#but when a poc leads said revolution

[multi-fandom-lunatic]

something something booktok has a BIG problem with white feminism

[plenaurum]

Even the follow up to that godforsaken "Gale was a revolutionary king! Prim's death was unnecessary!" post made no damn sense and missed the point of the series entirely:

“We didn’t need Prim’s death for us to know that Coin was bad and that war was bad! It was senseless!”

That’s the point. Her death was senseless. It had no meaning.

There was no reason for her to die, but these things happen in war. Suzanne Collins herself said that she always knew that Prim was going to die even when she started writing the books.

“Having Gale, an oppressed Brown person, be held responsible for Prim’s death (a White character constantly representing innocence), was ugly when he didn’t even kill her. It was a convenient way to end the love triangle and leaving Peeta (another White character constantly portrayed as good) as the only option .”

Now, here’s where my opinion will get controversial: read the books without the lens of identity politics and maybe you might understand the point. Now, I’m not saying to ignore the aspects of race completely (there’s a reason why District 11, a district full of Black people, was so heavily policed). But, notice how Collins intentionally never left the race of some characters like Rue and Thresh up for debate. She was explicit in her depictions of POC. While Gale and Katniss could be read as Native coded and therefore POC, Collins herself never made it clear just what their races might be. It was purposefully left ambiguous, left up to the reader’s interpretation.

But, even if we follow your interpretation, Peeta and Gale were never supposed to be “good vs bad”. Peeta, probably due to a life that was a bit more privileged than Katniss and Gale’s, represented diplomacy in the just-war debate. Gale, understandably due to his life experiences, tended toward violent remedies. A lot of us do not blame Gale for his rage nor his violence because, again, violence was necessary for revolution. The only thing that went wrong is that his rage began to know no bounds and he began to disregard the humanity of other people, which was exploited by Coin.

Gale had always had a tendency to dehumanize other people: in Book 1, when Katniss was expressing worries about killing people in the arena and he said “it’s just like killing animals, how different can it be, really?” All throughout Book 3 (and even in parts of Book 2),  he and Katniss experienced disagreements when it came to what was justifiable during war. Him having the idea to bury the people in the mines when that is the same thing that killed his father, him not understanding why Katniss would care about the fact that her prep team was being tortured for stealing food (when Gale was whipped for poaching), and him helping to develop a weapon that essentially weaponizes human compassion (one bomb that draws people to the wounded, another that kills them all). It is the idea behind the weapon that killed her sister. Of course she was going to connect Prim’s death to Gale even though it wasn’t his fault.

Katniss said herself that Gale’s anger was not what she needed to heal after the war because she had enough of it herself. 

And not every Brown man depicted in the series was “rageful and violent”. Katniss’ father, someone that could arguably be Brown, was a source of joy for Katniss, a source of life. It was through his teachings, through his musicality, that not only kept Katniss alive, but also aided Katniss in maintaining her humanity and connect with other people (singing for Rue, singing for Pollux, how Peeta ended up falling for Katniss.) 

"The books are about war blah blah blah but at the end of the day, the theme of Mockingjay was that the oppressed fighting back will be just as bad as the oppressors and blinded by rage and hatred! What type of message is that?"

Again, The Hunger Games was not meant to be a story on “how to lead a revolution”. It was a story about war: what consistutes a war, what is justifiable during war, how do we maintain our humanity during war, etc. Collins used the "oppressed vs the oppressor" to create a conflict that would require a revolution and then war. However, during this war, innocent men, women, and children on both sides of the war died senselessly. The message it was sending was not “both sides bad", but that even during a justified war, living in a world where war is necessary is not beneficial to anyone. It was anti-war, not anti-oppressed-fighting-back. That’s the message it was sending. 

Please critique the books for what they are and not what you wished them to be.

[bugbastard]

In the constant leftist (aka further left than moderate right liberal) debate between "propping up the decaying system we currently have" vs "gambling that we make a better system by toeing the line somewhat less", nobody actually seems to be under the impression that doing the same things that we did that lead us to where we are is actually going to change things, at best we can slow or stall things getting worse. It's just that the alternative is viewed as worse, quicker.

It's a mentality I've come to think of as the "liberal call to inaction". There's nothing you can do that can't theoretically have bad consequences, so you should do nothing that rocks the boat. There's literally nothing you can suggest doing that won't be met with this kind of pushback. There's the reasonable pushback to extreme suggestions, like "violent revolution can't happen without killing some people (such as disabled people reliant on the current systems, the ultra poor people who are barely surving as is, among others) as collateral damage", but you'll hear similar pushback from things as benign as doing any but the most toothless of protests, "doing things that might piss off cops means they'll take it out on POC" etc.

And it's an understandable because it's true, and even when it doesn't end up happening, theoretically it could. This catastrophising can be done in any situation, about any goal, because it's honestly got a point. There are always unintended consiquences to any action you could possibly take, because you don't know and can't plan for everything, let alone the actions others will take in response to your action. The more extreme the measure, the more extreme and likely the fallout.

But what, for some reason seemingly never gets discussed is that *all of that* is the ongoing fault of the current system. I'm not in favour of violent revolution yet, because the human cost is guaranteed to be obscenely high, and it seems like jumping the gun by a mile when there are countless other radical but more reasonable measures that ought to be tried first (eg if in america 1/100 "vote blue no matter who" people decided to get out there and get organizing with one of the *genuinely* left other political parties your country *already has*, that would scare your mainstream shitless and make big waves) but if it comes down to it? If you're against violent revolution no matter what, you aren't on the side of "let no disabled people die", you're on the side of "let exactly as many disabled people die as already die every day under the current system". Because again, not even you seem to think your strategy of radical inaction is going to make things better, it's a stopgap measure. You can say people who want change at any cost are being callous about human life, but the same could be said about you. The people you want to protect are *dying every day as a byproduct of this system's continued existence*, and either you can fundamentally disagree with that system and reject that, or you can fundamentally agree with this system accept that as a reasonable cost for as long as it takes for *voting harder* to magically make it reverse course.

[sonicenvy]

Thinking about that one tnaos fic that I wrote (and never published) that was focused on a Lois and Clark investigating government corruption (that had a subplot of Lois finding out superman=clark) that was actually secretly an excuse for me to write about one of the top salty political opinions of mine, which is that privitisation of public goods and services is fundamentally bad and can only lead to corruption, harmful theocratic influence, shitty service and further fucking over of the poor and POC. Privitisation of public goods was, weirdly one of the first political issues that I was ever aware of. Like i remember first being angry and salty over this when i was like .... 14??? Why?

Chicago's parking meter deal

The CTA ticketing to ventra sale

I come from a family of union public school teachers and career government employees.

Just, like, being from Chicago in general... idk how to explain this.

This is somehow an issue that is largely ignored by a lot of people, because it happens on a municipal level more frequently and because it can be dense, and frankly .... boring to explain. But when it happens in your city or town, even if you don't know it happened, you notice. The good or service suddenly becomes more expensive. Wait times are worse. New, fancy looking, but lower quality infrastructure is built. Things become more inconvenient. There are louder vaguely christian undertones. The service is typically one that rich people don't use. etc

Anyways, my fic had some long screed about this, and when I most recently read this, I was like, oh my god, this fic is in the style of those 18th century "proto-novels" that i HATE that are a political essay cosplaying as a fictional story about something where all the characters talk in the author's essay voice about something. Granted those texts (like William Hill Brown's The Power of Sympathy) largely drove me insane because SO MANY of them were just about how men thought women should speak, act or exist in society at large, or were like, proto-incel texts about how women were innately whores or something. Basically a lot of anti-women nonsense from 18th century men who I can't stand (looking at you Rousseau, with ... uh ... sophie).

That said, I think any good investigative clois fic is inherently liberal and political because, uh, that's at the heart of lois and clark as a team. They're antifascists who are trying to make the world a better place by holding the power, wealthy and corrupt accountable for their actions through their work. Come to think of it, most comic book characters have always been explicitly political, even if some people want to refuse to see it and their stories have always been about discrimination, democracy and anti fascism.

On a semi-related note, the other (unpublished) fic of mine that I wrote in this genre was a P&P fic that was basically a love letter to 18th and early 19th century feminism for getting the ball rolling. It was also about how the proto feminism of the 18th and early 19th century was almost always deeply connected to the cause of abolition of slavery. That and it often intersected with the beginnings of labor movements when it was coming from working class women. The fic itself was something like, "Mrs. Darcy's Parlor Coffeehouse For Ladies".

For those less versed in the 18th century, the Coffeehouse was a place where gossip, ideas of revolution and general political discourse happened. Of course, women were generally excluded from participating in the conversations, though they were sometimes the hostesses of the coffeehouse, serving coffee to guests.

In my fic, Elizabeth, supported by her husband ofc, hosts parlor parties for women in their London House that she uses to disseminate ideas about proto feminism and other progressive ideas among women of the Ton. She suggests to these women that they deserve respect, education and time in their families, their societies and their marriages. She encourages them to work to make their husbands take them seriously as intelligent people and active sexual partners within their marriages. She distributes copies of Wollstonecraft. She (and Jane) use society parties to seek out their potential targets. Darcy is just, like, fucking stoked (and amused) to see all of this, and finds the time to have conversations with other gentlemen in the clubrooms (despite his complete discomfort with, like socialization in general) about drinking their respect women juice. idk, it sounded sexier in my head.

[aniy2k]

Riot Grrrl, Kinderwhore, and White Feminism

Riot Grrrl was an underground feminist movement that began in the early 90s. It was tied to the punk music scene, radical politics and DIY. It started originally with a Zine by Tobi Vai named Jigsaw in 1988 that expressed and spread radical politics and feminism. Vail later on decided to start a band by the name Bikini Kill. 

For most ‘Styles’, people don't even bother looking at the history of where it came from originally, so why is it important? 

While part of Alternative culture is Fashion and a way to express yourself that's against societal norms, there is alot of political significance that comes with it. When talking about it, Riot Grrrl tik tok creators, and other Alternative creators, say the political significance is based on what the subcultures are. Without that, you cannot be a part of the subculture. Obviously there are alot of conservatives in the scene (As you can see from the usage of lace code) Some complain and say that it's “gatekeeping”, but in my opinion, it's honestly… not. This isn’t the same as someone taking a popular music artist, then saying “You don't know this song? Ur fake lolz”.. This is separating mindsets that Alternative people strongly believe in and instead protecting a community that is supposed to be a safe place.

The Riot Grrrl movement provided a space where women in punk music tackled the conflict of inequality and sexism, and decided to fight it, united and organized.

Kathleen Hanna, Bikini Kills lead singer, ended up writing the “Riot Grrrl Manifesto” in 1991, which is a summary of what Riot Grrrl is and what it means to be a part of it. 

