#racism discussion tw

[fumifooms]

do you happen to have that page that talks about the beauty standards of each race?

Yeah sure. While scavenging pics for this I found this neat reddit compilation & chart & theory talk too. I had um, way more to say than I anticipated (I know you only wanted the one page. I have nothing to say for myself. Like most topics in Dunmeshi things snowball because they’re so interconnected. Mercy…) so, many races and observations are only mentioned near the bottom.

Beauty standards and race in Dungeon Meshi

Not pictured there’s also how elven society is harsh on visibly disabled people, and how the demon took away Mithrun’s silver eyes and ears to take away his pride. There’s also how Senshi might have fit in with the orcs more easily because of the dwarven wide body shape, and how they tend to have more body hair too I suppose. In the extra on orcs we see Senshi living with the orcs and he gets judged because of the hierarchy rather than his looks.

What is fashionable also differs from culture to culture, and there’s how tattoos only seem common with elves, though dwarves and others do also sometimes have some. They seem to not raise much brows, which makes sense since for many essentially they’re for professional (magical) purposes especially with elves. Gender roles also differ in type and importance, but generally they are similar to irl ones for the races we see. Elven society seems to be the least gendered, which would be an unsurprising logical outcome of having lesser sexual dimorphism aka they look more androgynous. Comparing fashions and gender roles and how they affect beauty standards would be a whole other compilation and conversation. Kui has great worldbuilding partially because she’s got such a good grasp on sociopolitics and geopolitics. History affects cultures and beauty standards greatly. Kui’s oneshot Distant Utopia was very eye opening on her way to worldbuild and the consideration she gives these things, I do really recommend reading it.

Out of the big 5, we know the least about gnomes, but their sheet does say both culture and region are similar to dwarves’ and they end up being confused together often, so we can imagine the beauty standards are similar to dwarves’ as well.

I wanted to touch on this in a post eventually, but how one daydream hour page said half-foots tended to be curvaceous like in the artwork below puzzled me for a long time, all the half-foot characters we see during canon are rather slender and lanky after all, Chil’s succubi also being more curvy than plump. Economics are for sure a factor in that I imagine, the half-foots characters we see are all implied to be some flavor of poor or malnourished, as are half-foots depicted as empoverished oppressed minorities in general. Even comparing the artwork with the half-foot sheet’s depicted average half-foot, the ones on the left seem bigger. Wouldn’t it make sense though, if unlike dwarves half-foots don’t have similar naturally wide bodies, yet due to idolizing dwarves they work towards having a similar body shape/type to emulate them?

It’s said half-foots tend to stick to pretty ethnically homogeneous regions (aka half-foots-only communities) unless they move to the big city with ambition to try and make it big (like Chilchuck and his wife & kids did), and that’s interesting imo because then that would mean that in a ton of half-foot communities, they rarely see or interact with dwarves whom they try to emulate. Of course, one thing about beauty standards is that when they get adopted, at one point it stops being "this is how dwarves look and so this is how half-foots should look" and just becomes "this is how half-foots should look", most people feel as though beauty standards aren’t learned but innate, so I figure the half-foots wouldn’t have any problem still seeking dwarvish traits when there are no dwarves around.

There’s also stuff you can glean here and there if you want to extrapolate more. Like how in the race swap artworks, Mickbell is only smiling in the dwarf portrait, and Rin’s elven portrait looks very close to her elven one- Rin who is stated to be beautiful in her profile blurb. Benichidori’s extra does teach us tallmen can definitely have harsh beauty standards, but also since the text portrays her as very dysmorphic that’s likely reflected in her thoughts to a much more intense degree than is common, not an accurate strict baseline to go off. Ah, Kabru’s blue eyes are also why he and his mother lived a rough life in Kabru’s hometown, but that seems to be regional. Good post here on the topic of Kabru’s blue eyes and ties to irl history. There’s a lot to be said about Kabru being a man that in many ways is close to elven beauty standards, and how that might have affected or been affected by his upbringing with elves + his persona as someone that can effortlessly charm most people. Marcille’s section here in this essay also goes into Marcille’s struggles to fit in with the ideal image of an elf.

Looking human

Also notable are beastkins and demihumans: Demihumans are all dehumanized which makes people treat them worse. So if you differ from the visual idea of "human" (an in-world subjective categorization just as much as demihuman is) most people do judge you negatively. Elves and dwarves get to fight about which type of human is considered the prettiest, but demihumans are below tallmen and half-foots, they are considered as simply below the beauty contest, incompatible with it.

Onis are perhaps the demihuman people we know of with the least cultural influence on the dunmeshi world, and with the least intensely different appearance than other demihumans—they seem to be technically categorized as human to people not from the eastern archipelago?— but even them are treated as lesser than human, treated as beasts to slain for reputation points or useful strength to have around and command. It’s said their "magnificient horns" and fangs are often shaven off when the oni lives in tallman towns, so you could easily make the argument that onis are denied the right to have their own beauty standards, having to conform to other people’s and going through mutilation to take away features they might otherwise have taken pride in. Inutade was bought by the Nakamotos from a dangerous sumo fighting ring that got one of Inutade’s tooth broken on her first and only fight, and kept as a low ranking servant ever since. Remember when I said different fashions existed in dunmeshi and how those could also affect beauty standards? Like the elves, if you look at the portraits pages which include a lot of characters that aren’t in the story you can see distinct cultures within the same races, for example one young elf is bald which is in sharp contrast with the usual elven long luscious hairstyles, and that’s especially true for onis I think. Maybe not only from different regions but different eras as well… They have a bit of population in the very north of the western continent, so I like to think some of the ogres live in very cold, maybe even subarctic or arctic conditions. The point I’m getting at here is that within a race, culture/ethnicity like with Kabru will also influence them it isn’t just tallmen as a whole, different communities will have differing beauty standards. The oni history blurb and third row first collumn portrait remind me of Mongolia (which historically was a lot of different nomadic communities with different cultural identities as well. Something something, the oni empire experienced a decline and then tallmen overpowered them, and now they’re governed and split apart by stronger social classes & slavers and the richness of culture was hurt for it especially if they have no real community left of their own), but obviously many of them are dressed and look rather japanese, makes sense considering living in/close to Wa, and first row second collumn portrait reminds me of ainus which again would be logical considering geographical placement, though I’m far from an expert. Interestingly, ainus are indigenous people both in Japan and Russia- Perhaps the northern western continent ogres are meant to be closer to Russia than Canada like I imagined? Ok tangent over.

The kobold sheet says they’re especially sought after as slaves because they’re "adorable", but locally in the western continent they’re repeatedly said to be seen more as ferocious and dangerous. The dehumanization is most apparent in the first comic below. The language barrier and conflicts no doubt worsen this by a lot, but I think it’d be hard to deny that their canine appearance makes the dehumanization worse. "They’re ferocious beasts, they’re demihumans, they can’t be communicated with". Most characters in Dungeon Meshi’s world are desensitized to slavery and most characters are prejudiced one way or another. Point being, kobolds are fully removed from human beauty standards, but no doubt for kobolds, other kobolds are more beautiful than humans are. They’re assumed to be an uncivilized bunch, but just like any other people they like to adorn themselves with nice clothes and jewelry and keep themselves clean and groomed; they too take care of their appearance and take pride in it.

