#tw // genocide

[destielmemenews]

"The deal, coming after weeks of painstaking negotiations in the Qatari capital, promises the release of dozens of hostages held by Hamas in phases, the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in Israel and would allow hundreds of thousands of people displaced in Gaza to return to what remains of their homes. It also would flood badly needed humanitarian aid into a territory ravaged by 15 months of war."

source 1

source 2

source 3

[the-microphone-explodes]

Well for one thing, you (or the West for that matter) didn’t create the word genocide, it was coined by a Polish-Jewish lawyer named Raphael Lemkin. In his book, the Axis Rule in Occupied Europe he showed his research of the way the Nazi occupied Europe and narrated how he thought the crimes the Nazi committed against the Polish during their occupation came down to 5 main policies that displayed their will to completely destroy the Polish nation which included:

1) The mass killings of Poles

2) Bringing “serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group”,

3) Planned deterioration of living conditions "calculated to bring about their destruction

4) Implementation of various "measures intended to to prevent births within the group" such as promotion of abortions, burdening pregnant women, etc.

5) Forced transfer of Polish children to German families

He used these instances as proof for the Nazi plan to completely terminate the Polish identity and these markers are still used by the Genocide Convention as proof of genocidal intentions. He also used this word to describe the atrocities that Nazi committed against the Jewish people during the Holocaust. Lemkin also spent the rest of his time advocating for an international convention to stop the rise of “future Hitlers”, and on December 9, 1948 the U.N. authorized the Genocide Convention, which had many of its clauses based on Lemkin’s own research and proposals.

Also this is a very narrow idea of racism and discrimination. Anti-semitism was rampant in American and Western society years before Hitler came into power. I mean in 1942, American literally turned away a boat load of Jewish people seeking refuge. People didn’t look at Jews and think “Oh man they look just like us, so their murders must be important and we have to create a word that describes their condition and the crimes being committed against because we care sooooo much about them”. In reality, most people didn’t really given a shit about all of the Jews being murdered, only when America and the West was being directly threatened by war did they retaliate.

So no, the West didn’t coin the word Genocide to describe the atrocities that Nazi Germany inflicted because the victims looked like them or whatever, the word was created by Polish-Jewish lawyer to describe the oppression that his people were put under.

[betty-fran]

#but 'ofc he's a hedonist who doesn't want to settle down' as the default assumption just became super weird after the tos marathon#and the reluctance to see anything but this kind of healthy hedonism with some secondary goals in the flirtations/seductions#esp given that while he's an aspirational figure he's... uh. i don't think presented as. let's say. a model of psychological wellness.

(via @anghraine)

I couldn't pass it by, because lately I've been thinking about why Kirk, as a character, is perceived so differently within the fandom itself, and I wanted to put it all (some of my unpopular opinions) into a more coherent text.

AOS, like most modern media, does a pretty poor job of characters' depth, but that's precisely why, I think, it forces fans to pay more attention to the psychological analysis and search for that depth on their own. They try to figure out who Kirk is and what's behind his behavior patterns, and there are many examples of really good work on portraying a trauma survivor. It's a main reason why, for a long time, even when I started watching TOS, I thought it was some kind of exclusively AOS fandom thing (not Tarsus, of course, but all this SA/DV concept). An attempt to talk about what hurts, and what is familiar to the modern viewer, but which is difficult to talk about openly, as well as an attempt to give more sense to what is happening on the screen.

But if in the context of AOS, this is more fan reading than objective reality (again, because AOS was filmed primarily as entertaining action movies, and while I really like them overall, I realize that I want to see this complexity more than it actually exists there), TOS really has this complexity. And it really talks about these things.

TOS is generally perceived very differently by people, but in fact, I was able to explain it to myself quite unexpectedly - TOS is more theater than cinema. That's why it gives this feeling of "I've never seen anything like this in cinema before," because I haven't. But I've seen it in the theater. And like any good theater, it makes you think, speaking to you between the lines, through the acting, through the light, relying entirely on the viewer's ability to perceive what they see. It's a very allegorical thing, and any of its sequels (even the original films), spin-offs, prequels, etc., can't replicate that feeling. And here lies something, which, in my opinion, exists in the way TOS is perceived in the fandom, which has been oversaturated with information for 60 years. Almost no one perceives it as an independent thing. And under the weight of an entire franchise, something of genuine significance is lost.

