#your show is not above criticism from marginalised groups.

[bougiebutchbitch]

if people were only saying 'okay' rather than outright attacking people for daring to criticise their favourite show - especially those pointing out their discomfort with the depicion of physical disability, suicidal ideation, and abuse apologism - we wouldn't have a problem now, would we?

"Like stuff. Don't be someone that doesn't like stuff, and if you don't, don't be a dick about it."

- David Jenkins

[bougiebutchbinch]

Before I back away from this subject entirely, I just wanna know.

People who staunchly defend the finale from any and all criticism -

Do you really think disabled fans are being 'ridiculous' for feeling hurt that one of the only canonically disabled central characters (Ed's fanon 'knee brace' does not count lol) and the most severely disabled character and the only character whose arc revolved around accepting and loving his disabled body and prosthetic was killed off? And that he said he wanted to die? And that his prosthetic was used as a grave marker rather than buried with him? Do you think we are 'harrassing' the showrunners by wanting to know just how many disabled people were consulted about Izzy's arc, and whether physically disabled people and amputees were in the writing room when these choices were made?

Do you really think queer fans are being 'dramatic' and 'misunderstanding bury your gays' because they're upset that a character who had a 'coming out' arc (complete with a beautiful drag performance) was immediately killed after finding queer joy, in a show that claimed to be a 'kind' queer romantic comedy? Or for pointing out that every polyamorous character wound up in a monogamous relationship?

Do you really think suicide survivors are being 'too emotional' for feeling let down by a character who attempts suicide and survives, then goes through a beautiful healing arc, only to state that he still wants to die? In a comedy?

Do you really think abuse & domestic violence survivors are 'overreacting' by being disgusted that Izzy, who was violently, repeatedly physically mutilated by his captain, a man who is explicitly shown to have power over him, spent his last words reassuring that same man that he brought this abuse on himself by :checks notes: being jealous of Ed's shiny new boyfriend and briefly causing them to break up last season? Or that the crew apparently 'love Ed' now, despite them being shown to be traumatised by his actions in Ep 1-3?

Do you really think writers and authors are 'misunderstanding a three act structure' or 'defending their blorbo' for pointing out that, if this is the Dark Night Of The Soul, it shouldn't be painted with a weird happy veneer that glosses over Ed's abuse of the crew and Stede's sudden 180 to wanting to retire? Or for being fine with Izzy's death as a concept, but wanting it to have more dramatic impact and to feel meaningful?

To be clear: this is not directed at people who enjoyed the finale. You are fine. Enjoy whatever you like! However, please don't act like your favourite show is above criticism - especially from marginalised groups. That's just shitty, and against the entire ethos that OFMD (allegedly lol) promotes.

[the-bjd-community-confess]

" i also saw danny ch0o’s post on dms for him saying his dolls are racist bc hes producing a lot of cocoa skintone dolls and not white dolls,"

Just to quickly focus on that one. Danni Ch++ has said and claimed a lot of these things, but never actually is able to prove it, like he could literally post the DMs, considering he's never been shy about posting other info.  Like the map of smartd0ll buyers comes to mind, which showed with red dots on a world map where SMD buyers lived specific to their place of residence. And the time where he effectively doxxed a SMD buyer, by telling another buyer that "This person lives close to you." In fact, this is the guy who famously compared his dolls, aka Smartd0lls to the marginalised group of the BJD world, by comparing himself/his dolls/SMD's to black lives matter (BLM). I'd even go as far as to say he's lying as he usually does, and misrepresenting certain criticisms I've seen be posted online. Such as:

The cocoa skin tone has issues with the face-ups. Because certain tones are barely visible on the doll. I think this was in reference to how the blush is almost invisible on Cocoa, because the face-up mask used was/is? used on the other lighter tones. 

People lamenting the fact that the purple-ish fantasy brown was retired because many loved it for dark skin fantasy characters. Which apparently is racist because people called it a fantasy colour, despite him not making it as a fantasy colour. But real talk, it was pretty obvious that the purple-Cocoa was made without actually researching the undertones of black people. 

People being sad and complaining that he discontinued the milk-skin tone, because people really liked using it for hybriding, and people just generally liking having a very pale option. Like, no one complained about there being Cocoa, it was just immediately misrepresented by him as: "People want the milk skin tone? That means they hate cocoa! They're all racist!" in his posts. 

People complaining that he hasn't made a black-feature specific sculpt, and some saying it's lazy since he apparently can make a bunch of different features for dolls, but making a doll with Afrocentric features of any kind is just not possble. /s

"or he shud apologize because some of his dolls’ hands represent F.YOU in another country, or that when u pose the hand it looks like a nazi pose like"

Oh and this one. Literally NO ONE. Not a single person. I don't even thing a single single-celled organism said that. To be specific what I mean, no one independently of context said: "The flat hand is made to represent the Nazi-Hail salute." No one. People, in the FULL CONTEXT of the doll picture, aka: Black uniform. Red armband. The text using: "Eradicate the infestation." against a group of people "The entitled" which are clearly a stand-in for all the ppl Ch++ doesn't like. Said that then also using a the-flat hand, in a straight arm-pose, with all of this CONTEXT, said it gives a really iffy Nazi feel to it. Just with different words. This complaint about the Nazi-vibe was commented by a JEWISH person btw.

All in all, I don't even get what your point was. It sounds like you decided to go into a specifically shitty part of the Western BJD hobby, and then were surprised it's shitty? And then you even present DC as a big part of your rant, when he's a notorious liar about a lot of things, such as the mentioned above. Which removes a lot of credibility since his actions aren't even really that secret if you are even a little bit active in the general BJD-vinyl side of the hobby. Like, I could probably drag my ass to the Asian side of the hobby and find just as much toxic shit. Hell, from the Eastern-Europe side, which I've seen some people praise for its artistry, has a pretty nasty toxic and aggressive side to it. It's all about how YOU curate your own experience, which you apparently don't do, or you seek out the toxic parts and then through algorithms just get served even more of that shit.

~Anonymous

[ailuronymy]

do you think every disabled character in wc is handled poorly? i understand theres def some cases of ableism but at the same time when i hear ppl say that its usually bc the disabled cat wasnt able to become a warrior due to their disability. and i feel like ppl forget, that not everyone irl CAN do what they want after they become disabled. ex. someone wants to be an athlete, but their legs have to be amputated. a cat like briarlight esp i feel is p realistic and could be a source of comfort

Hello there, thank you for writing in. I’m going to reply to this question with a series of questions I think are a bit more useful, given what you’re trying to ask me. I hope that’ll clarify what is a deeply complex, multilayered issue. 

Do I think Erin Hunter handles anything in the series “well”? Not really. I don’t have a high opinion of the work of the collective and, broadly speaking, I think every right note they play, metaphorically speaking, is an instance of chance rather than effort, skill, or intention. Stopped clocks are right twice a day, mediocre writers will sometimes do something cool by accident, similar principle. That’s not to say Erin Hunter hasn’t ever done anything on purpose--just that overall the underlying drive of the series isn’t so much quality as it is quantity, and speed of production, and it shows. 

Do I think Erin Hunter puts any significant research into how they portray disability? No. I do not think it is a priority for this series. They’re not trying to make a meaningful work of literature, or capture a realistic experience of disability, or tell especially impactful or thoughtful stories, or even make a particularly good or coherent fantasy world. Warriors is a specifically commercial product that was commissioned by HarperCollins to appeal to a particular demographic of drama-loving, cat-loving kids. It’s not really trying to do anything but sell books, because it’s a business, so the text in many ways reflects that. They’re not going for disability representation, in my opinion. They’re including disability in many cases as a plot-point or an obstacle. 

Do I think this means that people can’t connect to these characters and narratives in meaningful ways? No. Often I say that a work is completed only when it is read. Before that point, it doesn’t have a meaning: a reader finishes the work through the act of reading, and interpretation, and filling in the spaces and resonance of the story with their own values and experiences. When people talk about subjectivity, this is what they are talking about. What this means in the context of disabled characters in Warriors is that these characters and their stories can be multiple, conflicting, even mutually exclusive things at the same time, to different people, for different reasons. 

Do I think characters have to be “good” to be significant to someone? No. I think genuinely “bad” (i.e., not researched or poorly researched, cliche, thoughtlessly written, problematic, etc. etc.) characters can be deeply meaningful, and often are. Ditto above: for many people, and especially marginalised or stigmatised people, reading is almost always an act of translation, wherein the person is reading against the creative work of the dominant culture in a way that the author likely didn’t intend or didn’t even imagine. There’s a long documented history of this in queer culture, but it’s true for just about everyone who is rarely (or unfairly) represented in media. Disabled people often have to read deeply imperfect works of fiction featuring disability and reinterpret them in the process--whether to relate to a kind of disability they don’t experience themselves but which is the closest they’re offered to something familiar, or to turn positive and meaningful what is intended as narrative punishment, or simply to create what’s commonly called headcanon about “non-disabled” characters who echo their personal experiences. 

Do I think everyone has to agree? Extremely no. As I said before, people will actually always disagree, because all people have different needs and different experiences. What can be interpreted as empowering to one person might be very othering and painful for another. There is no “right” answer, because, again, that is how subjectivity works. This is especially true because marginalised communities are often many different kinds of people with different lives and needs brought together over a trait or traits they share due to the need for solidarity as protection and power--but only in a broad sense. It’s why there is often intracommunity fighting over representation: there isn’t enough, there’s only scraps, and so each person’s personal interpretation can feel threatening to people whose needs are different. You can see examples of this especially when it comes to arguments over character sexuality: a queer female character might be interpreted as bisexual by bisexual people who relate to her and want her to be, while being interpreted as lesbian by lesbians who also relate to her and want her to be like them. Who is correct? Often these different interpretations based on different needs are presented as if one interpretation is theft from the other, when in fact the situation is indicative of the huge dearth of options for queer people. It becomes increasingly more intense when it comes to “canon” representations, because of the long history of having to read against the grain I mentioned above: there’s novelty and, for some people, validation in “canon” certainty. And again, all of this is also true for disabled people and other stigmatised groups. 

Do I think this is a problem? Not exactly. It is what it is. It is the expected effect of the circumstances. Enforced scarcity creates both the need for community organising and solidarity and the oppressive pressure to prioritise one’s self first and leave everyone else in the dust (or else it might happen to you). The system will always pit suppressed people against each other constantly, because it actively benefits from intracommunity fighting. Who needs enemies when you have friends like these, and so on. A solution is absolutely for everyone in community to hold space for these different needs and values, and to uplift and support despite these differences, but it’s not anyone’s fault for feeling threatened or upset when you don’t have much and feel like the thing that you do have is being taken away. It’s a normal, if not really helpful, human response. But until people learn and internalised that the media is multifaceted and able to be many things at once, without any of those things being untrue or impacting your truth of the text, then there will be fighting. 

