#immigration vs colonialism

[miki-13]

There's a difference between immigration and colonialism.

The aliens are clearly colonizer-coded: came to a new location, immediately gaslighting and manipulating the weaker population into glorifying them as well as being abusive to that same population.

So, by all means

[chase-solidago]

Invasive Species and Xenophobia

Invasive species are complicated! People have a lot of feelings about them, positive and negative. Are plants that move "invaders" "colonizing", "immigrants", "citizens"? What does it mean to kill species that are from somewhere else? What if that species legitimately makes a poor neighbor and causes extinctions in other, native species? This complex, culturally-loaded issue is a foundational issue behind a lot of plant conservation and restoration.

This is a juicy and still actively disputed topic! The Guardian recently had a big article on colonialism in Botany, (tbh her views are dated and reductive, imo) and it’s come up again this week, to much hostility (cw: reddit). Yes, my region's native plant restoration came from literal nazis, but also, the impacts of some invasive species are real, not figments of a racist imagination. How do we balance these issues? What does ethical invasive management look like?

Since it’s such a juicy topic, I wanted to offer a few fun readings to share:

The Native Plant Enthusiasm: Ecological Panacea or Xenophobia?, Gert Gröning and Joachim Wolschke-Bulmahn, 2004, Arnoldia.

THE CLASSIC 20th century German nazis and native plants paper. Made a huge splash when it came out, and you will still encounter people who paint all native plant stuff with this brush. Summary: yeah the nazis loved their native plants and used them as part of their conquering process. Also, the first prairie plantings ever, located in Chicago, were done by a racist probable-nazi for racist reasons, full stop. I’ll let him speak for himself: “The gardens that I created myself shall… be in harmony with their landscape environment and the racial characteristics of its inhabitants. They shall express the spirit of America and therefore shall be free of foreign character as far as possible… the Latin and the Oriental crept and creeps more and more over our land, coming from the South, which is settled by Latin people, and also from other centers of mixed masses of immigrants. The Germanic character of our race, of our cities and settlements was overgrown by foreign character. The Latin spirit has spoiled a lot and still spoils things every day.” - Jens Jensen

Botanical decolonization: rethinking native plants, Tomaz Mastnak, 2014, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space

Rather than viewing native plant plantings as an act of racially-pure occupation, Mastnak positions native plants in California as a decolonization of the sub/urban lawn. Uses a lot of quotations from 16th century English philosopher Francis Bacon, and is heavy on the philosophical musings.

From killing lists to healthy country: Aboriginal approaches to weed control in the Kimberley, Western Australia by Bach et al., 2019, Journal of Environmental Management.

This paper talks through some of the native vs invasive debate, and offers a different perspective on how to approach to plant invasive management based on cultural relations, rather than country of origin or behavior.

Beyond ‘Native V. Alien’: Critiques of the Native/alien Paradigm in the Anthropocene, and Their Implications, Charles R. Warren, 2021, Ethics, Policy, & Environment

DENSE but thorough, if you want to follow the entire history of the native/invasive debate, this has you covered. The most interesting stuff, in my opinion, is the discussion of invasive denialism, IE: the impasse of “You’re just being racist!” Vs “You know nothing about ecology!” I recommend the Discussion, which starts on page 13.

[grecoromanyaoi]

from what ive seen in progressive spaces a lot of ppl talk abt ethnic groups esp marginalized ethnic groups under the assumption/argument that theyve ''always been there'', to make their lives easier objecting to racism and colonialism. but like many things ppl make up to make their lives easier, its just not true. it often uses this false ideas that indigenous ppl or otherwise marginalized/colonized ppl lived in peace until the big bad colonialist force arrived. to make their lives easier they categorize everybody as either "always been there" or "doesnt ~belong~ there". like for example im of tunisian descent. when ppl act like tunisians, or whoever they claim r the "real" tunisians, have "always been there" i have to laugh. bc even when ur talking abt imazighen, the indigenous ppl of north africa - groups used to go to war and conquer each other and settle in new places or even immigrate throughout all of history, yes, even indigenous ppl. then there was the carthanigian conquest, then the roman conquest, arab conquest, ottoman, centuries and millenias b4 the french colonialism of tunisia. a lot of tunisians are descended from these ottomans, these arabs, these romans, these carthaginians, from other immigrants and groups who settled in what is now tunisia for whatever reason.

so ppl tend to lose their mind when it comes to jewish communities and jewish history, bc like most things, its not that simple. due to the nature of antisemitic prosecution, jews have moved from place to place a lot. n they hate jewish communities for not fitting the "theyve always been here" vs. "violent colonizer" dichotomy, bc weve been forced to flee again and again and again n there r only v rare instances where u can point at a jewish community thats "always been there". ppl try and "find" the place where jews "belong" by using this dichotomy which is literally opposing zionism so hard it turns into zionism again. my ancestors escaped prosecution in portugal fled to italy before settling in tunisia. but according to a lot of ppl using this logic were not "really" tunisians or "belong" there bc we came there at some point (go back to my prev point on how it literally applies to almost everyone), n bc we came from europe we must b colonizers (not how it works). if we dont "belong" in tunisia, which has been our home for the last hundreds of years, where do we "belong"? italy? portugal? maybe we should just go back to judea, bc thats where were "really" from.

there r only v rare instances where u can point at a place and go "thats where theyre From, thats where they Belong, this is their Homeland", and let me tell u, u cant do that w/o at least dabbling in zionism. jews belong everywhere, bc ppl belong everywhere. we shouldnt need to "prove" our ancestry to anyone or adhere to a certain indigenous status in order to partake in our cultures, our traditions, to live in any place.

[sepublic]

May I offer: Parallels between Evelyn and Gus. Both witches who found some intrigue in the human realm, went out of their way to engage with it specifically. Perhaps Evelyn found human detritus washed up on the shore, and that’s where her interest began; It’s what led her to building an archway near her home, and then venturing through Eclipse Lake to find a human settlement to build the other side of her portal.

