#white colonist mindset

[gay-jewish-bucky]

@justarandomgirly want to come say that to the face of the countless observant jews and muslims behind world changing scientific and medical advancement? what about the jews who were at the forefront of every social justice movement?

religion and science are not mutually exclusive

religion and social justice are not mutually exclusive

'religion' is not synonymous with fundamentalist christianity, and a world without religion is a world that has come out of the destruction of countless marginalized cultures and identities, i don't want to live in that world

your "dream world" comes at the expense of people who have been prosecuted and oppressed and criminalized for centuries to millennia

what even is "intelligence"? who decides what the one right way is? is it what white western people view as the "correct" way to think and be? because that has been used to justify genocide against people of colour and disabled people, and other "undesirables" countless times, it even happens today, you are no different, your goals are no different

fuck you

[highfantasy-soul]

I think The Acolyte is such a needed show and people really should seek out minority voices speaking on the conflicts within because it is really bringing to the forefront our culturally-taught biases when it comes to assessing 'both sides'.

I've seen a lot of takes thinking they understand the Acolyte by saying "It's great because BOTH SIDES are the same! They both made mistakes and share an equal part of the blame for what happened!"

And to that, I just have to take a deep breath and say as calmly as I can: Just because the storytelling isn't black vs white, pure good vs pure evil, because the show IS being told with nuance, it DOES NOT MEAN "both sides" are the same!!!

One side is an oppressed group living in solitude after having been pushed out of the 'republic' by a militant religious force. They are minding their own business, by themselves, simply existing.

The other side is that militant religious force who pushed them out of the republic who has come to the planet the coven is on, goes to the coven, interferes with their lives with the express purpose of disrupting who they live, and demanded to take their children.

Any 'mistake' made on the part of the indigenous group is NOT EQUAL to the 'mistakes' made by those coming in and trying to impress their own culture on the native one. The coven didn't go to Coruscant. They didn't march into the Jedi Temple where they were training padawans and demand to test them to give them the choice to come be trained as witches. The Jedi came to them.

I think, especially Westerners, have been so indoctrinated in the idea that it is their RIGHT to go anywhere in the world they want and interfere with every single other people group because well, Westerners are civilized and good - we need to make sure the savage 'others' are living according to our own standards and 'morals' - it's a GOOD thing to "make sure all people are being treated well". Plus, they might have resources that could benefit the rest of the world! It's not right that they hoard it all for themselves! It's our right to come and enjoy the beautiful land and local foods (that we of course change to fit our palettes) and entertain ourselves by watching the natives live in their 'unique and quaint' ways that are just SO FASCINATING to watch!!

It's the white savior mindset that leads to missionaries. It's the colonist mindset that led the Manifest Destiny in North America and the subjugation of Africa, India, the Middle East, South America, and I'm sure I'm forgetting many other non-Eurocentric colonist behaviors.

Read the personal writings of the colonists at that time: many BELIEVED they were doing the right thing. Many BELIEVED that they were 'helping' the other culture they were in fact, really subjugating. I would bet that the nuns who ran the Residential Schools for Native children in the Americas believed they were helping the children they stole - but that doesn't change the horrific harm they caused. The way a lot of oppressive regimes work is that they get people who truly believe they're helping people on board to enforce their will upon others. Those at the top (largely) know it's a lie, but moral superiority has always been a great motivator for humans. And individuals indoctrinated from birth (or 4 years old) can get that self-important self-righteousness so ingrained in them that even when their leaders tell them to leave well enough alone, they've been taught their entire life that they're the only 'correct' way to live, so it's their MORAL DUTY to 'save' others even when everyone else is telling them to stop.

THAT is where the nuance in The Acolyte comes from: The Jedi (specifically Sol and Torbin though Indara chose to bully her way into 'appeasing' Sol's concern about the girls rather than insisting on a sit-down with the adults of the coven) truly believed they were doing what was right, that they were 'protecting' the children of an indigenous group they knew nothing about.

The nuance is NOT "both sides are equally culpable". As though both the witches and the Jedi are in the exact same position with the exact amount of power and resources as the other.

If the forces were equal, one side wouldn't have been wholly massacred while the other all walked away alive - able to go back to a home that wasn't destroyed and all it's people killed.

