#either we're not useful to society and a burden

[extranthaeic]

hey fellow white people in the mogai community: we gotta start doing more to point out and address racism in our community.

i know a lot of us (myself included!) are hesitant to point out and address racism because we feel it's not our place, don't want to speak over POC, etc., but unfortunately that just results in the burden falling solely on POC. if we ignore racism when we see it, even if it's coming from a place of not wanting to do the wrong thing, we're contributing to the problem. the fact that we can choose to ignore racism is white privilege.

if we don't point out and address racism, we're putting the POC in our community in the position of either needing to tolerate seeing it, or needing to address it themselves. generally, when people are told that something they said or did was racist, they either deny it and act like the person pointing it out is being too sensitive (which is, itself, racist), or go overboard with apologies and self-flagellation (which makes it about them). both of these reactions put even more burden on the person pointing out the racism.

if we want to make this community safer for POC, we have to actively try to do that. it is unfair to the POC in this community for us to sit back and expect them to do all of the work to make this community safer for themselves on their own.

we've all been raised in racist societies, so none of us are incapable of racism. (see @radiomogai's post on the subject (link) for more about this.) this means we will make mistakes along the way, and we have to accept that. we can't let the fear of not being perfect allies prevent us from trying at all.

[alexanderwales]

In moderate defense of bloodlines in fantasy fiction:

Sometimes a bloodline is plain power fantasy, where a young boy learns that he's secretly special just like he'd hoped he would be all along. The bloodline makes him and people like him uniquely better than all other people. This adds some unpleasant undertones, but those undertones tend to be hard to avoid in power fantasies, because the fantasy is usually that you have power and control, and that way lies the dark side.

But bloodlines are sometimes different from that. Sometimes a bloodline is a burden. Sometimes it's complicated. And even if it's strictly a boon, sometimes that's useful to talk about.

If I had to pick my favorite thing about science fiction and fantasy, it would be their ability to talk about things while taking a step to the left, so we're talking about some subject that's divorced from the real world, which lets us put it in a little petri dish and poke at it. Sometimes it's such a strict allegory that the base truth of the worldbuilding doesn't matter, but other times we're coming to an understanding of different subjects by asking "what if the world were a different way".

And in that context, bloodlines can be pretty cool. They're a proxy of class, race, privilege, genetics, all kinds of things. You are born into a family and background, and certain aspects of you are beyond your control, and sometimes you realize only later in life that's there's a family curse on you, even if that curse is as simple as tendency toward high blood pressure and depression. You grapple with your parents as flawed individuals, and with adults as just being people who don't have that much more of a clue what they're doing, and you opt into new societies that either reject you or adopt you.

So I do think there's something I instinctively turn my nose up at when someone says "I'm a special wizard-blooded, and I go to special wizard-blood school" but I think if not written with the basest power fantasy in mind (which it often is), there's a lot to do with it.

[lvxiferianemblem]

Lvxi SMC character analysis (SMC isn't one dimensional)

As promised, I'm putting down all my thoughts regarding SMC, including general analysis and personal interpretation. This is just an amalgam of all my recent thoughts, but I'll do my best to make it as coherent as possible.

There's no such thing as 'evil for the sake of it.' Despite what most cartoon villains tell you, there will always be a reason for why someone does things, even if those reasons are as shallow as brief entertainment. In this case, however, I don't think SMC fits either of those bills.

Going back to the origin of SMC himself, we have to understand what exactly his story is trying to convey---or at least to the best of our ability.

It's common knowledge that before everything, the apostles of evil were embodiments of virtues, and SMC's virtue, in particular, was knowledge, before he spiraled into the power of 'deceit.' However, I think it's important that we look deeper into this and what his symbolism is trying to convey.

In the Beast Yeast storyline, we see that PV describes SMC as having lived an isolated path previous to becoming what he is now and that being the figure of truth is a damning one. His statue is regal and important, bearing the appearance of a monarch rather than anything like the jester we're familiar with, and it stands tall like an idol of worship.

This statue is old. And it's quite clear that within an amount of time, something drastic has occurred to SMC that caused him to make that shift, so the question is, what exactly was it? In CRK, we know that SMC essentially fell victim to corruption of sorts, and details around it are cloudy at best and vague at worst, but we have background information to assist with that.

As Dark Enchantress Cookie's story tells us, the heaviest burden that will drive one insane is the truth of everything and the knowledge of the purpose of their creation. SMC, being the apostle of knowledge and truth, would no doubt harbor this knowledge.

But how do you tell an entire society this truth? In a world where no one wants to hear you and nobody is willing to follow you in the first place, how do you convince them of something they don't want to hear? You beg and plead for them to listen, but they only call you a liar. They call you a deceiver and a traitor, and they turn their backs on you. So what else can you do but fulfill their wish?

After all, in the court, the jester is the only role that can mock the king without judgment, because no one takes him seriously.

SMC makes it very clear throughout his story that his values are not only his own and that they're more accurately a representation of other people as a whole. He says that people would 'much rather believe a sweet lie' and that the world operates on deceit. He does what he does not only because it's fun but also because that is the only way people will listen to him.

SMC is a liar and sweet talker, but he's also a performer and an entertainer. Everything he does is based on 'audience participation'. It's a social art.

Isolated by his own talents, SMC inevitably falls into corruption through a self-made spiral.

He sets the stage to sing truths hidden in sweetened lies, and his audience only watches to see him dance, but by god, they're finally looking at him, and everything feels less lonely.

As time goes on, SMC becomes a creature of habit and is no longer a last-resort performer. He no longer forces himself to don the mask of a fool to garner listeners, and instead, he cares only for shallow company to fill the void of isolation he is so desperate to always be free from. He loses himself to it and falls into corruption, becoming more and more willing to lie to others and himself just to keep a captive audience. It becomes about his emotional needs rather than his logical ones, and his power over others pushes him to go to further extremes to keep them close, becoming exceedingly cruel as a result.

Everything is easier if he lies. He doesn't have to think about the truth or the horrors of it, and everyone will love him if he does.

Throughout the story, everything SMC does screams LOOK AT ME, yet also insecurity and fear. He mocks people in deflection when he's panicked or confused, he gets extremely aggressive when people threaten his imprisonment again, and he demeans PV when talking about how he took his soul jam. Everything he does is an emotional reaction to what seems to be very deep-rooted fears.

Despite his confident persona, SMC is desperate for everything to go his way, and if they don't, he quickly unravels under it all. He needs to be seen, and he needs to be heard, or he might lose himself altogether.

In his story, he never even attempts to kill PV. Instead, he corrupts him to see the world as he does, desperate that the closest thing to him might understand what is now his own truth and that, in this twisted companionship, he will never truly be alone again.

Unlike the Ancients, the Beasts were not 'tested' for their power. They were created with expectations, not proof of function. They fail because of this.

You give a warrior a sword and they slay your enemies, give a child a sword and they slay everyone without caution or understanding.

Or maybe they're just cookies idk.

[aventurineswife]

hello!! aventurine with a teen!reader who has a similar past like his?

