#racism exists

[girlzoot]

It was a wonderful experience to have, but the downside was that it sheltered me from reality. Maryvale was an oasis that kept me from the truth, a comfortable place where I could avoid making a tough decision. But the real world doesn’t go away. Racism exists. People are getting hurt, and just because it’s not happening to you doesn’t mean it’s not happening. And at some point, you have to choose. Black or white. Pick a side. You can try to hide from it. You can say, “Oh, I don’t pick sides,” but at some point life will force you to pick a side. —Trevor Noah/Born a Crime

[haridraws]

Excuse the format (I made this for instagram since that's what the publisher wants, rip) but this is basically a shorter, easy-to-read version of the history section at the back of my new book.

(Part 2 || The book)

---

Disclaimer: I'm extremely not an expert, and this is only scratching the very surface of complex topics that are hard to simplify. I mostly made this to EXTREMELY rec these books and podcasts, and would urge you to go check them out if you're not familiar!!

This stuff might seem obvious to some of you, but let me tell you, I do NOT think it's widely known in the general UK population.

Imo a lot of the general (especially white) public think that the Windrush generation - Caribbean migrants brought in to help rebuild postwar Britain in the 50s - were the first Black communities in the UK. And yet there's deliberately not much focus on why the Caribbean has links with northern europe. HMMMM

(Britain loves, for example, to celebrate the abolition of slavery without mentioning WHAT CAME BEFORE IT - Britain being the biggest trader of enslaved people, with more than 1 million people enslaved in the British Caribbean. They literally just did it overseas.)

Telling the truth about history or British imperialism gets this massive manufactured backlash at the moment. There are so many ideas prevalent in UK politics - anti-Black, anti-refugee, anti-trans - based on going ‘back’ to some imaginary version of the past. Those are enabled by a long tradition of carving parts out of the historical record, and being selective about whose histories get told and preserved. Even though the book I was making is a fun rom-com, by the time I finished researching, I decided to make an illustrated history section at the back too (this is a mini version). My hope is that readers who haven’t come across these histories might get an introduction to them - and some pointers of what they could read next to get a clearer view of our past.

[staticespace]

I mean, I don't mind it so much. If someone refers to me as a POC, it's not something I'll get up in arms about.

But yes, if we're talking about racism toward a specific group of people, I would prefer that specific group be detailed and specified.

Cause some of this shit is unique to Black people, Native people, etc. And other outside groups sometimes love to ignore it for the proximity-to-whiteness benefits.

Of course, I'm speaking about general communities and not individuals. If that isn't what your general community thinks or feels, then I think the reasonable people in that community need to speak a bit louder.

this is why black ppl don't like being lumped into the term "people of color" cause non-black non-white people are racist asf in an effort to gain white approval which they believe will give access to some privileges and most importantly not allow them to be treated like black ppl. asians and hispanics lead the league in this nonsense. you have to be willfully ignorant and racist to not know that black people deal with systematic racism and oppressions.

[woman-respecter]

i feel like in progressive circles white women are treated as the ultimate evil while white men are coddled, even tho white men are more privileged, vote more conservatively, and are probably more violently racist

[visenyaism]

How is Criston Cole subject to a racist view by the Westerosi when he’s white-passing as hell?? The black (Velaryon) and Asian (Mysaria) characters face no racism in-universe (not talking about the racism in the writers’ room), but you think the white-passing man does? He could be subjected to xenophobia because of sharing ties to Dorne (not part of Westeros), but that’s not the same thing as being viewed through a racial lens, like you’re suggesting.

