#that *wasn't* colonialist

[bebethsas]

damn, I had no idea that the 1870s hairstyles (and kinda the 1700s hair too--minus the bouffant) made a brief comeback in the 1990s (but simplified; no complex coils and layers and padding).

Look:

but with the flower crowns/ arches that were all the rage in the 1840s-50s (but worn on top of the head, not:

and

(above) hair crescent

...ok, Beth’s memory apparently SUCKS at remembering this stuff, because she remembered it wrong! Because lol, it looks like we’ve always been into weaving and wearing flower crowns: 

St. Cecelia at the Organ (Onofrio Marinari, c.1686), below:

(Maude Fealy, Victorian/ Edwardian portraits): above

Portrait of a Girl in a Yellow Dress Holding a Bouquet of Flowers, Santi di Tito

The Crowning of Mirtillo, 1650, above

portrait of The Duchess of Abrantes, Goya, 1816 (above)

Rembrandt’s portrait of Flora, Goddess of Spring (above)

Maenad and Cupid, Fresco in Italy, c. 1st Century A.D. (above)

Palaistra scene on a Plate, ~520 - 510 BCE

Young Girl with Flower Garland (Konstantin Yegorovich Makovsky) Regional Art musuem, Gorlovka (above)

The Flower Garland, Waldemar Friedrich

Okay, apparently there’s a LOT of paintings about the Goddess Flora:

Flora, Girolamo Batoni, 1775

Flora, Luca Giordano, 1697

Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema painted a few picture of ladies in flower crowns, here’s one:

(Summer Offering, 1894)

this pair of portraits by Fragonard (the 1st one is really what I was reminded of by the magazine)

Young Lady with a Garland of Roses Around her Neck

Young Woman with a Garland of Roses (and if anyone asks, that faint pink spot on the left side of her chest is just a discoloration of the painting due to age)

of course, BAMF Artemisia Gentileschi (let me tell you, the only thing ‘gentle’ about her was her name) painted a pic of this too:

almost anything that Botticelli painted, as well as those Victorian portraits where people were obsessed with painting Ancient Greeks, naiads, Romans, etc.

and, of course, cultural Icon Ophelia:

Ophelia, John William Waterhouse, 1894:

John William Waterhouse, Ophelia, 1910 (above)

Alexandre Cabanel, 1883 (above)

And, lest we forget, flower crowns have never solely been a western thing:

The Lei Maker, 1901, Theodore Wores

Hawaiian Lei venders, c.1901

(from Hawai’i State Archive, c.1930s based on other photos)

titled: Cantonese Mandarin and his Wife, c. 1861 - 1864

Hanging Scroll, Ming Dynasty, c.1500s

Two Beauties in a Garden, Gai Qi, Qing Dynasy, Daoguang Period, 1821 - 1850 (side-note, Gai Qi painted literally HUNDREDS of the lovliest paintings of Chinese ladies that I’ve ever *seen*)

Frida Kahlo, self-portrait, 1940

Women with Flowers and Lotus, 18th Dynasty (ok, fine, it looks more like a cord or ribbon with minimal greenery on it, but apparently they did wear flower garlands of lotuses on their heads)

and

Painted Plaster Mummy Mask, Roman Period c. 60 - 70 A.D.

A Lady Holding Two Flower Garlands Attracts Two Peacocks, Mughal Empire (listen, I’m sure there’s artwork out there *somewhere* of folks from India wearing flower garlands on their heads, but I couldn’t find any examples, and I’m tired b/c it took ~3 hours to research what was supposed to be a short little reblog, so I’m settling for this painting.)

In short, if Humans live near large amounts of flowers (that are non-toxic and pretty and easy to harvest), we will learn how to link them on a chain of some kind, and we will wear them around our neck, or on our head.

March 1994. ‘Add a crown of curls and a wreath of fresh flowers for a soft, feminine look that will really turn heads.’

[former-leftist-jew]

"Check out this Pakistani academic, born and raised in Canada, whose parents didn't see anything wrong with moving to a country that was founded as a colony, usurping the rights of the indigenous population...*

They could say, 'Hey, we didn't choose to be born into a colonial country.' Sure! None of us picked the countries we were born in, but we do choose the countries we live in. She could have easily moved to any country she saw fit, thanks to the power of the passports of these Colonial countries...

But I'm sure they'll have some convenient excuse for continuing to live in these wonderful Western countries, such as, 'We'll leave once we decolonize these Colonial countries.'"

A really good look at Western leftists who decry the "white settler colonialism," while continuing to benefit from its legacy, and (by extension) hypocritically condemn Jews and demand Israelis do what they won't do in their own countries.