Games of Survival

Summary: In a quiet moment of connection, Aventurine and you, a teen with a similar troubled past, bond over shared experiences of survival and manipulation. You both discuss the sacrifices made, the burden of choices, and the price of constantly playing a game with such high stakes. Despite your differences, you and Aventurine find solace in the unique understanding of each other’s struggles, realizing that, while scarred, neither of you is truly alone in the fight.

Tags: Aventurine x Teen!Reader, Platonic, Found Family, Shared Past, Emotional Bonding, Teen & Adult Friendship, Strategic Minds, High-Stakes Gambling, Emotional Scars, Understanding.

Warnings: Mentions of traumatic past, survival struggles, manipulation, implied mental/emotional scars, themes of loneliness and sacrifice.

The sound of a quiet shuffle echoed through the room, followed by the soft clink of dice as Aventurine expertly rolled them across a velvet surface. His sharp eyes remained fixed on the dice, as if they were the very essence of life itself—random, yet influenced by a hand much greater than fate.

You sat across from him, arms folded across your chest, your gaze never wavering from his. The two of you were an unlikely pair, sharing a connection no one else could quite understand. Like him, you'd once been pushed to the edge of society, discarded and forgotten. Like him, you'd survived by taking risks, by playing games with the world, knowing that one wrong move could lead to destruction.

"You've got the same look," Aventurine said suddenly, breaking the silence. His voice was smooth, almost amused, as he leaned back in his chair, his hands lacing together in front of him. "That far-off gaze, like you're already five steps ahead."

You tilted your head, the slightest hint of a smile tugging at the corner of your lips. He was right. You had the same knack for seeing patterns, the same sharpness in your eyes that reflected the same haunted past. His words had never been truer. You, too, had learned to manipulate the world, to bend it to your will—or risk being crushed by it.

Aventurine’s expression softened just a fraction as he met your gaze. "I don’t know if it’s a blessing or a curse," he mused, tapping his fingers on the table. "But it’s what keeps us alive. What keeps us... on top."

You knew what he meant. Life had never been kind to either of you. There was always a gamble at play, always something hanging in the balance. Your pasts were lined with similar scars: betrayal, loss, and a constant game of survival. But while most would falter, you and Aventurine had learned to rise above it. You both had learned to play the game in your own ways.

"I think we're both lucky," you said quietly, your voice firm despite the ghosts of the past still clinging to your thoughts. "We found ways to survive, to take control. But I never forget what it cost."

Aventurine's eyes flickered with something darker, something that spoke to the shared weight of your words. He didn't need to ask what you meant. He already knew. It was the price of your soul, the parts of you that you'd traded away in exchange for knowledge, power, and survival.

"That’s the game, isn’t it?" he said, his tone contemplative. "You don’t win without sacrifice. But we’re not like everyone else. We never will be."

You nodded, understanding fully. The games you played were ones others couldn’t even begin to comprehend, the stakes too high for most to ever even try. But for both of you, there was no turning back. You were trapped in the web you’d woven, a web of calculated moves and inevitable consequences.

For a moment, silence hung in the air between you, but it wasn’t uncomfortable. It was an understanding—two people who’d been shaped by the same cruel hands, two souls who had learned to navigate the chaos of the world by their own rules.

Aventurine’s smile returned, though this time it was gentler, almost wistful. "We might be similar," he said, "but we’re not the same. You’ve got a chance, a future. Me? I’m just a gamble, a bet that’s already been placed."

His words were playful, but you could hear the edge beneath them. The weight of his own choices, his own destiny, was something he didn’t share with anyone easily.

But you? You understood. And for once, the shared burden didn’t feel so heavy when it was carried by someone who truly saw you.

"Maybe," you said, your voice soft but resolute, "but we both know the rules, and we both know how to win."

Aventurine’s smile widened, a flicker of respect in his eyes. He lifted his glass in a subtle toast, and you did the same, clinking your glasses together. In that moment, you knew that despite everything—despite the scars, the broken pasts, and the games you played—you were not alone.

The game had just begun.

[antiquatedplumbobs]

Spring 1916

~an excerpt from Elsie Sewell's private diary~

Spring has arrived! The calendar has been saying it had been here for weeks, but today it really and truly made its presence known. The east field is awash with flowers and I simply had to stop and pick a bouquet, they had the sweetest scent and the most delicate yellow petals. Mamma was rather irritated that it made me a bit late coming home, but I can't very much see why. I was back with plenty of time to prepare supper (she had an Aide Society meeting) and the house smelled ever so sweet as I did. No one complained about my victual offerings either.

I am quite pleased to be done with the schoolhouse; sums and grammar were always ever so boring and pointless. It is ever so much better to spend the day with work that actually has to be done, rather than made up to torture us. I enjoy most housework, cooking and sewing in particular, but laundry... There's something about that specific task I have not yet resigned myself too.

I think we all have that particular chore that we dislike more than the others, though none of the adults will admit so to my face. Laundry is a necessary evil though, or we should all go around naked, as Adam and Eve did in the garden of Eden, and the climate her could never allow such an indulgence, so laundry we must do. 

It does feel good to be helping around the house more and take some of the burden off Mamma; I can't imagine how she did all this work on her own for years, it's quite a lot between the two of us. Despite my continued propensity to "dawdle" as Mamma puts it, she still sends me on all the errands, I think she likes having the house to herself just as much I like the walk into town. Sometimes Lydia accompanies me if her mother also needs something fetched.

The general store is the best store in town, it's filled floor to ceiling with everything you could ever need. Dottie's always mighty pleased to see us and if she's busy Mr. and Mrs. Greenfield are always so sweet to me. Sometimes Mr. Greenfield slips me penny candy in with my orders with a little wink.

Dottie, Lydia and I don't see each other as much as when we were in school, but now that we're older when we're finished with chores and housework we have so much more freedom to go on walks or sit down by the inlet. The sun hits the old dock down there in the afternoon and it's so pleasant, especially if there's a breeze coming off the water.

We chat about anything and everything; Dottie always has all the news of the town since she talks to just about everyone at the general store. Mamma says it's wrong to gossip, but she always says that after I've given her all the news. Lydia is such a hoot, she has the strongest opinions on everything and everyone. Just the other day she was informing (lecturing one might say) us on the proper etiquette for accepting a proposal; according to Mrs. Parr proper young ladies should never accept their first proposal, they must refuse and wait for the man to ask again, that's how she'll know he's serious and will make a good husband. Apparently she turned Mr. Parr down thrice. Dottie and I both thought that was completely silly. Mamma said yes to her first proposal and she seems quite content with her lot.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

next / previous / first

[rebellenotes]

I hate being asked "how are you?"

It doesn't matter if it's just a greeting. It'll always make me look inwards and think, how am I, really?

The answer will always be somewhere on the "not good" side of the spectrum (whatever that spectrum is). I know the appropriate answer is "good," or "fine," because the person asking isn't really wanting to know how I am doing, but it physically pains me to lie and say I'm fine when I'm not. I can't do it.