Do I think my opinion on disability on Warriors is all that important? No, not really. I can relate to some characters in some moment through that translation, but my opinion on, say, Jayfeather is nowhere near as worthy of consideration than that of someone who is blind. I don’t have that experience and it’s not something I can bring meaningful thinking about, really. That’s true for all these characters. If you want to learn about disability, prioritise reading work about disabled rights and activism that is done by disabled people, and literary criticism from disabled people. And as I mentioned above, remember that community isn’t a monolith: it’s a survival tactic, that brings together many different people with disparate experiences of the world. So research widely. 

Finally--do I think there’s only one kind of disabled narrative worth telling? No. For some people, a disabled character achieving a specific, ability-focused dream is a good story. For other people, a story that acknowledges and deals with the realities, and limitations, of disability is a good story. The same person might want both of those stories at different times, depending on their mood. That’s okay. Sometimes there’s power and delight in a fantasy of overcoming seemingly impossible obstacles and defying all expectations. Sometimes there’s value and catharsis in a narrative that delves into the challenges and grief and oppression experienced because of disability. There’s no one truth. 

To round all this off, I’m going to give my favourite example of this, which is Cinderella. I think it’s a great and useful tool, since for many it’s familiar and it’s very simple. Not much happens. In the story, she is bullied and tormented, until a fairy godmother gifts her over several nights with the opportunity to go to a royal ball, where she dances with a prince. The prince eventually is able to find Cinderella, due to a shoe left behind, and they are married. In some versions, the family that mistreated her are killed. In others, they’re forgiven. 

Some people hate the story of Cinderella, because she is seen as passive. She tolerates the bullying and never fights back. She does every chore she’s told. She is given an opportunity by a fairy godmother, and she doesn’t help herself go to the ball. She runs from the prince and he does the work to find her again. Eventually, she’s married and the prince, presumably, keeps her in happiness and comfort for the rest of her life. 

For some, this story is infuriating, because Cinderella doesn’t “save herself”: she is largely saved by external forces. She is seen as a quintessential damsel-in-distress, and especially for people who have been bullied, infantalised, or made to feel less capable or weak, that can be a real point of personal pain and discomfort. 

However, for some others, Cinderella is a figure of strength, because she is able to endure such hostile environments and terrible people and never gives up her gentle nature or her hope. She never becomes cruel, or bitter. She is brave in daring to go outside her tiny, trapped world, and she is brave to let the prince find her. She doesn’t have to fight or struggle to earn her reward of happiness and prove her worth, because she was always deserving of love and kindness. The prince recognises at once, narratively speaking, her goodness and virtue, and stops at nothing to deliver her a better life. 

Depending on the version, the wicked family disfigure themselves for their own greed--or are punished, which for some is a revenge fantasy; or Cinderella forgives them and once again shows her tenacious kindness, which for others is a different revenge fantasy. 

The point? Cinderella is the same character in the same story, but these are almost unrecognisable readings when you put them side-by-side. Which one is right? Which one is better? In my opinion, those are the wrong questions. I hope this (long, sorry) reply is a set of more useful ones. 

[tazwren]

My two cents on the devolution of fandom spaces...

As a former mod of a fandom space and a woman of colour, I do not feel safe.

Seeing what has been done to so many in this fandom, by a particular group of white American women, in the name of moral policing is both abhorrent and demoralising. As it also is to repeatedly see the same narrative being shoved at everyone as the gospel truth.

A narrative that very conveniently either becomes about fic or has nothing to do with fic, depending on how people want to swing things. A narrative that will accuse a person of Jewish heritage of anti-Semitism, a person of colour of racism, a practising Muslim of being an Islamaphobe. A narrative that will define for you and me and all of us comprising this myriad of multitudes in the world what generational or personal trauma includes and what induces the same.

Those of you who know me, know what I’ve been dealing with the past few days & why I haven’t spoken up before now. Before I logged out a couple days ago, I saw what looked like more of the usual nonsense by the same group of people I’ve kept my distance from once their true colours were revealed. What I didn’t expect is that they would think themselves so above the norms of human decency and accountability that they would go after not one but two women of colour this time around in their rabidity. And many others who spoke up, as it turns out.

It hurts to see what these women, that I know of, have had to endure and to see the passivity of the community, save for a few voices, in sitting back and letting the circus rampage through town. It hurt when I was at the receiving end of it and it hurts now.

Why? Because it shows me a microcosm of the world that I don’t really relate to, that makes no sense to me with the values I was brought up with, and which reduces basic human decency to a commodity to be trampled upon and for you to be seen as weak for having. Because people who willingly laud you for your art / writing / wit, meet you with effusive claims of love and affection and friendship, who have no qualms in taking your help when it suits them, will throw you under the bus and let the wolves ravage you when it doesn't.

Before I get into that, let me talk a little bit about what has transpired over the past few days to a week, and what has been systemically taking place over perhaps the past year in this fandom.

One thing is that everyone who makes a statement about anything suddenly has people in their mentions demanding they show what gives them the right to hold that particular opinion. A critical thing people forget about fandom is that it is a place where people hide their identity for a variety of reasons, all valid, and this approach to fiction and conversations where everyone has to reveal every part of their past and identity as a means of establishing their "credentials" in order to present their views comes in direct contradiction with how fandoms operate. It violates people's rights to privacy.

The other is that there has been an increase in the voices that purportedly stand up to “speak for” the marginalised, the abused, those discriminated against and those who belong to minorities who “need to be protected / kept safe”. An admirable sentiment, to be sure. If it weren’t for the fact that none of these groups of people needed saving, speaking for or the protection of this particular group of voices.

Voices who only want to define and use these people as "model victims" to hurt other white women and establish their supremacy over both them and other POC. Voices that will present their "truth" as they see fit and sans context or present you with screenshots of snippets of conversations held in supposedly secure spaces that they have no qualms in violating in the interest of the "greater good" and claim offense / silencing if the misdemeanour is pointed out or action is taken against them, Voices that will conveniently categorize you as a "token POC" or "white adjacent" when you do not support or align with their narrative. Voices that belong to a predominantly white American group of women, whose real agenda, as is evidenced by their modus operandi, has nothing to do with real altruism or a drive for justice or indeed to right wrongs.

No, their agenda is purely power.

To hold sway over groups of followers, to shepherd them as though they are sheep who cannot think for themselves, and to set themselves up as white saviours who call out those who step out of line, or are deemed to be problematic and toxic and unsafe. To be the owners of the only "safe spaces" in fandom and to drive other groups and spaces to be boycotted or worse.

Now, I've long wondered, who indeed are these women to decide that for anyone? In a world comprising multiple cultures, religions, groups, subgroups, genders and which contains multitudes, who are these women and what gives them the right to foist their puritanical standards on everyone, very conveniently disguised as concern for the moral well being of everyone and the consumption, of all things, of fiction?

Certainly, there are many things in this world that people regard with justifiably equal dislike / horror / sadness. At the same time, there is much that is not shared, that is particular to a culture and to a person’s background. There is a multitude of perspectives that make the whole. And the white women of the United States of America have not cornered the market on what those are, or indeed even own any curatorship or censorship of the same. They cannot, because each person’s culture and background and joy and trauma is their own, as are their ways of dealing with it all.

That being said, let’s talk about their pack behaviour and the devolution I’ve witnessed on social media as basic human decency is bartered for clout.

I’m all for standing up for someone who doesn’t have a voice or a platform, or maybe afraid of repercussions to voice dissent. I’m all for being there for our fellow human beings as they face struggles of often unconscionable and unfathomable proportions. I’m all for holding people accountable for their negative behaviours as they impact the larger community.

What I am unequivocally NOT for is treating such situations as an opportunity to preach, to virtue-signal, to shame and to put on blast the alleged wrong-doers. I say alleged because that’s what most accusations are on these platforms—allegations to do with things that disturb our sense of balance or make us wrinkle our noses or that we deem bad, and therefore make the accused deserving of the full force of the community’s misbehaviour and censure.

I ask you if you were found guilty of a crime in real life—you know, the one away from your phones and keyboards—would you not have an opportunity to retain a lawyer, to plead your case in a court of law, to acquit yourself? Or, if found guilty, would you not have the opportunity for correction and rehabilitation? Yes, you say? (If you say no, then that explains the spate of state-perpetuated injustices across the USA, but that is a different matter).

Why then are people treated so abhorrently in this court of public opinion? What gives you, me, any one of us the right to judge people so vilely and with a metaphorical gun to their heads? What gives anyone the right to say you better agree with everything I say, retract everything you said and grovel for it or we will eviscerate you in public, shame you, force you to change or delete the content that offends us and still ostracise you and in some cases even threaten you with bodily harm or death, or doxx you?

Why is there no grace in how people are approached or dealt with? Whatever happened to allowing people to learn from their mistakes, where applicable, or hearing them out and giving them a chance to explain their side of something we may not fully understand?

Why is there no accountability for such behaviour on the part of the accusers?

What makes the rest of you sit back and allow this to happen? What makes you think this is in any shape or form okay to watch? Today, it is a virtual stranger at the receiving end, one you can distance yourself from quite conveniently saying Oh, she just mods a group I am in, or I only read their fics a couple times or I only followed them for their art or jokes or whatever flavour of excuse you choose. Tomorrow, it will be one of your own - or it may very well be you. And you'd better hope there's someone left to speak up for you.

The irony is you will have allowed it to happen by letting the wolf in the fold. By letting these white women manipulate you, and the community you claim to be a part of, so unapologetically, so maliciously and so unashamedly that before you can do anything about it the cancer has taken hold.

If this was happening in the world outside of social media, they would have to follow due process, to present real evidence based on facts (not based on emotions, rumours or perceptions) and would have to allow the person they are accusing to present a counter-argument, to defend themselves or be defended. Failure to do so is a miscarriage of justice and, depending on whether this is a professional or legal proceeding, they would either seriously risk their jobs or have the case thrown out of court. If not face action themselves for attempting to derail the process of justice.

Why then are they permitted to range so freely through the landscape of fandom, snarling and biting at who they please, or who displeases them?