He is literally introduced when he takes his helmet off for the first time and Alicent says “oh gods he’s Dornish.” Because of his appearance. To them he “looks Dornish” and is racialized in-universe as Dornish which is in-universe perceived as a racial “other” in the canon. I do not know if they could have spelled it out clearer for you. Did we watch the same show

[sukibenders]

The Arcane fandom, especially on TikTok is never beating the allegations because why, now, some fans act like it's too inconceivable to imagine that Ambessa was, not only, pregnant twice but gave birth twice as well? And their reasoning for this is "She looks like the type to get a man pregnant instead" or "She's too tough for that, I just can't see someone like her going through that." There are layers to these statements because, for one, just because someone, especially a woman, is a dominant force doesn't mean that they can't get/don't want to become pregnant (do you believe overtly dominant men can't be fathers?) It's also very weird because the undertones of misogyny and misogynoir and the overt masculinization of black women are there because, not only are they viewing pregnancy and giving birth, in general, to be viewed as something "weak" (even though it's grueling hours of labor that results in tearing the body apart, sometimes even death) but also attempts to strip Ambessa of her nuance. Yes, she is strong and very dominant, but she also deeply loved her children, who she birthed, and when one was taken away from her it changed her deeply. It's very gross to view a character like her in this way because it also reflects how you view dominant women in real life, pregnancy, and childbirth as a whole. Like how are you going to praise Arcane for having such a wide and diverse ensemble of female characters, but then have misogynistic takes like this? Make it make sense.

[plounce]

i feel like the "fiction =/= reality" stance falls apart when you bring up racism. because actually in fact racist media is bad. even if it is fictional. it's morally wrong, and it's bad.

[q--uee--n]

It doesn't quite sit well with me when parts of the fandom act as though they don't understand why, exactly, people become so hyper-defensive/are so hyper-sensitive when people bring up Mel being manipulative. It's because this trait has been weaponized to demean and disparage her at the expense of acknowledging any other nuance/facet about her character, and this also often goes hand-in-hand with ignoring the faults of other characters as to emphasize hers. The fact that Mel is a Black woman can not be put aside as a definitive factor as to why and how she's perceived the way she is—by both the fandom and the writers of the show. I would even argue that one of the show's original sins is a lack of understanding of the real-world intersections between race, class, and colonialism.

In regards to both Mel and Ambessa, this lack of understanding is evident in the writing. Writing that ignores the real-world implications of the Medardas and their social position relative to whiteness, which is one informed by socioeconomic and sociocultural disparities as a result of racism and misogyny. Yes, I understand it's a high fantasy show where things like racism don't exist, so to speak, but Arcane, like all media, is informed by the state of affairs of the world we live in. With classism—classism, which Black people are disproportionately victims of—being a core theme of the show (ostensibly), it's disingenuous to disregard the, from a Doylist perspective, haphazard nature of Mel's function in the narrative as a wealthy Black woman in a classist society juxtaposed against poor, oppressed white main characters (this also applies to Ambessa as a warmonger).

With that said, and harkening back to the beginning of this post, even if you're not bringing attention to Mel's flaws and complexities to demonize her, you have to acknowledge them in the context of her as a Black female character being written with little understanding of intersectionality and how they've been weaponized against her, which are the reasons people—specifically Black woman fans such as myself—are compelled to defend her (or even pretend these flaws don't exist. After all, it's never been a problem in fandom when non-black and male characters' flaws are erased/diminished. It can't suddenly become one now). It's easy to say Mel is a multi-faceted, three-dimensional character, thus, that's why downplaying her flaws is a disservice to her charcter, and this isn't an unreasonable point. However, it's harder to admit that the reason people point out these flaws is not always in the service of acknowledging her complexities but instead in the service of demonizing her due to internalized/unknown biases against Black women. In the end, no one has to like a character. No one even has to defend a character they don't like on principle. No one has to not be annoyed at the sanitization of a multidimensional character. But if those things are being done without an acknowledgement of how the perception of that character is mired by racism and misogyny—knowing or unknowing, from the writers on down—then maybe it's time to address some oversights or unpack some internalized biases before wondering why people feel the need to defend that character.