I am a great liar, but I can't lie when someone asks me how I am. It feels too raw, too exposed, like opening a wound in front of someone who just expected a wave and a smile. But I can’t keep it all inside, either.

When someone asks me how I am, a part of me wants to answer honestly. I want to say, “Actually, I’m not okay.” I want them to know that I’m not coping, that my thoughts feel too heavy, that sometimes I can barely make it through the day without collapsing under the weight of it all. I need to tell someone—someone who isn’t the relentless voice in my head—that I’m struggling.

It’s not about wanting to burden them. That’s the last thing I want. I just need to hear the words out loud. I need to feel like someone else knows, like I’m not carrying this entirely on my own. Because the more I keep it in, the louder it gets in my mind, and the harder it becomes to convince myself that I’m okay.

So when someone asks “how are you?” I hesitate. I want to scream, “I’m not fine!” but I worry about their reaction. What if they don’t care? What if I scare them off? What if my honesty makes them uncomfortable? But then I think: maybe that’s not my problem. Maybe my honesty is exactly what I need, even if it’s messy, even if it makes someone else squirm.

Because sometimes just saying it—just admitting that I’m not okay—feels like a tiny victory. It feels like I’ve broken free of the silence, even if only for a moment. And maybe, just maybe, someone will hear me and say, “I get it. You’re not alone.”

And if they don’t? If they give me a quick “oh, I’m sorry to hear that” and move on? At least I didn’t lie. At least I didn’t pretend. At least I was honest about the fact that, right now, I’m not fine—and that has to count for something.

Why are we as a society so scared to honestly tell people how we're doing? If I'm the recipient of someone honestly answering the question "how are you," (because I am also a culprit of asking it), I don't feel burdened. I think "oh, thank god I'm not alone." We may not carry the same hardships or experiences, but I can empathise with them because I know the weight your thoughts and emotions can have over you.

And maybe that’s the whole point—we’re all carrying something, but we’ve collectively decided to bury it beneath polite smiles and scripted responses. It’s like we’ve created this unspoken rule that vulnerability is too messy for casual conversation. That sharing how we really feel is somehow selfish or inappropriate, as if admitting struggle makes us weak.

But what if it didn’t? What if answering “how are you?” with honesty made us feel seen instead of ashamed? What if it created connection instead of discomfort?

It’s a reminder that the chaos in my own head isn’t unique or isolating. Someone else has been there, is there, and maybe together we can feel a little less trapped in our own silences. When someone shares their truth with me, it feels like an invitation—not to fix them or offer empty platitudes, but just to sit with them in it. To acknowledge that being human is hard and complicated and not something any of us are meant to do entirely on our own.

I think the fear of answering honestly comes from not knowing how the other person will react. What if they dismiss it? What if they pity us? What if they get uncomfortable and change the subject? But maybe the fear goes deeper. Maybe it’s because once we say it out loud—once we admit that we’re struggling—it becomes real. And that’s terrifying.

But the thing is, it’s already real. It’s already there, weighing us down. Speaking it doesn’t create the weight—it lightens it. Even if only by a fraction. Even if only for a moment.

So maybe the next time someone asks me how I’m doing, I’ll take the risk. I’ll choose honesty, not just for myself but for them too. Because maybe they need to hear it. Maybe they need to know they’re not the only one walking through life with invisible battles. And maybe, just maybe, in sharing my truth, I can make space for someone else to share theirs.

[animentality]

Looking at a post of yours that was talking about boomers and older Gen xers not voting to help the coming generations and how you are suffering from it. I'm a Gen xer and I agree with the point. I would just point out your generation didn't make much better decisions in the last election. Young males voted Republican. You'll see that every generation when they are young show promise to fix the future but inevitably get caught in the system and shit the bed. I'm not sure why people lose their empathy and compassion as they age because it didn't happen to me. I had a lot of hope your generation would be different. Your showing in the last election broke my heart.

Hey, I didn't vote for him. And I did vote, I vote in every election, even the small ones. My state was blue, we voted Kamala.

But I see your point.

People have been talking about this since voting day.

How there's been so many people saying gen z was going to fix things. Gen z is different. Gen z is more politically and socially aware than any other generation. More compassionate. Kinder.

Gen z is going to be the change that no other generation before them could be... but then the sobering reality is...

people don't evolve this fast. humans are still humans.

maybe it wasn't fair to place the title of hero on a new generation's head, because societal changes don't shift this quickly.

Gen z is still a product of Gen x. and of baby boomers.

Gen z is still unfortunately very human, and humans are always self absorbed and greedy and prone to cruelty when they're desperate or even just when they feel like it.

Gen z exists in the same world that's been spinning for the entire history of the human race.

it doesn't matter what year you were born. if you were alive during the age of the Renaissance or Cardi B.

we have inherited the problems of the generations before us, and we are struggling with new burdens.

I don't think gen z is doing particularly well right now either.

but you know.

we're still young.

things can still change. they always can. you never know just how fast things can change.

people in 1924 never would've predicted the way humans live now, in 2024.

in the grand scheme of things, humans do make huge leaps and bounds in technology and society.

the technology and attitudes of 1930 were soooo far behind 1970, despite being only 40 years apart.

who knows what will happen.

we certainly don't.

[dizzymoods]

Since we're bashing afropessimists we should remember that they love citing Fanon and DuBois. You know, Black communists. But we must ask ourselves, why do they ignore their contributions to communism? Bc Fanon & DuBois understand that

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

They locate identity within a class analysis. Engels says the first class struggle was against patriarchy — meaning class goes beyond the stereotypical factory worker radical liberal/anarchistic identitarians like to use against communists. DuBois famously said that the slaves should be understood as proletarian because their labor was the dialectical negation of slavery.

Gabriel Rockhill & Domenico Losourdo (rip) have been doing work showing how Critical Theory (which AP is), French Philosophy, and Frankfurt School were funded by the Rockefeller, Ford Foundation, with support from the CIA post WWII as part of anticommunist movement. One way these theories restate imperialist ideology is to move from class consciousness and dialectical materialism to discursive bullshit about culture & identity devoid of class analysis. By de-emphasizing Fanon's marxism & overemphasizing his psychoanalysis, AP claims that everybody, everywhere, all the time is antiBlack. You can never beat a feeling like you can beat a capitalist or colonizer.

But this is stupid bc feelings are not borne out of thin air. The APs cite the arab slave trade as the origins of antiBlackness. And there you have it. the material reality comes first. And Fanon answers this question about the relationship between dehumanization and colonial exploitation in Concerning Violence. If antiBlackness is a thing, then you have to defeat the incentive for antiBlackness. All societies inherent the contradictions of their previous formations. slavery to capitalism. And when we get to socialism antiBlackness will still exist but! there is no incentive for it. As socialism eases the burden of scarcity the need for the Black as villain decreases.

Wilderson says capitalism wasn't a historical inevitability implying that communism is somehow irrelevant. But you'll notice he doesn't ever breach the possibility that the arab slave trade wasn't inevitable either! Very telling!

