#this is about the USA but I'm sure similar things happen in other places

[beautifulscreaminglady]

white police and military bootlicker: par for course

non-white police and military bootlicker: Something Terrible Happened Here, Who's Paying You, or alternatively Blink If You Need Help

[a-very-tired-jew]

Absolutely wild to see a Jewish blog on here that has historically called out antisemitic rhetoric in media, such as Disney and AoT, fully embrace that same rhetoric when it comes to Israel and Hamas.

But I also understand.

I won't call anyone out, but if you can spot the similarities in AoT to Nazi rhetoric about Jews, then you can sure as shit spot them in the rhetoric of Hamas and their allies. Willfully ignoring it because "Western Civ is Bad" is an indicator that you have been radicalized by that exact same rhetoric, except this time it's coming from people you like or share interests with.

My Left leaning shalomies, you have got to be careful. You may identify as a Democratic Socialist, a Socialist, or even some form of Communist, but that "West Civ is Bad" rhetoric and talking points you're repeating that you heard from your more radical Comrade comes coupled with thinly disguised antisemitism. They're using your dissatisfaction with the state of things here in the USA and other Western countries to spread Holocaust Inversion/Denial, spread blood libel, ZOG, and other such antisemitic conspiracies.

How do I know?

I'm in my late 30s. In my 20s I was an avowed anti-Zionist. But as time went on more and more of the rhetoric I was being told by other anti-Zionists didn't make sense. It was a lot of Bundist talking points about how the diaspora was always safer while also denying the well documented pogroms that had happened against us.

While also denying what happened to the Bundists in the USSR.

What happened to people like Benjamin Zuskin.

And so many others who argued that we were "safe".

It was the Holocaust Universalization mixed with Denial and Inversion. It was so many things that when you looked at them in a bigger picture they ended up contradicting themselves.

It was the denial that Nazis allied with various regimes in the MENA to blatantly kill Jews for simply existing.

It was the denial that antisemitism was actually not a big problem nor as pervasive as it actually is.

Simply put, after enough time, life experience, reading, and thinking it became very clear to me that I had been fed a line of bologna. They had played on my dissatisfaction with the USA and its past actions.

I legit had the line "Israel only exists as a modern day concentration camp to keep all the Jews in one place and then exterminate them later. Jews need to be dispersed around the world to keep them safe" as justification to be anti-Zionist thrown at me when I was younger.

And it made sense at the time. You're fed so much pro-USA material growing up that eventually you find out the narrative that the USA lies, that the UK lies, that the West lies all the time. So you look for alternatives, but you end up embracing propaganda from even worse sources that are downright authoritarian and trying to deny their own atrocities and bigotry by pointing at others. You honestly swing so far the other way on the pendulum that you embrace and repeat rhetoric without fully understanding the nuance and complexity of it all.

When I hit my 30s I realized I had been taken for a ride. A veritable rube if you will.

And I see this same pattern in a lot of younger anti-Zionist Jews in that same age bracket. It's the same dissatisfaction that is being manipulated into antisemitism under the guise of anti-Zionism. It's the denial that what they're saying is antisemitic because surely they, as Jews, know what that actually is, and even if it is, they can't be antisemitic because they're Jewish. Right? Right???

So I beseech you. When the rest of us are saying "hey, this is actually antisemitic" and you go "Um, actually... As a Jew..." please stop for a moment. Think why some of us would be pointing that out. It's not for Zionism sake or any other political ideology. It's because that hate fueled rhetoric hurts all of us and some of us have been in your exact same shoes.

So if you can see the antisemitism in something like AoT and Disney, then you can surely see it in these slogans, rhetoric, and actions of anti-Zionist activists. And if you don't...well hopefully this will make you stop and think.

[phantoms-lair]

BnHAxFFXIV Hero Names

Izuku stood in front of the class with clutching the board with his chosen hero name written on it. "Okay, I chose this when I got accepted here, and I thought about changing it when certain recent events happened, but I decided to stick with it anyways." he flipped his board around to reveal the name 'Seventh Dawn'.

"The Scions of the Seventh Dawn were a group created in the wake of the Calamity of the sixth Astral Era by a merger of the two factions, the Circle of Knowing and the Path of the Twelve-"

"We don't need a history lesson, Pussnboots." Bakugou called out.

"He's right!" Midnight cracked her whip. "Your name should reflect you, not require otherworldly knowledge to understand."

Right. Focus down. "It's like how Kirishima's name is an homage to to Crimson Riot. The Scions of the Seventh Dawn are everything I aspire to be in a hero. Someone who helps other regardless of background or borders, and against any odds. The Dawn in the name is a promise that no made how dark things seem, there will be a light at the end, and I will be that light."

"Brava!" Midnight clapped her hands. "Mysterious and hopeful, approved!"

Izuku took a deep breath of relief and sat back down.

Bakugou looked at his own board. He'd picked out the name years ago, but like Izuku did when he realized he didn't need to name himself in remembrance of loved ones he'd never see again, he rethought it after Izuku had returned. Even now, he wasn't sure. But...he was never one to back away from anything. Not even this.

And if Izukun reacted badly, he'd find something else.

He strode to the center of the room, board hidden from sight. "So when I was a kid I was a real asshat. Wasn't entirely my fault, I was surrounded by adults who had a crapsack 'Might Makes Right' attitude and encouraged me to put weaker kids 'in their place'. But it took me longer than it should have to realize they were full of shit."

He fiddled with the board. "This name serves two purposes. The first is a reminder of what I used to be so I never fall into that trap again. The second-" here it was. "I'm not naïve enough to think that never happened elsewhere, that other jerkwads elsewhere used similar insults to me. So I want those victims to see me standing at the top with this name and never having to feel shame when people call the useless. Because from now one," He flipped his board over and saw Izukun's eyes widen.