And the orcs! This one we have the most contact with in canon, with not only there being foreigner characters from the ethnicity or hearsay of their homelands and culture but full on contact with a community. We get to see up close what they’re like and what they think, and of course in turn they’re our introduction to how demihumans are harshly looked down upon and seen as inferior, less human and thus less worth valuing and less dignified. It’s text that orcs are ugly to most humans and humans are ugly to most orcs. Since I judged they didn’t need accompanying explanation the pictures showing this are in the pictures dump at the top.

God forbid you sell vegetables to orcs my god- but then again they do basically mandate adventurers to kill any orcs they come across so yeah the world isn’t above that even a little bit.

So yes, my main point here is simply that orcs are yet another evidence of the physical ideal of "human" being an important beauty standard for human societies globally.

Izutsumi is our glimpse at how beastkins are treated in the world, and in Wa at least that’s ending up being caged and mistreated as part of a freak show. Izutsumi hates her appearance and wishes she could leave the feline part of herself behind to only be human. Interestingly, not that we have a lot of info on them so this is very much a take with a grain of salt situation, but there seems to be less stigma around artificial beastmen, those who can shapeshift at will. The main difference is of course appearance, that most of the time they simply look like average tattooed humans. Artificially creating humans is an illegal practice, and no doubt it’s not well regarded, but being able to hide that makes them less likely to be discriminated at any moment, or even just discriminated less intensely. Again, looking human is important, not only for belonging but for safety’s sake. Beauty standards rule the world with harsh hands.

Mermaids and fishmen

Ok we’re done now right? Right-! But wait… Wait…! Mermaids and fishmen are said to be demihumans too, special separate cases to the main three demihuman species however, which is also represented by how mermaids and fishmen both are in the Adventurer’s Bible chapter Monsters meanwhile ogres, kobolds and orcs are in the chapter World. They’re an interesting topic because they directly tackle this topic, not only in a meta way for the readers but also making characters themselves struggle to quantify their humanity with the goal of knowing wether they should be eaten or not, especially Chilchuck. Chilchuck’s "is it really just a matter of feelings?" mini arc.

The party asking themselves "Should we eat this?" is very common, and often they end up playing a little loose on morality, like eating the red dragon’s meat despite it having digested Falin. Not unsimilarly Marcille freaks out a little over the vegetables they harvested having been grown with fertilizer, aka largely human poo. Half of the motivation of "should we eat this perhaps sentient creature" is out of consideration and compassion, but more strongly and more often, the characters struggle with a sense of taboo at eating something too closely related to humans. Even, feel uncomfortable because of the deepseated impression that eating it would dirty them in some way. Cannibalism is an interesting and relevant topic in many ways, but what I want to mention is how there’s the more or less universal belief that committing cannibalism inherently taints you as a person and turns you more monstrous, morally but also literally depending on some myths such as w*ndigos and onis in some cases, like in Touge Oni. Marcille and Izutsumi both express a fear of eating monsters turning them monstrous. Maybe this is part of what Laios was hoping for, honestly. There are two fears here, if eating a demihuman monster constitutes as cannibalism or not, and so, will eating it taint you because it’s a human, or will eating it taint you because it’s a monster? You are what you eat, until it’s a little too literal. You morally are the means by which you get your food, and you physically are the result of your nutrition. Dungeon meshi manages to mix an exploration of humanity with the theme of food because our relationship to food is very deep and complex, psychological as much as physiological.

In the end, the characters sort of shrug and accept that they’ll never quite understand the world of mermaids and fishmen and how they operate, and what that means about them. Laios is the one always challenging these notions other characters take for granted, it’s not obvious to Laios why people are softer on mammals than other animals and plants, it’s not obvious to Laios why people would be afraid of eating a monster just because it’s a monster, it’s not obvious to Laios why some food is gross to Marcille but not fish testicles, it’s not obvious to Laios why you should immediately regard orcs and kobolds badly.

"Cows are probably closer to humans [aka closer to being human] than fishmen, though they’re clearly intelligent", dehumanization to lessen empathy towards them to be able to eat them. Meanwhile, mermaids seemingly have a less noticeable "civilization" or intelligence, they hunt in groups like fishmen, but they don’t use tools and such, they feel more primal and similarly instinct driven, and yet… Do they attract sympathy more? Mammals, humans, is it because of their nature or because of their appearance?

Both the nature and appearance of fish are ones people don’t typically sympathize with. "Fish don’t feel pain", "goldfish only have 5 seconds of memory", "it’s okay to keep fish in completely empty bowls too small for them until they die from it", so many lies and misconceptions exist that make people less considerate of them. The average lifespan of a goldfish is 10-15 years, the record is 43, but they’re not seen as lives that really matter, so a lot of goldfish die in a few weeks of bad aquarium conditions. There’s a lot of research on animals evolving to look cute and appealing to make some predators want to kill them less and parents want to care for them more, including humans. First good google research result gave me this credible short article on the topic. In Chilchuck’s weighing wether a fishman is far enough from being human or not to eat, "face is 100% fish" is his biggest argument for it being more acceptable. The face, the most important thing for empathy and recognition. The face, the decapitated fishman one that falls into his hands next chapter.

To quote @room-surprise: "Chilchuck can't explain why it's wrong to eat the merpeople, even though it's NOT complicated. But the problem is Chilchuck would have to accept and acknowledge that the merpeople might be people? And that's outside of the worldview he passively believes, so he can't just say that, because he doesn't think that's true. But that IS why he "feels" it's wrong. And it's all you'd need to say for Laios to understand! But it would require acknowledging that maybe the way they're treating and talking about the merpeople is wrong."

The idea of Chil not being able to grapple with how maybe some monsters are more humans than they seem, him who had been an advocate of half-foots rights, half-foots who get undermined and treated as inconsequential sacrifices… Grappling with how he could relate to the merpeople’s situation almost, and pulling away because it’s so existentially horrifying. I do not want to see myself into an hostile fish-faced warrior I can’t communicate with. In a way this also relates to Chilchuck being the only party member who doesn’t see Izutsumi as a cat in the relationship chart, the only one to treat her with full human dignity. He knows the struggle to be taken seriously, he knows being infantilized and he knows what it’s like to be treated as less than human.

Below, you will see Chilchuck draws the line of where they become not okay to eat as when "they already look like mermaids". Above, there’s speculation that the algae hair is partly to mimic "the mermaids’ beautiful female form". Is it because mermaids are their enemies and the ambiguity might give them extra seconds to attack or flee? Is it to trick adventurers instead? It’s striking to me that this is what works, with the adventurers. Sure the fishmen are intelligent, but explicitly here, what makes them no longer acceptable prey to Chilchuck is that they look close enough to a mermaid, close enough to human. Mermaids who of course themselves have this form to entice and seduce and charm the adventurers they prey on. Chilchuck considers the intelligence due to the tridents, but most of his internal debate centers around their appearance, and the image of a fishman skewered sickens him. The power of mimicry… Mimic being a beautiful human woman. Mimic being cute, babies being wired to make us feel protective and softened. Half-foots, sometimes pretending to be children for scams or help or avoiding trouble.

The mermaids are only concerned by their differences and not their similarities, and have no trouble treating the fishmen as food rather than peers. To an outside perspective like us, the audience, all these categorization of "more human" and "less human" between onis and orcs and elves and tallmen etc seem stupid and unfounded, but to the people living in Dungeon Meshi’s world, elves may as well be mermaids while onis are fishmen, not alike at all, unworthy of empathy and thus fine to eat.