Lastly, there's a reason why all anti-imperial movements have had the participation of (some spearheaded by!) communists and why all communists movements are anti-imperialist. You cannot understand communism without understanding imperialism. You cannot defeat capitalism without defeating imperialism.

So African communists like Patrice Lumumba, Kwame Nkrumah, Aimé Césaire, Claudia Jones (Carribean!), Thomas Sankara are necessary to learn from. imperialism rots the core of the empire so Jon Watson, Ben Davis, Huey Newton, Assata Shakur, and Paul Robeson are important too.

As we move together globally against capitalism, as we learn about each others' struggles and cultures, the artificial barriers the captialists construct to keep us afraid of each other crumble. Only then can antiBlackness can be defeated.

[gaeiies]

I've already written a lot about it in my journal so I don't think I'll be exhaustive here, but I wanted to say something about it more publicly too.

I'm autistic myself and there are a few things I really like about him doing this.

First, he's not just donating money and being a face for a program someone else designed the way many other celebrities (at least in my country) do, sometimes more out of pity than actual interest and goodwill.

Second, he's doing it for the children and adolescents themselves. So much of the attention and resources are geared towards parents, siblings, other family and carers, and it seems that a lot of people don't even think autistic people could have an opinion about their own situation or could benefit from help themselves. We're very often portrayed as the burden that our parents have to carry (that, or as geniuses with savant syndrome...). It's dehumanizing (not sure that's the word I wanted to use but it'll do for now) and also implies that our parents deserve praise because they're doing a good job or trying their bost. I'll let you know autistic people can have abusive parents too, parents that refuse to accomodate their children's needs and we don't have to be grateful that they didn't kill us and did the bare minimum to keep children alive. Or did stuff that was meant to appease others, to look normal and acceptable to the rest of society, but was useless or harmful to their children.

On the same note, he's helping them develop useful skills to express themselves. Not teaching them how to behave in public like zoo monkeys that have to entertain "normal people", but skills they'll benefit from regardless of the people they're surrounded with. I think that could have been very useful for me and I'm still figuring stuff out in this domain. I'm even surprised I managed to write something this coherent and clear, at first I was 'I love this but I couldn't explain why' and that's how I feel about a lot of other stuff.

The only downsides I could find are that the center will have ABA and I haven't gone through it, but I know a lot of autistic people (not their families!) aren't fans and were traumatized by it, so I hope they're either doing something that they call ABA but is different from what thesen people went through and isn't harmful, or that they'll phase this out, especially if studies show his MIND program help make progress;

and that this is geared towards minors only (the press release mentions an 18-year-old, so not just young children). I'm an adult diagnosed in high school and didn't get much support, haven't had any in years, don't think I will have any soon, not even basic therapy, because there aren't enough therapists/psychiatrists/speech therapists, etc. and kids have priority over me. I understand the logic behind this choice, but I wish adult needs were at least acknowledged. I also don't want it to result in too much pressure on the children where people think "you went through programs and therapy and everything so you should act normal and handle everything now, don't ask for accomodations" (not talking about him here -- I know that's not his intent at all). I also think autistic people probably need therapy at every stage in their life, especially if there's been a change/transition (higher ed, getting a job, etc), so even children who've had support growing up will need to have something later. Right now the center just opened so I understand that they're starting with a limited range of programs, but I hope they'll expand and doctors won't ignore us!

A bit off-topic but I wish people would stop saying "SK is so unaccepting towards disabled people blah blah blah". Most if not all of the world is. My Western European country isn't any better trust me. For instance, SK is doing 탈시설 - deinstitutionalization, getting disabled people out of 'homes' where really they were neglected and abused and segregated from the rest of society. France is worse in this respect. The way a lot of people talk about SK is honestly very othering, condescending and ignorant. It's not some hellhole your poor oppas are stuck in, it's a country with its flaws and charms and plenty of nice people, shitty people too like there are everywhere. The way the people reacted to the failed coup should tell you that there are plenty of decent people in South Korea. It's also very comfortable to live for some autistic people (like me when I was on a working-holiday visa), because you can live with relatively little social interactions and that makes some things less intimidating (but it's not like cashiers, baristas, etc are gone either -- it just means I can take my time to choose at a kiosk, look up the exact place a book is in a bookshop online without asking a salesperson); it's also a great place for fangirling with lots of events with like-minded people, a great way to have social interactions and meet people in a safe setting where I can dive into my special interest (BTS for instance) without feeling uncomfortable or being too much, where I can collect little BT21 plushies I love easily, where I can buy fantastic stationery (other interest of mine since forever) and learning material (I'm a language nerd and studied Korean history on the side too), etc. I have to add that during this year people were nearly always (very) nice to me. (Yes I'm white I know.) I never disclosed that I'm autistic and I never had issues with people berating me for my behavior or making me feel uncomfortable, but encountered people who were kind and patient and even spoke English to make me feel comfortable when Korean was fine (taking a Korean history exam in Korean for Koreans - the man proctoring going out of his way to speak English with me made me feel welcomed). I strongly recommend visiting if you can afford it and learning Korean, you'll see experiencing all of this directly is a pleasant experience :)

[windwardstar]

Sometimes I see the arguments used to minimize and dismiss transmasc oppression and frame them as really actually the evil oppressor.

And it is just such a bleak outlook into the mentality of those people. Like sorry you've been sucked into isolationist propaganda and view other groups as a threat to your sense of self because your identity is formed around being the most oppressed and a specific definition of oppression.

"Transandrophobia implies transfemes oppress transmasc. Transandrophobia is inherently transmisogynistic" no. You're assuming someone in the trans community has to oppress someone and have baked the idea that transmascs oppress transfemmes into what transmisogyny is. Of course you're going to see being told transandrophobia is a threat- you've been told someone has to oppress others and if they're saying they're not oppressing you then that must mean they're also saying you're oppressing them. Transandrophobia theory rejects that idea and says no trans holds any systemic power over anyone else on the basis of gender. (IF we're not oppressing you and you're not oppressing us, then who is doing the oppressing? The cis. It's always been the cis.)

"Trans man are privileged over trans women within the trans community" are they? How? What data actually supports this? Is it because whipping girl said it?? Nobody holds power over anyone else in the trans community, but I will say the group being told they don't experience oppression, being told they can't have language to describe their oppression*, having another group define their experiences and say your words are bad here are words we made up for you to use, being told you weren't part of the community and have never meaningfully contributed, that the women are talking shit down shut up you don't need feminism anymore because you're a boy now does not describe that group having systemic priveledge.

This is also used to say transmascs have the "default" trans experience so there's no need for their specific intersection of transphobia and misogyny. (I'm sorry but if transmasc were the default, then the vocabulary would reflect their experiences predominantly, they would be the ones in the public eye. Invisibility and denial of experiences is not the default. Hypervisibility lends itself to that, but also does not make that the default either. Because there is no default trans experience.

