#nonwhite people in general.

[carfuckerlynch]

eye twitching. @ my chef stop fucking talking about indigenous people u can't even pronounce tlingit

[lovecatsys]

oh you like enemies to lovers? rivalries between two high school kids who are lowkey obsessed with each other? Well! May I introduce you to Jubilee x Monet St. Croix from Generation X?

[oleandy]

i've noticed there's. a lot more white dirk than there is usually.

[panvani]

Idk I saw someone be like Why do all the gay characters in Breaking Bad die 🤔 which like yea I guess all 2 of them do but it's sort of a weird thing to go for when nearly every major Breaking Bad character dies and one of the gay characters in question who dies is GUS. I think a better thing to bring up is how there are exactly 2 sympathetic characters of color with any significant screen time and she gets obliviously killed off for the purpose of furthering the character development of a white man and the other is a cop entirely secondary to a white character who I literally forgot about and who also gets killed off

[rivetgoth]

I feel like part of what’s kinda wild to me about the weird “born in the wrong generation but in an alternative 80s punk goth queer way” crowd that idolizes this nonexistent 80s that was like a goth alt GNC queer safehaven is that without fail every time I actually talk to older goths or other older alt people or even just older queer or nonwhite people who were actually there in the 80s they’re IMMEDIATELY like “oh you were NOT missing out hahaha.” Like at best the coolest things they’ll talk about is getting to see some OG alt bands live in their prime or getting to see a cool movie in theatres, that IS genuinely cool, like major jealousy to anyone who got to actually witness Skinny Puppy or Ministry live in the 80s ykwim, but literally ALL of these people will then immediately start talking about how much people sucked, how much mainstream culture sucked, etc. It was literally Reagan-era AIDS crisis. Dystopian literature took off for a reason. Racism was a massive society-wide issue. War on drugs was in full swing. Even just the insanely racialized pushback against disco during that time is of note tbh. Massive brand commercialization was getting worse and worse. Whenever I talk to gay people from that era they express so much relief about how much the world has improved since then. I was talking to an older woman in her 50s who’s been in the goth scene since the 80s who was saying that back in the day if she went out dressed in her goth clothes she was called a faggot on the street. I remember her jokingly being like “well at least they were saying it to me and not actual gay people I guess haha…” There are aspects of 80s culture, especially 80s subculture and counterculture, that I really really enjoy, obviously, and certain sentiments surrounding big art trends of the time that I love, but it’s just kind of ridiculous to me that YEARS after collectively mercilessly mocking the trend of white girls saying they miss the 50s while ignoring the fact that Stonewall and the civil rights movement hadn’t happened yet, no-fault divorce didn’t exist, and lobotomies were still acceptable, I’m seeing posts nearly daily on this site that are like “well if I had been born in the 80s art would be good and music would be good and there’d be a queer alt community for me, but instead I was born in the tiktok poser generation 💔” like girl I’m sorry but you ARE the tiktok poser. Get offline and go FIND your community. Your issue is not that you were born in the wrong generation, you literally just do not know how to find modern underground subculture. Because it is underground.

[junglejim4322]

I’m going to be real for 1 single second people pretending that the general public turning on chappel roan for things like not endorsing a candidate is some kind of homophobic hate crime that’s happening because she’s a lesbian are lost in the sauce. it is because she’s white and other white people see it as a betrayal and a failure on her behalf for not prioritizing the needs of white people above nonwhite people. This includes white queers

[catboybiologist]

have you also noticed that the tgirl tummy tuesday thing is, like, almost exclusively white girls? why is that?

Because the trans community on Tumblr is overwhelmingly white, yes it is a problem.

Some of it comes from the top, eg nonwhite users being banned more frequently, some of it is community momentum surrounding representation of the members already in it, and some is biased from the people in the community themselves.

I don't have much of an idea how to fix it, but I would love to see more representation in the Tumblr trans community in general and I'm all ears if there's anything I can do.

[phoebastria-albatrus]

i need to make a post on why i draw 3/4 of the pd nonwhite can i trust the jrwi fandom 2 be normal. awesome. lots of posts today lesgo (this got really long so under the cut)

vyncent is like canonically vaguely asian whatever the fuck that means but he is just generically mixed SEAsian king 2 me. he cannot name any part of his heritage and he’s real 4 that. anyhoo. i think his actual like straight up immigrant allegory is smth more people should think about!!! people are thinking your weird for not knowing what something is??? holy fuck!!! social fumbles??? fuck!!! yeah!! anyway. and the assumption of a dumb immigrant and how people perceive him as that and are actually confused when he can stand his ground and say stop talking at me. yeah. anyway asian king and the feeling of being stuck in someone’s perception of you is something imma bring up w dakota too so.

dakota. yeah. i usually draw him Black or mixed and i think this is important regarding his backstoryyyyy. poc and esp Black families aren’t given the same support sometimes in grieving and that Can lead to drug abuse moreoften so. that happens with alaska. and dakota is in this place of i need to be strong because people will pick on me if im weak and alaska needs me. that’s basically canon but boy if you imagine it in a poc way. 100 damage. so you look outwardly strong to everyone else but like!! you’re just a kid!!! and adultification!! ur a 16 year old boy and you just want to be silly!!! and then people still see you like this and you think but that’s not me!!! but you can’t drop this now either. so you’re stuck between being seen as weird by white peers and weak by poc peers.

mixed latina-white for our girl ashe and it Is important that she doesn’t remember anything she might’ve learned from her mother. her brain made space for the demon language by shoving out her other language or smth. but yeah so you kill your mother and a couple years later you realise oh, i have nothing from my culture and my father can’t help me with this. he doesn’t know how to help keep my hair healthy or what those words mean or how to throw a quince. so ashe spends her time in online school clubs and internet forums but somethings still missing. she finds tutorials for her hair and starts doing language courses but there’s still Something missing. because she’s being taught this by someone she doesn’t know or who’s just a face behind a screen and. yeah. the disconnect from her culture is something vyncent Kind of gets but she’s alone in this. so yeah ashe is someone who became moreeee. timid. in physical spaces. to keep eyes off of her and not dissect whatever is wrong with her. why she doesn’t pronounce that correctly or why she walks around with a white father.

anyway. thats it. dont kill me.