Ultimately, Dungeon Meshi promotes unity. It’s about seeking to understand the unknown and the misunderstood, the dehumanized and the inhuman. It shows the good that comes from seeking to understand what you do not, even when that’s one another.

[bloomeng]

I feel like something a lot of people miss when discussing DC canon is context.

(Warning: Mentions of canon sexual assault scenes)

So today I saw a discussion about Alfred's fanon perception versus canon reality. I wouldn't say op was criticizing people for thinking of him as a sweet old man, merely just pointing out that he's canonly not so innocent and it goes unaddressed. He was the one who nudged Tim into the Robin mantle and he was the one who stripped it from him and gave it to Damian without asking. There's a whole plotline about how he had a daughter that he abandoned. He was the one who put up the "soldier" plaque memorial. All of these things are true, however, I don't think it was the writers' intentions to paint a lot (not all) of his actions as negative. In fact, the writing often goes out of its way to paint Alfred as a martyr. That doesn't make his actions right, nor does it mean that someone is wrong for being upset with him, but it also means that people aren't stupid or wrong for interpreting his character as this beacon of virtue. It's also notable that most people are probably more acquainted with his animated and film adaptations where he hasn't done any of the things I've listed.

Context is always important when analyzing media, but it is ESPECIALLY important when discussing DC because of the sheer volume of authors writing for a single character.

This is why there are so many arguements about whether or not Bruce is a bad father. When you have so many authors writing a character for close to a century, you're going to have inconsistencies and their takes on the character will contradict. We can go in circles bringing up issues that prove either side, but it's futile. Everyone is entitled to their feelings towards things that happen in canon, but I don't think it's fair to pass ultimate judgement based on something that was often written by one shitty writer.

Now disregarding DC canon is something the fandom is selectively good at, but the curtesy is not extended evenly. Going back to Alfred for a moment. A legit criticism of the writing is that he abandoned his daughter and that isn't really addressed outside of the issue that introduced it. And I think the reality is that DC often recognizes their mistakes after the fact and isn't equipped to handle the conversations they start so they quietly retcon. Which isn't great, but I also think it's a silent mercy. See not addressing something is bad, but putting out offensive media is more detrimental IN MY OPINION.

This is even more evident when it comes to DC's history with depicting sexual assault. They constantly back themselves into corners. I really appreciated that Gail Simone's Batgirl run retconned the Joker's sexual assault against Barbara. SA is something that is important to talk about but it's also something that needs to be treated with care. What happened to Barbara was not a productive conversation. There were so many gross undertones of the Joker specifically sexually assaulting her. Same with Talia sexually assaulting Bruce. There are very real racist undertones. There is a time and place to discuss male victims and the way male rape victims are written off, but the story is not concerned with having that conversation. So now we’re not only not having that conversation but we’re also stereotyping and villainizing POC women which also has real world consequences.

Now this next part might get me boos from the audience but to me this also extends to Dick and Tarantula. I know a lot of people want DC to acknowledge what happened, but to that I'm like why? Devin Grayson is a notably bad writer when it comes to Dick. There are racist undertones to having Tarantula sexually assault Dick. Devin is literally known for making Dick Roma for fetish reasons. Before this Dick Grayson was a white character, who was already written to be flirty and sexual. These are all important things to consider about the context of the writing. I think it would actually be best if DC did what Gail Simone did with Batgirl. I think it’s unfair to not give these WOC characters the same treatment of understanding when their actions are shitty because of shit authors.

Real world context is vital for understanding these fictional stories. Batman can't kill because that would mean they would have had to be constantly introducing new villains and it would be less child friendly. Robin was introduced to the story because they were trying to market to children. Batman continuing to recruit children is about marketing to kids. The hyper-focus on Dick's romantic life was in part an effort to fight gay allegations. These are all important factors to consider if you're discussing DC critically.

Like realistically yeah it sucks so bad that Alfred and Bruce allowed children to fight crime. But it's also notable to mention that Dick forced Bruce's hand, Bruce was really trying to stop this kid from murdering a man. It was a compromise. Alfred and Dick may have pushed Tim to become Robin but he was already one foot out the door. Damian and Cass were trained by assassins. None of these kids are realistic depictions of children, even if they are relatable. When you read a superhero comic you are suspending a certain level of disbelief and I don't think it's the hot take people think it is to criticize Batman for allowing kids to fight.

Like cool, then we don't have a story. Nothing about superheroes are realistic. Why is this the line we draw in the sand?

I didn't know when to bring this up, so I'm going to awkwardly tack it on at the end. So the "Nothing Butt Nightwing" webcomic... Yeah it looks not good, but a lot of people are calling it out for sexualizing Dick, which once again to me fails to understand the outside context. There is a difference between sexualizing and sexualization of an ethnicity. As I mentioned, for most of Dick's run he was a white character who was written to be flirty. Devin was fetishizing him, but allowing Dick to remain a flirty character is not an act of fetish based sexualization. Personally I think it’s more harmful to get rid of core aspects of his character now that he is canonly Romani. Not to mention that if we address the SA with his character we are now back in this place of stereotyping and bad undertones. So until DC is ready to tell a legitimate story about male SA victims I'd rather the Dick Grayson thing be left silently in the past. I'm so hyper aware that I'm in the minority though. I agree it could be really powerful to have one of those stories be told but consider how harmful it would be to continue to imply these things about WOC.

[ultravioart]

On a positive note, the comic for Hazard actually was interesting enough to make me look past his 'safe' for a punk character design. I'm hyped!

I did not expect overwatch to directly call out systemic ableism and classism in the story.

Kids in poverty being funneled into a military pipeline only to be spat out and cast aside as disabled vets in poverty is a very real issue in the world.

If Hazard was rich, he could have afforded prosthesis that actually fit him, ones that didn't cause him pain. Instead, only bc he could not afford better ones, the system gave him the bare minimum for survival, and instead of actually dealing with the root cause and issue they gave him pain meds. In his eyes, this was done so that the system could pay him to shut up, or face consequences. No different than what his parents went through. They wouldn't even give him the respect to tell him WHY the deadly crash that maimed him happened, nor do anything to prevent OTHERS from being hurt in the same way. The system is working as intended. The system didn't care about him, nor others. The system uses it's citizen's bodies for profit.

This panel hits so hard because visual story telling wise it says so much.

In this panel, the stray animal that saved his life is the only one who cares, as the fellow human beings he fought to keep safe as a veteran walk past him at full pace.

How in this panel, his disability is 'blocking the path' of the able bodied, his very existence a 'hindrance' to the able bodied, when the hospital path really ought to be the one taken into account for. Pushed out the door into a system that was never designed for him. Yet, anyone could be in his shoes. Anyone could become disabled, poor, or neglected. Anyone could become just another 'stray mutt' in the system.

How in this panel he is posed in a way where he has the choice to turn and 'go with the flow' of the system and follow the crowd and not look back.... or go 'against the flow' in the opposite direction of the crowd looking for other 'strays' like him left behind by this system.

Honestly props to the comic creators for even discussing systemic oppression to dorectly.

I also am incredibly interested in seeing if Sombra got her spine mods from the Phreaks or not, because it looks like similar tech in her short.

