#countryhumans unity

[kulay-ng-banaag]

We Are All Clowns Walking Our Own Tightropes In This Circus: Or, An Attempt at An Introduction to Media Literacy with Nationverse

Some things before we dive in:

These are thoughts I developed as a Hetalia fan. I started out and remain to be only following Hetalia. I am well aware that other nationverse works exist, such as Nation-Being-Thing, Geopolitics Boys, and Countryhumans. I'd like to believe that what I have to discuss below can be applied to these other works, but I'll admit I have little to no familiarity with the breadth and depth of lore building by fans of nationverse other than Hetalia.

I major in history, but much of the knowledge I picked up from other fields is through other classes (my university encourages an interdisciplinary approach), and conversations with friends and mutuals.

This is also a repost of points I raised in the past on racebending in Hetalia characterizations. Most were from the reblogs I made, while others were from asks I received. There was so much I wanted to talk about without getting so consumed that I’d lose track of my obligations.

tl;dr I personally believe that having a subjective approach to national anthropomorphisms in fiction and having knowledge & respect for real-world politics & history are two things that can — and should — co-exist.

1. What makes nationverse?

First and foremost, let us all agree that reality and fiction, at the end of the day, exist as distinct spheres — notwithstanding that they are interconnected to a degree. Time and time again, we can verify that there are some (but not all) fiction works that borrowed elements from reality in creating the desired narrative. I will elaborate below on why I advise caution on simply throwing out the take that fiction works have influenced reality. Otherwise, I rather that you drop reading this altogether if you refuse to abide by the distinctions.

That all being said — nationverse is fiction that features anthropomorphized (or gijinkas of) nations that exist in reality as its set of characters. It is fiction that borrows from reality. I think it is safe to say that Hetalia is the prime example of nationverse.

Critically recognizing a work of fiction as nationverse does require* an understanding of what a nation is. This concept of "nation" can connote more than one meaning because multiple worldviews do, in fact, exist in rationalizing its parts and the resulting sum.

*Technically, no one is required to go through all this intellectual rigor just to enjoy a weeb franchise. It is only needed if critical analysis is the end goal, because then you will need a decent grasp of the concepts you're reading for in the fiction work. I say “decent” because, at the end of the day, it is silly to argue about something you think you know.

Over the years, I have noticed that these are common — let's call it — modes of characterization (of nation personifications) that reflect different ways of understanding the concept of nation itself:

1). As a POLITICAL STRUCTURE

For the unfamiliar, a state in political science is the centralized institution that exercises power over a population in a defined territory. In other words, government as representation of a nation; hence why one might encounter the phrase nation-state. Why separate the two terms still, even if it should be "intuitively self-evident" (devil's advocate phrasing lol) that nation = state then?

An easy example that demonstrates this is characterizing personifications as reflecting their respective governments. This is like walking a tightrope — without disciplining yourself into building a strong core, you are bound to fall and make for a poor show.

While the nation-state is rooted in a concept of national unity that has been, and continues to be, weaponized to forward capitalist interests, it is also a modern concept — and by modern I mean as recent (relative to known history) as the late 18th century. To be fair to Himaruya, he's happily vague about what those weird beings are, but even canon implies that these personifications existed before all that intellectual discoursing on nationalism started to flower.

I have always been fascinated as to the evolution of the concept of a nation (or at least the closest to the modern understanding) before all those Romantic-era ideas came about, before Benedict Anderson published his ideas on the imagined community. Nation as dialectics (between what precisely? We fill in the blanks!).

For the unfamiliar, nationalism for Anderson arose from the collective imagination of an ideal citizen, more often than not from an ethnic basis (and it does get racist a lot). It is imagined because it is ultimately a sentiment about what people have in common, and it is not always on objective reasons. For example — the idea of a Filipino citizen (I mention its development later below); heck, the idea of the Philippines. It has been referred to as the Philippine Islands since Spanish rule, but it is important to note that the natives have been referred to as indios (in general), the language they spoke (the Tagalogs, the Visayans), or the religion they practice (the Moros because post-Inquisition Spaniards do be bitter Islamophobes like that).

Speaking of communities...

2.) As a SOCIAL STRUCTURE

That is because nation can also connote a group of people of common heritage — history, culture, language. It's why you might encounter nation being used to refer to ethnolinguistic groups.

I'm revising this earlier definition I gave because this category can be further subdivided into at least 3 subgroups:

ETHNOLINGUISTIC GROUPS: While nationalism can easily be a political structure, it arises from a perceived common ethnicity — itself a social structure.

This will come off as egotistic, but I'll share my own fanlore-making as an example. I'm not comfortable using someone else's without risking misunderstandings, or even making arbitrary scenarios just to prove a point. I also want to add that nobody is obliged to follow my style, let alone like it.

I'm personally fascinated with how ethnolinguistic groups are sometimes referred to as "nations." I know of Hetalia fans who make region/city OCs. Himaruya himself made personifications of the prefectures of Japan at one point.

I'm diverging from that route not because I think it's bad or overrated. For those unfamiliar with me, I focus on making content featuring HWS Philippines. Philippine regions (the equivalent to states in the US) house more than one ethnolinguistic group. All of them have both shared and unique cultural attributes, and all of them will have different relationships with one another — none of which are necessarily on equal and equitable grounding.

I do not think that we can effectively show "everything" about a region through a single personification, and even "simplifying" the character necessitates asking what the determined "essentials" are. Why emphasize certain narratives over the other? Who gets uplifted, and who gets left behind, in the process?

I do not want to implicate that people who follow the region OC route are irredeemably problematic at all. I just like to push myself to bring something new to the table. That is to say, I want to give a shot at a different storytelling mode. And that's okay! Honestly, this fandom would know peace if we could just acknowledge it as a multiverse.

It should be worth noting that not all ethnolinguistic groups are Indigenous peoples. Here's a sample shortlist of ethnolinguistic groups in the Philippines, where I have also highlighted the IP groups in purple:

Aeta

Cebuano

llocano

Kalinga

Tagalog

Yakan

Here is a (long) definition of Indigenous peoples from RA 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act of 1997:

A group of people or homogenous societies identified by self-ascription and ascription by others, who have continuously lived as organized community on communally bounded and defined territory, and who have, under claims of ownership since time immemorial, occupied, possessed and utilized such territories, sharing common bonds of language, customs, traditions and other distinctive cultural traits, or who have, through resistance to political, social and cultural inroads of colonization, non-indigenous religions and cultures, became historically differentiated from the majority of Filipinos.

First, I will point out that the last bit on "majority of Filipinos" is worth scrutinizing because opening debates about who is Filipino and who is not even if they lived in the archipelago known as the Philippines for as long, if not far longer, is also opening a can of bigoted worms.