[skippingthroughfields]

one thing that's missing from these convos about amc not submitting assad zaman for a golden globes nom that makes it 10x more malicious on amc's part is that a nomination isn't just like oh... ~simple appreciation for an actor's performance. even if there's no win, it results in a profile boost for these actors & them being able to command a higher salary when it comes to future projects. it's something that gets notice on their CV. these studios and networks love being able to market their shit with things like "starring golden globe nominee john doe" or "emmy winner jane doe." the emmys are more prestigious than the golden globes which are more prestigious than the critics choice awards (the one they submitted him for with two other actors lol). actors get nominated and have the opportunity to get attention from social media posts, article mentions, attending the red carpet, having their name announced and a little clip of their acting shown. that's not nothing! attention from possible new fans, publications, execs, peers, producers, directors, fashion houses & other industries which could lead to $$$ and sponsorships. I won't make any presumptions about the cast's finances but I do know amc is probably not paying them their worth, least of all the bangladeshi muslim who barely had any major roles in tv/film prior to the show.

there are fees and costs associated with submitting for awards consideration and FYC ads. the network basically took a look at assad's brown skin and name and said they don't think he's worth the money over the white actor who had less screentime and narrative importance (to the season ig) which is absolutely crazy lmao. it shouldn't be controversial to say that and you can't not discuss this without bringing up sam's name. this has nothing to do with whether he "deserved" to be submitted (and even if I said he doesn't deserve it over assad who's gonna beat my ass?). this white man isn't being persecuted by conversations about blatant racism. but I'd expect nothing less from this fanbase x.

[aspiringwarriorlibrarian]

The most infuriating thing about outrage grifters saying "you can't criticize anything nowadays" is that they're the reason it's so tough to criticize anything diverse. Every review of something that's being targeted has to be written very carefully so racists won't think you're one of them and even then you know your words are gonna be taken and used against you to fuel some bigoted agenda. A man wrote a negative but good faith review of Glass Onion and Ben Shapiro stole his points to clumsily camouflage the rest of his review which is just far-right rage about Elon Musk is above criticism and how much he hates female protagonists of color. You make a criticism that you would have made if the protagonist had been a white man and it gets quote mined for some Youtuber's video about how the movie would have been perfect if only the protagonist had been a white man. You mix in criticism and praise and they only hear the criticism, because they decided they hated it just for having marginalized people and are looking for excuses.

If you make your own opinions, you get swarmed by a mob of people who get told their opinions by outrage grifters. This happens regardless of whether your opinion is positive or negative. But there is something uniquely infuriating that genuine, good faith criticism that respects the creators is being drowned out by people who think bigotry is "criticism" and that if they slap the word "woke" on it that magically makes it not racist.

[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.

[aroaceleovaldez]

i'm so happy you brought back up the topic of rick's shitty writing of anyone even remotely non white / "white passing"

with that being said, do you think the shitty script he gave to annabeth in the show has to do with him just being deeply uninterested in adapting his story to include characters of color? bc it seems like once rick encounters a character that cannot be easily erased all ethnic or racial identity of to fit them into an usamerican specifically white ass narrative, he gets lost.

i just keep thinking how the only thing that "changed" about annabeth as presented in the show was her race but her plot relevance and her characterization got downgraded severely. meanwhile percy, whiter than before (wheres the mediterranean god look......................................), got half her functions. like i just look at rick in context and i wonder if he just gives so little fuck about characters of color he cant even write a decent character arc for an adaptation of a very established persona

thoughts? thank u!

I wouldn't be surprised if it's Rick (and the writer's room, since it actually seems Rick isn't all that heavily involved if much at all with the script itself based on some interviews) just has internal biases that he refuses to reflect on. It would be a consistent trend with the uptick in offensive writing in the books themselves (see: the troglodytes in general, all the Jewish kids in CHB being in Hermes cabin, etc etc). Rick seems to want to engage with these topics but refuses to actually assess how he's approaching it and his own biases while also overemphasizing his engagement with the topics. It's a kind of big talk/words vs actions type thing to me.