Yes, it's important to show the repercussions on those who unwittingly caused a massacre (Torbin's Borash vow, Kelnacca's self-imposed exile) but that IS NOT TO SAY 'both sides suffered equally'. It IS to say "neither side was maliciously evil and got a kick out of causing a massacre, both sides genuinely had good intentions for their actions". Which again, is NOT saying "both sides are equally at fault for what happened".

It's just been very concerning seeing how many massacre-apologists there are out here blaming the coven for their own slaughter rather than...the ones who slaughtered them. No, protecting yourself against an invading force IS NOT being to blame for that invading force using your resistance as an excuse to wholesale slaughter everyone.

It is the responsibility of the invaders to bend over backward for the local population to prove they mean no harm - it is NOT the responsibility of the local population to immediately kneel to the invaders and do whatever they want in complete submission so that the invaders don't kill them all.

[crumblinggothicarchitecture]

Hi, I absolutely love the way you breakdown tswift songs, and I just wanted to clarify something, that's been bothering me. In 7 she mentions this part "we'll move to India forever" at first I was just like yeah, but the more I listened to it, the more I was like what kind of fucking colonist/white mindset is that? You'll never tour to India but you want to move here?? LIKE??? NO!!!! Don't!!! We've had enough of you white people exploiting us without ever actually ever caring for our country.

Feel free to vent about whatever Taylor Swift lyric you hate. I literally love it. :)

Because you're right, I always saw the line "we'll move to India forever" in the most charitable light. I remember thinking to myself, when I first heard it, that maybe she just loves India.

It made sense to me- because during the pandemic I fell into reading a BUNCH about India's culture, religion, food, anything. (My interest was mostly a result of linguistic interest into how India has shaped the English Language over time). Despite English only being present in the region due to colonialism, India has had a remarkable impact on shaping the Language itself! I emphasize post-colonial theory in my real job- and while I don't write much on India's relation to English Linguistics, I enjoy reading on the subject. So that's why I find it so interesting- because it really speaks to human ingenuity and perseverance. You know? The linguistic diversity present in India alone is so cool- and I really could talk about it forever.

So, I heard the line, and my first thought was like "yeah, okay maybe she just loves India?"

I think I was being too kind with that initial response.

But dude- she's never even toured in India? Like she just refused to go? She's never once talked about India in a positive light at all. So then why would she write that line? Like she will go to any random country in Europe, go to any random state in the USA, and go to couple of select places in Latin America, but it seems like she outright ignores Southern parts of Asia? Except Singapore- because they gave her a boatload of money, I guess. So, why write that line? Why write all of "Karma" is she has no genuine interest or respect for the people from which that philosophy comes?

In combination with her obvious pro-colonialist imagery in her other work, like the "Wildest Dreams" music video, the line in "Bejeweled" about reclaiming the land, and the latest line in "But Daddy I Love Him" about how she wants to win the West, I now believe her line about moving to India to be pure Orientalism.

Plus, the whole issue with the "Karma" song in which she is denigrating the philosophical concept of Karma and making it seem like nothing more than a shallow idiomatic ideal on revenge.

I think she's just an idiot who wants to mention "India" like it's some fantastical realm far away from "reality" (Eg), to her, the USA, as if India is not a real place with a real history and real culture. This is what I mean when I say she offers India no respect or appreciation- you can't liken a place to a mystical realm removed from reality without removing it from its history, culture, and people.

If the whole line is "Pack your dolls in a sweater/ We'll move to India forever/ Passed down like Folksongs" ("Seven" 2020).

She is intuitively linking the concept of moving to India with that of a childhood fantasy- with the word "dolls"- one childhood fantasy which will be ultimately unfulfilled. Thus, I support the argument that her line about moving to India is only in reference to the fact that it's like an unreal fantasy- worlds away from reality.

In literary theory, we call this process of subjective reality removal, and fetishization of the East as a fantasy realm, Orientalism. Orientalism is the act of creating a fantasy of the East, in this case India, that is often full of stereotypes or predicated solely on the myopic lens of western perspective.

Naturally, this facet of literature was mainly popular during the height of British Colonialism in India- in the 19th century. So why is Taylor Swift negotiating Orientalist attitudes in a song in the year of 2020? WHY! Uh- (because she's a fucking Racist with no respect for anyone who's not White and from USA). I've been blind- I fear.

It's such a rude oversimplification of such a diverse and interesting place- and all of her many nods towards Colonialism are so disgusting - I'm actually pissed off about it.

Anyway- That was my long-winded way of completely agreeing with you. You're right it's a shitty colonialist attitude and she should not be getting away with it.