Secondly, I want to highlight that significant point on historical differentiation, because it applies to all the different ethnolinguistic groups, not just between "Filipinos" and IPs of the Philippines. That is another major motivation for why I want to make personifications for various PH ethnolinguistic groups, in place of PH regions.

Sadly, I will admit that I cannot properly draw them anytime soon. 😔 On top of the high expectations in research, I just do not have the time to commit to that at the moment.

RELIGION: As crazy as this will sound for those of us who have grown up under the whole "separation of Church and State" agenda, religion was but one more factor in state formation.

I have come across similar concepts from Islam and Judaism. As I have been raised Catholic, I respectfully leave the mic for Muslims & Jews to discuss those concepts. While religion can be — and has been — treated as a "common heritage" of a given group, we need to be mindful that people have been, and continue to be, othered for their religion, regardless of having a common ethnic "nationality."

The Philippines is a secular state and I wish people remembered that lmfao. At the same time, it houses a predominantly Catholic population. But I do not headcanon Piri as a practicing, let alone baptized, Catholic. *queue the boomers clutching on their pearls* I'm going to confess that I have a tenuous relationship with the Catholic faith I was baptized into and raised under, for very personal reasons (hint: growing up under passive-aggressive queerphobia).

Regardless, I do acknowledge that there are states that officially endorse certain religions. HWS Malaysia, for me, is Muslim.

For the love of all the good and beautiful creations of God/Allah/Buddha/Brahma/Bathala/etc., I am extremely allergic to dogmatic/fanatic tendencies concerning religion. Opting out of having these nation personifications reflect their realities of religious discrimination should not necessarily mean we should be closed off from having conversations on those realities at all. I just do not think they have to be the tool for that.

GENDER

This is worth addressing after seeing enough takes about how people approach gender relations and nation-building — especially when it comes to female nation personifications.

Reposting what I wrote in my SOGIESC headcanon post for Piri (please note that the quoted section contains N//S//F//W terms):

I was never a fan of hypersexual relationship dynamics between the Philippines and Spain, America, and/or Japan. In addition to the bare minimum of the fact that I simply had different perspectives, people were also free to build their own safe corners for their kinks, fetishes, NSFW delusions, whatever they want to call it. While on the topic of kinks, forced feminization was precisely that (a BL kink, if I understood correctly). Neither was I a fan of it, to be perfectly candid here. What baffled me was how Piri as canonically female was automatically an act of forced feminization, an enactment of a (BL) kink. If that really was someone's thing, then okay cool. As long as you never clashed with my circus, I literally would not care about what went on in yours. By "not care," I meant to say that I had nothing to offer that would be of any benefit to your welfare (saying this because people ironically weaponized the phrase so carelessly). Bluntly, I was taken aback by the implied belief that existing as a woman, AFAB or otherwise, automatically guaranteed that you were nothing more than an object of carnal pleasure to the opposite sex. I could see the rice grain of truth to the fandom's concerns because we still very much lived that reality up to this day of age. I hate it too! We could accept an ugly reality and condemn it. If acceptance was acknowledging that there was a real, ongoing problem instead of continuing to pretend that it did not exist, then the condemnation of that problem was the outright declaration of why we must all act to put an end to the problem. My primary concern was that the repetitive claims of female Piri as fetishistic seemed to imply not an underlying condemnation of the sexist conditions against Filipino women, but rather a tragically apathetic approval of it. As a Filipino woman myself, that scared me as much as having to live my daily commutes constantly on alert for any cishet men out to do whatever God/Allah/Buddha/Brahma/etc. had forbidden us to do to one another (funny how most of these higher beings were male). On the other hand, I would quip that the fandom was a microcosm of the gap in women's history (herstory, if you would).

AU where canon Piri is a trans FTM. Or AU where OC!Fem!Piri is his drag queen persona. Allow yourselves the freedom to get creative...

3). As a PHYSICAL STRUCTURE

And then there's country, which — yes! — is highly interchangeable with nation and state. Without any political connotations yet, a country as a general term can refer to a particular land. You can see now that we have defined three elements to a nation-state (as an arbitrary umbrella term): power, people, and place Without yet taking into account the (centralized) power element, it is thus imaginable how multiple groups of people — or cultures — can occupy the same defined place. Put another way, multiple nations can occupy the same defined country, and that's again without taking into account the state.

This is closely related to social groups, but arguably it looks more into constructed relationships with physical environments. A great example is the "living territory" concept (sorry for sharing a long example, but it is a beautiful one, too):

At the heart of collective identity as an “existential space of self-reference” (Escobar 2008, 53), territory, as we can now see, is a crucial element of the political struggles around the defense of ethnic identities and cultural rights. It represents dif­ferent but interconnected objectives: the securing of the livelihood of local communities, the maintenance of traditional and sustainable economic practices, the political projects of regional social movements, the defense of collective rights, the development of proper forms of governability, the local experience of place, and a deep sense of belonging. Thus, what is at stake when defending territory is an alternative model of society and life, a form of being that is often at odds with the values embodied by certain modern institutions and practices. This is why for local communities, Bajo Atrato constitutes not only a territory of life but also a living territory. Let me explain this in more detail. In 2005, on the verge of a crucial decision from the state regarding ownership rights over the lands that oil-palm companies had violently seized from the titled collective territories, leaders from ASCOBA and one of my mentors—a priest and local intellectual whose social commitment draws from the theology of liberation��delineated some key principles about territory and its meanings: Territory is the space appropriated for our physical, social, and cultural production. It is the physical space, the plants and the animals; it is the space we name, use, walk, and travel. It is the way villages and households are placed, the economy, our ways of living and working, the days for cultural and religious celebrations, the social relationships, our traditional authorities, and our worldview. All these actions unfold in the space and they create territoriality, which[,] in turn, helps build the territory. . . .The territory is a space to produce life and culture, it reflects our worldview. In the fields we work, in the social and family relations we keep, in the symbolic aspects of our thinking, the territory is materialized. . . . Territory is not only land because it extends far beyond the physical space granted by the law. (Valencia 2005, 15–20) I would like to emphasize three aspects of this beautiful and powerful definition. First, social practices and relationships (e.g., "ways of working," “cultural and religious celebrations,” “traditional authorities,” and “social and family relations”) are not only developed in the territory but also contribute to the creation of the territory. Second, territory and communities are mutually linked and reciprocally constituted: many practices express the attributes of particular places, and the territory itself reflects the qualities of its inhabitants (“in the fields we work, in the social and family relations we keep, in the symbolic aspects of our thinking, the territory is materialized”). Third, territory cannot be understood as abstracted from the experience of being and belonging to an Afro-Colombian or an Indigenous rural community (“it is the space we name, use, walk, and travel”). This sophisticated conceptualization underscores the way that territory participates essentially and not just contingently in the generation of a collective sense of being, how it provides a particular placement to social experiences, and, most importantly, how territory does not always precede the relations and practices that take place there but, instead, is what results from these relations and practices. In other words, the definition applies a relational approach: territory is enacted and experienced rather than provided, and it emerges as such by virtue of people’s practices, while those practices are in turn affected by the territory itself. This definition of territory does not just imply some sort of intimate interconnectedness of people and their places but also comprises the conditions through which both territory and communities come into existence.