[queenofzan]

it's just like. progressivism is not on a linear scale, you know? star trek could be progressive in its depiction of a racially integrated workplace and still extremely white supremacist. star trek could be progressive in its depiction of women in star fleet, including in command positions, and also regressive in its worldbuilding about orions. doing well in one specific area that they were thinking about doesn't mean they were fundamentally revolutionary in their conception of what the future could/should look like.

star trek had more than one excellent episode about the regressive pointlessness of racism. it also did such a bad job giving uhura things to do that she had to be talked into staying in the role by literal mlk jr. even at the time she knew she was being sidelined. by producers and directors and roddenberries who explicitly told anti-racist stories! and had ham-fisted lines about female crewmembers being crew first and foremost!

and then there's the extremely common example of something being progressive on one little issue and conservative or even regressive on other things, which is hardly limited to star trek, because values are on a broad spectrum, and i can hardly expect someone who agrees non-consensual surgeries on intersex infants are awful to also be a staunch intersectional feminist who won't have any trouble getting my wife's pronouns right.

and as much as roddenberry had some really wildly progressive takes for his time, he was also like. a white man. and the premise of star trek is really, really colonialist and white supremacist, even when the people making it thought they were being anti-racist, because they were so grounded in colonialism and white supremacy that they couldn't see it.

[hollowwhisperings]

Jackson's casting Elrond as an Antagonist [Fantasy Racist] Father-in-Law for his film adaptions was like

like

look, okay, the entire Silmarillion CAN be reduced to "Elrond's Backstory": the dude is related to every Ruling House in Middle-Earth, bar one¹.

so PJ's mischaracterization of Elrond? it's... it's a Plot Hole. for the ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE SETTING.

the Elrond thing is, to me, a Microcosm of my Greater Issue with the Jackson Films as a whole. Tolkien's Works are Very White: he was a very white man. They're STILL more colourful than PJ's films.

Jackson didn't just add Elrond's Fantastic Racism to his adaptions: he added IRL Racism too.

The racism in Jackson's LOTR films is infuriating to me: any other fantasy setting that was THIS faithfully racist across the board? It would have been called out. LOUDLY. Rings of Power has addressed or been tagged to account for all the same controversies that Jackson was never held accountable for, not in LOTR and not in his Hobbit films either. It's exhausting to personally point out how Jackson whitewashed his productions, not to mention the other ways he screwed marginalized groups over. Remember when Jackson & the NZ government collab'd to kill film crew rights? on the country's Labour Day? it's even called The Hobbit Law!

Jackson's Adaptions of LOTR and The Hobbit were "faithful" to Tolkien in many of the worst ways. They set Precedents that subsequent adaptions (TROP) have struggled to combat.

Obligatory Afternote

Weta Workshop's screen test shots for female dwarves influenced & popularized our fandom's mythos for "dwarrowdams".

The Hobbit films reinvigorated fan discussions on gender, sexuality and how fluid they are as spectrums. They also prompted fans to readress the Antisemitism & Racism that Tolkien employed throughout his depictions of the khazad.

The films did not do those things alone, fans of the films did: the good found in the Jackson films exists alongside their racism.

Footnote

¹Elrond has no family ties to the Line of Durin nor any hobbit chieftains (the Tooks, for instance), not unless he stood-in as "kin" to Bilbo, Frodo, Sam &/or Gimli during their afterlives in Valinor.

Easterlings, the Haradrim & the other [Racially Stereotyped] Fantasy Humans in the Legendarium live beyond "Middle-Earth".

They are, very technically, denizens of "Farther Earth" or perhaps "South-" or "Eastern Earth".

It's also pretty probable that the Line of Elros (Elrond's In-Laws & Esteemed Niblings) interwed with Haradrim rulership early on, whilst Elrond was still an "Uncle" or "Great-Uncle" to Numenor's Kings.

[hollenka99]

YouTube yesterday: Hey btw The Longest Johns just released a song about Horatio Nelson's death.

Me: Cool, excuse me as I stare off into space and think about L'Manburgian soldiers' reaction to hearing about Kiril's dying to withering whenever I play the song.

[drzephyr]

why do some western commies in their defence of communism end up sliding into supporting the russian government 😐

[zeitztun]

ik this is known but no successful settler colony has reached relative "internal stability" without genocide. north america is the first example of this that comes to mind: during the early years all up to the 19th cent., wars and attacks between native americans and settlers were frequent. and yes, while the settler armies were more well armed and more powerful, the native americans were a great force against the european invasions and did cause casualties among white populations, "including civillians", and halted expansion and development for many of the colonies.

this was met in 2 ways:

federal programs sponsored by the colonial states (violent deculturation, seperation from families through residential & boarding schools, expulsion from ancestral lands and destruction of the indigenous identity)

and unofficial, "individual" settler and enlistee actions of massacres upon indigenous populations. these events obviously were never prosecuted because they worked in tandem with the colonial powers, supported and encouraged by them.