And they find a lot of wonder, particularly in a human from that place; But then this is marred by the reality of witch hunters, of the same one no less, as they become familiar with how this man would even murder and desecrate his own brother in the name of genocide.

What’s interesting is the duality between their experiences; Evelyn goes in, perhaps excited or just curious, and after meeting Caleb, decides there must be something worth preserving in that connection. So she might’ve created the Portal before he moved out, or even with Caleb after he did, even programmed it to open in Caleb’s home where they expected Philip to be; Only for Philip to already be here. He murders Caleb and later scavenges his corpse, and Evelyn buries the Portal, wanting nothing more to do with the human world.

But she didn’t destroy it; She still left it intact. Maybe Evelyn decided she wanted nothing else with that place, but also considered that others might. So the time wasn’t right, but eventually it will be. And that Portal is indeed later used to help fuel Gus’ obsession with humans, when one of them comes to him. And he learns and even suffers from the reality of witch hunters in his home, before finally arriving in the human realm.

And yet despite this, Gus manages to hold onto most of his loved ones, he’s lucky enough to do so, and it helps that he has more friends and allies to support one another. So in spite of just losing someone to that same human, when Gus returns home, he makes it clear that he can accept the human world, warts and all, and intends to come back. He’s not going to let a bad actor ruin his perception and happiness, or drive him away.

And Gus succeeds! He found happiness, he met Vee who really found happiness here. So it’s not as if the human world is only good for providing a few decent people to save from it. Gus wants a mutual exchange program between the realms. And I suspect Evelyn still did as well, even if she couldn’t bear to do it herself because of the trauma and grief and disillusionment; Because she knows there’s still something there, and suspects the picture of humanity is incomplete if it’s just a racist white colony.

So one of them visits the human world, and its worst aspects follows them back, causing them to avoid the human world. The other is hurt by that lingering aspect, has to go to the human world to avoid the fallout of the aspect’s destruction, and finds so much more belonging and happiness now that this human place has changed over time. So Evelyn was right in that just wasn’t the time yet for her —to return after Caleb’s death or beyond— but definitely for others later and that’s why she left the Portal intact. So even if it is destroyed, the butterfly effect of that choice led to a new one being created.

The idealization of a place only to be let down after arriving, but not barring anyone else, VS knowing the truth and then still finding enough beauty after the visit to return, and then bringing others. The way a lot of this can be attributed to that place changing thanks to humans like Caleb and Evelyn, because some reject their alleged superiority to welcome others, and then we have immigrants like Camila who survived this system, who contribute to changing it in their own ways. And Camila could be Gus’ Caleb in one sense, as a human who welcomed him in Gravesfield, while Luz is Caleb as a human who went to the demon realm to self-actualize.

[arkhamjack]

Thank you everyone for the reblogs on my "how some of the fandom sees wolfwood vs how I see him" lol I wanted to continue the conversation bc I am very annoying about this stuff and it grosses me out bc I am sensitive or whatever but um yeah 🤓

It's pretty long so TL;DR stop being weird about Wolfwood thanks 👍

I'll talking about objectification, hypersexualisation, and prejudice so a warning I guess --->

The Gaze has been working overtime on Wolfwood's ass (and tits) and it's making me a little nuts. This is not to say his character cannot be presented in a sexy way, or that he cannot perform sexuality without being problematic, it's just... ask yourself: why.

It can be subconscious, you might not even notice it, but media tropes have a way of worming into people's brains to be regurgitated into fan art, especially if the character presents or is coded marginalised in a way you are not. (I do it too!)

It starts from young. I had an adult call me a "hot head Latina" as a child LMAO (I am not even Latin)

Characters and actors that looked like me were worked into typically these roles - If feminine, desired, sexy but crazy, dangerous. If masculine, similarly sexual, either hot or ugly, suspicious.

I feel silly and attention-seeking for speaking up about this kind of stuff, especially as I feel I'm not in a place to cry 'racism' specifically because I'm more 'ethnic' than POC.

I'm a Balkan mongrel - Greek, bits from Turkey, Albania, and fuck knows what else. I've always kept my head down about people being weird to me but it comes to a point like the point of a classmate comparing my hair to an animal's, where I feel I gotta go "ok yeah lets unpack that."

Now about Wolfwood, he's our classic racially/ethnically ambiguous smoky sexy guy. Particularly in the 98 anime, he's pretty bosomy. He's a struggler - swindling Gunsmoke with his charm and portable confessional. This swindler trope, I've observed, tends to go hand in hand with 'suspicious immigrant out for your money'. Again, maybe I've pulled that out my ass and I'm being oversensitive, but I notice things. Tastes left in my mouth. Anyway. Brings to mind the time some other classmate jokingly called me a 'hustler' for *checks notes* making sure my work is submitted on time.??

Now on the subject of NSFW fanart... oh boy I am so uncomfy writing this... I rarely see him depicted.. receiving. You can place the issues here pretty easily. Give him a break. Please. Also I did note this on my original post and also completely my own opinion but PLEASE that man is not bigger than Vash, and I don't mean like not taller, like, thiccer. Calm the fuck down.

I hate having to write this bc it makes me uncomfy and reflects my own experiences of objectification by other people which sounds all very "oh noo its sooo hard being attractive :'((" but I trust y'all smart enough to see where I'm coming from.

The gaze. Othering. Marginalised masculinity (not to mention my intersecting trans identity thats a whole other unrelated convo). Hypersexualisation. Objectification.

But back to Wolfwood!! - are these tropes perpetuated by the original creator? Personally, I don't think so. (Wolfwood's design is based off a Japanese guy btw - musician Tortoise Matsumoto) The 98 anime? Maybe?? Am I reading too much into it? It's hard not to - naturally I'll latch onto the ambiguous guy and go "alright let's see how they do this" so naturally certain things stand out to me.

