#and there's definitely a racial aspect to it but i don't even want to make it about that because xenophobia is also a huge problem

[wiisagi-maiingan]

Religion and culture and their intersections always face the same savior attitudes, where outsiders who have no experience with those communities assume that the people in them are dumb savages who need to be saved from their own ignorance. The idea that we could not only be aware of issues in our communities but actually talking about them and trying to solve them just does not occur to people who want to play the role of the intelligent and rational heroes.

[blessingmaxxer]

My response to @mywitchyblog!

"Thank you for your response! I definitely have a deeper understanding of your perspective. I will make sure to answer your direct questions within your argument as soon as possible, as well as also clarify/highlight some of the points I made in my argument." - my initial response to your post

My stance: Race-changing is often (if not always) disrespectful and you shouldn't need to race-change to care about or try to understand another race

With that being said, I'll start again!

To answer your question about mixed people race-changing, I don't see why one would need to? Are you not those races??

Anyway, the practice of reality shifting, wherein individuals immerse themselves in alternate realities or dimensions, includes the controversial activity of race changing. You argue that race changing allows for profound personal growth, empathy development, and cultural competence. However, critics express concerns about cultural appropriation, racial fetishization, and racism. This essay critically examines the arguments for race changing in reality shifting, addressing its ethical implications and assessing the validity of its claimed benefits.

You and some others describe the practice as a deeply immersive experience that extends beyond physical transformation, including emotional and cultural integration. You say that this immersive experience fosters empathy and a nuanced understanding of different racial identities. However, this perspective oversimplifies the implications of embodying an entirely different racial identity, especially considering that race-changing practitioners can opt in and out of their new identities at will—a privilege not afforded to real individuals facing racial discrimination. Those who do so will always do it in a cavalier manner, since they can easily discard all social implications and conventions that exist. Vacationing to a life of discrimination is truly disheartening and fetishizing to see.

"Just wanting see" what the hell that is discrimination is like is backwards. What could be so interesting about a different race that you have to become it? If you strip every argument down, it will always lead to someone not fully respecting other races is-- They don't see it as something to be held in regard if they can easily cross that boundary.

While you claim that race changing enhances empathy by allowing individuals to experience life from a different racial perspective, this argument has limitations. Experiencing racial identity through shifting lacks the permanence and systemic context that characterize real-life racial experiences. Even if you shift to a new race, you will never inherit the deep-rooted understanding of what it means to be that race. Visiting another country does not make you automatically or intrinsically a part of it's culture for the virtue of you being there, and having a willingness to "learn", does not automatically translate to a willingness to be respectful of that culture or identity.

Shifters may encounter only a superficial or selective aspect of racial identity without enduring the lifelong societal challenges and discrimination that individuals of that race face. Thus, the empathy developed through such a practice might be more akin to a simulated experience rather than a genuine understanding of racial adversity.

Furthermore, while race changing might lead to personal reflection, the capacity for self-reflection does not naturally translate into a deeper or more accurate understanding of racial issues. Genuine empathy and social justice awareness require sustained engagement with real-world issues and communities, not merely temporary immersion in alternate realities.

Shifting for a few months or years does not an empathetic person make, or give you true understanding of an identity. What do you expect, you have someone call you a slur and suddenly you become a better and more understanding person, ready to fight discrimination every which way? Multiverse or not, that's not how people work.

You acknowledge that race changing can be seen as a form of cultural appropriation. That is because it is. Assuming a different racial identity, especially for temporary and frivolous purposes, does, in fact, trivialize and commodify the lived experiences of those races. You don't want it to be that way, but it is. You counter that shifters can engage with new cultures deeply and respectfully, integrating themselves fully into their desired identities.

Nevertheless, this perspective fails to address the fundamental issue that race changing involves choosing and discarding identities at will, an act that lacks the permanence and societal impact associated with real racial experiences. The practice risks perpetuating the notion that racial identities are interchangeable and can be explored without the enduring consequences of systemic racism, ergo, discarding the meaningfulness of these people and experiences.

Additionally, the ability to "opt out" of a racial identity undermines the reality of living with that identity, potentially reducing it to a mere fantasy or experiment, which for an incomprehensible amount of people, it is not.

The concern of racial fetishization is pertinent, as race changing might encourage the objectification or exoticization of racial identities. I argue that focusing on racial characteristics for personal or imaginative exploration can reinforce stereotypes and reduce complex identities to superficial traits.

You assert that the immersive nature of race changing fosters genuine cultural engagement and empathy. However, the risk of fetishization remains significant, particularly if the practice involves an emphasis on stereotypical or desirable aspects of a racial identity while neglecting its broader, more complex reality. It doesn't go away because you think there's very little evidence or weight to it. Effective engagement with racial identities requires more than temporary immersion; it demands a deep and respectful understanding of the lived experiences and systemic challenges faced by individuals of that race.

The argument that race changing is inherently centers on the notion that it minimizes the real struggles faced by marginalized racial groups. I believe that such practices can perpetuate harmful stereotypes and disregard the reality of racial oppression. Those who race-change often operate from a place of privilege, like a rich person pretending to be poor for the fun of it or the aesthetic.

Just as someone would rightfully side-eye said rich person, people of color have every right to side-eye race-changers, and people who enthusiastically support it (as you've said, people have the right to be offended; that's because it makes sense to be).

To address these concerns, it is essential for practitioners of race changing to engage critically with their motivations and the broader implications of their practice. Effective empathy and anti-racism require MORE than temporary experiences; they necessitate a sustained commitment to understanding and addressing real-world racial issues.

Having that "as long as we aren't weird about it, we can do it" mentality is a coverup; there's no way to be not weird about it, if you're already willing to cross that boundary. You can't say, "Oh, black people... Cool, cool... Let me see what that's like, looks interesting," and it not be weird. Race isn't a fashion that you can try on and discard later. It's not a enriching activity you can do with the family. It's a real and tangible identity that one random person on the internet can't just grapple or tackle on a whim, or even with careful thought.

In short, race changing in reality shifting may offer some insights into different racial perspectives, it also raises significant ethical concerns. The practice risks trivializing real racial experiences, reinforcing stereotypes, and perpetuating a superficial understanding of racial issues. For a meaningful engagement with racial diversity and empathy, it is crucial to approach these issues with a commitment to real-world understanding and systemic change, rather than relying on temporary, simulated experiences. Critical reflection and genuine engagement with racial communities (outside of reality shifting) are essential for fostering a deeper and more accurate understanding of racial identity and systemic inequality.