[kemetic-dreams]

The term 'Sub-Saharan' Africa is a colonial language that was used to belittle African nations south of the Sahara and to separate the other countries from North Africa– Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, and Sudan due to them being Arab states.

Colored, Negro, Black, Nigger

Every one of these terms come from the mindset of Europeans not Africans. Indigenous African societies do not use the term black as a racial identity outside of influences brought by Western cultures.

Contemporary anthropologists and other scientists, while recognizing the reality of biological variation between different human populations, regard the concept of a unified, distinguishable "Black race" as socially constructed.

Black is a term developed in the Colonial Assembly of Maryland, after a rebellion called Bacon's Rebellion, fought from 1676 to 1677.

The alliance between European indentured servants and Africans (a mix of indentured, enslaved, and Free Negroes) disturbed the colonial upper class. They responded by hardening the racial caste of slavery in an attempt to divide the two races from subsequent united uprisings with the passage of the Virginia Slave Codes of 1705.

White took on the meaning "British, Christian and having rights. Black meaning not having rights.

These divided the two populations, by giving poor Europeans with no power, unprecedented power over all non-Europeans.

The laws were devised to establish a greater level of control over the rising African slave population of Virginia. It also socially segregated white colonists from black enslaved persons, making them disparate groups and hindering their ability to unite. Unity of the commoners was a perceived fear of the Virginia aristocracy, who wished to prevent repeated events such as Bacon's Rebellion, occurring 29 years prior.

By refusing to call you an African, it belittles you, no such thing as black names, black land or black languages. It is like calling a woman big lips or flat butt and refusing to call the woman by her actual name. "Hey colored girl, or black boy".

In social psychology, a stereotype is a generalized belief about a particular category of people.

African populations have the highest levels of genetic variation among all humans. 

Why You Probably Shouldn't Say 'Eskimo'

People in many parts of the Arctic consider Eskimo a derogatory term because it was widely used by racist, non-native colonizers. Many people also thought it meant eater of raw meat, which connoted barbarism and violence. Although the word's exact etymology is unclear, mid-century anthropologists suggested that the word came from the Latin word excommunicati, meaning the excommunicated ones, because the native people of the Canadian Arctic were not Christian.

According to the Constitution of India, we are “the people of India that is Bharat”

In English language discourse, the word ‘India’ is used and in Hindi expressions, the word ‘Bharat’ is used. The Anglicised call it ‘India’, and the indigenous call it ‘Bharat’. Our ruling class calls it ‘India’, the others, the janata, call it ‘Bharat’. It has become a trend and fashion to prefer the word ‘India’ over ‘Bharat’. We converse with the country in Hindi and other vernaculars while we govern it in English.

Japanese people usually refer to their country as Nihon or Nippon 

The name "Japan" in English is derived from the Portuguese word "Japão," which was used during the 16th century when Portuguese traders and explorers first arrived in Japan. The Portuguese term "Japão" likely evolved from the Malay word "Japang" or "Japang Pulau," which referred to the Japanese archipelago.

The Japanese people themselves refer to their country as "Nihon" (日本) or "Nippon" (日本), and these terms have been used in the Japanese language for centuries.

As European seen themselves as the elites of all races and god's chosen people. They took on the mindset of what I say makes the most sense.

Renaming essentially all populations they came in contact with, using their language as opposed to learning the language of the natives.

And whatever religion or spirituality people had Europeans demonized it and forced converted people to Christianity.

[blackflash9]

Unwavering Faith: Aveline and the Colonial Assassins (Analysis)

Over the years, I've come to notice a dual parallel and theme between the premise of AC Rogue and the side title, Liberation:

The loss of faith. Despite its intentionally ambiguous portrayal of the Assassins, Liberation compellingly explores their flaws, contradictions, and hidden layers through characters like Agate and François Mackandal respectively. This, in turn, profoundly impacts Aveline's mental state and her faith in her sect of the Colonial Assassins and their Creed.

Mackendal, in particular, was a very fascinating character not just in the historical context, but in what he encompassed for the ideals and values of the Assassins when pressed to their logical extreme in using their Creed as a policy for aggression, violence, and unrestrained use of power. An example of this is how he aimed to poison the colonists in Saint-Dominique.

