#unpleasant histories

[aethersea]

I do think Blazing Saddles handled its one depiction of native americans very poorly, and the full extent of its representation of chinese workers on the railroad is they were literally just there. not even one single speaking line. unclear if this is worse or better than the redface.

it's fucking phenomenal at lampooning antiblack racism though. extremely blatant, extremely funny satire, which is constantly and loudly saying "racism is the philosophy of the terminally stupid at best and morally depraved at worst, and we should all be pointing and laughing at them 24/7"

plus the main character is a heroic black man who has to navigate a whole lot of bullshit but is constantly smirking at the extraordinarily stupid racists and inviting the audience into the joke. the one heroic white character is a guy who was suicidally depressed until he met the protagonist and they just instantly became buds, and he's firmly in a supporting role the whole time and happy to be there. the protagonist saves the day with the help of his black friends from the railroad, and uses the position of power he was given to uplift not only those friends, but all the railroad workers of other minorities too, in an explicit show of solidarity.

anyone saying "Blazing Saddles is racist" had better be talking about its treatment of non-black minorities. it had better not be such superficial takes as "oh but they say the n-word all the time" or "they have nazis and the kkk in there!" because goddamn if that's the full extent of your critique I very seriously suggest you read up on media analysis. there is too much going over your head, you need to learn to recognize satire.

[astronomodome]

grian just hatched ...

[the-daily-dreamer]

So like a critical component of understanding team green and Alicent’s motivation for pushing their claim is completely lost on this fandom because of the fact that it’s so irrelevant nowadays that we wouldn’t even consider it.

But like…for most of human history marriages, especially aristocratic marriages, were binding social contracts that were meant to provide benefits and incentives to both parties. The woman would perform her wifely duties of bearing heirs (sons), child rearing, emotional (and physical - sometimes against her will unfortunately) support, and generally running the household in domestic affairs. And in exchange for these labors and quite frankly difficult and at times harmful tasks the woman was provided with safety from the outside world, all her needs being taken care of, and her children being the heirs. And a woman’s son being the heir means consistent protection into her old age when her often much older husband eventually died.

There was a purpose to marriage outside of love and ambition. But because we are privileged enough to live in a more modern society where marriage is a personal contract for which the technicalities can be selected by both individuals to ensure security and happiness, we cannot really even consider that once upon a time in the not so distant past there was a clear purpose. The man got sons/heirs and the woman got sons/protectors to care for her in her old age.

So when Alicent pushes for her son she has a plethora of reasons: believing in tradition, protecting the lives of her children who have competing claims, consolidation of suffering, etc. But she has one very clear and very reasonable reason that nobody acknowledges. She delivered on her part of the bargain and contract and she wants to collect what she is owed. She produced the sons, she gave the emotional and physical support (against her genuine will), she reared the children, she ran the household domestically and the entire kingdom. She did “everything expected of her forever upholding the kingdom, the family, and the law”. And now it’s time for her to collect her dues now that her much, much older husband is dead. To have her son be king and to be taken care of into her old age.

That is the contract she agreed to. That is the contract almost every woman in history agreed to. I give you a son and I get comfort and security when you (the husband) die and my son becomes the heir.

So I can go on and on about the personal, psychological reasoning that Alicent has that are all perfectly valid. But I don’t have to because at the end of the day she did her part of this marital obligation and contract and she deserves to receive her rewards.

[kindercelery]

Yeah Ragnar gets the displeasure of meeting this maggot too

[crimeronan]

probably the most accurate way for AU hunter to react to finding out he's a grimwalker would be like

[longest sigh in the world] hOkay.

luz.

i get why you didn't tell me. i 100% understand that you were scared and didn't want to worry me or to make me feel differently about myself. i'm not mad at you about that that's Fine. but also.

luz.

my fuckign MEDICAL HISTORY,

[blackswallowtailbutterfly]

Still haven't messaged my mom back. And I don't think I'm going to.

