#but who don't want their culture and language widely spread for outsiders to know

[thevalleyisjolly]

As an archivist, thinking about the right to be forgotten in a specifically archival context, and the idea that not everyone wants their stories or their records to be made available to anyone/for everyone; that often, what a community judges to be the best preservation for their own histories and culture is not what is beneficial to outsiders, especially outside academics.

More specifically, thinking about this in the context of Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit/The Silmarillion/other Legendarium books as “historical” texts.  Thinking about maybe the “authors” not writing everything down because they understand the power of stories and how the telling of a thing grants a certain power over it, over how it is known and spread, and positions the teller as a figure of authority over what (and who) is depicted.

We already know that Bilbo is an unreliable narrator, that he changes things and leaves things out.  There were a few posts and fics years ago, when the Hobbit movies came out, about Bilbo befriending a young Estel in Rivendell and deliberately leaving that out of his stories at Gandalf/Elrond’s request.  What other things might he have left out, perhaps, out of respect for his friends in the Company and their desire to keep their culture and language private and closed? 

Pengolodh compiling the Annals of Beleriand from which came the greater part of The Silmarillion - but he was in Gondolin for much of the First Age, and would have had to rely on other sources to give an account of the rest of Beleriand.  Who did he talk to?  What might they have said and not said, and what might they have requested he include or keep out? 

Anyways, the Legendarium as an archive, something actively created and shaped by the different people in and around it, who both added things and left things out unintentionally or by design or on request. 

[bakuhatsufallinlove]

re: 405

This is gonna be long.

First, I'm bringing this post back around to remind people that kocchi is a pronoun of ambiguous plurality.

This means that an interpretation of "we" is just as correct as an interpretation of "I." Readers may interpret it differently, but on simply linguistic grounds, they are of equal validity.

You will often see this kind of ambiguous language used in Japanese, even with characters that are forthright. The reason is one part cultural expectation that the listener will read between the lines, and one part a willingness to accept two things as simultaneously true. This exists and is frequently found in English as well, there just isn't a direct parallel for kocchi itself.

What I want most out of writing this blog, aside from personal enjoyment, is for people to understand that there can be more to a story for you to engage with, think about, and be moved by, when you step outside the boundaries of your own language and culture.

I think that is a much more interesting space to be in than a gotcha-laden approach of trying to prove something wrong or bad.

But if we are going to talk accuracy, the fact is that the fan translation many people have been upholding as superior has just as many problems as the official one. It takes just as many creative liberties, they are simply different ones.

The fan translator centered an "I" reading and, rather than using either of the two pronouns provided by the text ("OFA" and あいつ, meaning "that guy"), added a narratively-charged word ("nerd") that did not exist in the original and which (as far as I can tell) Katsuki has never used when speaking to villains. As a translator myself, I really disagree with that second choice. The official clearly missed the callback, but noticed the theme of "everyone who has faced AFO until now" and went with "we." The rest was just style over substance which prioritized edgy language to capture the aggression of the line; this falls squarely in line with what Viz has consistently maintained as its in-house aesthetic. It's disappointing, but unsurprising to me.

Fandom oscillates pretty violently between vilifying the official English release and fawning over it. Whole fan theories are built upon nitty gritty bits of the official release's phrasing; people will get excited over how homoerotic a line sounds, and it's because of how the official translator worded it, rather than any innate implication in the original Japanese.

If you do not speak Japanese, your experience of MHA is fundamentally dependent on the work of translators. I respect that everybody has their personal tastes or hopes for how the series will go, but it is deeply demoralizing as a Japanese speaker and translator to see fans who don't speak any Japanese at all act as though their opinion has the same weight of authority as people who do.

You are entitled to your preferences, but please recognize that they are based in taste, not personal knowledge. Not all Japanese translators will even agree in their interpretations, but it weirds me out that some non-Japanese-speaking fans will use this fervor to spread misinformation far and wide that proclaims as inaccurate perfectly good official translations, simply because the choices don't suit their own tastes.

The lists of "times the fan translations were better" I've seen mostly contain instances where the fan translators took greater liberties than the official release did, and some fans just happened to like the liberties that were taken.

We all reasonably hated the "best friend" fan translation of chapter 359, but somehow that isn't a point forever against fan translations the same way mistakes in the official release are?

At this point, it makes me wonder what the point of writing about linguistic nuance is, if the interest is primarily not in learning but in being told what you want to hear.

I know posting this won't win me any favor with anybody, but it's how I feel. I'm bummed about 405's last line in the official. I do hope it gets revised. But the vibes around translation details are getting decidedly unfun.

One last thought: if you well and truly want to experience MHA unfiltered, learn Japanese. I mean this sincerely, I'm not trying to be a jerk. We live in an age where it is easier and more possible than ever to acquire a new language, talk to people around the world, and absorb yourself in culture and history.