The Mackandal Rebellion (1750-1758) | Haitian Revolution (1791-1804)

What's interesting is that despite his atrocities, Mackandal didn't think he was a traitor of any kind to the Brotherhood or what it preached. Much Like Altair who didn't believe so when he killed his Mentor. Neither did Pierre Bellec when he killed Mirabeau in Unity. Mackandal, in fact, firmly believed he was an Assassin, even truer than the Colonials themselves. From his perspective, he didn't kill "innocents." He just didn't see any of the "white masters" at the time as remotely innocent. Clearly, he was wrong from any other point of view, but it doesn't make him less of an Assassin. After all, the Creed does allow it if you want it to.

In some regards, he shares a sharp contrast with Adewale himself. Both men are shaped by their brutal experiences as slaves, embodying contrasting conclusions with the Assassin's Creed. Mackandal, corrupted by deep-seated anger, employs ruthless and indiscriminate methods such as poisonings, reflecting a radical approach that often causes collateral damage that ultimately catches up to him destroying himself and his Brotherhood. In contrast, Adewale, motivated by a strong sense of justice and compassion, remains steadfast in his convictions and humanity for himself and others. As a result, Mackandal's legacy is often treated as a cautionary tale, while Adewale retaining his morals and principles through the Creed is still remembered and admired by even individuals like Evie Frye an entire century later. This duality between them underscores the larger internal struggle that individuals within the Brotherhood face in response to both oppression and their endless fight for and to preserve freedom. This era of the Assassins, especially, is faced with this dilemma where the very freedom that they fight for is often short-lived, imperfect, nuanced, and bittersweet. 'Laid to Rest' Transcript

Connor: "My father is dead. Charles Lee now leads the Templar Order in his place. I see now why ours is an eternal war. For each piece taken from the board, another is placed upon it. Back and forth we go. Across the world. Across the ages. Some days, mine feels an impossible task, but I cannot afford to be consumed with doubt. The people need me. Now, more than ever. I must stop the Templars. I will kill Charles Lee." Connor's Forsaken Epilogue Soliloquy Connor: "So many voices, each demanding something else… It has been hard at times, but never harder than today to see all I worked for; perverted, discarded, forgotten!"

This brings us to the inner turmoil and duality that Aveline struggles with over the course of her story. Who is she really? Why does she fight? Is it even worth the effort to fight at all in such an unjust world?

"I trust my own hands," I believe, is Connor expressing his adherence to individualism above all else. For him, it signifies the realization that even the people and institutions you serve can be flawed or have misguided intentions, and you must trust your own judgment. This mindset makes Connor an embodiment of the Creed and its ideals—an approach that Aveline also adopts. Her persistent fight for choice and freedom, despite the hypocrisy, corruption, and fallibility within her own order, makes her dedication as an Assassin truly compelling. Because Aveline is more than just an Assassin. She is a liberator.

[theender36]

Spoilers for Doctor Who "Dot and Bubble"

Genuinely that ending hit me like a sack of bricks. When I think of a sci-fi future, I never think about the possibility of racism enduring through all the progress that humanity makes. And I'm sure that's the point of the episode. Russel pulled a sneaky bait-and-switch from the expected "phone bad" narrative to "criticism of nepo-babies and white-privilege".

It barely crossed my mind that all the colonists were white and mostly blonde until Lindy and Ricky were standing side-by-side in real life and even then, I thought it was just a coincidence.

I never expected that this would be the first episode where people refused to be saved by the Doctor because of the color of his skin.

The nepo-baby colonists are literally in a bubble that they rely on for everything as they grow up. So when they're let out into the real world, they carry that same mindset with them. That one guy at the end talking excitedly about how they'll be "pioneers" out in the wild and surviving off the land shows how disillusioned they are. To them, it's still one big party. Honestly, do you think they'll survive very long? Lindy couldn't walk on her own totally capable legs unless someone told her how.

We even see how the colonists are willing to sacrifice each other for their own benefit when Lindy throws Ricky under the bus by making him Dot's next target. Because racism and bigotry are born of, among other things, selfishness. And selfishness is abundant in Finetime.

The Doctor is such a saint at the end. He's literally willing to put up with the most hateful garbage if they'll just let him take them to safety.

Lindy repeats through the whole episode "I'm so stupid." And yeah. All the survivors of Finetime are stupid. Because they refuse to leave behind their prejudice and privilege. So they go back to their bubble.

[being-of-rain]

I gotta get round to writing down my feelings on Dot and Bubble, before the next episode comes out! They're conflicted feelings. My opinion has been swinging like a pendulum.