"Deku is the name of a God Damn hero!"

~~~~

So when I decided on Bakugou redeeming himself in this I knew Izuku would need a knew name. He doesn't need to reclaim it, as no one's called him that in years and his old bully fervently apologized for his actions. Uraraka would never associate it with deikru because she'd never hear anyone say it. I waffled a bit on Seventh Dawn, but went for it as when he got accepted into UA, he was still mourning his Da and aunts and uncles in the group, and would want to carry on their legacy. Of course they reconnected post USA, but I think by then he'd already accepted the name and felt awkward about changing it. Prolly already discussed it with them too. (They were very flattered in the way you can only be when a small kid imitates you) Then I realized there was someone for whom the name Deku still held a lot of meaning and thought 'Wouldn't it be funny if..."

[hiwelcometothemonstersancturary]

For the pairings can you talk about The Prototype and Angel? Your interpretation of them has me in a choke hold lol

I'M SOOO HAPPY I ALSO HAVE YOU IN A CHOKEHOLD, THESE TWO HAVE CONTAMINATED ME WITH THEIR SILLINESS.

They're parallels and mirrors of each other. Angel could have become the Prototype, and the Prototype could have become Angel, if only the circumstances were different. They share similar grief and a deep feeling of alienation: Proto for being the first one and the only one that's as crooked and weird as he is, and Angel for being both an immigrant and a queer person in the USA. Grief for losing loved ones, Angel with their friends/coworkers and the Prototype for seeing his loved ones become nothing but experiments of a company he made from scratch. I could go on and on about their similarities and differences, but in the end the conclusion is the same: They KNOW each other. They KNOW how similar they are and they just Get each other, and to me this is sooo fun to explore and think abt whenever I talk abt them!

Also like. They're literally the parents of a household with almost 90 kids (numbers will prob grow once we get the official Chapter 4, but alas). Sure that it takes a while for Proto to be promoted to parent #2, but DANG, THEY ARE THE PARENTS. Two best friends who decided the best course of action was to get legally married bc this would provide some extra protection for the kids if anything bad ever happened to Angel!!!!!! AND SPEAKING OF BEST FRIENDS.

Angel loves annoying the Prototype and the kids. Their love language is being a menace (just ask their parents and Miguel about it), and after a while Proto both gets used to it AND starts annoying Angel back. What is a friendship but an excuse to be awful in an affectionate way. Angel will forever bully the Prototype for not realizing the critters were all alive, and in turn he's literally going to drag them to random places so they can stop working for ONCE. They have the same dad humor, by the way, much to the horror of some of the kids. They're besties!!!! I have said this a thousand times but they are besties!!!!! Only Proto knows some of the shit Angel went through, only Angel knows the things Proto went through. The torture the scientists made him stand, what he did and thought and felt the decade after the Hour of Joy, everything. Angel tells him about how sometimes they think they aren't enough for the kids, or how they fear they're being either too harsh with them, or how awful their last nightmare was.

Also to me the funniest phase of their relationship happens after Angel realizes that, unfortunately, they want a QPR with the Prototype. Like. They're all "I can't fucking believe this, I doubt he would accept the offer if I explained I may want something more but not the romance part of it" and "how the fuck do I explain to him that I value our friendship more than anything and I think it's something different than all of my other friendships without it sounding weird as fuck". Because Angel DID tell him what a QPR was, but they doubt Proto would want something like that. And then it cuts to him like "hm I think there might be something else to this friendship, but not romantic in nature. We may have achieved a deeper bond than anything I have ever had before, friendship-wise". Disaster of a human person vs scientist DESPERATELY wanting more affection. It's SO funny to me.

also like. Post-officially-becoming-a-QPR-couple. HILARIOUS. They pull the "we're partners" thing whenever it's convenient even if it involves pretending to be a romantic couple. They have no idea how it works. These two 100% do the "ask your other dad" thing in order to annoy one of the kids into going back-and-forth between them until said kid goes "stop doing that!!!" and then Angel has to control their laughter. Nothing really changes post-that except that now Angel sometimes gives him a kiss, they got too used to using Proto as a giant teddy bear by the point the QPR happens. Proto, however, now has excuses to just grab Angel and give them a hug without feeling weird for doing so [he's awkward when asking for affection in general].

[gaygay--astronaut]

Re: Swedish working conditions, could it be that employers avoid classing workers as "full-time" so that unions don't do much for them?

That's why South Korea had "gig economy" even before the emergence of gig economy platforms like rideshare, food delivery etc.; if everyone's a "independent contractor" and not an employee (thus not eligible to join a union because they're technically self-employed) not only do they not receive employee benefits required by law, they can't do much about it because they have no union.

And may I ask what kind of benefits non-full-time workers are excluded from?

I tried Google but couldn't really find clear answers on that in languages I know 😅

What I did gather from Google is that working conditions in Sweden largely rely on right to organize and collective bargaining i. e. unions.

Are there any efforts to change the unions or the laws to accommodate non-full-time workers? (I wasn't sure what terms to search to find this info)

I hope you don't mind my questions, thanks in advance!

Oh, this will be long, but it's an interesting topic I know some things about, but I'm definitely not and expert (I'm a social worker, so if you wanna know shit about our welfare system, I could tell you in much more depth though lmao)

In Sweden, we don't have a minimum wage by law, wages are negotiated between employer orgs (like unions for employers) and workers' unions. Wages, work times, break times etc are all written into a kollektivavtal (translation: collective deal/collective contract). Kollektivavtal are industry specific, so there is one for restaurants, retail and such, as well as sector specific, so if your employer is private sector, municipal, regional or national government. Because of this what is a minimum wage, and many other regulations are dependent on where, for whom, and with what you do for work.

We also do not have what is in USA called "at-will employment". There are very few legally valid reasons to fire a full-time employee. Regardless of if it is the employer or employee that terminates the employment, the termination is not immediate.

Now, it is illegal to employ somebody as a temp longer than legally allowed to avoid employer obligations to that employee, but it does happen, usually in the private sector with international companies. For example, my mom's fiance used to work at Toys 'R Us before they closed. This was maybe 7 years ago? And he did more that 40h work/week (though in Sweden, full-time is 38 to 40 hours depending on place and sector of employment) and yet was hired as an hourly temp. He was the local union representative so that wasn't really smart of them and he managed to get himself and three other employees in similar situations full-time. Because in regional and municipal employment your employer is the local government (regional gov and municipal gov) and thus politically run, there is more scrutiny and over-sight so this doesn't happen as much (though don't be fooled! Hospitals are run by the regional government and the working conditions are abysmal! We have a shortage of nurses because hours are ridiculous, wages are low, and health-care workers are legally banned from striking because patients could die. It's an actual ongoing crisis here, so just because something is government run =/= good employment conditions and fair treatment).

The benefits that you get excluded from if you don't count as a full-time employee (though "full-time", while the best proxy in english, isn't entirely a correct translation - the actual swedish term is tillsvidareanställning which roughly translates to "employment that will go on until further notice". The other types of employment are seasonal work, like when I worked as a haunted house actor for halloween and thus was employed september through early november each fall, temp work, when the regular employee is absent from work due to illness, parental leave, furthering their education or other accepted reasons for a longer leave, and hourly work when you work less than 40h/week and may not be scheduled every week. With this latter type of employment, you have to be offered a full-time employment if you have worked a total of a full-time year within a 5 year period. For the one I called temp work, ig you have worked as a temp for 2 years you have to be offered a full-time position) are for example when you're an hourly temp (like I was while I studied) you cannot get sick-pay, because you are only paid for the hours you work. I remember being shocked when I took my first employment that wasn't hourly (though it was seasonal) that I got paid 80% of my salary for the days I was home sick, because earlier I would just have missed out on that pay completely when working hourly. And with seasonal and hourly employment you don't get vacation days because with seasonal, you only work for that season so you don't work enough days for vacation days, and with hourly it's like with the sick-days: you only get paid for the hours you work. Employer paid pension is also affected depending on what type of employment you have, and your salary is lower when you work hourly or as a temp.

Now the reasons unions have fallen behind is that they sort of live in the old days where full-time employment was the norm. But times have changed and while more and more people have to take hourly, temp and gig jobs due to factors such as higher barriers to entry in the job market, more and more "simple" jobs moving abroad because exploitation of workers in the global south makes for cheaper labor, and rising costs of living. Unions are still focused on benefits for those with full-time employment whom are regarded as the norm.

The gig-economy falls outside, even though they do technically have a union, because it is new, and most gig-ers have hourly contracts and thus lack the above mentioned benefits, which is legal as long as the form of employment doesn't last longer than I mentioned before. There is also a fear of retaliation among gig-ers, as their contracts are signed for a few months at a time, and with only 10 hours/week guaranteed work. They are scared that if they start organizing their contracts will not be renewed.

They have a union, as mentioned, but this phenomenon is a social problem that isn't discussed in the mainstream, usually only in sociology classrooms, and it would require new legislation. Legislation that would have a hard time passing right now because the political situation in Sweden is a shit-hole right now with a conservative neoliberal party running the government, backed by actual fascists... Like their founder was an open neo nazi and all! So I don't have high hopes of any positive changes i legislation around workers' rights this coming mandate period....

[hypermascbishounen]

Also, Pokemon is a Japanese franchise, from Japan, and it references Japanese myth constantly. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure Shintoism has animism as a characteristic. Tons of youkai and other folkloric beings from Japan, are animals that lived for a long enough time. And tons of Pokemon are based on youkai.

For example, if I understand correctly, the word "kitsune" doesn't just mean "supernatural fox spirit" like we often use it in English, it is also just the Japanese word for fox in general. And many kitsune myths are about disguising themselves as humans or possessing human vessels, and then having children with humans. They're far from the only animal spirits or otherwise that do this.

And Japan is also not the only place on earth with similar folklore. A lot of fairy myth familiar to a lot of white people, is similarly full of nature spirits and animals that transcend their forms, and have relations with humans.

And this isn't even new news in Pokemon's lore, either. The way I understood it, N was always implied to be related to a pokemon, which was widely speculated to be a Gardevoir.

Pokemon's creation myth was introduced in gen 4, and Sinnoh is based on Hokkaido. Hokkaido is where the Ainu people are from, and has a deep cultural history of folklore passed down through their oral traditions, in languages that have been rendered almost extinct. It similarly has animism in common with shintoism, and they're thought to be related through the neolithic religions of ancient Japan's Jomon period.