But when some of that fanart starts rolling out ... Jesus Christ ... MY EYES

On the flipside, I've seen great fanart out there! And I've seen quite a few Latino headcanons for Wolfwood too!(like I mentioned before I am not Latin, I am also not American in general I am a filthy freak Australian with our own colonial racist histories and intricacies) (There is also Latin diaspora here but I don't wanna speak for anyone aaaah)

I'd like to think most of the fandom is cool about him. But um. Yeah.

I said what I said but if I did say anything out of line I am so sorry and PLEASE let me know - I am using my own experiences as reference and acknowledge the intricacies my own privilege

Yap session over 👍

[racefortheironthrone]

I have a question about immigration/settlement dichotomy. Obviously settler colonization is dodgy and problematic and triggers a progressive nativist response, but aren't the same ideas used to justify anti-immigrant sentiment? That seems to be my limited reading. But where does one draw the line? Like in ASOIAF, the Targaryens are Valyrian refugees who became a ruling family, and so are foreign conqueors, but if they didn't rule and stayed immigrants, they'd be persecuted outsiders, right?

This is something of a hot take, so I might delete this later if it this escapes containment, but I think there's a big problem in post-colonial studies (or rather, the popularized version of post-colonial studies you see in social media discourse and activist communities) where there's this tunnel vision with settler colonialism that magnifies it into the only thing that matters. Because there is also non-settler colonialism, which is at the very least just as bad (if not more so, because you tend to get a higher rate of colonial extraction).

Moreover, when you bring post-colonialism into discussion with the history of the ancient world through to the early modern period, questions of settler vs. indigenous become really complicated. There are a lot of periods of history where population migrations overlapped with military and political transformations that are often described as conquest (both imperial and non-imperial), and those migrations and transformations included intermarriage and cultural change/exchange along a spectrum from voluntary to coercion.

If each of these instances are considered an act of colonialism, then almost every people and culture in the world are both criminals and victims - which leads to a kind of shrugging nihilism about human nature being a nil-nil draw. If on the other hand, we follow revisionist historians of the fall of Rome or the establishment of the Rashidun Caliphate or the Ottoman Empire etc. to their logical conclusion, we likewise run the risk of saying that the conquests we approve of are actually complex and marked by cosmopolitan diversity and cultural exchange and thus isn't colonialism, and only the ones we don't approve of get the scarlet C.

[a-punchline-on-duct-tape]

hello, @battleslippers brought up a pretty good point when it comes to desi!johnny cade, because what the fuck is he doing in oklahoma in the 1960’s anyway!

so now, i’m going to present possible reasons on why/how he even wound up here

a) immigrant johnny 🍅👎🏾🤬😤

is my least favorite, bcs it makes no sense for his character at all.

johnny immigrated with his family in 1965, and he was born and mostly raised in south asia

this one could be possible because there are recorded indian immigrants from this time (my sources are my family members)

i don’t like this one whatsoever because south asian lifestyles + culture are completely different, and his personality wouldn’t be anything alike to johnnys real one in the book/movie

b) east-india company 🥉

in the 1700’s, the east-india company brought indian servants to the colonies and they were recorded to be enslaved in mostly maryland and delaware. once slavery was abolished, they blended in with african-americans and were deemed as mulattoes. if this was the case, he could’ve wound up in oklahoma one way or another, so its defo not unrealistic

i can see this one being highly likely, but it was most likely mean johnny is of mixed descent (either mixed with african-american, latino, or native heritage) but i hc johnny to be mostly south asian, so think twice ab this one

c) indo-caribbean 🥈

between the years of 1838-1917 around 500k people living in colonial india were taken to the 13 colonies and the caribbean to be indentured slaves to farm sugar cane. this one could work because once these people were freed, johnnys parents/grandparents could’ve come to oklahoma and thats why hes there

this one im 50/50 about bcs it could also make johnny mixed and i dont really see it + the culture of indo-carribean people vs south asia is a little different

d) sikh migration 🏆 ⭐️🎖

in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, many sikh immigrants came to california. these people specifically came because of food shortages and drought issues. these people typically worked on railroads. as these migrants came to the us, they experienced a lot of discrimination and racism (ex/ bellingham riots) so its possible his family moved to oklahoma to escape it then had johnny

there was a bunch of more complicated history with this, but that history doesnt change the fact this explanation is possible

this ones personally my favorite, because it means johnny could be mostly south asian, he could be sikh, and he would most likely be punjabi which is exactly how i see him

(hope y’all appreciate this i spent like 30 min researching and writing this lmaoo)

(usual desi johnny tags @pumpkinsy0 @coquettejohnny btw if yall want me to stop tagging, just send a dm! i dont mind at all)

[beardedmrbean]

Wait wait wait, people said Jewish people should go back to Poland?

Wasn’t there a certain camp that basically the only one that you think of when talking about the Holocaust due to the arm numbering?

Oh right

AUSCHWITZ, YOU WANT JEWISH PEOPLE GO BACK TO THE CENTERPIECE OF THE FUCKING HOLOCAUST?!

In 6th grade, I read The Devil's Arithmetic, and before the girl went back to the past. One of Jewish elders said it was miracle one of family members was born in America

Yes despite our rampant antisemitism (though now it cause by pro Palestine people now) several Jewish people would prefer living in America vs in the old world

AAAAAH, A FUCKING 2012 UBISOFT GAME SHOULD’NT GIVE ME A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF COLONIAL AND 20 CENTURY IMMIGRATION TO THE NEW WORLD THAN COLLEGES

Ugh, but anyways, the game pointed out a lot of persecuted people in the old world were FLEEING to the Americas for a better life and the hell it was

Theory of mine, I think the creation of modern Israel as part of the aftermath of the Holocaust is left out in our education system not to piss off arab nations who fund it.

(Probably Arabs love leaving out that a lot of Nazis went to their countries to escape persecution as well)

For about nine years this fall, I was called a Nazi apologist for preferring an evil space wizard.