[hanakogames]

While her husband’s name was the only one on the box—the company crafted a mystique around Scott as a solo adventure-making genius—Alexis contributed to many of the titles Adventure International produced. Some games credit her as co-creator on their title screens, if nowhere else, and one gives her sole billing there: 1979’s Voodoo Castle. A few other women designers had published games by that year, including Carol Shaw at Atari, but Alexis was among the first to receive a visible credit. In a contemporary interview, Scott noted that she built the game “95% on her own” after learning how to use his database system; this also might make her the first nonprogrammer in history to use a domain-specific tool to make a digital game. She dedicated Voodoo Castle “to all moms!” and it featured multiple female characters, including “Medium Maegen,” a hint-dispensing spiritualist named after her daughter—maybe the first woman with dialogue in a video game.

from 50 Years of Text games, discussing Alexis Adams, wife of Scott Adams

I've never played a Scott Adams game. Honestly, I was mostly only familiar with him as an offhand reference, almost a joke, from the old text adventure community.

Back in the time period when I was involved with the yearly IFComp, most games were made with either Inform or TADS (my preference as it was closer to programming languages I was familiar with). There were always a few people who insisted on building their own awkward homebrew engines which lacked the features of the more mature toolsets, and would often be described as "Scott Adams-like", using simple prose and accepting parser commands of only two words at a time, no fluff. At least a few games claimed to be deliberately emulating that style.

Unfamiliar with the name and history, I misunderstood the context and assumed that Scott Adams was some sort of mad auteur, "giftedly bad", deliberately retro or wildly indie, cheerfully releasing games that lacked 'standard' polish and not caring about it because it was fun. I absolutely did not comprehend how old these first games were, nor how important in the history of home computer game sales. And I certainly never heard Alexis' name. Sadly, she's no longer with us.

[kaurwreck]

as a Japanese fan of bsd you’ve hit the nail on the head to why i hate this fandoms tendency to go with the “oh it’s so disrespectful to the authors” bc yea it’s my hatred of Japanese nationalism and its agenda to portray their cultural exports as untouchable…it also feels infantilizing in the sense where they can’t picture asagiri doing transformative critique of his country’s “classics” and they are adopting that very same idolatry of Japan

It's also such a flaccid, insincere interpretation of respect that is itself inherently dehumanizing. There is nothing untouchable, and substituting discernment for fawning is much worse than being superficially disrespectful, especially when the subject of your disrespect cannot possibly perceive it, and the only beneficiaries of your deference are states, institutions, and ideological concepts.

I've noticed people tend to strip agency and conscious commentary from Asagiri too. It is exceptionally infantilizing.

[jyndor]

just read an article from euronews of a holocaust survivor hoping for a united middle east, like the eu, while also denying the accusation of genocide against israel and demanding a two-state solution. it's so fucking sad that a genocide survivor is weaponizing the crimes that were perpetrated against her in order to excuse and deny crimes against palestinians.

like I'm sorry you believe that the un "gave" land away that wasn't its land to give, and I do think everyone who wants to live in a secular, pluralistic democracy should be able to live there - but ma'am. you literally said you are not going to let genocide happen again and then denied a genocide that is happening right now. and in fact you justify genocide.

here's the thing - this is the wishful thinking of someone who does not want to acknowledge the reality of occupation and displacement. it is historical revisionism.

let's not forget for a second that this land was not "given" to israel by the un but rather that it was stolen from the indigenous population of palestine/falasteen by yishuv/israeli soldiers after the uk terminated the mandate in 1948.

basically, the uk wanted to terminate the mandate of palestine* (issued by the league of nations in 1922 after WWI when britain occupied palestine) because dealing with the growing tensions between jews and arabs living there (due to the growing zionist movement to establish a jewish state in palestine, which the british commission aided and abetted ofc) was becoming a bit of a headache. so they took it to the un general assembly for the un to deal with.

and that these soldiers carried out the nakba after the un general assembly made a partition plan in a resolution that the palestinians were under no obligation to accept because unga resolutions are NON-BINDING, and when the security council tried to come to a consensus it could not.