For most of the episode, my main reactions was 'are they Seriously just doing a Social Media Bad episode? Surely there has to be something more to it.' And of course, there was. But... well, the last few scenes really committing to the twist doesn't really change the fact that for a lot of the episode I was cringing at the 'these people spend too much time on their phones' vibes.

The twist that everyone was bigots... well, at first I wasn't sure it landed as well as it could've. I've seen lots of accounts of people who didn't get 'space racists' right away, and I agree that most of the final read classist more than (or just as much as) racist. But then again, in many circumstances aren't the two things tied together? And the more I sat with the episode after it ended, the more I appreciated it. There were quite a few moments and microaggressions throughout the episode that were easily dismissed as simply the mistrustful and argumentative nature of many a Dr Who guest star. And I guess the episode WAS saying 'being on your phone too much is bad', but it followed it up with 'because you'll end up in your own little bubble of social media that could easily radicalise you or feed your inherent prejudices.'

But... after I fully digested all that, I was left thinking 'is that all?' The episode's big reveal is 'this society is bigotted,' and it did have a few things to say about that. But in the end, is that it? I know AI has been done to death, but 'social media becomes sentient and hates is userbase' is an interesting (and hilarious) idea that gets brushed over as quickly as possible, and the slugs don't get much more attention, all because the episode is too focused on the human aspect. And if this episode is so interested in racism, then what does it say that there's only one character in the episode who's experiencing that racism, and when he finally understands it he doesn't care about it at all. Because the Doctor's frustration in the end is just about not being able to save the humans, not about anything they've done to him.

Then again maybe we should circle back to this being just as much about other prejudices and not racism exclusively. Sure it's important, but as we've said, the episode does have things to say about bigotry more generally. About the mindset of mindlessly following instructions, and ignoring your own hypocracy, and throwing people you idolise under the bus if you need to because the only person more important than people like you is you.

But on the other hand, I'm extremely very white. I've seen fans of colour accuse the episode of being cheap and shallow. After all, why is it a big statement for an episode to have an all-white guest cast if there's tons and tons of other Dr Who episodes that do that without thinking?

You get the idea.

In the end... well, I'll be brutally honest. On top of my mixed reaction to the episode's politics, I've just never really vibed with 'sanitised dystopian utopia' aesthetic. So my current emotional reaction to Dot and Bubble is 'meh'. Mark it down in the same category as the previous episode: I'll be interested to see what I think when I rewatch it, but it's not going to be something I'll go to rewatch very often.

What else to say about the episode? I actually noticed that a lot of the colonists were white and blonde before halfway through the ep, but then drew the conclusion that maybe they were all clones. I didn't fall in love with Ricky September like it seemed many viewers seemed to, I just got a little confused about what role in the story a random perfect guy like him was playing (I found out eventually, and boy was it more brutal than I expected). But I did enjoy seeing the Doctor and Ruby both try to flirt with him. The Doctor is now a Gay Best Friend tm. Oh it goes without saying that Gatwa's acting is phenomenal, especially in his brief time appearing in-person.

I know it isn't the show's fault that Gatwa was busy filming other things, and I usually enjoy shows finding ways to work around production limitations like that, and I even tend to like Doctor-lite episodes... but it is a real shame that in the first season of an exciting brand new Doctor, there's two episodes in a row that he's hardly in. I've seen the next episode described as the most traditional of this season, and while I'm not going back on my opinion that I love the experimenting this season, I am looking forward to More Traditional purely because it'll mean more Gatwa. And regency Gatwa at that. I hope he has a fucked-up romance with Jonathan Groff.

[1000rh]

As for those not directly affected by this struggle, it would help if more conversations could hold greater complexity—the ability to acknowledge that the Israelis who came to Palestine in the 1940s were survivors of genocide, desperate refugees, many of whom had no other options, and that they were settler colonists who participated in the ethnic cleansing of another people. That they were victims of white supremacy in Europe being passed the mantle of whiteness in Palestine. That Israelis are nationalists in their own right and that their country has long been enlisted by the United States to act as a kind of subcontracted military base in the region. All of this is true all at once. [...] None of this is intended as an apologia for Israeli settler colonialism. Rather, it is an attempt, as the British scholar Jacqueline Rose put it regarding her book The Question of Zion, to “go into the mindset of Zionism without blocking the exit.”