Thank you for your time.

[nalyra-dreaming]

Hi! I was wondering do you know why Loumand is so hated ? Was it like that for books readers too? I'm in the middle of the 1st book but i do like their fucked up dynamic on the show and if you ask me, i do think there is love between them.

It's funny because when I started following the fandom everyone was saying how vampires are poly and how we'll have to adapt to this fact now that i'm finally adapting my view, i keep reading ''Louis and Armand don't love each other'' etc.. people call us delusional... sometimes i feel like the only accepted poly is Lestat? I love all their dynamics,give me anything, i'm just here to see characters doing unhinged things that's what attracted me to the show,but sometimes i feel like people just want conventional stories despite what they are saying.

... well.

Okay, so, I'm not too hot on them either. I'll try to explain (and please do read until the end^^) Because while there's certainly love between them (and I have always maintained that!!) - there's also the "problem" that Armand initially becomes interested in Louis... because he is Lestat's. He engages Louis after Lestat has told him about Louis, tries to keep them (Louis and Claudia) save.

Armand... manipulates Louis, and canonically influences him to turn Madeleine, spell-binds him, lies to him, puts a "veil" onto him.

The show, very early on, hinted at the darker aspects of Loumand with the posters, and their reference to the movie "Gaslight".

Armand... Armand has baggage. And luckily(!) he falls for Louis. From his side it's definitely not a lie that he loves Louis. Louis... Louis is certainly infatuated. I do think he loves Armand. But... not like that. Both show and books make that quite clear, and their later canon time together is a very sedated safe time at Trinity Gate.

Armand later tells in his own book that in Paris:

"I must have Louis, that was my injunction. I knew no other."

He must have Louis.

Armand... is someone who does things as he sees fit, even if others disagree. Hunting the young vampires down, for example, even in modern times, wherever he is. Lestat is later very loathe to do that, but Armand keeps wherever he is "clean". The ever multiplying vampire population is for example why Louis goes to Armand at Trinity Gate for the first place - to be safe. But that just as a note.

So... I think it's... complicated. :)

It should go without saying(!) that you can enjoy them as you wish^^.

I think... I think a lot of people are very unprepared to watch a show like this (with characters like these), because we rarely get to see something like this! Like, all these relationships are toxic!! All of them are flawed. There is no good or bad vampire. They're all manipulative, toxic serial killers. They all abuse, and are abused. Yes, even Louis. :))

Fandoms... sometimes tend to be very polemic. This fandom has had the added complexity of the racial recasts, a setup as a tale and a show that has put its fingers into wounds... and then not only split the first season in half, but was also delayed by strikes. Some things... festered.

BUT. That should not stop you from enjoying what you enjoy?! I can only recommend curating your dash^^, and enjoy them.

It's a wild dynamic after all, and while I personally did not think they would go so dark for them I do see the appeal of diving into this dynamic :)

So - look for those who enjoy them as well, and... forget the rest?^^

[figayda-rights]

Hey. I know you're probably getting a lot of hate for your mismag opinions, and I don't want to be one of those voices or be dismissive of your concerns. I'm Jewish and trans (though admittedly transmasc. I will say, that though JK's virulent transphobia has mostly been centered around victimizing trans men, it's important to remember that the entire community is affected. Her claims that transmasc folks are just confused little girls is dehumanizing and patronizing. We should stand with our trans sisters who are being endangered first and foremost, but also acknowledge that there is no part of the community that is unhurt by her bigotry.) Anyways, that said... I personally disagree with your mismag takes. I think you're well within your right not to support a series platforming the Terf book, and I do agree with many of your takes. But one of the distinctions I don't see a lot of people making is the difference between criticizing the Harry Potter series and criticizing JK Rowling herself. I'm not advocating for the Harry Potter books, or claiming death of the author. Those books are filled with prejudice.

But, though JK has made her current platform off of horrible transphobia, the books themselves weren't as preoccupied with trans people as she's become. Yes, there are definite transphobic elements. But to me, the biggest glaring issues of the book come from the racism and the worldbuilding (specifically the "fantasy racism" of muggles/mud bloods and all that shoddy allegory entails) --- both aspects that are directly critiqued and centered in mismag.

Saying that Mismag isn't a satire because it doesn't center a takedown of the transphobia of Jk Rowling is a misunderstanding of how it functions as a satire. Not criticizing JK (aside from Fuck Terfs) so much as criticizing the book and the world itself. I think there are issues with it, no doubt! And I certainly wish a transfemme individual had been given a seat at the table, not as a token, but because their insight into the world would add an extra dimension to the intended criticism.

But I also think that saying it doesn't qualify as a Parody is sorta... ignoring the racial components. It's unfair to Aabria and unfair to the show as a whole.

thanks for your opinion. I don't agree that transphobia (transmisogyny specifically) isn't baked into every aspect of her books.

Remember Pansy Parkinson? Remember how she was described as pig faced, square jawed, short haired and mannish? Remember how she was a villain who did awful things and ultimately aided the in world version of "fantasy Nazis"?

Remember umbridge? Another woman characterized as wide, mannish, square jawed and shouldered, someone who would LITERALLY transform to spy on people, get into kids bedrooms, "invade spaces".

Remember the staircases to the dorm rooms? The ones that wouldn't let boys into the girls rooms but would let girls into the boys rooms? This isn't even all of it.

I'm absolutely in no way saying the books and Rowling currently aren't FILLED with racism. I am indigenous, her use of "spirit animals" as patronuses is despicable. Rowling isn't currently spending thousands of dollars pushing laws against black, Asian, or indigenous people though. She IS currently funding politicians who are pushing holocaust denial AND spending direct money advocating for laws targeted at specifically trans women.

It is irresponsible and incredibly tone deaf to release a season based on her books when violence and trans people, trans women specifically, is at an all time high.