from the actual general assembly resolution, in which you can see that these are recommendations to the uk and to the mandate of palestine and makes REQUESTS to the security council. none of this is an order, which if course is not something that the general assembly has the power to do.

you can even see that on this first page, the general assembly points out that this plan will likely "impair the general welfare and friendly relations among nations."

frankly the resolution was extremely unfair to the palestinians, as the partition would have given them about 44-45% of the land and the jewish population about 55-56%. and bear in mind that not only was there a much larger arab population, but that due to the 4th and 5th aliyah (jewish immigration to palestine) most of the jewish population had not been there for more than 20 years.

now I'm not bothered about people making aliyah, I believe in freedom of movement. what I am bothered about is the settler colonial project that used the expulsion of jews in europe to promote the expulsion of palestinians in palestine.

but the thing is, the israelis didn't even follow the un plan - nor was the un ready for such a plan to be implemented. and funny enough the us** delegate warren austin said at the time that the uk planned to terminate the mandate (may 15th) that "the Security Council is not prepared to go ahead with efforts to implement this plan in the existing situation."

instead what happened was this. the yishuv***, lead by ben gurion, rejected us requests to postpone the declaration of statehood and to cease military operations, which had already resulted in the expulsion of 300,000 palestinians even before the war. this is because ben gurion and many others wanted the entirety of palestine (as well as parts of syria and lebanon) to be a jewish state and did not want the partition - you can see this today in "greater israel" which would be a state of israel from the river to the sea, so would require the annexation of palestine as well as some parts of syria, lebanon and sometimes jordan. it would require mass displacement of non-jewish palestinians and possibly genocide. this is largely a belief of far right people like smotrich and netanyahu, but my concern is that the further right israeli society goes, the more people will become either indifferent to people around them believing in a greater israel or will actually believe in it themselves for the sake of their safety.

I've seen israelis say things like "no one wants gaza, leave us alone" and I have to laugh because that's just not true at all, there are frankly far too many people who are fine with the occupation as long as they don't have to see the harm their state is doing. I understand this because I see it in every settler colony. it's not unique to israel.

you cannot demand to live alone in peace when your country is built on ethnic cleansing, occupation, apartheid and yes, even though im sure it hurts to acknowledge, genocide. and you cannot expect to be allowed to peacefully occupy millions of people.

because what - is an independent palestine allowed to have a military? is it allowed to be fully autonomous? no of course not to zionists because that would threaten their security I guess. and I mean it probably would to some extent since there is no justice in partition.

would there be reparations? no because israelis generally do not know the history of how israel was founded, and if they do they largely don't care. or at the very least don't want it to be relevant to what we're seeing now. I mean the us still hadn't made reparations to descendants of slaves and frankly if we've done a little bit of reparations to native americans it isn't near enough.

would there be right to return for those in the diaspora? of course not, because israel would never allow palestinians the right to return to land in israel.

and those israelis who understand the situation are calling for a single secular state of palestine, or acknowledging that this is a genocide, or reckoning with the nakba. they are not demanding palestinians tolerate oppression. they do not value their lives above palestinian lives.

the colonizers do not get to make demands of the colonized. I feel great sorrow for what the woman in the article has gone through - I cannot fathom what she experienced in the holocaust and I totally agree with her that it is so important for future generations to hear testimonies from survivors of genocide. this is why I find it appalling that she denies the genocide of the palestinians.

*this essay goes into much more of the minutia surrounding resolution 181 and the myth of israel's founding.

**and this was a country that WANTED to establish a jewish state in palestine (he even wanted to have the us take on a trusteeship until the jews and arabs could come to an agreement lmao).

***yishuv refers to the jewish community in palestine prior to 1948. there is a further distinction between old yishuv - those who lived in palestine before the first zionist immigration wave in 1882 and their descendants until 1948. they tended to be more religiously observant, while new yishuv were those who emigrated to palestine in the zionist immigration waves until 1948 and tended to be more nationalist, secular and socialist. old yishuv had been there for centuries and has a fascinating history of how their communities developed btw.