Summary: 

“ BECAUSE us girls crave records and books and fanzines that speak to US that WE feel included in and can understand in our own ways.

BECAUSE we wanna make it easier for girls to see/hear each other's work so that we can share strategies and criticize-applaud each other.

BECAUSE we must take over the means of production in order to create our own meanings.

BECAUSE viewing our work as being connected to our girlfriends-politics-real lives is essential if we are gonna figure out how we are doing impacts, reflects, perpetuates, or DISRUPTS the status quo.

BECAUSE we recognize fantasies of Instant Macho Gun Revolution as impractical lies meant to keep us simply dreaming instead of becoming our dreams AND THUS seek to create revolution in our own lives every single day by envisioning and creating alternatives to the bullshit christian capitalist way of doing things.

BECAUSE we are unwilling to let our real and valid anger be diffused and/or turned against us via the internalization of sexism as witnessed in girl/girl jealousy and self defeating girltype behaviors.

BECAUSE I believe with my wholeheartmindbody that girls constitute a revolutionary soul force that can, and will change the world for real.”

I’m not personally too much of a fan of how Kathleen Hannah ended up seeming like the regular ol’ white feminist that basically put WOC in the shadows within this whole movement. While this piece is about educating about the power that the Riot Grrrl scene had within punk culture, it has many many faults. The diversity within the scene isn’t there. It seemed to be a feminst movement, but only showcased one type of girl. White girls. 

Multiple black punks from that era came out and said that they felt that the riot grrrl scene wasn't for them. Honestly? I don’t blame them. You look up Riot Grrrl on pinterest or on tumblr, you can probably count on your one hand how many POC women are showcased.. This moment for women of color is probably the epitome of White feminism in some cases. Author, Gabby Bess, adds that “The history of Riot Grrrl is inevitably written as "predominately white," glossing over the contributions of black women and other women of color”.

Just like the article from VICE states, 

“In contrast to this ironclad narrative of the white Riot Grrrl, black women did participate in the movement. Few and far between, maybe, but they participated nonetheless, and they deserve more than to be swept under a rug of whiteness--These women carved their own feminist pathways into the hardcore scene, precisely because they were rendered invisible by the Riot Grrrl movement.”

One very powerful punk from that time, Ramdasha Bikceem, made up a whole Zine when they  were 15, that illustrates the conversation of race and gender in Riot Grrrl so perfectly 

This would all result in another black punk from that time, Tamar-Kali Brown, to make her own movement called “Sista Grrrl riot”. Out of all of the information that is circulated about the Riot Grrrl scene, Sista Grrrl Riot was probably one of its least talked about movements. Tamir-Kali Brown and her bandmates brought together a community and showed people a version of themselves on a stage where they weren’t represented.

> Kinderwhore 

Kinderwhore is a very popular style within the RiotGrrrl community. A lot of people Champion Hole lead singer, Courtney Love, for this style's popularity, but actually her bandmate Kat Bjelland introduced the style first. Though, with that being said, Courtney Love definitely made Kinderwhore one of many staple styles for the Riot Grrrl Subculture. 

What is Kinderwhore exactly? One thing about styles like this one is, there isn’t a specific definition to what it is. It was a bold, punk and sophisticated subversion of the classic "girl" stereotype, with a mini-feminine dress and bold makeup. The great part of the Kinderwhore Style is that it was about power. The power of femininity. It was so much more than just a style that included small dresses and mary janes. It was taking the most “fragile” feminine image and making it into something that is punk, and that takes all of the power back. 

Another part of Riot Grrrl fashion is just a subversion of regular punk fashion. DIY, big boots, Plaid, Skirts, Spikes. 

The idea of taking every inch of femininity that men manipulate and instead using it to make them realize that they can't handle what we are, is such a powerful thing to me as a fashion lover, but also as an aspiring social activist. As the rise of social media attention of Alternative Subcultures continues, I believe the next generation of Riot Grrls are going to kick butt and be more inclusive than the 90s scene was.

ani ok.

pls give me feedback and for those who obv have more education abt this pls give me feedback as well!! i think this is super interesting and enjoyed researching this <3

[readingthenight]

Incoherent Thoughts on A Discovery of Witches 3rd Season

I’ve read all three books in this series, and now that the show has ended too, here are some thoughts. Both the book and the show did a really good job of creating many, many characters with conflicting interests, who hurt each other in the cruelest of ways, and still somehow getting us invested in said characters. I really felt for Gallowglass: a lifetime spent watching over and loving Diana and then seeing her fall for Matthew. Jack Blackfriars, led into a life of agony and guilt, just because he loved Matthew and Diana so. Sarah, the love of her life gone in an instant. Even though the ending is happy and resolved, the story will never end for these characters. I think character-creation is where the series is at its strongest:  Phillipe de Claremont...a character I will never forget. 

I also enjoyed the blend of history-nerding (the Elizabethan England moment with unhinged Marlowe was WILD), bio-nerding, and library science: so much of the fantasy in this book comes from the sheer thrill of finding new knowledge--and what’s not to love about a book that tells its secrets only to you? Honestly was quite fascinated by the ideas about science and alchemy and My Chemical Bride: when did these branches separate? What I did not enjoy, however, was the entire focus of the show, the books, and all the characters being on Matthew and Diana’s happiness. Emily dies, TJ Weston dies, Jack suffers for centuries, everyone is hurt and grieving...and all so that Matthew and Diana and their babies can be happy (Perhaps there are more significant stakes to all this, but the books at least didn’t do a good job of clarifying them. And I wonder if Matthew and Diana would be in this if they didn’t have personal stakes). It leads me to wonder at what point does the collateral damage outweigh the necessity of the good fight? In the book especially, we never really hear Diana discuss why the whole rollercoaster of pain and hurt is necessary to bring about change or a revolution: no, it’s because she and Matthew are in love. Which to me is simply not good enough. I also wonder why no on ever calls them out on their selfishness.

Matthew was also quite frustrating; let alone the fact that he’s a 6th century patriarch and behaves accordingly, which I suppose is realistic. But why does he have so many secrets? Why does he dispense them in an inefficient slow drip that creates utter chaos? WHAT was he doing for the CENTURIES when blood rage was supposedly destroying cities? Matthew’s entire attitude to problems seems to be to stick his fingers in his ears and go LALALA until they exacerbate, hurt people beyond measure, or threaten his or Diana’s life directly. The only other figure in fantasy history who’s as bad at giving information is Dumbledore tbh. Really, if Matthew just sat down and gave Diana all the tea in one go, I wonder where the plot would be. 

Let’s talk about race and privilege now. All the characters are incredibly privileged. Diana is a faculty at Oxford, the centre of academic imperialism, (even though she literally stops working?), and has access to an entire lab at Yale through her friend Chris. Matthew is privilege itself (and this forms part of his attractiveness), with a castle, unlimited funds, helicopters, cars, the Knights of Lazarus, connections, you name it...they can ask for and do anything. Matthew and Diana are white, as is Matthew’s family. There are important characters, like Chris and Emily who are written and acknowledged as POC. 

But here’s my problem: has social and political change ever been led by ultra- rich white historical conservatives from Oxford? Its important to ask this, because this book is an intrusive fantasy: it’s set in our world, and the writer has shown an immense investment in real history, from World War II to the Knights of Lazarus to the history of science; there’s even a carefully-constructed meeting with Queen Elizabeth, and later with the king of Prague. Historicity is really important to this book, and to its sense of wonder. So then, what were the rich white vampires doing when colonialism was in motion? How much of their wealth comes from the slave trade? If they made no efforts to intervene, and in fact benefitted from these historical wrongs, how are we to really find it convincing that it is they who are investing so much time and effort into social change? Why is it that Diana has to hand Agatha the opportunity to lead, and the scene ends with a close-up of Diana’s face?

A last note: this/show book is pretty interesting in terms of genre: it’s fantasy yes, but definitely not a paranormal romance in the tradition of Kresley Cole or even Twilight: readers/audience looking for the romantic genre might be disappointed. Matthew and Diana spend very little time together: their relationship, while bearing the trademark possessive-vampire-mate-can’t-live-without-you-must-bite-you characteristics is actually barely shown: they spend little time together and the books and show are mostly focused on events and investigation. Studies of classic romances, like Radway’s Reading the Romance, show that one of the unspoken rules of romance is that the hero can never allow himself or others to be consequentially hurt, nor can he be subordinate beyond a point, as this takes away from his “hero-ness”. But Matthew is more of a tragic hero than a romantic one IMO: people are killed or hurt under his watch, he himself chafes under Baldwin’s authority, has made huge mistakes, and does need to be nudged an awful lot before doing just about anything. 

I really did get the fuzzy feels at the ending montage though. It’s been nice to spend time with these characters. Moments I remember: Phillipe, Diana and Matthew riding horses in the sun, the Book of Life coming alive, the witches making spell-knots, Jack and Pheoble flirting...it begins with a discovery of witches.

[galemalio]

Mindful Consumption of Hazbin Hotel’s vodoo Content

There is no such thing as Voodoo; it is a silly lie invented by you whites to injure us. —William Seabrook, The Magic Island 

(Article and Study Link Sources will be in the reblogs because Tumblr doesn’t let linked posts appear) 

First of all, I’m not writing this as a Vodou practitioner. Or as a Creole POC. I’m simply an outsider making an effort to educate herself for mindful consumption of Hazbin Hotel content and avoid perpetuating misrepresentation of a religion.

(Image: Alastor with Vodou symbols and Vodou-inspired symbols behind him)

The portrayed dark magic of Hazbin Hotel’s Alastor is heavily themed with Hollywood Voodoo or the misrepresentation of Vodou in film. This can also apply with Dr. Facilier in “The Princess and the Frog.” Both characters are from New Orleans [18], [19] where Louisiana Vodou Vaudou is practiced. Both are therefore assumed to practice an evil version of said religion. 

During my consumption of Hazbin Hotel content, someone once pointed out the worrying factor of Alastor’s magic abilities identified as Hollywood Voodoo. 

According to my research, Hollywood Voodoo is a film outlet of “Imagined Voodoo” or the age-old White anxieties on Black people.

What Is Vodou?

(Photo taken from Huffpost)

Haitian Vodou is a religion of African descendants brought as slaves to the French colony of Haiti. It combines west and west central African religions with Native American and European cultural and religious elements.[1]

It is also known as Vodoo, Vodoun, Vudu and Vudun. But to avoid confusion, the term “Vodou” will be used consistently throughout this post when referring to the religion.