Daniel Ruiz-Serna, When Forests Run Amok: War and Its Afterlives in Indigenous and Afro-Colombian Territories (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2023), 29-30.

You might call it an ecocritical approach to nation personifications. An idea I really want to play around with someday is the material conditions that cultural artifacts evoke. Just think of the origins of ingredients to local dishes, or the threads that make up traditional fabrics!

All that being said, let's revise everything accordingly, so that it is now:

1). POWER -> POLITICAL STRUCTURE

2). PEOPLE -> SOCIAL STRUCTURE

ETHNOLINGUISTIC GROUPS

RELIGION

GENDER

3). PLACE -> PHYSICAL STRUCTURE

Of course, a nation as a superstructure is more than just these 3 primary elements. As strange as this also sounds, I also want to point out that there are also plenty of fanworks that are more of the human AU line — implicitly or not, but the focus is not on the characters as a nation (CRAZY, BUT THAT’S ON MEDIA LITERACY).

Given these multiple meanings, we thus can have multiple ways of depicting anthropomorphized nations. Hence, it is ultimately a subjective approach because there is no singular, absolute truth to interpreting a nation — what more when the reality you are working with consists of a diversity of nations — all with multiple reasons for their independent existence (on a state level, admittedly, but remember that’s it’s not always about the state) in place of being one big amalgamation — that you can work within your fiction.

Put another way, we can pretend that the multiple fan interpretations are the different ways in which we try to cook up the final dish/es that is whatever anthropomorphized nation/s we are depicting, and the above elements can be likened to the spices used in flavoring the dish/es. As I wrote in an ask sent to me before, "all these fan interpretations reflect how people ratio their spices.

How that spice ratio is decided upon is thanks to numerous factors such that there is a good chance that no two recipes are exactly alike.

Yet, clearly, there is a (valid) demand for — if I can maintain the metaphor — a singular “objective” format to that recipe because…

2. Is nationverse inherently political?

I have stated before that I do agree that there is an inherent politicization with nationverse fiction, but as we have done with the term "nation," so I believe we must review "politicization." In short, it means to make something political. In general, something that is political often pertains to government affairs — aka the nation as a state.

We have set down earlier that nation is not restricted to that definition alone, but if this politicization must be inherent, then can we further break it down such that it is not always about state-level public affairs? We can, if we recall the etymology (or the origin of the word) of politics as power relations reflected in a decision-making process.

It is very easy to visualize how power relations are translated through government affairs and even over matters of territorial boundaries (think of it as conflicts regarding the place/physical element).

Meanwhile, power relations through conflicts over a common heritage (grouping people) shine through in disputes on the notion of national identity; this is also where tensions between ethnolinguistic groups arise. Below is a controversial (yet really brave of me lmao) take in suggesting that national identity formation is just racebending:

We can see how racebending fits into the picture as an exercise of (oppressive, and therefore offensive) power over certain peoples in a defined place. It is not far from the truth that states, including postcolonial nations that manifested as an opposing force against certain imperial powers (not necessarily Western, scandalous I know!), have been agents of forced assimilation for the sake of maintaining a stable political (or national) identity. Thus, we can see how racebending becomes cultural imperialism (although I personally favor calling it cultural hegemony) as a homogenization of social behavior that favors the legitimization of the state. Is it to say that national identities are fated to be monopolized constructions of culture? Personally, I would argue it need not be. It just so happens that capitalism favors such a setup, hence why we must demandez l'impossible! It does beg the question of how racebending a national identity works, which warrants reviewing what race and "national" identity mean in the first place, especially when both can be interchangeable depending on the context. Race as a classification of people on the basis of shared physical traits — as defined by, and more often than not, the white imperialist ethnographers of yore — is an outdated definition at best. Note how I did not include shared social traits because that is now broadly understood as ethnicity. Still, it does not change that both terms are highly interconnected, and neither does it, nor should it, erase the ugly reality of racism that has happened and continues to happen. It's as important to elaborate that "national identity". . . is not exclusive to being a political process. It is also an anthropological process. The question of "national identity" is not always about power dynamics, it is also about what is. Is the Filipino identity not multicultural in essence? I just have to point at our cuisine as THE primadonna examplar. Lechon! Longganisa! Tocino! We didn't grow apples so we made do with and invented buko pie! Halo-halo was literally inspired by Japanese-style shaved ice!!! Unfortunately, if we have to argue that these elements are not "truly Filipino" then I suppose my ancestors were cringe for...racebending themselves? Let's return to the question of Filipino identity, but instead of going the anthropological route, we now take the political one. The term "Filipinos" originally referred to the children of Spanish who were based in the colonial archipelago, which Filipinos of today would likely recall from Philippine social science textbooks in grade school/high school(?¿!) as the insulares. Over time, it was appropriated by the indio natives, moreso the ilustrados (native-born — because there were certainly mestizos among them — intelligentsia). Does the appropriation of "Filipino" into an autonomous national identity count as racebending? That is only if we have to assume race as an identifying marker of one's belonging to a state, when it isn't. If that is the case, however, then I do not believe that any single nation-state exists without very technically "racebending" various peoples into a uniformly shared commonality/ies, which happens to be the original (white imperialist) notion of what race is.

On the religion element, I can immediately name the prolonged tensions between the (Catholic-majority) Philippine state and Muslim communities in Mindanao, and the conflicts surrounding the Partition of India.

On gender, there is a great video essay by PhilosophyTube that tackles the intersection of gender constructs, capitalism, and nation-building.

We have now demonstrated that our given elements of a nation can be politicized. Note that I write "can be" because we still have to determine that it is an inherent quality — something that, when removed, the object it is attached to is no longer recognizable because it cannot be without that quality.

So...can we have a nation in the absence of power relations?

3. But what is power?

Funny because that scene is a neat example of the formal definition of power as:

"The production, in and through social relations, of effects that shape the capacities of actors to determine their circumstances and fate." (source)

Which is a more technical description of the ability to influence others. I will simplify that power answers two questions: (1) Who are you to me? and (2) Why should I do as I am told by you?

It should be easy to visualize how power is exercised with our three main elements.