[this got a wee bit long so throwing it under a cut]

I was having a couple of conversations about this topic recently - one being group reading/discussion of WottG and how, allegedly, the slightly different characterizations in that book are inspired by the actors in the show. Annabeth is repeatedly and frequently described as motherly and maternal in the book, plus some other misc characterizations that make you tilt your head and go "Wait, what about Leah made you want to write Annabeth this way?" and concerns about it leaning into stereotypes. (It's also strange, because in the show Sally is MUCH more aggressive and less maternal, and this is painted like it's supposed to be a girlboss thing cause her being too soft and motherly was too weak or something? But now book Annabeth is now being described as all soft and maternal??? What. What is happening.)

Another conversation that i had with my therapist (cause we talk about pjo a lot lol) and later repeated and discussed more with other folks on discord more specifically regarding the show was a lot of discussion about the casting. Particularly casting choices and how the writing either is refusing to take casting into consideration to respectfully approach how things would be changed to avoid problems or are actively changing the script for characters in a way that is potentially if not downright offensive. Clarisse is the number one example i bring up because a lot of people say that the reason a plus sized actress wasn't cast for her was to avoid the "fat bully" trope. The thing is, there is ALSO a POC bully trope that is just as bad if not worse, so if they were actually taking offensive tropes into consideration one would expect them to avoid that too (especially since Percy was cast as a pasty white boy - which just makes it all look worse)? (Also other plus-sized characters like Dionysus and Gabe were also cast as skinny, same with Tyson. So it just seems like they don't want to cast plus-sized actors either.)

But also they're rewriting stuff that actively puts the casting decisions into worse tropes. Like hey, why is Percy (a white guy) the one who knows the "real" versions of all these myths and is expositioning them to Annabeth (a black girl), who in the books is supposed to know more than him? Why does he know better than her for some reason and have to guide her? Why is Percy teaching Annabeth about pop culture and how to be a kid? Not to mention stuff like the show constantly encouraging the viewer to doubt or distrust characters like Grover and Clarisse and Annabeth as red herrings as to who the traitor is. Plus there's no adjustments to stuff from the books like Annabeth initially being somewhat aggressive/antagonistic towards Percy, or Clarisse's aggression and bullying towards Percy to try and circumvent those being bad tropes in the contexts of the casting.

And there's an ongoing trend of characters who are antagonistic towards Percy in the books being divided into two groups: those who continue to be antagonistic towards Percy in the show, or those who are tweaked to suddenly become kinda silly-goofy and significantly less threatening. Gabe, Dionysus, Ares, and Hades are all examples of characters that should be antagonistic towards Percy but are softened SIGNIFICANTLY and played for laughs in the show. Echidna is played as a twist antagonist because she initially because she approaches the kids as very sweet and helpful. And they're all cast as white! Meanwhile other characters like Clarisse, Luke, Zeus, etc, are still antagonistic towards Percy (plus also like Annabeth initially and again, Grover being painted as a major red herring). Plus some new additions like Hermes, Mr. Lin Manuel Miranda himself, being wholly introduced into the plot when he's not supposed to appear until book 2, and all he does is sabotage the quest. Like, it's weird! That's a weird writing decision!!!! I get wanting to get that sweet sweet LMM cameo money, but, why is Hermes an antagonist here???????? he's not even supposed to be here yet!.

We also have stuff like Poseidon (who, like many of the god/major kid pairings so far seems to have been cast to match each other appearance-wise) saving the day for Percy and being this weirdly good dad, versus the books where we get the iconic "I am sorry you were born" line and Percy and Poseidon's tension is part of their arcs. Notably, Poseidon does this by ceding to Zeus, who is actively about to start a war. While Gabe is rewritten to be a total loser, Sally is MUCH more aggressive and her yelling and screaming at young Percy is supposed to be sympathetic for some reason? If Gabe were acting like Sally does in the show, he would actually be significantly more like his book counterpart! The show is making active decisions to paint these characters the way they do!