I just hope that the Phreaks are more RobinHood and 'guerilla warfare against the system to spark change', rather than purely anarchists blowing everything up bc lol. The Phreaks being anarchists would be a waste of story, just another gang that became radicalized and corrupt and causes harm and must be defeated by Overwatch. (I am only worried about this because Ramattra became radicalized and demonized for trying to prevent the extinction of omnics. Ramattra is fully in his right to physically resist omnic extinction bc omnics ARE finite and being killed. We STILL don't know what those null sector helmets are for... but for some reason Ramattra is written as emotionally hasty(???) to the point of horrible accidents happening, which makes no sense since he is a R-7000 built for war TACTICS, not an emotional human that can misremember. The way Ramattra's story is handled doesn't make sense imo, they write him as if he's a biological being.)

I hope Hazard aims for accountability and dismantling of oppressive systems, rather than having no rules at all thru anarchy (he as a child saw what no rules in small doses gave him: bad homelife, bad school life, no accountability, no fostering of the mind and well being. That's why I think making the Phreaks anarchists would be stupid to do. There are systems that CAN foster mental and physical wellbeing, cooperation is one of those systems and Hazard is pro cooperation.) He did have an "eye for an eye" against the forces that took out the Phreaks in Morocco, but to be fair Oasis is using minority report 'predictive crime ai' bs so I can't blame Hazard for wanting to hit Oasis where it hurts by stealing thier most secret tech. (Perhaps Sombra helped the Phreaks/gave them that clue since Sombra is against the eye conspiracy, and that eye conspiracy is connected to Oasis)

I also hope Hazard's character is used to discuss the discrimination disabled people face in the Overwatch world, because they really dropped the ball with Soujorn on that front. (Her book used ableism... as a metaphor for racism?!?! Awful stuff. Cyborg (life saving surgery for disabled) people canonically face discrimination in overwatch.)

Because of that, I am super interested in hearing Hazard's voice interactions for lore, I hope we get more lore on omnics and Oasis and the Sombra eye conspiracy, and I am curious about Hazard's kit and what he will bring to the table matchup wise. We will probably get more eye conspiracy lore with the release of the Morocco map tho, tbf.

[myfandomrealitea]

I hate it when some anti's preech about "listen to poc voices" yet get mad and call the same poc's racial slurs when they do something they deem as "irredeemable". Heck even Xenophobic too when ppl are callingout artists, almost 50% they'll say stuff like "Oh ofc its a _____ "

I don't strictly think that racism is solely an anti pitfall or mindset. I know plenty of people who identify as proship who have the same "listen to X!" battle march until X are no longer in harmony with their thoughts and opinions.

Racism, in my opinion, should never be classed as something that is simply 'fandom.' Racism is down to the individuals. And those individuals are everywhere. Antis just happen to correlate their racism with their other personal beliefs and values.

That said, you can always report racism you see on online platforms. While it may never truly silence those people, its certainly a pleasantly annoying inconvenience to them to experience chat bans or having their accounts removed. Even however temporarily; its one less racist voice in the sandbox.

[tyrianludaship]

is it fair to call people like this "hack writers" if the only way they find a relationship interesting is when it involves pedophilia, incest, cannibalism or necrophilia?

[danggirlronpa]

I have a question in regard to the whitewashing tw tag: do you think Aoi and the rest are...African-Asian? Because I always just thought they (apart from Angie of course) just had tans

Having tans is the canonical explanation from Aoi, Akane, and Sakura; Yasuhiro (doesn't have a talent that would reasonably require lots of exercise) and Angie (canon Polynesian) are the only characters who are technically canonically dark-skinned.

However. Danganronpa has a terrible colorism problem. And because dark-skinned characters rely on racist and colorist tropes, it seems obvious that they relied on the implication that the characters were blasian in order to communicate them. (We could also get into Gonta here, but since he isn't usually considered by fandom to be a dark-skinned character despite having a darker skintone, we'll set it aside for now. Just know the "dumb gentle giant" look isn't good.)

Firstly: Akane comes from a low-income area with gang violence and prostitution, with a lot of siblings, and is poor enough to not be able to afford a gymnastics uniform. She is portrayed as being unintelligent and caring only about food and fighting. In her crossover art, such as with Sanrio, she is alongside a monkey character (as is Yasuhiro). She has her boobs on constant display to indicate she is Sexy TM. This is a series of very blatant stereotypes about black people.

Sakura is constantly mistaken for a man and called "ogre." She is physically enormous, has bulging muscles, and is one of the only female characters to have a face that isn't condensable to "anime girl face" (primarily, she has a defined nose). Her talent involves beating the shit out of people. And one of her beta designs has her as a straight-up black woman with an afro. She suffers from the (once famous, though I don't know if tumblr still talks about this one) trope of a dark-skinned character with light-colored white person hair for seemingly no reason. This is another series of stereotypes.

Aoi is sexualized. She's constantly sexualized. Her big solo art is her in her underwear with her boobs smushed together. Toko/Syo bring up her boobs constantly. The only character on her level is Miu, who is a very different kind of sexualization; Miu is a character who expresses her sexuality herself, whereas Aoi is viewed as a sexual object by other characters and the audience. This is a very basic aspect of misogynoir - the black woman as a sexual object.

Whether or not these characters were intended to be blasian, these tropes applied to dark-skinned women conveys some very clear and disturbing implications. To make the characters not even canonically dark skinned is such a huge kick in the face - to convey all of these stereotypes and not even give the representation that goes along with them. It is an extra layer of cruelty.

So, yes: this blog agrees with the fandom-wide adoption of "they're dark-skinned." Really, the tag should be "colorism cw," but it has way too many posts for me to go back and change it now. You don't necessarily have to believe they're black; the characters could be Indian, or Polynesian, or any other number of nationalities. But they are dark-skinned, at least as far as I'm concerned.

[my-traumacore-sideblog]

feeling rly unsafe 2day, but it's specifically bc of being a trans guy, i keep seeing stuff from cis women abt how men r always the worst and how men hav a duty 2 make their lives revolve around women or else we're sexist, how apparently men need 2 all b willing 2 lay down their lives 4 any woman or else we're just as bad as the creeps who make ppl feel unsafe 2 go out at night and yes i said people not just women but they only want 2 acknowledge it when it's a cis woman that's the victim

i did not fucking sign up for this

i did not fucking sign up 2 sacrifice my life either literally or thru dedicating my life only 2 others just because the pronoun "he" fits me better than the pronoun "she"

i should not hav 2 worry that im an inherently bad person because of being a gay trans man

i should not hav 2 worry abt being perceived as a threat bc of being a queer man of colour

i've honestly started to hav thoughts abt de-transitioning not bc being a guy in the way i am doesn't fit me but rather out of fear of the scrutiny every action of mine will b placed under

i was sexually abused as a child but i guess that doesn't matter anymore because im a man now, boys don't cry they punch ig, apparently since im a man now it means im destined 2 become that which hurt me

all i want is to be a man, in a nonbinary way yes but still a man (demi-guy), i want to love men who love me back, i want to live a quiet life surrounded by love and happiness, i want to live a gentle life

but no.... because im a man now then apparently it must make me predatory in some way

i can't de-transition... i know i wouldn't survive emotionally... so i stick with it, with allowing myself to be a demi-guy.... but it hurts knowing that me being free is perceived as dangerous, that im seen as inherently a threat to women