Yet as I type, I for some reason understand the plight of descendants of Holocaust survivors more despite working at a Amazon warehouse and have a HS diploma only

What the fuck is going on?

Wait wait wait, people said Jewish people should go back to Poland? AUSCHWITZ, YOU WANT JEWISH PEOPLE GO BACK TO THE CENTERPIECE OF THE FUCKING HOLOCAUST?!

Before WWII there were 3.3 million Jews living in Poland, after the dust settled there was 380,000. Nearly 90% of the Jews in Poland died as a result of WWII, and some of them weren't welcome back home after they'd been freed from the camps, all kinds of reasons for that but it's not like Poland was terribly welcoming.

Communism thing to deal with too, behind the iron curtain wasn't super safe for Jewish folks either. Double bad given the Antisemitism baked directly into communism.

In 6th grade, I read The Devil's Arithmetic, and before the girl went back to the past. One of Jewish elders said it was miracle one of family members was born in America Yes despite our rampant antisemitism (though now it cause by pro Palestine people now) several Jewish people would prefer living in America vs in the old world

We've done better here in the US than lots of places on that, or I'd thought we had till all this started up, did get a preview of what was in store a few years back after Israel kicked some squatters out of a home that had been purchased while the place was a province of the Ottoman Empire.

AAAAAH, A FUCKING 2012 UBISOFT GAME SHOULD’NT GIVE ME A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF COLONIAL AND 20 CENTURY IMMIGRATION TO THE NEW WORLD THAN COLLEGES

They have to break down complicated things into simple easy to understand bits of knowledge, it's handy and a good jumping off point since it's not overly complicated usually.

Ugh, but anyways, the game pointed out a lot of persecuted people in the old world were FLEEING to the Americas for a better life and the hell it was

That was one of the reasons several of the colonies and settlements happened starting at the begining

Theory of mine, I think the creation of modern Israel as part of the aftermath of the Holocaust is left out in our education system not to piss off arab nations who fund it.

there wasn't a lot about it when I was in school and the anti Israel sentiment hadn't gotten anywhere near where it is now then, but there might be something to that.

Also only so much time to teach, so that gets in the way too.

For about nine years this fall, I was called a Nazi apologist for preferring an evil space wizard. Yet as I type, I for some reason understand the plight of descendants of Holocaust survivors more despite working at a Amazon warehouse and have a HS diploma only

We did the whole thing with Louis Armstrong and the family that kinda took him in and taught him a bunch of different Jewish Lithuanian songs, made enough of a impact on him that he wore a Star of David on a necklace his whole life.

'Met these nice white people and it confused me that they were treated the same way black people were by their fellow white people'

You'd think there would be some kind of solidarity there from the two groups, and there was for a good long while here.

What the fuck is going on?

That would be this for lots of people

Chuggin that flavor aid

[gatheringbones]

i have a question that I've been trying to puzzle out the answer for -- I've noticed that some speculative fiction takes a queer is normal approach because "in the future or since there's aliens! and werewolves! who has the time to question gender?" kind of mindset. as much as I treasure the thought of a future where different phobias aren't a thing, and I don't want to be someone who take too much pride and ego in the suffering (perhaps not the right word) I've been through and survived, it also makes me feel strange in that kind of mindset that, of course there's lesbians and trans people in space! without any homophobia whatsoever. my question is, do you think queernorm is possible in a good way in speculative fiction in a setting where it's so far in the future where idk. teleportation or cloning or body modification or cyborgs exist? regency/historical/fantasy novels tend to be set "in the past" and erasing the colonialism, the racism/xenophobia, not questioning why it's ok to murder orcs/an acceptable group of people, and then suddenly having Gays Are Perfectly Fine and Acceptable is definitely weird, considering all these other biases. But what of scifi? Sorry I'm not as concise and cohesive as I wish I was. I'm in a spot where I do read these and I do think it's fun, but it bothers me as someone whose race/transgender/homosexuality/background as an immigrant has informed so much of me that reading these things has been a war of "I should be happy for others that they imagine this future for themselves and it's all just fun imagination anyways!" vs. "this is not the future I'm sure that I want but I'm worried that I'm too attached to my identity and that's why I'm not considering this other possibility of what science fiction or speculative fiction could imagine for me"

that’s it exactly isn’t it— what’s “normal” when we’re in a speculative world where we’ve supposedly transcended all forms of normal? what’s normal in a future we haven’t seen yet?

answering that would mean looking at the quality of the relationships and the dynamics between the people inside of them and seeing how they connect to present day conceptions of normative behavior. You would have to look at how this comforting speculative world arranges power and the relationships between people with various forms of power.

in assimilationist fiction, queer people assume very specific positions in the story. Their existence summons and soothes specific anxieties crucial to the assimilationist mind— will my straight parents accept me? will my straight friends and acquaintances accept me? am I normal? is the way I love valid? Do I have to change anything about myself just because I’m (cringe) queer? can I go on about my life as a normal person who just happens to be (cringe) queer? will I be able to achieve the standard and normal markers of success for a white, upper-to-middle class, able-bodied person even though I’m (cringe) queer?

the assimilationist story will take these anxieties in hand and address them with the goal of seamlessly incorporating queerness into a heteronormative story structure with functionally no difference between queer and straight (which has the effect of making everyone seem incredibly straight).

I hear you on the taking too much pride and ego in suffering, but I want to poke at that as well— is queer difference really rooted in suffering? are our identities nothing more than wound sites? what IS queer difference and how and why must it be assimilated into heteronormativity and its stranglehold on culture? how does heteronormativity manifest in queer works and what needs does it fill for the queer creator manifesting it? what is it about heteronormativity that feels so so reassuring and interesting and good for queer writers?

it all depends on what the werewolves and aliens in your sci fi are doing, in other words— and who they’re doing it to and why. It depends on what anxieties are present in the text and how the text itself chooses to address them. It depends on the author’s relationship to queer culture and how they relate to cultural norms to begin with, because there won’t be anything like our set of norms in a speculative futuristic world, so the whole question revolves around what is purported to be normal and how the people in that world are meant to relate to that paradigm.

it’s tricky! I don’t have answers, just a whole heap of books written by queer authors who just want to fit in and make money you couldn’t pay me to read.