[neptune432]

I feel so conflicted with how many people hc kabru as transmasc compared to other characters, ESPECIALLY seeing how many view kabru as a bottom/submissive with laios. I'm sorry but I know people learn to view south asian men as being less masculine and I can't help but view kabru's treatment by the fandom thru that lens. it's also possible to have dark-skin men be treated as overly aggressive and overpowering compared to white people (and I've seen that with how people treat kabru and mithrun's relationship), but not as often with laios and kabru.

with all that being said, I can't help but wonder if this influenced the common hc of kabru being transmasc. like I do enjoy the thought of more south asian trans characters but I also know how white people view us and it makes me wary. why does kabru get this hc so often over every other character? I'd like to assume this is being done in good faith and I'm overthinking things but the way the fandom treats kabru is too familiar to me. I deal with my own complicated feelings about gender as an indian while living in a white society and I can't help but question these things

and I know being transmasc is not the same thing as being "less masculine" but I also know that race has affected how some people in the fandom view kabru. white society views asian men as generally not fitting within their idea of cisheterosexuality due to stereotypes that began with colonialism. so I have to wonder if that's affected the fandom's view of kabru when it comes to his gender and personality.

I know people will get angry at me for saying negative things about a trans hc but I can't just ignore the way race affects how others characterize nonwhite characters. a lot of you just don't want to admit the racism is there and get overly defensive like I'm trying to attack you or something. I just want an acknowledgement that these issues exist and may be subconsciously affecting your view of things.

edit: someone pointed this out and I wanted to say that kabru's definitely not the only one who gets trans hcs. my thoughts were mainly about how a lot of labru content tends to have kabru be the trans character in the relationship, which I don't think is an accident. I'll also say it's not impossible for trans people to simply see themselves in kabru and hc him as trans for those reasons, which is totally reasonable. but I don't believe race never affects how people view kabru. I think there can be multiple reasons for why someone views kabru a certain way and it's not always obvious. I just wanted to point out that this can be one of those reasons.

[talenlee]

Decemberween 2024 — Youtube Academia

Hey, I’m in academia, here are some people I look to for ‘how to communicate and make a point in academia and what you can use it to do.’

First up, hand over heart, this is going to have a real sampling bias. I’m going to point to three diferent academics who make stuff in spaces I can participate in and all three of them are dudes, and white enough that my dad would mostly consider them white. He’d probably be on the fence about Daniel Immerwahr. This is a problem in academia in general and it’s a problem with me in the specific: The stuff that I’ve gotten attention to, even the stuff that is explicitly about broadening my access to and understanding of nonwhite cultures and the nonwhite parts of the world is coming to me through white guys from academia. I’m not wild about it but it’s better in my mind to acknowledge it and present the sources then pretend this isn’t where I’m coming from.

Anyway, hey, here’s an essay titled Why Hip-Hop is the Most Important Artistic Movement In Human History.

Why Hip-Hop is the Most Important Artistic Movement in Human History: A Professor Skye Video Essay

Watch this video on YouTube

I think this is a good starting point for Professor Skye’s work.

Professor Skye presents three kinds of work. One is album reviews, where he breaks down and analyses components in how albums work and what they present in their messages, in a way that explicitly is not seeking to centre his interpretation but rather academically recognise a useful generalised language bridge for people like me who use the term ‘generalised language bridge.’

Second to that there are kind of larger, high-concept comparisons, where he provides a meaningful explanation to people outside of hiphop interest as to what’s going on. This led to him going extremely viral thanks to explaining the Kendrick/Drake beef this year which, god that was a thing, wasn’t it. The third thing that Professor Skye does is historical and academic contextualisation of music media. That can be things like ‘here’s iconic stuff from the 1980s,’ and it can be ‘behold as I use Proust to discuss this album.’

In each case I think there’s a sort of meaningful value to ‘doing the readings.’ Listening to the albums he talks about or the songs he talks about as and when he starts to talk about them means that each video is a sort of expository piece to accompany the text. I watch media analysis all the time of stuff I have not and never will watch, like Victorious, but in that case, the analysis is explicitly trying to present the text so you don’t need it. That’s not what Professor Skye is doing. This is not a channel trying to convince you to enjoy a thing or to enjoy the thing without the thing. It is a textual engagement with the album, and that is a really cool thing to do. You might not even have the mental muscles practiced for that at this point.

I'm What the Culture Feeling

Watch this video on YouTube

By the way, if you listen to Skye and go ‘oh hey, this is interesting and I’d like to know more,’ here’s a video essay from FD Signifier which is long, yes, but also extraordinarily good, about the same kind of topic and coming from inside the culture. If Skye makes you think ‘hey, I could be interested in this,’ then you should probably then check out FD Signifier.

Your Grammar Is Basic Compared to Black English

Watch this video on YouTube

But hey while I’m talking about language bridges (I was, honest), what about a language expert to talk about distinct grammatical differences between English (as I am used to calling it) and Black English. Language Jones is an interesting guy with a specific skillset, which is expertise in linguistics at an academic level, specifically the way your brain picks up and relates to linguistics. When you do that, you stop having to focus on formal and proper structures and instead get a lot more inclined to seeing the way language slops into the grooves in human brains and social spaces. Sometimes that means explaining to you and me what a wug is, and that’s interesting, but I find it much more interesting when he does dives like this one.

In this video, what Jones is doing is picking apart Black English into the toolkit I have in my head for understanding proper English, with terms like subjunctive and participle, and then demonstrate that the way Black English works is entirely a coherent grammatical structure, it’s not vibes or habits or attenuating with a specific person, it’s a whole other form of English and it’s really fucking nuanced. There’s a degree of fineness in Black English that is simple absent from Proper, Formal English. Formal English that I was taught is structured such that there are a host of unintuitive, hard to maintain stiff forms for completely correct conveyance of intent (“can I” vs “may I”), while Black English instead has a coherent grammatical structure that gives more fine control for intention, tense and position and the listener is there to interpret it rather than to enforce it.

This is not totally surprising, and if you talk to uh, any Black people, you probably already know this. What this gave me is a useful toolkit for reconstructing the grammar form. Really interesting stuff!

Daniel Immerwahr How to Hide an Empire

Watch this video on YouTube

Look, I’m sure I’ve talked about Daniel Immerwahr’s work in the past. I share this video from him every time I want to get people to think about American colonialism in the ways that make them uncomfortable. It’s a good talk, it uses its time well, and it also highlights a topic and the relationship of ourselves to the way things communicate their identity through their names and symbols of themselves.

Oh and if you don’t like that, check out Daniel Immerwarh’s podcast talking about the real world histories of Dune. Talks during the pandemic were restricted, but dang some of them were on wonderfully untypical topics.

There’s more. There’s always more. Dr Kipp Davis shows up when I look for academics I follow, but his interest is in Biblical studies. He’s part of the Diablocritics, which means Dr Jennifer Bird is on there, and it’s a way I can check out her work in a way that I find very accessible and interesting, and the other members of the Diablocritics are there, too.

Still, sometimes something academic is just something interesting. I don’t think Josh Worth is a doctor or professor or something. I think technically, he’s just a designer, as in a User Experience designer, that kind of specific discipline of having a clear, meaningful purpose for a visual expression. I share to you this graph Josh Worth made of the solar system if the moon, our moon, was a single pixel.