the extermination of the american indigenous people wasn't just a facet of american success but the foundation of it. if they weren't subject to the genocide, the wealth and vast land in north america wouldn't have reached the white populations and the continent would be unrecognizable today, with canada and the united states not slightly as globally influencial as they are today. imagine a usa reliant on tourism.

and ik this is all elementary level information, but israel mirrors this entire process in eery similarity, with ancient, ancestral lands seized from palestenians exploited and destroyed for capital gains following violent expulsions (the nakba created israel). palestinians remaining within the israeli border endure lynchings and attacks by settlers as well as repression and persecution under federal law. israel was founded on the same colonialist principles that america and other european settler colonies (algeria, mozambique, kenya) were: their survival just depended on how far they would go to destroy the indigenous population.

what im dreading is that israel is on course to go further and proceed with that destruction. we are currently is a uniquely horrifying moment: 2,600 dead palestenians and 6,000 in hospitals with 0 supplies and 0 power - and the ground assault following the impossible evacuations is looming. the massacres about to sweep palestinian lands with the gifting of the ten thousand rifles to settlers. the unprovoked, unwarned and constant airstrikes. the monolithic, hysteric nature of mainstream western media. the army's sentiment of hunting animals. the global unrepentant backing. the repeated promise of complete victory.

what would complete victory mean? you cannot quell palestenian resistance without exterminating palestine. the palestenian people are a tortured people, hungry, radicalized simply from their day to day life: not one gazan hasn't watched corpses being pulled from the rubble, not one gazan doesn't have murdered family, not one gazan doesn't have something to mourn. their friends and family disappear or lose limbs on the daily now, building on grief from the previous 7 decades deep destruction. the homesickness is constant. the sounds of explosions is never far. of course there would be resistance movements, of course there would be revenge attacks, of course it will be bloody, because no humans in the world could silently endure these conditions. if hamas was entirely destroyed tomorrow, the next generation of palestinian youths would simply form another. for a complete, permanent victory, you would need to raze palestine.

this is why i balk at people hoping for coexistence. coexistence goes against the very founding strategy of israel. it goes against every principle and long term plan israel has for itself. israelis themselves do not want coexistence, they want gaza flattened and the west bank annexed, they want palestine destroyed and the palestenian people extinct. any sympathy with israel is a transgression on humanity.

[drdemonprince]

The New Atheist Movement posited that the greatest source of oppression and needless harm on the planet is the presence of people holding incorrect beliefs -- rather than understanding that structural abuses such as enslavement, assault, and war are caused by capitalist and colonialist incentives, which have often been justified and carried about by The Church, they located the problem in the The Church and its adherents' inaccurate worldviews. Because they lacked a decolonial frame, they had no reason to distinguish between the abuses of, say, the Catholic Church and the actions of a handful of CIA-trained operatives who happened to be Muslim, and blamed everything from the 9/11 attacks to the ritualistic abuses of young women in Evangelical Churches on the adherence to "religion." The damage wasn't the power that the US, its proxies, and its colonialst forebears held, or the greed that drove their plundering of the world; the problem was that people were foolish and superstitious and did harm wantonly because a Sky Man told them to. And so, in this worldview, the only solution to abuse and the only way to set the world straight is for individuals to stop thinking wrongly and to start thinking correctly -- meaning rationally, which of course, as Atheists, they believed they had the best authority to define. And that's what's really wrong with the New Atheist Movement and its offshoots -- because many of the points they make about religion, especially structural religion, actually could have some merit if they were more economically and politically literate when it comes to who wields power and why they wield it the ways they do. But instead of working to dismantle unjust systems of power and decolonize, the New Atheists believed it was their ethical duty to just argue with people and make them think more "rationally" or whatever on an individualistic level, which is more than just useless, it's liberal and often plays out in downright colonial ways itself.

[jewishvitya]

hi riki! this is a bizarre question ngl, but im wondering if you could please tell me about why you are anti-Zionist? Since i have FRESHLY (last month!! Woohoo!!) become bat mitzvah, and I’m not going to beit Sefer every week now, I’m starting to realize that what I was told about Israel and zionism miiiight be innacurate. Please feel free not to, but I would personally feel more comfortable hearing about Antizionism from somebody who is for sure not hiding any antisemitic biases. Thanks and I hope it’s not a bother!

Mazal tov!

I was debating if I should reply to this and how. You're only one year older than my son and I never considered talking about this with a kid other than my own children. But if you're online reading and looking up information about this, I'll just answer the way I would for anyone. Like I said, I don't mind explaining. But I don't have the energy to collect sources for you. I'll do that later if you'd like. For now it'll be a bit of a rant.

Basically, if you ask different people what zionism is, you'll get different answers. Some people say that zionism is just the acknowledgement of our connection to this land. That's not what I'm going against. I'm not denying that this is our ancestral homeland. I've never known a different home, I grew up near Hebron. Our history means everything to me. So maybe you could create some definition of zionism that I wouldn't be against. But then I'll be against the use of the word because in practice, politically, the movement has been colonialist. And that reality is more important to me. So when I say I'm antizionist, I'm not talking about whatever pretty idea someone might have, I'm talking about things that to me are very concrete.