If you want to remove middle-men and develop your own relationship with a work unfettered by the tastes, biases, or choices of others, learn the language. It won't be easy, but I can guarantee you won't regret broadening your horizons and discovering even more beautiful stories in the world.

[midnightluck]

Aventurine is Rom-Coded

Back on my bullshit with more over-analysis for my best blorbo LET'S GO

DISCLAIMER I am not Rom, I am just an interested party, pls correct me if i'm wrong or disrespectful here it's been a long time since I got to deep dive this topic. Will be also discussing the slur as context with full knowledge of the context. ALSO I am BIASED take this with a barrel of salt, and I haven't cited my sources since I did this research in high school for writing Dick Grayson fic okAY HERE WE GO

So like, can we talk about Sigonia??? Like???? What the fuck kind of culture has "may your schemes remain hidden" as a general wellwish? Can we talk about how "Sigonian" is a slur????? and ALSO they are so Rom-coded, CAN WE TALK ABOUT THE CULTURAL GENOCIDE PARALLELS PLEASE--

So FIRST OFF, Romani != Romanian, Romani != "gypsy", Romani != criminal. Romani is a tribe, is a culture, is a way of life. It's nomadic and art-centric and Romani, as a language, is not Romanian, no matter what some folk use in fic (sources: 1, 2, 3). It's a language that borrows from most European languages, and because Rom are nomadic, they then spread that back to those countries. For example, the English word "love" is used in Rom to mean "money," possibly the basis for the idiom "show me some love" meaning "pay up". (also, side note: as there are different groups and traditions, there are some pretty widely varying dialects; here's some more about that if you're interested.)

The Rom culture involves moving on and traveling. This is fascinating for townies (derogatory) and for the vast majority of people because it's an alternative lifestyle, and often children or teens or young adults would fall in love with the people or the lifestyle and follow the caravan, at least for a while. This led to the Rom's reputation as babythieves and childstealers. "Lock up your children," people used to say, "because the gypsies are coming to town." Maybe some caravans did take kids, we don't know, because fresh blood is important to continue family lines? But citation needed and A N Y WAY

So the Rom would roll into town, half-show and half-trading, perform for money, spend money, and move on. Because they were transient, there was less pressure to maintain a reputation, and a lot of the "tricks" and bad trades led to the term "getting gypped" being coined from the word "gypsy," which is why it's a slur; it literally means "someone who is intending to steal from you". One such common trick was Ekkeri, akkery, u-kéry an, which was a "magic spell". Put your money into this handkerchief, say the spell, it doubles. Do it again; it doubles again. Oh, you want me to do it with all your life savings? Sure, here's the hankie, the longer you wait to open it, the more it'll grow, buh-bye! Ekeri Aikeri is likely the original basis for the common rhyme Hickory Dickory Dock, and like all nursey rhymes was presumably a warning: if you hear this, be wary. (sources: 1, 2, 3)

So the Rom became more and more marginalized, and as any marginalized group will tell you, that's not a winning recipe for longevity. There's currently an inherent, unexamined bias all modern kids are taught, to be wary of strangers, to be wary of "gypsies" because they're enchanting magical creatures who will walk into town one day and leave with your money or your heart or your dreams (see Shakira's Gypsy), but they're not, the Rom are people, and people are not one thing. The stereotype of a "gypsy" is constantly enforced and as the population dwindles, more and more people are assuming that the Rom aren't real people, that the way of life has died out, and why be careful when there's no one left to harm? Only there is and they are trying but they no longer have the infrastructure to support themselves outside of society and they have to give up their culture to be a part of society because society thinks they're extinct fairy tales. It's a lot like what happened with Native Americans in the US, except that there were more Native Americans, they had settled land and history, and they fought back. The Rom didn't have a place to defend because nomads, couldn't point to history because oral traditions, and now there's so little to prove they ever travelled the entire continent of Euraisa and spread culture and art and magic. The only things the wider world has left of Rom culture are in our words, and even then those are carelessly used and more weapon than word.

TL;DR I have a lot of feelings on this but LET'S GET TO AVENTURINE.

Unlike real Rom, he's got the eyes--everyone can see at a glance that he's a schemer, a liar, a storyteller and a gambler. He wears his heritage on his face and he doesn't try to hide it, just like he doesn't try to hide his serial number. Someone tried to own him, and he beat them. Someone tried to kill his culture, and he won't let it die. He's been a foreigner longer than he'd ever been Avgin, but that kind of heritage doesn't die, even when everyone else does. Take Sparkle looking at him and saying "What's one of your kind doing here?"