Being based on Hokkaido, is also why Sinnoh is so characterized by snow and mountains and lakes. For example, Send-off Spring where Giratina is found, is based on a real volcanic crater lake in Japan - lake Mashu/Kamuy-to, that has associated folklore as a portal to the underworld. The uncreatively named Crater Lake in the usa, also is a portal to the underworld in the nearby indigenous folklore's oral traditions too! It's even haunted by an undead draconic crayfish god.

What I'm trying to say is that I'm dissapointed but not surprised at the level of ignorance and racism coming from the western pokemon fandom about this. It's unfortunately common that east asian works, like the works of many cultures "The West" considers outside their constructed literary and cultural canon, gets judged harshly and assumed evil, whenever it has themes considered taboo - even if it's literally the same themes also present in western works generally familar to white people.

The English-speaking pokemon fanbase also has had a history for as long as I can remember, of people complaining about things they didn't have cultural context for - like pokemon based on or in the form of inanimate objects, instead of animals. A lot of those pokemon specifically are folklore inspired, and ime have tended to get characterized as "lazy" "running out of ideas" or otherwise "stupid" automatically, just because they're unfamiliar.

Also, honestly? The sexual stuff was not really left out of my history of greek mythology as a kid, lol. Especially not all the animal forms or incest, those tended to make it in even when rape was obliquely referred to as kidnapping(and tbh not all greek myths involving rape are the only version of the myth). Did you miss how the Minotaur happened? That was just actual bestiality, and wasn't hidden from me in the slightest. Here it is in a schoolastic book that's first printing was in 2000:

Maybe you weren't that interested in mythology as a kid, or your parents and teachers really went out of their way to censor that for you. But these days, many kids with an interest have access to Wikipedia, and can read all that in one poorly supervised Sunday afternoon anyways, even with aggressive helicopter parents.

Pearl clutching about how pokemon has had something you personally find icky, but only when asians write it, that wasn't even the textual canon, doesn't make your Please Think Of The Children shtick read as sincere. You're just being conservative bigoted hypocrites. I am so sick of this bullshit gaining traction in fandom spaces. It's not meaningful progressive criticism, you're ignorant, and at best want other people to coddle you on that.

The saddest thing about the Pokémon leaks is the evident ignorance of folklore among fans. Sorry to tell you this western gamers, but your ancestors married seal women, were seduced by swans, and fucked half-divine giants. You just don’t remember.

[anghraine]

Hello! I've noticed that you call your blogging about academia "ivory tower blogging". I'm in academia too, so I understand what it means. But what do think about this metaphor of academia as an ivory tower?

Hmm, it's honestly pretty complicated, and the tag was meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek. Also, my perspective on it definitely comes from my post-bachelor degree academic life mainly revolving around literary criticism and creative writing (in the academic context), so I can't speak for physicists or whatever.

On the one hand, I think the metaphor/concept is rooted in the perception of academics as well-off elites whose lives and understanding of the world are divorced from ordinary life, which is (funnily in a way) a stereotype that is, well, divorced from how many academics actually live. At least in my country, the USA, many people in academia live below the poverty line and are exploited by both our institutions and sometimes our own students, with the former expecting us to do a ton of unpaid or underpaid work out of vocational zeal (if you aren't willing to accept and participate in exploitative labor practices, do you really love your work? 🤔) and students often regarding us as glorified grading automatons.

And I do think that separation between the ivory tower concept of academic life and the actual experience of many academics is influenced by contemporary anti-intellectualism passing as anti-elitism, where a lot of people will shrug off academic knowledge and experience as cut off from real life and insist academics are ignorant about or disinterested in others' lives, but that very belief depends on ... well, ignorance about or disinterest in academics' actual lives vs convenient stereotypes.

So there's that, and wrt lit-crit and creative writing particularly, there's also this sense that it's especially divorced from RL because what we know about isn't important in "the real world," or at least expertise in it isn't particularly valuable, and what we do could be done by anyone and there's no need for, say, intellectual rigor, specialized vocabulary, or discipline-specific discourse—those are just gatekeeping, actually! Either our real value is simply in teaching (esp teaching composition, since that tends to be directly applicable to other fields that lead to Real Jobs) or we don't have any value at all, and scholars in English studies shouldn't be eligible for tenure, or maybe for employment at all, since maybe English departments should just be abolished altogether.

All of that said, are there some academics who basically live the stereotype? Sure. And I do think that some theoretical approaches get so caught up in layers of theorizing (usually involving things they are not experts in) that they lose sight of both the texts they're looking at or writing and ... uh, how most people read.

This is one of my gripes with Death of the Author and related concepts like the intentional fallacy, in fact.

I think it is a way to read a text, and I do find it deeply annoying when creators demand that their stated intentions, interviews, social media pronouncements, unrelated other work, etc be taken into account by all audiences. But I also think the treatment of DOTA as itself canonical and the only proper way to read is a) not how literary theory should work in the first place and b) so divorced from how most readers actually engage with that kind of context that it can edge over the line into feeling like we're pretending that stuff has no impact when most of the time it very evidently does, which feels very "ivory tower" to me. I think most readers actually do care about the author's intentions and personal character to some extent and if they happen across knowledge of it, their takes will be influenced by it, and that's actually a perfectly acceptable way to engage, even if I personally find "the purposed domination of the author" grating.

Also, there's a lot of academia-as-activism that can run into similar pitfalls as fandom-as-activism, honestly. You'll get literary critics and/or theorists having these jargon-ridden Important Conversations about [thing in a text] and connecting it, sometimes tenuously, to [broader issue] and acting like that's activism, but if nobody except other literary critics who are specifically into your theory or niche specialty can even understand what you're saying, much less act on it, how much are you really contributing to substantive change?

I mean, this actually reminds me of an article my upper-division English students were discussing not long ago, in which Susan S. Lanser says:

It is worth asking ourselves why some of the most radical feminist theory is being produced in a language inaccessible to some of the most radical feminist activists. The turn toward a wider audience seems to me crucial for a critical literary feminism that could take part in a world-wide intellectual movement for social change.

The article is "Feminist Literary Criticism: How Feminist? How Literary? How Critical?" from vol. 3, issue no. 1 of the NWSA Journal—that was in 1991. And yet, well, I do think it continues to be an issue, though there's been more value for clarity in recent years IMO. And then you've got the effects of paywalls and inaccessibility and so forth. I know I'm able to share more information with more people via Tumblr (even though it's not exactly the hub of the 2022 Internet and I'm no BNF) than I will probably ever be in a position to do in academia.

So I don't think the stereotype is entirely baseless, just enormously exaggerated in the service of anti-intellectualism in a deeply hypocritical way. But there's enough there that I find "the ivory tower" as a concept not entirely invalid or a thing that should be wholesale rejected or whatnot, so I don't mind using it in the way that I am.

[bustedbernie]

I'm back with international views on american politics: i don't think usamericans understand how differently u.s politics and u.s politicians are perceived outside the u.s. yeah sure most sane people think trump is ridiculous but the sheer volume of the horror he inflicted and to be honest, revealed (because it was always inherent in the american system of government and in a big part of the people) is just not truly understood.

I'm sure there are similar phrases in English, but in Hebrew we have these phrases that generally translate to "far from the eye, far from the heart" (רחוק מהעין, רחוק מהלב) and "what you see from here, you can't see from there" (מה ��רואים מכאן לא רואים משם). The first means when you don't constantly see something and it isn't close to you, both physically and emotionally, it's easy not to care that much about it and not being bothered by it (it can be used in a good way as well, as in some distance from a bad situation will be good for you). The second means you just cannot have the same point of view if you are not directly impacted by something, and you're outside looking in.

I think this is the situation with a lot of people, leftists included, who don't live in the u.s and aren't a part of it (i.e not citizens, don't have family there etc). Like I study American Studies in uni, I have family in the u.s and I do think I keep myself very politically informed. My dad, on the other hand, doesn't have any of it (which isn't a bad thing, I'm just saying this is the situation). When we talk about the past of America, or about the current political climate, he oftentimes straight-out doesn't believe me about some of the systems built or some of the atrocities committed. He is a leftist, and he always was, and he is politically involved - in his own country, not in a foreign one he has no connections to. And he likes trump, to a certain extent. Especially because he was considered good for our country (and I hate to admit it but he did do some good things for our country. It's bad in the general sense because, yk, war crimes, but it is good when viewed with our country's interest in mind). All that, despite my dad being a Jewish latino man.

So the situation is not as easy as it seems, and it looks very different from different places.

Yeah, it can look a bit different from different places. 

After living in France for awhile, especially during both the American and French elections, i definitely got tired of people talking about Trump and not seeing how that can happen, especially because LePen was on the rise and the parent’s of friends would say “Well, she’s gonna lower the retirement age” and “BBQ Grills were cheaper before Europe so why should I care about staying in?” A lot of the appeal also was about “Making France French” and retaining that “frenchness” against encroaching anglo, germanic and american cultures, as well as perceived encroachment from Algeria, Morocco, etc... Like, those ingredients are pretty much everywhere and i’d get annoyed by that kinda blindness and lack of self-awareness. 

When i lived in Canada, i felt people there were a bit more aware of American politics, but also had kinda simplistic views of it. And they definitely hid behind America when Canada was being held accountable for something. 

But yeah, most people are simply gonna be concerned with their own countries and that’s normal, and the USA occupying the space that is does is gonna become a meme of some form or a reductive symbol from various angles. 

[lorddeathofmurdermountain]

Okay? Are the USA and UK the only countries in the world? And yes I know inflation is a thing, but I'd like to think I know the situation in my own country well enough to know when prices are being artificially raised, or how much of the raise is "excusable" so to speak. And yes I know supply and demand is also a thing but I recall some brands being around 0.66€ and now being nearly doubled at 1.20€, for example, with around one year of difference while gas prices are barely fluctuating here. In fact, for a while the government kept gas prices frozen while we were switching our currency and promised there would be no price increase due to currency exchange. There was a price increase. Almost universally. And it keeps going up. Economically, inflation shouldn't be occurring at this rate in my country. Well, even besides all that, are you really gonna use inflation as an excuse? Let's look at America - do you really think it's normal when the government there seems to want to solve the inflation issue with "just print more money lol"? This is either weaponized incompetence or they straight up don't care for regular people, which wouldn't surprise me considering various other policies and movements like the whole thing about anti-homeless architecture for example.

To be clear, I'm not saying price increases are all a conspiracy, though that is pretty much what I've exclusively been harping on about, I just think a large part of it is based on dishonesty. Like ooh look gas went up a cent let's increase the price of this one bottle of water by thirty cents across the next three months.