[girlcored]

making this a new post because i want to add relevant tags and elaborate on what i mean here. all panels from nightwing (2016) #108

there's the issue of dick pushing bea aside to be with barbara

there's plenty of other posts exploring the issues with this and i did too in my original post. like yeah there is definitely a racial aspect here

2. bea is the adopted child of a secret pirate society in bludhaven. her adoptive brother, a white man, claims to be the "true" heir

a) ignoring that this reads like this supporter of her brother is calling bea a racial slur b) you can't write this and then ignore the racial dynamics that are absolutely at play here. nowhere in this comic is it even mentioned that white members of the crew might not accept bea as the heir because of her race, even though in a story that is at least based in reality, this is absolutely true. c) when race dynamics are not addressed, it leaves me with this really uncomfortable feeling. like the characters are doing racism and it's not addressed to a point where it's ignored, which isn't what i need or want. i don't need my hand to be held when discerning the meaning of a text. i do need certain things actually written down for them to be part of that meaning. otherwise it feels like disregarding the racial aspect of this conflict to a harmful degree.

even if the purpose of this arc was to explore the racism bea faces, in not doing so in an explicit way, the story itself is being racist to her. like guys idk. tom taylor what the fuck is wrong with you.

3) bea getting fucking stabbed by her white nationalist brother

hey um. why'd you do that.

and i am saying all of this as someone who fucking hates the ric grayson arc and does genuinely enjoy dickbabs. i just don't see anyone else talking about this and it's wild. it's wild that tom taylor is just getting away with this

[ofbreathandflame-archive]

Re: anti sjm stuff, the funny part is I think even in the anti community, racism rarely gets brought up. it gets a footnote when people ask what's wrong the sjm's work.

Hi anon!

This is interesting! I do think it is commonly talked about within the anti-community and many of the problems that are discussed usually lead back to the racism in the stories. I like your comment about it being mentioned as a footnote when people discuss the problems in her story. That sums up the problems when discussing the racist aspects of her novels. The anti-tag has definitely become more anti-character motivated since the release of A Court of Silver Flames -- but I think that's just a consequence of her own fandom not allowing criticism of work outside of their dedication to their favorite character. I've noticed that because people have talked themselves into a corner defending these characters (and the story has written itself into a corner as well) people have a hard time actually objectively critiquing racist portions of the story.

There's always the broad statement that 'SJM is racist' thrown around -- or that she has 'problematic' storylines but it is only discussed within the framework of undesirable characters (Nesta, Tamlin, Lucien, Beron, Illyrians). The Illyrian plotline is objectively a racist one; there is no scenario where a permanent second class of brown men and women is justifiable but it is. Introspection into that storyline will always negatively affect the characters in the world of the story, but a lot of people will pivot the conversation to an 'anti-feysand' rhetoric instead of a racial one. Aelin being unwilling to help end slavery until her black friend has to orchestrate her own death is both a racial and character problem, but the idea is that these storylines negatively affect her character. People want desperately to separate the racism in the story from the characters when we just...can't. And then people become irritable with the critiques -- even subtly so -- and they develop an aversion to them. The 'Illyrian' problem becomes an only anti-Rhys problem and so they feel comfortable ignoring, justifying, and bashing us for talking about it.

Or they assign these critiques under a 'pro tamlin/pro nesta' category and do the same thing; instead of engaging with the issue at hand we get pages of anti-tamlin, nesta rhetoric. We talk about the Illyrian issue? I'll see a post about how Tamlin is a pig, he should die, and then they feel better about themselves. Or we'll see a post about if we critique Feyre -- then Nesta is worse! She's XYZ and how dare critique Rhys when Nesta is right there.

When the reality is: SJM could kill Tamlin off Kill Nesta off, have them grovel or whatever they imagine they want SJM to do, and it wouldn't really change the racial problems at hand.

The Illyrian problem, the Human problem in CC, the Slavery problem in ToG have facilitated an environment where people feel comfortable defending things akin to 'separate but equal laws,' 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps', 'and justifiable segregation conditions. And I don't have to look far to see it. And if we were all mature -- we could talk about these characters without regurgitating that type of dogma -- but alas we can't because its baked into the story.

A secret city built on the blood of brown men and women who live in tents and give their sons to society they will never get the chance to participate in is a very crazy thing to justify. As is arguing that a group of people WOULD WILLINGLY choose to stay trapped under a mountain. It's not a choice because these people do not have a choice to go to Velaris. It's worse when we consider that Velaris DOES NOT HAVE A STANDING ARMY. It primarily relies on the Illyrians and the Darkbringers. And the story tells us these things bc these are intentional choices.

Critiquing this makes us anti feyre and therefore instead of heading these critiques, people JUMP TO JUSTIFY THEM. There are a lot of reasons why employing a barely literate white teenager in the top office over the 'brown savages' is a bit wild. But introspection into that plotline = anti feyre. And then instead of introspection, we get people justifying the plot point. And that's what's dangerous about sidelining the racism conversations in her work. It's also the problem with rabid shipping culture. It's not being able to recognize the problems in the story outside of characters you love and then justifying harmful ideologies bc you can't separate the critiques from your love a character.

[langernameohnebedeutung]

TBH, I don't consider reducing/hiding scars a minor pet peeve at all. Activists for facial differences have been talking for years about 'disfigurement' being used as shorthand for moral failings. I could blame wanting to lighten the burden on makeup artists, but there's never any hesitation to make villains scarred. It's only if the character is meant to be sexy or heroic that their scars get toned down or removed.

DEFINITELY!

I think there are many aspects to this, the biggest one being the one you mentioned, this dynamic of villain = scarred, hero = not scarred.

And another thing that I hate about it is how especially in adaptions they take a facial difference and make it much smaller, less visible, move it etc. - and then try to pull off the same narrative about this character being perceived as not conventionally attractive. Which immediately becomes incredibly condescending and makes it even worse, especially when they choose a conventionally good-looking character to play that role.

An example:

He is supposed to look "monstrous" - like bro, what does that make the rest of us?