– Naomi Klein, Doppelganger (2023)

[hungee-boy]

fellow crackers PLEASE get out of the colonist mindset

its not a loss to white americans if natives gain control back of their lands and reparations are given to black people

its not a loss to white europeans to give equal rights to romani people or to treat other races as human beings

its not a loss to white occupiers of palestine if palestinians free themselves from occupation and have their own godamned autonomy

its literally not "one group rules all". you should be fighting for ALL people working TOGETHER

when people of color are hostile towards white people its literally because weve been bitching and moaning about how inconvenient it is for us to show them common decency when we literally steal and hoard the worlds resources and have been having it super good for centuries

the bar is in hell at this point

[elbiotipo]

Some points that I want to clarify because my head is nagging at me:

When I said that multicultural societies were the norm for most of history, this does not mean they were egalitarian or democratic. The Roman or Inca empires were multicultural, but they were indeed empires based on conquest. The Islamic caliphates were a lot more tolerant in many ways that other contemporaries, but there were still religious laws in place. However, the idea of 'one state with a single nation and land' is indeed modern. Most past societies incorporated people of many different cultures as part of the same society in one form or other. Nationalism is a very modern phenomenon, and ethnostates even more so.

The cases of descolonization can vary from country to country. South Africa, as some have commented, has dismantled legal apartheid, but economic inequality remains high. The triumph of the ANC has not been accompanied by the socialist reforms that should have been implemented. Yet, the quality of life of all people in South Africa, yes, EVEN whites, has increased markedly since the end of apartheid, this is statistically comfirmed.

These are ongoing processes shaped by global politics. Bolivia, for example, has faced coups and attempts at destablization. It remains poor with many issues. Yet it has set seeds and examples for the rest of América to follow.

(this is why I believe decolonization has to be approached from a socialist perspective, marxist thought has analyzed these issues better than me. Consider Frantz Fanon, just to cite the most well known author, not necessarily the end of it all)

The process of colonization and settlement is complex. People, real life people, not rethorical constructs, belong to families of multiple cultural and ethnic origins. This is more evident in the Americas but you can find this in every colonized nation. Displacement and separation of families is not a realistic or desirable goal. As I said, you can't go with a skin tone chart to separate people, that's what colonists do. The construction of multicultural societies is complex and needs the construction of a framework for each case, especially when there have been new countries and nations born from decolonization processes.

Keep in mind that I did not say this was only a process of apology and words. It's not just a change on 'mindset'. It needs actual political and material change. This does involve some people losing privileges and changes to society to accomodate those who have been oppressed. The goal is not revenge or imposition of a new national elite but the construction of a better society.

Should this happen through incremental change or revolution? This is something I have no answer for and it depends on many things. What can I say is that the more oppressors choose to maintain their rule with violence and the more the world ignores or supports them, the less likely a peaceful solution is.

I was going to talk about Israel and Palestine here, since clearly this is a post referencing that, even if I don't mention them. But anything of value I can say is covered in the website Decolonize Palestine already. I suggest you read it.

When South Africa dismantled apartheid, it did not end with the expulsion of all white South Africans. They became part of the new South Africa, just without the criminal discriminatory oligarchic powers the apartheid goverment had. When Bolivia recognized its indigenous heritage and became a plurinational state, it did not mean that people of European descent were expelled in masse. It meant the recognition of the previously discriminated indigenous and mestizo people of Bolivia and the beginning of a path of integration and revalidation.

What I mean is that it's ridiculous to think that decolonization inherently means mass suffering and relocation, that's what colonization does. Decolonization is recognizing the crimes of colonization, but more importantly, material, political and social steps to give power and self-determination to the exploited native people who were victims of colonialism and imperialism.

In multicultural societies, you don't go like in that Peter Griffin meme with a skin tone chart and saying 'well, you go back to Europe, you go back to Africa, you stay here'. You build a new society on the paradigm of dignity for exploited people and equality under the law. People are acting like this is some sort of fantastic utopia instead of real initiatives that were done in living memory, with successes and failures, as all such initiatives have. One must ask why are some so insistent that multicultural societies can't thrive, especially when for most of history, societies were indeed like that. Consider why you think like that.

[liesandbrokenhearts]

I suppose you don’t go to many tourist cities? The Chinese are far and away the absolute most disrespectful group of tourists on the planet. Americans and the British are stereotyped as bad tourists, but the Chinese make them look like saints.