edit: so a terf started clowning this post, just 2 make this shit clear, this is not a fucking debate blog this is a me posting abt my feelings blog, i would've thought the url "my-traumacore-sideblog" would've made that clear

also no racism and sexism is not the same thing

yes women face oppression at the hands of men and should be allowed to talk about it but men also face oppression at the hands of women and should be allowed to talk abt it, 4 men who r not in a minority group this is usually in terms of legal stuff (how r*pe is legally categorised, custody disputes ect) but this is even more of an issue and more every day when it comes to men in marginalised communities, yk like me, yk like what i was venting abt in my fucking post i should b allowed 2 talk abt my own oppression 2 and acting like me venting abt my own oppression in a post tagged as a vent post on my vent blog makes me the same as my white oppressors is not only terf shit but also racist and it shows a lack of political literacy, a woman has just as much capacity 4 violence as a man but a queer man of colour is seen as inherently violent and a white woman is inherently seen as always being a victim but ur ok w/ these white women using that power of perceived vulnerability 2 call 4 violence against queer men and men of colour and especially queer men of colour just say u want cis women klansmen and leave im not backing down from talking abt my own oppression bc of white woman tears

anyways person who clowed is now blocked so don't bother trying 2 respond 2 my edit

[mean-scarlet-deceiver]

Wilbert's Worst

Right, so I really was open to having my mind changed on The Worst One but nobody’s argument has budged me.

I was going to write a complete, balanced essay on The Worst W. Awdry Book, but I’m a) mired in the research phase (hey if anyone knows someone with an encyclopedic knowledge of Tom and Jerry hit me up, for real) and b) right now I wanna talk about the characters and their Beloved Dynamics instead. 

So I'm just gonna get this out of the way so I can post the poll and move on to answering fun asks and watching Tom and Jerry in peace. Behold: a salty and unbalanced review.

Wilbert’s biggest failure of a children’s storybook? 

Henry the Green Engine 

Ohhh… because of the, uh, ra —?

Because of the racism, yes!

Oh. You do know that since 1972 they’ve republished it without the n-slur? 

Good for them. Two things: 

1. I know it used to be there, I’m never able to read it without knowing it was there in the first edition.

2. I consistently try, when ranking the books, to consider them in the context in which they came out. Because of this, I don’t like using “things that happened later” (like a new character never being properly used again or whatever) against the book. This helps me evaluate the author’s successes and failures against what they were trying to achieve when they wrote it vs what I would most want (blorbo content). It helps me not bring to bear the whole weight of fanon and fandom on a text that should be able to stand or fall on its own. Tl;dr I try to read the books like a guy who picked it up in 1951, or whatever. 

And yeah, if I’d bought this when it came out it would have had the slur. I’m going to judge it accordingly. 

Look, racism is bad, no argument, but does that mean the book as a whole must be condemned? 

Yeah, I think the slur and the “aaaand suddenly, blackface! heeheehee” bullshit fuck over the entire book, game over. Go directly to jail, do not collect $200. 

The Railway Series is not a work of high art or deep thorny complex literature. The books are meant for children — small children, at that. Children small enough to get bedtime stories read to them. The main goal of each book (especially this early on — you do have to manage secondary priorities like “pleasing the long-time fanbase” the longer you go, but right now we’re only 6 books into the series) is to create a happy imaginary world to enhance childhoods and family lives… to impart to other parents and kids a similar cosy happiness to that the author and his own kids enjoyed when he was workshopping/drafting the stories for them. When we say “children’s book” we really do mean little’uns — these average 1.25 full-color illustrations per page!

And these books sold in large numbers. This means it’s a certainty that somewhere in 1951 there was a Black family who owned the whole series, who went out to the shops, whose kid was like “ooh! Henry gets a book, neat…,” who like everyone else enjoyed the wild ride of Henry’s inspection and coal and wreck and rebuild… only to get verbally spat on one page from the end. 

Real mood-killer there. Epic fail, as the cool kids used to say in my youth. 

All right, fine, cool kids never said that. Anyway, statistically speaking there was certainly even more than one family that got that experience. Not to mention the non-Black families who even in 1951 were like “... wtf? i’d smack my kid if they ever said a word like that around me, geez. no.” Just a lot of people who had the light the book was kindling in them snuffed out all at once. 

You can actually be totally racist and your book not commit creative suicide on the penultimate page! Awdry flubbed his job of 'bestselling books-for-six-year-olds' here. Creative failure. Unforced error. Automatic zero. 

But times were different then, you have to consider it in the context of the time. 

1951 U.K. was not the nadir of multiracial equality or Black power, but jfc. I can assure you that over 99% of children’s books published that year in the Anglosphere managed to not use the n-slur. 

All right, all right. That was bad. But this feels off-topic. If you had never known about what used to be “Henry’s Sneeze,” would you still rank the entire book as dead last in the Wilbert Awdry corpus? 

Not dead last, but it is not a strong book. “Coal” and “The Flying Kipper” are super-interesting as material for Henry, but after that the book kind of falls off a cliff; the intrigue drops dramatically. The railway incidents chosen to make stories of are all solid choices, but it was not only “Sneeze” where Awdry’s handling of the material feels clumsy and weird. (And I’m not even talking here of the “heehee blackface — ain’t i a stinker?” gag in “Sneeze.”) 

But… “The Flying Kipper”? C’mon. It’s a superb story and no book that contains it can be the absolute worst in the series. 

“TFK” remains easily the best single TVS episode ever – but a lot of that is down to Britt and David’s artistry and judgment. 

Don’t get me wrong, a full-on railway wreck makes interesting material. But I don’t think the book does nearly as much with it as it could (and I’m trying sooooo hard here to forget about the amazing TVS adaptation, as I think it REALLY shows Awdry up. Even so, the storytelling here is surprisingly tepid and low-stakes). I get that Awdry probably wanted to lean into the comic angle and not make Henry’s condition afterwards seem too grave, in order to ensure the material wasn’t too dark for his young audience? (*mutters* again, a level of tender consideration for his readers’ youth that went right out the window when it came to small Black kids, evidently coz he couldn’t imagine that they read) Understandable, laudable — but if he outright refuses* to make the wreck too dramatic or scary then, well, then the wreck isn’t real scary or dramatic. And it can’t save the rest of the book from its flaws. 

*For all I know it could have been the publishers who insisted that the wreck be made preschooler-safe, that’s possible (although it’s also consistent with Awdry’s brand of humor and his overall low degree of emotionalism in his writing). Either way, though, the end result book is what it is and it will be judged accordingly. 

In addition to not being as exciting as many remember... @trainsupessandhuntresses asked me once if I thought some of Awdry's stories were "mean-spirited." I had to assent vigorously. And a surprisingly high proportion of those "mean" moments are in Henry the Green Engine? For some reason? It’s not just the racism. Awdry was not in the game to give Henry a deserved happy ending, he’d wanted to kill him off (the fuck?) and when his publishers prevented him (I don’t say this often, especially since I love how salty the Awdrys get about their publishers, but this in case good job, publishers!!) he wrote “TFK” with the primary motivation of giving Henry a new engine basis. Any soft or hearty emotions we get out of the deal are a side-effect — the only emotion that was fueling Awdry as he wrote this was spite, spite and a weird resentment towards his poor, long-suffering, invaluable illustrator. (I don’t blame Awdry for being frustrated that the engine illustrations were continually inaccurate or confusing, but I do think it’s weird to read all this great Henry material knowing that it was written with such poor grace.) 