Check it out on PRESS.exe to see it with images and links!

[olderthannetfic]

I think you've talked before about how it's wrong to assume the only people who enjoy taboo kink like race play are bigoted white people, right? Tumblr's search remains garbage. I've been trying to formulate some thoughts on it after seeing some videos on "bad books" but I don't really know enough about real world kink culture to know what's valid critique of racism or anti-kink just hiding behind it. So I remembered you'd mentioned the topic at some point and might have some thoughts?

--

Well, first, one should apply basic logic: If shittons of women kink on the ways in which society abuses women, why wouldn't at least some ethnic minorities kink on the way society abuses them?

Second, social media overflows with jackasses saying "Listen to POC" as a thought-terminating cliche, but it's good advice as long as you grasp that you do have to evaluate which people you're listening to and what basis you have for trusting that they know something about a subject.

Honestly, I don't think this topic is that complicated. There are just a lot of cowardly white people around who are too scared of ever being seen as wrong to be willing to do a little research or stand up for anything even remotely controversial. They'll parrot the first anti they run across but not bother to engage with the comments of nonwhite kinksters who are long-time community members with informed opinions.

The person I'd listen to, personally, is Mollena Williams-Haas, a kink educator and submissive. She has talked about race play here, among many other places.

Her comments boil down to it being about consent. If kinksters want to play with a concept and everyone involved is on the same page, it's not the business of outsiders to tell them it's off limits.

Playing with heavy topics in an agreed upon way is completely different from having that thing sprung on you without warning. We're used to making this distinction when people are playing with the trappings of rape but, somehow, lose our goddamn minds when the topic is racism.

Now, yes, there are plenty of gross white creeps who think nonwhite kinksters will inherently be interested in this sort of thing and should cater to them... but how is that any different from your usual pest in a bar chatting up uninterested parties and refusing to take no for an answer? The problem isn't squicky kinks that many of us don't want to hear about: The problem is jackasses treating others as a fantasy and/or kink dispenser instead of a person with feelings and needs.

Frankly, most of the arguments against this sort of kink are your usual "As a woman, you should be setting a good example!" bilge that's leveled at all submissive women but on steroids because a woman of color is extra, extra, extra responsible for living her whole life as An Example. (And I notice that it's generally submissive nonwhite women who come in for the most abuse even though plenty of other dynamics exist. Quelle surprise.) It's bullshit. People should mind their own damn business.

As for "bad books"... Are we talking bodice rippers with nonwhite heroines or what? Are we back to colonizer romance wank? Books about characters engaging in race play in a BDSM context? I think it's reasonable to critique books that don't seem to know what they're doing—e.g. not seeming aware that a rape scene is one—but stupid to worry about iddy trash that is trying to be iddy trash. People will always like socially unacceptable id fodder. Some books will always cater to that.

[nonbinarymlm]

It’s really awful that my partner is treated as predatory, dangerous, and unwelcome by the world for being bisexual and nonwhite. It’s doubly awful that so many queer spaces near us also treat him as predatory, dangerous, and unwelcome for being a cis man while ignoring his queer and non-passing mixed race experiences.

There is no way to make general queer spaces unwelcoming to cis men without throwing intersectionality out the window. No one needs to coddle cis men, but general queer spaces are not the places to treat queer cis men as dangerous or unwelcome or to randomly vent about men without checking in. (Generally you should be checking in before venting, by the way, this goes out the window way too much in progressive spaces.)

Queer men are already treated as dangerous and unwelcome by society for being queer. Men of color are already treated as dangerous and unwelcome by society for not being white. When queer spaces treat cis men as dangerous and unwelcome, they are repeating those societal patterns toward queer men and men of color.

Intersectionality means recognizing that privilege does not cancel out oppression as much as it means oppression does not cancel out privilege. All queer people face harm by society, all queer people need safe queer spaces. Choosing a subset of queer people to exclude from general queer spaces isn’t okay, even if it’s a relatively privileged subset in one specific way.

There are a lot of posts talking about how exclusion of cis men from queer spaces negatively impacts trans people of all stripes, and that is true and worth taking about! But also: cis queer men deserve to be in queer spaces because they are queer. Their relative privilege in one area does not cancel out their experiences of oppression.

And it truly is “relative privilege in one area” because some queer cis men are disabled, neurodivergent, black, Asian, indigenous, mixed race, working class, and many other marginalized identities not determined by gender.

All queer people deserve queer safe spaces. Period.

[peonycats]

RACEBENDING NATIONAL PERSONIFICATIONS: A TREATISE

DISCLAIMERS:

I AM NOT WHITE, I AM A POC. I am not writing this because I’m a butthurt white person who gets pissy when someone makes my white faves nonwhite and thus unrelatable to me for ‘some’ reason.

I AM NOT PERSONALLY ATTACKING ANY INDIVIDUALS WHO RACEBEND OR IMAGINE THEIR NATIONS TO HAVE A DIFFERENT ETHNICITY THAN WHAT THEY DO IN CANON; ON A SIMILAR NOTE, DO NOT ATTACK SUCH INDIVIDUALS FOR ME. This is a discussion of general fandom trends and a larger phenomenon, the issue I am talking about cannot be solved on an individual to individual basis.

I AM NOT TRYING TO STOP FIRST NATIONS PEOPLE FROM RECLAIMING THEIR NATIONS. As I am not First Nations myself, I would not wish to deny what these individuals emotionally and mentally reap from reclaiming their nations.

I AM NOT THE “POC AREN’T ALLOWED TO HAVE FUN AND SEE THEMSELVES IN THEIR FAVES” POLICE; I AM NOT YOUR MOM, DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. Again, this is a discussion of fandom trends and a larger phenomenon. I think it’s almost always worth examining why we do the things we do and the reasons behind a trend.

I AM NOT AGAINST RACEBENDING IN GENERAL. This is specifically an essay on racebending in nationverse Hetalia and other personified nations fandoms.

PREFACE

As stated before in my disclaimers, this essay is not intended to be a condemnation of individuals who participate in racebending. Rather, I intend to make a macro-critique of wider structures and patterns. For this reason, this essay is not accusing anyone engaging in racebending of holding any specific belief. I cannot stress enough how much I do not know you, the hypothetical reader who engages in racebending. 

Again, my intent is to critique wider structures and patterns.

This essay is a conversation I would like to have with other POC and other marginalized groups, especially POC based in white, Western countries. Thus, I ask people not included in the above groups to refrain from weighing in on this.

ALTERNATIVE GOOGLE DOC LINK HERE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Difference in Reception for Racebent versus Non-Racebent Characters

The Inherent Politicism of Personifying Nations

The State of POC Representation in Hetalia

The Assumption of Interchangeability in POC Experience

The Myth of Multiculturalism

“It’s Just Fandom, Why Are You Trying to Control POC Who Just Want to Have Fun and Want to Represent Themselves?"