Sigonia IV is the planet; there were multiple races on it, according to the lore, and Aventurine was an Avgin, a race that was wiped out. "Sigonian" is like calling someone an "earthling"; you're not wrong, but you are grouping everyone in together, and the Avgin and the Katican are terrible enemies who would not appreicate that in the least, I assume.

In-game characters use "Signonian" over "Avgin" which feels like "gypsy" over "Rom". Aven is presenting himself as a "gypsy," letting people call him that, embracing the stereotype and leaning the fuck in because it's better to be a Sigonian than to let the entire Avgin culture die entirely.

It's a lot of weight to carry, but that's the thing about a magic trick: the real trick is hiding how hard it all is. Magic is the art of making the impossible seem easy and natural, after all; look at this shiny pretty distraction, isn't it flashy? Isn't it bright and pretty and so easy? Just a twist of the wrist to produce anything your heart desires, and never mind how long it took to set it all up (we'll discuss performative luck build next time!)

Anyway so that's my take on his identity and cultural issues; he's too visibly an outsider to ever be trusted, but he's too alone to ever be supported in a culture. He knows he's alone, and what's more, he knows that everyone is looking to him as their only example of what an Avgin is, of what they were. He is defining his entire culture, in defiance of society, and all he has to do that with is childhood memory. There's this fuckoff big weight on his shoulders which is part of why he can't die; his reputation is every Avgin's reputation, and he will defend that more bitterly than his own. Aventurine doesn't lose because Avgin don't lose.

[uboat53]

I had a discussion with a friend of mine in the (US) military recently and it reminded me that most people in the US and, in fact, in the world, are almost entirely unaware that there is a new Cold War taking shape. I think more people should be aware of it, knowledge is power after all, and knowing about something gives you the opportunity to help shape it, particularly if you're a citizen of a country where your voice has an impact in government. I hope this LONG RANT (TM) helps someone better understand.

INTRODUCTION

As I said, there's a new Cold War beginning, and, like the previous Cold War, there's a strong component of ideology to it. Specifically, the world is beginning to fracture between liberal democracy and autocracy.

What makes this conflict particularly complex is that we're at the early stages. When thinking about the Cold War, capitalism vs communism, it wasn't until the 1950s, 1960s, or even the 1970s in some cases that it was really clear which side most consequential nations would end up on. It was pretty obvious that the Soviet Union and the United States would be the major communist and capitalist powers, respectively, but the status of many other nations didn't become clear until long internal political debates and outside interventions had a chance to play out.

So, without further ado, let's get into it.

WHY IS THERE A CONFLICT AT ALL?

This is one of the key questions and, honestly, it all comes down to the interconnectedness of the modern world. You see, modern autocracies that don't rely on the divine right of kings to justify their rule generally justify it by results. In order to make sure the results come out correctly, they control the information available to their people to ensure that their people are told that the autocratic rulers are giving them the best results, whether that's in terms of economics, culture, religion, or whatever else they want to focus on.

As my old boss used to tell me a decade and a half ago, "North Korea can't afford to allow YouTube to get to the average person even if the average person just watches stupid videos because it's going to become really obvious that, yes, this person is an idiot, but that idiot has a fridge, a TV, a car, and has obviously never missed a meal in their life; they can't possibly be poorer than us."

In the olden days that would be fairly easy. Radio signals only travel so far, so as long as you control the TV and radio stations and limit the ability of printed media to spread too widely, you could completely control what information your population receives.

Nowadays, however? Well, that's very different. The internet allows people from all over the world to talk to each other in an instant and it can even go a long way to easing language barriers. The advent of satellite internet means that even efforts to control internet traffic such as the so-called "Great Firewall of China" will be increasingly limited in their effectiveness.

Today, in order for an autocracy to control the information their people receive, they not only have to control the information environment in their own country, they have to control the information available in other countries as well. That's the reason you're seeing things like the Saudi Arabia's murder of dissident Jamal Khashoggi, Russia's poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko and Sergei and Yulia Skripal, a Chinese attempt to kidnap dissidents in the US, India's alleged killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, and it's attempt to kill Gurpatwant Singh Pannun.

All of these were killings or other physical violence that took place in liberal democratic countries (except for Khashoggi who, though American, was lured to the Saudi embassy in Turkey where was killed) where what the individuals were doing was perfectly legal. This is the driver of conflict today, authoritarian nations attempting to maintain their monopoly on the information their citizens receive in a global information environment.

THE EARLY DAYS

We're currently in the early days of this autocracy vs liberal democracy competition and there are numerous nations currently in conflict over which side they're going to be on including, unfortunately, our own. In order to explain that, I need to get a bit technical over the difference between "democracy" and "liberal democracy".

Democracy, basically, can describe any situation where leaders are elected by some kind of popular vote. If you look closely at that for a second, you'll realize that it's such a broad category that even the autocratic Soviet Union technically qualified. Obviously, a category broad enough to include actual autocracies isn't really in opposition to them.