So his ‘happy Henry’ stuff feels perfunctory; his Percy interlude is just brutal (why did you have to drag Percy into Henry’s book purely to give him a fuck-up, a scolding, and a messy dunce cap?); Gordon’s savaging of Henry for being too happy after recovering from a near-death experience is such an incredibly low point for Gordon that it’s hard for me to accept it as canon (there’s being proud, boastful, and self-absorbed, and then there’s being the straight-up raccoon dumpster fire Gordon is in that scene). Oh, and I think “call the police [local constabulary, doesn’t bear firearms]” woulda probably a less reckless way of dealing with the rock-throwing youths than the sneeze of hot locomotive ashes, which of course the Fat Controller doesn’t like, that shit coulda been real dangerous! Mind, there are small rays of kindness throughout that do get me (the interactions between Henry and his crew feeling to me the least perfunctory and most heartfelt), but this is overall such a mean-spirited book. God. It starts off with such a gentle story (almost a non-story, if you’re in it purely for the “railway incidents” game and not character drama), but in short order the vibes just sorta suck. At least in other RWS books, when the vibes are off, they’re usually off near the beginning and then improve by the end. This one gets worse as it goes on. Oof. Don’t like that. 

Also, the last page is sooooo lame. I suspect the publisher strong-armed Awdry into writing most of it so that at least the slur wasn’t on the last page of the book... and if Awdry had any idea of how much he’d just empowered Henry and all his fans in this book he shouldn’t have found it hard to find 50 extra words to sum things up. As it was, he’s just filling space and running out the clock, lol. Lame wrap-up. Boring. As usual when it comes to every little thing about this book, Britt and David closed this up better (mind, their closer – “He had taught Gordon and silly boys a lesson, with a whistle and a sneeze” – also sucked. But at least it was blessedly short.)

Didn’t you once list HtGE on a list of your favorite Wilbert Awdry books? 

I did list it as one of the books that “at one time or another” have been my favorite in the series. Unfortunately in the case of HtGE, that was back when I really couldn’t read a story that I knew from the TVS without mentally substituting the adaptation into my brain as I read… largely overriding the actual text. Plus, everything I knew from TVS as a kid kind of automatically got a halo effect. Plus, I was super into Henry’s arc. 

The first time I read HtGE after calming down and actually reading all the books as books... massive disappointment. There is such a gap there between what I'd thought the book said (all our incredible fanon work overanalyzing and headcanoning Henry and building this beautiful fantasy arc about disability!) vs. what it actually said (limp and careless writing, mean vibes, airbrushed n-slur, bad aftertaste). 

I do think there is some stuff about the development of Awdry’s storytelling technique here that is interesting (again, Tom and Jerry superfans reading this, please shoot me a message!) but it doesn’t counteract everything else. 

At least we’re over the racism stuff? 

Nah, I’m not over it, actually. 

[samwisethewitch]

TW: This post contains explicit discussions of white supremacy and the alt-right, including mentions of racism and antisemitism.

One of my most impactful recent library reads was Sisters In Hate by Seyward Darby, and I want to take a moment to encourage other white Americans to check it out as we prepare for next years' presidential election and all the shit it's going to kick up.

Sisters In Hate is a book about the role of women in American white supremacist movements and specifically in the alt-right. Darby does a really excellent job of showing just how critical white women are to these hate movements. The book also gives us a detailed look at what radicalization looks like and how that process can be different for different genders.

The book is divided into three sections, each of which follows a real woman through her radicalization into the alt-right. I especially want to draw Tumblr's attention to the story of Ayla, a self-proclaimed "polyamorous, raw foodist-vegan, feminist, pagan" whose radicalization started in college with natural living and homebirth and ended with her running a popular tradwife blog and speaking at the Unite the Right rally.

I think a lot of leftists and liberals feel that we're too smart, or too educated, or too savvy to fall for white supremacist recruitment schemes. We are not. Intelligent, college-educated, left-leaning people are radicalized every day. Some of them are less overtly hateful, like your college friend who starts voting Republican in their 30s. Some of them are like Ayla, and their radicalization takes them all the way to the other end of the political spectrum until they're openly and genuinely calling for a white ethnostate with the same passion they once used to advocate for feminism, racial equity, and queer rights. And we need to remember that any one of us intelligent, college-educated, left-leaning white folks could be in her position, which is why it's so important to learn about radicalization tactics so we can recognize and resist them.

I'm not gonna lie -- this book is hard to read. The text contains racial slurs, white supremacist rhetoric, antisemitism, and anti-Black racism. All of this is condemned by the author, but Darby doesn't shy away from showing just how vile this movement is. I had to take a lot of breaks from this book and read it over several weeks, but I'm very glad I did because I feel like I needed this information.

White supremacist recruitment efforts are going to pick up in the next year, especially if Tr*mp is the Republican nominee for president. Stay informed and stay ready.

[real-total-drama-takes]

Ngl it's pretty surprising how braindead some TD fans are whenever people bring up the fact that Mk, Kitty, and Emma are straight up yellow and how it's a racist stereotype cause they'll "clap back" with "oh well the show is all about stereotypes☝🏻🤓" 😐 Character stereotypes. Character archetypes. Are u seriously that dumb?

.

[thefoolsprocession]

Trans woman of colour on tumblr: White transgender women, especially ones from the imperial core, need to consider the fact that their whiteness and class upbringing is going to influence their political ideologies and their social interactions with other people on the internet

Tme people in the notes: omg so true I hate white trannies they should all kill themselves… most of them are pedos as well like 😭

28-year-old white trans woman named after a homestuck character: Um op this is really transmisogynistic… you should stop advocating for the social murder of actual transgender women on tumblr…. Idc if you’re a trans woman yourself you’re just a pandering assimilationist!!!

[gemsofgreece]

hi ! I apologize if it is a weird or rude question, but as a history buff and mediterranea lover, i'd love to visit greece one day as everything about her seems fire, plus you have great historical relationship with my country, france. The thing is that im muslim and half north african, and i look very arab (plus i have like the most cliché arabic name, so no one would probably see me as french), so im a bit apprehensive about going in greece, because you dont have the most cordial relationship with muslims (i understand tbf), and that in a lot of countries know for their "hospitality", it is actually only for white people. I know that you have a lot of tourists and immigrants but that doesnt really means the average greek tolerate them (like france for exemple were there is a lot of muslims but french dislike them). So i wanted to ask what do greeks think of north africans and women wearing the hijab and how they are treated, bc i wouldnt be comfortable being somewhere where half of the population would be glad to see me suffer. Im sorry if i sound ignorant, racist or rude ^^'

Hello! Before I go into detail I think you should not be concerned about this or allow these thoughts to fill you with stress that could affect your enjoyment of your vacation in Greece.

While Greece is part of Eastern Europe where there are more racist beliefs towards muslims compared to West Europe (or at least so it was, but I am currently seeing far right rising in the west exponentially), Greece is also one of the most visited countries in the world at this point and during the last decade it has been receiving tourists from all around the globe, people of all skintones and faiths. A huge number of Greeks work in the tourism sector and are perfectly acquainted with providing tourist services to everybody without exception. In fact, we also get a lot of tourists from countries with less than ideal relations with Greece and I have never heard reports of something going wrong or of Greeks being unfriendly to them.