Conclusion

The Difference in Reception for Racebent versus Non-Racebent Characters

I will start this essay off with an acknowledgement of my station in the Hetalia fandom and how it uniquely equips me to talk about this topic – I am very fortunate to enjoy a follower base that primarily follows me for non-Western characters, whether they be canonical or my own original characters. As someone who mostly posts non-Western characters, I can confirm that there is a wider disparity in reception between drawings of my white characters and non-white characters. The following example is not from myself, but from the artist miyuecakes who similarly focuses on predominantly non-white, non-Western countries. You can see there is a drastic gap in the amount of notes that post focused on five nations considered to be non-Western versus a drawing of Female America.

Stating this fact of the fandom is fairly noncontroversial. I would also assert that the following statement is equally true, however given recent reception, is far more controversial: “There are far more instances of racebent canonically white/Western characters, which receive far more traction than their non-racebent counterparts, whether canonical or not.”

I want to make clear what my statement is not saying:

Racebending is only done by white people seeking to score clout and diversity points without having to care about canon non-white characters. In fact, the vast majority of racebending in the fandom is done by POC looking for representation; given the amount of white canon nations compared to any other nation, POC who engage in racebending see it as a way of “evening” the disproportionate overrepresentation of white countries.

POC who engage in racebending are doing so to score clout and diversity points with a white audience. Refer to my above point.

Racebent canonically white characters are met with no controversy or racist/bigoted vitriol. It is fairly well known that there have been multiple harassment campaigns, particularly on Twitter, against artists and editors who’ve engaged in racebending even outside of the Hetalia fandom: see the Black Anya edit, Thumin’s artwork and resulting hate. POC being visibly POC in online spaces will always garner backlash.

On a similar note, I am not including POC cosplayers cosplaying white or light-skinned characters in my definition of racebending. Being angered by POC who cosplay characters of a different complexion is blatantly racist; anyone who is angered by this has nothing of value to add and not worth arguing with.

I am a bitter artist who is mad that I don’t receive enough notes on my posts with non-racebent characters compared to posts about racebent white characters. As stated earlier, I am grateful for the audience I’ve cultivated who specifically follow me for non-racebent non-Western content; I am also more than aware that my content is not what people who seek out racebent content are looking for, and have no interest in changing either my content or their tastes. The last thing I would wish to do is to label POC creators who engage in racebending as “the enemy” and POC creators who don’t as “my side.”

With that out of the way, I bring up this observation because I think it’s worth asking ourselves, POC specifically, the following questions: Why? Why is there this discrepancy in frequency and reception between these kinds of characters and content? Why do people racebend in lieu of focusing on existing POC and creating their own non-white characters?

The easy answer most would give is because white characters are over-represented and given more screen time and attention in the canon, so people, especially POC, will become attached to them and create variations of them that hit closer to home for them; this is especially the case if you are a POC who has had experiences living as a minority in a Western country. Some POC may also use racebending as a way to subvert national myths that have historically excluded people of color for a variety of racist, imperialist reasons. I know I used to subscribe towards a depiction of non-white passing America and Canada for this very reason.

In the rest of this essay I would like to examine and critique the practice of racebending national anthropomorphisms traditionally and typically depicted as white in the context of Hetalia and by extension other media involving similar premises. This essay argues that while racebending may be harmless for most other anime, Hetalia – by virtue of its content centering real life nations – carries political implications that are not necessarily appropriate.

I stress again that I can’t stop you or what anybody in the Hetalia fandom does. I do not have that kind of power nor the will to do such a thing. All I ask is for you to listen to the following with an open mind, and if there’s only one thing you take away from this, I hope it’s to realize that POC in particular have valid reasons to dislike racebent depictions of white nations; holding such a stance does not make them anti-POC representation and somehow no longer POC and instead, a member of the white oppressor class.

The Inherent Politicism of Personifying Nations

Firstly, I repeat that a series about personified nations is deeply political and every creative choice carries political and socio-cultural ramifications, whether intentional or not and made by the creator or the fan. Even if you mostly interact with Hetalia in a depoliticized context, others may not, and given that nationverse Hetalia is about personified nations, this is perfectly reasonable. 

Let us look into the canon material of Hetalia- It is shown that nations on average have close ties to their governments, viewing them as their bosses and carrying out actions for them. We are shown that there are nations who go against the orders of their governments, such as Germany; this does not mean all nations follow in that pattern, however, and there are many who are in lockstep with their governments and their actions.

Therefore, for individuals whose ethnic groups and nations have suffered great harm from oppressor nation-states (Philippines v. United States, Indonesia v. Netherlands, India v. England), it is not irrational for them to be unsettled by their oppressor being racebent- especially when said oppressor nation-state is depicted as being the same ethnicity as the very group(s) they marginalized. This is uncomfortable for multiple reasons: 

There is an implication that a member of a marginalized group possibly chose to take part in atrocities and misdeeds that the said marginalized group historically not the major perpetrator behind. In more egregious cases, a member of a marginalized group willingly chose to commit atrocities and misdeeds on a large scale against their own group.

The oppressor state personification was forced by their government to commit these grievous acts of harm against members of other marginalized groups/their own marginalized groups; thus, the personification of the nation-state, the people, has little to no culpability as an oppressor, and is instead made into a fellow victim of their own government. 

This deflects blame from the embodiment of the state of being an oppressor. The suggestion here is that the state is somehow completely separate yet intertwined with the government – it was simply the government who perpetrated the crimes… the people were just unwillingly complicit. This can come across as an erasure/rosewashing of the very purposeful policies used to harm and disadvantage colonized/oppressed groups.

This can also erase the fact that in many cases, the people gave the government’s actions their tacit approval whether it was through whole-hearted enthusiasm or apathy towards the suffering of others. 

In the case that the racebent nation’s minority ethnicity was historically involved in such acts, this involves highly sensitive conversations about minorities’ complicity in crimes and assimilation into the white/majority order (e.g. Chinese and East Asian settlers in Hawaii after America’s illegal annexation, Korean collaborators with the Japanese annexation of Korea, African American soldiers in the Philippines); these are extremely touchy subjects that should be had within the relevant ethnic groups, and should not be appropriated by outsiders, particularly white people, especially for fandom purposes.

(I will discuss insiders racebending nation-states to their ethnic group that have suffered mistreatment and oppressed by said nation-states in “The Myth of Multiculturalism.”)

Additionally, racebending may end up justifying those very same crimes, especially in the case of settler colonialism. For example, during French rule of Algeria, the French government began a program of confiscating Algerian land from indigenous Algerians and giving them to French and European settlers. Over the course of two centuries, more and more land was taken away from indigenous Algerians, forcing them to move to the margins of society, where they were barred from accessing employment, higher education, and the other societal amenities. 