(And just to make the dehumanisation of people with facial differences more obvious: In the source material, this guy had half-lion features)

Another aspect I can think of is the fetishisation of self-hatred in this regard. It is portrayed as "good" when a character with a facial difference (especially a woman, in these tropes) puts herself down - but then in swoops a love-interest to tell how beautiful they are. Meanwhile, a character with a facial difference or something similiar who - for themselves - says: "Hey, actually I like the way I look" - is treated as arrogant and the butt-end of the joke. (There is this Colleen Hoover book I'm thinking of here, as one example, that in my defence I only watched a pretty scathing review of)

But I also think that there are some racial aspects and gender aspects to this. There are probably a lot of people more qualified to talk about these racial aspects of this and maybe I am imagining things or don't see the full scope of it but I definitely feel like they feel far more comfortable doing this "villains have scars" thing with characters of colour - at least relative to the amount of representation characters of colour get to begin with. And it feels like...well, again, I'm not the best person to put this into words but since it usually goes hand in hand with the villain-trope, it feels like an effort to dial up the othering, especially in older shows and movies that use stuff like rituals or something for shock value. To make other races or cultures look sCaRy and DifFeReNt.

Or - just the first example that comes to my mind: The original mirror-verse episode of Star Trek. The reason I'm mentioning this is because it is a piece of media where you can see side-by-side which visual cues writers settled on to make our characters look "evil": One is dialling up the sexy - especially with the women who are all much more horny - another is giving mirror!Sulu a big facial scar. And on the surface level, the reasoning even makes sense - that world is a lot more brutal so it makes sense that someone would have scars. But for one, there is the interesting choice to make Sulu the character to give it to. Not to mention: Our "normal"-verse characters also see fights and injuries. They could have scars very reasonably. Star Trek is all about inclusivity - but there is a notable absence of e.g. scarring of visible body differences in the original show - they even used body doubles and selective shots to hide James Doohan's missing finger. But the moment we go into an "evil" universe, there is facial difference and it is on the body of a man of colour.

And then you have the issue that female characters must not have visible scars in most cases - because they have to be eye-candy for the audience. And considering the huge pressure that is already placed on women to be beautiful, it feels like another body standard in the media ("we will show women suffering in all shapes all the time to the point of being exploitative, but also they heal back perfectly and don't appear changed at all. So the audience gets to eat their misogyny cake and eat it too.) Meanwhile, some male hero characters (usually action heroes, video game heroes) do get to have scars or some facial difference to show their "journey" and how much they hardened and what they survived - which I think can be a positive message - "hey, your scars talk about what you went through and what you survived and that you're a badass!" - but women get this to a much smaller degree despite having extra tons of pressure placed upon them to look beautiful so it feels really cool (also - referring back to my first point, self-empowerment is also treated as negative and almost egomanical because informing a woman that she is beautiful is a man's job)

(An example: I watched a a Netflix adaption of a book I had read recently and in the book, two major female characters have an identical scar on their face and that is pretty relevant to the story - and they just decide to place in the palms of her hands instead where it is much less visible and the scenario behind the first woman's injury becomes a lot less believable than the one in the novel)

And the thing is, I don't even always buy that it to save on make-up or effects in a lot of cases because often they are productions that have tons of budget for other things and a lot of movies and shows can show their characters for half the episode/movie with scrapes on their face and blood on their face etc. I have a hard time believing that this is so much harder to do than a scar.

[ridreamir]

My grief addled heart wanting to draw parallels between Dagoth Ur and the Nerevarine to the Last Dragonborn and Nebarra... This is overly complicated I understand if you don't want to read it lol

Warning: Some Morrowind and Skyrim spoilers/ lore ahead, mumbo jumbo I'm sorry if I'm not making sense. Same for Nebarra's backstory but the spoilers are very vague.

Nebarra, descended from the true Aldmer, potentially mixed somewhere along the way with the last of the true Chimer.

(The Chimer: Dagoth Ur's and Nerevar's extinct race, closely descended from the Aldmer) that could account for Nebarra's so called 'racial impurities'. The irony there being he'd have a close genetic link to the original Aldmer that the modern Altmer wish to emulate. (The Chimer were cursed by the Daedric Prince Azura and are now modern day dark elves, but they used to look like Altmer with fair hair and skin.) His quest is rooted in Solstheim. Maybe his soul is called to the Heart of Lorhkan still. Maybe it still longs for their past lives in Morrowind. The Last Dragonborn, bloodline unclear or sullied in reincarnation like the Nerevarine. Given a bad lot in life. Always the toy of higher powers.

They are both ill-fated individuals, reincarnations. The Dragonborn containing the essence of 'divine' dragonblood. Perhaps Neverar was also a dragon-hearted individual, drawing parallels to the divine heart of Lorhkan that corrupted Dagoth Ur. Much to do with hearts which pump blood, and divinity.

Many mortal incarnations that come in times of great strife.

The previous outside lover that prevents the two souls from connecting, once Nerevar's wife the betrayer, then Nebarra's grief-stricken heart who lost his first love to a tragic death. Again the parallel of the broken and betrayed hearts. Big emphasis on hearts here.

The parallels aren't a perfect one to one but all the elements are there. Mortals desperately wishing to return to divinity. Reincarnation. Betrayal, death, obstacles. Man and Mer. Lorhkan as a good and evil force. A betrayer. A life giver.

The accursed realms of Mundus and themes of the dead rising to life. What if this has been the tragic love story (friendship? Longing?) of two souls fragmented from before the world of man and mer, meant to incarnate and find each other again and again? Aspects of the dead divines now incarnated to haunt the divine corpse of Lorhkan that is now the Earth they walk on?

Same seeds, different soil. Different times, different places. Same souls, different bodies. The horrific part about this is that they're always separated. Sometimes not even born together or surviving long enough to find one another. In the tragic one in a million chance they do, often they'll eventually have to wrench themselves from the other in order to fulfill a prophecy and sacrifice themselves by the will of the divines (or the daedric lords as their toy puppets.) The Aedra are dead. You are in spirit the whispers of their corrupted dream. In flesh, he as an Altmer is what has become of their blood. Two halves of the same coin. Mortality and Divinity.

I could really stetch this so far, but I see how I'm kind of dragging Nebarra out of his intended role. Just an AU thing I thought of. You could technically place anyone in his role but I wanted to write more Nebarra content lol

I could definitely write a quest that hints to past lives forgotton and the karma/shared fates of these two tortured beings as a romance storyline if we're being honest here. Big emphasis on broken hearts.

They are so sad and love each other your honor.