Zionism uses whatever political terminology is useful to it at the time. Currently, it tries to paint itself as a sort of landback movement, placing us as the indigenous population of this land. This is a distraction. If you mean "indigenous" as "this is where we originated" - both us and Palestinians are indigenous, which makes this term pointless to this situation. If you mean "indigenous" as "a local population facing colonization" - they're indigenous and we're the colonizers. That's the more politically useful distinction.

And the thing is, zionists knew they were colonizers. Ben Gurion was welcomed by the local population and expressed hope that they're nomadic and could be persuaded to leave. Ze'ev Jabotinsky argued that no land has been colonized with the consent of its natives, so we should just take what we want like other occupying forces did. They knew what they were doing. At the time, there wasn't the broad political pushback against colonialism that you see today, so they didn't really hide it. They saw themselves as the colonizing force and the Palestinians as the natives and this distinction had them placing themselves above the Palestinians.

When I was in school, I was made to believe that Palestine was never truly a country and the population here was never a cohesive nation. You might see questions like "Who were the Palestinian prime ministers and presidents? What was the Palestinian coin? What Palestinian wars were there before the creation of Israel?"

These questions tell you nothing other than the fact that Palestine has been under foreign occupation for a very long time. They try to lead you to believe that Palestine and the Palestinian identity are fictional constructs designed to deny us our place in this land.

But Palestinians have their own dialect of Arabic. They have their own varieties of Middle Eastern foods. They have their own clothing, their own embroidery patterns, their own dances. They have a very rich culture that wasn't just made up from nothing within the last century. I still have to battle against cognitive dissonance every time I find something of the sort, because Palestinian culture goes against everything I was taught.

The truth is, the British had no right to occupy Palestine, and they had no right to offer it to us. If we pretend there was no population that was wronged when we took Israel, we can be "the good guys" with Palestinians being a sinister plot to ruin us. This turns normal families, normal people, into a conspiracy made to hurt us. We're not fighting a military force - every Palestinian person is a threat to our legitimacy. Israelis don't even really use the term "Palestinians" - they're just Arabs, their individual identity is stripped from them. We pretend that they belong to other countries around us.

Israeli propaganda will tell you that we only ever act in self defense. It's in the name of our military, it's called a defense force. Israel boasts that it has the only ethical military in the world. The only defensive one. But like I said, we define threats very broadly. And we whitewash a lot of history. I was taught in school all our fighting was defensive - and then I spoke to an elderly man and he said "of course we killed whole villages, it was war, that's what you do." Only as an adult I found out about things like the Sabra and Shatila massacre and our involvement in it.

For the existence of Israel as an ethnostate, every Palestinian is a threat. A lot of people are all in favor of Israel, but against the government actions of ethnic cleansing. The truth is, the ethnostate is not sustainable without the ethnic cleansing. You can't accept one and expect it not to lead to the other. An ethnostate is never a justified goal, and that's always been the goal of zionism as a practical movement.

And I know why this exists. We've had two millennia of persecution. Antisemitism is one of the oldest forms of bigotry. And we just experienced an attempt to industrially exterminate us, we lost millions, including from my own family. We want shelter and safety and the ability to defend ourselves. I just can't see that as justification for what we did and continue to do.

You can look up our human rights abuses, but personally, there were moments that hit me. When I saw a whole warehouse of mail intended to reach Gaza, mail that's been kept from them for years, including items like wheelchairs, in such bad conditions that some envelopes got moldy. I still think of the people who spent all that money to get a wheelchair and were prevented mobility because we decided to hold their mail.

I watched the biggest apartment building in Gaza collapse under our bombs and I cried thinking about the people inside, and about the potential survivors and everything they lost.

I watched our people beat up the pallbearers at the funeral of Shireen Abu-Akleh, a Palestinian reporter. They almost dropped the casket from all those beatings. They were no threat. They just carried her. There was no reason to hurt them.

On the news, after Shireen Abu-Akleh died, the description of the Palestinian response to her death was that they're "חוגגים על המוות." The literal translation is that they're celebrating over the death, but that's not what it means. The meaning is that they're exaggerating their pain and their grief. They're acting, pretending, milking the injustice of it for show. And that's a common Israeli narrative, that Palestinians make a big deal out of things and pretend to suffer more just to make us look bad. We've dehumanized them to the point where we don't believe their grief.