The assertion that none of the transmasc experiences are unique. There are so many unique experiences. But also. If it has to be unique and not experienced by any other group, of course you're going to say there is no overlap in experiences between transfemme and transmasc, that there is a clear line between tma and tme. Because then transmisogyny wouldnt "deserve" to exist either. (And exorsexism is pushed aside and ignored. Or denied with "there's no such thing as a binary trans woman" which yes there is in term of identity. But it does touch on the truth which is that cis society doesn't see any trans person as a single binary gender and instead views all trans (and intersex) people as a violation of the binary. This doesn't mean that people can't have binary identities though. Or that people who actively identify outside the binary don't face specific exorsexism because of that identity.) The actual solution here is to recognize every group has a mix of experiences and that most of them will overlap, that transmisogyny, transandrophobia, and exorsexism all exist and multiple of them can be applicable in the same moment to the same person regardless of identity. And also that a group facing something you don't isn't a threat to your identity. And that you have to define your identity outside of its relationship to oppression or any progress made in reducing the burden of oppression or the recognition of oppression that doesn't target you is going to be a perceived attack on your identity. If you play oppression Olympics any other group facing oppression becomes a threat. There is no podium but if you're goal is to be #1 and then being told so is a threat. It's not. We're all just trying to survive.

*transandrophobia, anti-transmasculinity, transmisandry, the rejection of all these terms. Being told it's just transphobia or just misogyny but never both. Being told it is transmisogyny but that is only for transfemmes you don't get a term. It is a deliberate attempt to stop trsnsmascs from having any language to discuss thrir experiencs. (Tme/tma seeks to apply a framework of who is affected by bigotry and turn that into an identity. It is inherently exclusionary. It is also inherently focused on labeling and dictating other people's experiences. It is no different from saying someone is homophobia exempt or ableist exempt. Actual identity does not prevent someone from being targeted by bigotry. The closest thing to this was the attempt to exclude aspec bc they were non-sga and say they weren't affected by homophobia (and that any aphobia or biphobia was really just misdirected homophobia) the rejection of the TMA/TME is not a rejection of the cocnept of transmisogyny. Also "we need tma/tme to discuss transmisogyny?" You have the word transmisogyny right there. Use that. We're not stopping you. You are stopping us from using transandrophobia.

"Trans Men are just escaping misogyny/wanting male privilege?" "If you say transmasc don't have male privilege you're saying transfemmes do" male privilege is cis privilege. You cannot have that without being cis. You're assuming some group of trans people has to have male privilege- the truth is no group of trans people categorically has cis privilege which means they don't have male priveledge. [If transfemmes don't have male privilege and transmascs don't have male privilege then who has male privilege? The cis men. It's the cis people who have gender based privileges.]

"Afab privilege" you mean cis privilege? Or do you mean having a uterus and the ability to get pregnant is a privilege? I'm sorry but that is actually a thing used to oppress people. (It's totally a privilege to have your right to bodily autonomy removed under the rule of law) I'm sorry if it causes you dysphoria not to have that organ or not to be able to get pregnant, im sorry people have decided that's the definition of a woman, but it doesn't mean afab trans people are privileged for it (and for cis women it is a factor of their cis privilege). They use the same logic to misgender trans people who do or did have that. Misgendering is not a privilege. Also afab privilege? Is there an amab privilege? Or do you realize that what you're describing is saying trans people hold the same privilege as the cis people they share an assigned gender with? Cis privilege is a thing. Agab privilege is not.

"Transmascs aren't as hurt by misogyny because they can just say they're not women." Is that what you did when people broke out the biologic and gender essentialism to paint men as evil? You're not a man so it doesn't hurt you? You're not a man so you can wipe your hands of the hurt caused. You can distance yourself from the demonization? When the expectations of toxic masculinity were forced on you did it hurt less because you decided you weren't a man so you could cry and the actual men just have to suck it up? I'm sorry if that's how you got through it but saying im not actually that identity so your words and actions and systemic injustice doesnt hurt me is not how that works. And it's not how allyship should work either. I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people.jpeg

"Afab trans people are weaponizing their agab/cling to it" I'm sorry amab trans people have felt the need to distance themselves from being amab and deny any claim to their pre-transition selves. I'm sorry you have to profess hatred for men and play by the rules for conditional acceptance by cis feminist. I'm truly sorry. But it doesn't mean afab trans people are using their agab as a weapon to talk about their experiences with it. (Also no it does not make them priveledged. Especially because the goal seems to be to remove the ability for afab trans people to speak on the topic rather than allowing amab trans people to lay the same claim to their experiences. The goal should be to empower everyone not drag people down so they're easier to kick.)

Also where do intersex and nonbinary people fit into this? It is telling that posts and discussions just don't mention them and act like the entirety of the trans community can be summed up into transmasc or transfemme, afab transmasc and amab transfemme, actually a boy or actually a girl, trans enough or basically cis. Tma/tme. It's just a binary and it's not any better than the cis one.

[myemuisemo]

"On the Great Alkali Plain" part 2, from Letters from Watson, arrived in my inbox this morning, bringing with it a predictable cloud of dust from approaching horses (since this isn't a George R.R. Martin novel, so we're not going to introduce characters just to kill them off immediately).

But what a caravan! When the head of it had reached the base of the mountains, the rear was not yet visible on the horizon. Right across the enormous plain stretched the straggling array, waggons and carts, men on horseback, and men on foot. Innumerable women who staggered along under burdens, and children who toddled beside the waggons or peeped out from under the white coverings.

Either we're running late on the Oregon Trail (since Doyle did not have social media to live-blog progress across the dusty waste) or the year 1847 is important, and these are Mormons.

“Shall I go forward and see, Brother Stangerson,” asked one of the band.

These have got to be Mormons.

“Nigh upon ten thousand,” said one of the young men; “we are the persecuted children of God—the chosen of the Angel Merona.”

Tell me you're a Mormon without telling me you're a Mormon.

“We are the Mormons,” answered his companions with one voice.

OMG, they're Mormons.

This makes the geographic names a little dicey -- the Mormon Trail ran through Wyoming, similar but not identical to today's I-80, so the Rio Grande River should be nowhere nearby -- but Doyle didn't have access to Google Maps, and it's not like his readers in the UK would go factcheck. Even with the Transcontinental Railroad completed back in 1869, most places in the Great American Desert were still remote in the 1880s, and California on the far end was still feeling the effects of isolation. Doyle also misspells the Angel Moroni and uses a masculine-ending name on a Sierra, so he's working from popular myth and the memory of things he's read. I wonder how many letters with corrections he received.

(At the time Doyle was writing, "Mormon" was the term used by the group themselves. Since about the 1980s, church leadership started urging the use of "Latter-Day Saints" instead. When I lived in Phoenix, that's near a big LDS population in Mesa, so I wince at using the older term. From here on out, if I'm quoting Doyle, I'll use "Mormon," but if I'm talking, I'll stick to LDS.)

The big reason the LDS wagon train is headed west is because they practiced polygamy at the time, and this was considered both illegal and immoral in larger U.S. society. (That's not a critique of polyamory today, when enthusiastic concept and clear rules are normalized.)

So far Doyle's account of the LDS party is generally positive -- they're organized, efficient, knowledgeable about their surroundings, prepared for danger, and responsible toward people needing rescue, if a bit holier-than-thou -- but I can't believe he's going to handle polygamy with anything other than distaste.