I have no shame in saying I was at the receiving end of their behaviour for defending a friend they put on blast and I will tell you right here and now, I am a woman of colour who feels unsafe and attacked by these so-called self-appointed white saviours of your social media experience, these so-called upholders of the common morality—whatever that means—who will fight for you the evils of problematic and toxic writers who dare to have an opinion not aligned with theirs and who do not bow to their clout. Not that they care, so long as they can ignore this fact since it doesn’t fit their narrative. So long as they can ignore what has just been done to so many people in the name of cleansing the fandom.

If any one of these women were truly interested in alleviating the troubles and pains of the discriminated, the marginalized, the trauma-affected, I invite them to please come roll their sleeves up and help in the multitudes of troubles that wrack this world, not just in the backyards of their minds. My country is amidst a struggle for the basics of human life in this horrific pandemic and, prior to that, for basic constitutional rights for religious minorities. Do not patronize me and lecture me on trauma and racism and discrimination. Do not marginalise me in your attempt to pontificate and set your pearl-clutching puritanical selves above the rest, or assuage your white guilt.

A largely American audience or fanbase in this fandom is purely a function of access and interest—other cultures have vast followings for things you couldn't begin to fathom—and it doesn't mean you are entitled in any shape or form to be spokespeople for the rest of the world. We have no interest in being colonized again by white oppressors.

If you disagree with what I have said, I congratulate you on being a part of their coterie and wish you much joy in being the sheep in their fold. Kindly unfollow or block me on the way off of this post.

[butyouvealwaysbeenthecaretaker]

nettlepatchwork...

I'm sorry, this is not a great take. XR has been criticized for encouraging protestors to get arrested, without sufficient concern about the extra risk this poses to black members. BLM protests are organized with this in mind. White protestors are asked to form "human shields." My friends who are EXTREMELY active in the climate movement also have reservations about XR for this reason... of course some - perhaps many - people are using these concerns as an excuse not to get involved in any activism. It's true that people with decry a movement as "problematic" and then sit at home doing nothing. But this post comes across as dismissing real concerns, and suggesting that black people should be willing to risk murder for actions largely organized by white people.

Thank you as ever for disagreement friend, and this is a reply I definitely want to amplify. <3

I had a wall of text written out in reply, but I don’t think it does good to post it. It’s a good response, and I don’t want to detract/distract from it by making it a conversation instead of a statement.

(But i took my meds today, so my “I just have a few thoughts...” second pass is also quite unwieldy)

The critiques I am talking about absolutely implied that activism, as a kind of nice hobby, should be inclusive as a sports club or a band and, therefore, because direct action protest carried greater risks for some people than others, it was exclusionary, and should not be done. I have not encountered the idea that direct action can be consciously better designed by marginalised people for their own needs, and that the context of participating in a white-dominated campaign might produce avoidable problems. This is fantastic (& I’m going to pass the human shield bit on). But, if this is what the other critiques meant to communicate - then that may be a failure of me to understand nuance, or of how it was written. As written, it comes out as...”you should stop doing any form of risky direct action because it excludes people, just like when the local gay book group chooses to meet in a cafe that doesn’t have a ramp”.

& this plays into what modern climate change denial looks like in Europe: “It’s happening, of course, but we can’t do anything about it”, with “do” standing in for everything from green energy, to agriculture, to car culture when you’re talking to powerful people; and then for ordinary folks, like, “of course it’s happening, but you can’t expect me to give up my three holidays abroad every year”, or whatever this looks like on a personal level. “Of course it’s happening, but you can’t expect me to risk adverse confrontations with a bigoted social system”. “Of course it’s happening, but I would prefer to stand in solidarity with marginalised people by not joining your campaign”. “Of course it’s happening, but I can’t join your campaign unless you also campaign on {these other things}”. Some of these complaints are more legit than others, but they all stem from the same sense that climate action is nice to do because we’re good people - but not real, or urgent, at all. It’s not polite to say in Europe that climate change is fake; but no one really behaves as if they believe in it either. And after a while, it does all blur into one big reason why we’re going to kick this down the road so the next government can deal with it.

It’s not positive to be grumpy about things without trying to look for a productive endpoint, so I guess my question back would be...

What can XR do to resolve this issue in future, if experienced white anti-racists and black environmentalists choose not to participate? And what effective - not just performative - steps do we need to take to increase that participation?

Decentralised volunteer campaigns are shaped by the people in the room, and succeed or fail by the efforts of people spotting things that need doing, and getting them done. If you have identified a problem, then decentralised culture relies on you not sitting on the sidelines and complaining, but taking ownership of it. So, the frustration for me is - a great many people making criticisms, which is easy, but none of them then show up at their local group branch and say “I am going to take the lead on making change”. Which is hard work!

I do not believe that a white-dominated group can be effectively anti-racist. For the culture to feel *authentically* diverse, not just nice words, you need large numbers of people there - shaping the culture, the words, the priorities - and also in leadership roles. It can’t be christmas decorations, it can’t be a performance, it certainly can’t be a room full of nice white people talking about racism. It has to be - at its core, innately, organically, rooted in the priorities and language of the minority group in question. You can’t fake a thing like that. It’s in your bones, a feeling of “home”.

I think about this a lot; but it keeps coming back to this chicken and egg. The idea of “don’t expect marginalised people to do the labour of making the space safe; make it safe, then we’ll show up” - I understand why that’s desired, but it isn’t practical. No one else is going to do it as well as people speaking from their own experiences, about their own needs.

So ultimately, if I’ve misunderstood the critique I was whining about, I’m glad to be corrected (& I’m going to talk to some of my folks about maybe getting in contact with BLM for like, some advice on running a demo); but I still don’t know how a group with a majority white presence could *ever* resolve this issue, without black participants taking the lead on our action design. And that comes back to: the importance of narratives being shared and promoted, which seem to have the effect of discouraging participation from the very people most able to resolve it.

But yeah. I sincerely welcome any resources people reading this and rolling their eyes at my bullshit have for improving on this, and especially things that have worked for other campaigns historically because, like. It isn’t just us. Alternatively, high profile environment groups built by people of colour who have a presence in Wales. And above all, of course dear readers, you looking up your local XR chapter and taking on an organising role to work on this issue.

[writcraft]

Racism, Tone-Policing and Speaking Out in Fandom

Unequivocal condemnation of fanfic or art that glorifies or romanticises the Nazi regime and/or promotes a narrative which erases its significant horrors feels like it should be an easy position to take. A no-brainer. This wasn’t an example of art designed to make us uncomfortable or to provoke discussion; it was an unthinking, romanticised depiction of a regime that committed galling atrocities, swiftly followed by the lightwashing of a canonically black fictional character. We inhabit an online space where misinformation travels rapidly, where white supremacism thrives. This should be a something people can publicly condemn without worrying unduly about any potential backlash. 

The fact that even speaking out on this topic has caused people - including queer, Jewish people - to feel silenced, attacked, tone-policed and chastised as they share their reaction to something they consider abhorrent is symptomatic of a much broader issue in fandom spaces broadly and it is that which I want to talk about in this post. I don’t want to conflate racism in fandom with the now two instances of Nazi-themed Harry/Draco art, but I think a lot has been said on the latter and want to take the opportunity to use what has happened over the last two days as a jumping off point to think about the former. When it comes to callout, to speaking out and to our responsibilities as fans, I think there are important connections. 

The unfettered protection of freedom of content creation is something I have passionately defended and will continue to do so throughout my time in fandom. This is demonstrated by the spaces I have either created or moderated for several years, most notably HP Kinkfest and HP Horror Fest. However, protecting that position is often the point at which conversations get closed, the trump card played to end all other discussions that might make us - and by us I mean white fans like myself - uncomfortable with the conversations being instigated. I’m not convinced that ‘unfollow me now’ posts are ever particularly helpful, as they have an air of performative allyship about them, leading to echo-chambers and knee-jerk responses, and one thing we are particularly bad at these days is engaging with any difficult topics with nuance.

As ever, this post is long, and there are some resources at the end should you wish to keep reading.

Difficult conversations in fandom are those which force us to critically interrogate our own modes of fannish engagement, and the extent to which we listen when invited to consider if the things we uphold as progressive are really progressive at all. Perhaps the fallout from this latest debacle is a good time to sit back and consider the things we speak out about, the things we don’t speak out about, the centering of white voices and perspectives, the privilege that comes from being able to leave certain discussions to other people simply because they are difficult and, by extension, the groups we expect to take on the responsibility and emotional labour involved with speaking out. Perhaps this might prompt us to examine the way we react to things without thoughtful critique of broader socio-political structures in place that become part of fandom’s hierarchy of conversation and content creation.

It is not enough to react to a something that creates a visceral response from the majority of people in a fandom but then ignore the less comfortable questions that flow from it. To assert a position on extreme examples of something that is not okay but then refuse to listen to people who express discomfort about things which might harsh your own fannish squee or might force you to consider the less instinctively obvious ways you might be contributing to racism in fandom is an inconsistent, safe way of engaging with the complexities that come from critiquing fandom spaces. The appearance of now two pieces of art that provoke almost universal fandom-wide disgust cannot be the only time we actively demonstrate an interest in expressing vocally that racism and white supremacy has no place in our fandom spaces.

We are ten years on from Race Fail ‘09 yet conversations around race are still being derailed, tones being policed, POC fans being portrayed as particularly angry, impolite or prone to complaint. I have seen this happen on multiple occasions, where the platform for critical discussion of content creation in fandom has been stripped away, or people have been silenced, in pursuit of protecting the fun part of fandom, the right to produce content unfettered, protecting the ability for women to create uncensored. I fundamentally believe the latter is an important, joyous and political act of fandom experience, but it loses some of its politicised resonance when that starting point is used to silence others trying to start critically nuanced discussions. 

Freedom of content cannot be the point at which we disavow ourselves of any responsibility to question the things that inform our own perspectives. We cannot allow our passionate defence of that position to cloud our ability to listen to other perspectives. I’m not here to protect the children, but we must not conflate resistance to conservative-leaning narratives that advocate for sanitised and problem-free content, with the issues fans from marginalised groups try to raise about the way fandom has work to do when it comes to having proper conversations around queerness, race, misogyny and so on. We cannot on the one hand rush to condemn a pretty obvious issue, and on the other fail to think about the other questions it raises because it might stop us from having a good time.

The difficult conversations that spring to mind – the ones that get immediately shut down – include thinking critically about objects of fandom, the tendency to approach questions of social justice through an American (frequently white) lens, the continued dominance of white, cis-male slash ships, inability to critique - or listen to critique of - the things we love when canon or creators make decisions that leave people distressed. The conversations include thinking about how fictional characters are romanced or sanitised to the point at which their fanon portrayal erases any of their past political choices, tokenism, shutting down conversations around racebending and failing to understand why – for some POC fans – that doesn’t feel representative when it is handled unthinkingly in fanfiction produced by white authors. 