Now a few words about racism in Greece in order to help you develop a better understanding of it. First of all, I am sure extremely problematic individuals who usually express the dark side of themselves on the Internet do exist in Greece, however the likelihood of stumbling in real life onto a Greek who would like to see one "suffer" on the basis of their skincolour or religion is incredibly slim. This is neither a prevalent nor even a considerable let alone a normalised behaviour in Greece at all.

Racism in Greece is usually very... contextual. Greeks foster negative feelings for specific nations first and foremost and it usually has to do with historical trauma, about which I assume you know some stuff since you said "I get it tbf". Greeks also may have negative feelings for nations who are traditionally allies of aforementioned nations. The second thing that can ignite racist behaviour amongst Greeks is the religion indeed but not so much due to the religion itself but because a religion may be heavily associated with any of the nations that are on their black list. This sometimes causes biased stances towards all believers of the religion in question, even if they have nothing to do with those few nations. Skincolour comes last in the possibility of triggering racist behaviour in Greece, especially when it comes to tourists. But again I dare say even in an 80% of the cases it is because it is associated with countries that might be viewed as unfriendly to Greece or Christianity than any sort of rhetoric about inherent superiority or inferiority based on skincolour. Again, I am not saying there are no individuals who think this way - there definitely are - but it's not the primary type of racism encountered in Greece and it is exremely unlikely to interact with such a person in your vacation. We had such a type of political party but it was outlawed and its leaders got imprisoned. Meanwhile, the West was screaming nonstop that bad Greece has such a political party and now they are putting theirs in their parliaments or letting them govern. The irony.

Several Greeks are against the immigrants but it is primarily due to the financial and unemployment problems the country has even without a constant influx of new-comers and then because most of these immigrants are again viewed as nationals from countries unfriendly to Greece and secondarily Christianity that only arrive here as a necessity and not because they want to live and contribute to the Greek society. Then there are also many Greeks who rally for the immigrants' rights. But racism in Greece is really SO contextual that a dark Muslim can melt away a suspicious Greek's reservation, if they express feelings of appreciation or understanding for Greece, within the course of five minutes! It's kind of amusing.

Now, you being a woman actually minimizes your chances of an unfortunate racist incident way more. Exactly because Greek racism is founded so much more on past historical trauma or perception of extremist movements in nearby parts of the world rather than ideologies of superiority, nobody considers women as part of the problem or views them as a threat. The worst that can happen to you is to notice that someone may be initially neutral or indifferent to you until they hear your french accent and your positive perception of Greece and instantly warm up or something. But someone could be neutral or indifferent for just about any reason, including having a bad day. I honestly don't think you could get a worse reception as long as you are a considerate polite tourist. The hijab is indeed an uncommon sight in Greece but the worst thing you may get is looks, mostly out of curiosity, not hatred. And that is if you are in a more remote or less touristy location. In the largest cities or the busiest islands people won't care.

Now there's also the other side to all this. Greeks are known to often make good friends with people from the "black list" countries. Greeks are friendly and sociable and they usually only expect from you a positive outlook on their country to discard their reservations. Greece also in fact has very good relations with many Arab countries. Politically, Greece has very good relations with Egypt, Libya (supported the progressive side in the civil war, the House of the Representatives and the National Libyan Army), Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and UAE. So, a great part of the Arab world. In fact, Greeks and Arabs are believed to be friends in general. Now, this does not apply to every single situation or to what every single individual thinks from either side but I am just saying it to dispute any potential misunderstanding that Greeks supposedly have some sort of major feud with Arabs or some Arab-centric racist feelings.

In short, you should not be concerned about it : you are a woman, you are a tourist genuinely interested in Greece, everyone will pick up on your french accent lol and you can freely mention your North African Arab background. Obviously I cannot guarantee nothing will ever happen 1000% but it is not more likely here than it is in France.

[alchemical-rhapsodaire]

Recently, I've only reblogged posts that speak about the matter, but this is genuinely heartbreaking so I'm choosing to speak up about it here.

First of all, I'm not Brazilian and I don't have twitter, so I can only imagine the pain and fear all the xenophobia and racism the Brazilian community is facing right now. The Brazilian community, at least on Tumblr, are some of the kindest people I've interacted with online and learning about your language and culture has genuinely made this fandom experience so fun and enjoyable. NOBODY deserves to receive any form of hate simply because of your identity. You shouldn't have to be living in fear or be driven out from a platform or a fandom simply because of where your from.

I am extending my heart and giving all my love to the Brazilian community and the CC's that have been through shit and are going through literal hell right now just to receive basic kindness and respect in this community. People have been trying to dig up dirt on Brazilian CC's to justify the hate they're sending to the community, which is just fucking disgusting. This has been going on for MONTHS and has ruined/still is ruining lives to this day. Cellbit should not have had to justify his sexuality for the internet or publicize (words cannot describe) his very traumatic past just to appease a bunch of strangers on the fucking internet.

The QSMP is supposed to unite people of all languages and cultures and create a safe community for all people to engage in regardless of their language or background. It's insane how a lot of people missed the fucking point of the project. If you have been/are being racist or xenophobic to any community regardless of if they are part of the QSMP or not, know that you are not welcome in this fandom and in this space. It's disgusting and ridiculous that so many people are living in fear due to receiving so much hate simply for who they are, where they're from, the language they speak, etc.

If you have been/are being racist or xenophobic, get the fuck out of this community and don't return until you've learned how to be a decent human being. If you can't extend the most basic form of respect or kindness to other people then I seriously hope you get help and reflect on your actions and learn to be a decent fucking person.

It hurts that we must have these discussions and that many people/communities have to beg to be heard and respected in this fandom.

I am so sorry and I'm giving all my love to the Brazilian community during this time. Know that you all are loved and welcomed in this community and in this fandom. We love having you here and I cannot imagine the QSMP without all the contributions, passion, and enthusiasm the Brazilian community has put into it. Thank you and I love you all very much!

[starleska]

as i'm posting a lot about the Toymaker it's only fair to address the elephant in room regarding his racist history and characterisation. i feel this is important, especially as i will be writing fanfiction and creating similar fanworks for him. discussion of racism re: the Toymaker below:

i tend to veer far away from fandom discourse, and don't believe enjoying a bad character = glorifying their bad traits. however, i'm a white person who has privilege in not being personally, directly affected by racism, and i think it's important to have this discussion about the Toymaker, a character whose history is inextricably tied with racism and whose recent depiction is canonically racist, whether we agree with this portrayal or not (or how well it was handled). the following are things we can't, and shouldn't, ignore:

in his original portrayal in the 60s, the Toymaker was played by a white actor (Michael Gough) who wore a Chinese mandarin outfit. this outfit was apparently sourced from the set of Marco Polo due to the BBC's tight budget. even though Michael Gough (the Toymaker's actor) was not putting on an accent nor was he in yellowface (the latter incorrectly sourced from a poorly-tinted print advertising the serial), this choice is unquestionably offensive today.

the word 'Celestial' as in 'The Celestial Toymaker' (alternately the name of the serial and sometimes applied to the Toymaker himself) was used as a slur for Chinese people at some point in history. i can't verify, but i believe it was sometime between the 19th and 20th century. although it appears that the term was supposed to refer to the Toymaker in its astronomical context, as a godlike, transient being, in combination with his outfit it is obviously offensive.