Slaves from Haiti are brought to New Orleans where it infused with its dominant religion, Catholicism. The Vodou-Catholicism hybrid religion is sometimes referred to as New Orleans Vodou.[2] 

(Photo provided by Cheryl Gerber)

All Vodou rituals are healing rituals. It's focused on the celebration of ancestral spirits (Lwa or Loa) through feasting, singing and ecstatic dance rituals to heal ailments and restore social bonds.[1]

Vodou practitioners believe of the visible world connected to the invisible world that can be transitioned to through Death. In the invisible world, the Lwa watch over and inspire us. The Lwa can be archetypes of human personalities such as Ogun the Warrior or predecessors. There is also the Bondye or their version of the supreme God who is loving but distant from individual human concerns. [3]

But despite this, a majority of foreigners synonimize “voodoo” with Haitian “black magic” or “sorcery.”[4]

What is Imagined Voodoo?

A Harvard study termed "Imagined Voodoo" to refer to the imagined religion and magical system of the American brain linked by the following White anxieties:

Black uprising

Black fetishization

Intermarriages that could lead to the dissolution of the White race

All under the guise of history or harmless entertainment, it negatively affects Black religiosity and in general, Black subjects. Unless we arm ourselves with information to prevent its perpetuation through us.

Alastor’s Themes and Voodoo Stereotypes

Stereotypes are often used in stories to save time on informing the audience through widely held and fixed oversimplified assumptions. The following Voodoo stereotypes are present in Alastor’s character traits and themes.

His Roots 

According to Alastor’s Wikia page, he is part Creole.[20] In New Orleans, the term can refer to many kinds of people. In early history, "Creole" is a term for:

A slave born in the New World[5]

A free Person of Color[5]

People of Mixed Heritage[5]

Later on, White French and Spanish people residing in New Orleans adopted the term to differentiate themselves from Americans whom they found greedy and ambitious.[5]  

A Creole person can be White, a POC or of mixed race from different places such as Haiti and Louisiana. 

The team behind Hazbin Hotel may have made Alastor part Creole in order to avoid religion appropriation. However, Vodou is not an exclusive religion. [6] (EDIT: Vodou is an exclusive religion.) And even if they want to represent mixed Creole people, pairing Alastor with Hollywood Voodoo may not be a good way to do it.  

Vodou practitioners today are targets of hate crime, especially in Haiti (sacred mapou trees are regular targets of vandalism and arson, worshippers risk harassment and violence, with lynchings not unheard of).[7] If the media continues to portray Vodou as evil, it may have a role in perpetuating the hate.

(Image of a Vodou ceremony from a video of The Guardian)

Depicted As Evil Magic

In America and Caribbean, Vodou was first practiced by slaves of African descent. Their religion was dismissed as superstition, their priests as witch doctors and their God and Lwa were denounced as evil. [3] 

“They were treated as cattle. As animals to be bought and sold; worth nothing more than a cow. Often less,” anthropologist Ira Lowenthal stated.[7]

“Vodou is the response to that. Vodou says ‘no, I’m not a cow. Cows cannot dance, cows do not sing. Cows cannot become God. Not only am I a human being – I’m considerably more human than you. Watch me create divinity in this world you have given me that is so ugly and so hard. Watch me become God in front of your eyes.’”[7]

During the Haitian Revolution, many of the slaves were Voodooists and some of their military leaders were priests who inspired and organized them to fight for freedom. The imagery and vocabulary of Vodou became threatening to European and American colonies and was then brutally repressed. [3]

(Image from Lisapo Ya Kama)

Years later, Hollywood Voodoo is rooted in racism and acts as an outlet for White anxiety of Black vengeance. One example is the movie, “The Skeleton Key” where Black hoodoo practitioners (who had been lynched) stole the bodies and identities of White people for years.

For Alastor to continue using Hollywood Voodoo themed magic may continue the misinformation of Vodou by inspiring baseless fear and horror. 

Voodoo Dolls and Pins

Voodoo dolls are universally associated with Hollywood voodoo and therefore, Vodou. But voodoo dolls are unheard of in the original Haitian Vodou. 

In reality, they were inspired from the "poppet" of European witchcraft after an American writer heard Vodou is a witchcraft [8]. This American writer is most likely Victor Hugo Halperin where voodoo dolls first appeared in White Zombie (1932) [9].

Dolls are used in Vodou but only to represent Lwa and Bondye, sometimes the dolls are nailed on graves and altars, in order for the practitioners to communicate with them. The dolls also act as lucky charms and are not used to curse or cause harm with pins. [10], [21]

Cannibalism

(Screenshot of Alastor the Deer Demon eating a deer)

On February 13, 1864, 4 men and 4 women were executed for abducting, murdering and cannibalizing a 12-year-old girl by Fabre Geffrad, Haiti's reformist president, who wished to make an example out of the 8 killers labelled as vodouists and leave the backwardness of its African past and its folk religion. With Haiti claiming their independence, the Westerns' view on Vodou was proof that the "black republic '' cannot claim to be civilized.[11]

No transcripts of the trial survive. The most detailed account of the crime was written by Sir Spenser St John, the British charge d'affaires in Port-au-Prince -the place nearby the village where the murder happened. It was his account that defined Haiti as a place where ritual murder and cannibalism were common and often goes unpunished.[11] 

(An artist’s engraving of the 8 “voodoo” practitioners found guilty of the murder and cannibalism of the 12-year-old Claircine from the Smithsonian Magazine.)

However, there was no other information supporting St. John's claim that cannibalism is a norm for 19th century Haiti. The only two reports of cannibalism provided was from a French priest in 1870s and a white Dominican ten years later. Both have no evidence and both are suspected from their claim that they have penetrated secret ceremonies wearing blackface -if they have been undetected. However, they have influenced Victorian writers who have never visited Haiti.[11] 

In the 19th century, American Jesuit missionary, Joseph W. Williams claims that sexual arousal from voodoo "orgies" causes devolution to lower animal states that causes them to cannibalize in an act of sexualized violence.[1] 

In Joseph Murphy's psychoanalysis, Imagined Voodoo allows White people to project their most disturbing desires onto a cultural Other.[13] 

"The erotic and ecstatic elements in African-derived religions are selected and transformed into images of unrestraint and become vehicles for white sexual and aggressive fantasies... What is ‘dark’ and ‘black’ within the white psyche is projected onto what is ‘dark’ and ‘black’ in the social environment."[13] 

Because of the accusations of cannibalism, Vodou is seen as savage. Alastor is hinted to be cannibalistic (as seen by a speed drawing of him, a deer demon, eating a deer).[12] To continue to associate cannibalism with voodoo practice may continue the harm of misinformation.

Vodou Symbols

When Alastor uses magic, Vodou symbols or veves would sometimes appear. 

In Vodou, different veves are used depending on the lwa or spirits the practitioners desired to invoke. 

(Veve image from Catherine Beyer)

Damballah-Wedo is believed by the Vodou practitioners as the Sky Father and primordial creator of all life. He is depicted as a snake or serpent and is seen as a loving father of the world whose presence brings peace and harmony. [23]  

(Veve image from Catherine Beyer)

A part of a veve in the screenshot is from the veve for Papa Legba -the gatekeeper of the spirt world. He is associated with the sun and is seen as a life-giver that transfers the power of Bondye to the living world. Rituals are started by praying to Legba to open the gates so that they can connect to the other lwas. [23]

(Ayizan Voudou Veve copyright 2009 Denise Alvarado, All rights reserved worldwide.)

The veve above is the veve of Ayizan. Ayizan is the lwa of commerce and herbal healing. She is associated with love and Vodou rites of initiation. Ayizan is believed to be the first archetypal mambo (priestess) and the protector of religious ceremonies.[14] 

(Veve Image from ErzulieRedEyesArtAndSpirit)

The veve above is taken from the veve of Papa Loko. He is believed to be the first Vodou priest. His name has nothing to do with the American  (EDIT: Spanish) slang word "loco" meaning crazy. Papa Loko is a revered knowledgeable spirit who offers spiritual guidance to those seeking formal initiation into Vodou.[15] 

Met Kalfou is the master of the Crossroads. He is the crossroads where magic manifests regardless of which lwa is using magic for. He allows it to travel without judgement.[16] 

Met Kalfou is often mistaken as some kind of demon or evil. He is believed to be the force through which all magic flows, be it good or ill. Met Kalfou is also the spirit of luck. As a manifestation of crossroads, he can see multiple outcomes of a situation. [16]

Santa Muerte is believed to be the personification of death itself.[17] 

Using veves to portray evil when it incorrectly relates to what they symbolize can result in misinformation. Even if only parts of the veve are taken to be used to portray malice, it doesn’t change the fact that they still came from sacred symbols. 

Is Alastor a Hoodoo Practitioner?

(Photo: Image of Hoodoo Candles from Wikipedia)

Hoodoo is based heavily on folk magic. It is not a religion. Although their beliefs have elements of African and European religions. Its tradition emphasizes on personal magical power with the intention to improve daily lives. Its a combination of African practices and beliefs and American Indian botanical knowledge and European folklore. It’s heavily practiced in the Southern US.[22]

Unlike Vodou, they have no designated priests or priestesses and no difference between initiates and laity. Hoodoo spells are commonly accompanied with Biblical text but are not performed in Jesus’ name. It uses tools, spells, formulas, methods, techniques. Tools can be herbs, roots, minerals, animal parts and personal possessions.[22]

Alastor MAYBE a hodoo practitioner. But there are possible problems of associating an occult of a minority as a tool of evil. It might be best if Alastor is only depicted using deer-radio-themed dark magic instead.

In Short...

Misrepresentation of Vodou has its roots on White fear of Black retribution as well as White “othering” and projecting of taboo concepts such as fetishization and cannibalism. This results in stigmatization of Black topics and Vodou practitioners. The continuation of Hollywood Voodoo plays a role in perpetuating its misrepresentation. However, informing ourselves may stop the perpetuation in us. 

[im-the-punk-who]

I'm new to the fandom, but haven't gotten the chance to watch the show yet. Bit weird I know. I've been spoilered for bits and pieces and read some fanfic. Why is so much of the fandom silverflint when flinthamilton is there and so beautiful? I don't want to watch the show and become confused between the ships (lol). Thoughts?

OH BABE. WATCH THE SHOW - JOIN ME IN MY HELL HOLE.

Since you said you've been spoiled a bit, this does contain some spoilers for the show. Nothing major, but I dont think theres a way to talk about this otherwise. ❤

OKAY. I'm gonna say this as politically as possible, lmao, since there is...a healthy dose of animosity between people who ship silverflint and people who don't - mainly because the interpretations of John Silver's character are so varied.

For the record, enemies to lovers is my least favorite shipping trope, and silverflint is probably the biggest notp I've ever had. Edit: And Flinthamilton hits my absolutely favorite shipping trope, which is friends to lovers. We state our personal biases out front like REAL scientists of literature, lmao.  That said I have a bunch of mutuals who ship it and I try my darndest to uhhhh at least support them in that to the extent I'm able.