Many would be able to identify how personifying Algeria as a white, French individual would be erasing indigenous Algerians and implying that the French settlers represent all of Algeria. However, conversely, making France an Algerian man is also playing into colonial French propaganda. The French viewed Algeria as part of France and the French homeland itself, unique even among other French African colonies, and made plans to make Algeria a full-fledged French province, or department. To make the national personification of France Algerian then, is to suggest that this belief was and is correct, that the Algerians are a part of the colonial core of France, even if the intention is to represent the modern day Algerian diaspora in France.

IMPORTANT: I will expand on the politics of representing diaspora populations in the section “The Myth of Multiculturalism.”

Given all of these reasons for why POC may justifiably react negatively to a racebent white nation personification, some may argue against these with:

“Why is it that when the nation is white, they never have to deal with any of these heavy discussions of imperialism, bigotry, oppression, etc, but when they’re racebent they suddenly have to? Why are they suddenly politicized when they’re racebent?”

My response to that is that they were politicized, even when they were white because the act of personifying a nation is inherently political; to ignore a white nation’s history of oppression is a politically charged move in of itself. Are we really depoliticizing POC when we racebend a white nation and try to maintain that same ‘depoliticization’ and omission of historical oppression but this time for a POC face? To racebend a white nation is to refuse to contend with the contradiction of transforming an oppressor class to the very group they marginalize - making racebending an inherently political act. It is not necessarily that whiteness is unpolitical but rather that an active refusal to deal with this contradiction makes the political implications much more obvious.

Additionally, this rebuttal raises another question- Were we to completely forget about a character’s background as the personification of an oppressor state and the political weight of that, would that truly solve the problem of POC being politicized? I don’t think so- In the current world we live in, POC are always political. But exclusively racebending oppressor states makes no attempt to depoliticize non-Western POC states, creating a divide between POC that get to be “depoliticized” and POC who don’t based on their proximity to the West.

The State of POC Representation in Hetalia

Some would argue with the points of my last paragraph saying that I am not including POC who both engage in racebending but also create non-Western POC OCs; if equal attention is given to both, there would be no division between racebent Western POC who get to be humanized and non-Western POC who don’t, right?

To answer this we must acknowledge wider trends in racebending in Hetalia. Consider the following: When somebody has a North African! Romano, how many other North African nations (canon or non-canon) do they show appreciation for? Create content for? Expound the same amount of mental and creative energy for? Furthermore: If they do have another North African nation(s) they create content for, are they allowed to exist as their own separate beings, and not purely exist to be North African! Romano’s tie to North Africa?

Chances are, Romano is reduced to being the token brown character in a largely white cast and isn’t allowed to ever exist without whiteness surrounding him. This is a very diaspora experience, but I find it unfortunate that in a piece of media that enables us to explore any number of cultures and experiences over all of time and history, we (and I’m including myself as another POC who grew up in a primarily white environment) are unable to imagine ourselves outside of this setting and celebrate ourselves without having to exist against a white mainstream. Stories about white engulfment are allowed to exist and should be told, but why is this so common? Why do these stories disproportionately outnumber POC stories where whiteness is minute or absent?

As my audience is intended to be mostly POC, I will not elaborate on the following scenario too much, but I will ask us to scrutinize the ethics of it. What about cases where white individuals racebend some of their white favorite characters and position them as POC representation in lieu of actually focusing on POC, non-Western nations, canon or not? Does this not have implications about what kinds of POC and diversity are considered more palatable and appealing?

Furthermore, when another North African nation does exist alongside racebent Romano, their character and depiction is almost always heavily dependent on their relationship to Romano, a Western nation. This still perpetuates the same inequality I was talking about earlier where POC nations are humanized based on their proximity to the West, whether because they personify a Western nation or happen to have a relationship with a Western nation.

We should not just be talking about having “more” non-white representation, but also the quality of it. It is completely understandable why some POC may not be satisfied with the representation most racebent content provides, even beyond the reasons outlined previously; this type of representation excludes POC who do not have a relationship to the West, and is still largely focused on the West. 

IMPORTANT: I am not saying that contact with or influence from the West makes POC somehow “less POC” or that stories from Western-based diaspora are a “diluted” form of representation. I will expand on this in the section “The Myth of Multiculturalism.”

“Well if it’s not good enough for those POC, then they should just mind their business and make their own representation! There’s plenty of non-racebent content out there!”

Many POC do exactly that- creating their own representation without racebending. However, as established earlier, racebent white characters receive far more attention and feedback compared to canonical non-white characters, despite the fact that both depictions fulfill the purpose of “representation.” This can be especially disheartening in a fandom that already heavily tokenizes canon POC nations, whether it’s India being presented as the “nanny”/surrogate parent in Commonwealth group art or Seychelles as the “adopted child of color” in FACES family. To POC content creators, it feels insulting that the wider fandom, rather than developing POC canon characters (or taking advantage of the source material’s potential by making OCs) and viewing them as representation, the fandom chooses to racebend Western nations and celebrates them instead.

I want to make clear again what I am not saying with that statement:

POC who engage in racebending are doing so to score clout and diversity points with a white audience. Again, it’s a fact that the vast majority of racebending is done by POC looking to create their own representation.

POC who engage in racebending should all go stan Seychelles and Cuba instead. This is an extremely individualist solution to what is a wider phenomenon. I do not blame POC based in Western countries for feeling disconnected to the few POC nations we have in canon.

Racebent POC content is more popular than content of non-racebent white characters.

What I am describing here is how an audience (the Hetalia fandom) receives two creations, both made by POC in the pursuit of creating more representation, and the difference in reception. The difference, it seems, is that the wider fandom deems certain kinds of POC representation more appealing, and thus, certain kinds of POC worth focusing on.

The Assumption of Interchangeability in POC Experience

Earlier, I mentioned that one of the possible reasons for POC to engage in racebending is the desire to see an iteration of their favorite character that is closer to their own reality and lived experience. Therefore, some may choose to racebend a white character to embody a marginalized minority in the country instead so they can share more experiences with the formerly white characters. 

Here, I will not be dealing with the practice of POC racebending their own country to their own ethnicity, which is the focus of the next section. Instead, I will be delving into the practice of POC racebending another nation to embody a minority (one which they do not belong to) for the purposes of ‘putting themselves in their interpretations.’ I argue that to do this requires assuming a certain level of interchangeability between POC experiences.

First and foremost, POC are not a monolith- we lead drastically different lives depending on our ethnic backgrounds, where we live, our socioeconomic class, our political and racial context, and etc. Therefore, we cannot presume that our experiences of marginalization mean we’ll always succeed in properly representing other minority groups elsewhere; in fact, the goal of projecting our own life experiences onto them means that there will be an obstacle to properly representing these minority groups.