Also I used "three people" as a placeholder for "a small number" instead of a real statistic because it's really not a big topic and doesn't happen on a large scale in my country specifically. Does theft influence the price increase? I'm sure it does, just like inflation does, just like GREED does. But corporate dogs will have you believe it's all our fault for stealing and maybe also mention inflation, like a certain someone here, and will keep denying any kind of involvement of greed as if it isn't the primary motivator in the system we currently have set up and everyone is just looking for excuses to jack up the prices. Hell, just look at different stores. I see WILD price differences between two stores, some of which are quite unexpected. I'm not gonna name names, but let's call the stores A and B. Store A is generally known as having wildly higher prices for the exact same items while store B is known for being generally cheap in the "fair price" sort of way, so an, I dunno, bag of cookies can be up to 10% more expensive in store A compared to B, for example. Not to mention store B has its own brand of cheap stuff, but that's irrelevant. BUT, funnily enough, recently I found that a very specific brand of tuna salad in store B is DOUBLE the price than in store A! Same package size, same type, all of it. So, what the fuck is going on there, eh? Both are relatively successful and widespread chains, though A is found predominantly on the coast, but both store chains are always found mostly in cities and occasionally in or near larger towns. These are real stored btw, I'm not making this shit up. Generally if one place has store B it will have store A and vice versa, so the price likely isn't affected much by local demand, OBVIOUSLY not by competition alone, cost of operation should be similar enough if not necessarily the same, so what really is it? You'd think the price would be at least SORT of similar.

“I work at a grocery store, so I know every possible reason prices go up at every grocery store in the country, based on all this no-evidence I’ve provided.”

FUN FACT: many food shoplifters are stealing to quickly resell for drug money. Or just regular money.

Stolen baby formula is often used to cut drugs, or resold to parents who have difficulty finding it in stores.

…Because it’s been stolen.

[lizzibennet]

1/2: Genuine question: do u have advice for USAmericans on empathy w/o condescension? ik you reblogged a post about how Americans only ever seem to care about THEIR issues/POV. But at the same time, ik you talked about your frustration with Americans acting as though other countries are the only ones with issues, or going "it must be hard to deal with X" as though we're above it. A lot of the time, I wanna be sympathetic to a friend, but I DON'T want to come off like I'm implying that I'm better

(2/2) bc i often worry that if i clarify stuff and go "oh and idk if you know, but [american thing] is...." or "oh, are you familiar with [american thing]?" that it's patronizing? i don't want to necessarily treat friends from other countries like i expect them to know less, but ofc, i don't also want to be so american-centric that i assume everyone always knows what i mean. and likewise, i want to be sympathetic if i see a friend's country in the news, but NOT come off as patronizing by asking

this is a delicate question simply bc i’m sure most of the time you don’t even realize what you’re doing or why you come off as patronizing so i’m going to try my best to explain why it comes across aas such and from there it might be easier for you to consider what u say. so the “it must be hard to deal with X” is condescending when it’s not directed at a person necessarily, it’s not an expression of empathy but an assertion about a fault that the us has too. it’s the insistence on pointing the finger at a “lesser” country for having this fault that is apparently so grave but the reluctance to accept that your country has that exact same issue that is bothersome, almost as if it’s only an issue when it’s convenient to make another culture seem worse than it is. like one that happened very recently to me was in a group of us friends in which i’m the only brazilian (really, i’m the only one of two out of like 20 who doesn’t live in the usa) they were like “yeah brazil is dealing with shit with a fascist leader” in a conversation i wasn’t online for and when i saw it later i was like. so you think your leader isn’t a fascist, huh, but mine is. to be clear- it’s not that i’m uncomfortable that he’s being referred to as a fascist, he is one, it’s that that word is never used towards trump in that group, even though my friends are WokeTM and definitely anti-trump. even then, they are reluctant to concede that their country is also a shithole in many senses that mine is, too. imagine that- a brazilian comparing their country to the us! the sacrilege! it’s that feeling i get. there was this time when we were talking about something politics related and i said something about trump and one of these friends was like “well it’s not like you can say much with bolsonaro in power” and it’s like. that’s not untrue but why bring bolsonaro in the picture? so i can’t discuss politics because my president sucks? that gives me more reason to be engaged in it, not less. why are you incapable of admitting fault in the us? and that is because even the Wokest of americans has it ingrained in their brain that the us is the greatest country in the world. so i’d suggest you monitor that reaction- when someone shit talks your country, is your first reaction to deny? to deflect? this is what i’m talking about:

so “non americans” (south americans, central americans, mexicans and canadians are still americans, so following this line of thot we can still tell you shit about america because we do, in fact, live in it but whatever) can’t tell you your country is horrible, even though it IS. why? we’re told that our country is shit, that our culture is wrong, that our beauty actually isn’t beauty, that our traditions are weird from the moment we’re born. why can’t you bear to hear that hey, your government is corrupt and horrible and your institutions treat people like shit? that’s not even specific to the us, that’s capitalism 101. why does it bother you that a “non american” points that out? because deep down you only think a “better” country could be critical, and deep down you still believe the us is the greatest country in the world. this person would never admit that they think this because they have a colonialist mindset that is, by default, racist as all hell, but that is in fact why “non americans” especifically telling them shit bothers them. they’re speaking about perceived injustice without realizing the place of privilege they’re in. this person above is like “if what the us is doing is directly affecting your country by all means speak up” as if the only countries affected by the us are the ones with troops stationed, as though that’d shut up the rest of us, showing they actually know shit about their own history and how it affects others’. i’m using this example because look at the retweets! people agree with this because they’re not aware and they live in comfortable ignorance, and it’s this ignorance you will have to go against- it will NOT be comfortable to you and you’ll wish you could be like “hey i suffer too” which isn’t the point, you know, the point is that your privilege actively hurts other people and to act like it’s an independent entity from how you interact with other people is disingenuous

to go “oh idk if you know this but” is definitely patronizing bc like a person from a “third world” country who is even minimally well informed knows, i assure you. if you would expect a local friend to know, chances are that if it’s a country-wide issue we will know, too. we probably won’t know about the particularities of your town’s mayor, but we will know about the bill that was passed that affected your state and about the protests in your city because we watch the news too, and world wide news is about fifty-fifty local news and international news (which, to you, “international” news would just be your local news). “are you familiar with x” is fine to ask imo but one thing that is also bothersome is the assumption that someone who lives in the same continent as you has such a different life that we won’t know idk like how a private post office works or something. even countries that are VERY dissimilar culture-wise are more similar than people think and, say, a south american country and the us are really not as dissimilar as us people seem to think. like recently i saw a youtuber comment on this case of a child singer who was very sexualized, and he was like “idk if that’s common in brazil but that’s not okay” and it’s like. WHAT do you think is common in brazil??? pedophilia?????? children shaking their ass isn’t okay anywhere, why the fuck would you assume culturally we’re so far away from you, of COURSE it is more common than it should be but do you really think there aren’t kids twerking in your country, do you genuinely think people here are inherently more sexual than people there just because, i- UGH headache emoji. that’s not to say each hasn’t its particularities but i guess what i’m trying to say is that the exotification of an entire country is bothersome. if you act like i, a privileged middle class white girl from brazil am a savage and ignorant and uncultured just because i don’t live in the us, even though my life in many aspects is quite similar to yours, then it PAINS me to think of what you’d think of even more different people, like my gran who was born in the middle of the amazon- if you think ill of me (even if unconsciously) then what will you think of her and her people, you know? even without much context my friends from the us get what i say when i speak about things that differ in our lives as middle class 20 year olds from different countries, because again it’s not so dissimilar, and if they don’t get it, they ask. from the get go i assume that they’re intelligent enough to fill in the blanks, so i don’t like being assumed less than capable of following a conversation just because i don’t have every minute detail, and in general, i feel like the entire population of my country is often assumed less than capable. when we encounter someone from outside who hasn’t a lot of context of how things go here, that is simply it - they’re a person without countext and we will help them understand it - but when it’s us who lack the context there is a clear implication that we do because we’re stupid and we should learn on the spot because we should know already anyway. you’re not being too american centric when you assume your friends are at least partially well informed, you’re being realistic tbh lol to assume we’re any less is to assume we’re less intelligent than you. expecting people to know is bad but assuming people won’t know worldwide huge topics that any person with an internet connection would is also not great

genuinely i think if you see a friend’s country in the news and want to ask if they’re okay and their opinion on it i don’t see any occasion in which you’d be condescending unless you tried really hard to be LOL like i think your friends will generally just be happy you thought of them. checking up on them is actually the kind of behavior we don’t expect from a self-centered usa person so i just think they will appreciate your concern. just don’t be like “oh sweet summer child cinnamon pie baby angle :-( poor u on a shithole country,,,,,,,” nor “wow must be hard dealing with [basic problem every other country also goes thru, including urs]. pooooooor thing who doesn’t have access to civilization :-((((((((((((((”

i’m sorry i’m so snarky in this sometimes but it’s because it couldn’t be more simple: if you think of the issue and consider it in a worldwide context, don’t speak about it as though your experience is law, don’t forget that other countries have other political contexts, and yet, don’t forget that normal people just like you live in those settings. literally just remember there’s seven billion people on this planet and b like oh shit, am i being ethnocentric rn,,,, it should be pretty clear tbh it’s not rocket science.

[deaf-bakugou]

Hey, I'm writing a fic where sign language is a very big part of it, with a technically mute character. Do you have any tips from learning sign language, writing it, et cetera?

Okay, sorry this took so long to answer love, but I have thought about this really long and hard. I also wrote a fic with a mute character. But since I am not mute, it is difficult to say. The reason your character is mute will play into their actions and interactions with the world heavily. My character was born with malformed vocal cords which allow grunting and an odd laughter type sound. Thus my character knows sign language and often communicates by writing things down, miming, or pointing. Mine took place in a past age where cellphones were not common. If yours takes place in a common time or with high functioning technology, they may simply text others to communicate, use a text to speech device, or even write things down. Then when with people who know ASL or whatever sign system you are using, they can use that. If your person is selectively mute, they choose not to speak but will be able to make any other sound normally. They may choose similar methods of communications to the other but also may speak when emotionally invested or for very important reasons. But they also might not. The character could also be like many Autistic individuals I know who sometimes speak just fine, and other days will not say a word.