[weaverlings]

i think one thing that's especially awful about the dm fandom is indeed the way so many white fans are eager to play off the racism as like. Just a character flaw or quirk, even when the work does seem to treat it otherwise

these are thoughts i have considered for a while formulated based reading what Black bloggers have had to say and brought on by this post but i didn't want to derail that at all

white fans treating laios' ignorance of toshiro's name as a cute thing. no it was racist. laios just breezed over toshiro's name and maybe he originally did so because he didn't like... adequately listen/understand toshiro, and that was because of the autism. that reason isn't acceptable and certainly not an excuse. laios just brushing over a name with an origin in a (let's say) non-"Common" language is racist.

and marcille's racism is both very real and when it is portrayed, it's clearly shown as a problem... tbh though, i think the fact that the narrative focuses more on how she patronizes falin as a result of the elves' paternalistic attitude toward short-lived races (not that it does this a ton, exactly, but it's more relevant to the story than her racism toward orcs), while her frankly cruel and callous ignorance toward the orcs is contained strongly in a few chapters and addressed in an afterschool-special-y way where she never offers a meaningful apology but more just um. a grudging acknowledgment of the fact that orcs are people? is sloppy handling. that one post about how marcille is conservative is incredibly true and while she starts to learn better, i don't think we get to see enough of that learning process for it to be meaningful. and it's definitely not one of the funnier aspects of marcille's character??

this isn't to say that the work itself isn't racist, or that its approach to racism in the narrative is good. fantasy racism as an allegory is a bad concept, i think - dungeon meshi may do a few things better, insofar as the bar is under the ground.

part of it is simply making all these races actually human, and then making it clear that the distinction between human and non-human sapient races arbitrary to the point of basically being an excuse. number of bones?? however, this also touches on a flaw of the work imo; a lot of these issues are touched upon in canon, yes, but only in supplemental materials as opposed to the narrative proper.

another thing that i perceived is that the oppressed groups actually do not pose nor are they presented as genuinely posing any threat to the oppressors (again a bar under the ground thing, this shouldn't be noteworthy). like, the orcs are painted as violent and malicious by other races in-universe, but it's not like. predator-prey dynamics between them and other humans, or the orcs having ~dangerous powers~ that would supposedly justify their oppression.

and yet. that doesn't make the the presentation of orcs less racist in the context of reality. like using racialized features more heavily on characters who are also depicted visually as more animalistic. the orcs' positioning in the narrative is undercut by this, along with the lack of Black and brown characters of other human races. like yeah there's not literally zero but those that are there are indeed often not drawn/rendered well AND in a narrative work that is evidently trying to think about race, this issue stands out even more. or it should.

i do think dm tries to address the idea of race in the work. ultimately i don't think it succeeds very well. however all of this was originally intended to just be about how frusrating it is that white fans refuse to engage with any of this in favor of laios as autistic blorbo and farcille... i think it's like. even when a story is actively trying to be about race as a social and political issue, this still gets not only glossed over but sometimes even like! actively de-politicized and de-racialized! "there's nothing racist about dungeon meshi" yes there is! just because you relate to laios doesn't mean he wasn't racist! just because the work is thinking about race doesn't make IT not racist. but rather than engage with that at all, we apparently want to pretend it's just Flawless Fantasy Fun

[eastgaysian]

Sincere question: I don't understand your reaction here: "also the fact i had to look up lottie's actress to be like wait is she mixed. it's just a bit silly to me tbh" . Are you saying the show should have explicitly discussed her ethnic background? Is it because you think her possible powers are related to her being Maori, or like in general it should have been more obvious?

this is a complicated one to answer because i feel like i have to go macro -> micro to get all my thoughts out sensibly. but we'll get there i promise

the genre of survivalist fiction, more specifically the deserted island/stranded in the wilderness narrative, is racially loaded. sometimes this is patently obvious, ie robinson crusoe and the character of friday, but even with a cast of entirely white characters the concept of uninhabited and untamed wilderness (which the white characters either tame or are degraded by) is tied to colonialism*, as is the tension between what is viewed as civilized or uncivilized behavior, good christian morality vs primitive/barbaric 'savagery', etc.

(* this isn't necessarily constant throughout history/a global context but is absolutely a part of this genre and the american context of yellowjackets)

yellowjackets seems to promise a deconstruction of the genre by focusing on the psychological horror angle with a diverse cast of teenage girls, as well as reflecting on how the trauma of that event would carry on into life after rescue. and like, i like it! i think it's fun to watch, it succeeds at entertaining me. but i really think it drops the ball when it comes to examining the racial implications of this kind of story.

it's clear that there's some degree of thought and significance put into taissa as a Black female character: her conversation with van about Black characters dying first in horror movies, the conversation with that potential donor who feels entitled to her trauma because of All She's Done For You People, her being the first Black female senator of new jersey.

...so what exactly are we supposed to make of the fact that she has an Evil Personality that first emerged after the crash, who eats dirt and bites people and makes shrines with broken dolls and dog heads, just lurking under the surface waiting until she loses control? the other characters are definitely psychologically disturbed, but the regression to this 'wild' state is extreme and reserved for taissa. why? it doesn't critically examine or deconstruct the ways in which the behavior we view as 'feral' is racialized. at best it's thoughtless, at worst it's actively engaging in racist tropes.

on the other hand you have lottie, whose racial identity isn't brought up in the text, but is at least a consistent casting decision for teen/adult lottie and her parents. the role she fills of being converted (to a point?) and baptized by a devoted white christian girl and then becoming an occult mystic who communes with the wilderness and wears deer antlers to try and lead a ritual human sacrifice is extremely racially loaded. i wouldn't have been irked by the lack of acknowledgment if this wasn't her role. but because it hasn't been brought up and it's not critically examined, i'm not sure whether the show wants me to think her possible powers are related to her being māori, and either way the implications are really troubling to me.

i'm not #cancelling the show i'm just disappointed by what feels like a huge oversight with regards to the racialized aspects of the genre. narratively i also think the build up of the maybe-supernatural elements was kind of all over the place which doesn't help but that's not really here nor there. it just doesn't sit well with me!

[3-2-whump]

(You don't have to reply to this publicly if you don't want to)

I read your post on adoption trauma and it really hit close to home for me. My adoption experience was a lot different (same race adoption, domestic vs international, bad adoptive parents, etc) but I still feel a lot of the same frustrations.