To refuse to engage with these questions often involves shouting over or silencing people who are trying to explain why something makes them uncomfortable in pursuit of protecting freedoms afforded to us as we create unfettered content. I’m not suggesting that we should not be free to create content – we are, all of us – aware of the slipperiness of that particular slope, but with that freedom comes a responsibility. If we care about the voices frequently talked over within our fandom, we – and I include myself in this – need to be better at listening when people force us to examine our own modes of engagement. This involves taking the time to conduct our own research, to take that responsibility upon ourselves instead of expecting others to educate us. It involves researching political posts we put on our blogs together with assessing the fandom content we produce and engage with. Are they accurate? Are they correct? It involves labour, time taken to educate ourselves, and balancing speaking out with knowing when that becomes speaking over, knowing when to sit down, shut up and listen. 

I am writing this because I have been culpable. On many occasions I have remained silent on issues or refused to confront difficult situations for fear of losing friendships or to protect my own status within fandom. I have found certain conversations uncomfortable and have therefore avoided them altogether for fear of being seen as a trouble-maker, or someone who is trying to police or gatekeep fandom content whilst simultaneously wanting to so fiercely protect freedom of content creation. I have had several friends call me out on this, and my discomfort with taking on fraught topics when feelings are involved is something I have had to re-examine. Thank you to the friends who have challenged me on this. It is a brave thing to do, something I haven’t always responded well to, and I appreciate you for a much-needed dose of honesty. This post by @dictacontrion (rightfully) made me uncomfortable because it has called me out. In particular, this:

If we are not willing to speak up and take action, if we are not willing to risk our comfort, risk our status, risk our ease in order to defend freedom and equality, than we are not defenders freedom and equality. If we are not willing to speak up and take action in defense of our principles, our principles mean nothing.  

I am working on my own methods of fandom engagement. I apologise for all of those conversations I have taken myself out of because they were hard, and I promise I will strive to do better. As noted above we are a decade on from Race Fail, but these patterns continue to occur. I want to conclude by noting that the perspectives I have outlined above do not come from my own work. They come from the – often free and emotionally exhaustive – labour that has been put into raising these issues and asking those difficult questions within fandom space and within the broader sphere of fan studies. The work of Dr Rukmini Pande, Stich’s Media Mix and the many guests that have featured on @fansplaining episodes have been instrumental starting points for me and I have included some of the links below for that I would encourage people to consider listening to and reading together with exploring the links in the show notes and the Twitter accounts, blogs and tumblrs of the featured guests.

Episode 22A - Race and Fandom Part 1: Fansplaining’s Flourish and Elizabeth follow up on the last episode’s questions about the impact of racism in the Star Wars fandom—and how it’s a microcosm of fandom at large. They interview Rukmini Pande and Clio, and they hear clips from Holly Quinn, Shadowkeeper, and PJ Punla. Topics covered include the historical presence of fans of colour, space nazis, femslash and its discontents, and the Filipino perspective on the whiteness of media. 

Episode 22B - Race and Fandom Part 2:  In the second and final installment of Fansplaining’s “Race and Fandom” episodes, fans of colour continue to speak about their experiences in fandom. Elizabeth and Flourish interview Jeffrey Lyles and Zina, then hear clips from Roz, Traci-Anne, and zvi LikesTV. Topics covered include being Black and Jewish, Star Wars weddings, cosplaying characters of color, and why kink is never divorced from the real world.

Episode 89 - Rukmini Pande:  An episode where Dr. Rukmini Pande, a fan studies scholar whose new book, Squee From the Margins, explores race in both the field as well as fandom at large. Topics discussed include defining the boundaries of “fandom,” how queerness and gender structure fan studies while race typically does not, closed vs open digital platforms, how fandom discussions of racism are often relegated to “crisis points,” and more.

I also recommend the Transformative Works and Cultures Journal special edition on Fans of Color, Fandoms of Color (Vol 29 (2019)) which is freely accessible and edited by Abigail De Kosnik and André Carrington. 

[madduhhline]

Quarantine Life: A Reading List

Here is a booklist for 4th of July that we White people need to read instead of just blindly celebrating 4th of July. Special thanks to Bookstgram Represent for additional resources on bookstore and additional readings. They’ve answered so many questions and helped me make sure that this list focuses on Black writers. Only one book on this list has a white author but it came as a suggestion from a group I was in from a Black teacher so it is included. This isn’t a complete list but over the last few weeks these are what I’ve started my readings with. So, let’s get started.

This post does contain affiliate links to Bookshop.org

Me and White Supremacy: Combat Racism, Change the World, and Become a Good Ancestor by Layla F. Saad

This eye-opening book challenges you to do the essential work of unpacking your biases, and helps white people take action and dismantle the privilege within themselves so that you can stop (often unconsciously) inflicting damage on people of color, and in turn, help other white people do better, too.

Diversify by June Sarpong

Putting the spotlight on groups who are often marginalised in our society, including women, ethnic minorities, those living with disabilities, and the LGBTQ+ community, Diversify uncovers the hidden cost of exclusion and shows how a new approach to how we learn, live and do business can solve some of the most stubborn challenges we face.

With unshakeable case studies, brand-new research from Oxford University, and six revolutionary steps to help you overcome unconscious bias, this book will help you become part of a better society.

I’m Still Here: Black Dignity in a World Made for Whiteness: Austin Channing Brown

Austin Channing Brown's first encounter with a racialized America came at age 7, when she discovered her parents named her Austin to deceive future employers into thinking she was a white man. Growing up in majority-white schools, organizations, and churches, Austin writes, "I had to learn what it means to love blackness," a journey that led to a lifetime spent navigating America's racial divide as a writer, speaker and expert who helps organizations practice genuine inclusion.In a time when nearly all institutions (schools, churches, universities, businesses) claim to value "diversity" in their mission statements, I'm Still Here is a powerful account of how and why our actions so often fall short of our words. Austin writes in breathtaking detail about her journey to self-worth and the pitfalls that kill our attempts at racial justice, in stories that bear witness to the complexity of America's social fabric--from Black Cleveland neighborhoods to private schools in the middle-class suburbs, from prison walls to the boardrooms at majority-white organizations.

Pushout: The Criminalization of Black Girls in Schools by Monique W. Morris

In a work that Lisa Delpit calls "imperative reading," Monique W. Morris (Black Stats, Too Beautiful for Words) chronicles the experiences of Black girls across the country whose intricate lives are misunderstood, highly judged--by teachers, administrators, and the justice system--and degraded by the very institutions charged with helping them flourish. Called "compelling" and "thought-provoking" by Kirkus Reviews, Pushout exposes a world of confined potential and supports the rising movement to challenge the policies, practices, and cultural illiteracy that push countless students out of school and into unhealthy, unstable, and often unsafe futures.

Called a book "for everyone who cares about children" by the Washington Post, Morris's illumination of these critical issues is "timely and important" (Booklist) at a moment when Black girls are the fastest growing population in the juvenile justice system. Praised by voices as wide-ranging as Gloria Steinem and Roland Martin, and highlighted for the audiences of Elle and Jet right alongside those of EdWeek and the Leonard Lopate Show, Pushout is a book that "will stay with you long after you turn the final page" (Bookish).

Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong by James W. Loewen

Since its first publication in 1995, Lies My Teacher Told Me has become one of the most important--and successful--history books of our time. Having sold nearly two million copies, the book also won an American Book Award and the Oliver Cromwell Cox Award for Distinguished Anti-Racist Scholarship and was heralded on the front page of the New York Times.

For this new edition, Loewen has added a new preface that shows how inadequate history courses in high school help produce adult Americans who think Donald Trump can solve their problems, and calls out academic historians for abandoning the concept of truth in a misguided effort to be "objective."

What started out as a survey of the twelve leading American history textbooks has ended up being what the San Francisco Chronicle calls "an extremely convincing plea for truth in education." In Lies My Teacher Told Me, James W. Loewen brings history alive in all its complexity and ambiguity. Beginning with pre-Columbian history and ranging over characters and events as diverse as Reconstruction, Helen Keller, the first Thanksgiving, the My Lai massacre, 9/11, and the Iraq War, Loewen offers an eye-opening critique of existing textbooks, and a wonderful retelling of American history as it should--and could--be taught to American students.

*Specifically the chapters regarding slavery. This was a suggestion from a Black womxn in my Womxn for Tri for Justice. She said that Chapter’s 5 & 6 should start as required reading about slavery and then reading the whole book. The edition pictured above does not include the new preface. 

They Were Her Property: White Women as Slave Owners in the American South by Stephanie E. Jones-Rogers

Bridging women's history, the history of the South, and African American history, this book makes a bold argument about the role of white women in American slavery. Historian Stephanie E. Jones-Rogers draws on a variety of sources to show that slave-owning women were sophisticated economic actors who directly engaged in and benefited from the South's slave market. Because women typically inherited more slaves than land, enslaved people were often their primary source of wealth. Not only did white women often refuse to cede ownership of their slaves to their husbands, they employed management techniques that were as effective and brutal as those used by slave-owning men. White women actively participated in the slave market, profited from it, and used it for economic and social empowerment. By examining the economically entangled lives of enslaved people and slave-owning women, Jones-Rogers presents a narrative that forces us to rethink the economics and social conventions of slaveholding America.

[ccc-sarahjaneseddon]

I have done this task for Week 10 Separately compared to in a group.

Notes for video

Categories - Maori asian and Pacifica. 

Pataka in Porirua creates a space for conversation. 

Relating to Cantonese Chinese - Her heritage and her ancestors.

Tracing back to the whakapapa

Framing Identify - Making home in ‘ The space between’ cultural frames. Space between worlds. Longing to belong. 

Where are you from? - This is a confronting question - What are the prompts in conversation? We always assuming the dominant is pakeha European. Feel like you don’t belong, are you from here?

Dominant cultures

New Zealand design DNA - What we make and generate. 

What could an asian perspective look like?

Be critically aware of using words/terms - Asian, Chinese, Eurasian, People of colour/POC 

Where are you from? = Where are you local to? - Tūrangawaewae - Where you stand, where your ancestors are buried.

Mixed decent 

Depiction of the early Chinese settlers coming to the country as an unwelcome force. Idea of the allien. 

Stereotypes. 

Waves of migration shown throughout each cartoon - book is available in Massey

Poll tax for Chinese migrants when coming in.