So, imo, the biggest reason silverflint is so popular is that they're the two characters with the most screentime together. Silver and Flint are on screen together in some capacity in just about every episode from the first to the last, and their plotlines and character developments are deeply intertwined. No matter what their actual relationship was, no matter if they were canon or if there were any actual romantic feelings between them, they were bound to be a big ship, especially since one of them is canonically attracted to men. Conversely, Thomas only has about 40 minutes of screentime in the entire series and it is all in flashback from before the series begins. Now of course he also has a lot of what I'll call 'off-screen callbacks' - James' entire character arc depends on his love and belief in Thomas' ideals - but he and James only interact for a very brief period of time and we really dont get a whole lot about Thomas himself.

There are reasons people ship both, and reasons people might be drawn to silverflint over flintham which all comes down to personal preference, but I really do think the biggest reason is their screentime disparity.

That said...even though Silverflint isn't canon, and Flintham IS the show's endgame, that doesnt make one more valid than the other as a ship because that's categorically not what fandom is about. I don't think there's a confusion to be had there, because there's no such thing as 'this is the right ship and this is the wrong one.' I have ships I doggedly sail that aren't canon and that for some are their notps. And I would quite literally fight to the death over them given half a chance. That's fandom!!

I will say that the reason silverflint is my notp is because I personally feel like the relationship becomes incredibly unhealthy when you put a romantic spin on it - but for some people that's the attraction! Or they don't have the same set of personal experiences I have that lead me to those conclusions! Just as a lot of people have experiences that sour them to him, John Silver is a very personal and relatable character to a lot of people. And honestly, if that's true why wouldn't they want to have him get with James Flint who is not only very beautiful but also technically perfect in every way and has never done anything wrong in his life, ever?

And that's okay! Again it's fandom! Everybody is right! You get validation! And you get validation! Everybody gets validation!!

(Lmao that's wrong - there are some people who are wrong but they're mostly wrong because they try to insist their views are the only corect ones.)

Idk what to tell you. Do I personally wish there was more flintham and less silverflint? For sure, lol. But that's because, let's be real - there was ABSOLUTELY NO WORLD where I wasn't going to be a rabid flintham shipper, and also absolutely no world in which I was going to like John Silver as a character enough to want him near my kin, my sun, my only light, my absolute unit of a child James Flint-McGraw-Hamilton any longer than absolutely necessary. I'm aware of my bias. I stand by it, but I am aware of it, lol. BUT HERE'S THE GREAT THING ANON IF YOU JOIN ME IN SHIPPER HELL WE CAN FIX THAT. BE THE CHANGE I WANT TO SEE!!

My biggest advice is that, at its heart Black Sails is a show about stories and the personal bias inherent in them. Keep your mind open, and try not to let fandom influence your personal feelings towards what you find enjoyable. (Even me. If you end up shipping silverflint, I promise I will try very hard not to take offense lmao). Oh, and don't expect a happy ending for anyone. Black Sails is a tragedy, and in true tragedy form there are no happy endings for anyone except the british empire.

For the most part this is a great fandom and Black Sails itself is a show that I think everyone should watch - even if they aren't in it for the ships. While I have some major problems with it(particularly its treatment of its female characters) it's also hands down the best show I've ever seen in a lot of ways. It is full of not just the most pure and perfect mlm ship in Flintham but ALSO some great canon wlw ships, a dumb himbo who ruins everything, lots of POC - specifically a large number of really excellently portrayed black characters - and just...absolutely phenomenal writing. And it says gay rights with its fucking chest. And it contains the most heartbreakingly real portrayal of why revolutions fail and whose stories get told that like. I've ever, ever seen. I still cry when I think too hard about it please don't look at me.

ANYWAY LONG STORY SHORT WATCH BLACK SAILS. (James&Thomas 4eva)

(And, to that end uhhhh, here's some timestamps for violence against women in the first season. I've been meaning to add on for the other seasons but just haven't had time.)

[thorsthot]

Can you pleaaaaase drag the “I’m not racist, I just have racial preferences (and black people just so happen to be at the bottom)” white gays? That shit drives me nuts because these are the same people screaming sis, using aave, and praising black features on nonblack people.

i wrote practically a whole essay abt this last night when I got the ask and then my friend called me and it deleted oof but this is still just as long so 🤷🏾‍♀️

a lot of what I said on this post but expanded on just a little:

but it’s a self drag really, racial preferences that praise white bodies over black bodies or; in a more broad sense: light skin over darker skin, are racist and colorist, that’s it. 

anti blackness and racism is, of course, a thing that goes outside of just being gay because it’s rooted in slavery. white people and nonblack poc in general typically fetishize black people and use us as accessories. it’s the “oh i can’t be racist because i have a black friend” and the “i’ve dated a black person before so i can’t be racist” meanwhile they’re saying nigger every other day. 

think about all the protests for Black Lives Matter that happened late march/early june and are still continuing to happen. how nonblack women marched around with black dildos and signs that said “i like black dick, so i will march/speak”, thus equating black men, and black bodies, to only our sexual organs. 

when adding queerness into the conversation its the exact same. i recommend watching Looking for Langston and The Watermelon Woman when talking about black fetishization and racism within the queer community. The Watermelon Woman has a black-lesbian gaze on the topic, it explains the fetishization and racism of interracial lesbian relationships through two relationships and others view on the relationships within the film. Looking for Langston is about Langston Hughes own gay identity and the discrimination from not only his family but white gays as well. 

{the only “downside” of Looking For Langston is that it is directed by black BRITISH man - but this is “a lot” to discuss right now so i won’t}

on the subject away from fetishization and more onto black (and brown) people as accessories for the eyes of nonblack gays,, Paris Is Burning is a great example on how white queer women, much like Jennie Livingston should stay in their places and not profit off of black and brown bodies.

Or, you could simply look to many nonblack lgbt+ beauty “influencers” who choose to pick ferociously off of black culture and black bodies or “blackfish” like Nikita Dragun for example. blackness and black feature are praised as long as they’re not on black bodies - or, more specifically, as long as they’re not on darker skinned black bodies. it’s as simple as these people don't like us because of our skin or “the way we act” but still will take as much as they can from us because they admire it. and really, just look at the history of the Stonewall riots and how all the black and brown bodies are erased from LEADING that revolution. 

this isn’t necessarily a drag to those people, it’s more of a conversation about it or “look into” it and how being queer does NOT EVER exempt you from being racist or deeply anti black. 

I wrote like four different essays on black queerness and fetishization as well as racist/colorist views in and out of the black community and how nonblack people profit off of our existence last semester so a lil I'm ready for conversations like this,,, 

[parabelled]

You said you love skincare over makeup: me too! What's your favorite brands? :)

I have extremely sensitive skin that is prone to cystic acne due to my hormones being out of whack due to endometriosis, so I have to be very careful about the brands I use for either skincare OR makeup, and it took me a long time to realise that, and lean more into cultural beauty routines that take skincare over makeup (For example, Korean beauty or more traditionalist Swedish beauty, a la Ingrid Bergman, who famously never wore a stitch of makeup if she could help it and her skin was just that lovely that she didn’t have to). I’m also very aware of overt fragrances, stripping agents like alcohol (Baby Lauren was not; and thought drying out your skin equaled less acne; yikes), and any harsh additives. 

Sunscreen:

I’ve always taken sun care extremely seriously, as both my mother and my grandmother have had skin cancer before, so I’m most likely predisposed to having it. This has led to some unintentionally hilarious results of being the palest person in the world who plays beach volleyball both professionally (back in the day) and competitively (now, or before the COVID hit). I always wear long sleeves on the beach unless I have time to completely apply sunscreen, and am a snob when it comes to sunscreens as well. They can’t cause a breakout, leak into my eyes due to sweat, any of that good stuff. 

My sunscreen recommendations:

 (Note: And I literally get them from all over the world, so get ready, because I probably cover something available in your town/country. I’ve lived in Australasia, North America, and Europe, so I’ve pretty much covered a large part of the world in my travels xD)

Face:

Mychelle Pharmaceuticals SPF 28 in Coconut (Unfortunately only an American brand, but I literally get it shipped to a P.O. box near Canada so I can go across the line to get it. It’s that good. XD Doesn’t melt, dries quickly, unsure how it would look on darker skin than ghost white, but still doesn’t give me any sort of cast).

Innisfree Daily UV Protection Cream No Sebum: Literally a steal at twelve bucks, but DOES cause the dreaded white cast. Anti-acne and also settles down really well on the skin. I’m luckily pale enough that if I layer makeup over it, it usually doesn’t look as bad, but I’ve heard a lot of POC say they love the texture, but it gives them that ashy-white look (See below for some skincare brands I’ve heard are better for this for POC). 

Body:

Bioderma Photoderm SPF 50+ UVA and UVB Lait protection élevée: This is a really popular French sunscreen that doesn’t move and stays firm after you apply it and it dries down. It’s a high SPF quality, and I can find it in Canada, but I also obviously saw it in France when I was there as well. France is another country that really seems to follow the ‘If you have great skin you don’t really need makeup do you” train.

MooGoo Skincare (Generally and their sunscreen): This was my go to in Australia: I’d have to reapply it often because otherwise you would get burned, but Australia also has a gigantic hole in the ozone layer so it isn’t exactly helping itself. xD But it’s a local Aussie brand, it’s natural, and it’s great and relatively cheap (although you can order it worldwide I believe and they have a US based website if you’re in the states). I also love their leave in hair conditioner, as well as their self-tanner. They also send you great testers with it, and have great mineral-based makeup if you’re keen.

Coola SPF 30 Sunscreen Spray Pina Colada: This is my go to spray on for playing sports last summer. It’s natural, smells good, is expensive, but it lasted me an entire summer playing beach volleyball most days at the beach, and I still have some left over.

Some of my top other skincare recommendations I’d recommend otherwise would be:

My Current Routine:

- Dermalogica Special Cleansing Gel (everyday)

- Dermalogica Overnight Clearing Gel (everyday)

- Dermalogica Microdermabrasion (everyday)

- Mychelle Cosmetics: SPF 28 Coconut (everyday)

- Clinique Oil Control Gel with Uneven Skin Tone Pump (everyday)

- Lush Eye Cream (optional)

- Benton Aloe Vera Gel (optional if my skin is feeling dry)

- Bioderma Photoderm 50+ for my body sunscreen  (everyday)

(Note: I also use a micellar water to clear eye makeup if I use it, and occasionally the Thayers toner if I have it on hand, but it’s not essential to my routine, and I don’t use eye makeup that often).