Take the following example: Imagine a Chinese-Malaysian individual greatly enjoys the character of Spain. Wishing to better relate to him, the individual racebends him to be also Chinese. However, a great deal of historical, cultural determinants and nuances separate the experiences of Chinese people in Spain and Chinese people in Malaysia. There are similarities, yes, but this Chinese Malaysian cannot hope to properly represent the Chinese population in Spain if their primary goal remains self-projection. Now imagine that our Chinese-Malaysian individual wished to racebend England to be Indian; an even wider gap separates the experiences and history of Chinese people in Malaysia and Indian people in England, making it even less likely that our individual will succeed in representing the experiences of Indian people in England.

Another point to consider is that attempts at racebending certain national personifications to represent minorities in the country end up erasing representation for the majority population of the country. For example, there has been a historical Japanese community in Peru that dates back to the 1800s and made a large impact on Peruvian culture. However, it would still be inappropriate to make a Peru OC that is mostly Japanese in race, because besides just being not representative of the 99.9% of non-Japanese Peruvians, it would also be taking representation from Peruvian mestizo and indigenous peoples, who make up over 80% of Peru’s population.

This isn’t even taking into consideration cases where nations are racebent to personify ethnic groups that do not have a numerically significant or historically significant population.

“So what if it’s inaccurate? I just want to self-project onto my favorite character!”

If that’s your response, then I encourage you to read the section “It’s Just Fandom, Why Are You Trying to Control POC Who Just Want to Have Fun and Want to Represent Themselves?” where I address assertions of "fandom is not activism" and similar points.

For now, I will ask you to consider the feelings of those very minorities you are ostensibly representing, even if your primary intention is to project your own experiences onto a character. Chances are, they also suffer from little to no representation that depicts them in inaccurate and unflattering ways.

Hetalia is a media property supposedly centered around exploring and learning about other cultures, but so often fails to accurately and sensitively depict many cultures and nations. Should we not show them the grace that canon Hetalia fails to provide?

The Myth of Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism is typically defined as a celebration of a nation’s ethnic diversity. This is generally considered to be a good and progressive value to have, but a closer and more critical look at multiculturalism in practice suggests that not even a value directed at xenophobia is immune to in-group out-group biases. When enacted by the state, multiculturalism is less an acceptance of diversity as it currently exists (especially in regards to non-indigenous ethnicities) and more an assimilation of these “foreign cultures” into the dominant national one.

For example, Singapore has built much of its national identity as a “multicultural” society. This is shown through government policies in language and education, where the languages of the 3 ethnic groups (Chinese, Tamil Indians, Malays) are all officialized and the government promotes education for ethnic minorities in their mother tongues. However, the label of “multicultural” hides the reality of power inequality between the various ethnic groups. Minorities face pressure to display literacy in the language and culture of the Chinese majority for greater societal acceptance and inclusion. In fact, the assertion that Singapore is a multicultural society that treats its ethnic groups all equally, is often used as a cudgel to shut down any allegations that Singapore fails to live up to this national identity. As my audience is intended to be predominantly POC, especially those living as minorities in Western nations, members of my audience are of course familiar with insistences of “But Canada/United States/etc is a melting pot society! Racism isn’t a serious issue, POC can’t be treated poorly in those countries.”

By racebending a national personification to be part of a marginalized population, this is making a political statement by asserting that the marginalized population is in fact a part of that nation, and has always been, despite historical exclusion. The act of racebending is an overly idealistic and uncritical agreement with multiculturalism, without considering how the value actually applies in practice. It rosewashes the reality and existence of cultural imperialism enacted on immigrant/outsider groups. 

Racebending can therefore accidentally act as multicultural propaganda, especially when the invokement of multiculturalism is used to stamp out valid critiques of othering and racialization by ethnic minorities. (E.g. “Singapore can’t have problems with racism against Malays! Singapore himself is Malay!”)

IMPORTANT: If you want to argue that nation personifications are not inherently representative of their government, refer to the section, “The Inherent Politicism of Personifying Nations.”

“Well, POC based in Western countries will naturally feel more connected to their Western countries than their homelands, often because of those policies intended to break their connections to their homelands. Why can’t they racebend to reclaim? To feel connected to their Western countries in contrast to their realities of ostracization and othering?”

I have already discussed why other POC (those affected by a white regime’s actions) would be uncomfortable with the implications of tying a POC/marginalized group with said white regime’s misdeeds in the section “The Inherent Politicism of Personifying Nations” so I will not discuss it here beyond mentioning it.

Firstly, I must acknowledge that this argument is fundamentally an emotional one. I do not want to deny what POC in Western countries emotionally derive from racebending the nation-state, even as a fellow POC based in a Western country. Instead, I will approach this argument from another angle.

I ask the following: When trying to represent our experiences as diaspora and minorities, why is personifying a diaspora/minority community not a popular option? The act of choosing to personify a community is inherently political, and we can use it to empower ourselves as diaspora or minorities. For example, by personifying diaspora communities, we can acknowledge that diaspora experiences are different enough from those in the ‘homeland’ to warrant another personification, and also avoid accidentally justifying colonial possession of those ‘homeland’ states. 

Additionally, by personifying diaspora/minority communities, we can 1) better reflect our unique day-to-day experiences of being racialized and separated from the mainstream, 2) avoid many of the earlier uncomfortable implications of minority collaboration in majority perpetrated acts and condoning colonialism, and 3) stress our independence and autonomy despite the efforts of the state and majority population to take that away.

To put it another way, why are there so many stories of minorities striving towards being included, or from another angle, subsumed, into the white nation-state despite its frequent rejection of them? Again, what does it say that these narratives of “inclusion into a historically white nation-state” disproportionately outnumber POC narratives where whiteness is minute or absent?

IMPORTANT: I am not singling you, the hypothetical POC diaspora individual who engages in racebending, out. I am asking about wider patterns of representation in media.

“But by personifying diaspora and minority communities separately from the personification of the nation-state, isn’t that basically saying that minorities will never be seen as part of the nation-state? That we will never be included when people think of our nation state?”

I believe this response takes too narrow a perspective on what multiculturalism is and “being part of a nation-state means,” and thus views having separate personifications as ‘justifying’ or ‘promoting’ our exclusion from the nation-state when it may not be the case.

Look at it from this way- Is it not also problematic to have only one avatar for, say, America, and thus imply that there is one true way of being “American?” Having multiple American personifications, in contrast, is a more true depiction of the realities of being American, and more true to the values of multiculturalism; it instead suggests that there are many ways to be American, that we don’t have to be subsumed into the mainstream to be considered “American.”

“Isn’t that functionally the same as different interpretations of the same nation-state coexisting? Why can’t fans just all have a different Alfred/America specific to their own experience who are all equally considered American?”