The New Gold Mountain 

Gods own country is shown in traditional landscape painting - People of the land, idea of outsider.

Chinese Māori Narratives.

Idea of the “other”

Finding power, differences and voicing otherness.

Pride and ownership = who you are? where you are from?

Kerry has her own works - Eg, painting over colonial works.

People think you are connected with the home land even though you are very much from here.

Communities of infinity - Working together, allows for movement.

Collective kaupapa 

Why am I still in wellington? I like bringing the ideas back here. 

Collage and montage - piecing worlds together

Connection to space and community. Each city has its own space eg in Porirua

Becoming the media - useful for marginalised communities 

Asian New Zealand Identity - What are some stereotypes?

Met resistance from Chinese families

Ingrain cultural stereotypes within a home space - eg why ain’t you doing accounting?...

Elephant in the room - property crisis

Strategic for ANZ = focussing on asian migrants

What it means to be a New Zealander

What it means to be isolated

Alternate world view

Kerry Ann Lee

Return to Skyland (wallpaper detail), 2018 Kerry Ann Lee Mixed media installation commissioned by Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa Digital video projection, custom wallpaper print, furniture, foil curtain Photo courtesy of Te Papa

https://www.jacksonsart.com/blog/2019/02/18/kerry-ann-lee-jacksons-open-painting-prize-2019-expert-judge/

Kerry Ann Lee Lucky Strike 2017. Courtesy Bartley + Company Art. https://citygallery.org.nz/events/digital-art-workshop-with-kerry-ann-lee/

Restaurants (2007). Image from the artist. Kerry Ann Lee http://eyecontactsite.com/2014/10/kerry-ann-lees-lambda-prints

Above are some examples of Kerry Ann Lee’s works.

Where are you from? Her artworks are showing the ideas of mixing two worlds, her whakapapa, ancestors and tupuna colonising/migrating to New Zealand. She has collided two backgrounds, the idea that she lives in New Zealand but her family is from asian countries. She has brought 2 worlds together throughout her paintings. 

Lee, Kerry Ann. “A Chinese Perspective on Art & Design & Asian Roots in Aotearoa.” 237.131 off-site lecture on occasion of the Fruits in the Backwater exhibition. Pātaka Art & Museum, 28 September 2017, Pātaka Art +Museum, Porirua. Lecture. (Total viewing time: 55 mins)

[lordendsavior]

Harry Styles is a faithful disciple of silence. He rarely does interviews, and when he does he speaks with charm and cheek while avoiding any nuggets of actual information that could be described as revealing. Until he started doing press around his debut solo album this spring, giving him various bits of artwork and magazine covers to screengrab, his Instagram looked like an A-Level photography project—full of dramatically monochrome shots of infrastructure and food. His Twitter timeline is essentially a corkboard littered with messages expressing thanks to his fans, structured like love letters from a husband in the trenches—"See you soon. Love. H."

In our climate of oversharing, his withholding nature may conveniently double up as a watertight marketing tactic, creating a shroud of mystery that's inherently desirable (what's he wearing today? What's he eating for breakfast? What does he do when he's not making scheduled public appearances?). But for him, it's more than that – "When I go home, I feel like the same person I was at school," he told Rolling Stone earlier this year, "You can't expect to keep that if you show everything."

This is why you don't often see Harry Styles among the names that frequent the daily aggregated news cycle of and Person Says Thing > The Thing is Outrageous! > Actually, The Thing Is Very Nuanced > Ugh, Someone Has Said Something Else Now. He has, to paraphrase someone he once dated, removed himself from the narrative. But, at the same time, Styles has created a narrative that exists just between him and his fans. Simply put: he cares about them, very sincerely and very unabashedly. Which isn't unusual—Lady Gaga is a perfect example of the often very intimate way fandom culture works today—but Harry Styles is muse to such a vast number of teenage girls, a demographic whose interests and opinions are rarely taken seriously by music critics or society at large, that his respect for them takes on a different meaning. It's a relationship best summarized by the following quote from Styles in that Rolling Stone interview: "Who's to say that young girls who like pop music—short for popular, right?—have worse musical taste than a 30-year-old hipster guy? That's not up to you to say." He goes on: "Teenage-girl fans—they don't lie. If they like you, they're there. They don't act 'too cool.' They like you, and they tell you. Which is sick."

This was also the defining characteristic of One Direction's relationship with their fandom. They knew exactly who elevated them from bronze winners of a generic talent contest to global superstardom, they knew exactly who kept them there, and in return they gave them what they wanted. In the wake of their split, journalist Anna Leszkiewicz described One Direction as "a towering monument to the power of teenage girls."

It would have been both a strange and fairly stupid move for Styles to abandon that relationship moving into his solo career, but if anything he seems to have doubled down. He still doesn't say a great deal to the press, save for the endless shouts of appreciation for the people who make his life possible—namely, his fans and faves (artists like Stevie Nicks, to whom Harry Styles owes much of its inspiration)—but over time he's fostered a channel of trust that means his shows have become as close to a safe space as is possible for young girls to get as far as experiencing live music is concerned.

Harry Styles is currently touring Europe. He passed through London last weekend, with fans arriving to camp outside Hammersmith's Eventim Apollo in west London as early as Tuesday. Approaching the venue on Sunday evening, the area outside is deserted. It looks like a Glastonbury camping zone on clean-up day. Duvets are draped over the empty barriers; the floor is littered with foil blankets and carrier bags full of empty sandwich boxes and crisp packets; Pride Flags and Black Lives Matter placards have been taped in place like calls to arms. Everyone is already inside, obviously, and has been for ages. There are about 50 girls camping across the road on a patch of grass underneath Hammersmith flyover so they can be first in line for tomorrow's show. To arrive on time to a Harry Styles show is akin to missing it.

As for inside the venue, you can hardly see the stage for the number of LGBTQ Pride and Black Lives Matter signs held aloft by the audience. In Manchester, people also held up the city's bee symbol. The "I love you"s and "Marry me"s stereotypically associated with teen girl fandom are still very much there in spirit, but their articulation has taken on an actively political tone. The rainbow, the striking black and white of the BLM logo, the Manchester bee—all are symbols of support shared widely on social media, where pop fanbases tend to be most active, exemplifying a generational shift in consciousness towards social awareness. Here, they're brandished less a show of resistance and more as a celebration. People feel comfortable expressing themselves this way because they know everyone in the room is already on their side.

Styles has spoken generally about equality in the press before ("Most of the stuff that hurts me about what's going on at the moment is not politics, it's fundamentals," he told Rolling Stone. "Equal rights. For everyone, all races, sexes, everything"), but it's what he says at his shows, addressing people directly, that means the most to those who care the most. Throughout the night he encourages people to be "whoever you want to be in this room" and continually thanks them "from the bottom of my heart." Someone throws a Pride Flag on stage and he holds it with both hands above his head and runs back and forth across the stage. Someone else throws a French flag and he does the same. Someone else throws a bit of tinsel and he drapes it around his shoulders like a stole.

The room is full of groups of teenage girls hugging each other, hugging people they didn't know, turning to ask the people behind them if they could see alright. Anyone crammed towards the front has been there from the second the doors opened, denying themselves water or a sit-down so they could be as close to their idol as possible. The show had to be stopped twice to help two girls who fainted in the pit. Harry calmly asked people to take a step back, repeatedly checked if everyone was okay and spoke soothingly about looking after one another. He played "Kiwi" twice because it's what the fans wanted, though not without a bit of showmanship ("if you want us to play it again you're going to have to scream louder than that").

It's also worth noting that, although it was ostensibly The Harry Styles Show, five of the ten people onstage are women. As well as a female drummer and keyboardist playing in his own band, he's being supported by MUNA—a goth-pop trio from LA whose music communicates the emotional disarray of sexuality and relationships, as well as heavier topics like assault, through a specifically queer lens. On stage in Hammersmith this weekend, they repeatedly acknowledged the marginalised communities present within the crowd, providing reassurance that—in this room, at least—they are seen and heard. There are, sadly, so many awful reasons to feel unsafe at any show, but in light of the Manchester Arena bombing, pop shows now carry a particularly horrific association that lingers in the back of your mind and can make you inadvertently take note of the emergency exits. Rather than avoiding it, guitarist/vocalist Naomi McPherson addresses the elephant in the room and reminds people how brave they are for being here at all. Singer Katie Gavin introduces their single "I Know A Place"—essentially the San Junipero episode of Black Mirror as a song—by describing it as their imagining of an ideal world we should be working towards. "I know a place we can run / Where everyone gonna lay down their weapon," Gavin sings over a dancey four-to-the-floor beat, "Don't you be afraid of love and affection."

For all the talk of inclusivity and equal rights often thrown around within subcultural communities like punk, hardcore and indie—predominantly male-dominated spaces that can't seem to go a day without someone in a band being called out as abusive—it strikes me as significant that this is one of the few shows I've ever been to where I've not felt threatened by anyone in the room. And it's not because I am, at 5 feet 3 inches, one of the largest people in this one. It's because Harry Styles supports his fans' politics while they really live it, and as a result his shows have become a place for people to celebrate being whoever they are. The diversity of the room itself speaks to that. He's cheering just as much for his fans as they are for him.

Pop music is accessible and available in ways that more subcultural music isn't, but this dynamic doesn't just present itself anywhere. Justin Bieber shows, ecstatic as they may be, are not largely comprised of kids shouting down racism while overtly celebrating their queerness. Pop, like all music, can often be a form of escapism—a way to forget yourself, especially if being yourself can mean facing a multitude of hardships. The actual content of Harry Styles' music isn't anywhere near political but, because of the way his fans engage with him and each other, his shows inherently are.

Obviously, anything can happen anywhere and anytime. Harry Styles' name on the front of a building can't guarantee the absolute safety of everyone in it. But it does foster a world away from our current one; a world that feels less oppressive and more like MUNA's "I Know A Place." I can't imagine how valuable it is for teenagers to experience that—even if it's just for a night.

[bougiebutchbinch]

I think I've finally nailed down my biggest issue with the OFMD fandom.

It's important to represent queer joy and a struggle-free queer life in fiction, full of people who accept themselves for who they are. It's great to see queer characters living and loving happily, without self-hate.

Queer struggles are important too, and should be represented.

Those who struggled - often for years, while facing a horrifically repressive society that many of us young'uns cannot appreciate - to come to terms with their queerness have worth. Those who were afraid to come out, for whatever reason, deserve representation too.

