to find the character that fits the template, because if Lora is a sleeping beauty, and if she is “the” sleeping beauty for subtextual purposes, she actually came first in the series, and you have to run the episodes backwards to get to the 1. That is subverting the trope. However, if you get the thing you want the first time why go on to the other two challenges? There is a lot in this season about calling back to earlier parts of the narrative to contextualize the present– for instance, in Gods and Monsters, Michael says to the werewolf, “You think you were picking me up in that bar?” or something to that effect and then revealed that he was, in fact, the one stalking her. In Mint Condition, we are introduced to the Janitor Victim as a Dean mirror, but we do not know for certain yet that Hatchet Man is a post-Azazel John Winchester mirror, so that scene is given greater meaning by information that is revealed later in the episode. Structurally speaking, it would be fair to say that the information we have now, that Lora the dead girl is “the” sleeping beauty, based on having seen the other two candidates, means a dead Dean reveal has been primed by the subtext. And like, no thank you?

The other possibility is that Lora, since she was dead and not unconscious, is not “the” sleeping beauty. The third “sleeping beauty” (IF there is one) would show up in 14x06 Optimism. (That title is really stressing me out.) Why would that be Dean and not some other random character? Because if we exclude Laura, the pattern resets from 1/2 to 2/1 beginning with Stuart. Stuart is a Castiel mirror, though, which is not quite right. Mr. R is a John mirror (although that episode is a lot murkier and I’ve said before if someone wants to say he’s a Dean mirror because of the djinn connection I’d agree, in which case BLAM we already have a winner.) [editor’s note, I only left Jack out because we already knew he was dying and thought this subtext was priming a twist, more at ten, this aside has been brought to you by the letters LOL.]

But then, where have the last three episodes come from? If he is dreaming, it could be one reason why the djinn couldn’t wring a nightmare out of him, and that the moment before he killed the monster with a bookend was his subconscious trying to signal to him that something is wrong…

I have said a couple of times that subtext isn’t always predictive. Some authors will have multiple subtexts or will use subtext to straight-up fool you (*waves to thriller writers.*) But the exception proves the rule here– we as readers/viewers rely on subtext to prepare us for what might be coming next. Subtext helps provide that slow build to climax that makes, say, Neville Longbottom’s absolutely stunning house cup win in The Sorcerer’s Stone such a stand-up-and-cheer moment, or that makes Harry Potter’s realization that it is his patronus, not his father’s, that saves his past self in the Prisoner of Azkaban so satisfying. Lack of subtext is the reason there is so much grumping over Mary/Bobby. I mean, they what? Had a walk in the woods together? She called him “old man” once, is that even a term of endearment??? [full disclosure I never liked those two together until after Nightmare Logic.]

And scene!

That up there is where I stopped, and now it’s clear that the person who all this was pointing at was Jack, who fell into a dramatic swoon at the end of Optimism. There were two “sleeping beauties” in that episode, too in the 2/1 pattern of the folktales we’ve discussed– the zombie, who is in sort of a dream state, and Charlie, who is knocked out by fly guy. (Again, fully dead is a red herring and doesn’t count. That’s some positive subtext.) That was basically a lot of words to be able to summarize that, yes, sleeping beauty and dreamstates is a thing so far, but where it was going was hard to predict.

There is something really important that can be taken out of this close reading, though, that is carrying throughout the season.

Jack was the character who actually said the words “Sleeping Beauty.” Jack sort of volunteered himself as tribute. Another theme this season that was made explicit by Subtext Primer aka Mint Condition is that the words characters are saying are more important than they ever have been.

AND ONE MORE THING! The above was written before Unhuman Nature and Byzantium and The Spear! Dean has been put back to bed by Michael! But but Castiel stepped into the Sleeping Beauty deal! Where are we going! There’s no earthly way of knowing, which direction we are going…

Anyway in the next installment of this really long meta that will probably never end I want to explore what the history of the Amero-European Sleeping Beauty brings to bear on this season.

[pheacas]

hello! i saw the post about your thoughts on all the Zoe Murphys and a while back I wrote a long ass post about Zoe being adopted and how that would change the narrative. With Olivia Puckett and now the addition of even less ethnically ambiguous Zoe's on tour as standby's I was wondering what you thought? i always wanted a chinese adoptee zoe murphy (which fits with they timeline of those kinds of adoptions) but i always thought it would be an interesting change.

I think the concept of Zoe being adopted is a very great idea in concept!  I feel that a large theme in Zoe’s narrative in the beginning is how disconnected she is from her family.  Within the show, though, I don’t feel that it would really work in the way you seem to intend it to (also; I didn’t mean for this to sound rude in the slightest!  I just got really intrigued by this (I honestly spent over an hour on just reading through everything and writing my little thing so if that doesn’t show my interest I don’t know what does)).