1): POLITICAL STRUCTURE: Theories on the social contract that dictates the cycle of service between the governor/s and the governed. The version by Jean-Jacques Rousseau summarizes it as when people (the governed) give up some individual freedoms (aka rights) in exchange for protection & other benefits from an entity (the governor). Both the service and the subservience are done for an assumed common good. ex. Medieval peasants contributing portions of their harvests to the lord, in exchange for the lord guaranteeing a solid defense of the community from invading forces.

2). SOCIAL STRUCTURE:

ETHNOLINGUISTIC GROUPS: Through Benedict Anderson’s definition of nations as “imagined communities,” one persuades others understood to be fellow community members (by way of some recognized, or invented mayhaps, commonality) into acting as is defined (by whoever or whatever) to be appropriate for the community. ex. Different ethnolinguistic groups appropriating the label Filipino to refer to the shared struggle against the oppression of colonization.

RELIGION: Doctrines and traditions that rationalize our relationships with whatever higher power/s that be. ex. I must attend mass as a baptized Catholic to consistently renew my faith by commemorating how Christ sacrificed himself to save us from sin — as preserved in Scripture that serves as the textual heart of that very faith.

GENDER: That cursed gender binary dictating who can do what. ex. My single-sex Catholic school banning cross-dressing because...need I say more?

3). PHYSICAL STRUCTURE: Power can be diffused horizontally; village neighbors may coordinate in cultivating, collecting, and distributing the available resources within the shared land/s. The environment can also make or break opportunity/risk, and this more often than not becomes a point of exploitation. ex. State-sponsored deforestation that drives out indigenous communities.

Given the (simplified) information we have, it is be safe to say that the concept of a nation/state/country/etc. is inherently political. If we can agree that, indeed, inherent politicization is an objective fact about nations…

4. How do we identify facts about nations in a fiction about (anthropomorphized) nations?

I understand why people will argue that impact easily trumps intent. Admittedly, I’m inclined to doubt after seeing how slippery assumptions of the impacts of actions that occur in the realm of reality can become excuses for marginalization. This is outside the scope of the topic at hand, but to help illustrate, an example I can give is the time when a drag queen got branded a criminal for performing while dressed as Jesus Christ. (The boomers went apeshit in condemning it as a sin, as if Christ himself would not dance with these queer kids.)

There are certainly folks who use fiction to actively endorse harmful beliefs & actions, or proactively marginalize some and not others because of harmful prejudices. I, for one, cannot tolerate to even sit with people who go there. I've ceased supporting artists due to their conduct/morals that I cannot stand with, no matter how good and appealing their works are, because I refuse to let them profit off my enjoyment of it and let them wash their hands clean of accountability.

Nonetheless, I want to stick to the topic at hand that is media literacy. Remember, after all, that we are, at the end of the day, probing something that is in the realm of fiction. As I have written before:

Fiction, all the more historical fiction, can take from reality, but only in so far as certain elements from reality are relevant to the desired narrative to communicate. The same goes for Hetalia, and all sorts of nationverse works, as fiction that borrows from the reality of nation-states, and that absolutely depends on what framework/s the creators in question rely on to begin with.

Is it thus guaranteed that nationverse fiction will always represent the (internal or external) power relations of the nation/s it anthropomorphized? It must be the case if that is precisely the intended narrative of the creator/s.

The truth is that you cannot gauge the inherent politicization in a nationverse work without objectively identifying its literary elements (characters, dialogue, plot, setting, etc.). Those literary elements are the evidence to why you arrived at whatever conclusion you are making. Even with human AUs, some narratives are not always about the politics.

The other truth is that there is no "one-size-fits-all" framework in discussing inherent politicization in nationverse because there are an uncountable (unless someone actually does the math-crunching lol) number of ways of interpreting nationverse as there are many ways of how cultures interpret the world at large, and how there are a diversity of nations, each with their own realities such that no two nations are exactly alike. Anyone can pull off a Death of the Author and establish their interpretations as consumers (or “bypassers” by way of purely relying on other people's interpretations and not your own intellectual capacities) of a nationverse work, even though the creators genuinely intended otherwise.

My professors in the history department never tire of telling us this: even the practice of history is not immune to subjectivity, and that is on the framework you choose in analyzing event/s (lest you admit you're only b*llshitting your way through). In the field of history, that produces what is called historiography.

In the field of literary analysis — because, after all, the medium in which Hetalia is produced as a manga is a legitimate work of literature — literary theories are commonly utilized, but not exclusively; other schools of thought have been used (ex. postmodernism, Marxism).

Having a framework matters because you are not the very creator speaking of your own work — you are speaking of another person’s work. You are giving your interpretation/s of another fan’s interpretation/s of a Japanese mangaka’s interpretation/s of certain anthropomorphized nations, none of which are immune to biases. It is lowkey funny to me how the fandom sometimes projects high expectations like tiger moms on Himaruya who is just a guy™.

And that is just your single voice speaking. What of the creator themselves? This is not to argue that we should be neutral in our objectivity (neutrality benefits oppressive structures, so be mindful of what/whom your objectivity serves) than so much as we should be confidently precise about what it is that we are commenting or even criticizing against. It is also not to say that giving arbitrary examples is bad per se. To be candid, some of the examples I have seen are worst-case scenarios that, while not impossible, are not necessarily frequent either. There have been bad takes, but in terms of the worst possible take/s that can happen, they are rare by nature. The odds are even lower when you take into account the uncountable number of possibilities of nationverse interpretations. I am also speaking as someone unlearning catastrophizing, because that does nothing good to my mental health.

Speaking of interpretations, here are some more of my previous responses relating to that:

I thought Himaruya has always been ambiguous about the personified nation-states' relationships with governments, whether it be their own or of others? Even on occasions that he does show positive interaction with virtually NPC-like government staff or allude to certain head honchos while magically wiping off the eyes, I don't think these choices as a reflection of his (head)canon is the only reason, let alone the only way to read those depiction. I know the joke opens with "for legal reasons," but there's a rice grain of truth to it after all. To describe it as the norm of Hetalia (at least) is like saying Hetalia is propaganda. It's not even a "can be propaganda" anymore because we're assuming there must be an agenda the personified nation-states perceived and therefore endorse their governments for, which explains the supposed good working relationship they maintain, as depicted by Hima. The additional challenge I want to raise is this: How can we even gauge what makes a good relationship between personified nation-states and governments? Is a "good relationship" bare minimum, no-strings-attached, employee-style obedience, or fully cooperative because both parties vibe like besties for endorsing the same principles/goals/etc.? What makes it a close tie? Why is it so important to factor in how not all nation-states enjoy the privilege of defying the rule of law like the depicted lucky ones?