I can't claim to understand through racial aspect and I don't want to equate my experience to that (that's a whole other level of hurt I can't even imagine), but I think it's important to note that there's another culture that gets lost in adoption: *familial* culture.

I don't know my genealogy. I don't know how my family celebrates holidays. I don't know their little inside jokes and how they show affection and all their favorite things. I don't know my half-siblings but they know me. They know our mother. They know her hugs, her smile, her laugh.

And even though I know *who* my parents are and I could contact them, it still feels like forcing a piece from another puzzle into a completed one. I will never have that relationship with them. Of course, that's my personal experience and I know it's different for others, but that's how it feels for me. That rift is permanent, even if I take the risk of rejection and try to build a bridge.

Anyway, didn't mean to blabber in your inbox. Just had a lot of feelings and thought I might share. Also hi, I have a whump blog as well lol. It's @the-whumpening but most of my stuff has some of your squicks so don't feel obligated to check it out.

Oh yeah, there is definitely a loss of familial culture for both of us. I didn’t highlight it because I thought it was just an implied, a given -but you’re totally right, it is there, and we should address it.

I don’t know my genealogy either, or how my birth family observes holidays like Lunar New Year, Mid Autumn Moon Festival, Qing Ming, and the rest. I don’t know if you care about such things like religion but I don’t even know what mine practiced, or if it’s a faith I would have preferred to grow up in. I know I have a blood sibling; that much is implied through my story, but aside from that, I can only make guesses.

I think it’s cool though that you *know* who your birth parents are -something that will be a miracle for me to find- and I fully respect your decision to not want to contact them, but it must be kinda weird, I imagine, for both of us to imagine a world without our rifts you so accurately mentioned…

Thanks for chiming in! If you want to talk about it more feel free to message me.

[emblemxeno]

Sorry, I have returned with another heavy representation related question

Do you find it odd that the push for black characters is disproportionately higher than the push for black culture?

Aside from all the interesting history and cultures in Africa, there's aboriginal Australians and Afro-Brazilians who invented an entire martial art to escape slavery and fight off colonizers. Capoeira is awesome btw

Why represent black people, but ignore black culture?

Good question!

I don't know if I have a great answer to this, but if I were to start anywhere, it's that part of it is definitely because of just how significant the U.S. is (or at least is treated) in how culture moves, shapes, and released. In the risk of sounding like a baby leftist eager to use buzzwords all the time, honestly it all ties back to capitalism. What sells, generating profit, buying out smaller companies for their better critical acclaim-to-commercial success ratio.

And a notable cog in the capitalist machine is what U.S. corporations do as, despite being an extremely young country, it is a superpower with massive amounts of land and wealth that it hoards. It stands to reason that anything that comes out of the U.S. can and will be marketed and capitalized off of if it reaches a certain point of popularity and/or notoriety.

Black American culture is one part in that American capitalist cog, where, despite being a proported bastian of modern day human rights, the U.S. values the dollar of the world's citizenry over actually making efforts to improve the damn planet they live on.

And true to that type of attitude, that resulted in Black American art at first being mocked ("a Negro wrote a book? yeah and pigs can fly haha"), then the 'emancipation' happened (ignore the fact that slavery technically still exists under the 13th amendment as punishment for crime and doubly ignore which racial population is drastically over-arrested and accused for crimes of which they either didn't do or have outrageous sentences compared to the crime committed e.g. weed posession, the U.S. doesn't want you to think about that) /s

After mockery, came mockery+profit, such as minstrelsy, and later whitewashing and theft of cultural aspects (music is a big one) at the expense of Black Americans not getting their due.

Then the Civil Rights era happened (ignore how socialist MLK was that's not good for the money making machine) and with that led to a more rapid dissolution of segregation, and that meant Black people can be on screen and can sell stuff to other Black people. Later, Black culture started becoming really cool and hip to non-Black people in America. White boy hip-hop, white guy and gal R&B (Timberlake, P!nk's first album), whatever the hell X-tina was doing with those damn cornrows lmaoooo.

And this corporate co-opting of the culture has proven to be a major money maker for the past 5 decades, and is still perpetuated today. Any accusation, claim, or slander of "Gen Z/TikTok/Stan Twitter" language is how Black Americans have been talking for decades upon decades (I wish I could remember there was this show from early days of color tv that had a black cop do a "white to black" translation as a joke on the show and he said "my partner wants the tea on the old bird" cuz that's really a big indicator of that fact.)

The double edged sword of this, is of course that this is a way of speaking, culture, art, and lifestyle that a group of people live, and despite it continuing to be marketable as trendy and cool, Black Americans are still not really getting the lion's share of praise for it, because well... the U.S. is still systemically racist and any trend that starts from a non-lighter skinned cultural/ethnic group that can be whitewashed, will be in order to sell more. Unconscious bias as a result of being raised in a country built upon injustice and genocide is something I don't imagine will be undone for even the next century or two.

Getting to the actual point you asked about, it's because of the topics in my aforementioned ramblings why it's most likely harder/less seen for Black culture to be pushed over just Black/dark skinned characters.

On one hand, yes, I did mention how Black culture has been commercialized and commodified, but 1) lots of overt racists still exist and celebrating or even explaining something adjacent to Black culture can and will set them off cuz "THE WOKE AGENDA, STOP PREACHING IN MY FAVORITE FRANCHISE GRRRR" which means a not-insignificant amount of money can potentially be risked since those types are in more spaces than you'd expect, 2) there's extra work to be done now as to not offend the particular culture being portrayed, which is a good thing to do, but sadly often results in said culture just being cut from a character to avoid the work because time spent on sensitivity can be taken as time wasted on not improving other parts of the product, and 3) I know this is a big accusation to make, but... people consume more subpar and shallow stuff than they're willing to admit. Obviously there's nuance to stuff; enjoying a children's show with black characters in it as a kid and thinking it's good representation is no problem whatsoever, in fact I encourage it more because diverse cartoons set developing kids' brains up extremely well for a progressing society.