Dermalogica:  Expensive as all hell, but it’s literally the only thing that I can get a ‘wash and go’ effect from. Their Special Cleansing Gel is the only face wash I’ve been able to use for more than three to four months without having to switch it up from my skin throwing it’s own mini revolution. xD The one thing I could say is that their Cleansing Gel LITERALLY lasts forever. I have a gigantic pump which is 88 dollars (YIKES), but it’s lasted me literally seven months without having to change products and buying usually amount in cheaper skincare, going to the dermatologist, or having to get further medication from my doctor for my skin (I take an antibiotic to keep my skin at bay as well). It’s literally worth the money of me searching and floundering about buying cheaper options that make my skin break out that progressively add up to the full amount of the Dermalogica/ avoiding dermatologist appointments, so that’s how I justify it. So while it makes me cringe every time I buy it, it really is worth it if you’re washing it two times a day (There’s also a 250ml size for 55 bucks Canadian on Sephora if you want to give it a go for less commitment, and that usually lasts for a good two months on its own).

I also use their Overnight Clearing Gel for my acne (also expensive), and I can do without, but do like, their microdermabrasion scrub, which also lasts forever. I also forgot to mention that this is the stuff coming straight from The International Dermal Institute, so they know what they’re doing. 

Others I enjoy:

Klairs: My (relatively) cheap routine if I’m running low on funds for the month. They have a great body-based soap bar if you have body acne (Which I usually don’t, but if I’m doing a lot of beach volleyball in the summer, gremlins in the sand fuck with my skin, I swear to god). 

Innisfree: Great based routines, and if you’re able to actually go to a store to get skin-matched, they have some amazing stores in Australasia. I use their sheet masks often.

Benton: Their aloe vera-based products are amazing for skincare; I use them usually in lieu of a body lotion.

Thayers: Their unscented toner is the only toner I trust, and it’s usually on sale at a drugstore.

Mychelle Cosmetics: As mentioned above, it’s responsible for my daily sunscreen; unfortunately, you can only get it in the States (Which is why I literally have a P.O. box across the border in America where I go to pick it up from because I live about fifteen minutes from the US-Canada border. Seriously, it’s that good).

 MooGoo: As mentioned above.

 Clinique: An oldie, but a goodie. Their skincare routine doesn’t have the same effect on my face like Dermalogica, but if I’m in a financial pinch and need something to hold me over at the mid-point price level, I still turn to Clinique. I still use their gel as my moisturiser, and they now have this new ‘mix and match’ program with Emilia Clarke as their promo-woman. I’ve heard the shade range for the BB cream-based moisturiser is terrible, even for white ladies, but I just got their Oil-Control gel with an ‘uneven skin tone’ top mixed in to address acne-scarring, and I’ve already seen some good results.

 Biotherma: See above.

La-Roche Posay: The routine my dermatologist recommended as a top professor of skincare at a leading hospital related to a university in Australia. It’s very gentle, and their Effaclar another mid-level price routine.

St Ives: If I’m really poor, I go for St. Ives. I don’t use their scrubs, because they use walnut shells on their that can literally rip up your face, but I do like their body wash, body lotion, and they recently released a cleanser with camomile which is calming for the face. It’s not as good as the Dermalogica stuff, but for cheap and for no harsh alcohols or chemicals, plus making a move towards being cruelty-free, I think St. Ives is trying to revamp their brand a bit after that bad press they had concerning #walnutgate. xD

Lush: Another cheaper option (although not really, because Lush usually gauges you for more than you’d pay for a proper Clinique cleanser for a bar of soap/ once you’ve got your full routine together). That being said, I do like their eye cream. I’m in my mid-twenties now, so I’m starting to try to do more preventative skincare.

Mario Badescu: I still use their acne spot treatment if I have a really terrible zit, and it’s gone the next morning.

Other brands I’ve heard good things about:

First Aid Beauty (I want to try their tinted sunscreen for summer)

Supergoop (Apparently their mineral sunscreen is really great for POC, as it doesn’t give the dreaded WHITE CAST)

Shiseido (A classic Japanese brand)

Keihls (Another one I’ve heard great things about but is more expensive)

Ren Clean Skincare (Another skincare brand I want to try).

So hopefully this gives you some ideas to try, nonny, and hopefully this helps someone. xD -shrug-

[peacebeuponu]

it’s not that people want biden, but when he and trump are the only two options available, it’s better to choose the lesser evil. of course he’ll probably mess things up, but the fact of the matter is trump already has, exponentially- and biden, unlike trump, seems as though he can at least be reasoned with. people voting biden do so on the hope that he won’t be as godawful as trump currently is as president, because no matter how bad biden is, right now trump is worse.

With all due respect, fuck all that. Naw I don’t fucking want a lesser of 2 evils. I don’t want to play a game of vote racists or racists. Biden isn’t fucking reasonable HE JUST FUCKING SAID IF U DON’T VOTE FOR ME U AREN’T BLACK!

Naw Biden is a horrible sub-human. I don’t wanna play the fucking American politics, bury me or bury me game. We’re saying revolution right? Then how does vote for Biden the guy who started the prison industrial complex spell muthafucking revolution?

How do I rectify in my bones that I’m out there as a Black man or woman sacrificing my life in a pandemic..and then November I’m voting for a LITERAL FORMER SEGREGATIONIST?!?! HOW?!

Noooo NO NO NOOO I’m done playing hamster in the wheel of White American taboo. Electoralism, I TRIED THAT! I voted for Obama TWICE and the second time I did it in painful humility at the fact a Black boy or girl out there saw him & smiled at HOPE but at that point I knew electoralism was phony.

Obama LAUGHED at Black folks drinking lead from their water. He defunded HBCUs, those guns you see police using? Obama.

So no. This isn’t towards you specifically but FUCK YOU. Fuck conformity to White cyclical power grabs, Fuck Trump, and fuck not having a choice. I choose none of the above. My duty isn’t to elect Biden & bring in 4-8 years of liberal racism that hurts MORE because you kill POC & especially Black folks in CODED racism.

You’re telling me its MY job to remove fascism by voting in Biden(a man who told people to vote in a pandemic likely killing people)? But it’s not White America’s job to choose a candidate I can say yes I’ll vote for? If White America needs my vote then while protesting for Black Lives protest & burn shit down to remove Biden a former segregationist.

Fuck that, I’m not voting Biden.

[reimenaashelyee]

History for Granted, or When a Marginal Voice Tackles The Main Text

My thoughts about being a marginalised creator who chose to make a graphic novel on a historical figure in the dominant Western canon. About why I didn't choose a lesser-known history instead. About why, either way, it is not a loss to POC representation

Reposted from my official blog, where I keep all my long-form thoughts.

Some of you may know I write historical fiction. Some of you may also know I’ve been chipping away on an Alexander the Great graphic novel.

My role as a historical graphic novelist has been stewing in the back of my mind for a while now. Actually, the stewing began when I first thought of The Carpet Merchant of Konstantiniyya, but I already know my insights from that project. Be actively thoughtful. Be self aware of how your own biases and societal context influence your storytelling. Recognise the people before and around you. Use your power to bring up voices. Understand that the work of being a responsible author lasts beyond the final page of your story.

Such is the case for Alexander, The Servant and The Water of Life. What I have learnt from TCM still carries over, thank goodness.

However, since last November, I realised that Alexander is a different kettle of fish. I already knew this early on: the mindboggling breadth and scope of research material, the baggage carried by the subject, and the newness of everything. While TCM focused on a narrow historical context (Ottoman era Istanbulite migrates to Georgian era England), and had the advantage of me knowing the lead character for years prior (Zeynel, my precious nerd son…), Alexander was from scratch. I didn’t know just how many Alexander Romances I really needed to read. I didn’t know much about ancient Greek anything. I didn’t know an atom about Alexander the Great himself – really, it was zilch.

Which means my responsibilities this time have a somewhat different character. A different edge.

I don’t write historical fiction about royalties or the elite. The most I have ever been interested in is a well-to-do merchant. Even then, my merchant would have an uncommon edge; he is with the common people. That’s where my interests lie: in the common people. The ordinary people outside of the court who go about their daily ordinary lives and daily ordinary struggles. The ups and downs and ins and outs of aristocrats and royals don’t excite me as much.

Then why Alexander? Honestly, he’s an exception.

Not because he’s suddenly a royal that interests me. Seriously, no royal will ever interest me enough to make a GN out of their life, based on their biography alone. (Though King James of the King James Bible and the secret tunnel to his boyfriend make a convincing petition) Alexander came to me in a roundabout way. A trick. He fooled me to exception by showing me his resume: Macedonian king, prophecised Egyptian pharoah, Persian king, son of a god, Jewish convert, Christian hero, Muslim prophet. And he showed me how many different cultures have absorbed him into their folk mythology over 2000 years. Even as the world changed and his body laid somewhere in Egypt, his shade travelled the world. He’s the only secular figure with similar cultural-legendary reach as Jesus. King Arthur can’t claim that. Heck, even Odysseus can’t claim that. Oh, how could I have resisted? This is exactly what I am all about.

This is all Alexander by the way.

The common people’s Alexander. The story of how different places have appropriated and localised him over time. Gave him different faces. Gave him slightly different names. Gave him quests and adventures and stories that had absolutely nothing to do with ancient Greece. Made him the believer of a pantheon into a believer of a singular God.

What brought me here is this literal embodiment of world literature. But he’s not an epic. He’s popular legend. And he doesn’t belong to any one culture or time or place. He’s everywhere.

But like I said, this kettle of fish is different.

Alexander the Great is not exactly the most obscure of histories. He’s a military idol. A national figurehead. He was a man. He was from ancient Greece. He’s claimed as a “heritage of the Western (read: white) world”, an excuse for why conquest is the legacy of the white, Western man. This is Alexander’s baggage, as I call it.

As a woman of colour (WOC) author from the global south, I’m aware of my (small, individual amount of) power to bring up unheard of histories. Unseen biographies of little known people. A glimpse into outside cultures and voices that Western-dominated media and education gloss over like wallpaper. I could have written about Puteri Gunung Ledang, or May 13th 1969, or the history of how my family came to Malaysia sometime during the Xinhai Revolution. I have no obligation to write about Alexander, because until last November, he was seriously a cultural nobody to me. I have no stake in the furthering the hegemony of Western history.

And I think, maybe not owning that stake is why it’s necessary.

Just as important as minorities writing about little known histories, minorities should write about the histories that are taken for granted. Because of our unique experiences with the consequences of colonialism, slavery, violence, discrimination, dehumanisation, etc, we look at history differently. It’s not about who wins or who loses. It’s about who is missing, who is harmed, what is lost…the gaps made by what was edited out.