So my real advice to you when it comes to writing a Mute Character? Live that way for a day. Do not speak to get your point across at all. Maybe go somewhere new so people who know you can speak are not ruining your experiment. This will help you connect with the character to understand their struggles. Learn what communication methods you would prefer to use, and incorporate that into your writing. Mute people also do not always know Sign language. Though I think it is helpful. HOWEVER, IF AT ANY POINT DURING YOUR EXPERIMENT YOU ARE PREVENTING ANOTHER PERSON FROM RECIEVING THE ACCOMODATIONS THAT THEY NEED THEN YOU MUST STOP IMMEDIATLY. this is not meant to make a mockery of those living with Mutism but to better understand them. This is suggested from a place of solidarity, often, in Deaf programs we do something called Deaf for a day where those who wish to participate can elect to put in ear plugs and try to navigate the world and communicate without sound. If anyone from the Mute community thinks this is a bad idea. We will obviously listen to them over me. But we do it in the Deaf community so u hope it is okay in the Mute community as well.

NEXT I hope I can be more helpful here. When writing Sign Language, it is important for everyone to know that it is a different language, with it's own grammar and syntax. So if your character uses Sign with someone who does not know it, then they will need an interpreter or translator. So in those scenes, it would do well not to forget one. Or if none available wrote out how signing didnt work and now they are trying something else. A common problem in the real world. But as for writing g it in actual text form. Write it exactly how you would normally, here In USA where we use "for speaking" we often use 'these to depict some other form of communication' so that is what I would do, then also make sure you state that the character is using Sign. Example paragraph.

In annoyance, Katsuki's hands slowly raised as he began to sign, 'But that just doesn't make any sense Deku.'

Izuku nodded in response and his own hands began to fluidly move through the air, years of experience making his movements clear and crisp. 'I know, I do not really understand it either. That is why we should go and investigate.'

Eijirou's eyes bounced back between the two attempting to follow the conversation, he had not been using Sign as long so he struggled to keep up often, 'wait, wait, this is serious. We should probably call for back up first.' His hand signs were choppier and less fluid but he often managed to get his message across even as Katsuki rolls his eyes and reaches over to adjust one of his hands midsign to correct him.

The number one goal is to make sure your reader can understand what is going on. So do not change the grammar or syntax. Write it in the same language as the rest of the story. You also do not have to say "he signed" after every sentence. Maybe establish it once at the begining of the section where they use Sign then establish that they are speaking vocally when they do. Instead of saying he signed everytime take the chance to describe other things happening, like how they signed, fluidly from experience? A natural who mixes up words? Long fingers which make watching it a marvel? Shaky due to a new beginner? Do they get headaches from translating between languages? Oversaturated and overstimulated? What does their body language do? Does Izuku lean forward earnestly as he tells them 'there is no time for a teacher we have to act now!' And does Katsuki grind his teeth and shake his head leaning away to express discontent with the plan as he informs the group 'there is no way in hell I will be going in there.' Does Eijirou's eyes brighten as he grins at the other bulking up in a challenging manner as he asks, 'not man enough to take on the challenge bro?'

Body language is extremely important in Sign. That is what expresses your punctuation and your voice inflection.

I know this is a lot of information but I really hope that it helps. I would also love to read this so please send me a link when you post! I am also available over private message for those with questions who want help with writing characters with Sign or with Hearing aids. I like to think I am a reputable source.

[258-milkbags]

Ok, you know what?!?

I. Am. Done. With. This country. That's it I'm done with it! If anyone asks me where I'm from I'm just gonna say that I'm from Iceland or Greenland at this point and maybe even move over there too.

This country has had its ups and downs but lately it's had lots of downs with what's happening and we're not even done with the year. And with what just happened right now just made it worse. Like ever since the "new" president came into office nothing's gone "right" there's more racism and bigotry around and before y'all tell me

"Not everyone is like that!"

Yeah I know that already, but let me tell you something!!! There's enough people doing it because they see the president doing so they more likely think "Oh, if he does it it must be ok for me to do it too" and they start spewing BS everywhere, and they're wrong but it still happens

But that's not what I'm angry about necessarily, well it's part of the problem yes but not the WHOLE problem. I hear people (not the time) left and right say "America is the best country!" "America is the greatest of all!" Or worse when they say "Make America Great Again!!"

Because let's face it the USA is not the "greatest" it's not the "best" maybe it was at some point but definitely not now. And when I ask those same people who claim that America is oh so fabulous they respond with "America has FREEDOM"....ok and?? So do all the other countries in the world.... "America has free education" so do Canadians, most if not all of Europe, most of Asia and most parts of Africa (as a continent btw) and the only reason I'm not naming Latin America (for those who don't know) is because I know for a fact they pay for the education what want but do correct me if I'm wrong

And yeah I know, I know y'all probably thinking "I've already heard all this from that one video with that one guy about it." Which is linked right below if you haven't seen it.

Well you're not wrong this is very very similar to that.....which means either two things:

Americans haven't done much to fix the existing problems that keep on occuring because people want to brush it under the rug and completely ignore it

This person is doing it for attention

Which, funny enough, I couldn't care less about the attention but people need to know that things won't get any better if we don't try to fix it. And sure a couple of people "can't" do much but if one thing we should all know is "People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people" said in the movie V for Vendetta. Meaning we should stand up for what we want and need, we can make a change of we try as a whole

And if youve lasted this long you should know I'm just tired of what's happening here in the US, it feels like there's no progress and things are somehow getting worse. It's getting harder and harder to find the good in the sea of bad and I know I sound like a whiny snot nose kid but I'm honestly just tired of it all and I wanna give up, leave and pretend it never happened

I'm seeing more violence in schools, states that are banning abortions, women's health Care is being threaten, immigrants are being deported without an actual reason other than "You're here illegally" when clearly they have a family here and a life, children being separated from the parents and forced to go to trial by themselves, and a bunch of other things that I can't even...

But then I remember watching Supernatural "The Most Holy Man" and what the character Lucca Camilleri said

"All the time I hear people saying the world's not perfect. And they're right. It's not. But do you use that as an excuse? Do you use it to excuse your own sins? Your failings and your laziness? Do you use it give a bad man power because the world's not perfect? Or do you work? Do you try and improve things in whatever way you can? Guys, the world will never be perfect, but if good men do good things, it can be better. Every day can get better."

And it reminds me to keep trying even if it feels like a lost cause to want a place where everyone feels safe and free from ignorant people who only want to cause trouble.

[psychologeek]

Thank you. I couldn't watch the video mentioned - i think it might been deleted?

I apologize in advance. I wanted to comment on this for a long time, but only now got to it. And now I'm hungry and tired and grieving. So may not be fully coherent.

I just want to make it very clear I DON'T try to downplay or ignore the holocaust for Romani people. I just don't feel like I can talk about it, as I don't have good enough understanding of it. I don't know how communities adapted and recovered, after.

Would anyone have online places to read/learn? I tried in the past to learn more of culture and talking to actually Romani people, but I'm also very aware this is pretty close traditions, and I don't want to be disrespectful.

And this is a hard topic - but I don't know how to ask about ways of mourning and respect (if it's even appropriate? Is it something you talk about?). I don't know how to ask about the ways communities survived and kept going, staples scarring around the hollow parts where people used to be. I grew up reading my people's stories. But I haven't got to read a similar story written by Romanis.

(and maybe it doesn't matter. Because we all lived and died the same. But it does - it does, because culture and traditions are crucial. Because me and you may mourn completely differently about the same person. It's important, because sayings like "we're all the same" tend to erase the ways we are uniquely beautiful, turn everyone into a very simple, pale, shade of who we are.)

~

I want to add another aspect (as a Jewish, non-american person):

I think that the holocaust is (for now) unforgettable, bc Jews don't forget. We are vowed and doomed to remember. Though still, 20% of USA gen Z don't believe the holocaust happened.

This day, we mourn things that happened 1,900-3,000 years ago. And we grieve those disasters like it happened to our grandparents.

But I think the main thing is- we remember, and we must make others remember that as well, because it's ALWAYS happening. Every ~50 years there's a major disaster aimed at Jewish people. You just don't hear about most of them-

(you probably didn't hear about Khminyetskey Pogroms, or the Pogroms in 1919 in Ukraine ("kill the jews, save Ukraine") and 1929 (Palestine Eretz Yisrael), you surely never heard of the Muzaa exile that killed 80% of the Jewish population of Sana'a (Yemen), or about the Orphans' Decree.

(I can go on and on and on. It's a long list. But I put it here bc this I just to say - we have to talk about it. We have to make people remember and talk about it, because it was the first time in history that Goyim, as a collective, went "oh, umm. That was too much." About jews being killed. And we need to keep this feeling. Because people love dead Jews, and we need to constantly remind them it's a Bad Thing.)

~

I also think that part of the way people remember it, especially in the USA, is still framed by ww2 propaganda and the need to "be the best people".

~

And maybe more than all - I think it's because it's easier to care about the people you don't see.

I might be wrong here - please correct me!

But from my understanding, people don't think about Romani people as "my neighbours". There's a lot of exoticism in this, like talking about "those interesting communities in Europe."

While jews... well, you can't really avoid those dirty bastards. (I had several posts about how Jewish stereotypes and discrimination are in the very core of many facilities. I can link later, if anyone is interested.)

Short thing is - people can't hate "weak people" and feel good with themselves. So they must not-hate, or make those people "legit targets"

How?

By turning themselves into the heroes of the story ("WE saved the poor jews from the bad Nazis. Those dirty bastards should be grateful!") and by turning the target into a not-so-weak ("They are white, so it's okay to hate them!"). Now to keep this status quo, all evidence and facts must be ignored or reversed.

And that's how you get that weird mixture of jews (USA stats) as: the most hate-crimed religious group, slowly taking the crown for most HC group in general; results like 25% of employees wouldn't promote a Jewish person; multiple bomb threats, physical and verbal attacks -

But people would still say "Jews are white - they are privileged!"

~

This is BEFORE you consider the erasure of the holocaust in north Africa. There were concentration and labour camps in Morroco, Lybia, Tunisia, (and iirc also Algeria). There were trains to death camps from those countries, that were ruled by Italy or Germany. There WAS a ghetto in Japan (Shanghai), were Jewish people were concentrated and not allowed to leave. Though it was relatively safe, besides that. No death camps in that area. Yayyy.

There was also a mass pogrom in Iraq in 1942 (the Farhud), which the survivors are considered holocaust survivors, as the events leading to this were related to the war.

~

Anyway. Yes. Sorry.

I'd probably erase or delete this in the morning.