[eccentric-nucleus]

i do think it's kind of funny b/c i only very rarely post about actual weird porn stuff here on the tumblr. there's no, like, slutweed caption fetishposting or w/e going on. it's mostly just implied whenever i link my ao3 or whatever game thing i'm working on.

apparently this is somewhat alienating to all the people who like my porn on ao3 and then go to my tumblr expecting more only to be hit by long, meandering posts about game design and programming and w/e other garbage. not even really any fandom-posting!! but presumably it happens sometimes the other way around by tumblr followers being surprised by all the fetish porn when i occasionally link it

(i did kind of waffle a little bit on the about of bestiality-themed bestiality (vs. monsterfucking-themed bestiality) i included in the barret bathhouse gangbang game b/c like, hmm i regularly receive comments on ao3 by somebody with the username 'zoofan' and that's not really the kind of thing i would like to encourage. otoh it's not like i put an anti-necrophilia warning on the zombie porn. if other people can't distinguish fantasy from reality i don't actually think it's my obligation as an author to handhold them)

anyway the game project i've been working on recently, with all the isometric deserts, may or may not end up being a graphical remake of 'the new hive' in some capacity & i'm not really sure the degree to which i would want there to even be, like, porn in it. purely for gameplay pacing purposes, and i guess asset production purposes (i'm considering not even having walk animation i'm definitely not drawing & animating little pixel sprites fucking) b/c it turns out porn games, on account of being about the porn, usually end up kind of top-heavy in the porn department, with poor pacing elsewhere. but i do feel like i ought to put in at least a little alienating pornography just to make sure the player knows where they stand. i was vaguely considering trying to hit every single item on that 'woke content detected' list b/c that's actually very very easy to do. anti-capitalism messaging! anti-colonialism messaging! pro-transhumanism messaging! pre-immigration messaging! anti-family messaging! yeah we get it, being woke is cool

okay post concluded.

[daywalkers-fic]

14. Even more happenings of the 1880s

continuation from update #12 about why the 1880s are an interesting decade. It’s been a difficult last little while. feeling distant from myself and tried to get back in touch to some things that help steady me. like info dumps. this was gathering dust in my drafts and I decided to tidy her up tonight why not.

Child labour in the U.S. climbing in numbers (all the way until the 1920s!!) a lot in farming, mining, textile industry. In most families, children breadwinners because lots of opportunities for them to be exploited work

By this time already, we got some familiar names and reputations established. Active and/or died 1870s~1880s: Jesse James, Sam Bass, Billy the Kid, Calamity Jane, Doc Holliday, Wyatt Earp, Wild Bill

By late-post Reconstruction era, state penitentiaries unhinged, physically and administratively deteriorating. Summarized as: cruel torture practices, immigration, eugenics, and ‘prisons as laboratories’; incarcerated would rather hurt themselves than be subject to brutal prison punishment

Continuation on the racial violence: the Jim Crow laws that began in the previous decade grew more violent, severe, and widespread. Legalized racial segregation and dodgy enforcement of laws. nadir of American race relations: anti-black violence and racism would he the most prominent than in any period in American history

Continuation on the rise of ragtime via African American musicians: emergence of white minstrel performances that put racist, dehumanizing, derogatory lyrics over the music ☠️

Gilded Age: “Historians saw late 19th-century economic expansion as a time of materialistic excesses marked by widespread political corruption”; Industry boom invents the capitalist barons, wealth disparity, exploitation, labour unions, workers strikes… ✨ socialism

gaelic culture revival in Ireland, continued unrest against the British and revolutionary activities

Texas Rangers already a thing but locales started to organize more of their own “law enforcement” police. Crush political unrest, legalize violence against Indigenous and black populations

1850s through to the start of the turn of the century, “Anglo-Japanese style” in fashion, architecture, art, design. Result of the “opening up” of Japan to Europe, which led to more flow of capital between Japan and Europe. Trade, culture, art moved back and forth. Trendy among elites who could afford the fancy imports. fetishization and commodification and essentializatiom of Japanese culture. Fascination of the “far east”

In the face of scientific discovery and change, spiritualism movement was one of the ways for people to cope and explore their fears, aspirations, fantasies, beliefs. started in the mid 1800s. Grief and mourning culture. Speaking with the dead, ghosts, mediums, publications, séances. Entwined with gender politics and roles. See, The American phantasmagoria: The rise of spiritualism in nineteenth-century America by Daniel Bowlin

The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood of Great Renown in Nottinghamshire is published in 1883 by America’s Howard Pyle, sparking an interest in literature featuring the heroic rogue

Oscar Wilding out

it’s been some time since the first 1880s world history dump. I forgot I left myself a little (to be continued) list. crossing off what I got here let’s see hmmm

prison industry / spiritualism / opium epidemic / irregular and uneven “modernizations” in rural vs. urban areas / class and poverty gaps / morality scares, checks, comparisons, gaps / new businesses and gadgets, products, tech to help with anything / fascination of the (colonial) Other; side shows, “freak shows” and other human zoos

[qqueenofhades]

US-centric racial bullshit is even a problem in Canada. We LOVE pretending that we’re so much better than the United States and that our prejudices aren’t nearly as bad, but the way we’ve treated indigenous peoples has been abysmal for centuries, and most Canadians who aren’t Gen Z weren’t even aware of the worst of it until 2021. I’m not sure how many people outside of Canada know this but in 2021 they found a mass grave of 215 indigenous children outside an old residential school in Kamloops in BC, and everyone was scandalized for approximately two weeks. They’ve since searched like maybe five more schools out of over a hundred and found thousands of more bodies, and the initiative to even look has kind of fizzled out. This was my parents’ first exposure to the idea of residential schools, we’ve been sweeping this shit under the rug for decades, and we still get off to “not being the US”.