Likewise, it's important to represent disabled joy and a struggle-free disabled life in fiction - for all sorts of disabilities, but especially for those who have congenital issues that they may not consider disabilities, as they don't inherently cause deleterious side-effects like chronic pain or fatigue (i.e., many d/Deaf folks and folks with facial differences. Not so much a 'knee brace' that is literally just fanon. Don't give writers credit for creating a disabled main character if they refuse to acknowledge him as such, and his 'aid' was literally a fashion accessory that he gives to his boyfriend at one point to complete his 'look' when they're dressing up as each other. Signed: someone who actually wears knee braces lmaooooo)

But guess what.

Disabled struggles are important to represent, too.

For many of us in the (incredibly diverse and varied) disabled community, disability hit us like a truck of bricks. I went from being an incredibly fit and active young person, to being a young person who often literally cannot move their legs, because they're stuck partially out of socket at the hip and any movement is agony, or because my spinal problems mean they're spasming so hard that walking is impossible, or they're simply unable to hold my (very light) weight. A lot of us are in a significant amount of pain that able-bodied people cannot even imagine, day after day after day. A lot of us were traumatised by our disabilities. A lot of us took a long time to accept and love ourselves.

Our disabilities aren't loved. They're horrific. They're hated. They're something we continuously will be struggling with throughout our lives.

And we deserve rep, too.

And we will be upset, when that rep follows an arc that greatly mirrors what a lot of us go through, only to still say they want to die.

When a show has lots of queer rep and disabled rep, that's great. But you have to ask: what types of queer and disabled rep are they showcasing? What types are they allowing to live? What types of queer/disabled rep do they consider to have 'served their narrative purpose' when they finally attain a stage of queer/disabled joy and self-love that the other characters are on? What message does that send?

Your fave show is not above criticism, especially from the marginalised groups it is trying to represent.

[thelocalrebel]

hashtag activism: the intersection of youths, activism, and social media

A quick glance around any public place will reveal much about our society. This common sight would greet our eyes: people of various ages staring into pixelated screens, their fingers tapping away on the flashing surface.

 In this digital age, many of us enjoy the benefits of technology. In fact, Singapore’s youths spend an average of 3.4 hours a day online. While some may question the benefits of spending so much time online, it is certain that youths are now more exposed to current affairs through the use of social media. After all, many news platforms now use various social media accounts to update the world on social issues and news since mobile media is now a fact of life.

One common theme that connects youths, the world at large, and advocating social issues via the internet would be “hashtag activism”. In simple terms, hashtag activism describes the use of an online hashtag on a media platform to advocate a cause. Examples of such hashtag activism would include #BlackLivesMatter and #LoveWins.

Some may question the effectiveness of advocating social causes through the internet, but with so many people available online, we cannot deny that hashtag activism raises awareness for social causes, and helps spread the message at a rapid pace. In fact, before hashtag activism began, people took advantage of the Internet to further their social cause. For example, during the Arab Spring, many Egyptians used Facebook, Blackberry Messenger and other social media apps to send messages regarding protest details to one another. These actions were later dubbed as a “digital democracy”, showing how much influence social media can have over social causes.

 With hashtag activism on the rise, more social causes are gaining recognition at a fast pace. An example of a successful hashtag activism would be the famous ALS Ice Bucket Challenge that went viral in 2014. Many people, including famous celebrities like Tom Cruise and Robert Downey Jr., poured buckets of ice over their heads in videos to spread awareness about the neurological disease, and to encourage donating to its research. As a result of this viral #ALSIceBucketChallenge, the campaign managed to raise more than $100 million within 30 days and enabled Project MinE to discover a new gene associated to the disease, greatly increasing the chances of finding a treatment. 

Despite this, the success of hashtag activism is questionable. some may argue that youths hop onto hashtags for narcissistic reasons. Youths may do it to go with the flow, or to appear well-informed and to take on the role  as a passionate activist, with the end goal of winning admiration from friends. Hence, youths may end up misusing the hashtag, or fail to understand the meaning behind the hashtag entirely. For instance, I’m sure we all have friends who participated in the Ice Bucket challenge via their social media, mistaking it for a mere viral challenge.

An example of a not-so-successful hashtag activism would be #BringBackOurGirls. More than a week after extremist group Boko Haram kidnapped 276 female students from Government Secondary School in Chibok in April 2014, a lawyer first tweeted #BringBackOurGirls. Despite having celebrities like Kim Kardashian and public figures like Michelle Obama tweeting #BringBackOurGirls, less than a hundred girls have been found and reunited with their families. As activism does not end with raising awareness and not everybody is willing to follow through with actions, the nature and purpose of hashtag activism has been questioned numerous times - it may also appear to most that youths do not notice social issues until they have been made “viral” by public figures.

If reaching to youths via social media is the one of the few ways to draw their attention to current affair and social issues, is it not worrying that the success of hashtag activism is so unpredictable? 

Youths are known for not being able to engage in political conversations and turning a blind eye to the less fortunate around them. It is probably very easy for us to name friends our age who do not catch up on current affairs and know little about social causes. For example, I have friends who did not know that Brexit stood for British Exit, who did not understand what refugees were, friends who could name me the upcoming events from their favourite KPOP groups but did not know of the political scandal in South Korea, and friends who did not know who Donald Trump is. I find myself starting to use the term “friends” more and more loosely.

Just last year, shortly after the results of the US Presidential Elections, a local post went viral online, in which students of a reputable school voiced their support for president-elect Donald Trump and his infamous policies. While these youths are keeping themselves updated on current affairs, it is exceedingly unsettling to see them celebrate the win of a sexist, chauvinistic, xenophobic, homophobic, (and basically very vile) man. As seen from our Twitter thread on this issue, we believe that such comments were made precisely because those students come from a place of privilege, and fail to understand the suffering of the marginalised.

Hence, despite having youths who keep up with current affairs, ensuring that these youths will be able to empathise and understand the pain of minority groups and direct their energy and time to helping them is an entirely different issue on its own. Even though youths may be educated about social issues, they lack the compassion to sympathise with those who suffer from the repercussions. In a local context, one may argue that youths, set against a backdrop of relentless academic competition and the meritocratic myth, have become desensitised to issues outside their academic bubble. That, however, is a discussion for another time.

Youths are commonly referred to as the future of a nation, the pillars of tomorrow’s society. Hence, youth apathy is a very worrying issue. In several cases, youth ignorance towards current affairs and social issues will very likely lead to the erosion of a country’s future. After all, as seen by the example on the HCI students listed above, who would want youths who support a leader who inspires so many hate crimes to lead their country in the future? Especially in a diverse, multicultural country like ours?

In this case, the fault of youth apathy would never lie with hashtag activism. The nature of hashtag activism should not be blamed for the actions and attitude of youths. Social media is merely a tool that youths use. As long as it is used right, hashtag activism will achieve success. It is a widespread action that brings many together to fight for a common cause. One should not confuse it with a trendy viral challenge to hop on. Using it to raise awareness and spread information ensures that more people know about the cause in a critical first step. Doing more in-depth research on it allows one to learn more about the cause. Perhaps there would be an online petition that you can sign, or other forms of online activism and movements that you can join. Furthermore, with technology being an integral part of our lives, online activism is extremely accessible, allowing a larger audience to join in the fight for social justice. This is very important in a country like ours, where many are probably held back by the chains of society’s conservative mindset and are therefore unable to educate themselves or contribute freely to social causes.

The decision to eradicate youth apathy ultimately lies with us. With youths. It is very important for us to educate ourselves in order to become the ones who will empower and help others in the near future. In fact, the next time your uninformed acquaintance asks you about that viral hashtag appearing everywhere, ask them to do research on their own, and then ask them - #HowDoYou(ths)Feel? Hopefully that would kickstart them to joining the cause and educating themselves better on social issues.

[standupmagazine-blog]

Why we wanted to get involved in that boring subject called politics

What do you do when the unthinkable happens? Twice in 2016, I awoke to that question after a long night of dozing and starts in front of rolling news coverage. That now infamous morning on November was a haze of nagging dread and disbelief. What now? At midday driving through the streets of Sunderland to get to St Peter’s campus, the roads were still sleepy. The radio chat was of aching voices, all echoing the same shock. Nobody could understand how it had happened. Nobody understood how America could have chosen a man who had been caught on tape bragging about sexual assault as president. Trump represented erratic bigotry. He threw out slurs and hatred at each rally, and gave different promises with every speech. Nobody knew what that would mean, but hope had been extinguished. The helplessness that Remainers had felt in the summer had trebled; there was some comfort in knowing that Brexit was an isolated event — that was our country’s choice alone but now there was guilt. Had Brexit inspired a wider lurch to the right? It was fitting that my reaction was to want to surround myself with my peers at Sunderland university. In July, Sunderland unexpectedly felt the global spotlight. The New York Times even wrote on how this poor city had voted overwhelmingly for Brexit despite the pain it would inflict, and now we were looking at the US and muttering the same shock about their choice. On days like those nothing gets done. Our tutor gave up in defeat and for our three-hour session, he threw out the lesson plan to discuss business models and gave us the time to vent, rage, and almost cry over the state of everything; from Trump, Brexit, climate change, marginalisation, the economy and to the silencing of young people. The (ever annoyingly hot) IT suite was filled with a buzzing rage that choices were being made for our futures without our consent. Unless journalists on the campus speciailise in politics, it’s not an everyday conversation people usually have, but now that changed. It was the only topic that mattered. The political discourse had failed our generation, and as aspiring journalists there was a feeling of betrayal. Perhaps I should revise my statement, because while it seemed as though nothing was achieved (except venting) a seed was planted. The five of us left that MA session feeling just as angry as before, yes, but also curious; perhaps if we worked there was something we could do. If there was any chance the Christmas break or January exams and deadline stress would distract us from the goings on of the world then it was quickly shattered when Trump confirmed he would stick by his promises, including building the wall in Mexico, and May offering nothing but a hard Brexit at any cost so long as it curbed migration. The world was burning on hate, and we’d had enough. This semester we were tasked with creating a magazine — just one — and we could choose the groups. It was a nice project; to test our design skills and our journalistic dedication but it just wasn’t satisfying. We wanted more than doing what was easy for the marks. The five of us banded together and came up with one vision: Stand Up. Never was this going to be a one magazine project, this was about getting the magazine out there to thousands of people and trying to change. This was starting our own movement, and amplifying silenced voices. We don’t have the millions in the bank that most magazines do; we actually have a grand total of zero but we have resources around us and we’re all working around the clock. The UK feels at a crisis point and quite simply, we have to do something for all of our futures.