I did read through some of your posts on the topic, and I feel that it isn’t something that has to be directly addressed whenever Olivia or anyone else who isn’t of Caucasian descent goes on.  In the original Arena Stage version, it was certainly something that would have made sense to address since the attention was more on the Murphy family, but as the productions moved to put much more focus on Evan and shroud the Murphy family (particularly Connor) in mystery it would just feel a bit forced to bring it up.  The Murphys are supposed to be somewhat off-putting in my opinion; no matter how much time we spent with them, we honestly don’t know much about them and instead just assume most of it ourselves.  Revealing that Zoe was adopted I feel like would bring a little less of the mystery away from them as a whole, but would also take a bit more of the focus off of Evan when he really is supposed to be central focus of the musical.

I feel like actively changing things to make comments about race when mention of race isn’t at all put into the script is a bit awkward.  It would almost be like Sky’s Jared being like “Hey my parents haven’t used the liquor cabinet since they adopted me” (even though we don’t see Jared’s parents ever but you get the idea).  And the POC Zoe’s being directed to do the same things I feel would severely suppress their own interpretations (like, even though Olivia is the only woman of color to go on as of now, I can tell you for a fact her Zoe is probably much different than Maria’s, Diamond’s, or Ciara’s will be).  Every actor behaves extremely differently when they take on the role.  It’s one of the really nice things about Dear Evan Hansen; the actors get so much freedom to make the characters their own.

Also Jared making race jokes…  Really doesn’t age well as an idea seeing how Sky Lakota-Lynch is mixed race (½ Native American, ¼ African American, ¼ Caucasian) and his immediate understudy is Roman Banks, an African American male.

The understudies for Zoe, unless they’re vacation understudies, are always going to stay women of color, mostly leaning towards African American, due to the fact that they’re all Zolana understudies, and they would never put on someone of Caucasian descent on for Alana.  It’s the same reason they casted Roman soon after Sky (who, may I add, both completely deserve their roles—Sky is tied for my favorite Jared and Roman is clearly incredible, even if he hasn’t had his debut yet (although I’ll also say I get the vibe Roman would be a better Evan than Jared but I’ll never know until Sky or MLB take a day off which I’m really hoping for because I need Roman in my life)).  I would absolutely love to see some other ethnicity understudies or even principles (which we've seen can happen with Sky)!  I’m always a huge advocate for Hispanics to get more into musical theatre, and I would absolutely love to see a Latina on for Zoe or Alana!

A concept to throw at you with Roman Banks; what if Zoe and Connor were both adopted, or there were more comments about race with Roman!Evan?

[nurkhamis-fcnu-blog]

Is fashion still scared of people who are not traditionally ‘pretty’?

Nur Khamis explores the obstacle-filled path of unconventional models and the underrepresentation of individuals lacking Eurocentric features in the fashion industry.

It’s 2019. Fashion is slowly starting to approach diversity. We can’t be sure how genuine it is, but we must appreciate the efforts: you can now see plus-size or older models and almost all races and ethnicities. What do all these people have in common, though? They all look the same. Is the fashion industry scared to bring unconventionality to the catwalks and magazine covers?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, one might say. But science and society have the same idea of what it is: Western features. I’m talking about sculpted jawlines, oval shaped faces, symmetrical features, a slim nose. Eurocentric beauty norms are the standard, and even in the now diverse fashion industry, there’s still a hunt for those who are “lucky” enough to possess them.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the new generation of models – Ashley Graham, Duckie Thot, Winnie Harlow, Halima Aden, Gigi Hadid, Iskra Lawrence. All of them strong, independent women who shine not only through their (traditionally accepted) looks, but their personalities too. Individuality is somewhat valued now – long gone are the days when the catwalk was just an army of robots - models can be themselves.

Those who made it can express themselves, but what about the ones who are struggling or criticized for doing just that, because they don’t fit into the conventional (and let’s be honest, boring) standards set by brands and modelling agencies?

Growing up, I was not considered traditionally beautiful, but rather interesting looking. This might be because, as an ethnically ambiguous person, I did not look like anyone else. Even though I am half Caucasian, the only white features I possess are my pale skin and blue eyes– I inherited my dad’s Middle Eastern looks. With a wide, square shaped face, a bigger, rather bulbous nose, bushy eyebrows, untamed, curly hair and a very unsymmetrical face, you could say I did not fit in society’s beauty norms.  The fashion industry was the least diverse place to look at – and the one I looked at the most. My features were different than everyone I’ve ever seen – it was hard to find anyone to identify with. Slim, pale, attractive models on every catwalk and magazine cover – all showing the same small noses and high, defined cheekbones that I was lacking. I wanted to be like them and I wanted to be considered beautiful – and that ruined my self-esteem as a teenager.

A lot of us mixed race individuals experiences this – you are a combination of your parents, two people from two different places and cultures, which makes you unique. You won’t look like anyone else. And by always wishing to look like the norm, you are willing to take away from your own individuality in order to mould into an idea of what you should be. Middle Eastern and African people experience this the most – the very features that define these ethnicities are the ones feared most by the ones with real power in the fashion industry.