But there's a very noticeable deluge of applause from even mature audiences when there's a major involvement of a Black person in general that rings hollow because there's usually nothing significant about it other than the produce may not have had Black involvement before. I myself am not immune to this of course, because my favorite game series' are Fire Emblem and Xenoblade, and only in the most recent entries of both did they feature unambiguously Black characters inspired by either cultural taste aesthetics (Timerra and Fogado from Latin America) or physical features (Taion's hair, nose and lips), and I basically fucking cheered cuz those are my babies and they look so cute. BUT, again, those were the most recent entries in series where characters darker skinned than a paper bag (or gray-ish brown) that weren't just insignifanct NPCs were hard to find, and in FE's case got outright fucking offensive (Danved/Devdan).

I suspect this is a similar sentinment with non-American Black culture as well, as since Black American culture is still a controversial celebration, African, Carribean, Black Latin, or Aboriginals of Australia have the same reputation except exacerbated by xenophobia, weird fetishy-exoticism being placed on them, or flat out being unknown to the greater zeitgeist at the moment. Certainly doesn't help that the major powers of entertainment are located in the places that ruined or exterminated those same Black cultures :/

TL;DR: Capitalism profits off of culture, but not too much because that risks losing more money than its worth, so the compromise is usually slapping a "they're black" sticker on whatever they're trying to sell and unfortunately it works a lot of the time because being an uncritical consumer is something we've been raised to deal with as a part of life.

[bathsaltsmcgee]

Hey! I'm sending you a message because I love your fanfic, Beneath The Mask. It's really immersive! Your writing is so impressive, and your Alastor and Charlie feel so real! You really display every part of them so well, from their attire to their mannerisms and inner thoughts. And you balance it with your amazing plot so masterfully! I'm curious as to what resources you use when you research the place and time period. It's because I'm working on my own Charlastor fanfic in the same setting (1920's-1930's New Orleans). You're a writer that I look up to, so I thought I'd reach out to ask you for advice. Thanks!

Aw, thank you! I'm glad to hear that you're enjoying my work that much. :D

Well, odd as it is to say, when it comes to researching the 1930s, YouTube is a fantastic place to start. There are loads of documentaries about the roaring twenties, as well as the Great Depression, uploaded on there that go into great detail about everything from daily life, to fashion, to racial and societal tensions, to even old diary entries, and whenever I'm doing something I don't want to, I'll put on one of those so the grind of vacuuming doesn't seem nearly so monotonous.

However, I would recommend not just listening to the ones about the economy and the stock market crash. While they do play an integral part in what went down back then and are definitely worth a listen, it's vital to take into account the human suffering on the ground level that occurred at the time, too.

Wall Street is important, but Main Street is everything.

People were starving, dying in the streets, and kicked out of their homes because they couldn't pay the rent. Poverty was rampant, loads of families had to uproot across state lines, just to survive, and the dust bowl was sweeping through the US farming country, making it unviable for planting and raising livestock. Civil unrest was all over the place, debt, both personal and commercial, was at an all time high, roughly 25% of all working Americans were unemployed, riots and police standoffs were occurring everywhere one looked, like what happened with the bonus army in 1932 in DC, and brutality and scapegoating were the way of the day, with random acts of violence against one other on the rise every day that went by, regardless of whether or not there was even a reason, be it perceived or real.

So, the human struggle against scarcity, despair, misery and hopelessness that the Depression brought which persisted throughout that time period is essential to take into account when writing about it, as it affected almost everyone and usually stayed with them to some degree for the rest of their lives, even long after the depression itself was gone.

Which is why a lot of old people who lived through it never threw anything away, eschewed any and all kinds of waste, and washed and folded up used tinfoil, among other things.

Another important aspect about the Great Depression and the roaring twenties that proceeded it is that everything is intertwined and connected with each other to an almost disturbing degree. For instance, the release of labor saving devices, shiny new inventions and household appliances, such as electric washing machines, radios, cars and what have you, behooved people to take on a boatload of debt in order to purchase them, which, in turn, put them into a bad financial position when the bottom fell out of the economy and they'd no way of paying their loans back because they were without a job.

The banks going bust and there not being any sort of insurance to cover the financial losses at the time didn't help, either.

Hemlines in skirts also have a way of either rising or falling depending on the state of the economy as well. If it's a bull market, the hemlines rise. If it's a bear, they fall down to the floor.

Also, the YouTube channel, 'Great Depression cooking with Clara', is a great window back into life in the days, so I'd look that up too, if you're so inclined.

As for fashion knowledge, I'd recommend either vintage dancer or glamour daze. They've got loads of tutorials for makeup and fashion from the turn of the century all the way up into the 80s, as well as real life magazine articles from back then, detailing how women, and sometimes men, were expected to dress in order to appear 'smart' in public, as being well groomed was a sign that one still had their act together, if only on the surface.

Hope that helps!

[clonehub]

someone in the tags of that meme said they dont understand why tbb stans take criticism of their shows so personally. while i have a range of theories as to why, in general, fans of a show cannot just let people not like the show, the tbb stans in particular seem to....idk, think the bad batch is Doing Something? i did literally see someone say that you cant criticize the show because the animators work so hard on it, and they conflated negative feelings about the series with a lack of desire to see *any* aspect of the Bad Batch, like "yeah youre complaining but look at these nice visuals do you not want those anymore???" which was a false equivalency.

and of course there's the whole fandom-as-identity and stan-as-personality and a lot of people's growing inability to take variegated and holistic approaches to the series. even the ones who admit that the show has flaws regarding how they write wrecker seem to be unable to realize/point out that wrecker's writing is problematic because it is racist.

racism as a factor in the poor quality of the writing is one that ive noticed gets ignored almost COMPLETELY. i and others like me who do not like the bad batch are able to point out the stereotypes and poor optics and everything else while talking about the writing. people who love the bad batch cannot. i guess because then, admitting that the writing and animation are inextricably racist would make them look a little silly for loving the show so much, because you can say the character development was slow but you still love it. but you can say "yeah he's a racial stereotype and there was a weird reverse racism thread to their back story and they do make efforts to prove these white characters are better than these nonwhite ones--but i still love it".

but in general, since ive deviated a little, like....i remember when uwwtbb first came out and it was *incredibly* difficult for people to separate themselves from what they were consuming. people complained about the racism in the show and they complained about the more or less explicitly racist fans of the bad batch and you had other stans (who often had to bring up that they were poc, but obv not always) saying "well im not a bad person for watching the show" or asking if they could watch it. like i cant control what you watch. me passing judgement on you specifically makes no sense. although one does have to consider how much they're willing to tolerate, praise, or brush aside for the sake of their own personal entertainment. i am watching season 2 of the bad batch to keep track of any other racist developments that happen (which, thankfully, have been minimal). you are watching because you find joy in it. we are not the same. we dont need to be.

but connecting to what id said earlier about tbb stans i guess not understanding their own "buying power", so to speak--if criticizing a show means criticizing the people who watch the show, and if a lot of people who watch the show definitely don't care about the whitewashing that much, then there is no sense in acting shocked when the by products of a racist show are racist. the confusion over tech's 1/6th model as if he doesn't look like a boring white man in the series was irritating. you asked for this. you can't say tech is hot and you can't spread whitewashed fanart and you cannot implicitly and explicitly support the racist design and then turn around and be surprised when you are given exactly what you asked for.