Once more: I am not trying to stop anyone from doing anything. That’s not within my power to do so. I agree with this statement that largely, having multiple American personifications and multiple America/Alfred fulfills the same purpose of showing that to be American means something different to everyone. However, the reason I advocated for the former approach is because it achieves the same goal with a lot less uncomfortable questions and unique benefits (minority autonomy), as detailed above.

“It’s Just Fandom, Why Are You Trying to Control POC Who Just Want to Have Fun and Want to Represent Themselves?”

First off, I am presenting this essay as a conversation with other POC because I want to make it explicitly known that my position here is not that of a white person seeking to silence POC and lecture them about what is and is not good for them. Secondly, it's because I want to talk about racebending as it currently exists in the Hetalia fandom, something mostly done by POC who wish to represent themselves and create the diversity missing in the source material. I believe pointing out that white people who are uncomfortable with POC characters or only racebend for self-centered reasons likely have a racial bias is obvious, especially to other POC, and wish to progress the conversation beyond this. This is why my discussion on racebending is moving beyond white bias.

As part of centering this as a discussion among POC, I am also assuming good faith from my interlocutors, that their desires for representation and diversity are sincere, and that I don’t look down on them. I hope then, that this assumption of good faith can be afforded to me as well- that my interlocutors believe me when I say that the last thing I want to do is control POC, as a fellow POC.

Having gotten all of that out of the way, let's address some rebuttals to the arguments I've made thus far.

"Who are you to decide what kind of representation resonates with POC?"

You're right. I can't decide what kind of representation resonates with POC. Again, I am not intent on controlling POC, and again, I recognize that many of the arguments in favor of racebending white nations come from an emotional place; I can’t control how POC feel, even if I wanted to do that.

However, it's precisely because of this that I've made my arguments based on  factors other than emotional ones, such as the political implications and questioning the inclusivity racebending provides us with. POC joy and happiness is crucial in the face of a system that seeks to crush and suppress us. But from one POC to another, it's not much of a discussion if your response to my points is simply, "Well, it makes me feel represented and happy, and that's what matters most." If we argued based on that, we could go all day. Am I not a POC myself? Do the feelings and happiness of POC who are uncomfortable with racebending not matter? For that matter, who are you to tell the people whose families and people have been historically affected by white imperialist states to stop disliking racebent versions of those imperialist states?

For white people, it is easy for them to shut down racebending, because they don't understand the experience of never seeing yourself in any form of media. I have asked white/non-marginalized people to refrain from this discussion for that very reason. But in exchange for that, we should be able to discuss the ramifications of racebending national personifications, and look deeper at the arguments for and against racebending.

"You're taking this too seriously. People giving more attention to racebent versions of Western countries versus non-racebent POC countries doesn't say anything deeper about someone's political beliefs. People just like the silly anime about personified countries, and that silly anime happens to give more attention to the canonically white countries."

To a certain extent, I get this rebuttal. We cannot solve racism or the privileging of the global north by reblogging Hetalia fanart of Seychelles and Cameroon. Everything I have described here is symptomatic of much, much larger issues that affect billions. But it's symptomatic: fandom is not immune to the ills of wider society. We do not shed our innate biases and prejudices when we enter supposedly apolitical spaces like fandom. In a series about personified nations, our prejudices and biases are naturally magnified because the source material’s nature is deeply political, dealing with history and personified nations and states.

Again I ask: What does it mean that the POC representation made by POCs is so often limited to racebending canonically white characters, in the context of the world order we live in where proximity to the West automatically confers certain privileges?

IMPORTANT: Refer to the section “The Myth of Multiculturalism” if you respond to this with “Are you saying depictions of Western-influenced POC experiences are a lesser form of representation?”

If that fails to convince you, and you still believe the inequality in reception between racebent and non-racebent nations doesn’t say anything deeper, I respond with the following- Isn’t it still worth it to try and show the same support and energy to the non-racebent, non-Western countries and their creators, regardless of whether that content speaks to you or not?

One last time, I’ll clarify what I’m not saying with that:

Stop liking America and Russia and England. I repeat, I cannot control what POC like or feel or do, and I repeat, what characters you personally like is a very individualistic view on a wider, systemic issue.

In the section “The State of POC Representation in Hetalia,” I discussed how disproportionately giving to racebent countries versus non-racebent non-Western countries is not an intersectional form of POC representation, and fails to address the underrepresentation of non-Western countries and cultures given the global colonial hierarchy. My above statement is therefore saying that if we POC want to achieve a more intersectional form of solidarity and representation, to create a fandom that’s more non-Western friendly, to generally support all types of POC creators, we should not neglect certain kinds of POC content just because it doesn’t personally resonate with us.

You don’t have to. Fandom is not activism. For many, fandom is an escape from the grim realities of the outside world. But in a media property all about exploring other countries’ cultures and histories, can we not strive for the spirit of the source material, and be a little more open-minded in exploring other countries and other forms of POC representation? Even in this miniscule way?

CONCLUSION

I would like to conclude this essay on the matter of irithnova, and the recent controversy she’s been embroiled in for stating many of the points I have made. Yes, our tones were different. But no amount of harsh tone warrants the outrage and rather racist backlash her post received. irithnova has been one of the most active voices in the Hetalia fandom speaking out against racism, from the exclusion of POC in j-ellyfish’s character polls to myrddin’s behavior. However, as soon as she, a Filipino, expresses personal discomfort with certain depictions of a nation that’s caused great harm to her people, other POC were the first to get mad at her for seeing the political implications of a POC personified America, to the point of trying to deny her reality as a feminized and racialized member of the diaspora living in a colonial European country and calling her functionally white.

POC solidarity doesn’t mean we have to all agree with each other, or even like every other POC. But I want to note the irony here of people committing the very act they accused irithnova of doing- telling her, a Filipino, that she wasn’t allowed to criticize racebent depictions of America, thereby trying to control POC.

If your response to this is “Well, sure irithnova didn’t deserve the harassment, but she was still wrong to criticize racebending because it wasn’t her place!” I would like to remind you of the following points:

Scroll up to the top and read this essay again. Regardless of tone used, there are valid reasons for POC to dislike and criticize depictions of racebent countries.

irithnova, as a Filipino living in the West and has Filipino relatives in the USA, is intimately aware of the nature of American imperialism and racism against POC. The United States promised to help the Philippines achieve independence but instead robbed it of its sovereignty, putting down resistance to its takeover and instituting American rule because they viewed Filipinos as “lesser” and incapable of governing themselves because of their race. If it isn’t irithnova’s place to feel uncomfortable (and thus criticize) racebent America, then whose is it?