Well I certainly am not going to speak for tourists of countries I’m not from and from groups I’m not a part of- but what I was speaking to was how white tourists specifically make the assumption that every country and every place operates in a westernized way and that think they are more important and wield more power through their white privilege. It’s something reminiscent of the colonist mindset in how it is you that are entering land already occupied and are expecting them to believe what you believe, act how you act and that what is theirs and sacred is of no meaning to you- that is something I hold to white people specifically. So no I don’t think the Chinese are worse than white american tourists at all- and I was specific in who I spoke about.

[butchviking]

besides the nazis I do also have a MUCH LESSER beef with the Norse-larping/identifying white people who really do give me the “thinks they suffer the same way indigenous people suffer from the Christian white hegemony” and “thinks this opts them out of being realllly settler colonists… if you think about it…. They have an indigenous white(tm) set of beliefs” that are super true and extra spiritual and in harmony and then they pretend they can even know that. When I’m sorry — I truly am sorry — some ancient people in Europe did experience conquest by (also pagan, then Christian, Rome) and shit and they can empathize with that… but it doesn’t mean that “really” “if we think about it” any rando modern white nonindigenous (eg not Samí) person anywhere has comparable heritage or trauma or persecution around it. You can just feel they want to claim that. Sometimes they do word for word.

And i swear it’s niche. It’s not even the main motive most people have. but it’s around. I classify it as more of a whites irritating me shit than a big issue but that doesn’t mean I don’t see it for what it is.

man people have forgotten what the acronym LARP means. norse larpers are very cool & fun in my experience ✌️ i love larp i love silly little outfits i love people being so passionate abt smthn they immerse themselves in a whole world of it i love that they always have smthn cool to teach. everyone stop misusing larp its gotten weird and confusing

this is so wild tho i think ive like. never come across this type of person. i guess it must be niche cause i don't even know if u mean like. europeans or americans or scandinavians or the english or what. i mean i guess ive come across plenty of pagans (& non-pagans tbh) of all sorts who bang on about how christians 'stole' this holiday or that holiday from 'the pagans' which comes from some basis of truth and the christians did fucked up shit to a lot of different cultures.. but i kind of roll my eyes at it bc it doesnt usually come from much actual knowledge or persecution & more just, like u say, wanting to claim an experience. so im with u as far as that. but u gotta be crazy to think being of viking descent would somehow mean u have no history of invading or settling places that didn't want u like... our word for them literally comes from the word specifically for those who would travel overseas to raid & settle there. like im from the uk so i can't imagine how that would work bc anyone here of viking descent (i Will be that guy nd say its technically in my past somewhere too lol ✌️ according to my grandmother & also according the the family surname. but thats really common where im from we got decent viking history) is obviously not indigenous (we dont like. have indigenous ppl here anymore really except perhaps the cornish) nd any white americans have settler/coloniser history much more recently anyway. ive never known any scandinavians who try n make out like their history is one of particular repression (i have not known very many scandinavians) but tbh like. yeah they were severely fucked over by the christians that did happen. as far as im aware most scandinavians are indigenous as i understand the word (their ancestors didnt move in any time recently & have pretty much always lived there) but aren't like. oppressed for that. & the christians did genuinely oppress ppl in their act of christianisation but that was... a long time ago so most ppl don't exactly have any claim to 'trauma' from it. but then, there probably are a lot of modern ásatrúar who are probably still somewhat religiously repressed in their home country which is definitely a bad thing & is clearly a hang-over from that time & from that christian mindset that everyone must be like them & worship the same god as them. but its very very different to struggles of ppl like the sámi.

sry for just kind of thinking aloud here but as i say i don't think ive come across the ppl ur talking abt, so much so that i dont know. who u are talking about. other than the generic annoying 'pagan' types but i havent rly known any actual heathens who do that. other than the nazis.

[millylotus]

Damian gets his love for the world from both sides of the family & both sides have their reasons for thinking the way they do.

The Al Ghuls are a long lived family, they are a close knit group of people who have watched the world with close eyes & have become disgusted with humanity. They care so much for the planet & their place in it, the sanctity of life is the preservation of it to them. But to keep the animals alive they need to deal with the people destroying the delicate ecosystem that the Earth thrives on. They've lived so long they see the pattern of people coming in & destroying the world, they see the bigger picture they can easily tell when it will happen again. So they go the extra mile & they kill the humans who think they are so much better than The Mother Nature. They love the world & everything living on it, but they will not tolerate a weed that tries to encroach on space it does not need, when it can be gutted & removed from the equation.