We want to get involved with directing the narrative of the UK, but we want other people our age to feel empowered to do the same. Our writing will reflect that; we’ll list events going on around the country and find new (and accessible ways) for people to engage in politics. The challenges though, do go beyond money - but let’s face it, that’s always going to be a major stumbling block for any start up. In my course, I could not have asked for a better team. We’re loud, we have different likes but there’s an unwavering respect that means we can debate different ideas. It’s also just fun with these guys. To be honest, university gets in the way of our group chat — but there was a major problem of a project of this nature being handed to five people who just happen to be on the same course. We’ve got great representation of gender, disability, sexuality but we’re all white. In a political magazine, that’s just a major question mark against us from the beginning and rightfully so. Coming up with a plan to try to make this magazine as intersectional as possible became even more critical, and from that very fundamental level it might not even be possible. We could just ignore race because none of us can talk about it without risking talking over people, but that means we end up with a magazine that only reflects whiteness and then what’s the point? So we go back to the core of journalism and we do it right. Have you ever noticed that with almost every allyship thinkpiece, whether it be about race, trans rights, women’s rights, whatever, that the ally who penned it always has to put in somewhere “I’m so shocked that this is happening”. I don’t know when journalism came about “I”, the individual, but it’s not supposed to be, unless offering profound insight. For example: a marginalised person commenting on their experiences. An ally commenting on their experiences of others suffering and how shocked they are doesn’t count. Stand Up then needs to utilise our journalists by using us to amplify silenced voices. We’re just a means to an end for community workers, volunteers, unsung heroes etc to have their voices heard. We write for them. If we were a panel show, then we’d be the guys picking who would speak on the panel and then recording it for them. A journalist should be able to step away from themselves, it’s about the people they’re interviewing and the story at hand after all, not about us. We are seeking out as many diverse sources as possible. You know a disabled march we could feature? Great, but did the trans woman of colour find the march a safe space? Body positivity? Excellent, are there visibly disabled people in the movement? Journalism is complicit in the rise of the far right across the UK, Europe and the US by pandering to the right wing at the expense of marginalised people. This cannot happen here. We are constrained by the remit of the project. Not many magazines start out in this way. We have a single issue Brexit special to deliver which is for our MA (but about so much more than that). However, if successful we are keen to make this a monthly fixture. If the desire for the magazine is there, after the first issue there’s a lot more freedom. We can expand our team and hire more diverse writers. Until then, we have to prove that this is a respected outlet people can trust, so that they want to be associated with the brand. If we raise a profit, then that will go to paying our writers. I don’t agree with any organisation who doesn’t pay their writers (and I’ve worked at many outlets I respect and admire without pay). I’m not too proud to ask for donations so I can give money to my staff. They work damn hard and they deserve paying. Writers’ wages are an intersectional issue; those who are expected to work for free are often marginalised in some way. While middle class politicians can walk into a journalism job at a respected outlet, get paid hundreds or thousands for eight hour working weeks, marginalised writers are struggling to make it above the poverty line. I’m immensely proud of our ambitions, which were inspired by one university deadline. Hey, people are always talking down the work ethic of students, right? Well, we’ve got a huge uphill battle to climb so we can get credibility and funding, but we’re doing this because it’s simply right. We have an opportunity to try, we may never get access to design equipment like we have at the university. Just maybe, we might be able to empower a few people, or inspire a few young people to take action against fascism or stand in solidarity with marginalised people. Hannah, Siarlot, Alice and Lee have also made quite a frightening reality actually a challenge to relish. Most of the team didn’t get into journalism because of politics, but this kind of magazine is exactly why we chose this career because it’s founded on the belief that writing and broadcasting can change the world. It’s up to us to decide how we’re going to use that chance to try to make things better.

#WeStandUp

Over to your questions….

Will your magazine feature feminist advertising?

Yes, although this is our kind of default mode (and it should be for every publication anyway). We want to empower young people and it wouldn’t work to have something antifeminist feature in Stand Up. Not one of us would want that kind of content there anyway!

What has been your hardest decision?

We were offered a pretty amazing advertising deal, and it’s very early in the day for something like that. There’s a temptation just to run with it when you get an offer but it didn’t quite fit our brand. We’re going to be very content heavy, there’s not going to be a great deal of ad space in our magazine and so the link up didn’t quite marry at that moment. There may be a future deal of a different nature but it’s about having the steel to say “this isn’t quite right for us” and not just see the short-term potential and dive in at the expense of the long-term goal.

What has been the easiest consensus?

That if I forget to bring the chocolate to the next editorial meeting I’m out.

Will Stand Up be featuring youth councils as a general overview or as a regular feature? Youth councils are definitely what we’re watching and no doubt will be a great source for some of our content. Their achievements are fantastic and we do want to celebrate people getting on and trying to change things. Our brand though is looking to young people who feel overwhelmed and left behind. We want to give them a voice and find new ways of engagement. People in the youth councils are doing fantastic work, but that’s their outlet and they are engaging through that. It’s the young people who might want to join a youth council but don’t even know they exit that we’re primarily targeting. Their presence is likely to be more generic then and mentioned potentially in a range of articles rather than just having one youth council feature.

Stephanie Farnsworth

Editor, Stand Up

[kirkqcastudytrip]

Initial Green Light Project Research

Described on the artist’s website as ‘Green light is an act of welcoming, addressed both to those who have fled hardship and instability in their home countries and to the residents of the cities receiving them. …  Mass displacement and migration are core challenges in the world today, affecting millions of people around the globe. Green light displays a modest strategy for addressing the challenges and responsibilities arising from the current situation and shines a light on the value of collaborative work and thinking.’

‘multifaceted programme of creativity and shared learning.  The educational programme includes a workshop for the construction of Green light lamps, language courses, seminars, artist’s interventions, and film screenings’

- rest of website features slick interactive animation (supposedly) outlining the steps of the design, as well as a video showing the assembly of the green light.  ‘Made from recycled and sustainable materials and designed to be stackable, the Green light modules can function either on their own or be combined into more complex structures.’

Geometry of green light was developed with Einar Thorsteinn as part of his long standing research into fivefold symmetry

On artist’s website also mentions NGO Georg Danzer Haus - no links to either that or Emergency

http://olafureliasson.net/greenlight/

Francesca von Habsburg, founder of Thyssen-Bornemisza Art Contemporary (TBA21), and by TBA21’s chief curator Daniela Zyman

Made from European Ash, Recycled plastics from yogurt cups, plastic bags, recycled nylon & LED

Website also features links to a shop where the green light object is for sale for 250 euro - can be bought during course of the bienalle or mailed as a flat pack with a certificate of authenticity

All proceeds of the fundraising campaign are donated entirely to Emergency, a humanitarian NGO that work with refugees.

https://www.tba21.org/#item--greenlight_venice--1631

Issues inherent in NGO’s - resulting in lessened infrastructure in host countries (only issue if there is infrastructure at all, though)

During the planning process, they discussed the project in depth with the local aid organisations that they partnered with — Georg Danzer Haus and Caritas — who then brought in a new perspective and contributed new ideas.

http://tlmagazine.com/olafur-eliasson-on-green-light-at-tba21/

http://greenlightworkshop.org/article/about_gl_history

Pilot of project at TBA21-Augarten, Vienna - ‘structure that could be replicated and further developed in collaboration with other institutions and other contexts worldwide’

Raised over 100,000 euros

Each iteration up to 40 refugees and asylum seekers are invited for period of seven to eight weeks to build lamps - complemented by educational program based on Shared Learning principles. - ‘explore a variety of perspectives on migration, citizenship, statelessness, arrival, memory, & belonging, and generate an exchange of knowledge, experiences, and values.’

‘Green light aspires to expand by partnering with institutions around the world that are eager to use the agency of contemporary art to support processes of civic change and to test alternative forms of community.’

In first iteration in Augarten, Vienna - Shared Learning program consisted of daily German classes (devised to prepare for official language exams) - series of weekly seminars, artist’s interventions and special workshops.  

Seminars such as ‘Displaced’ and ‘History(ies) of Migration’ brought students and refugees into teams to deconstruct notion of migration & individual impacts.

Number of artists (Tarek Atoui, Johannes Porsch, Shuddhabrata Sengupta of Raqs Media Collective, and David Rych) held ‘research-based, process-oriented interventions’ - based in belief in the ‘transformative potential of collective and embodied artistic production’

International and local speakers with expertise in artistic and institutional practise or critical theory were invited to speak ‘explored the social, geopolitical, and cultural aspects of migration’.  

‘Key questions were the states of transition, globally and within the societies of arrival, the formation of new communities, and how art and its institutions can reflect and perform agency in regard to these contemporary challenges.’

Feb 24-May6 2017 held in Houston Texas (one of top 3 US cities to welcome refugees in last year) - NGO was Interfaith Ministries.  Shared Learning program involved language classes, job formation training.

May 13- Nov 26 2017 at 57th Bienalle di Venezia, Venice - Eighty Participants - Shared Learning involved vocational and practical training (job training, language courses, psychological & legal counselling), collective applied activities & discursive program of lectures, talks and seminars.  Contributors selected based on criteria such as interest in pedagogical (?) working methods, experience working with marginalised groups, development or directorship of schools or alternative educational hubs run or influenced by artists, and biographical diversity.