Polygamy is the thing LDS have been known for (to their chagrin after the mainstream LDS church banned it), so at the end of this section, Doyle's original audience is split into two groups:

Readers who have no real idea what a "Mormon" is and accept it as just one more crazy American thing, who now figure Lucy is rescued and wonder what goes wrong later to lead to murder; and

Readers who know about polygamy and are feeling dread for Lucy.

[bopos-stuff]

I don't think people understand what it means to kin Lain, a rant.

I see people who claim to be just like Lain making memes talking about their "friends" or NSFW topics, and it just kinda ticks me off cause that's just not what Lain is about. In the end, she didn't bother herself with the struggles of human contact.

Spoilers

Lain had 3 friends, two of whom were bullies, and one of whom was happier after forgetting about Lain's existence. The ending of the anime is literally her erasing herself from everyone's memory because she knows how much better their lives will be.

That ending can be interpreted in many different ways. Especially if you try to merge it with the lore of the CD game. The way I see it, though, isn't that it's an allegory for suicide. I intrept the ending of the anime as a form of acceptance. Lain expects that her peers will never be able to fully understand her way of functioning. Instead of trying again and again to fit in and act like everyone else, she accepts that she will have to fight her inner demons alone and isolate herself from others in order not to hurt them.

“If you’re not remembered, then you never existed.”

This quote, in my opinion, is blatantly wrong in a general context. Despite the fact that eventually, in the end, none of us will be remembered. That doesn't mean that we never existed. Just because existence is meaningless doesn't mean it didn't happen. Most things are meaningless in the grand scheme of things, and that's okay. Things only have as much meaning as we assign to it, and that's why we value the lives of others.

But...The quote isn't entirely false either. In the digital age, it can most definitely feel like; “If you’re not remembered, then you never existed.” Because of the fast-paced society structure we now all live under. And it's the reasoning as to why Lain and I decide to just leave people's lives and hope they forget about us.

It's too much of a burden onto others to make people care about you when they'll never be able to understand you.

How I feel:

If I depend on others for remembrance and understanding, then they will inevitably end up blaming themselves when failing at those tasks. But they shouldn't. It's just the way that humans are, we're not all knowing, we'll all forget, and that's just how it is. Until I meet people who have come to that understanding already, I don't want to burden anyone, other than myself, with my existence.

I'm not worthless because of this practice. I still love myself and strive for fulfillment. I just can't bear to cause other people stress in the limited amount of time they have in this plane of existence.

Maybe this practice is selfish or meaningless, but I don't care. I just can't bear to hurt others anymore...

[knight-of-moths]

---Heartfire, 9th, 4E 201---

New day, breakfast of Ale and Soup.

On our way to ivarstead, we stumbled upon a dragon! A whole dragon, taking a nap in the sun. He didn't attack us, and we did not attack him.

Not my fucking problem.

I don't want to be the dragonborn. So I won't be.

We're partially to Ivarstead, have hunted a bit before getting there. A heavy fog settled in, so we've ducked into a cave. Given the exterior, I assume there's hagravens about?

There was a spriggan trapped in a cage, deep within the Hagraven cave. I've freed her, and she didn't attack us. We had to help her out of the cage a bit, as she got stuck, but she ran off, unbothered. Didn't even attack us. What a gorgeous creature.

We're at the Ivarstead inn, and I've inquired about that courrier someone asked me to track down forever ago. Seems she went to a bear cave for her satchel. Duly noted. It's far too foggy out to go sightseeing, and far too late anyway, so here we rest.

I'm 4 drinks deep on accident, whoops. I'm thinking about the whole, well, thing about being the Dragonborn. I can't seem to figure out how I feel. On the one hand, whatever it is gives me some interesting abilities, magical and otherwise, that are extremely useful to me as a mercenary. The shouts especially. They're incredible, and have been extremely helpful in combat. The way I acquire them is alien and makes me feel ill, but it could be worse I suppose?

The fighting dragons also brings me a natural, yet all the same unnatural thrill. The boys have a great time hunting them with me, and it makes me feel so much closer to them than ever before. Absorbing their souls, much like the words, feels sickening and heavy.

But the responsibility of it, of being Dragonborn? I hate it, I loathe it. People speak of me in awe, in bewilderment, as a fellow soldier again.

I hate it.

I don't want to be anyone. I just want to be ME, be Mothuk, Moth, just some bloke who you pay to kill for you, or find something you lost, and then die in combat or of being old. And now I have responsibility, I have deeds from members of society of great power, and a lot hangs on my shoulders.

I would gladly bear this burden elsewhere. I refuse to be Dragonborn. I can't fucking do it.

And I won't risk my saftey as a defector either, I can't risk being known, being brought back to Cyrodiil and punished.

Gods I hate this.

At least I have them.

At least I have Gore.

I'm just gonna drink the night away I think. I already mixed up mead and soup, who's to say it can't happen again?

[none-shall-caricature-me]

Shigurui (Death Frenzy) by Takayuki Yamaguchi - Analysis, Ending Explanation and Review

So I found Shigurui recommended on a blog and finished reading it.

PROS : The fight scenes were very good and strategic, and I appreciate the no - holds - barred, brutally honest approach to the living conditions, politics, exploitation and violence that happened in past times (and still does tbh). The ending is a very very good climax of the story's central themes. I also liked that the characters and their actions were mostly very realistic.

CONS : In between the aforementioned excellent scenes are many. many boring diversions to other, insignificant characters, pointless flavour dramatics and details. I'm talking a 60 - 40 or 65 - 35 ratio of slop to brilliance. The plot swings between meh and AWESOME, with no in between.

Overall, whether I would suggest this manga to you depends on your willingness to skim a big big bunch of slow - ass moments for a lesser percentage of great ones (and there are a total of 84 chapters). It's the kind of story that doesn't begin to truly shine until you reach the end, imo. I personally finished it because the anticipation buildup worked on a bored sucker like me. It was the final chapters that gripped me to write the following analysis. HUGE SPOILERS AHEAD.

Speaking of the ending and of Seigen, Fujiki explicitly says in that final arc that Seigen 'was pride itself' and 'was disgusted at being ordered to kill'. Throughout the story we're shown multiple instances of people at all positions in the samurai / feudal hierarchy resolving to humiliate and harm others, or putting themselves in great peril / abjection, because they are ordered to by a superior they respect or fear. The Kogan school does many cruel things like the 'beautification', inventing murder culprits and enacting career - destroying punishment on Seigen, all to maintain their supremacy. Fujiki apathetically slices off the fingers of one who asked for a friendly duel, only because he guilelessly stated the fact of Seigen's victory over Iwamoto Kogan. Of course, these things were sanctioned by the moral code of that time, but then our faithful samurai are often on their receiving end - the futawa to prove absolute obedience, loyalty to your senile master even when he slices your gums open, gratitute to Kogan who gave them the chance to become samurai and rise in society even though it involved incredibly dangerous training. I don't entirely fault the Kogan disciples for this attachment though, seeing as they were struggling in life before their sensei took them in.