Idk if you heard about this Yuval situation I found a video of what he said https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPRodABfm/

I agree what he said wasn't good, but the way other people are making comments and videos saying the Holocaust was a white genocide and white-on-white hate is so wrong and ignorant to say. It just rubs me so wrong, and I hate it so much that people are saying that because every single time they keep talking about the Holocaust, they just bring up Jewish people and leave out Romani people as a whole. And a part of me just feels so upset about it because the number of times I cried after listening to stories of my grandparents explaining the stuff they saw and went through during the Holocaust and how many family members they lost just breaks my heart so much, and that I have so many family members I didn't get to meet yet. I'm just upset about people erasing Romani people from the Holocaust, and I just wanted to ask you about your take on this. 

Yeah I saw Florian's tiktok talking about it. And besides the obvious anti-Romani racism (I won't add anything on the matter because I 100% agree with you) let me just add it's really disingenuous, offensive and downright antisemitic to hear people define the holocaust as a white on white crime. Jewish people for almost their entire history have faced pogroms, assault, genocides, harassment, disenfranchisement and impoverishment precisely because they were not considered white. In fact, white supremacists think of Jewish people as the polar opposite of the white race. This is the logic that was used by Nazis to justify the holocaust. Posthumously considering Jewish victims as white because that's what we would consider them today is a rewriting of holocaust history and a misunderstanding of historical antisemitism.

Florian's tiktok actually pissed me off. He saw people saying "I don't care about the holocaust because the victims were white" and his answer was "no you should care because actually, brown people were targeted too!", that is not a good answer. The real question people should ask themselves is: why isn't the murder of 6 million Jews enough for them to care?

By dividing Holocaust victims into 'white' (Jewish) and 'brown' (black or Romani), people are projecting our modern understanding of racial dynamics onto a historical period where racism worked differently than it does today. Dividing holocaust victims into either white or brown harms our understanding of what the holocaust was, what antisemitism, anti-Romani racism and anti-black racism are, and the history of all the people that were targeted during the holocaust — this is a really big sacrifice to make just to accommodate (mostly) American people and to fit into their own worldview.

I am saying all this as a non-Jewish, leftist Romani woman graduating in holocaust studies. It is important for us to address antisemitism on the left and in antiracist and feminist circles. So many people nowadays are pissed off whenever Jewish people are centered on discussions about the Holocaust and it's disgusting.

Anyway. I agree with you that this 'Holocaust is white on white crime' argument is fucked up because it erased Romani and Black African victims but I would also add that it is also a complete rewriting of history that is used to argue that it's okay if we don't care about antisemitism.

[unicornprincessinthetardis]

My (often relatively reasonable) dad: ...so Enoch Powell was right, what he said has happened.

Me: and you don't think maybe he could've said it without inciting racial hatred and literally saying that in time the rivers might run with the blood of 'native' British people because of immigration, do you?

My dad: no, you're being ridiculous, it had to be said, and there really are areas of cities that are majority black or Muslim now so he was right in his predictions, and it didn't change how things were anyway

Me: *goes away to calm down and read up on the 'Rivers of Blood' speech*

[I already knew some of this but here's a précis for those unfamiliar: in April 1968, in Wolverhampton, UK, a Conservative MP, Enoch Powell, made a speech, about the proposed 'Race Relations Bill' (which subsequently made it illegal to refuse housing/ employment/public services to people on the grounds of race/colour/ ethnic & national origins).

The speech was strongly anti-immigrant, calling for 'voluntary re-emigration' and for moves to be made to stem the tide of immigration, else Britain would be 'overrun' and sooner or later white British people would find themselves fully second-class citizens, and that in some ways they already were. He also talked about a "tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic", which I take to mean immigration in the USA to the similar end of white people no longer being in charge - which in 1968 was so far from the truth, and just horrible baseless fear-mongering, playing on people’s xenophobia and racist prejudice - and compared pro-immigration/anti-discrimination newspapers to the ones that had denied and hid the rise of fascism and threat of war in the 1930s. Plus, he talked about a constituent of his, a woman who lived on a street that had become occupied by mostly black people, who lost her white lodgers and complained to the council for a tax rate reduction because she wouldn't take black tenants, and instead basically got told not to be racist, and presented it as a bad thing that she'd been treated like that.

The speech's common name comes from a phrase he quoted from the Aenid (because he was also a Cambridge-educated classics scholar), 'I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood"', although he just called it 'the Birmingham speech' and seemed to be surprised by the uproar he caused.]

Me (to self): So it didn't change things did it? How do you explain the attacks against nonwhite people where the attackers literally shouted his name and repeated his rhetoric? Oh, they would definitely have happened if he hadn't made that speech, wouldn't they? And the British people of foreign descent who were so afraid they might be removed from their lives just for not being white they always had cases packed to go? And the fact that experts says he set back progress in 'race relations' by about ten years and legitimised being racist/anti-immigrant in the same way UKIP and some pro-Brexit types have done within the last few years here (fun fact: immediately after the Brexit vote, people were being racially and physically abusive to visibly Muslim and/or South Asian people, telling them to leave because of Brexit, which was of course extreme nonsense because their presence would be nothing to do with the EU, and more likely the British Empire and the Commonwealth, but they were doing it because it seemed suddenly okay to be openly racist, because Nigel Farage and his ilk, and a legally non-binding vote surrounded in lies, said so) and others have done elsewhere, in the US and Europe and Brazil and so many other places.

Powell was interviewed about the speech in 1977 and stood by his views, said that because the immigration figures were higher than those he had been 'laughed at' about in his speech, he was right and now governments didn't want to deal with the "problem", were passing it off to future generations and it would go on until there was a civil war!

He also said he wasn't a 'racialist' (racist) because he believed a "'racialist' is a person who believes in the inherent inferiority of one race of mankind to another, and who acts and speaks in that belief" so he was in fact "a racialist in reverse" as he regarded "many of the peoples in India as being superior in many respects—intellectually, for example, and in other respects—to Europeans." (I mean, I know I can't hold him to our standards but a) that's still racism and b) he did think that mankind was divided into very distinct, probably biologically so, races, which, yes, normal for the time, but the whole 'each with different qualities and ways in which they were better than others' is iffy)

Me: *goes back to Dad to make my point and definitely not get upset* So here are some things that literally happened as a consequence of the 'Rivers of Blood' speech...

So even if he was correct to say what he did (I mean, he wasn't but you have to tiptoe around Dad and I had points to make), he shouldn't have said it the way he did

My dad: so you think the truth should be suppressed? You're only looking at this from one perspective (he thinks he knows better because he was alive at the time and my brother and I weren't despite the fact that we're both into politics and history and, y'know, not into scapegoating, behaving oddly, and laying blame because people are different to us - he and mum also have issues with trans people and we're trying so hard to change their views/behaviours but I'm not sure it's working & that's a whole different story) and there are these areas that really are Muslim-only (because informal lending and wanting to keep the community together is such a crime, right?) and they don't integrate and want to impose Sharia law (only he couldn't remember what it was called right then) and you don't know what it's like (he is an engineer surveyor and travels all over to inspect boilers and cooling systems and all sorts of stuff, and this includes into majority-Black or -Asian (Muslim and otherwise) areas in Birmingham - which is not a no-go area for non-Muslims, I'm a deeply agnostic white woman, it's my nearest big city and I wish I went there more often but it's tricky as I don't drive, public transport is bad/inconvenient, and I have no friends to go with except depression and anxiety [which are worse 'friends' than the ones that I found out only liked me in high school because I always had sweets and snacks at lunch so when I got braces and my mouth hurt too much to eat much of anything which meant I certainly didn't have snacks, they dropped me pretty quickly] so apparently he's the expert on all such matters)

What I wish I'd said: *staying very calm* well, and that's your opinion, I'm going, I've got sewing to finish *leaves*

What actually happened:

Me: have you considered that they are able to buy up areas like that because white people leave because of their prejudice against the 'influx'?

Dad: they buy up great areas because they buy in groups (I think this refers to a sort of community lending thing to be compliant with various parts of Islam? [Please correct me if I'm wrong] which is effectively what building societies/credit unions were, at least to begin with, and he doesn't take issue with those) and want to stay together. Why do they do that? Sikhs don't do that, they buy big houses and aren't bothered about being close together.

Me: different religious ethoses? I don't know... But you do know that they people who want the UK to be a caliphate ruled by Sharia law are just a minority, and that most Muslims would not want that at all, just like you?

Dad: but they still do want it, and it could happen, if there was a charismatic leader,

Me: *incredulous* you know it's about as likely for that to actually happen as for strictly Orthodox Jewish people to be able to make this country into another Israel, right? Besides, there are the police, and the armed forces, and intelligence agencies, not to mention the Government and civil service (thought I'd got a win there, he hates the unchanging upper-class-public-school-Oxbridge nature of the people who effectively really run the government, constant no matter the leaning of the elected party, but no) who have a vested interest in preserving themselves in their current state so would be able to stop anything like that

Dad: yes, but the cutting of funding to police and public services means they might not be able to stop it (I realise now that he's oddly economically left-wing but also really quite socially conservative in some ways)

Me: *getting angry* but it's still an absolute minority, most Muslims would be horrified if it really did happen, and have you ever considered that maybe they wouldn't be so ill-disposed to us and to integration if we didn't demand it of them the moment that they arrive, demand that they assimilate or go away (he often uses the phrase "yes, but they're in somebody else's country, they should make an effort") and maybe young people wouldn't be so easily radicalised and people generally mistrust the people who don't try to understand them, you know, want them to change everything about themselves (for instance, Dad is violently opposed to the burqa etc and not really a fan of the hijab - still doesn't get that it's a choice and people can do what they want because apparently 'anyone could be wearing one of those things' - burqas/niqabs, I presume - and that it must all be forced because who would possibly choose to dress like that - I have half a mind to show him those sites about Christian modest dressing (one was a shop and a lot of their range was pretty cute!) that I once found, just to see if that'll prove to him it is a choice thing) *tries to leave*

Dad: *angry* You stay there and listen to me! You're just looking at it from one perspective and that's not the truth, you're so biased and closed-minded, you only look at things your way!

Me: *furious* Really? Really? Am I? *Scoffs/incredulous exhalation* I'm closed-minded, am I?... *Storms out, shouts as I go* I'm not the one who said Enoch Powell was right!!

This is all heavily paraphrased, because I've been writing this for literal hours now and I was angry and don't remember well at the best of times, it may have been worse than how I'm writing it