And before all of this, growing up, I saw what the "us vs them" mentality caused in children. I grew up in Kiryat Arba and the population there is very strongly zionist. It's a settlement. It's largely Dati Leumi (national religious? I'm not sure how to translate, dati means religious and leumi means national). Over there I saw children as young as six cheerfully talk about joining the military and killing Arabs. I saw a kid throwing chocolate past the electric fence separating us from them, and laughing when a small Palestinian child went looking for that chocolate, calling her a pig. I saw my high school classmates questioning if they should help the family of a six-months-old baby, first demanding to know if the sick infant is Arab.

The Israeli left has a bit of a slogan. הכיבוש משחית. The occupation corrupts. It means that being an oppressive force changes what we are. It ruins us. And I truly believe that. It taints so much about us and our culture, about our compassion and our ability to have solidarity with other humans. Many principles that kept us safe in diaspora are used now to harm gentiles living under our control, and Palestinians suffer most of all.

So these are the reasons I'm antizionist. I hate what we do to Palestinians. I hate what it does to us. And more fundamentally, I'm against colonialism.

[depressedraisin]

here's how armand can still be bengali

why do i think so? no other good reason than i am bengali myself and i want armand to be. (also assad zaman's family is from bangladesh. bengali solidarity!!!)

bengal: the region in south asia comprising present-day bangladesh and the indian states of west bengal, odisha, assam and parts of bihar.

armand said in the season one finale, that takes place in 2022, he is a 514 year old vampire. is it 514 years including or excluding his human years? let's go with including. that means armand would have been born in 1508.

now what was going on in india and bengal in 1508? well, the mughals hadn't come to india yet; it's still about two decades before babur makes his way here. delhi was under the rule of the lodi dynasty, the delhi sultanate was in its dying days. most of north india, mainly uttar pradesh and bihar was under the jaunpur sultanate. bengal was still it's own independent kingdom, called the bengal sultanate. alauddin hussain shah had just seized power and become the sultan of bengal in 1494, beginning the hussain shahi dynasty (they ruled in bengal till 1538 when the mughals captured the region).

india as a country did not exist yet. even it's conception would be a few centuries away still. the subcontinent was a collection of big and small kingdoms and sultanates, constantly warring amongst themselves, some ruled by hindu rulers others by muslims, each with their own distinct histories and cultures. bengal was one of the most prosperous and thriving among them. the bangla language and bengali culture was just beginning to develop.

vasco da gama had arrived in india in 1498, landing at kozhikode on the malabar coast. this began the arrival of the portugese in india, and soon other european colonialists followed. they soon set up their capital in goa, built forts all along the western coast and established trade through obtaining licenses and exclusive permits from local rulers. they first made their way to the bay of bengal region around 1516, with the first portugese representative- a guy called joao coelho- coming to chittagong (present day bangladesh). the first factory was set up in chittagong the next year.

the portugese traded in spices and cotton and fruits and muslin and also slaves. the european indian ocean slave trade began with the coming of the portugese in the early 16th century. slavery in south asian societies had obviously existed long before, and it was a deeply complex and diverse system of dependency and regimes of slavery. slavery of youth and children was also pretty prevalent: it would not be uncommon for poor, farming families to sell away themselves or their children to zamindars (landlords) and colonial overlords in desperation. there were many, many cases of young children being forced to get onboard ships where they'd be held agains their will and taken to europe, the americas or south-east asia. goa and lisbon were the two cities that linked the movement of goods and people between the indian and atlantic oceans, but goa wasn't the only place where enslaved children were traded in portugese india nor lisbon the only european they were taken to.

one of those kids might as well have been arun.

i know the brief glimpse at the talamasca files showed armand's origin to be in delhi but in this particular scene he clearly says that he was sent *to* delhi, thinking he was going to work on a merchant boat.

this is just a theory i have btw. armand could've been from maharastra or the deccan as well idk. anyway.

armand is a monster, a vicious, villanious creature of unfathomable powers and ferocity. but he is also so deeply tragic. he had been forcibly torn away from his people and his land. he has no memory of his family or his humanity. he has lived for over half a millenium. the india he might've known hasn't existed for centuries, and he never got to know the one that exists today. the bangla he might've spoken no one remembers anymore. he has nothing left of the human he was except that name.

further readings (STRONGLY SUGGESTED!!!):

[meruz]

hi meruz please tell me all your thoughts on outer wilds I am absolutely Living rn

HI oh my god i have so many thoughts. I think I'm gonna keep posting fanart so this definitely isnt gonna be my last word on the matter but wow what a game! um... idk if I wanna just type forever but I can give you at least a few key thoughts I had...

It took me a second to get into! I had been waiting for the switch port so I was really excited starting out but there were a couple early play sessions months apart where I was struggling with the controls and overwhelmed with the openness...I have a hard time with a lot of open worlds games because I just..dont have a lot of free time LOL. But I was complaining abt this to my brother and he was also having a hard time rly digging into the game so when he flew over to visit me a couple weeks ago I was like ok lets do this together (incentivizing gaming by making it social/co-operative). And we had a blast!!! it rly is the type of game you can play as co-op just by having someone else on the couch or on stream doin the thinking alongside you or bouncing theories off of. I do think he's a much better puzzle solver than me though lol (he works in research, so he's got that researcher brain), he made a lot of the leaps of logic way early while I was still turning things over in my head lmao.... AND he's better with the controls because he plays a lot of flight sims?! i think he got annoyed watching me bumble around anytime i had the controller. my sole contribution was doing the stealthy parts in the dlc because im stupid and consequentially lack fear.