A lot of Indigenous groups of the Americas lived & still live on the land with the understanding that they are just as apart of the world as everything else. The White colonists lacked this understanding & the world suffers for their hubris to this day.

The Batfamily is hyper-focused on humanity, Bruce's & the rest of their's driving force is saving people, on rehabilitation. And it's taken to the absolute extreme the kindness & determination they have for people to become better. Allowing villains like the Joker to walk around like he does is a danger to all really. It was manageable at first, most of his henchmen where simply paid help & all of his atrocities where simply atrocities. But as time went on like the serial killers of today the Joker gained a cult following, & then to the extreme actual devoted followers who need not be paid. This has happened with basically all Gotham's Rouges. The Bats desperation & compassion, & drive for rehabilitation left room for the rouges to become far worse than they are. Gotham now caught in an endless cycle of copy cats & legacies that will haunt it for ever.

Honestly I wish Damian had a mixed set of the two mindsets that he can make into his own. Something that both shows compassion & patience to humanity, & the protectiveness & disciplining necessary to keep the planet balanced.

Just saw someone saying that Damian's love for animals comes from Dick??? Bro have you ever read Damian's origin??? Do you know who his family is????

His family is fricking Al Ghuls. The famous eco-terrorist family. The family who has sanctuaries for endengared animals and plants. The family who wants to save the Earth from humans. Damian's love for animals comes from the Al Ghuls.

Dick stans love to attribute Damian's everything to Dick even if it is related or not.

[gingersaurus]

begging you to kill yourself why would you be openly racist on someone’s post and basically admit you’re white in your about idiot

Wow, telling a stranger on the internet to kill themselves? You sure have proven that you are the morally superior person.

Yes, I'm white. And 5 years ago I actually would have joined in about joking that Italians have stolen all their famous foods from other cultures (which they did), but 5 years ago I also knew a lot less about food from cultures from all around the world.

I work for a nahuatl run non-profit that fights food insecurity, and I consider myself lucky that I work with people who challenge my colonialist mindset and who teach me the importance of sharing culture. As far as they are concerned, there is no wrong way to share food, it is just important that you feed as many people as you can. That's why introducing foods that have been cultivated to be easy to grow and provide a lot of fruit to regions that can benefit from it is important. And guess who was the best at cultivating those foods? It was Meso-Americans. Potatoes, corn, and tomatoes have all greatly benefited to nutrition around the world.

As I meet people of different cultural backgrounds, and I'm introduced to the foods which they make that use these plants, I have to ask myself "why am I surprised to learn they use a tomato sauce in Kenya, but I don't feel that way about Italy? Why am I just learning about Kenyan food now? Why is it so hard to research Kenyan food before the colombian exchange? Why do I joke about Italians "stealing" tomatoes, when I don't feel the same way about the Kenyan man who shared kachumbari with me?"

The point I am trying to make, is that there's a bigger problem in white-centric history. Food is an amazing way to share cultures, and the tomato just happens to be really good at being used by a wide variety of cultures. It was bred to be shared, versatile, delicious, and nutritious. And we really need to honor the people who cultivated it by having a better education system. An anti-colonist mindset is one that understands where their food came from, but also understands that food is meant to be shared.

[biracy]

I understand why it's an important conversation to have n everything but I don't think the dialogue should start and end with "Latin Americans are Catholic because colonialism". Like I know that, everyone knows that. I also know that if ever I were to come out to them half my extended family would probably cut contact with me bc they're all like eighty years old

[catgirl-kaiju]

another thing i'm finding very fascinating here, that seems to be coming hand-in-hand with the racism, is the assumption that urbanization is inherently destructive to the environment. looking at the plans, it's pretty clear that the land is being used efficiently and the environmental impact is being considered, with way more space given for plant life than i've seen any other urban planning project in the last few decades.

not that it would even matter if the planned urban center was just as destructive as colonial urbanization, or even if it was more destructive. it's THEIR land. but it's especially revealing how ingrained the belief that cities are inherently hostile to the environment is in the white colonist mindset. i catch myself falling into that trap, too, and it's refreshing to see a refutation of that mental cage we've made for ourselves.

this is so funny

"but uh when we advocated for indigenous sovereignty we thought you guys were just going to make a big park or something"

"fuck you. ultradense housing that bypasses your stupid zoning rules"