August 4-November 5, 2017

Invited to participate in 6th Yokohama Triennale - context of geopolitical constellations and protectionist Japanese immigration policies.  This iteration of Green light centred on ‘enclosed communities’ within Japanese society, invites climate and nuclear refugees, indochinese communities who immigrated in 1970s as well as local students & volunteers.  Shared Learning Program responds to specific context in Japan - has four local NGOs

If not a full 7 or 8 week artistic workshop, Green Light can be demonstrated in smaller formats - some ‘short seminar workshops’ that last two or three days.  Held in Art Basel, Switzerland (June 18-19, 2016), the International Peace Institute in Salzburg (IPI) (September 4-6, 2016) & the National Gallery of Prague, Czech Republic (March 17-19, 2017) - some of the above were supervised by former Green Light participants, who in some instances gave workshops or small tutorials in the assembly of the lamps as well as sharing their experiences.

http://greenlightworkshop.org/green_light

Project initiated in collaboration between Danish-Icelanding artist Olafur Eliasson & Thyssen-Bornemisza Art Contemporary, Vienna (TBA21)

http://greenlightworkshop.org/article/about_shared_learning

Shared Learning engages artists, dancers, language teachers, educators & cultural practitioners.  “school’ of Shared Learning is located in centre of Green Light Space -  curriculum has daily language classes tailored to language skills of participants & weekly psychological counselling - ‘Legal assistance & vocational training provided intermittently & upon request’

Artistic workshops are devised for the participants of Green Light therefore active participation by visitors is limited

http://greenlightworkshop.org/shared_learning - program: 6 week Occupational Consultancy, legal consultancy, workshop on fashion-textiles and identity, artistic workshops such as ‘A Cosmology of the Sea’, artist talks, film workshops

http://greenlightworkshop.org/article/You-must-have-control-of-your-life

main feature of the texts in an interview with Tahajud Alghrabi, a 48yo asylum seeker from Baghdad who used to work as a school principle  - outlines her history of migration from Iraq, syria, Jordan & turkey in 2015 cam eight husband and two sons to Austria - currently working in a school supporting teachers w/ students of migratory backgrounds

Read about Green Light on the internet - went to the first meeting - introduced herself to Francesca von Habsburg ‘I don’t have time to stay at home and wait for somebody to help me.  I want to help myself’ - wasn't on the list with the red cross but after insisting to Daniela Zyman to be admitted she told red cross it was okay.  Wanted to use program to get a job after - sort of stand in CV.   Has gone on to help other people in seeking asylum, w/ jobs and taking care of children through shared understanding of experience and language.  ‘team was really good, they knew they were dealing with people who had suffered a lot and they treated all of us very gently’

In the words of the artist: http://greenlightworkshop.org/article/Assembling-Light-Assembling-Communities ‘Art and culture, I believe, can have a pertinent role to play in responding to such events: as a start, it can reverse our emotional disconnect and, whether directly or indirectly, inspire us to take action.’

‘We believe that culture is able to shine a light on and shape discussions about contemporary global challenges such as climate change and forced migration, and is able to develop new models of interaction and catalyze positive change.’

‘The journey (from the assembly of a light module to social change) might seem long and convoluted, yet a simple but crucial first step is to trust the potential in the non-spectacular situation of sitting down together and doing something basic with out hands’

lamp is more easily assembled with two pairs of hands. even though in later interview one participant said he got it done faster by himself

lamp was developed by close friend of artist - late Einar Thorsteinn (mathematician & architect) “super cube’ - geometric study began between artist and Thorsteinn & continued by the artist and his studio.  

Hope that as Green Light community expands, cities, national governments & policy makers are influenced by creative approaches to welcoming refugees

http://greenlightworkshop.org/blog_list/8

Well kept blog with multiple posts per week - some centring on experiences of individual participants, some documentations of Shared Learning workshops

http://greenlightworkshop.org/article/A-place-where-we-could-spend-time

in interview w/ Murtaza Azimi 16yo Afghani refugee - heard about green light through his guardian ‘chance for all of us who are not going to school yet.’ mostly attracted by german classes - which quickly improved, learned to lose discomfort in the presence of people from other countries & how to live together and alongside others, ‘learned a lot about myself and about good manners and the importance of the way you behave’.

‘Yes, the project meant structure. Since the project ended, I’ve been taking language courses and two times a week I play football, and that’s it. It’s exhausting. Not being able to do anything is exhausting. Not doing anything is exhausting by itself.’

Look into experience of participants after involvement with project -

http://greenlightworkshop.org/article/Shared-Learning

‘conceived as an alternate educational model catering to plurality’

‘project answered to a double-bind systematic default: a lack of future possibilities for those who slip through the loopholes of the governing legal system and the construction of internal borders that enforce social, economic, cultural, spacial & personal marginalisation.’

cooking sessions - of interest

weekly initiatives

Participating artists focused on alternative educational models - ‘education without an emphasis on the production of expertise’

Ahmet Ögüt’s ‘Silent University’ curricula developed by refugees and migrants for refugees and migrants - to reactivate knowledge and studies that the individual can no longer practice due to circumstance

Artist-Musician Tarek Atoui’s workshop involved participants recording their environments (the park, city, instruments, speech & chants) which were subsequently composed into a sound piece.

‘internalized, institutionalized, and socialized othering and bordering can be reversed if we recognize our own situations and contributions to subtle structures of domination and are thus able to take another subject’s viewpoint’

‘

[6]

Sara Danius, Stefan Jonsson, and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, “An Interview with Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak,” Boundary 2 20, no. 2 (1993): 24.↩

https://www.tba21.org/journals/article/Hosting-the-Spirit-of-Green-light

in words of artist ‘Green light aims to decentralise hospitality’ … ‘which means there is no centre, but rather only periphery’

‘We constructed a simple experiment, in which people first had to build something together and then they had to play a sharing game with each other. This is an investment game; it is called a public goods game among economists. The idea is that I put something into a pool and you put something into a pool. We don’t know what the other person puts into the pool, but this pool magically grows and we share whatever is in it. Now the best for me would be if you put everything into the pool, I get half of your things and then I keep everything for myself. Of course for you this would be a very bad strategy, and the crucial question is if we could come up with a situation in which we both trust each other to invest the maximum. What we found in this experiment is quite surprising, namely that when people built something together, which they knew the purpose of, then they were basically investing everything in the communal pool afterward. Whereas when people didn’t know the purpose of what they were doing, then they were much more reluctant to engage in the simple collective play of investing in a sharing kind of way. And very interestingly, when they knew what the result of the work was all about, they were also much more willing to trust or invest in another person whom they hadn’t met previously.’

‘when you don’t know the outcome of the labor that you are involved in, you become, so to speak, disembodied’

http://greenlightworkshop.org/article/You-have-to-be-social

Interview with Anas Aljajeh (27) studied Interior Design in Damascus until Syrian civil war - parts of the workshop that worked out fine ‘cooking together, eating together, sitting, talking’.  

‘But the work itself, when we were working as a team, could sometimes get complicated, because not all the members of the team were working on the same level, you know? One person would make three lamps per day and three other people together make only one lamp a day. It created some complications.’

‘But in Greenlight I found that I actually preferred to work a little bit by myself. Because I preferred to improve, to make more lamps every day, which I could do that better if I worked alone.’

‘sometimes, I didn’t think the preparation of the wooden sticks was perfect. So I would have to redo them to my standards. Because I knew how to do it the way I wanted it to be. So that the lamps I made were perfect in my eyes, by my standards. I wanted to keep my standards.’

‘I think it’s important to find places like this, where you create infrastructure, where people come together with ideas, people who want to work and sharpen their skills.’

‘The problem with translation was there, since on the one hand we had work connecting us, but we still always needed language. You need good translators. If you can’t communicate to someone else the full idea in all its clarity, then they won’t understand what is happening.’

http://www.arterritory.com/en/texts/articles/6640-an_uncomfortable_green_light

As Eliasson said in an interview with The Art Newspaper, “I would love to say to Angela Merkel: ‘Here is a model.’”

[partiallythere]

If you can recognize how social institutions can erect and edify discriminatory systems and policies, but refuse to acknowledge how religion itself has and still is used to erect and edify discriminatory systems and policies, you don’t have any ground to stand on to criticize any atheist. You don’t have even the moral ground to even criticize bigoted atheists like the Amazing Atheist if you can’t even acknowledge the racist, sexist, homophobic, genocidal history of major world religions. Stop pretending you care about marginalised people if you think the complaints and struggles of atheists are a joke to you. You have to stop pretending you care about free speech if you can’t recognize how religion props itself above all criticism and scrutiny, and then think there is no purpose to mock that which systemically placed itself above scrutiny and punishes anyone who dares bring it down to the same level as other ideologies. You have to stop acting like you care to give a voice to those who are silenced if you can’t accept how religious indoctrination silences people. You’re a hypocrite if it bothers you that people mock the anger of all marginalised groups except that of atheists. You’re a hypocrite if you whitewash atheism to justify your disdain towards anyone criticizing religion (especially major world religions). You are the reason atheists of color, lgbt atheists, women atheists, atheists with disabilities don’t speak up, far more than because of the white dudebros on atheist spaces. You don’t get to actively participate in the marginalisation of an entire group and then try to pin their marginalisation on the toxic few within that group.

Stop pretending you care about social justice if your past time is furthering the marginalisation of atheist people.

Fuck all of these SJ hypocrites who can’t stand to see the privileges afforded to people of dominant religions questioned and ridiculed.

Fuck all these “proud to be SJW” who think atheists don’t have “real” struggles, but don’t think twice to ride on our coattails when we show up for them and their rights. We are people, not fucking tools and objects for you to utilize and discard at will when it’s convenient for your self-centered egos.

Yes, we are angry, and we deserve to be angry from all the bullshit we face just like anyone else does. Stop dehumanizing and whitewashing us and thinking our anger is underserved.

[bougiebutchbinch]

Yet another bitchy reblog, because if I see one more person saying that the only people who are criticising the finale are either misunderstanding 'bury your gays' or 'a three act structure' I am going to piss on them (disrespectfully).

Firstly, if that is genuinely your takeaway from all the amazing essays people have written about their dissatisfaction with the OFMD finale.... I don't think the writers of those essays are the ones lacking media literacy. Maybe you should go read them again.

Secondly: Your favourite show is not above criticism, especially from marginalised groups. Especially when those marginalised groups were not represented in the writers' room. Stop pretending otherwise.

"But Lucius is physically disabled and he survived, so it's fine to kill Izzy -"

As most of you know, I am physically disabled. Have to use a lot of very visible mobility aids, get stared at in the street, have kids asking uncomfortable questions, etc.

If you are also physically disabled and cannot see that there is a WORLD of difference between Lucius losing his finger and Izzy having a hugely traumatic, majorly life-changing disability thrust upon him, becoming suicidal, using alcohol to cope, crawling along the floor, hating himself and feeling useless and worthless, thinking he's a burden to the people he cared about because of his physical inability to protect them...

Then getting built up again by that same crew, given a beautiful prosthetic that they made for him, accepted and loved, and learning to accept and love himself specifically as a queer disabled man....

THEN SAYING EXPLICITLY THAT HE WANTS TO DIE, AFTER ALL OF THAT BEAUTIFUL GROWTH

If you cannot see how that might be JUST A LITTLE upsetting to other disabled cripplepunk folks....

I honestly do not know what to say to you.

His arc was about self-acceptance and self-love as a disabled queer man. To have him declare that he wanted to die after coming to terms with his disability and queerness is, in fact, going to upset a lot of disabled queer people.

If you are not physically disabled, feel free to reblog but don't say a word unless it's in support.

[Edited to remove the parts about Ed being canonically disabled, as someone kindly pointed out to me that they were incorrect. I hadn't realised that his knee brace was just fanon! The creators shouldn't get credit for creating a 'disabled' main character if the disability is only really acknowledged by fans.]