I kind of grew up playing majoras mask and windwaker like that was the era of zelda games I was rly activated and engaged for as a kid and I didn't realize how much I was missing and craving that type of experience again LOL. I think especially with how I personally felt that tears of the kingdom was narratively and structurally a step down from botw... idk... i mean you can tell from interviews abt Outer Wilds that the devs clearly have a lot of affection for and thoughts abt the Zelda series as well and I think Outer Wilds was like such a good encapsulation of everything I loved abt those games and also everything I wish they would do lol!! IT ALSO kind of solved a lot of my pain points with open world games and did it in a way that was so elegant... like I think i initially recoiled at the openness but then when i started exploring and realized the scope and level of detail it rly clicked into place.. im just in awe.

umm i love every hearthian they were all so charming. it rly did feel like an older school of nintendo rpg where every npc has so much personality lol. i loved that every alien race in the game was some weird animal like the designs for all of them were rly good. i love that it was a "worn" universe and that everything looked old or used. I love astronomy and space and space concepts but I don't really like really lofty and impersonal/minimalist scifi so i feel like this was a great and accessible art direction for me personally. i especially thought the backpacking/outerdoorsy aesthetic was really inspired! I think "exploration" sometimes exists on a spectrum where one end of it can be really colonialist/militaristic LOL... UM which im not like. fully against i think it can be an interesting idea to dissect? but i feel like we see it a lot and it was neat to see this which felt like the complete opposite end of that spectrum. weirdly enough playing Outer Wilds made me immediately go and finally finish Firewatch right after but I felt a little spoiled I was like ehh..that was good but it wasn't Outer Wilds LOL.

i think a lot of the themes reminded me of lord of the rings/tolkien lore LOL IDK. I GUESS THIS IS LIKE BIG SPOILERS SO if you havent played dont read but like. the entire concept of being born at the end of a great and enormous world/age with a rich history and you only getting to see the end of it, living in the shadow of great civilization...keeping your humble home in your heart idk. but then also the new world being a song ... I'm a sucker. I love it.

yeah sorry only compliments. anyways yeah i want to do more fanart... soon!! hopefully!

[demaparbat-hp]

the audacity you literally have to make a GENOCIDE SURVIVOR (whose entire culture was decimated by the fire nation) proudly work for the imperial fire nation army in some fuckass au? zutara shippers are never beating the colonial apologism allegations.

Woah, okay, I wasn't expecting this. I'm a firm believer that people should, first and foremost, treat each other on the basis of respect, so I'll do my best to explain this to you, clearly, and with the benefit of the doubt in mind, okay? I'm a nice person like that.

First of all, I'm working under the assumption that you haven't read these posts, and thus don't have all the information I've shared about the AU. I've been as clear about this subject as I can be, especially in my replies but, for the sake of fairness, I'll say it once again again:

I do not condone nor find it moraly correct to justify a victim of war joining the side of the ones responsible for her people's genocide.

I try to view this AU, and war in general, through a mature, realistic lense. Turning Katara into a victim with glorified Stockholm Syndrome isn't really my style. It's honestly insulting and deeply disturbing for me, as a creator, a woman of color born in a country that has a very, very long history of colonialism, and an empathetic human being, that anyone would believe me capable of thinking like that.

That being said, I know I really shouldn't, but would you like me to give you a step by step response?

(...) proudly work for the imperial fire nation army (...)

Okay, like I said before, I'm going to assume you saw only the artwork, didn't read either the tags or the two separate, in depth posts about the characterization and plot in this AU I made literally twenty four hours ago, and drew your own conclusions instead.

First of all: Katara doesn't proudly work for the Fire Nation army. That's her cover, as it is Zuko's. She joined Zuko and his crew, all traitors to the throne and good, honourable people, under the pretense of hunting the Avatar. Truly, they're destroying the Fire Nation military from within. And are, most definitely, not proud soldiers of the Fire Lord.

Katara hates the Fire Nation. But if joining a Fire Nation crew is what she needs to do to end the war, she will do it.

And, honestly, these are not excuses. But context is important, and it's not healthy to draw conclusions from the title instead of actually reading the book, if you know what I mean. It could get you in trouble some day.

And, please, I'm begging you—this has been talked about a lot, and I don't really like drama all that much, so I won't even rise to the accusations of condoning a non consented, colonialist and abuse apologist relationship.

That's just rude.