With a Botswana father and a mother from Kimberley, Northern Cape, Tee, 22,   an architecture student based in Newcastle, grew up in a mostly white community in Lichfield always thinking something was wrong with her. “I think I changed myself over the years to become more like the girls who were all the same because I stood out too much and never felt I was like them. I had no fashion idol to represent me or someone who looked like me. I loved art, fashion and design, but there weren’t many people I could look up to.”

Now there are. One of the biggest models right now is Slick Woods. With her eccentric looks and her I-don’t-give-a-damn attitude, Slick, 22, quickly became one of the most talked about models, and Rihanna's muse. Gaped teeth, shaved head - her beauty is harder to consume and understand – thus explaining the constant hate she got from the beginning of her career. And she’s not the only one. Every model that looks unconventional is called “ugly” at some point – Shaun Ross, the first ever male albino model, Jazzelle Zanaughtti with her shaved eyebrows and androgynous look, or Tibetan-born model Tsunaina known for her Avatar-like features. Each of them break the rules and embrace their own individuality. And that’s exactly what the fashion industry needs – people who are unconditionally themselves and don’t care if they don’t fit in.

These individuals are not only bringing attention to themselves through their looks, but their attitude as well. It’s that powerful confidence to be yourself that scares people, because not everyone is courageous enough to do it. “Most people feel uncomfortable about what makes them different because society imposes what “beautiful” is on us. It’s important to break those ideals down and challenge them” stated photographer and filmmaker, BEX DAY, for I-d magazine in 2018.

Some brands get it – and ASOS is one of them. Last year’s campaigns were a huge step in the right direction. The “Go Play” beauty campaign shows multiple individuals, of all genders, races, sexualities, experimenting with makeup and expressing themselves in the most personal and eccentric ways possible. The “My Style is Never Done” campaign, starring Jazzelle Zanaughtti, focuses on her diverse sense of style. Jazzelle dresses up in multiple looks, some weird and some polished, from a cowboy to a centaur, and she’s having fun by not caring. What do these campaigns say? For short, be yourself.

We need to move on from the idea that models represent an unattainable ideal, a beauty we all want to achieve but cannot, and rather bring them back among us as people who are supposed to represent us. Look at one of the brands that refuses to move forward – Victoria’s Secret. White, aggressively worked out models flaunt on the catwalk every year, with little to no diversity among them. The brand's Chief Marketing Officer, Ed Razek, told Vogue.com last November that the brand would not accept transgender or plus size models because “the show is a fantasy”. Honestly, I’d rather see someone cool, erratic, ‘unconventional’ wear whatever I’m thinking of buying, rather than an unhealthily thin, ‘perfect’ looking model. Why can’t girls who look like me strut on the catwalk? Girls and boys like you?

[hotgirlskarachisblog]

Sex After Years Of Marriage

And they lived happily ever after - this is how all children's fairy tales end. In fact, as we all know, with Mendelssohn's march, everything is just beginning. And many happy newlyweds are not ready to destroy some illusions. But now we are not going to talk about pots and pans, about "grinding" and mutual understanding. Suppose that the couple successfully coped with all this. And they live peacefully and happily, without quarreling, for many years. Unfortunately, even against the background of a cloudless family union, dissatisfaction is possible - in sex. Because happiness, understanding and calmness do not always automatically imply that the spouses are still overcome by African passion every night. Alas, more and more often you want to sleep, or even just watch TV, and only when children appear. Visit here for more information about sex.

People who are passionately in love try to have sex with each other as often as possible. But this state of complete absorption in the object of love does not last forever. Otherwise, no one could have done other things. “You don't sleep, you don't eat, you run home in the middle of the day to jump into bed. In terms of evolution, this is not the best way to raise children, ”says anthropologist Helen Fisher. Scientists believe that the "acute" phase of passionate love lasts an average of one to three years. After this phase, the phase of "love-attachment" begins, a deeper and stronger feeling. However, if you make the right choice, passionate romantic love does not completely disappear and can be revived.

And not necessarily a new position in bed. Against the background of fading passion, this is unlikely to delight the partner. Try to experience something new together: go to a new restaurant, take climbing lessons, travel to a new place on vacation. Any new activity raises dopamine levels - and the same thing happens when a person falls in love. Even if these new experiences have nothing to do with sex, they can ignite a spark of passion.

New sexual experiences can also help: go to a bar with an erotic setting, watch an ambiguous erotic movie, dance in a good nightclub. It will make you dress beautifully, spend time among attractive, flirting people - it is exciting! Then you go home and transfer your arousal to your partner.

Not everything in marriage is that bad, however. Scientists have found that married couples are more likely to have sex than those who just date or live together. Most people who have been married for 25 years or more said they were satisfied with both the emotional and the sexual dimension of their relationship. However, a significant number of men and women are not satisfied. When men are asked what they would like to change in their sex life, they generally respond that they want more sex and more often. Women say so too. However, they also want emotional closeness. Many women stressed that if sex helps a woman feel loved and desired, that if she understands that her partner wants her, and not just sex, then they would actually like to have such sex more often.