TOS itself provides so much material for analysis that you don't have to try to see something that isn't there; you just have to look at what's in front of you. And that's why I'm especially in-a-bad-way-surprised when Kirk is perceived as misogynistic/cruel towards women/a frivolous womanizer/man-whore/etc, when he clearly isn't. He, and we're shown this more than once, sympathizes with women in a way that none of the other male characters do. He sympathizes with them from a very feminine side. And quite obviously, in situations with strangers, he prefers women's company to men's, not because he is a womanizer as is often claimed, but because, and this is actually very noticeable, he is more comfortable with them. I saw pages from Shatner's biography where he talks about an incident from his youth when he had a near-SA experience:

What happened that night changed my attitude toward women for the rest of my life. I understood the anger and frustration that a woman feels when she says no, and means no, and the man believes she is saying yes.

And speaking specifically about his acting, it's undoubtedly felt in TOS. That's what Kirk has. He understands that feeling of being treated like an object. And in three seasons of TOS, he's been treated exactly that way more than once. We have scenes of explicit coercion (through blackmail, manipulation, deprivation of the ability to control his own consciousness/body) into physical contact/sex that can't be read any other way. We have several episodes that, if he were a woman, would be perceived as blatant sexual assault/rape. We even have a moment (I honestly only remember "Wink of an Eye", but I have a feeling there was something else like it) where he is directly told that he is only needed for reproduction. Should we perceive it differently because he's a man?

For an entertainment show, it talks too much about traumatic experiences and life after them, constantly and coherently raising topics of the limitation of autonomy/violation of personal boundaries/physical or psychological abuse, and more often than not, does so through Kirk. It's emphasized how easily he separates himself from his own desires/feelings, and allows himself to be used, to violate his own boundaries (psychological or physical) if it gives a chance of survival (for himself/another person/the ship's crew) or to achieve another goal (which actually also concerns the chance of survival). There was an interesting moment in "The Lights Of Zetar" that I find quite revealing for understanding how deeply rooted this idea of "doing to survive" is in Kirk. When one of his subordinates is taken over by alien entities that are trying to destroy the entire ship, the only option to deal with them is to let them take her completely so they can be taken out through a pressure chamber. It's dangerous physically, but it's also psychologically abusive, and it's a difficult moral choice for her to make, which Kirk tells her with cool determination but also emotional understanding:

KIRK: They'll be here very soon. They may destroy you and us as they did Memory Alpha. You are especially susceptible to their will. But we have one chance to survive. Don't resist. Let them begin to function through you. If we can control that moment, we have a chance. Will you try?

And this understanding is not so much that of a ship's captain, but rather that of a person who is very aware of what it's like to let another take over your body if it means a chance at survival. A person who is well aware of what this "don't resist" means. This violation of personal autonomy/boundaries/physical and psychological safety is undoubtedly a dangerous part of working in Starfleet. However, there is a noticeable, and I don't think unintentionally emphasized, difference in the response to similar situations between Kirk and others. This is especially pronounced in Kirk/Pike parallels, which can be seen by analyzing Pike's behavior in a similar situation in "The Menagerie". Pike, who is shown to us as a model captain and a noble man, has a fairly healthy, distinctly masculine (and not in a bad sense of the word) reaction to the situation he finds himself in. He's naturally indignant, takes steps to get out, and keeps well this internal distance between himself and Vina/Talosians. As a captain, he's willing to sacrifice his freedom/his life for the sake of the ship's crew, but this is the personal courage he has as a person, something that still remains in the realm of beautiful heroism, noble self-sacrifice. It's not Kirk's survivalism, his ability to compromise his integrity, to let someone else get too (uncomfortably) close to him, just to have a chance, the real ugly and dirty face of survival. This is the difference that is traced in these two captains, this boundary of true understanding between "I am willing to do anything to survive" and "I can do anything to survive."

This is what generally makes Pike a better role model for healthy behavior patterns, but it's also what makes Kirk a much more meaningful character to understand. He turned out to be much more of a trauma survivor than the golden boy I expected to see him as, but it rather explains to me why he touched me so much as a character. Despite everything, he remains an idealist, a utopian, a humanist. It's not that he believes in people because he thinks they are good; he believes in them even though he knows they might not be. And this, I must say, is much more difficult and requires from you true kindness and the ability to forgive.

I watched "Measure of a Man" not long ago, and while it was indeed very good, the weird, toxic, bitter relationship between Picard and his JAG ex really made me nostalgic for one of my favorite Kirk/lady of the week relationships—Kirk and Areel Shaw in "Court Martial."