With those glasses on, history taken for granted – if not already thoroughly given a critical cleansing – is shown to be what it really is: a history that isn’t as well-known as we thought. (and that’s okay)

I won’t be alone in saying I had no clue Alexander belonged to nobody and everybody (because everyone in the old world has an Alexander). For a long time, Western white history was gatekept, using the reasoning that whatever they claimed had an easy connect-the-dots relationship to their present day (even though I always knew that claim was oversimplified, anti-intellectual thinking). But, all of these things are simply whitewashed facades. The truth is that, like Greco-Roman everything, like Norse history, like Christian destiny, they are more complex, more diverse, more ambiguous, than what these facades can contain.

Just working with Alexander through the framework of the Alexander Romance already blows up general misconceptions about history: that history was a bubble, homogenous and separated from each other (“Egyptian history” “Chinese history” “Roman history”, “Christian world”, “Muslim world” “East”, “West”), rarely interacting and influencing.

And looking at Alexander’s actual biography says a lot about how open the world already was in his time. He was king of three empires. His pre-Hellenistic world was multicultural and diverse. It wasn’t all white marble statues. It was, like what reality is, painted technicolour marble statues.

The Victorian era archeologists who whitewashed those statues stripped off more than just the colour. They took off knowledge.

After a lot of thinking, I feel like I’m in a good place to make a GN about Alexander and the Alexander Romance.

It’s not a confidence thing, though tbh, I believe that as a WOC creator from the global south I cannot afford to doubt myself. It’s more about the position I am in and the new perspective I can offer about a historical-legendary figure taken for granted. And there’s my endless well of passion for multicolour histories. Alongside my desire to decolonialise everything.

It’s not a loss that I have chosen to work on a history taken for granted. Historical GNs are still dominated by the white Western cis-male perspective, both in subject and authorship. To be clear, I wouldn’t consider that particular perspective wrong or lesser on its own. My only qualm is when that perspective becomes the majority perspective, or worst the only perspective, which is given to an audience. I always think about this TED Talk by Chimamanda Adichie, about the Danger of a Single Story:

Me being here, telling an entirely different story, is a statement by itself.

Even then, I shouldn’t need to justify my choice. Whether it’s to a person who tells me I shouldn’t pursue Alexander because he’s a part of the dominant narrative, or to another person who tells me that as a minority creator I must adhere to my social responsibility (responsibility demanded by whom?) to tell little known histories or stories. Again, in my case, I think it’s not a loss which way I go, Alexander or not, because whatever I write is going to be a different story.

I think the only loss is when there aren’t still yet more marginalised authors to take on both the little known histories and histories taken for granted. The project of diversifying storytelling is not demanding the few marginalised voices to choose the correct, exotic, culturally-representative dish they had to bring to the potluck, but making the table wider, inviting more voices, so that, by author’s choice, any dish can be present and enjoyed by everyone.

My choice in whatever story I desire to write, as long as it doesn’t bring harm and intolerance and it undergoes the necessary self-interrogation, should be a choice that is already given. If white, Western authors can have this freedom, why not everyone else? Why must minority voices be defaulted to never having this good faith at the start?

Is it not enough that we already suffer from a lack of representation and a lack of self-esteem? Must our hands be tied even tighter, to be told that even our own voice cannot be trusted, because that trust has been abused over and over by the dominant voice?

Every new voice that is encouraged to speak is one more step towards making the table bigger.

This is one of my responsibilities of being a (historical) graphic novelist. I am here to encourage, and to make the table bigger. I am here to say, oh look, this particular history is exciting too, see how weird and creative and large the world already was.

And for Alexander GN in particular, it’s about showing that we have shared a historical-literary figure. That Alexander (and his baggage) isn’t immune to criticism. That by bringing him back the way I’m planning to, I’m no longer just talking about Alexander of Macedon. I am talking about Sikandar. I am talking about Alisaunder. I am talking about the Alexander conceptualised by Nizami, by Arrian, by Joseph Flavius, by every hand who has ever written and drew their own Alexander.*

Already, is that not a hundred different stories? * despite the fact all of these voices were male…well that’s gonna change

There will be time for me to write of lesser-known histories, if I feel the calling. Maybe I won’t ever. (I did tell myself The Carpet Merchant was the last historical GN I’ll ever do in forever…here I am. Nothing is predicted.) And if I’m not compelled, again, that is not a loss.

I am not the only one with a voice.

[sparrowsabre7]

Detroit Become Human Thoughts - Spoilers

Playing through Detroit is a very different experience to Heavy Rain. By and large I find myself impressed more on a technical level than an emotional one. The story is familiar, an allegorical civil rights that is seen in countless sci-fi and fantasy media, albeit one that leans more heavily than usual on real life civil rights imagery and iconography. The familiarity is not necessarily a fault, there is plenty of room for DBH among the genre, fitting comfortably alongside X-men and I,Robot etc. However, the choice to overtly homage aspects of civil rights history is little uncomfortable at times, given that the game largely doesn’t acknowledge it. Aside from one POC character late in the game, no one ties the androids struggle together with that of real world minority groups, which means the decision to cast a large number of these deviant androids POCs doesn’t always sit well, particularly when their fate is frequently in the hands of a white character for better or worse. This being said, it is not every game’s duty to cover all issues, but it does ring a little false when a game telling this particular type of story seems unwilling to recognise the link, content to leave it as subtext even when innocent POC characters are gunned down by police and others kept as literal slaves by white characters.

Equally Kara’s story is very hard to watch at times, when it seems each successive incident gets worse and worse. David Cage has come under fire for the way women are treated in his games before, but to be fair to him, in HR I largely felt it fit with both the tone and genre of the game. Yes, the women in the story get into horrible situations but also by and large have their own agency and agendas. The violence was schlocky, but in an old school thriller way, it didn’t feel too gratuitously out of place. In DBH it feels like Kara goes from horror to horror with little reprieve. She also has very little agency compared with the other player characters. Even when she breaks free from her programming, she is only able to shoot Todd by accident in self-defence (when I quite happily would have gunned that motherfucker down) after he slaps the gun out of her hands. Again, child abuse and domestic violence are important issues which can and should be discussed, but the portrayal feels exploitative rather than meaningful.  Compare this with the scene where Markus drags his broken body through the junkyard; this too is a horrific scene, however it’s one that fits well in the context. It’s a complete whiplash from Markus’ treatment by Carl and is a pure nightmare to navigate, but it punches you in the gut with how androids are treated and gives an immediate sense of “this is what we are fighting for” and Markus’ climb out of the pit is a triumphant moment. Kara doesn’t really get any of those triumphant moments, merely evading or escaping, sometimes very narrowly, though admittedly does get the more heartwarming moments too, though much later in the game.

Having said all of this, these issues with the story largely fade away heading into the final third. The game becomes both more interesting and whether it becomes less problematic or just feels that way because I was becoming more wrapped up in the story I’m not sure, but my feelings towards the end of the game towards the game as a whole were much warmer than the earlier chapters. Equally, to be fair to Quantic Dream, the arguable “lead” character is a POC android and is the driving force of the game, along with a number of other strong supporting POC characters. I also don’t think any of the missteps come from a place of malice, I believe DBH is earnestly trying its best to be inclusive and the fact that it ended up telling its story a little clumsily in this regard should not be a damning indictment of the game, but a call to try and improve next time.

I’ve also gone a long time without talking about my favourite character pairing: Connor and Hank. I should take a moment to say that all the main player actors perform admirably, Valorie Curry’s quietly resolved Kara, Jesse Williams plays Markus (at least in my run) with a determined understated performance which nonetheless has a commanding presence which makes you believe he’d be able to lead an android rebellion. However, it’s Bryan Dechart – funnily enough the only one of the three I’d not seen previously in TV or film – who has the most captivating performance. In part This may partly be due to his story being a more straightforward detective/thriller story, one the writing team has more experience with crafting, but Dechart’s efforts certainly elevate it portraying Connor with subtlety and nuance, accompanied by a surprisingly soulful turn from Clancy Brown. The prologue featuring Connor – also released as a demo – was the reason I picked up the game, as it hit that sweet spot which I subsequently found in HR of narrative and gameplay synergy. Clinically collecting evidence in order to talk down a hostage taking android, each clue providing more options to negotiate.

Speaking of the gameplay, by and large, the QTEs involved in DBH are less immersive than those of HR, none provoke the same visceral sensation that the trials did, or the instinctual gunshot, or even the cathartic shootout. The fight scenes have improved though and do feel more immediate and better choreographed - understandable, given the superhuman nature of the androids. I do also appreciate the newer mechanics like the investigation sequences - more involved and detailed than those found in the Batman: Arkham series – and the “route planner” style puzzles.

I also very much applaud DBH for allowing the android revolution storyline to be played entirely pacifistically or violently; were this a movie, the characters may begin peacefully, but become violent and vengeful after an inciting incident, but pleasingly DBH never takes that choice away from you. Equally heartening is the statistics at the end of each level, showing that the majority of players usually choice the peaceful choice. The choices in general are frequent and more gradual, creating a slow burn approach that allows you to waver and change your mind. My Connor was very much undecided through most of the game, wavering between deviancy and the mission, emotion and logic. These smaller choices work very well in keeping you invested in the characters and slowly building up the picture.

I’m very nearly at the end now, hoping I don’t mess it up as badly as I did in HR.

[crimethinc]

Occupy ICE Portland: Policing Revolution?–Some Critical Reflections

We’ve received the following report from participants in the occupation around the Portland facilities of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). While our collective has no official position on issues internal to the occupation, we consider it important to promote constructive conversations about power dynamics within our movements and the ways that they can impose limits on what we can accomplish together. For more material on this subject, consult our earlier report, “The ICE Age Is Over: Reflections from the ICE Blockades.” Shortly, for the sake of amplifying multiple perspectives, we will add one more text from Portland.

“Criticize the comrade, take a criticism from the comrade.” -Bambu

“We do NOT touch the police tape. We do NOT block the street,” a “leader” of the Portland occupation screamed through a megaphone at a crowd of newly arrived demonstrators near the reopened ICE facility. Organic anger from a group of mostly liberals led to a brief confrontation with Federal Protective Services (FPS/DHS), which was quickly quashed by an internal security team. People were ushered onto the sidewalk and scolded for not following supposedly “collective” agreements. The building remained untouched as protesters who were eager to agitate were made to feel guilty and illegitimate.

In the last three weeks of Portland’s occupation at the ICE building, we’ve found ourselves caught between a desire to build with folks and a need to critique the ways that violence is sustained by our work. We’ve failed to address interpersonal violence and have left people isolated from the movement. We’ve prioritized the security of our “leaders” because of their contributions and their assumed necessity to our commune rather than making space for conversation about sexual violence and the strategies we must implement to make sure folks are held accountable rather than simply “vouched for.” And we’ve lost sight of the initial goal of abolishing ICE.

Our occupation is said to be leading the movement against deportations across the country. We’re currently cohabitating with the ICE facility; as their work continues, we continue to sit back with our La Croix in hand and practice “self-care.” In many ways, this commune has been helpless since its inception, demonstrating the need to build conversation and criticism into our work.

When it comes down to it, the vast majority of us here have no idea how to coexist in a commune; we are improvising. We offer up this criticism knowing that it’s much easier to critique than to build. We write this in hopes of making space for continual analysis, collective reflection, and commitment to future organizing.

More than anything, we must practice humility and be conscious of our role in this organizing work. Shutting down an ICE building for over two weeks is a huge feat, and we do not want to diminish this accomplishment. But we cannot forget the people who our commune is said to be built on behalf of: undocumented folks, and specifically undocumented children, who are suffering in detention centers around the country. We remind ourselves first and foremost that these people do not need our saving. Amazing organizing efforts have been led by undocumented folks in and out of detention centers, often largely by undocumented women. They’ll be doing that whether or not we sleep out here tonight. Still, solidarity efforts are crucial to dismantling these walls and to abolishing ICE.

The commune is exciting because it’s an opportunity to experiment with different organizing strategies and visions for another world. We have an amazing kitchen staff, an incredible kids area, and overall an impressive space. But we also have a pseudo-policing unit, extremely flawed approaches to navigating accusations of sexual violence, and potential security threats. At this point, preserving the commune has become a more central project than actually disrupting ICE. We’ve failed to build a space to assess and change our strategies as they inevitably fail or are co-opted. Consequently, our commune has done little to interrogate the ways it reproduces and legitimizes policing, surveillance, and heteropatriarchal violence.

Ultimately, much of our work has been whitewashed, neutralized, and made non-threatening to the state—that’s how we’ve been able to be legitimized as an action that will not be touched by the Portland Police Bureau (PPB). We supposedly decided that the commune will now only engage in “passive resistance,” a concept as oxymoronic as “good policing” or “public property.” The commune’s internal police force, known as the “Care Team,” has worked to ensure that protesters “keep in line.” Our commitment to the commune’s continued existence has become a commitment to establishing a framework in which insurgent and revolutionary politics become unimaginable.

“All Cops” Means the Pretend Ones Too

Seizing the lack of structure as an opportunity for a power grab, a group of people created a self-appointed security team within the first few days. Sporting pink bandannas as an emblem of this new committee, the group established a visible manifestation of their higher status.

From the beginning, the team consisted primarily of individuals with a pattern of taking control and policing others at past demonstrations. Masquerading as anarchists and radicals, these people implement authoritarian practices and recreate the state structures we have set out to abolish. The ideology of many of those on the security team is indecipherable; sometimes it appears that their primary motive is power.

The security phenomenon is a recurring issue in Portland. At almost every rally or march, one finds the same dozen people role-playing as cops, following around “suspicious” people. They hold themselves above the participants, who they are there to “protect.” The people who assume this role never appear on the front lines fighting riot police; they can’t be found when there is a real security threat. They pounce on the lone agitator, getting enough action to bolster their ego and flex their power. The anarchist symbols covering the camp are purely aesthetic, since we continue to let security govern us.

The security team created a monopoly on information, keeping important reports about threats to themselves. Using this lack of transparency to their advantage, security members were able to justify their existence through distorted threats and the instilling of fear—a tactic habitually used by the state. Calling a “code red” one night, security commanded people to retreat into tents while refusing to offer information as to what the situation was. Terrified newcomers and children scrambled back with no grasp on how severe the threat actually was.

Their authority allows them to determine the political legitimacy of people’s thoughts and actions, as well as deciding which actions are “too risky” for the commune to engage in. We’ve seen women enter the space with questions about the work, only to be told, “Do you really want to know or are you just being facetious?” We’ve seen folks heckling Homeland Security Officers told that they’re “kids” and therefore should get back in line and listen to the commune authority. We’ve seen comrades lambasted and told to leave for attempting civil disobedience.

All of this is done under the guise of “protecting” people of color and trans folks. We are open to discussing tactics, but we will not stand for a security team that grounds its work in the patriarchal protection of black, brown, and trans people and that insists on policing all forms of political action, analysis, and engagement.

The members of the security team are able to absolve themselves of responsibility for their policing efforts by leaning on “consensus-based decisions.” In confronting someone who is “out of line,” they argue that they’re simply carrying out orders. Whose orders these are is entirely unclear. Consensus by itself can be employed as a tactic for repressing autonomous action. But the commune takes it one step further by neglecting to actually engage in true consensus decision-making. The general assemblies here occur sporadically and happen at inaccessible times. The result is that an invisible, unknown, exclusive committee of people reach a decision which is then stamped as group consensus and forced on everyone else. There is a hidden rigid hierarchy disguised in careful leftist language to isolate critics. Blatantly false statements are thrown around, such as “EVERYONE living at camp agrees that…” or “the overwhelming CONSENSUS is…” This destroys any space for critique and gives those new to the camp the impression that everyone is in unanimous agreement.

We understand the need to disrupt the “ally industrial complex” in which white people, those new to the movement, and other “privileged” folks sit on the side and cheer on our POC comrades. At this point, more and more people want to get involved, and that’s crucial. People who show up must be understood as potential comrades and legitimate political actors. The liberal who decides to scream at the cops is engaging in an activity that might further radicalize them—and yet we choose to police that work, tell them it’s out of line, and demand that the ways we disrupt ICE be narrow and pre-approved. How do we expect to expand this movement if we teach our potential comrades that their political analysis is irrelevant? Why should they return to this work if they are told that their ideas, opinions, and forms of action are incorrect? If our goal is to build a new world, we have to start by not replicating the old. Ultimately, we’re isolating potential comrades and disciplining our collective political imagination.

Security Team 2.0: Your Misogyny is Showing

After initial criticism of the internal police force, the security team rebranded themselves as “the Care Team.” This attempt to rebrand leans on understandings of the importance of care—the feminized labor that sustains the social and emotional well-being of the commune. When we think of care, we think of our kitchen staff, the folks who hold down the childcare tent, and those partaking in other forms of feminized work. Excluding those folks from “the” Care Team is not only a tactic the internal police uses to to avoid accountability, but is also a disrespectful manipulation of feminist understandings of care.

We hear more and more in leftist circles about the need to build a new world based on a politics of care. We understand care as feminized work of listening, working to understand people’s emotional needs, and validating and supporting all who enter our spaces. It’s a call to collectivize our traumas and strategies for healing, which should not be conflated with neoliberal notions of “self-care.” We see much of the work of care tied to Black Feminist analysis, the work of the Movement for Black Lives, and in prison abolitionist circles. We want to expand that work in order to build a movement for each other.

Contrary to many beliefs, “care” is not about a practice of patriarchal protection, nor a politics based on policing potential threats. The current campaign of Critical Resistance, “Care Not Cops,” does the necessary work of disrupting notions of “good policing,” making it clear that policing and care are incompatible. Care is an acknowledgement of our vulnerability to others and a recognition of the need to collaborate for our collective survival.

Men Ruin Movements: Addressing Gendered Violence within Our Communities

Within minutes of entering the commune we learn that one of the core organizers is a person with serious accusations against them. Of course, it’s not our job to snoop around and try to determine whether or not this specific person is “guilty,” nor necessarily to call for their immediate removal. But we do want to know whether there is a process by which accusations are heard, people’s experiences are validated, and action is taken to hold people accountable and to ensure that those making these accusations feel welcomed in. We want to see a commitment to addressing and disrupting gendered violence and other forms of harm. And we want to know that these conversations are at the forefront of the community we seek to build.

When men are in charge, apparently, this becomes too much to ask for. When we ask why someone is still on the core “Care Team,” we are told that despite accusations, this person has been “vouched for.” His leadership position and the amount he’s contributed become grounds for delegitimizing and failing to address accusations. We hear excuses about organizational capacity used to put accusations of sexual violence on the back burner until we can give them the attention they need.

Our shared critiques of criminal justice procedures and commitments to abolishing the prison industrial complex are being used to justify not addressing the sexual violence accusations against people. The counterargument that people of color are more likely to face incarceration is not wrong; however, to use this as a justification not to hold people accountable is disappointing. To manipulate these realities in order to avoid even having conversations about feminist praxis only further embeds our work in the same patriarchal structures that we claim to oppose.

The work of transformative justice is tricky and we’ve seen few attempts at it done well. But that should not cause us to conclude it is not necessary in our work. If we learned anything from zines like Why Misogynists Make Great Informants, essays like Betrayal: A Critical Analysis of Rape Culture in Anarchist Subcultures, and the book The Revolution Starts at Home: Confronting Intimate Violence Within Activist Communities, it is that this sort of misogyny in our circles is nothing new. We know that these forms of violence and harm take place within our communities. We build with our shared commitment to holding ourselves and each other accountable.

What’s the Point: Passive Resistance and Smashing the State

If you’ve spent any time at the camp, you are probably familiar with the obsession with “passive resistance.” It’s hard to miss. The phrase is posted on the entrance to the camp, mindlessly thrown around by “leaders,” and praised by the liberals who come and go. As much as it is used, nobody seems to know what it means or how we came to embrace it. This section will not be focused on the failures of nonviolence. That story has been written countless times and we’ve all sat through arguments over it. Instead, we focus on how self-appointed leaders twist the idea to shut down virtually any resistance to ICE.

Passive resistance is not about passivity, it is about resistance. It is peaceful, but it is not compliance. At the camp, the term is being pulled further and further from its definition. When a few daring comrades tried to lock arms on the side entrance, blocking in the federal agents, they were attacked for not practicing proper resistance. Other people tried linking themselves together in the driveway, but were criticized by leaders for poking the bear. Even yelling at police is a bit too provocative. Passive resistance has lost its meaning and value, and it seems that the leaders don’t care about resisting, just about passivity.

The assumption at the camp seems to be that by engaging in their version of passive resistance, we will swing the media coverage and stall a police attack. It sounds great in theory, but it appears to ignore history altogether. Those who embrace this framework are operating under the illusion that if we are peaceful and compliant with police orders, we can exist in harmony with the state. This ignores every peaceful protest that has been ambushed by riot police, every “passive” mobilization that has been squashed by the state, every instance of police brutality. It buys into the notion that our behavior dictates how the police will treat us, the same idea recited by Fox News pundits after police murders. In reality, the state cares little about how we behave. The authorities make their own excuses with the assistance of the media and attack on their own initiative. The goal of abolishing ICE and the practice of physically shutting it down puts us in conflict with the state. Since the camp is diametrically opposed to the state and its wishes, a police attack is inevitable. Peacefulness and compliance will not seduce the state into inaction, it will just take away our power. In conceding our power, we let our safety lie in the hands of the police.