Also, going to be tricky to patch up but right now I stand by what I said, because I know my perspective is limited, but at least I actually admit that and try to find out what people different to me think, rather than basing all my opinions and things on my own experiences which can't be universal, as he seems to

Other bs my dad said during the two conversations: "don't get so upset about it, it's only history" (which is bold, considering it was the 50th anniversary this year and he was literally 11 years old when it happened so probably saw/heard news coverage)... "Yes of course far right groups use 'Enoch was right' as a slogan, it doesn't mean anything"... Reiterating the 'nothing changed' thing multiple times... Dismissing the fact that Powell said there'd be a civil war because apparently just because the British/Europeans were aggressive conquerors anyone else who came in numbers anywhere would eventually have that aim and how ridiculous that view actually is... Dismissing the fact that Powell basically incited racial hatred and violence with the inclusion of an irrelevant Classical phrase which spread fear on all sides...

I could go on but I'm so tired and don't want to make myself more upset

I love my parents but I really don't like them very much lately but I don't know if I just put up with it or leave sooner or later and if I do leave I don't know where I'd go because no friends

Basically I'm so sorry for my parents' prejudices which I'm still trying to unlearn myself - I apologise wholeheartedly to all Muslim and Jewish people and honestly pretty much everyone they're prejudiced against

[capitanmorgancyberzine]

THE IRISHMAN press conference

London Film Festival 2019 

London Film Festival Director Tricia Tuttle presents The Irishman’s Director Martin Scorsese with producers Emma Tillinger and Jane Rosenthal. And the actors Robert De Niro and Al Pacino.

Il film è incentrato sulla memoria e stilisticamente offre all’occhio del osservatore una quantità innumerevole di elementi visivi accattivanti. Questa opera fa dispiegare lo sguardo in modo drammatico sugli avvenimenti che storicamente si susseguono, inoltre allo stesso tempo ci fa fluttuare come in una sorta di distillazione del tempo e del luogo in cui è ambientato. L’uso degli effetti speciali è straordinario e come per quasi tutti i film di Scorsese ci troviamo di fronte a un capolavoro di genere.

The film is focused on memory and stylistically offers the eye of the observer an innumerable amount of captivating visual elements. This work makes the viewer's gaze unfold dramatically on the events that historically follow one another, and at the same time makes us float as if in a sort of distillation of the time and place where it is set. The use of special effects is extraordinary and like almost all Scorsese's films we are faced with a genre masterpiece.

Regia: Martin Scorsese

Interpreti: Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci, Romano Bobby Cannavale Anna Paquin, Stephen Grahm, Harvey Keitel

Paese: USA

Anno: 2019

Durata: 209′

di seguito l’intervista    ==>

Q:

Why did it take so long? You've known each other for decades. I know this project it has been in your mind for a while...

Bob De Niro: Yeah... he said, I just read it, it just had come out, I got to read that book... That was about three years earlier.. Marty was starting to show me ..

Martin Scorsese:

Some special work that Bob and I'm involved in for twenty somewhat years. that we were trying to get another project film, based on... Hollywood in the 70s 80s.. that developed into something else, about something else. We never quite settled on the project. The last time we worked together was in 1995: 'Casino'. So from that point on we would check on each other what we were doing, whether I could fit into his plan or vice versa. Ultimately we did, I think, in the winter of Frankie Machine... We decided we had to do something... maybe in 2010, no, 2008.. We thought this might be a project with possibilities... I was really looking for something that would enrich more or less where we had gone in the 70s and the 80s and early 90s.. to just replicate or trying to do the beginning of our careers wouldn't be anything enriching. So, you were about to direct the 'Good Shepard' - Eric ... was writing that... And Eric, knowing that we were trying to do something called 'Frankie Machine'  about a hitman who retired... Eric gave you a book called 'I heard you paint houses' by Charles Bran for research

MS:

Jean Gabin film like 'Touches pas gris be'??? Matfields too low (Toulaux) Le deuxiËme circle...pictures like that... Gabin character...

By the time you're doing 'Casino', I felt that presence was similar

Bob:

And then I survived to read this book that I 've been always wanted to read called 'I heard you paint houses'. I read it just as research character . When I had read it I got together with Marty and said: you gotta look at this ... So that was it.

MS:

You had the story about (on the telephone) Brad Brit?? right?

Lady:

So you were ready to comit to making Frankie Machine, financed by Paramount, we were all on call together to get the green light and in the middle of this conversation Bob said:  Well, this other book that we are thinking about, maybe we could combine these two movies . And Brad said: So you want to take a go with it and turn it into a development project?... That was 2007 ... Then we brought Steve Zillion on and Steve delivered (Steven, Marty and Bob worked together and did option 'I heard you paint houses' and Frankie Machine went away and Steve delivered the script in 2009..

MS:

The point is that we were trying to find something that we could ride /write with (I don't know how you define ride/write... it's ambiguous... kind of we felt comfortable in a way.. something we could not articulate and once he described this character to me, I felt that  he had a good sense of it so I said: this is maybe where we could really try to explore and see what we could come up with, that it might really be of value ultimately or as a creative point which is what he cared getting out.. to impress the cast ... so we took a chance... Steve pulled together a wonderful script, and it took a number of years...

Bob:

Steve wrote the script which is terrific, wonderful as Marty says, and it was a matter of getting everybody's schedules to line up. Marty was doing ... coming over here.. I don't know when you was doing Euro.. 2009/ 2010.. We would talk about what we were going to do, if there was availability, you wanted to do 'Silence'... I said to Marty I wanted to make sure he was okay if we would just let it out there.. usually I am very superstitious about that it usually doesn't happen... I felt maybe in this case since we got no backers, no people really interested in the idea that we were doing it with Al and Joe... if they were okay with mentioning that they were on board.. So we did that and then we had a reading of the script..

Lady:

the reading of the script January right before you left to go to 'Silence'. That was this one opportunity to get everyone together, and we taped the reading 2012... I thought that that would be all we would have of the Irishman, since it would be difficult to get financing. Then when everybody heard it , there was a new energy, but Marty and Emma went back to shoot 'Silence', so we had another delay.. A good one.

Al Pacino:

I've known Marty and Bob for very long time..Anthony called me about it, it sounded really interesting...The opportunity to work with them was very important for me. For years we always spoke together, Marty and I, about different things.. and of course Bob and I worked together  we had known each other since we were young actors

MS:

The first meeting we had about this, we talked about it in a hotel in LA

AP:

That's right! The hotel! It's all coming back to me now...

MS:

After all the discussions he looked at me and said, is this gonna happen, because... the complications and schedules and then of course, no real enthusiasm to say the least about financing, really made it something that is a nice dream and you said: that maybe the reading was going to be the only time you've heard it or seen it... we knew that from the beginning

AP:

I think that reading was very well orchestrated 09.06.72

Very effective...

MS:

Bob arranged it so there were the right kind of people there

Yeah, they got excited about it but still didn't raise the money

I remember, it was you, Al, Bob, ... Bobby Carneval, pauly Herman??? Joe pesci, Stefanie...

AL:

You can feel it that there was a live wire there.. I always thought it wouldn't happen...

Bob:

I got a call from Al...is it gonna happen..?

don't worry, they'll work it out...

Lady:

Thank goddness you did, because there were these fantastic time sugressions?? ..

Journalist:

Hello, Catherine Dreyer from Free Cinema... I just saw the film ', of course mind blowing.. one of those old epic things that make you like it to be in the cinema and watching it.. So thank you so much already for that. The question is... this is obviously a Netflix production, it's coming out very shortly after running in the cinemas. It seems to be a very good collaboration between TV / internet companies with the film industry.. Will we have at some point to redefine perhaps what is cinema?

MS:

...I think it's not just an evolving sort of thing, it's a revolution, even bigger a revolution that sound was for cinema, it's the revolution of cinema itself. A new technology, bringing things that are unimaginable... is it something extraordinarily good for narrative films, or stories told in motion pictures... it opens up the original conception of what a film is and where it's to be seen has now changed so radically that we may have to say, okay, this is a certain kind of film, it's made here... there might be a virtual reality films that have holograms, all sorts of things that are coming that we don't even know... Something that should always be protected as much as possible and that I think will always be there, is a comunal experience. I think that's best in the theater... Now, homes have become theaters, too... It's a major change... just keep an open mind... there is no doubt that seeing film with an audience is.... there is a problem though.. you have to make the film.. we ran out of room in a sense... there was no room for us to make this picture... for many different reasons, ultimately there was financial issue, too in terms of the CGI that we did and the reason why, the CGI is kind of complicated...because at a certain point if I made the film earlier they could have played younger and then at a certain point we missed that, and then they said, use younger actors who play them younger, and I said, well, what's the point of that... I want to find a CGI... let's see what they experiment, open it up... I mean CGI to that extend is really an evolution of make up... you'll accept certain make up, you know that she is not that old, she's not that young. You accept that as a norm. I mean you accept the illusion so to speak. Taking that and having the backing of a company that says, you have no interference, you can make this picture as you want, the trade off is its streams with the attribule distribution prior to that. That's the chance we take on this particular project. What streaming means and how that's going to define a new form of cinema, I'm not sure. I thought for a while maybe long form TV cinema- it's not! It simply isn't. It's a different viewing experience. You're going to get three episodes, two, four-ten... one one week, second episode the second week... that's not ... it's a different kind of thing, so there's got to be still what has to be protected is the singular experience... experiencing a picture, ideally with an audience... But there's room for so many others now, and so many other ways. There's gonna be cross overs... Value..? the value of a film that's like a theme park film for example, where the theme is becoming amusement parks... that's a different experience, it's not cinema, it's something else.. and it shouldn't be rated ?? by it.. That's a big issue.. We need the theater (audience?) to step up to that, to allow to show films that are narrative films. A narrative film could be one long take for three hours, too, you know. It doesn't have to be a conventional 120 minute film.

What Marty said, it will be in theaters and even when it goes on plate-work??? it still will continue to be in theaters, so audiences have their choice of whether we're going to watch it in theater and have an amazing cinema comunity experience or whether they want to watch it on the platform. Roma, for example, is still in theater around the world. So the audience has the choice of how they want to use something...

LADY:

Cinema has reached a point where changing has the option of having streaming as it were in this case...???

Journalist from AUSTRALIA:

Sergio Leone's 'Once upon a time in America', started de Niro, a film had small similar to this one,... do you think there are any references to that film here?... It's a long film, not as action packed as your early gangster films, I think they are very different to this.

But how is it different to your early gangster films?

MARTY:

Well, this underworld milieu... I guess the similarity is that it's very long and Bobby de Niro is in it.... I guess the two of us made a movie, when we were trying to get the  finances, I know how to do this... I know how to follow it through.. I just went with that..

What did you feel looking at  yourselves younger for the first time when you're looking back at the movie. Was it a bit crazy?