[sleepinglionhearts]

have there ever been an equivalent of rap beefs in the art world? Like Michelangelo was sending diss paintings to someone?

I mean, like, beefing and disses have been a thing forever, so of course there have been!

I highly recommend looking into the rivalry between Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo, who both already butted heads in the "established artist vs younger prodigy" way.

The peak of this absolute nonsense comes in the early 1500s when both men were commissioned in competition to paint separate scenes in the same council room and that goes about as well as you could expect. I'm not saying that there's proof of it or anything, but knowing what we know about each man and his preferences for artistic style and personal approach to life, I'm willing to bet that there were definitely rude notes and/or paintings going on in the peripherals of their constant one-upsmanship that happened on their primary canvases.

[lunasapphire]

Zapotec lore✨

[einstetic]

i'm not tired, i'm exhausted

[gingerbreadmonsters]

sleepy and v fed up w this blasted reading for japanese history class tomorrow. give me 45 minutes to finish this article and i will be back to talk about kissing or something

[byanyan]

ㅤperhaps unsurprisingly, byan doesn't like the holidays — christmas in particular, as it's the most prominent and unavoidable one, and the one they have more experiences with. not growing up consistently celebrating the holiday past the age of four, they don't have any real positive attachment to it, and having it shoved so violently in their face each year, being surrounded by kids in school who are always so excited about it... it's always felt quite alienating. it's a very lonely time of year when everyone and everything around you is going on and on about family and you haven't got one.

although most years the only thing they've had to look forward to is the christmas dinner that the group homes they've been in have tried to provide, they have had a few experiences of what a more traditional celebration is like through foster homes they were living in during that time of year. the first one, when they were five, was... actually pretty okay. it was just them and their foster family, and they still remember having fun playing board games and watching movies, and how good the food at dinner was. they even got a couple of gifts from their foster parents. ...it was only the second christmas that they weren't celebrating with their first family, and they remember crying when those gifts were handed to them. another was when they were ten, with a foster family they hadn't been with for more than a few months. there was a lot of extended family in the house, none of whom they knew, and it was an incredibly overwhelming few days, during which they felt very much out of place. they didn't feel like they belonged and ended up spending most of their time hiding in the bedrooms to avoid the awkward conversations people would try to start with them so they didn't feel so left out. at one point, they remember sneaking out to go buy themself a hot chocolate with a bit of money they stole out of their foster brother's piggy bank to cheer themself up and to have a bit of quiet. no one noticed they were gone, and they weren't sure whether they were glad or disappointed.

at best, the holidays are an annoying time of year highlighted only by the two week break they get from school, and at worst, it's a reminder of all the things they've never had or the things that have been torn from them. even the positive memories they have have been soured by the way the kindness and the families didn't last, making it near impossible to look back on any of it fondly.

[voidignitia]

Bunny is written very negatively. Richard constantly assures the reader that Bunny was a good friend, but every passage with Bunny is direct conflict or sheds Bunny in a bad light.

I wonder, is this indicative of Richard’s guilt, telling himself he did like Bunny more than he thought he did and he didn’t deserve to die? Or is he retroactively justifying the murder to himself by remembering “hey yeah he *was* a bigot” and dwelling on the ways Bunny’s murder wasn’t a big issue?

[orcelito]

the weird thing about when someone dies is that they're never truly dead in my head. when i think about my grandpa, my grandma, my uncle, i dont think of them as dead. i think of them as just... gone for a while. some longer than others. i think about my cat sammy and my cat cassy and i feel like i could still look over and see them there beside me. i can see the way sammy would always cuddle right up to me and lay his head on my shoulder. i can see the way cassy would swivel his head at me when he wanted pets.

they're all dead. they're all gone. but i feel like i could see them again, just like old times. all i need to do is give them a call.