Even without having to elaborate on the political context to multiculturalism as myth, it all boils back down to — if I can recycle my food metaphor here — who's been adding too much government spice and serving their takes to people who don't even like the resulting taste to begin with. And even determining that is a case-by-case basis.

5. Is it always bad to bring politics into nationverse fiction?

Don't get me wrong, I have seen bad politics brought into Hetalia, but there are just so many different forms of bad politics (if this was an introduction essay in an anthology, those forms would get their own chapters). Admittedly, I do not appreciate how some well-intentioned discourses on that matter have homogenized political struggles and colonial histories.

I have also, unfortunately, seen politics handled badly. This is where I will urge fans to exercise caution with the intended message they want to communicate to their intended audience.

I cannot think of a more apt example than colonizer/colonized ships. Personally, I do not give a sh*t. Other people’s lore does not have to be my lore, and my lore does not have to be other people’s lore. It feels good to be able to connect with other fans, but hey, we’re doing it to have a good time, not to force people to like us. There are takes of that shipping dynamic that are not my cup of tea, I just do not care to pick the cup up, to begin with.

It is also not to say that nobody can challenge the idea of a subjective national anthropomorphism. I do, however, sense that subjectivity in personifying nations might be a question of ethics that is ineffectively presented as a literary analysis that lost focus in pushing to cover such a wide scope.

“Every anthro-nation media is political” and “not all anthro-nation media are equal in their politics, implicit or explicit” are statements that can co-exist. It’s why, say, I might like X’s take on Piri but maybe not Y’s take — moreso when I can discern enough aspects that make it concerningly propaganda-like. If inherent politicization is like a default baseline, we can only gauge how much someone has individually added to that arbitrary political “bar.” Even then, canon Hetalia at least hasn’t shown signs of endorsing any certain ideology. Some fans have, however, done so, especially with harmful ideologies. What, then, makes it possible for some fans to project these harmful ideologies? Is it just cruel fate due to the nature of personifying nation-states? Or maybe it’s on individual free will to be openly and unapologetically bigoted? And even with the benefit of the doubt, is it not ultimately an issue of bad media literacy?

Even the topic of ethics consists of a handful of theories that cannot be properly examined through reading through a strictly historical, political, or even literary lens alone. While we can more easily agree on some moral judgments, the same cannot be said for praxis — and that is just concerning the practice of ethics in the realm of reality, what more for the interpretation of ethics in fiction? I thus once more reiterate: This is why my inside joke with fandom friends is how Hetalia is the ultimate test of media literacy.

While it is upsetting that there have been real manifestations of individuals projecting their politics in the private sphere onto the (nationverse) fictions they disseminate in public online spaces, I still stand by the belief that the idea of interrogating someone’s moral compass through the fiction they either create or consume cannot — and should not — be absolutized. Not only does it legitimize the far-right conservatism fueling the variety of moral panics throughout history that evolved into outright dehumanization, but it also chains people to their creative works as if they are only as (morally) good as their works are (morally) good.

Which, honestly, is not a radically good take.

And speaking of scrutinizing if it takes a bad person to make art about something bad...

6. Are people bad for not taking political realities into account in their nationverse fiction?

I do not believe that establishing some distance from the "statist" lens is necessarily a denial of the political realities.

Some people might prefer not to start careless claims because they know they are not equipped to talk about something. (Because why would Philippine youth be mandated to study the history of, say, Japan? Even if they can read it in their spare time, it is ridiculous to assume people's material conditions and capacities.)

Others treat the fact about Hetalia as fiction as nothing but escapism from reality, so they would rather that politics (if not history, even as I personally find it silly to argue that they are mutually exclusive) remain absolutely off-the-table in their fandom lives. Sometimes, that escapism comes off as """fujoshifying""" sensitive events. I may not vibe with even the dead dove type of content that goes there, but I will acknowledge that it is not made for me. As long as the creator knows how to filter their intended message for their intended audience, I believe that is how one differentiates dead dove from tragedy porn.

Outside the scope of fandom, I do find confronting apathy disheartening at best, and frustrating at worst. If people want to have that talk, I rather take off my fandom jester hat for it first. I can try, but there is no guarantee that I can persuade them to see otherwise. If there were a manual that explained how to talk to people not to support extremist beliefs, no matter their race, creed, age, gender, etc. with a 100% guaranteed success rate, I'd read it. I wish such a manual existed!

But we are still talking about Hetalia, and in all my years of following Hetalia, I have never seen fans so vocally insistent that the "correct way" to do Hetalia characterizations is to not separate them from the state, when the arguably worst takes are precisely because people have absolutized that approach — that we cannot portray these dirt children as anything but the state.

From time to time, we get disk horses about how "the fandom has learned nothing after 10+ years," but the second someone wants to diverge from relying on the narrative of the state as the primary basis of their Hetalia characterizations, they still get as much harsh condemnation as the occasional N*zi/Zi*nist weirdo that sprouts up. Suddenly, people are "not allowed" to depict the nation-state as anything but the state. It's almost as if people are allergic to any unapologetically leftist depictions  — where the personifications represent the ordinary people (however that means) — and that grinds my gears more than anything. Neither do I want to promote that fandom should be activism, because Hetalia, and any nationverse work, is, at the end of the day, not the medium for that job. But I gotta be for real, we are also robbing our leftist hearts of having leftist fun, because I don’t think disk horsing will be enough to keep the rightwing weirdos out.

I understand that nationalism is a weapon of the bourgeoisie, such that it becomes a tool to oppress rather than liberate. If you cannot separate Hetalia characters from their governments and the ruling class that makes it up, okay. That’s YOUR headcanon. Respect the fact that not everyone shares that headcanon, let alone is obliged to follow it.

Don't get me wrong because there are certainly fanon takes that I do not vibe with and feel are dubiously promoting inhumane ideologies. My issue is in the reactionary double standards that sometimes jump out in discussing nation-state personifications as a state. If I may be candidly blunt, it feeds a vicious cycle that is only creating a ridiculously toxic space. So, I wrote this long, discourse post nobody asked for to (hopefully) put an end to it, and perhaps serve as a jumpstart to a sorely lacking and much-needed, genuine, open discussion on how we consume and analyze nationverse fiction that does not have to boil down into petty fighting.

It is a common yet toxic habit throughout fandom spaces — not just Hetalia and other nationverse series — to assume that the story one wants to tell as an artist is an absolute, authentic projection of their principles as a human making art.

[weirdestbooks]

The Death of Unity (Wattpad | Ao3)

Death of the Korean Empire, requested by Violetsaredancing

August 22, 1910

“If you think I will be surprised by this, I am not,” Korea said from his seat on the floor. He refused to die with dishonor or cowardice. Japan would be the one to kill him; he had known that for a long time, but he refused to let himself stoop to her level.

He refused to show her fear.

Japan had been killing his country for a long time. She was like a disease that infected and killed those around her, an insatiable hunger for power, leaving her ruthless and deranged.

She was a powerful enemy, but one with no sense of humanity.

Korea didn’t know how things had gotten bad so quickly. 

He had tried to be neutral, to stay out of world affairs. His neutrality was recognized by many countries, and Korea had foolishly assumed himself safe. Although he would not deny his close friendship with Russia, things had been good. He was working on reforms, on modernizing his country. He had been hopeful for the future. 

Everything changed when Japan and Russia went to war. Japan, against all odds and expectations, won.

Then, there was no one to stop her from slowly taking over. 

First, it was the Eulsa Treaty. Korea hated that treaty with every fiber of his being. It made him a protectorate of Japan and, more importantly, allowed Japan to start the process of isolating him from all of his friends and allies. Korea was no longer allowed to speak to other countries, to write letters, or do anything the likes of an independent country should do.

He was Japan’s now, and it was Japan’s job to take care of all that for him. Which, of course, meant he could no longer have any countryhuman friends and could only speak to Japan.

His people were not happy with the treaty either. Many of his politicians had committed suicide over it, and Emperor Gojong had helped to lead resistance. Korea had sent secret embassies to plead for his independence in other countries, while their cowardly governments began to pull out their embassies from Korea, leaving international matters in Japan’s manipulative hands.

Nicholas II and Russia had given Korea and his emperor a bit of hope when they secretly invited them to the Hague Conference in 1907, but their emissaries were denied access, Korea was prevented from leaving his home by Japan, and the Japanese Korean Amry crushed any public dissonance.

And crucially, Emperor Gojong abdicated, leaving Emperor Sunjong to take the throne.

Things only got worse from there.

After that, Korea was forced into signing another treaty, with Japan practically holding her sword at his throat as he did so. This treaty of 1907 was even worse than the one that took away his nationhood, as it allowed Japanese officials to be employed in his government. And if that wasn’t bad enough, any Japanese who served as advisors to his government were made a part of his central government. 

Japan wasn’t just controlling his external affairs, but his internal affairs as well. 

Korea only felt weaker and sicker after that. Like he said, Japan was a disease, and the symptoms of her presence were only getting worse.

She garrisoned her focus in the palace and began disarming regiments of Korea’s army, including his elite Pyeongyang Jinwidae.

“You don’t need this silly army,” Japan had said happily as she dragged him out to watch the disarming, leaving him helpless to assist his people and ashamed that he could not do more for them. “I am your protector from those European colonizers. I will keep you and your land safe. You don’t need to worry.”

Korea didn’t believe her. Japan was one of those people who talked a lot about who she was and what she did, all while choosing to remain blind to her own faults. Korea would not believe her because he was no fool. 

Japan soon began dissolving regiments of his army, leaving Korea with no way to defend himself from her. Even the handpicked guards who had watched over his home for years were dismissed and replaced by Japan’s people. 

Korea’s people did not just take that lying down, however, and many began to fight back. But it was hopeless. They simply did not have the manpower or ability to fight off her army. They would not be able to win.

When Japan told him, a sick sweetness in her voice, that she had suppressed that last of the “rebellions,” the last of the righteous armies fighting for his independence, Korea had begun preparations for his death. There was no one left to fight for him anymore, and Korea knew that it was only a matter of time before Japan’s bloodlust called for his death.

He had gone back to his home in Seoul and prepared for his death.

He cleaned his home and set aside precious artifacts and personal items from his human home to his small place in the Land-In-Between, something for his descendants to one day find. He had passed along the message of their location to Russia, the only person he trusted, the only one who really tried to save him from Japan.

The one who lost the war.

“I will keep it safe,” Russia said, gently taking the letter from him, a small smile on his usually emotionless face. 

Then Korea went home, and he waited for the inevitable, which brought him back to the moment Japan entered his home.

“Chōsen, it is time for you to sign the new treaty between our countries. Our people are waiting,” Japan said. Korea stood up and turned to face her.

“I will not sign your treaty. I will not sign away my life for you. If you want to take my kingdom and my people, if you want to force them into your country, then you will kill me yourself. You will look me in the eyes and see me die and live with that guilt forever.” Korea said, voice even and steady as he looked Japan straight in the eyes, looking the killer disease that had haunted him for the past five years in the eyes and daring her to do what she had been attempting for years. Japan smirked viciously.

“Fine by me.”

Then, there was a flash of a sword, and Korea knew no more.

[k1ng0k]

Countryhumans AU | Oceasia

China declares trade/ economic war against Western countries unless Oceania is seized by Asia, and becomes part of the region. In an attempt to resolve the issue, America and the UK advise Australia to surrender to China. Against the idea, UK breaks ties with Australia and New Zealand after China threatens war on Western Europe. This leads to the geopolitical divide between Oceania, Europe and Asia.

In order to protect his found family, Australia comes into an agreement with China and they join ties. Leading to the unity of Oceania and Asia. As a result of this, Australia and China have a child country known as Jīnsèa, which takes over the eastern coastal line of Australia. Along with that, a union is formed in Tasmania known as the Gavman Union which is against China and acts independently. Finally, Australia and Antarctica create the first nation in Antarctica known as Subastéri.

[unidad-mexicana]

La oscuridad dominaba la celda de Estados Unidos, intentando quitarse las cadenas que tenían atrapado sus brazos.

-Damn it…-susurraba el habla inglesa con rabia.-When I free myself from this Mexico, highlight your gods that I don't kill you, while I break your face…(Cuando me libere de esto México, resale a tus dioses que no te mate, mientras te rompo la cara…) -  Usa se sentía agotado, por el disparo que recibió en la cabeza, apenas podía oír cosas del exterior, como pájaros y la lluvia. 

Inmediatamente identificó el lugar donde podría estar oculto, pues la lluvia inundaba un poco el lugar y hacía que la basura y animales muertos atravesaran su prisión.Debía ser una prisión subterránea, muy vieja y abandonada por la gente mexicana, probablemente muy lejos de los ciudadanos, pues no ha escuchado ninguna voz de personas desde que despertó.

Por su mente pasaba, por cuánto tiempo había dormido, pues a pesar que el disparo era mortal, los países no mueren así como así, deben ser conquistados para lograr hacerlo desaparecer o morir como sea que se vea. Y la única forma de que sobreviva es por su gente, mientras su gente mantenga los ideales de Estados unidos, el nunca desaparecerá, pero también la guerra hace más difícil que la gente crea, causando un efecto conocido por los países como grietas, que duelen como una herida recién. Causando que el país se debilite y las fuerzas se desvanecen como el viento, eso solo ocurre si su sociedad decae y les dificulta sobrevivir. 

USA, por su parte se intentaba levantar con las fuerzas que aún tenía, le parecía bastante estúpido por parte de su carcelero no amarrarle las piernas, pues podría él aún intentar escapar, tantos años en guerra le enseñaron bastantes trucos.

-Idiot, it seems that Mexico is useless in keeping its prisoners locked up, better for me, so I avoid any unnecessary conflict. ( Idiota, parece ser que México es un inútil en mantener encerrado a sus prisioneros, mejor para mi, así me evito cualquier conflicto innecesario.) - USA se levantaba y empezó a dirigirse a la puerta, al ser viejo el lugar, podría ser fácil tirar la puerta, y escapar. Tenía todo planeado lo que no esperaba era, que alguien abriría la puerta.

-Hey USA, vas a algún lado? - Frente al americano, estaba el culpable de su dolorida situación, sonriendo con ironía y superioridad. 

El plan A fallo, entonces USA utilizará el plan B, ´´La fuerza bruta´´. Con eso en mente, fue directo a Unidad para derribarlo, Unidad solo lo empujo hacia atrás. USA manteniendo el equilibrio, decidió pelear con unidad, esquivando los golpes y patadas observando la oportunidad de escape. En eso se arrastró por el suelo debajo de unidad y se impulsó hacia el frente saliendo de su celda.

-Tan pronto te vas?, pero si pensaba invitarte a comer algo - Sonreía unidad con alegría, observando la desesperación de su adversario por salir lo mas rápido posible.

Y en eso los ojos de USA, miraba por todos lados, esta prisión no era normal, parecía un laberinto sin salida, corría y corría, sentía que el pasillo no tenía un fin, en eso Unidad apareció frente a él, USA en su intento de detenerse terminó recibiendo una patada en el rostro por parte del monstruo que tenía al frente.

-Haaa… sabía que me darías mas problemas que México, al fin y al cabo eres una potencia y yo apenas tengo a un tercermundista queriendo ser potencia mundial jajajaja - reía cínicamente - y vaya que si corres, por poco y no te alcanzaba, pero los trucos viejos siempre funcionan. Es irónico, México cayó con el mismo truco del pasillo infinito una ilusión tan absurda que si eres inteligente, podrías adivinar cómo romperla, pero claro, no todos son como yo, verdad - Unidad agarró a USA de la rodilla y lo elevó lo más que pudo - mmm… soy más chiquito que tu, aunque muy pronto podre crecer mas jajajaja.

-You're crazy, if you think I'll let you conquer my home...México ( Estás loco, si crees que te dejaré conquistar mi hogar...México) -se retorcía intentando liberarse sin resultados.

-Y allí vas de nuevo - rodó los ojos - Acaso para ti todos los que hablen latín son México, o solamente los que hablen una de las tantas variables del Latín, que es el español. Acaso tu ignorancia es tan grande que ni tu sociedad, economía, política y cultural… o espera tu no tienes cultura jajajajaja - Unidad lo deja caer y le pisa la pierna a USA para que no se mueva. -*suspiro*  Talvez para ti sea tonto, pero no negaré que los latinoamericanos tienen un humor oscuro que me hace feliz...bueno si eso se le puede decir feliz.

-What are you planning? ( Qué planeas?) 

-mmm...nada que te importe la verdad, no es como si fuera a decirte mi plan, eso ya lo hara México por mi.

-What the hell are you talking about.(De qué demonios hablas.).

-jejejeje, ya lo averiguaras - le sostiene de nuevo la pierna y lo empieza a arrastrarlo por el suelo - Mientras meditas, qué tal si limpias el suelo jajajajaja.

México, se encontraba recostado de dolor por los acontecimientos pasados, en el cual terminó perdiendo su ojo derecho, para el azteca, Unidad se vuelve más oscuro, al inicio no parecía importarle mucho, pero con el tiempo su sed de sangre y dolor creció a tal punto que siempre termina masacrando un brazo, una pierna, un ojo, las torturas que él hacía eran tan lejanas a las que alguna vez vio o vivió. Él sabía que si dejaba que Unidad ganara, todo por lo cual a luchado sería una total pérdida de tiempo, por lo cual se rehusaba a perder. 

El sonido de la puerta lo despertó de sus pensamientos, observando al monstruoso ser que llevaba sus colores y una copia barata de su escudo, sonriéndole como siempre.

-México~~ te traje un nuevo compañero de cuarto~~-canturreando como si fuera de lo más alegre el dia de hoy.

-Que!!! USA!!-Grito México con desaprobación.

-Wait a minute! -observa a Unidad y a México -There is more than one... impossible i eliminate North and South.( Espera un minuto! Hay más de uno...imposible yo elimine a Norte y sur.).

-Si gracias por recordarmelo, asesino y traidor!!! - Gritaba rabioso México.

-Look who's talking( Mira quién habla).

-Yo no te traicione y tampoco asesine a alguien, no como tu asesino de hermanos!!!

Unidad observaba el cambio de insultos de ambos países, se divertía con el odio de ambos.Termina por lanzar a USA hacia dentro de la celda.

-Bien...entonces qué tal si comenzamos esto he…

-Con comenzar qué quieres decir? 

-Pues que nada más ni nada menos que con esto - Saca 2 collar muy parecido al de México, pero estos contenía dos botones, o eso es lo que veía.

-And what are you going to do with that?(Y qué piensas hacer con eso?).

-Estos collares son contra la agresión, si uno de los dos hace algo malo...Ambos sufrirán un electrizante sorpresa…

-Creí que traer a USA aquí era parte de una matanza entre nosotros.

-Claro que no México, aunque claro seria divertido, pero quiero seguir jugando, y matarte a ti, hijo azteca, no me alimentaba lo suficiente jejeje. 

Unidad le pone el collar a México, mientras que con USA batallo un poco para que se dejara, aun así logró ponerle el collar eléctrico.

-Bien, eso seria todos, las reglas de este juego son simples, intenten no matarse mientras estoy fuera. Bien chaito - En eso cierra la puerta metálica, mientras sus pasos se alejaban entre ecos.

El silencio dominó la habitación, solo se escuchaba las patas de las ratas haciendo ruido, mientras que ambos países se dedicaban miradas de odio intenso, así estuvieron durante un mes entero.

-Que estraño, ya a pasado un Mes y el raro de Unidad no a venido aquí a molestar. Que estara planeando ese psicópata…

-How do you know it's been a month?( Como sabes que ya pasó un mes?)

-Que acaso es algo que no te enseñó tus patéticas guerras sin sentido, me sorprende.

-Say everything you want, jump walls, or wait I think I should change your name, because as I can see, you only have one leg and one sad arm. (Di todo lo que quieras salta muros, o espera creo que debería cambiarte el nombre, ya que como puedo ver, solo tienes una pierna y un triste brazo. )

-Me sorprende que puedas observar eso con tu enorme ego tapando te la cara.

-Tell me something Mr. Cyclops, perhaps you observe in the position you are in, I can still kick your face.(Dime algo señor cíclope, acaso observas en la postura en la que estas, yo aun puedo partirte la cara de una patada.)

-A sí, pues inténtalo patán…

En el momento en que a USA le hirvió la sangre, iba a dirigirla toda esa ira a México, pero de un momento a otro, el collar hizo un ruido, y gritos de dolor hicieron presencia. 

-pero...oh dios, olvide que estos collares nos electrificaran si peleábamos… - México se retorcía de dolor,mientras intentaba quitarse la electricidad restregándose en la tierra.

USA en su lugar, fue y patio la puerta con todas su fuerzas, haciendo un grito de guerra mientras gritaba el nombre de Unidad Mexicana en ingles varias  veces.

-Espero y no me estés confundiendo con el mismo hilo que esa cosa…

-And that could be you then. If he's Mexico, you're for that.( Y que podría ser tu entonces. Si el es México, tu que eres para ese imbécil.)

-El no tiene nada que ver conmigo, esa cosa, no es nadie para mi hogar y mi gente...eso creo

-You think so, you think !!! (Eso crees, ESO CREES!!!)-Se acercó al azteca furioso. - You think so, you think !!! (como no puedes estar seguro, si él es parte de ti, que no es como así funcionas tú!!!)

-Claro que no, él apareció de la nada y empezó a tratarme como una pulga, y para tu informacion, los unicos que eran parte de mi se fueron para siempre, por quien? adivina?

-Please take weight off your back. ( por favor, te quite peso de encima)

-Peso de encima, que me viste cara de monedero o que!!, claro que no me quitaste nada, más bien lo hiciste peor, para mi y mi gente. El terremoto fue devastador y luego llegas tu con tu ganas de conquistador a matar y perjudicar a mí ciudadanos y dices que me quitaste un peso de encima...eres un hipócrita.-USA caminaba dando vueltas mientras oía las quejas de México.

-You and Russia were going to take me away from the north! ( ¡Tú y Rusia iban a alejarme de norte!)

-No me digas estupideces, no me vengas con que la amabas, porque si lo hicieras nunca la hubieras matado, a ella y a toda su cultura.

-I had no choice.( No tenia otra opción).

-No tenias...NO TENIAS...Tu siempre tuviste muchas opciones y oportunidades USA, siempre en las noticias, destacando sobre los demás, haciendo menos a los que quieren ser tus amigos, poniéndote en un trono tan falso como tu política, tu eras la potencia en América, grande, rico y poderoso, tu pudiste hacerlo mejor, pero no… tu no querías que nadie te arrebatará el trono verdad, sin mi y mis hermanos, tu economía cayó al suelo, y en vez de pedir disculpas, preferiste atacarnos, como lo hiciste con Chile y como culpar a Corea del norte...TU tienes muchas más opciones que cualquiera pero preferiste, elegir las más estúpidas…

-Look who speaks, the one who could murder his own brothers mercilessly for things as simple as food, luxuries, trying to achieve a broken dream since the revolution began in your country, and you call me my egoty, that idiot, uses you as the main source pair to whatever I'm doing and I'm the one who has a bad attitude, look at you, you once heard what they said about you, even Canada thought you were a madman, that's why I didn't trust you at all, unlike north, she had common sense , not like you, who always thought too big if you knew about the nonsense you ended up doing, your people hated you, when they found out more about you, that's why you are and you will be a liar…(Mira quien habla, el que podía asesinar a sus propios hermanos sin piedad por cosas tan simples como la comida, los lujos, intentando alcanzar un sueño roto desde que se inició la revolución en tu país, y me llamas a mi egolatría, ese idiota, te utiliza como fuente principal para lo que sea que esté haciendo y yo soy el que tiene mala actitud, mírate,  alguna vez escuchaste lo que decían de ti, hasta Canadá pensaba que tu eras un maldito loco, por eso no confiaba en ti en nada, a diferencia de norte, ella tenia sentido común, no como tu, que siempre pensabas demasiado grande si saber de las tonterías que terminaste haciendo, tu gente te odiaba, cuando descubren mas de ti, por eso eres y serás un mentiroso…).

-Yo un mentiroso!! acaso lo que hiciste tu también no fue mentirle, mi hermana confiaba en ti en todo, tanto que no tuvo problemas en dejar a tu gente refugiarse en Texas y Coahuila. Y como le terminaste pagando, amenazándome con ella con un arma en la cabeza, solo para que te vendiera al maldito de Texas, y que de paso le robaras los otros 9 estados que nosotros habíamos heredado de España.

-To if well…( A si pues…) - fue interrumpido por México.

-Mi hermana no solamente te había entregado a sus hijos mientras ella lloraba, si no que hasta dijo que por fin tu tendrías una cultura de la cual presumir, y de la cual poder aprender de ellos, y conseguir mejorar en la vida, y que desaparezca esa ceguera tuya, pero no… el muy idiota prefiere matarlos poco a poco, hasta no dejar ni rastro, que, acaso no te bastaba con lo que nos quitaste, a mi mis alas y a mi hermana sus hijos, mientras que Sur, siempre intento animarnos, y apoyarnos, y como le agradecimos, dejándolo en solitario, como sus hijos lo abandonaron a él. Norte aun te quería y te visitaba todo el tiempo, hasta gracias a ella aun se mantenía nuestra relaciones económicas, si no fuera por ella, tú ya hubieras desaparecido, ya que esos ojos negros tuyos, son ese vacío que nunca llenarás, porque tu no creciste con el tiempo como yo o Guatemala, tu no tienes nada…

El silencio apoderó del lugar, mientras una cámara observaba todo lo que decían y hacían.

-mmm...eso es interesante...conque USA si tiene una debilidad...jijijiji México, acabas de ponerle su condena a USA...jajajajajaajajaja.

Así, día tras día, las discusiones seguían, México no se movía, y USA ya no tenía fuerzas para moverse, pues el hambre lo estaba matando. Los dos estaban cansados...

_____________________

(las palabras en ingles están echas por traductor, por lo cual pido disculpas por si no se entiende igual TvT)

[fantasticgoopshoeturtle]

3 October 

German Unity Day 

[german-hut-squatter]

47 America

Canada and America have since become the Canadian American Unity, merging. So they can talk to one another or talk as one person.

So yes, they’d be together.

Reminder that you can ask any country, even ones that had not been drawn yet! I will even go the extra mile and color some of them. The tag these posts will be under is #Character Challenge.