Finally, I want to emphasize one more thing- First Nations/Indigenous individuals have a unique relationship to the colonial settler states that occupy their land. Like I’ve said so many times, I cannot tell any POC how to feel or what to do, and even more so in this case because I myself am not First Nations/Indigenous; I’ve only provided arguments about the pitfalls of racebending and the merits of other forms of representation. But just as how I cannot tell you what to feel or do, nobody can stop other POC feeling put off by a racebent America.

At the end of the day, despite the who-knows-how-many paragraphs I’ve spent articulating the reasons against racebending canonically white nations, I cannot stop anyone from racebending nations if they wish to. But I do hope readers come away with a better understanding of the flaws of racebending, and the benefits of looking away from the Western mainstream and looking elsewhere to represent our experiences as diaspora and minorities. If you’re someone who engages in racebending, but still chose to read this 6K word long essay on the Hetalia fandom, I can’t express my gratitude enough for hearing me out. Honestly, anybody who read through this entire post deserves an award- Thanks for reading 💖

[neechees]

maybe im just being uncharitable, but honestly sometimes it feels like people on here are purposely obtuse. rather than listening and learning or looking things up on their own, they put all the onus on indigenous bloggers to explain literally everything

NO you're absolutely right, it's been getting worse I think. Not even just with Natives, but other ethnicities and marginalized groups as well. Anti intellectualism and learned helplessness & obtuseness is on the rise i think. And a lot of people are just lazy.

I think this also has evolved from online (& in this case on tumblr) through the years when nonwhite ppl were talking about our marginalization & we said "lf you care, listen to us", and then that morphed into us also saying "educate yourself", but then White people turned that into "educate me if I fuck up 😔" meaning like, White people also expected someone else to do the labor of teaching them 1. What they did wrong 2. How to be better 3. Hold their hand all the way through 4. Offer further instructions like readings (which White ppl then would promptly ignore), and now if you don't do this, them you're blamed for the failed interaction. Like you're an adult, there's various mediums to unlearn your biases & bigotry, people have just become accustomed to demanding being spoonfed any & every piece of information no matter how minor & how easy it is to Google.

Even just telling someone to google something gets the response of "but google is useless now" like, the general statement of saying "google it" doesn't only mean "specifically use the search engine Google dot com and search up your desired question", it means "the internet is at your fingertips and you have various means to find your answer through it, and you can find it yourself".

Like I know people dont mean to be annoying, but sometimes it gets ridiculous

[qweerhet]

i do think that the abolitionists who cling to the "it's simple, just kick abusers/assaulters/rapists/murderers out of the community" line are just... usually people who have never had the experience of someone they deeply, deeply care for, someone they have committed their life to, committing serious and egregious harm. (that, or they have, and like anti-abortion folks who get abortions for themselves when push comes to shove, they come up with narratives about how their situation was the most singular and special situation in the entire world, and nothing else like that could ever happen to anyone else.)

but like... when you run into that situation IRL, you generally find it's not ever as simple as kicking someone out, or rolling up with your crew and beating them until they promise to move somewhere else. they have complex relationships within the community, some of which aren't going to be willing to cut them off entirely no matter what they did. family relationships--regardless of biology, "family" in the broader sense of "chosen bonds of unconditional love and lifelong commitment"--are notably often capable of weathering severe strain, and that can include shit like "you're still my sister even if you murdered someone."

and people who commit harm IRL have complex and multifaceted reasons for committing that harm, some of which can be systemic in nature. this isn't to say that the harm doesn't exist, or that their actions are excused or justified by those reasons, but when you have an intimate relationship with someone and are privy to the complexities of the situation, those reasons do often materially complicate situations beyond just "beat the villain up and save the victims." if the serious harm someone is enacting is materially pressured by systemic factors, it's incredibly unlikely that it will change or stop if they're forced to move cities and cut off from their former relationships. in fact, when we're talking about abuse and trauma that's partially enacted due to material systemic pressure, it's more likely that someone will become even more unstable and volatile when forced to rebuild their life, and continue to enact even worse harm due to their decreased supports and increased vulnerability.

like... we're all damn well aware that when we, as abolitionists, talk about this shit, we're not talking about jeff bezos. we're not even talking about joe smith two neighborhoods over with a six-figure salaried position and a 401k that he started in the 70s. we're talking about the people in our abolitionist communities, who are victim to generational poverty, who are usually disabled, trans, nonwhite. we're people who don't have the option to just find a new job and start over in a new city one day. and we're people who exist at the nexus of intense, violent societal pressures pushing us to harm one another, to use what little hierarchical power we can get against each other, to commit real and lasting violent harm. that shit is complex in reality. that shit isn't addressed by a pithy "kill your local rapist" patch or a tweet questioning why anyone's still talking to [insert transfem who abused someone here].

and like. it's hard! it's upsetting and difficult and miserable to get into the weeds of "why did someone do what awful thing they did and how do we actually materially reduce the likelihood of that happening." because the answers usually don't involve forcing them to move or forcing everyone who speaks to them to cut them off or beating them, in reality, and even though those answers feel good and feel like real solutions, they're not only unrealistic, they also usually actually make future harm of the same kind more likely. and it's hard to wrap our heads around the fact that people will continue to hurt each other in profoundly horrific ways until we learn to dismantle the systems enabling that harm and heal the dysfunction within individuals that makes them feel like that harm was justifiable and necessary. that sucks. but in the end, i think it's the only... realistic way forward? because the ~just kick em out~ ~just kill em~ line is so, so ungrounded in reality.

[dailyadventureprompts]

i think you had a good analysis on the grimlocks & how to fix them overall, but i disagree that taking an "ancient aliens" route is a good way to fix them. i know it likely wasnt your intent, but all the ancient aliens stuff is also based in racist ideals of which societies were "advanced" enough to make certain things, and are also often quite antisemitic. sprinkling some stuff from that into the grimlocks gives it a good chance of just becoming racist in a different way

Friend I am all too familiar with the conspiracy theory/quack archaeology headspace so when I touch on that iconography I do so with deliberate intent.

The fundamental context of the ancient alien theory is "These buildings are too impressive for nonwhite savage people to build, they must've been constructed through advanced technology handed down by a white atlantian/interdimensional/alien civilization from whom the white explorer claims decent."

I'm a big fan of playing with problematic fiction tropes (especially in the pulp genre) by swapping perspectives around to the people the author doesn't expect you to sympathize with, and in the case of the ancient aliens setup it's something along the lines of "Man it sucks that this asshole with lazerbeams showed up, enslaved us, fundamentally altered what we were and forced generations of our people to labour to death building him a palace. We should unionize and kill that guy"

I was specifically inspired by the brilliant Innsmouth Legacy novel series which reinterprets Lovecraft from the perspective of the people his fiction acted as a veil for his (and the entire pulp genre he was a pillar of) prejudice.