All this to say that Canadian history isn’t as flashy as the US but is still worth taking a look at. There’s a lot of harmful institutions still in place left over from like 1873 that symbolize incredibly tense political situations that continue to this day. And even our black history gets boiled down to “Underground Railroad”, oh aren’t we nice, when that’s really not all that happened.

Because I read international news and follow international politics, I am personally aware of the Canadian residential schools scandal, but it absolutely is something that fizzled out after a few weeks and was attempted to be covered up with a few boilerplate apologies and nothing in the way of real change or action. I would therefore gently question your phrasing of "US-centric racial bullshit," since the whole point of your ask is that while Canada pretends to be better than the US, it has its own specific racial and cultural blind spots relating to its own practice of racism. So would this not be more accurately called "Canada-centric racial bullshit?" After all, you're talking about something that happened in Canada, was perpetrated by Canadians, is directly related to the modern Canadian state, and as such as has been denied by white Canadians. After all, the big Trucker March of right-wingers that shut down Toronto took place in Canada, not the US. So yes, there's definitely a need to talk about Canadian racism in and of itself, and not just Canadian racism as a corollary of the US.

Canada is likewise a white settler-colonial state founded by Europeans (English and French, a split still prominent in modern Canada), and that therefore involved equally horrendous legacies of displacement and genocide against the First Nations people. Because Canada is so much smaller population-wise (300 million+ in the US vs just 38 million in Canada), it has thus to some degree been forced to expand its population by relying on immigrants and refugees. And to its credit, it has been more proactive about accepting refugees than the US. But there are still plenty of right-wingers who think that a geographically enormous and empty country like Canada, with only 38 million people, is getting too "crowded" with "foreigners." Likewise, Canada is still officially a part of the Commonwealth, aka the lightly rebranded British Empire, so its formal head of state is the UK monarch. And to the best of my knowledge, there haven't been any serious conversations about breaking that link and reorganizing as a republic, the way there have been in Caribbean Commonwealth countries like Jamaica and Barbados (which in fact just did it). That is because white first-world Canadians can see association with the British Empire as a "prestige," instead of the legacy of slavery and exploitation that was the British Empire against majority-black countries in the Caribbean.

Anyway: Canadians are always stereotyped as the nice people who apologize for everything and mind their business, and yes, the flaming dumpster fire of America would make anyone feel superior about not being that. But it doesn't mean there's no problems or that it's a perfect society free of its own flaws and failures, and Americans are also definitely guilty of treating it as some magical escape valve: witness the "I'm going to move to Canada" refrain when something political goes wrong here. In some ways, yes, that would be preferable, viz. free healthcare and strict gun laws. But yeah.

[sunspira]

this reminded me I feel we need to make clear that settler colonialism is not the same thing as migration and immigration. The difference of which is many but the point being that indigenousness really only matters in terms of violent displacement and genocide. in context of international power dynamics under imperialism colonialism and exploitation. migration can be a natural human thing and not at all immoral or condemnable or deserving of violence.

this is very important in the israel and palestine discussion and in all genocide denialist conversations. being indigenous did not give german gentiles a right to massacre jewish diaspora and other immigrants. because those immigrants got there as normal immigrants. which is entirely different than the kind of casualties that can befall settler colonists who by virtue of their role are not civilians, they are military outposts that very intentionally recruits family units with inadequate military training put in the line of fire on purpose as a PAWN for sympathy and because family units are the most effective way to root a permanent colonial settlement as proven by the genocide of north america. and who may lose their lives when we resist violent colonialism with violence.

perhaps just as importantly, ashkenazi jewish germans WERE and ARE indigenous to germany, because being the oldest and only ethnic group to a land is a bit of an anthropological myth that doesn't exist. ANYONE who got there through the natural and timeless means of human migration is indigenous, at least in the meaningful contexts of imperial violence and stolen land. ashkenazi jewish people were always indigenous citizens of germany.

similarly, palestinian arabs who trace their earliest recorded ancient origins to the middle of the arab peninsula and migrated to the north of the peninsula to the coastal Levant region are considered indigenous. indeed the hebrews of judea were just as indigenous, if not with even older records to the lands along the coast that are now called palestine! many palestinian christians trace their origins as well to the pre-abrahamic phonecian people and the assyrians. during the abrahamic era, the canaanites who were there just as long as the hebrews were likely arab, phonecian, assyrian and SO MUCH MORE in ethnicity. many of which are non abrahamic ethnoreligious groups i failed to mention and perhaps fall beyond the scope of the hebrew jewish vs muslim arab claims. palestinian jewish people and other levantine jewish people matter just as much as the other indigenous ethnicities such as the palestinian/levantine christians and palestinian/levantine muslims.

and while christians jews and muslims born and raised in other lands do not have AUTOMATIC and TOTALITARIAN CLAIM to palestinian land. they do have every right to IMMIGRATE to palestine. to actual palestine. as equals. under the state of palestine and become citizens.

see jewish americans or russian polish jewish people wanting to move to palestine because it was once the home of their hebrew ancestors is NOT wrong in the slightest. people moving to palestine and having ashkenazi jewish communities and enclaves is NOT the problem. it would be wonderful. but that's not what isreal is. dear god i wish that was all that Israel was or is. that's what the first holocaust refugees to the land WERE. regular immigrant civilians seeking a new home under palestinian law. and as such they were welcomed with open arms. but you know, as equals. not as a siege of viking conquerors literally raping and pillaging because like the manifest destiny english before them and the norse seeking valhallah before that, they believed they were given a divine right to do so. that is not immigration that is an act of war. normal immigration is not war. normal immigration is not a problem. least of all to a place your ancestors used to live. that's lovely. it was the decision to enact an american military organized and funded hostile takeover and murder and enslavement of the other civilians that is the fuckijg problem. hello.