On the other hand is Seigen, who embodies individualism and self - determination. He doesn't subscribe to dehumanising merit, fealty before mercy or lauded servitude over concrete personal gain and independence. He wants to be his own master. He's not self - sacrificing, he does kill or endanger lives when he thinks it advantageous to his plans - see him killing his acupressure teacher who disapproved of martial kosshi jutsu, his former martial arts instructor, and - if I'm not wrong - his mother, to either end her misery and his heartbreak over it, avoid shame by association, or as a symbolic sloughing of his burden. He also tries out risky sword techniques on and involves Iku in his revenge plans. It's possible that he was the one who tied Fujiki's armour too tight so he could then rescue and one - up him. But he does this all to rise to a life of security, pleasure and respect from his horrible condition as a prostitute's child. He doesn't play by the feudal system's extortionary and unnatural ideal of bushido and lord - worship. He uses the system to his own ends or rejects it. At the same time, he has a rather humane side - rages at his mother's deprivation, empathises with and looks after a scorned beggar, refuses to allow the Todouza member to demean himself while exalting him, asserts the innate equality of humans across social classes, feels camaraderie with his fellow disciples assuming they shared his views. He does care for Iku, too, and can at the very least recognise Mie's agony at being imperiously pinned down to mate for the sake of the clan.

In the final battle, Fujiki does not waver while rending Seigen's body in two. He reminisces about his past with him, but his thirst for vengeance does not falter. It is only when he is ordered to rip off the head of this rival that he quakes. Like he says, Seigen was pride personified, someone who hated being a tool of others. Fujiki despised Seigen but also genuinely admired him as a swordsman and a paragon of unfettered insight, selfhood and freedom. He also knew that until that point Seigen had the favour of even the Shogun's brother. To see how quickly the aristocrats changed their tune upon his defeat, calling him a presumptuous blind man unfit for the sacred battle grounds, and urging this disrespect to his corpse as both a Samurai rite and a test of deference, breaks Fujiki's worldview. He does it anyway after hesitating a while, probably to restore the Kogan clan's standing in the Shogunate.

He is shell - shocked and looks to Mie for comfort but she has already killed herself. Why ? Because earlier, Mie had latched onto Seigen for being the only one to stand up for her personhood against his lord's orders. She considered him one of the few who were humans and not puppets. After Seigen's 'betrayal' of the clan, she looks to Fujiki as another dude who commits to retribution and restoration against all odds - seemingly a person with agency. But when she sees him, her source of optimism, becoming the ultimate quiescent pawn in desecrating Seigen, she loses all hope in a dignified, self - sovereign life in this cruel society of puppets and puppeteers. To renew the clan would require such acts routinely conducted in unfeeling thraldom and self - preservation. Mie, someone who yearned to break free of such dog - like conduct, could never stomach this.

Some other interesting things I noticed - one, if I'm not misremembering, then Seigen's revenge killings of the Kogan disciples only gave Mie joy for his revival. On the night Seigen was to arrive in person, logically to kill his final wrongdoer, Mie was euphoric. She never expected that he'd kill her dad. Does that mean she believed Fujiki to be the target, and was totally fine with it ? That makes sense considering she likely scorned him for remaining Kogan's lackey even during her coercion and Seigen's despair. Which means that her later acceptance of him was either forgiveness due to his earnestness or pragmatism in order to avenge her father.

But I'm still confused at why Seigen left a cure for Fujiki's coma. It was such a huge risk to his career and his life and he ultimately paid for it.

It's also noteworthy that the instant before Seigen's death has a dream - like vision of him almost embracing Fujiki. That's not at all out of the blue lol, these two could've been friends and at points wished to understand the other but they took opposing paths and were limited by their own biases. Seigen never came to know that Fujiki fawned over violent Kogan not purely due to calculating or dumb complaisance, but due to a family - like bond. Fujiki never considered Seigen's perspective or his pain until the end.

[skaruresonic]

Oh Jesus Christ, not the "they scalped people" argument again. Why do these dickheads always bring up scalpings like some sort of gotcha...

Hey, quick question: am I now allowed to hold "your ancestors blood-eagled their victims" over every WASP I see? No real reason I'm asking, just out of curiosity.

Every single time someone mentions indigenous violence in a bid to make the public consider the indigenous tribes of history morally gray, I guarantee you it is not to point out how indigenous societies are complex, because the thought typically ends on a commonly-recognized image of indigenous brutality: scalpings, Aztec human sacrifice, slavery, tribal wars.

Others' understanding of our history stops at ancient acts of violence to which we must forever be chained. Even though, according to that logic, we ought to hold modern-day Romans accountable for how their ancestors horrifically crucified people.

Indigenous acts of peace, coexistence, and alliance, on the other hand, are conveniently and routinely ignored. None of you in this Chili's have heard of the Two-Row wampum and it shows. I have legit never heard a single non-Native bring it up, mostly because people in general have never heard of it. And the reason they've never heard of it is because it doesn't fit this presupposed narrative of pre-colonial Indians being anything less than warmongering savages.

We're rarely portrayed as "complex" as in "created a society with such little rape that it shocked European colonists." Never complex as in "struck a treaty of friendship and trust with Dutch settlers where we call each other 'brother' instead of 'father' and 'son': an agreement to coexist in peace following many frustrated attempts at communication." No, it's always "complex" as in: "Don't forget they used to scalp people, too! Did you forget? Let me remind you for the 1,000th fucking time, just in case you were inclined to think of Native people as able to ~behave themselves~ for two seconds. I am certain my insistence on using the visceral imagery of scalpings carries no racist overtones whatsoever. What do you mean, more white people scalped Indians than Indians scalped other Indians because they were selling that shit to the government for sport? INDIANS WERE NOT UWU SMOL BEANS EITHER, YOU KNOW."

Furthermore, I can't help but notice folks use violence as a way of making us seem more human�� as if there is no other way of humanizing us in the eyes of others. Violence is the only language violence recognizes. And it is a way of dismissing our genocide via colonialism by implying we deserved it somehow. Because we were not "perfect" victims, it lifts the burden of conscience from people's minds.

---

"Native American cultures had plenty of interpersonal violence. In what is now the eastern US, competition over land led often to warfare, and in eastern North America, captives were routinely tortured to death, with the entire community participating in that torture, which was seen as a chance for the captive to demonstrate stoicism that reflected well on their own people, while at the same time giving the torturers the opportunity for revenge."

pLeNtY oF iNtErPeRsOnAl ViOlEnCe, as if that A.) is in any way comparable to colonialism and B.) means anything when history has proven that we were frequently capable of cohabitation and settling our differences without bloody conflict.

You seem to have missed the point that Native tribes formed alliances just as often as they warred. The Haudenosaunee may be the most famous, but there are multiple inter-tribal alliances throughout history. They just don't get a lot of press. Because why would they. They contradict your mental image of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom Aztecs ripping the hearts out of people's chests.