On June 28, while most of the camp slept, federal police cleared the entrances and arrested multiple people. Our barricades were ripped down, and the veteran camp in the driveway was torn to pieces—despite their peacefulness. The police proved that they didn’t need an excuse to move on the camp. Yet leaders are still calling for “passive resistance” and employing vulnerability politics to suppress militancy.

The Care Team frequently falls back on the claim that any escalation would “put __ group at risk,” using the most convenient marginalized identity at hand to make this argument. The “risk” that they claim to be defending people from is the potential for arrests or police brutality directed towards people of color and trans people. This analysis is not incorrect; less privileged people will be further targeted by police, face harsher sentences, and gain less sympathy from white civil society. However, the weaponizing of identity in order to police certain actions not only means speaking on behalf of a population “in need of protection,” it also attempts to make any discussion about risk, tactics, and actions impossible and to shut down political conversation.

If we believe that we can remove risk and danger from this work, then we ultimately must commit to reproducing the existing social order. There will be risk in disrupting ICE and danger in threatening white civil society. People should analyze the risks, the dangers they face personally, and determine whether or not they want to take an action or be in a specific space. We need to build in support so we do not reserve specific actions for more privileged people—but winning with “passive resistance” is a fantasy.

To assume that we must resist passively in order to accommodate more vulnerable commune members falsely ties militance to whiteness. We think of Jackie Wang’s essay, “Against Innocence: Race, Gender, and the Politics of Safety,” in which she takes on this question of risk. Wang writes,

“When an analysis of privilege is turned into a political program that asserts that the most vulnerable should not take risks, the only politically correct politics becomes a politics of reformism and retreat, a politics that necessarily capitulates to the status quo while erasing the legacy of Black Power groups like the Black Panthers and the Black Liberation Army.”

We think about people who have been resisting in deportation centers since before ICE’s inception,about militant direct action taken by undocumented students across the country and the need for further militancy to dismantle patriarchy, white supremacy, and the settler-colonial state.

A feeling of complacency has spread throughout the camp as it has transitioned from a militant attempt to shut down ICE operations to a sort of Burning Man commune peacefully coexisting with DHS. With an assortment of sparkling water, open yoga sessions, and nightly concerts contrasted by armored snipers on the roof and makeshift barricades covered in circle-As, the camp has the look of a leftist music festival—Anarchoachella, if you will. Camaraderie is important and nothing is inherently wrong with creating a comfortable space. But our focus has been abandoned and our inclination towards action has dissipated.

When attempting to initiate an urgently-needed discussion on possible actions the night before ICE resumed work in the building, organizers were met with hostility for interrupting a music show and berated by a crowd of mostly newcomers about the necessity of “self-care” and “taking a break.” After a night of dancing and consuming kale salads, they put up no resistance as ICE agents poured into the building the next morning. While this is unintentional, we are capitalizing on the suffering of children and wasting resources to live out our collective ideological fantasies. If holding space is prioritized over disrupting deportations and separations, the commune is nothing more than a bourgeois liberal playground.

Stop Embarrassing the Movement

In our struggle to smash the borders and end the deadly policing of them, we have replicated the same institutions we oppose. Our camp is encircled in barriers separating ourselves from the capitalist hellworld and the flow of people is strictly controlled. Our own security cameras monitor the movements of occupiers and the entrances and exits are restricted to a few gates. We have created categories of those who belong and those who don’t. A list has been compiled of commune exiles that includes critics, utopians, and anti-authoritarians. ACAB adorns the wall but the “Care Team” is a border patrol of its own. Rampant anti-houseless rhetoric prompts exclusion of those perceived as houseless while simultaneously labeling ourselves a tent city. If nothing changes, our commune will collapse before the police even attempt to raid it.

The occupation has been remarkable in garnering support and sparking grand aspirations. The amount of effort and organization put into sustaining the commune is commendable. But right now, we are doing nothing to hinder deportations or support detainee organizing. Occupiers are living comfortably while ICE continues its reign of terror next door. With all its flaws, the commune has taught us and transformed us. Still, it’s time to abandon our notions of space and romanticized community and consider what it would mean to build a movement based on unconditional hospitality, real care, and actual militancy.

If it stays as it is, the commune will continue to drain resources and police insurrectionary potential while amounting to nothing more than a mild inconvenience to ICE employees. With the widespread popularity of increasingly radical abolitionist politics, we have the opportunity to bring people into our analysis and agitate against state control and hierarchy in general. We must back up our utopian visions by showing the revolutionary possibility of a world free of borders and authority. This is not a call to abandon the occupation altogether or to allow ICE to resume as normal. This is a reminder of the need for constant critique and a space to have these conversations. We ask our comrades to consider our goals and examine our tactics. Opportunities for meaningful action exist within the commune but only if we overhaul our current commitment to passivity and let go of our desire to be palatable to the state.

Furthermore, we call for a decentralized approach. ICE isn’t just a building, so don’t let your actions be limited to it. Seek out all of the appendages that keep the machine running and strike while we have the power. The information is out there. Find your comrades, form an affinity group, and get to work. Redecorate your local GEO Group building, throw a block party in front of an ICE agent’s house, and always hold yourself and your comrades accountable. ICE is starting to melt, but we’re just warming up.

with love,

Your local mindless anarchists hell-bent on nothing but destruction

[oaesiir-beloved-of-heaven]

White Nationalist? Well, no, I wouldn't say so

When you're on tumblr and do political blogging as much as me one of two things happen: you either start appealing to a readerbase for money or internet fame or you end up changing a lot personally from your interactions. While a lot of my core, metaphysical ideas are the same I have changed a lot in what I will and won't accept as has the political company I keep.

Even though I started in a political wing - the Alt-Right - which is now synonymous with White Supremacy it wasn't always that way as I've said before. However, the ghosts of my former connections still haunt me especially in the amount of Far Right blogs I get reccommended to this very day. I like to think I've achieved an almost comical balance in my feed in terms of political viewpoints, but you know what they say about staring into the abyss.

I am very in-step with the idea of racial equality under the law and a fair judicial system. But especially in the last two decades I feel we are witnessing a revolving door effect where now activists are poised to target Whites in the same way Whites targeted PoC in the past. To me this is unacceptable and only leads to problems further down the road. I once saw on a history blog, "If you don't want a Reich, don't build a Weimar."

The irony doesn't escape me that I'm White and I'm against Whites being on the lower rung. You're right to make note of this, especially if you're a person of color. But consider if you feel any differently about your Folk. You, too, are unwilling to accept a society where you are not treated fairly if not differentially. When the Cuban embargo got dropped I really saw similar dichotomies that really opened my eyes to how easily domestic politics can turn into a zero-sum game. If you were a Cuban immigrant who lost everything to Castro, why wouldn't you hate him? If you're a Cuban who's standing was improved by his revolution, why wouldn't you like him?

If you're White, why wouldn't you be OK with White Nationalism?

If you're Black, why wouldn't you be OK with Black Nationalism?

The analogies could last for days, so I'll leave you to make your own.

This is why in the end for my nation Civic Nationalism is in our best interest as a people. It's not some esoteric philosophy pulled from the ether as an after thought, the idea of equality for citizens under a law at the helm of a government our forefathers built and we control for a nation we maintain is codified in our founding documents and the writings of influential Americans. It provides a future where all races can exist together; all it requires is our mutual committment to that vision.

For me I believe ethnic groups have a right to defend themselves and their self-determination. If the Day of the Rope ever came for Whites I would expect nothing less than armed resistance and I would not hesitate to side with my own. But it does not have to be this way, and in our Republic so long as we can work for our continued survival to Live and Let Live is entirely possible. We can very easily all live our cultures as we wish. Tribes are like religions; if no one practices them and keels their codes, they die with no outside force required to kill them. Just look at the Catholic Church or many now-dead Asian cultural practices.

In short I can't say I totally condemn these guys. I think they're polemical idiots digging their own graves but I can say much the same about Far Left tumblr. For me it's all about the Republic and if we want to keep our way of life - all of us, on all sides - its maintenance is the surest path.

[sunken-standard]

I know I said it before, I'm going to say again how much I love The Orville.  And it's even softened my opinion on Seth MacFarlane, which has been mostly informed by his fans (and by his detractors), rather than his body of work (though, I mean, Ted was just kind of meh and I didn't care for Family Guy much after the second season; I suspect he may have been told to write it a certain way to appeal more to a certain audience from s3 onward).  Part of this might also be because of his potshot at Harvey Weinstein; even that much was a gamble and it took guts to do it, but that's another rant altogether.

Spoilers below the cut where I talk about episode 7 (and it won't make sense if you haven't seen it):

So right away I was kind of disappointed, because I thought it was a blatant rip-off of the Black Mirror episode "Nosedive" (s3e1), which felt very Phillip K. Dick to me when I first watched it (but never went back through to see if it was borrowing from his work blatantly, or if it just felt that way).  But as it went on, it went in a slightly different direction and really, it's a theme that has a lot of room for exploration (and one we should, as a society, really be talking about, especially this hellsite).  It raised a lot of questions that people should be asking themselves, especially in regards to how ideal an absolute democracy actually is.  The show doesn't preach or try to give people one answer to any of the complex problems it's tackled so far, but I think the very last shot spoke volumes, when Lysella made the conscious choice to turn off the TV/ social media feed thing, whatever it was called.  It wasn't a big step, she didn't lead a revolution or anything; it was the first small step that every single one of us can (and sometimes should) take.

At first, I was kind of like "Oh, come on!" when the only black guy on the crew was the one to end up on the wrong side of the law.  But you know what?  I'm pretty sure that it was a very deliberate choice as a not-so-subtle commentary on the reactions of the media and the public to Colin Kaepernick et al and BLM.  The show is broadcast on Fox, ffs, no one would ever get an episode made that tackled it head-on in the current political climate, but they can use it as an element in a larger story.  Having a black character—not just a POC, but someone who acts and speaks in a manner consistent with black culture in a way that isn't demeaning or degrading—being cast as the villain by a 21st century society was completely appropriate to what they were trying say.  If it had been Gordon, the dudebro white guy, it would have just been more of the same that we see all the time in the news: poor little frat boy does something stupid, gets crucified, is exonerated, the system works!  Using a black man was a condemnation of the status quo of institutionalized racism.

So yeah, I continue to be impressed with the things they're bringing up and the way they handle them.  Is there room for improvement? Probably, but it's network TV and not the depths of tumblr's bleeding vagina, so this is about as good as we're going to realistically get.  And I’m happy with it.