in the original broadcast 'The Celestial Toymaker', the King of Hearts (one of the Toymaker's pawns) outright says the N word. this is while reciting the 'eeny, meeny, miny, moe' rhyme, and appears to have been an ad-lib by the actor. this is revoltingly racist, and is rightly cut from most audio re-airs or animations.

the Toymaker as depicted in 'The Giggle' is a racist; he freely makes racist microaggressions and uses stereotypical accents in order to torment other people. the most overt example of this is his 'you must be used to sunnier climes' comment to Charles Bannerjee, a brown-skinned British man of Indian descent (his parents being from Kerala is sourced from 'The Giggle' novelisation). in the BTS for this episode, RTD has said this portrayal is a conscious effort to address the character's racist history: canonising his original outfit as a purposeful, offensive choice.

responses to this modern canonisation of the Toymaker as an actual racist have been mixed:

some feel it's a clever way of boiling the character's history down and making a truly despicable villain.

others feel it's a heavy-handed attempt to 'get ahead of the curve' of being criticised for the character's legacy, particularly as there was nothing to indicate the character was racist himself in the original portrayal. these are roughly my feelings about this choice.

for some, it makes sense that the Toymaker is racist because he views everything as a game, including playing with character's race and culture: it's all a performance to him, and as a nonhuman, godlike being, why would he have our cultural sensitivities except to weaponise them and hurt us?

however, by the same stroke, some wonder why would the Toymaker be racist at all if he likely exists beyond our human notions of race, as well as other qualities like gender, sex, age, etc.?

wherever you fall on this spectrum of feelings towards the Toymaker's character, ignoring this history and these facts can be harmful. i've seen a lot of POC upset and alienated alternately by the choice to canonise the Toymaker's racism, as well as the choice to bring back the Toymaker at all given the character's history. now, i'm a fan of the Toymaker. i love camp, theatrical villains; showy reality-benders with little regard for personal space; awful bastards who murder and abuse and don't care one jot about who they hurt. he's a fantastic concept with awesome powers and undeniable style, and the moment the Toymaker was announced, i knew i was going to fixate on him. this is a common feeling for lots of people: many of us simp for gorgeous bad guys, and that's fine! however, i'm conscious of doing real harm by either replicating the Toymaker's racism, or choosing to ignore it entirely. even if i disagree with this recent characterisation, i would hate for anyone to feel disrespected, excluded, or harmed by my fandom activities, particularly of the gushing 'oh he's so cool/handsome/etc.' variety, or creating ship, x Reader, x OC fanworks. so here's what i'm thinking of doing:

in my fanworks for the Toymaker, i will not be recreating his overtly racist characterisation. although i may be replicating, for instance, his pseudo-German accent (a Bavarian stereotype), i will not be writing him using microaggressions, nor will i be expanding on this trait by writing him using slurs or similar racist behaviour. this is because i feel doing so would be more harmful to my friends who are POC, as well as strangers who may stumble across the fanworks. this is also because i do not feel i could handle such a subject in a nuanced, meaningful way, and don't want to inadvertently upset people just trying to have fun in fandom.

to prevent the former being an erasure of the character's racism, i will link to this disclaimer if the Toymaker's racism is relevant to a fanwork/discussion. the aspects of the Toymaker that i enjoy are centred around his being a ridiculous, playful character, and i have no interest in exploring his bigotry. likewise, i do not want to continually remind POC fans about his racist characterisation, as i do personally feel that the way RTD handled the topic was clumsy and ill-informed. however, i recognise that i have privilege in being able to make that choice, and do not wish to glorify racism as an attractive, desirable trait.

i understand that there will be folks on both sides of the aisle who will feel strongly about the choice to enjoy the Toymaker as a character at all. some may feel strongly that fandom is not activism, and that posts like this aren't necessary when simping for a bad guy played by an attractive actor. others may be actively harassing people for finding the Toymaker attractive, or as a character worthy of exploration. i feel strongly that no one should be harassed for enjoying things in fiction, and i will not tolerate hateful or abusive language/tactics being used in any facet of this or other discussions. i hope that we are able to have open, honest, and informed conversations about the Toymaker's racism, both historically and in the present. we shouldn't shy away from the topic because it makes us uncomfortable, and people do have a right to choose whether or not to engage with triggering content. let's do our best to be mindful and respectful of each other's boundaries, educate one another where possible, and continue to have fun in fandom without harming others.

thank you kindly for reading this! this was written as well as i know how, but please do let me know if this approach seems like a good idea, or if there are other things i should be considering. take care, and have a lovely day 💖🙏

[constantvariations]

One of Hello Future Me's videos on revolution brought up an event from the Philippines back in the 80s: the dictator sent a battalion to crush a supposed revolt, only for the soldiers to be met with nuns and children offering food and water. The majority of the army defected as a result

I'm going to use rwby to try hammering this abstract concept into a coherent thought, but this incident got me thinking about how nonviolent protest is theater

If a similar event were to occur in rwby, for it to be successful, the protestors would have to be the cutesy faunus types: rabbits, cats, dogs, and the like because they're non-threatening. Attacking a sweet cat faunus would be akin to attacking a child or nun, paragons of innocence and virtue respectively. Only a monster could cut them down, and no one wants to be seen as a monster

A scorpion faunus, though? Their mere existence is a threat. That tail is dangerous, a weapon available at all times. Bull faunus have horns they can use to gouge out eyes and organs. Claim they attacked and most people would agree that killing them in self-defense is justified

Because nonviolent resistance relies on public perception, people who could possibly taint the image of the movement will get left in the dark no matter how important they are. Bayard Rustin was the one who taught Dr King about civil disobedience and was an organizer for many major events, but he opted to ride to events in the trunk of people's cars so his status as an openly gay man wouldn't harm the movement's image

There would be little wonder why the White Fang would be more popular with the "scarier" faunus. Public perception is already against them, so it's not going to change much for them if they join a violent organization, but this in turn will be seen as justification for discrimination against these types of faunus. A hellish self-perpetuating cycle

These faunus would also be far more likely to experience violence at a much younger age, akin to how black children are treated as adults even if they're literally six years old

The strategy behind nonviolent protest like the ones Dr King did is to show the world the mistreatment of the innocent, but when your existence is deemed a threat, there's little hope that you'll ever get enough support to change the system. This is why bigots constantly spew the "queer groomer" and black crime "statistics": by portraying someone's freedom as a danger to the innocent, any level of violence is justifiable defense. The police aren't attacking queers, black, and brown folk discriminately, they're attacking dangerous criminals, so it's okay!!1!

Theater can't save those already condemned and to try is wasted effort

[supahstarrr]

i'm surprised i don't hear more people mentioning, quoting, or referring to Smith's study when talking about whitewashing vs "blackwashing" and the impact of these phenomenons—although, particularly when speaking about films. i really recommend reading Whitewashing v. Blackwashing: Structural Racism and Anti-Racist Praxis in Hollywood Cinema by Alyssa M. Smith.

Despite this study focusing on these phenomenons in the context of films and Hollywood, i'd even say that there's points written here that can easily apply to these phenomenons' manifestation in the context of art (⟵ using the less broader definition of "art" here) and the art community itself ^^