Also, the Haudenosaunee? The People of the Longhouse? The Six Nations, formerly known as the Five Nations? Haʔ Akunęhsyę̀·niʔ hęʔ? We're still here. As in today. Right now. Always been here. Never went anywhere. Never going anywhere. That's more than can be said for other historical alliances.

You're not saying anything new by saying people have always been violent towards one another. No shit, Sherlock, part of the origin story of the Haudenosaunee is that the Five Nations used to fight each other. The violence of our past is not news to us, and treating us as though we act as though we're somehow hiding that part of our history in order to present the world a squeaky-clean image is to treat us as though we are as equally ignorant as you. Therefore the only possible thing you could be saying here is "It's okay, they really were savages." And no one in this Chili's ever really seems to consider that, from our perspective, the colonists were just as violent as we were, if not more. To the point where us ~violent savages~ took notice and commented on it. We don't call George Washington "the town destroyer" because he rolled up into town saying pretty please.

You realize the flaw in your logic? We were violent and imperialistic just like every other group in history, and that's grounds enough to dismiss anything we say on the matters of white supremacy and imperialism. But if the colonists were acting such fools that even we were like "damn, dude," then just how violent and imperialistic could we have been, really? And what does it say, then, that the colonists never had their "damn, dude" moment when it came to our genocide?

People who have beef with "Turtle Island" are so weird, dude. It's just a name. Nobody's insisting it's this place's only name and that everyone has to use it. The other person decided to use it once and you're all "nOt aLl InDiAnS" about it. Okay.

Yeah no, you don't give a shit about Salish, Seminole, Nahua, or Navajo views of the world because you don't actually tell us what they call the world. You're just using them as rhetorical chess pieces. In case you're confused about the context, the OP of the post I screenshotted created the above reblog as a response to this portion of another's post:

And while, yes, this is a tad reductive and does not reflect the experiences of all Native tribes across the continent (who's treating who like the monolith again, OP? hmm), it also carries a grain of truth which would be equally disingenuous to ignore. When the colonists first began living among the Haudenosaunee, they were surprised by the zero amounts of rape they saw. I am not exaggerating that number. They looked, but they did not see a single rape in their time there. The most damning conclusion you should take away from that is not that a lack of rape is a random fluke of an otherwise dark human nature; it's that the colonists had been expecting rape as a natural matter of course and were surprised to see its dearth among a society they assumed to be more "primitive" than theirs. Rather than reflect on their beliefs and perhaps do some soul-searching on why they expected to see rape everywhere they fucking went, they shrugged and were like "idk dude." (The men did, at least. The women noted the disparity in how they were treated, and thus the seeds for suffrage were planted.) They did not seem to realize that the reason rape was so prevalent in their culture was because rape is the byproduct of a societal attitude which treats people like possessions. Remove the dehumanization and you eliminate a lot of the impetus for rape.

The Haudenosaunee's lack of rape is due to a variety of factors. One among them being that women are considered people first and foremost, not objects, and another being that Haudenosaunee culture does not allow the kind of fuckery that enables abuse. If a man hit his wife, he would see his things strewn outside the Longhouse door the next day, and he was fully expected to pack up and leave without protest. Our society takes measures to ensure abuse is not tolerated at a material level that engenders Actual Consequences for the abuser. If you prove unable to treat people with a baseline level of respect, you have no business being part of society to begin with. By contrast, Christianity made divorce nearly impossible and thus trapped many women in abusive marriages. This worldview heavily colors Western perceptions of Haudenosaunee culture to this day, and "women have an equal say in how things are run"/"we are matrilineal" tends to be misinterpreted as "they are a matriarchal society (read: patriarchy except Uno-reversed)" and "women wear the pants." In reality, our society is gender equitable. Women only seem to "have power" when they have a say and your baseline perspective is "women ought to have no say."

Re. scalping, another popular refrain of the "um, ackshually" crowd. As I have said earlier in this post, more Indians were scalped by white people than white people were scalped by Indians and Indian-Indian scalpings put together. White people sold Indian scalps to the government, yet no one ever brings that up in discussions of this ilk. Gee, I wonder why.

"The US is not a monolith" - Cry me a river. The government killed 95% of us regardless of who we were or where we were from. The colonists might have deemed some tribes more "civilized" than others, but you have to keep in mind that it was a divide-and-conquer tactic. Their paying lip service to some tribes' supposed "civility" didn't prevent them from attempting to kill and/or assimilate all of them.

"Which part of the US?" - You are being obtuse. The federal government. The elected body chosen to represent this country and its interests. The government that made us move to inhospitable climes and then forbade us from moving anywhere else, ripped children out of their homes, placed them in residential schools and beat the language out of them. The structures they erected which operate on indigenous oppression to this day.

Our genocide never stopped, by the way. It just donned a fancier-looking suit. Instead of kidnapping children and sticking them in boarding schools, social services simply invent bullshit reasons to take kids away from their parents so they can be placed in the foster system and lose their culture. They criminalize poverty and wonder why Indians are suicidal. They do nothing about missing and murdered indigenous people. They send bodybags instead of clean water or masks. This world makes it almost impossible to be indigenous and then blames Indians for not trying hard enough. We mention white supremacy because the US cannot exist as it is today without our genocide. Manifest Destiny was a deliberate project of white supremacy, and our elimination through death or force was regarded as the ultimate "solution" to the "Indian problem." It was all very much intentional.

The government will never acknowledge it as such, however, because acknowledging it requires them to admit on some level that the country's very foundations are illegal.

[danganronpasurvivoraskblog]

Yukari hand Tsumugi her favorite cup of coffee.

Here darling...For you.

Oh, thank you...

Are you feeling any better?

I've had time to compose myself...

Honestly, I'm just turning a blind eye to the reality of the situation. We were on a streak, but now the amount of wins we've had over the Future Foundation is diminishing.

But Matta was able to retrieve Kanade, was he not?

Yes, but even so...

The lab was exposed, and we lost Ando, Kisaragi and Hibiki; all three of whom were a big part of our operations!

Not to mention, Maki Harukawa was able to escape the base after we let Seiko Kimura go. I underestimated her honestly.

I thought she wouldn't leave without Himiko, but...I suppose I was wrong.

So you're worried?

...Extremely.

Yukari I...I can't lose this. And I can't lose YOU either.

I mean, sure, we're not exactly what I would call a "happy family" but like it or not, we're the only one's who each other's got.

You, Akira, Narumi, Celeste, Junko, Mikihiko...You're the only allies I have, and you're all trying to help me make this impossible dream of mine a reality...

I can't help but think about how much it burdens you.

Mugi-chan, if we thought this was a burden, we wouldn't stick around.

The Future Foundation don't get it, but our reasons for doing this go above just wanting to cause destruction for the sake of it. Whether it's for revenge against this reality or the lives the world gave us...

To collapse the society that oppressed us once or to live on in legacy...Your ideals and plans for the future will let us DO that.

*She kneels down next to her.

We're not going anywhere. Even if this building burns down and we lose everything, we'll just get it all back again.

Future Foundation aren't the only relentless ones.

Yukari...

*Yukari pulls Tsumugi in close and their lips join together softly.