MS:

How does it relate to them? Well, back in 1973 we're 29, 30 years old, now we're much older and so we hope that maybe the... over time... that something has evolved, maybe deepened to a certain extend of our life... in a back it can be conveyed in a story, performances, in the way a film is put together, that would be some sort of an advancement, rather then just replicating what we have done in the past

New technology and all that... does it open a brand new world for everyone?

AP:

Considering everything is crazy. It was crazy. I don't know quite what you mean though, I'm sorry... what were you saying?

AP:

I don't feel that way, personally... this is a technique that is barely on? It's what they have said, it's a form of make up.. It could change things... But I don't think you feel that way -- as an actor -- I think you feel that as an actor, you're playing a role,... a role that more then likely hopefully you're suited for... so when you do that... it doesn't matter what you look like.. It is sort of true in a way... because, when I saw the film.. he showed it to me without anything... I just went with it and I didn't think anymore that.... this was a story... it was handled / delivered in such a way, alectorially, visually, costumage.. everything. And also the acting. I think that was what was taking me up... the story... I wasn't thinking about anything else after a while, I mean I didn't even think about when we first started.. Of course it was me ... I wasn't thinking about the wines, our faces or anything... this was accepting these people.. they existed, too, this is another thing. This was an interesting thing... because it's a story about real things that happened. people really lived.. Maybe that had something to do with my reaction. This whole thing can be innovative, of course, but at the same time it tells a story... I'm a little more concerned about that...

As I say, I did see the film without any work... and it was fine.. as a matter of fact, I'm the only one who felt that way

MS:

I think it is really good that we have that potential, it is stating what it's stating: the old days... some actor that we all knew and love and they put grey hair on him, we say, oh, he got older, but you accept it, because this is in the story

Bob:

I always joked that my career will be extended another thirty years... No, it's a whole industry... where / how it will evolve... I was just thinking about copyrights... likeness, and who gets it long after we're all gone, families and stuff like that. We even have that now in some way, using famous actors from years ago, commercial... to represent that product... I don't know, I'm just happy we're at the beginning stages of really being ... God knows where it goes... what excited me about it was that pablo helman was doing this thing and wanted to make it state of the art, the best it could be to date. That was an ambition for this movie, which was ambitious always... it fit the whole enterprise

MS:

It's also how you move... these are the little things

AP:

You're walking along looking... pretty and then you got to get up... (grimace)... hey, man, what are you doing, you're 39!  25.22.23

Question from German Journalist :

What was the biggest challenge for each one of you on this movie (directing - acting

MS:

Making (movies?) is a big challenge.. in terms of realm... the guys are performing.. so I cannot speak for them, but for me it's cutting through all the issues of how you perceive a story, the sweep of a story, what's essential, what isn't essential, making those editing choices right there, on the set. First of all even before set, before shooting begins, make those editing choices, and in shooting  even top around those editing choices because it's very complex.. in terms of technology... and staying on point, staying on what's essential to the story. Those are the characters, particularly Frank's character, and eliminating everything else around that was getting in the way. And this I think was a 108 day shoot. So this is one thing. And then the editing, too. So it's wrangling the picture, in a way.. always threatening to run a little bit out of control, but grabbing it again, and using Frank Sharon as the anchor. The whole picture took finally to wind up with him alone. That's what all film is about. That's just general of how you make a movie. Otherwise you sometimes make a movie you don't know what you're going to do when you get there on the set... I tried that once, it didn't work... for me it didn't work... I usually like planning and fighting my way through the whole process.. until we get, the best we can, to the end... resolve with the character...

BN:

Yeah, I mean, certain things.. like Marty, every so often, I would come in to narrate pieces that Marty figured that had to voice over to give information or whatever... That's a novel part of making a movie...

MS:

You went into the audio tracks... the voice stories and setting and then we'd go... tell me something

Interesting... and then try to find time to shoot it.. in the film, like give it to Emma and tell her to find some production time, please

Emma:

I'd say yes

Q:

So was that your biggest challenge...

Emma:

.. helping Marty realize everything?... yeah...

(laughter)

We want all of them to have the time...time to create and the environment,  a quite / safe space for them to do. You wanna wrab that at all... it's a challenge, but we are phenomenal partners, the best, we carved out that time in stakes, I hope

Q:

Why do you think we are constantly pulled back into talking about films about pain and trauma as in the Irishman, there's a lot on the macro level with the asasination section, but it really does go into personal individual pain

MS:

I think pain is an important story to everybody, pain, suffering... that idea what makes an interesting story... what do you think?

Bob:

Well I think, this was a simple story. It was about a guy who was caught between two people... powerful people.. One of them disappeared - we never knew what happened really to this day -  the other one was also -- Joe Galler (?).. for him.. you still don't know who did that to him... it had that to hang on someway... this political, this grand story with these historical (if you want) type of characters... a simple story

MS:

... and not so far - in terms of that - of what we were talking about these guys.. and on the other level you have JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King... all this going on.. and nobody knows really what happened there... I always say, would it make any difference now if we knew exactly who, when, how, and where..

... the dark course of it take over (???)... that are always present... these guys are right in the middle of it, in a way... they just walk by a TV and there is missles coming from Cuba... and that's your afternoon lunch... when we say a simple story is because the rest is so complicated

Q:

For me in many ways this is about reflection. I was wondering as you have amazing careers... do you guys ever sit back and reflect or do you always look to what's the next project

And I was wondering... do you think you could have made this ...now, cause you have lived and are still alive ..so that now that you're in a kind of position to understand better the texture of this narrative

MS:

you mean, if we had made this film earlier it would have been different

Q:

Yeah

MS:

Absolutely, I mean... I don't think we got together and said, let's make a movie and reflect... as I say, it's intuitive

[procyonvulpecula]

I'm in full support of refugees but the other day a republican was civil and asked me a question that struck me and I didn't know how to answer: Why do refugees only come to the west and not the east? Why aren't they being accepted into Saudi Arabia and Dubai and so many other Muslim based countries? They have similar culture and speak similar language so why is the refugee crisis only in the west? I'm in full support of refugees coming to America but it makes one wonder why.

There’s a lot to unpack here, but the main thing is your Republican friend’s implication that “refugees only come to the west and not the east” is almost completely wrong!

1) Refugees are going to other nearby Muslim/Arab countries! In 2015 there were over 1.9 million Syrian refugees in Turkey, 1.2 million in Lebanon, 375,000 in Jordan,250,000 in Iraq, and 130,000 in Egypt. 95% of the refugees were in those countries. (This is coming from a 2015 video, so I’m not sure about the current situation, but it must be something similar!) So the idea that they’re “only coming to the west” is blatant nonsense. We in Europe, the USA, Canada etc. only see what’s happening in our own backyard on the news. Much has been made of the “European refugee crisis” - we’re almost never told that the vast, vast majority of the refugee crisis is taking place in the Middle East itself.

2) The nearby Middle Eastern countries that are taking in refugees can’t handle an influx of refugees. The USA and Europe can - their economies are far stronger. Jordan has taken in over 650,000 refugees, while the UK, which has 78 times Jordan’s GDP, has only committed to allowing 20,000 Syrians from the period 2015-2020. Our economy can certainly handle this - many of the neighbouring states to Syria can’t. The entire population of Syrian refugees is a tiny fraction of the total US or EU population - it’d be a significant chunk of Jordan’s (or Iraq’s or Lebanon’s).

3) The wealthier nearby countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE aren’t taking any refugees. I’m not sure why, but some of them have pretty despotic governments so I don’t really expect their governments to respect human rights… Amnesty International has condemned them for this. They’re the closest countries that are wealthy enough to handle this crisis and the international community should be putting more pressure on them to take their fair share of refugees. That still doesn’t mean western countries shouldn’t take their fair share, too! Saudi Arabia and the UAE may be rich, but they’re still not as developed as the EU or USA. And what kind of example are we setting if we urge them to take in refugees without taking our fair share ourselves?

4) In any case, with despotic goverments, some of those countries aren’t really suitable homes for certain refugees. Would you send people from the persecuted Christian minorities in Syria to the religiously strict Islamic Qatar? Would you send an independent Syrian businesswoman to live in Saudi Arabia, one of the most misogynistic regimes in the world? Syrians are a very diverse people, with Muslims and Christians of different sects, Arabs and Kurds, secularists and Islamists, men, women and children of all social classes and all ways of life. 

Even Muslims aren’t a homogeneous group, as the word encompasses a whole range of people from Bosniaks who go to the mosque every now and then for cultural reasons and celebrate Eid for fun through to religious extremists, taking in Sunnis, Shias, Sufis, Alawites, Wahabbists and others along the way - much the same way the word “Christian” encompasses Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox Christians, Anglicans, Coptics, Quakers, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Unitarians, Amish and everyone from people who celebrate Christmas for fun but don’t really believe in the whole Jesus thing through to the Westboro Baptist Church. Saying Saudi society would suit many Syrians because “they’re both Muslim countries” is a bit like saying Argentinians would feel at home in Russia because they’re “both Christian countries.” And of course, many Syrians aren’t Muslims! Many aren’t even Arabs!

A strict religious society like Saudi Arabia (like the society Daesh wants to impose!) may not suit the majority of Syrian refugees. Sending them there may be an “out of the frying pan and into the fire” situation! Of course the nearby Gulf states need to take in more refugees. But for the sake of human rights, for this whole thing to work, diverse countries with a history of multiculturalism and religious tolerance need to take their fair share too - like the US and western Europe.

5) Western countries have been bombing Syria to get rid of Daesh and other extremist groups, as well as the US-led and Russia-led factions bombing their preferred sides of the Syrian civil war. Western powers have become factions in these wars. If our intentions really are to make things better for the Syrian people in the long run and not just to prop up our own strategic interests, I think we have a duty to take our fair share of Syrian refugees while we’re bombing their homes. The neighbouring wealthy states like Saudi Arabia don’t share that obligation (although I still think as nearby states they should take in some!)

So in conclusion:- The refugee crisis IS mostly in the Middle East. The western refugee crisis makes western news, but it’s a small part of the whole situation.- Western nations are better equipped to take care of the refugees, may be a more appropriate home for some of them (religious minorities and so on) and have much better infrastructure and support than neighbouring countries, so it’s little wonder that some refugees would rather settle in Europe or America. - Western nations have an obligation to take in more refugees, both because they’re the only nations on Earth who can handle it well and because through bombings and political power playing they’re partly responsible. This is true regardless of what’s going on with other Middle Eastern countries.

Hope that helps!