[casasupernovas]

Hi

Say if Joan said yes to travelling with the doctor, but Martha didn’t like the idea and gave the doctor an ultimatum who do you think he would choose? Like I want to ship Ten/Martha, but the whole Joan thing is kinda stopping me. Sorry if this is a weird question - I just wanted to see someone else’s thought’s on the matter.

I think he would ultimately choose Martha. Because I'm sure Martha's ultimatum would entail more about her understanding that he's trying to get Joan out of guilt, but ulimately not wanting to be around someone who is racially prejudiced. Martha has already been in a backwards time for too long, we don't want to bring it with them, especially as it wouldn't just affect Martha but the Doctor too. Race is a problem from what we know but she'd definitely start othering the Doctor. I do really think he asks for Joan out of guilt.

Additionally the awareness that Joan could very well become socially aware is a thing but ultimately, that is not Martha's responsibility, and if the Doctor wishes it to be his, then Martha is within her right not to be a part of it. Also I truly believe that the Doctor would regret his decision to travel with her. Firstly, I do not believe Joan has the aptitude to be a companion. She'd probably die on their first adventure. Also Joan is incredibly bland, I think the Doctor would get bored easily.

I think the Doctor offered her a trip because he assumed she'd be more impressed with him instead of the fake. Joan never seemed too impressed with the Doctor from the story to begin with though. Interested but not that interested. And I think he'd get a kick out of showing a woman from 1913 the universe. I also think Joan was probably embarassed to fall in love with a story than a real person.

But ultimately I think he would choose Martha. I think when he talks to Joan, again I think it's out of guilt. When he speaks to Martha outside, she clearly knew what he was trying to do. Remember when John asked Martha why she didn't stop him and Joan falling for each other? Martha saying that wasn't on the list? The fault ultimately lies with the Doctor missing one of the most fundamental aspects of humanity. That is the alien making a massive error. So, he tries to placate it. I look at the scene both ways because as awful and manipulative as it seems, you can't help but feel sorry for the Doctor as you see how he is crashing and burning without realising. He just doesn't get it. But I think Martha does, and would tell him.

I think Martha would have laid it out in this ultimatum if he proposed to want to get Joan to accompany them out of guilt. The Doctor thinks a trip in the Tardis is an adequate thank you, it's partly how he got Martha in the first place. He's not self aware enough to understand why he'd be rejected (even at the end of the Runaway Bride, The Lazarus Experiment and ultimately the end of the series). But Martha. I think the core of Martha's ultimatum would also be that she is here for him.

The Doctor makes many mistakes this two parter, some out of ignorance, some under duress. In the show, when Martha offers to speak to Joan, I think she wantes to try and convince her not to travel with them exactly, but to not to think too harshly of the Doctor. As Joan and John came at her, all Martha did was defend the Doctor. Martha Jones understands him better than most companions in my opinion. I'd think she would want to come at the angle of two humans regarding the Doctor. I don't think she'd convince her, but I think she'd want to lower Joan's hate. And give her something to think abput regarding her society in general.

And I think this consideration, and understanding from Martha telling the Doctor that she would try to help ease his guilt, just not at the cost of her own sanity. And the Doctor would choose her.

[moth-time]

Actually I want to come back to this because it is So Correct

Vague manga spoilers ahead for Senshi's backstory

Senshi's doting, caring nature is so deeply parental (and slightly condescending but that's another can of worms) and I feel like ppl often forget this bc they really want to fuck Senshi (understandable), but a crucial element of his characterization is that he feels that his duty as an adult is to keep children fed. Like this shit preoccupies him A LOT:

You also see it in the shapeshifter chapter, how his mental image of Chilchuck and, to a lesser degree, Laios, are young and child-like. Marcille not so much, but the screenshot above absolutely establishes that he sees her as a still growing kid.

And the fact that he feels it is his duty to feed them because they are children is an essential part of his backstory! Because someone did this for him when he was a child, and he's the last survivor of his party because he was a child and protecting the kids is the most important thing. Like, this shit sits deep!!

He's not a lover (frankly, considering how much time he has spent happily isolated from all other humans, I'm not even sure he needs human connection at all), he's a caretaker, and I realize the definitions can have some overlap but like. Senshi is so strongly established as nurturing in an extremely parental way? He takes care of the ecosystem because he feels like the dungeon needs him. He feeds the party because he sees a gaggle of hungry kids that need him.

And- I do think in contrast to the other party members, who are all shown to have some kind of interest in sex and romance (Chilchuck has a wife and three kids, Marcille is a sucker for romance books, Laios is very interested in monster reproduction and at least thought his fiancée was "cute"), Senshi stands out by his complete and utter disinterest for the whole thing? The closest he gets to the topic is his incredibly awkward attempt at giving Chilchuck the birds and bees talk, which he does only because he feels like it is his duty as an adult responsible for a (perceived) young child.

Anyway this is my disjointed essay on why Senshi categorically does not fuck and especially isn't fucking any of the party members and also how his caring nature is deepy interwoven with a moral imperative to make sure children (and young humans) are fed and cared for.

(and don't get me started on the racialized and ignorant aspects of it all this post is already getting too fucking long)

yes senshi is built like a bear and gets all the pantyshots and can cook like a god but also that man is the most asexual character in the whole fuckign series. he has absolutely nothing going on in that department. dude has miso soup where his sexuality would be