[befuddledcinnamonroll]

Intercultural Bias in the Fan Experience of QL

I've been thinking about writing this post for a while, and I think it's an appropriate time for it after reading @hallowpen's post today - which if you haven't read yet, please do so.

I'm saying this as someone who's been on a lifelong journey of learning, and is also extremely aware I still have so much that I don't know. I am from the U.S. and that comes with a truckload of bias and privilege. But this is something I have learned that I think is worth sharing.

There is a danger, for those of us who are progressive, yet grew up in countries that have been historically exploitative and oppressive to other cultures.

Because colonizer bias is insidious. And it can be very tempting to say, I'm aware, I've done the anti-racism training, I've read the books, I have my own oppressions I have to fight every day, I'm aware of my privilege, I'm an ally, etc, etc, etc. But this is just like racism - if you are not being actively anti-colonialist in your interactions with other cultures, you are likely perpetuating bias and oppression.

I grew up in a very liberal part of the U.S. and had a very progressive education starting from grade school. I got education on systemic racism in junior high, my high school had one of the first gay/straight alliances in our state. I studied science in college, but since it was a liberal arts degree, I also took classes on sociology of race, the religions of Asia, Chinese history, etc.

But despite all this I still grew up in a country with a fuckton of bias about our role in how we interact with countries around the world. And as we all do with bias that we grow up with, I internalized some of that.

It wasn't until I took some graduate coursework on Intercultural Training & Communication that I really was able to recontextualize my perspective and become aware of my unconscious bias, thank to an amazing instructor.

Other countries do not need us to come in, tell them what is wrong, and tell them how to fix it. Whatever problems there are, there are people in that culture who know, who are actively working on it, and they know better than anyone outside what needs to be done.

Honestly, it doesn't even need to extend to other countries - just look at all the nonprofits and charities in the U.S. that talk about helping the poor, but in the end just perpetuate the cycle of oppression by coming in to neighborhoods and doing zero work to center the perspectives of the people most affected.

You can absolutely support and spread awareness and send money and share expertise when asked, and do the things that the people of that culture ask you to do.

But if you come in, and try to say "this is what you all are doing wrong, and this is what you should be doing" - you are perpetuating a colonialist mindset.

And yes, this extends to media as well.

This is why I struggle with some of the takes I have read, especially those that attempt to rank the "queerness authenticity" of shows, from an entirely Western perspective, with no engagement with the idea that one's queer identity is impacted by one's culture (among other things), and that it can look and be expressed in a million different ways.

There are criticisms of queer directors, blaming them for a myriad of perceived sins, with zero understanding of what queerness might mean to them both individually and as a Thai person, and what they might also be trying to navigate socially, culturally, and politically.

There are people making broad sweeping statements about the direction that they think QL is headed in - some of which enter the realm of catastrophizing - entirely based on their own subjective opinion of what is most important for a different country and culture to care most about in a particular moment in time.

You know why I'm not worried about the direction of QL? Because I know there are millions of Thai people who care about it too. I know the Thai queer community and their allies are speaking up, and pushing for change and progress. I know that they are extremely cognizant of when representation fails, and I know they are the reason representation has already improved so much (sorry interfans, it's not about us).

And yeah, sometimes the pendulum swings the other way - those of us in the U.S. should be very aware of this. But the fight doesn't stop.

There are Thai people who are working to promote mental health and therapy, to encourage people to have strong boundaries with family who have hurt them, to provide more representation for groups who still aren't seen. And someone from a different country complaining about all the ways they think their culture is failing isn't helping a thing.

Like @hallowpen says, this is not about saying you can't critique. Most of the people I follow do a great job at making it consistently clear that their perspective is subjective, and they relate it to their own life and experience. That's great, and a place for people from different cultures to connect!

But those of us who are interfans have a responsibility as members of a global community. There are people from Thailand who read your posts. From Japan, from Korea, from China. Are you speaking up to support them? Or are you talking over them? Are you expressing understanding for what they are navigating from historical context and current political conditions? Or are you just lecturing them on how you think their world should be?

[nardo-headcanons]

Hi, I never get tired of saying how creative and talented you are ♡♡♡ I wanted to know if you would write about the Senju Clan. I know it's strange, since I haven't seen you writing anything like that and usually I don't see anything like that. I like the way you write, you're the best

Sigh. I have let this sit in my inbox way too long. I am so sorry. Thank you so much for your kind words, nonnie. I have some thoughts about the Hyuga as well, let me know if you would be interested in hearing that.

Also please note that I will change around some canon things and all of this is fanfiction/headcanon.

tagging some people i think will like reading this post: @narutobrainrotstuff , @the-real-sasuke-uchiha , @spookyphilosophertaco , @danceofthexdragons

cw for mention of genetics, racism, religion, genocide and human experiments

The Senju Clan

People

Compared to the Uchiha clan, who are phenotypically rather monotonous, the Senju clan had a very diverse population with a wider range of skin tones, eye and hair colors. There were generally very little restrictions when it came to marrying into the clan and becoming a part of it. The only traits most of the Senju shared were that of fine, straight hair whilst the Uchiha had thick and dark hair with curls not being uncommon.

The reason the Senju died out were two sides of the same coin - with many of the clan's members birthing less and less children, and those who did marrying outside of the clan to the point where there are many Konoha ninjas nowadays who are part Senju but may not even know it.

Traits and Abilities

The Senju were rather unspecified, wanting to hone their skills in all three fighting styles, though I like to think that Taijutsu was one they particularly excelled in. Once one's movements were fast enough to be evaded by the base sharingan (Mangekyou sharingan was, depending on the source material, either extremely rare or nonexistent), the Senju had an easier time fighting the Uchiha. Many of them became weapons and taijutsu specialists, making me think that Tenten might be part Senju and her idolization of Tsunade was a way to connect with her roots and get to know a fellow Senju.

Another skill of the Senju was wood style, which was a skill many Senju before Hashirama posessed, but they rarely ever utilized it in battle. Said ability was caused by a point mutation in the exome, prompting Orochimaru to later carry out experiment's on embryonic DNA to artificially induce said point mutation, killing dozens of newborns in the process.

Religion

While the Uchiha followed the way of Shintōism, most of the Senju were buddhists, like their distant relatives, the Uzumaki. Initially, the people living in the country of fire were engaging in both buddhist and shintōist practices, but with the continued rise of war between the shintō-believing Uchiha and the buddhist Senju, these two religions were more or less divided.

The Senju and the Uzumaki

The establishment of Uzushiogakure in the whirlpool country was received with mixed feelings from its inhabitants. Most Uzumaki, although practiced in the arts of combat, preferred their pacifistic lifestyle of teaching their ways on paper, and not on the battlefield. This instability made it easier for the hidden mist village to send colonialist forces, killing most of the Uzumaki in fear of their congenital abilities. And with the Senju living more and more decentralized and being too occupied with themselves, Uzushiogakure lacked the manpower compared to Kiri's extermination force.

The Senju's Legacy

Nowadays, after Konoha was founded, the Senju started living more and more decentralized, therefore there wasn't such a thing as the "Senju compound". The language of the Senju was adapted as Konoha's official language, causing the other hidden villages to adapt it as well. (You can read more about my thoughts on language in the Shinobi world here.)

There were shrines for both buddhist and shintō believers in the village, but once Hashirama became the first hokage, more and more citizens adapted the Senju's religion of buddhism, with the shintō believers dwindling in numbers. Tobirama's segregation policy did not help in the slightest; although the Uchiha, who believed in family unity and support, lived closely together, being redlined and pushed into the same profession felt patronizing. But even though the Senju as a clan is no more, their legacy continues on, in good ways, and in bad.

[pumpumdemsugah]

White colonialists thought anyone who wasn't white was disgusting and dirty, so if you think or call anything, i like disgusting, that's colonialism and white supremacy. That's how parallels work.

Aren't I so smart as a white American that I feel so comfortable flippantly bringing up colonialism and white supremacy like that? all the time over anything connected to my identity. This isn't connected to anything. This is just what community and inclusivity are. Everything has to include little white me

[bonefall]

I just read your response about how the Erin's didn't realise the colonialism themes of DOTC and now I'm wondering if it's because they're British - a big fucking colonialist country

I am also British and I have seen first hand how watered down the empire's negative consequences are in schools. I still remember being told, "the only ones that weren't having a great time were the slaves." when in reality no-one but the British was having a good time

It's unthinkable that the fact they are White British Authors of a Certain Age didn't contribute to it. Like... that's just how culture works, even if it somehow wasn't at all related to their formal education. It influences how you think.

(Also as an aside, even most of The British didn't like the whole empire thing. 3/4ths of Britain isn't England. 2024 is still young, come on guys, be hilarious)

I can't ENTIRELY pin this one on you guys though, the writers are English but their biggest audience is American. And the Americans also predictably failed to catch the themes. ALSO a big colonialist country.

(I happened to get a really good education though, especially for a public school. I don't know if My Fellow Americans even learned about the Whiskey Rebellion or the Banana Wars)

It's also hard to explain it, but the Erins also have a very British way of writing fat people. There's overlap between them, but Brit and American fatphobia has two 'trends.'

American fatphobia tends to frame weight as being funny, pathetic, and a sign of a lack of discipline. English fatphobia tends use it to make a villainous or annoying character appear even more vile, greedy, and unhygienic. American media has also had a stronger trend of body positivity lately, whereas I'm having a hard time even thinking of overweight English characters who are not mocked for their size.

These are just the two things I've noticed though. I'm sure there's more noteworthy trends about WC that's influenced by its authors coming from where they do.