Liberal Democracy, on the other hand, is a Democracy, but with a whole bunch of other things as well. In general, a Liberal Democracy will feature multiple distinct candidates and/or parties in their elections, some sort of separation of powers between branches of government, the rule of law (law that applies equally to all), an open society (one in which individuals make choices rather than being controlled by tribes or other type of collectivism), a market economy with private property, universal suffrage, and the protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and political freedoms for all people.

(That definition borrowed almost entirely from the Wikipedia article on Liberal Democracy, check it out if you're interested.)

In other words, Liberal Democracy is more than just "do people vote for leaders?", but encompasses just about everything we'd associate with individual rights and liberties and the structure of institutions to ensure them. People in an Illiberal Democracy may technically vote for their leaders but, without all of these other rights and protections, they can hardly be said to have truly chosen them. And, when you define it clearly, you can see that there's a bit of a disagreement about that in American politics right now.

The Republican Party, and particularly its MAGA wing, is increasingly of the mind that not everyone's vote is legitimate and has been putting in place barriers to voting that disproportionately affect disfavored groups. In addition, they're pushing to end much of the separation of powers, putting more unchecked power in the hands of the president at the expense of checks, balances, and sometimes guarantees of individual liberty. Democracy would continue, but Liberal Democracy would end.

To be clear, this isn't just an American problem, but one that is faced by nearly every Liberal Democracy today. As part of autocrat's efforts to control information outside of their own borders, they've been attempting to influence politics within Liberal Democracies and promote internal autocratic movements; usually right-wing nationalists. From the Republican Party's MAGA wing to France's National Front to Germany's Alternativ Fur Deutschland, just about every Liberal Democracy in the world now has a fundamentally autocratic right-wing party that is doing much better than it did just ten or twenty years ago and, if you scratch the surface, you will find support for them, both financial and otherwise, from autocrats around the world.

Of course, it's not just the far-right either, autocrats have been promoting the far-left in Liberal Democratic countries as well. While the far-right has had much more electoral success and is much more politically organized in the west and, thus, has received more attention, we can't ignore the fact that autocracy is largely neutral on the political scale and operates anywhere that conspiratorial thinking can take hold and distract people from the removal of their freedoms or even convince them that those freedoms hold no value in the first place.

WHERE WE GO FROM HERE

Well, that's the trillion dollar question, isn't it?

Conflict will likely continue between autocratic and liberal democratic states, but the complexities are growing. Much like communism vs capitalism, autocracy vs liberal democracy is more of a spectrum than a hard binary and many states are actively sloshing around along that spectrum.

There's also the uncertainty of how different countries react to incidents like the ones we're seeing. Technically, killing a person on the soil of another country is an act of war, but not many people in the modern world are willing to go to war for the killing of one person. Most likely what we'll see is a gradual hardening of blocs as liberal democracies react to provocations by slowly pulling back from cooperation and connection with autocratic nations.

We're also likely to see countries switch sides. Unlike the rapid shift in allegiances that we saw during the Cold War, however, these are likely to be more gradual shifts like what we've seen in Hungary and Turkey where individual rights are stripped away gradually and a governing autocrat is slowly ensconced in power rather than a hard and fast coup. We could, of course, see countries go the other way as well, as in the case of Ukraine which has slowly strengthened individual rights and overthrown its autocrats.

All of this, the solidification of blocs and the shifting of countries within this spectrum, is going to create the opening situations for this particular conflict. Whether it becomes a conflict of more rigidly defined blocs or even sparks proxy wars remains to be seen.

CONCLUSION (TL;DR)

The days of a fairly open world, both in physical travel, the movement of goods, and in communication, is starting to come to an end as that openness begins to threaten the hold of autocrats on power. Those autocrats are attempting to keep both the openness and power by working to control the information available in countries that practice Liberal Democracy and generally guarantee individual liberties.

Over the next several decades, it is likely that we will see increasing separation between a bloc of autocratic nations and a bloc of liberal democracies, much as the Cold War saw separation between pro-capitalist and pro-communist countries. Some of that separation will likely not go smoothly and we will likely see at least some military tension and possibly even armed conflict as leaders react to changes or even try to distract from them with military force.

Just as importantly, we are likely to see tension within countries all over the world as autocratic political parties attempt to take control of liberal democracies and pro-democracy movements attempt to overthrow autocrats.

I'll admit this isn't the most hopeful vision of the future that we'd like to see, but I think it's fairly realistic given the current realities we see. I hope that this gives you some insight into what's going on and allows you to plan accordingly.

As always, let me know if you think I missed something or got something wrong, I'm always up for adjusting my thoughts, and I hope you enjoyed the read.