Kirk himself is the one on trial in "Court Martial," and Areel is the prosecuting attorney rather than the judge. They're exes in their early 30s who broke up in the past for unknown reasons, but are still fond of each other, respectful, and retain an amicable, pleasant relationship years after their break-up. Both of them handle the strain of Areel's professional obligations with maturity and grace, but not impossibly idealized invulnerability. Areel recommends a good defense lawyer for Kirk and regrets the role the situation places them in, but she also doesn't sabotage her case against him and is good at what she does.

The thing that really makes this a favorite "Kirkmance" for me, beyond all this, is that it's very obvious that both of them still care a lot about each other and remain deeply attracted to each other. Neither of them have anything to gain by this. They're both too intelligent and sensible to consider re-kindling their old romance; it fell apart for a reason, despite the lingering affection/attraction, and for pragmatic reasons, sex isn't on the table.

But both early and late in the episode, Kirk and Areel seem to enjoy the flirtation for what it is: not calculated or desperate, not useful, not some fridge horror dub-con scenario, not a high-romance disaster waiting to happen, not even a prelude to a one-night stand, just a fun and affectionate acknowledgment that the chemistry remains strong and they still love each other in a way. There's something genuine and tender and unforced about their flirtation and mutually agreed-upon good-bye kiss that is just so conspicuously different from the tactical Kirkmances. I think it's really lovely, actually:

[mysharona1987]

[el-smacko]

Something I haven’t seen talked about is that the Super Bowl Americans distracted themselves with during the terror bombing of Rafah—the latest manifestation of the Gaza Genocide—featured the “Chiefs,” named for the victims of US genocide, and the “49ers,” named for an instigating faction in the California Genocide.

I saw this map today

Of the THIRD most spoken language behind English and Spanish in every state. Notice of course that the languages reflect massive displacements from victims of US empire, but also that more states’ tertiary language is German or French than an indigenous language.

The American ideology and its representative culture factually inspired the Holocaust. The American West was the model for the Nazi East.

Trump lost in 2020 and the US is still enabling a genocide, despite ostensibly being “anti-fascist.”

The United States IS genocide. Its biblically-esteemed founding documents prescribe ethnic cleansing and apartheid. The American soldier, subject to bipartisan fawning, is the universal symbol not of freedom and democracy, but of oppression and tyranny.

Any critical lens beyond the usual Western hagiography will show that fascism did not lose the Second World War, it just evolved into liberalism.

[nourasbasha]

Support our campaign and stand with our children’s resilience… Your help is life.

GoFundMe link:

https://www.gofundme.com/f/wyuehr-trapped-family-in-gaza-appeals-for-help-to-survive

[guerrillatech]

Israel is still bombing Gaza even as it reigns bombs down on Lebanon

[cari-ad]

Honestly, we should purge all pokémon capable of harm, as well as all humans who use pokémon for harm.

[destielmemenews]

source 1

source 2

source 3

Wikipedia page for Genocide Convention

[ideasfromanotherapocalypse]

As of about two days ago (so around the 5th of March) the Artsakh Freedom Fighters Union and National Assembly buildings in Stepanakert, Nagorno Karabakh, have both been demolished.

It really is depressing to see the destruction of Armenian monuments happening again, to say nothing of the 100,000 or so Armenians displaced by Azerbaijan moving in back in September (over 80% of the regions population).

[hussyknee]

I want you to bear witness to what your people are complicit in.

What your governments, the leaders you hold your nose and vote for do.

What people who "refuse to take a stance" because they "don't know enough" are really saying.

What you're asking when you demand that Palestinians condemn Hamas.

When you try to defend Zionism and the "two state solution".

What is meant by "Israel defending itself".

I want you to think about what you're saying when you say you're too exhausted to keep up with the current political issues.

You can't open any other social media without seeing live footage of buildings ablaze and maimed children screaming and the bright, smiling pictures of the dead. I want you to think about why Tumblr, that famously skews white American, is only platform where even the tag only has a few hundred notes on most posts.

If any of you Westerners want to invoke Nazism as the epitome of fascist, genocidal evil, against whom any amount of collective punishment is justified, you might want to take a good look in the mirror first. Then maybe you'll understand what we mean when we say that all evil is human.

[tectonicatomic]

Happy holidays! Have some trauma-processing narilamb

(I meant to post this during drawtober for the genocide prompt, but I severely underestimated the amount of time I needed to actually complete it. I’m glad to be done!)

[slyandthefamilybook]

*game show host voice* thaaaaaaaat's genociiiiiiide!!!

[thespookiestprincessofthemall]

[starlight-bread-blog]

The Good & the Bad: On Aang (Not) Killing the Fire Lord

I recived this asks forever ago, trurly sorry anon, but I'll keep my apologises for the end. I'd love to answer that!