[mental-mona]

Legit criticism of Israel vs. antisemitism: questions to ask yourself

What is antisemitism? | IHRA (holocaustremembrance.com) Let's start here. Does whatever you're saying, writing, or drawing go against the basic definition laid out here, or clearly fall into one of the examples given? If it does, you should almost certainly rethink your statement completely; even though this definition isn't legally binding, it's still a pretty darn good metric.

If you replace the word "Zionists/Israelis" in your statement with "Jews," does it sound antisemitic? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, even if it's wearing a dog costume. Your statement is antisemitic; please rethink it and probably also your general attitude.

Are you questioning Israel's right to exist? Sorry, antisemitic again, except maybe if you also question the rights of other religious and/or ethnic groups to their homelands. Jews have an archaeologically confirmed, continuous history in Israel going back 3000 years; they're not some random colonial upstarts. If you want to see former Soviet countries each stay independent and/or Tibet and Taiwan gain freedom from China, you don't get to turn around and claim that specifically Jews aren't allowed to have a homeland.

Are you implying that all Jews are responsible for things happening in Israel? If so, this is antisemitic. Diaspora Jews don't have much if any influence over Israeli politics, and plenty of them disagree with various Israeli policies and politicians. The word "Jews" simply refers to an ethnoreligious group with tons of variation in beliefs and practices, not some kind of powerful monolith. If you don't blame Chinese immigrants for the genocide of Uyghurs or all Muslims for Islamist terrorism, you don't get to blame all Jews for whatever's going on in Israel.

Do you view all Israelis as legitimate military targets for rockets & attacks? Even if you're going with the theory that they're all culpable because they all served in the military, you're still way off base. 1) They don't actually all serve in the army, and 2) by that logic, all veterans in your country are legitimate targets for nationalistic attacks. I'm pretty sure you don't think that. Also, you're forgetting about children and foreign workers; there are few if any places on Earth where those would be considered legitimate military targets. Rockets, bombs, and bullets don't discriminate in who they hit. There have even been cases, including in the current war, where they've harmed Israeli Arabs!

Do you have double standards? If your response to a resistance group, underdog or not, attacking civilians in another country is "that's bad" but your response to Palestinians attacking Israeli civilians is "it's complicated," or worse, "they deserve it," then you need to take a step back and ponder why you think that. It's once again antisemitic. If you believe that all resistance including harming civilians is valid in every region, no exceptions, then that would at least be consistent and therefore not antisemitic. If you think that Israel should just absorb the rocket fire and recent butchery without fighting back, would you say the same for your own country if it had a small neighbor shooting missiles at its major cities, especially if members of a leading faction in that country crossed the border and slaughtered your fellow citizens? If you don't think your country or other countries should just take it, anti-missile defenses or no, then you shouldn't expect it of Israel. Still antisemitic.

Are you viewing Israelis as a monolith? Israelis' views run the gamut on almost every issue you can think of. Just like there are differences of opinion regarding political, religious, and general societal issues in your home country, there are such differences in Israel. Heck, depending on your home country, Israelis' range of beliefs might even be broader than what you're used to! Unless you're affectionately joking about Israeli culture in the same way that you'd joke about American or British or whatever other country's cultural stereotypes, tarring all Israelis with the same brush is not a good idea. Taking a mean, "these people all believe/do objectively awful things" tone is downright antisemitic.

Are you confusing Israel's general population with its government? This should go without saying, but a government policy will never reflect the approval of all or even necessarily the majority of its citizens. There were ongoing mass protests for the better part of a year over the current coalition's controversial "judicial reform!" Just because you don't like something a particular group of politicians has decided doesn't mean that all Israelis agree with that thing and are therefore Bad.  If you wouldn't blame all of your government's unfortunate policies on your country's population as a whole, you don't get to blame all of Israel's. Also, please bear in mind that Israelis vote for parties not people, and then each party's leadership assigns members to the Knesset as it sees fit based on the number of seats it won. A voter can like a party in general, but then be horrified at what some of its members unexpectedly say or do later down the line.

Are you criticizing a specific Israeli government policy or action? If you're doing so without falling into "all Israelis are evil" canards or conspiracy theories, then criticize it all you want! That's the whole point of what you should be doing if you object to something! Feel free to put Israel on blast about how it shouldn't destroy terrorists' homes, or needs to make a nondenominational egalitarian prayer area at the Western Wall, or should handle ultra-Orthodox Jews differently, or needs to let humanitarian aid into Gaza, or whatever it is that's bugging you. Feel free to scream about a specific military incident, or warn Israel against repeating the mistakes of 9/11. If you'd say it about a similar thing your country did or is doing, it's probably fair game to say about Israel.

Are you criticizing a specific Israeli politician? Again, this is totally fair! Feel free to post about how a politician is corrupt and horrible and really needs to leave politics and hopefully face legal consequences. Feel free to express skepticism that a politician will do what they say they will, or that they actually have anyone's best interest in mind besides their own, or that they even have a decent idea of how to do their job. If you'd say it about your own country's politicians and it's not a conspiracy theory about them, the criticism is fine to lodge about Israeli politicians.

Are you criticizing a specific aspect of Israeli politics? You're welcome to say that Israel's current Knesset makeup is messed up, or that the ruling coalition has serious viability issues, or even that something about the whole Israeli political system is deeply flawed. Again, if you'd criticize your own country's equivalent without going into wild conspiracy theories, it's fair game to criticize Israel for it. However, I will point out that it's generally a good idea to know more about a country's political system than an average current events article tells you before you criticize it.

[thessalian]

Thess vs Food Stereotypes

Okay, really getting tired of this.

I didn’t want to hijack the post doing the rounds about “British kids try biscuits and gravy for the first time” and people getting judgemental about British cooking based on a few kids whose idea of ‘biscuit’ is very different than the American version and one British uni student’s aversion to spice. Thing is, though ... I live here, and I moved here from Canada (Montreal, even, which has a reputation for being as foodie as Paris but with a lot more politeness) by way of the United States. I’ve seen the stereotypes from all three countries, and when it comes to England, I’ve been everywhere from tiny hamlets to ... well, London, where I currently reside.

A lot of “traditional dishes” lack for spice here, true. However ... did y’all forget, while you were going, “American versions of recipes from other places have such flavour because poor / low class immigrants brought the recipes here”, that Britain was a fucking empire? We bitch about British colonialism all the time, and fair enough, but no one seems to have considered the huge variety of food that brought to this tiny wet little island. Even in the tiniest hamlets you’ll generally find an Indian takeaway, always family-run, always by families who came from the country from which the cuisine originated, some as recently as a generation ago. Bigger cities, and especially someplace like London? You’ll find a lot more. Hell, I live near an area that’s a blend of Afro-Caribbean, Nigerian, and Filipino, and the food you’ll find in the area reflects that. And I don’t just mean restaurants either; people who live here are clearly making that stuff at home, if the local markets are any indication. It’s the same all over, with a lot of emphasis on Indian, Pakistani, Nepalese, Filipino, and the foods of various African nations. Britain colonised these countries, and maybe the white people don’t make as much use of the spices they got by doing so as they could? But some do.

Also ... dude, they have herbs here. And they use them. Stews are full of thyme and sage and bay leaf. Sauces are a thing - mint for lamb, applesauce (not the sweet dessert kind; the kind where the tartness of the apple is maintained) for pork, fucking horseradish for beef. Root vegetables like parsnips and carrots are often roasted in a honey glaze, and never underestimate how a flavour profile changes if you change what fat you’re using for roasting a potato. (Seriously, just try roasting potatoes in goose fat.) Gravy? They have gravy; not as thick, and more generally devoted to the flavours of the juices of the roast, but they have gravy.

Britain has a different, earthier, occasionally sweeter flavour profile to a lot of its traditional dishes than other countries, yes. And there are a lot of people in this country who fear anything more than one clove of garlic, yes. However, there are Americans who fear anything that doesn’t taste of grease and mayonnaise, too (which is the stereotype, I’m afraid). So maybe can we lean less into the stereotype and, while trying unfamiliar foods, also do some research and try a variety of those unfamiliar foods instead of judging an entire country’s palate based on a couple of school kids who don’t know the American South’s version of a biscuit? Just be happy they’re loving it.

And go try some bubble and squeak sometime. Lancashire hot pot. Cornish pasty. Cullen skink. Hell, shepherd’s pie! It’s not all boiled everything, y’know.

[mayamidnightmelody]

Meryl Streep is an iconic figure in Hollywood, renowned for her unparalleled talent and versatility across a vast array of roles spanning decades. Born on June 22, 1949, in Summit, New Jersey, Streep's career has been marked by her ability to embody diverse characters with depth, nuance, and authenticity.

Throughout her illustrious career, Streep has taken on roles that span various genres, showcasing her remarkable range as an actress. Here's a glimpse into some of her most notable performances:

"Sophie's Choice" (1982): This film earned Streep her first Academy Award for Best Actress. Her portrayal of Sophie Zawistowski, a Polish immigrant haunted by her wartime experiences, remains one of her most powerful and emotionally resonant performances.

"The Deer Hunter" (1978): In this critically acclaimed war drama, Streep played Linda, the girlfriend of a soldier (Robert De Niro) dealing with the traumas of the Vietnam War. Her performance highlighted her ability to convey complex emotions with subtlety and depth.

"Kramer vs. Kramer" (1979): Streep won her second Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her role as Joanna Kramer, a mother who leaves her husband (played by Dustin Hoffman) and son, only to return years later seeking custody. Her performance brought empathy and complexity to a character dealing with personal and familial conflicts.

"Out of Africa" (1985): Streep starred opposite Robert Redford in this epic romantic drama set in colonial Kenya. Her portrayal of Karen Blixen, a Danish writer, garnered her another Academy Award nomination and showcased her ability to excel in historical roles.

"The Iron Lady" (2011): Streep's transformation into British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher earned her a third Academy Award, this time for Best Actress. Her portrayal captured Thatcher's steely determination and vulnerability, solidifying her reputation as a master of biographical roles.

"Adaptation" (2002): In this quirky film directed by Spike Jonze, Streep played Susan Orlean, a real-life writer grappling with personal and creative crises. Her performance was lauded for its comedic timing and emotional depth.

"The Devil Wears Prada" (2006): Streep showcased her versatility in this comedy-drama as Miranda Priestly, a formidable fashion magazine editor. Her performance as the icy yet complex character became iconic and demonstrated her ability to excel in both dramatic and comedic roles.

"August: Osage County" (2013): Streep starred as Violet Weston in this film adaptation of the Pulitzer Prize-winning play. Her portrayal of the dysfunctional matriarch struggling with addiction and family turmoil earned her another Academy Award nomination.

"Into the Woods" (2014): Streep displayed her musical talents in this film adaptation of the Broadway musical, playing the Witch. Her performance was praised for its vocal prowess and emotional depth, adding another dimension to her vast repertoire.

"Big Little Lies" (2019): In the second season of this acclaimed HBO series, Streep portrayed Mary Louise Wright, the grieving mother-in-law of a deceased character. Her performance earned her critical acclaim for bringing complexity and emotional intensity to the role.

Beyond these roles, Meryl Streep's career has been defined by her fearlessness in tackling challenging characters and her commitment to portraying their humanity with empathy and insight. Her contributions to cinema have cemented her status as one of the greatest actresses of her generation, inspiring audiences and fellow actors alike with each new role she undertakes.