Admittedly, part of it may just be they got overzealous with their casting (not inherently a bad thing! diverse casting is good!) and then proceeded to not consider how that casting affects the way the characters are perceived. It also doesn't bode well for certain guesses we can make going further into the show - Thalia is very at odds with Percy initially. She's a very aggressive character. They fight a lot! Also Annabeth's description already implies that they're tweaking Thalia's character to be more "tough love" versus the books where she's significantly more of a bleeding heart when she first meets Annabeth. Like, I'm very happy about Thalia's casting, her actress seems amazing, but also I'm VERY concerned with how they're going to approach her character to make sure it doesn't end up wildly offensive. Athena is similar - we can guess based on casting decisions so far that they're going to try and cast Athena as similar in appearance to Annabeth/Leah. The show has already painted Athena has antagonistic and uncaring towards her daughter. If projected trends continue, these things are not gonna be great.

And the show does seem to rarely want to engage with these topics - like the scene with the cop in the train. You can tell what they wanted to address by having Annabeth be the one to confront him. The thing is they were too cowardly to actually have that conversation! They paint the kids as being unreasonable and getting unnecessarily upset when they aren't directly being accused of destroying a room, therein painting the cop as the one in the right in that situation. The implication seems to be a little bit they were going for "Oh, this is Annabeth's hubris getting them into trouble" but. that's such a bad way to do it! That's like the worst way you could have done it! (This is also a trend in books from HoO onwards, more or less - Rick tries to engage with certain topics, often using characters of specific demographics, and then proceeds to do a really bad job of it.)

There are also some aspects that are just like - in the books, Luke being a middle-class blond-haired blue-eyed pretty white boy is relevant! Because the fact that he has privilege from that particularly in how he's perceived is part of how he came to where he is and why he acts the way he does. Percy not having those same privileges, and having aspects like constantly inherently being labeled as a trouble-maker just based on his atypical (neurodivergent) behavior and coming from a lower socioeconomical background play heavily into his character!!! Percy being both a poor and disabled kid (and implied potentially POC) plays DIRECTLY into why he feels so strongly about standing up for other disenfranchised kids (in SoM, explicitly including other disabled kids and kids of color). It directly relates to his experiences and standing up for kids who are like him because he didn't have that, versus Luke whose perceptions and goals are very self-oriented. Now, in the show, we've essentially swapped Percy and Luke's appearances, and that paints a very different narrative. And that's important to acknowledge!

[lelianasbong]

i took a chance on a veilguard critical video but instead of something constructive it was just some dude bitching about taash and how the guy's romance options as a heterosexual man ONLY include a dwarf and an "ugly woman" (neve per his description). bellara doesn't exist ig. whereas his friend got to romance eVerRYonE!!!

wild west out here in these tags

[neechees]

Colonialism is the root of so many evils of the world

[loumandforyou]

what makes me so sad about that whitewashed painting (as in all the paintings Armand posed for, I am sure) it's that Armand was always abused because he was beautiful... and yet even that beauty was not good enough to be portrayed in the paintings that could be displayed in people's houses, in museums centuries later. His beauty always came with a price and he can never be admired without having to pay it. Even those damn paintings he paid for and he still looked like they wanted him to, not like he was.

[xclowniex]

Stop arabizing jews. Stop calling them arab jews. You fucking imperialistic colonizer scumbag. Jews are jews. Not arab jews.

Nice antisemitism and anti arab rhetoric there bud!

I have BOTH arab and jewish heritage. Do mixed people not exist to you? Its very racist to assume that people have to be one or the other.

The majority of mizrahi jews are NOT arab, but those with both arab and jewish heritage do exist. Hope this helps

This is a nice change of pace though since im usually called a colonizer for being jewish, never because im arab.