If you're asking me, this is way better than """killing him""". Case closed.

Getting this cleared up: The show didn't say that Aang is morally superior for this. It was solely about staying true to himself. Not a moral high ground.

So when I hear people say it's problematic because it implies that sparing imperialistic dictators has some intrinsic goodness to it, (Ahem-Lily Orchard), I just can't agree. It was never about universal ethics, it was about Aang's culture and values.

Why Is This a Good Thing?

Aang loves his culture, and takes a lot of pride in it and its values. (See: in The Southern Raiders his first go-to to convince Katara to spare Yon Rah is his culture, rather than what such act would do Katara herself). He would have been ashamed if he had broken them. But right now they clash with his Avatar duties, with god-knows how many lives at stake. He needs to let go of his pride & shame, and become humble.

Just like Zuko humbling himself to the GAang before they accept him, or Sokka humbling himself to the Kyoshi warriors and Master Piandao, Aang could only speak to the the lion turtle after he'd given up, after he was humbled.

Even beyond Aang, it enhances the show's themes at large. A theme in A:TLA is paving your own path, and that you can do what you want despite the pressure. Your true destiny will come, you might be surprised by it, but it's yours and you're free to carve it.

You just have to keep going, to continue to do the right thing, and your destiny will find you. Things have a way of working out in the end, eventually.

Sparing Ozai serves the theme, thus the show overall. Everyone told him it's his destiny to kill the Fire Lord and end the war. But he didn't agree, paving his own path, his own destiny, and all was well. The pieces fell in their place.

It is s amplified by the fact that if you read between the lines, he actually did follow all the previous Avatars' wisdom besides Yangchen's.

Aang knew what he wanted from the start. He isn't going to kill the Fire Lord. People (rightfully) tried to pressure him, but in the end, he stuck to his decision.

Justice was served. Aang took his bending away and put him to rot in prison for the rest of his life. There's more than one way to execute justice.

"... and the destiny of the world". That's exactly what Aang did. He followed his own path (staying true to himself) while saving the world (ending Ozai regime).

So that leaves us with Yangchen's advice. The one he didn't follow:

This opens another layer to this. Why doesn't Aang take the advice of a fellow Air Nomad? The one he should relate to the most? Because despite both being Avatars and Airbenders, Aang is the last. They're not the same. Yangchen is speaking from a place of privilege. She can carry the weight of the Avatar and not worry about the Air Nomads. Notice the wording: "spiritual needs". But it's deeper than that. In her time, they were there, they'll preserve their culture and values. Aang doesn't have that.

He's Avatar: The Last Airbender. He has both weights to carry. The decision to spare the Fire Lord, while protecting the rest of the world, is embedded in the show's title.

There's also something so incredibly powerful in Ozai being defeated specifically with Air Nomad values. A 100 years ago, during Sozin's Comet, the Fire Nation started the war by genociding them. When it comes back, the Avatar, the last Air Nomad, ends the war and stops the next genocide while preserving their values. The Fire Nation isn't going to push him to taint (one of) the last living aspacts of the Air Nomads, and Aang is shouting it – in the very same day the disaster occurred.

(Additionally I view this as a land mark of his character development since Siege of the North. He used spirit powers for murder, now he's using them for mercy).

(A:TLA is also a show made with kids in mind. They may not be able to make Aang kill Ozai. He got his bending stolen and sentenced to prison for the rest of his life. That's a more than serviceable punishment for a show aimed at kids).

(Ps: If Ozai had died Zuko would never have found out where his mother is).

The concept is fantastic. Nothing wrong there. But now, it's time for the critisism.

What's the problem then?

Despite looking in internet forums, it's entirely possible that I missed some things. With that being said, the Lion Turtles could have been foreshadowed better. As I stated, I don't mind it. But as far as I recall, it was foreshadowed once in The Library, and that's it. (Edit: It's also foreshadowed in Sokka's Master and The Beach, but the point still stands).

The Lion Turtle is a twist, it subverted expectations, but that doesn't mean it has to be a deus ex machina. That's what foreshadowing is for. It's the literary device to making a plot twist feel believable. The result is many fans, including me, feeling as though it came out of no where, even though it didn't.

Overall, I love that Aang spared Ozai. It ties into the themes of the show and Aang's role as the last airbender. It makes perfect sense, it's rather beautiful. However, I do wish the foreshadowing was better.

And for Anon, to apologize for the wait, I dedicate you this meme: