#At least culturally britain and british people are aware that other countries exist and are real places | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

evanescentjasmine · 4 years

Text

Writing Egypt and Egyptian Characters: Rusty Quill Gaming Edition

I’ve finally caught up with the Cairo arc of Rusty Quill Gaming, which I was anticipating and dreading both. Fiction set in my country usually reduces it to a caricature of itself, especially when it takes place in the Victorian era, but considering everything they’ve said in their metacasts I was hoping Rusty Quill Gaming was the exception.

It wasn’t.

I’m aware the game world plays fast and loose with history and setting, but the problems in this case are more than just inaccuracies. However, because I want to help fic writers and artists be able to portray Hamid and his family well, this resource will be split into two parts. The first part will tackle details I’ve been asked about with regard to the setting; it may touch on things RQG went wrong, but I’m writing it primarily as a resource for artists and writers. The second part will be my criticism of RQG, and why I found the Cairo arc actively harmful. This includes discussions of Orientalism and some racist text.

I should also preface this by saying I’m not a historian. Everything I say in this resource is a combination of what I grew up with and what I remember from school, supplemented by Google and guesswork. I’ll be explaining my thought process throughout, which can help you see what’s actual history and what’s my extrapolation.

Part One: On Egypt

Historical Context:

Figuring out the history of Egypt in RQG terms is a bit complicated, so bear with me because this will take a while.

In real-world history, Egypt was a Roman then Byzantine province from 30 BC to around the mid 600s AD, at which point the Arab conquest swept through and Egypt became Muslim.

What this means is that when the Meritocrats took down Rome and took over the world, Egypt was still a Roman province. That gives us a several hundred year gap before the Arabs that may have maintained the same culture? Or morphed a little back to some pre-Ptolemaic Ancient Egyptian, given their Meritocrat, Apophis, is named after a great Pharaonic serpent?

Either way, given Hamid’s name and the fact they live in Cairo, the city built by the Arabs, we can assume the Arab conquest still happened somehow, despite having a Meritocrat in Egypt. Maybe a Meritocrat out there is Arab and settled in Egypt for a bit with or before Apophis? Maybe it took a couple-hundred years for the Meritocrats to get all the previous Roman areas under control? Maybe there was a whole war and the Arabs won and settled and eventually they got to a truce or got absorbed into Meritocratic lands?

Many Muslim dynasties ruled throughout the period from the mid 600s to the 1500s. Given the lack of Islam in this world, probably the Arabs were unified by some Pre-Islamic deity/deities and brought them over as well, because I refuse to just sweep everything under the broad Greek God rug.

In the 1500s, another Muslim dynasty took over--this time, from outside of the country, which is why it’s considered separate from all the rest. At this point, Egypt became part of the Ottoman Empire until the 1800s, which is when the Mohammed Ali dynasty started to try and secede and rule independently. And there was a brief blip of the French occupation for two years around then as well.

And, of course, we can’t forget about British colonisation, which started in the late 1800s with a veiled protectorate.

Presumably, since France and Britain are also Meritocratic and it seems like Apophis is currently ruling, we can disregard everything from the Ottomans onward. This changes, or should change, a ton, because Ottoman rule informed a lot of things from fashion to slang to nobility and so on.

What we’re left with is most likely a Cairo that is still Arab but with much more Pharaonic influence, as Apophis is in charge, as well as continuing Greek influence due to the Gods. I am not a Coptic Christian, so I cannot speak to how these changes in history and religions would affect the Coptic language and culture, but no doubt it would still be around.

There would also be a bigger, more long-standing connection to other Meritocratic countries. This explains why Hamid was British-educated and so many people speak such good English without a British occupation to create the power disparity that would make that necessary to rise in Egypt and such a mark of status.

However, this presents several confusing and contradictory aspects of the world building:

Why doesn’t this go both ways? Why aren’t there people in England and France who know Arabic or are influenced by Egypt? All we get is that the Tahan family are big. That’s it. If these countries are equals, it sure doesn’t look like it.

If Apophis is pharaonic and Ancient Egyptian culture and knowledge are so ubiquitous...why would they hollow out a pyramid to put a bank inside? It’s a tomb. It’s made to bury dead kings in a way that follows possibly still-existing cultural and religious beliefs. It’s the equivalent of someone building a bank inside a mausoleum. It’s bizarre.

Relatedly, if Ancient Egyptian culture and knowledge are so ubiquitous, why is Carter mentioning the Rosetta Stone? Why would the knowledge necessary to translate hieroglyphics have been lost?

I mention these questions so fic writers can keep them in mind while writing and, of course, it’s entirely possible to create a workaround. For example, maybe the Rosetta Stone is supposed to be translating something else, like an ancient hidden magic?

Describing Cairo:

I want to make one thing very clear: Cairo is not, despite Alex’s description, like Vegas. While we do certainly have hotels and casinos, to reduce the city to only that is very harmful for reasons I’ll go into at the end of this resource.

Cairo is a very old city with a mix of architectural styles and is very heavily Muslim in real life. In Arabic, its tagline is often “city of a thousand minarets,” so clearly RQG Cairo will be fairly different. Given Apophis’ influence, Ancient Egyptian styles might be more prevalent in Cairo, but very likely not in the form of pyramids unless those pyramids were for the dead. In real life, some buildings do incorporate Ancient Egyptian flavour, usually just in the form of lotus columns or hieroglyphs. These would only be found in public institutions, however, or, frankly, tourist-bait.

Residential buildings tend to be clustered very close together and, since it’s an old city, streets are crowded and winding as the city keeps building on itself and spilling out of its previous bounds. Estates do, of course, exist, but I’d suggest against using Bryn’s example of Alhambra as a setting for the Tahan home. Alhambra is a palace fortress in Spain and, although it’s Andalusian and therefore influenced by Muslim architecture, it’s very different than anything in Egypt. It’s as absurd as saying a posh British character lives in a house that’s basically Versailles and leaving it there. I’ve included images of some Egyptian residential estates below, all from the 1800s to early 1900s.

And here are some photos of Cairo in the 1800s:

As you can see, not quite Vegas.

A fic set in Cairo can certainly still have the Cairo strip with all the casinos, since that’s an aspect of canon, but a place like that would probably be geared more to tourists and foreigners than locals. So long you’re aware of this while writing, and that Cairo would exist beyond it, you should be fine. It might also be worth having characters explore the actual city.

Weather:

The stereotype is that Egypt is just hot and sand year-round. It isn’t. The further south you go, the hotter it will get, so that Upper Egypt (which is in the south, yeah), is hotter than Lower Egypt, which is where Cairo and Alexandria are. Alexandria, by virtue of being on the Mediterranean, has fairly cold (for us) and rainy winters and mild, humid summers. Cairo gets very occasional rain and has harsher summers but is also dryer.

And, of course, a thing to remember is that even in the depths of the desert, the morning might be quite warm but the night will be quite cold as well.

Sandstorm season (called khamaseen) takes place from April - May but in the middle of Cairo it’s more of an annoyance than anything else.

Language:

Since they speak Arabic, it’s important to note that spoken Egyptian Arabic is very different from written Classical Arabic. Egyptian is a mishmash of Arabic, Coptic, a bit of Greek, and a bit of French (and, in the real world, some Turkish too) all smashed together. Accents differ from city to city, and Cairene Arabic is best known for the fact we pronounce the letter jeem as geem (so all soft Gs are turned into hard Gs) and tend to replace the letter qaf with a glottal stop.

This means that a Cairene wouldn’t be called Jamal, they’d be Gamal. A Cairene would pronounce burqa as bur’a.

Since religion plays a big part in language, RQG Egyptian Arabic may be a bit different. For instance, the greeting most people associate with Arabic is “Assalam alaykum” but that’s very specifically Muslim or at least associated with Islam, and might not have been as wide-spread given...y’know, that Islam doesn’t exist. I’m not saying it’s incorrect to use, just explaining the context.

Alternatives could include “Sabah/masa’ el-kheir” which means “Good morning/evening,” and “Naharak/Naharik saeed” which is, “May you have a good day.”

Fashion:

Although this didn’t really feature in RQG, I’ve received a lot of questions about the period’s fashion and honestly it’s my favourite thing ever so I probably would have touched on it anyway. I’ll only go into broad strokes, as there are plenty of regional variations and, again, I’m no expert

Women

Egyptian women covered their heads and sometimes their faces not out of religiosity but out of a cultural expectation of modesty. This may well have come about as a result of the Arab/Muslim cultural majority, as to my knowledge this wasn’t the case in the Greek and Roman periods, but women of all religions covered their heads so that would likely still be the case in RQG’s Arab Egypt.

This isn’t with the hijab we know today. It may have been a cloth or kerchief tied over their heads and then the melaya laf (which is larger cloth, almost a sheet) that they wrap around themselves and over their head, as follows:

The black face-covering was called a burqa or bur’a (not the same as a Muslim burqa, which serves similar modesty functions but is a separate thing) or a yashmak and may have been opaque black, white, or netted, such as in this picture:

Underneath the melaya they would be wearing a long, loose, patterned dress:

Upper class Egyptian women tended to wear Western dresses with a white yashmak that covered their faces and heads. A yashmak is Turkish, however, and without Ottoman influence this style and name might not have caught on in Egypt.

Men

While the melaya laf and yashmak have disappeared from Egypt, the traditional men’s gallabeya and ammama, or turban, are still seen widely today. The gallabeya (or jellabiya, outside of Cairene Arabic) is a long, loose garment with wide sleeves and no collar. It’s in muted, neutral colours, usually lighter ones like white or beige in the summer and navy blue or grey in the winter. You’ll have seen examples of it in the pictures of Cairo above, and here’s another one:

Middle to upper class men and civil servants, however, tended to wear English suits with a tarboosh, or fez. Since fezzes were also a result of Ottoman rule, RQG Egyptians might not wear them.

And yes, impressive moustaches were also very much the fashion.

Names:

The running joke is that Hamid’s name is unnecessarily long, but my name is longer, and I don’t think that’s particularly unusual. We don’t usually go around introducing ourselves with all of them, admittedly, and I’m not sure whether Hamid does this as a way to indicate he’s overly fancy or because Bryn doesn’t realise it, but four names is not long. My ID boasts five, and I know of at least one more.

Arabic naming conventions use patronymics for all children, regardless of gender. What this means is that my name and my brother’s name is identical except for our first.

Mine is Jasmine + Dad’s name + his dad’s name + his dad’s name + his dad’s name

And my brother is also First name + Dad’s name + his dad’s name + his dad’s name + his dad’s name.

Egyptians do not typically have last names, but an important family may all choose to identify under a name and use that as their last, such as the Tahans. In my case, I use my fifth name as my last name and introduce myself in everyday life as Jasmine Fifth Name. Notably, my brother does not, and goes by First name + Dad’s name instead. This isn’t unusual. On paperwork, however, we still have the same name.

Additionally, Egyptian women do not take their husbands’ last names in marriage, nor do children take any of her names.

I’m not sure why, according to the wiki, Hamid’s sisters seem to have taken their mother’s name. Following Arabic naming conventions, they would all be First Name Saleh Haroun al Tahan, and their father would be Saleh Haroun al Tahan. A possible workaround might be that halflings have their own naming conventions that mean daughters have matronymics and sons patronymics.

A note to podficcers: please google name pronunciations beforehand because Alex and Bryn’s are actually often wrong. Ishak, for instance, is not pronounced Ee-shak. It’s Iss-haaq or Iss-haa’, because of quirks of the Egyptian accent I mentioned earlier.

Part Two: Criticism

I understand it can be difficult to portray a country different from yours with accuracy. I understand the RQG crew will not have had the perspective on Egypt and Cairo that I do by virtue of living here. I do also acknowledge that I’m sure none of this was actively malicious or on purpose.

But it doesn’t have to be on purpose to hurt, frankly, and given how often the RQG crew have talked about their responsibility with a game that’s intended for an audience, I expected better. Bryn has spoken about not wanting to fall into stereotypes for Hamid and, to be fair, by being a non-religious fancyboy Hamid does neatly avoid the religious zealot and the noble (or ignoble) savage routes. Unfortunately, he falls into another, which was hammered home by the portrayal of Cairo and the Tahans as a whole.

Our first glimpse of Cairo, after the sandstorm clears, describes it as “basically Vegas,” with hotels and garish casinos catering to the rich all along the “Cairo strip.” From then on, our only other images of Cairo are vast estates and a pyramid in the desert.

The only named Egyptians we meet are the Tahan family, who are introduced through an absurdly lavish estate compared to the palace fortress of Alhambra, a gambling problem that apparently runs in the family, murder, and corruption, as the head of the family who has already covered up a crime for one son then turns himself in to protect the other.

Then, to top it all off, Hamid is apparently utterly incapable of understanding why letting his brother get away with murder is an issue until the paladins point it out.

Do you see the pattern, here?

I understand this was aiming to be a criticism of the rich and powerful, but the fact remains that the Tahans are the only representation of Egyptians we get. While this may not be harems and hand-chopping levels of Orientalism, the image presented is of Cairo as a den of excessive wealth and vice, and Egyptians as corrupt and immoral.

This isn’t new.

The Middle East and North Africa (as well as India and China and everywhere else considered “the Orient”) has often been tied to images of wealth and overt splendour, usually hand-in-hand with the Oriental despot and corruption. This view went beyond just fiction and influenced the policies with which we were ruled.

Cromer, Consul-General of Egypt, wrote books called Modern Egypt. He had this to say about us:

“The mind of the Oriental, on the other hand, like his picturesque streets, is eminently wanting in symmetry. His reasoning is of the most slipshod description. . . . They are often incapable of drawing the most obvious conclusions from any simple premises of which they may admit the truth.”

In his opinion, our inability to follow logical reason led to us being inherently untruthful and, therefore, immoral. Similarly, British statesman Balfour was of the belief that:

“Lord Cromer’s services during the past quarter of a century have raised Egypt from the lowest pitch of social and economic degradation until it now stands among Oriental nations, I believe, absolutely alone in its prosperity, financial and moral.”

Egypt was under British colonial rule from 1882 - 1952.

You can see, I hope, why a storyline focused on an Egyptian family’s corruption in an Egypt characterised almost entirely by its casinos and one lavish mansion was very uncomfortable. The fact Azu was one of the people trying to explain morality to Hamid keeps it from sliding into a clear East vs West dichotomy, but the fact remains this is a British show featuring British players and this is the story they chose to tell.

The rest was just salt in the wound, really.

I expect mispronounced names and pyramids and jokes about camels in most media, but rarely do the makers of said media then go on to pat themselves on the back for doing their “due diligence” on a metacast about sensitivity.

I see weird naming conventions and mispronounced names and “basically Vegas” and “crocodile steak” and “camel’s milk froyo” and I do not see due diligence.

I see a setting that barely looked past Cleopatra and I do not see due diligence.

I see a storyline that shows only excess and immorality and corruption and I do not see due diligence.

I see a disregard for me and mine, and I do not appreciate it.

Literature I’ve referred to in writing this criticism:

Orientalism (1978), by Edward W. Said

Orientalism in the Victorian Era (2017), a paper by Valerie Kennedy

Orientalism in American Cinema: Providing an Historical and Geographical Context for PostColonial Theory (2010), a thesis by Samuel Scurry

Popular Culture, Orientalism, and Edward Said (2012), an article by Robert Irwin

#rusty quill gaming #rqg #hamid saleh haroun al tahan #resource #criticism #orientalism #representation #long post

1K notes · View notes

thedreadvampy · 3 years

Text

like I am not trying to be unreasonable or excessively defensive when I say ‘oh my god shut up about Britishness’ or at least, not to talk the talk without walking the walk

I definitely have had a lot of unlearning to do from those heady far-off Bush administration days where we here in the UK all turbocharged our superiority complex about how America was a pit of fools led by an idiot and that made it not just ok but Noble and Politically Justified to rip the piss out of like. the McDonalds eating Walmart shopping mass media consuming oil chugging school shooting flagwaving white trailer park hyper-Christian anti-abortion racist ignorant American that lived in our heads and Spoke Weird and Thought They Were Real People and ate freedom fries and thought Iraq and Afghanistan were the same country and couldn’t do basic maths and barged around European cities in shorts and sunglasses yelling to each other about how cute it was and thought they were the only people in the world who mattered. and that’s not imo any different to the way American conceptions of Britishness tend to be framed

(not to say that that image of Americans is a thing of the past At All and it’s something I often notice myself slipping into)

and this was viewed as a moral position, particularly among the hard left, for a lot of the reasons that ragging on Britain is also often seen as a moral stance. America was (and is) powerful and imperialistic, culturally hegemonic, politically far to the right of where Europe tended to see itself. America was the architect of the Iraq War, and a whole string of imperialist invasions before that, and the “special relationship” with America was seen as emblematic of how far right the Labour government had swung. I knew old communists of my dad’s generation who took as a point of deep pride that they wouldn’t interact with American exports and were actively hostile to Americans. America was seen through the lens of Bush (and is now often seen through the lens of Trump). It felt good to shit on America and, by extension, Americans.

America represented imperialism and racist, exploitative global policy, filtered through a lens of glossy TV and film, stars-and-stripes-forever military glorification, Disney, loud tourists and a whole heap of shitty ideas about Things That Signified Americanness And Were Therefore Bad like

Talking funny

Simplified/differing spelling

Liking different sports

Being fat

Eating weird food

Using unfamiliar idioms

Seeing the world through a very culturally American lens

A lot of class signifiers that don’t exist to the same degree/don’t mean the same thing here (living in trailer parks, shopping at Walmart)

now you may have noticed that these aren’t.......super cool things to rag on? and also that there are a lot of parallels between that and the stuff I get pissy about when people make jokes about Britishness.

because the justification is that This Country Is Bad. It’s a Global Force For Evil. And that is, in both Britain and America’s case, definitely not wrong. Both Britain and America are violently imperial, culturally hegemonic, white supremacist world powers with a strong vested interest in considering themselves the Only Ones Who Are Really Normal People. It’s totally reasonable to hate Britain (I sure do!!!!!!). It’s also totally reasonable to hate America.

What I take issue with is the conflation of hating America with hating Americans. The conflation of hating Britain with hating the British. A country is not its people. A government is not its people. As I’m sure most of us have noticed, governments that fuck over the world are often simultaneously fucking over the poor, marginalised and vulnerable within their own borders (this is something as well that a lot of North Korean, Russian and Chinese people have brought up - that they’re held personally responsible for the shitty things their governments do even though they’re the people those things are targetted at)

That isn’t to say that people in both these countries (and indeed Canada, France, etc) shouldn’t think critically about the ways in which they benefit from their countries’ hegemonic power, or the ways in which they’re complicit in the imperialistic attitudes. But a lot of this mocking, both ways, boils down to

a) your government/country is bad and you should feel ashamed (like ‘you suck because the British Empire was a genocidal monolith’ or ‘Donald Trump just goes to show what America’s really like’) b) your country sucks to live in, haha, more fool you for living in it!!!!!! (Brexit! School shootings!) c) you are Foreign and that’s Weird (often coupled with ‘haha can you believe people in that stupid country do [thing that is generally associated with poverty]? GROSS’) d) you look/sound funny (British people all have bad teeth and are ugly, Americans are all fat and/or have had 20000 tons of plastic surgery and dental work)

and idk I just think perhaps that’s not...productive or good #praxis. like. not everything has to be Good Praxis it can just be a lazy joke about national stereotypes. but it’s not a Strong Moral Stance to hate (white) Brits or (white) Americans (and another thing is: these types of stereotypes very rarely include the racial diversity and multiculturalism of both Britain and America, choosing instead to only bring up non-white Brits/Americans as faceless Victims Of Bigotry). it’s not Good Leftist Praxis and people are, in fact, justified in getting annoyed about it even if they ARE white people from an imperialist country. because it is personal. it’s made personal.

and of course everything I and others have said in the past about classism holds true. in both the American and the British cases, a lot of the most commonly raised stereotypes other than language differences are about class (in that the things framed as gross/weird are overwhelmingly things which are looked down on within the culture because they’re associated with poverty - the Gross British Food, the People of Walmart, the lack of education, the slang, fatness, etc).

(also don’t get it twisted. a lot of people thought the last time I mentioned how class affects British stereotypes people thought I was making some class reductionist Working Class People Are Exempt From Racism And Benefitting From Imperialism argument which. no. but you’re not criticising racism or imperialism you’re criticising Poverty Food, just like you’re not criticising lack of global political awareness or a culture of rampant neoliberal capitalism when you laugh at Americans for being fat. you’re just shitting on people for things they’re already being shat on for.)

this is obfuscated by the fact that these stereotypes slap together high and low class signifiers at random, but the high class signifiers that get mocked, at least in the American stereotype, are mocked because in a British context they are low class signifiers. like a lot of what gets mocked in Britain about Americans is the high-capitalist Conspicuous Consumption of the Trump and McMansion types, and the plastic surgery and glow-in-the-dark Hollywood smile. but it’s mocked because it’s, at its heart, seen as gauche and tasteless and Not Classy, whereas the British rich know how to be Tastefully Rich (boke)

like I’m not saying people outside a country shouldn’t criticise that country. both Britain and America deserve to be criticised roundly, not just on a political level but on a societal level. yeah man I do benefit from power and I am very able to slip into cultural supremacist ways of thinking. but ‘har har they talk funny’ isn’t criticism, it’s bigotry. To Be Clear: it may be bigotry but it’s not oppression. It’s not a matter of ‘oh woe the Americans are Bullying Us From A Position Of Power.’ Neither side of this holds hegemonic power over the other, realistically (Americans are not oppressed by Britons for being American; Britons are not oppressed by Americans for being British) But what it is is round after round of the same sneering cultural supremacist oneupmanship that’s characterised the relationships between powerful imperial nations (and particularly between Britain and America) for centuries. we’re both, nationally speaking, desperately pitching the argument that We’re The Good And Civilised Ones and They’re The Stupid Weird Embarrassing Ones.

we’re BOTH weird embarrassing countries with sordid, racist, imperialist political structures. we’re both horrendously shitty nations it’s not a competition about which country is shittier because the answer is always Who Cares They’re Both A Nexus Of Awful Global Consequences.

also nations are not real. we should criticise nations as they exist but people? bully people about something real you cowards. “britishness” or “americanness” is only as real as you make it

#boy howdy that's a long post #lotta words to say 'actually I've just been insecure about my accent since I was 4'

21 notes · View notes

serialreblogger · 4 years

Note

You want to talk more about the bigotry in Harry Potter? Go ahead! I've actually heard stuff like that before, but have yet to do much research on it personally and it's been a while since I read it, so I'm interested.

WELL

Before we begin I should start with a disclaimer: this analysis will be dedicated to examining as many bigoted aspects of Harry Potter’s writing as I can think of, so--while I personally am more or less comfortable balancing critical evaluation with enjoyment of a piece, and strongly advocate developing your own abilities to do the same--I know not everyone is comfortable reading/enjoying a story once they realize its flaws, and again, while I think it’s very important to acknowledge the flaws in culturally impactful stories like Harry Potter, I also know for some people the series is really really important for personal reasons and whatnot.

So! If you’re one of those people, and you have trouble balancing critical engagement with enjoyment, please feel free to skip this analysis (at least for the time being). Self-care is important, and it’s okay to find your own balance between educating yourself and protecting yourself.

On another note, this is gonna be limited strictly to morally squicky things to do with Rowling’s writing and the narrative itself. Bad stuff characters do won’t be talked about unless it’s affirmed by the narrative (held up as morally justified), and plot holes, unrealistic social structures, etc. will not be addressed (it is, after all, a kid’s series, especially in the first few books. Quidditch doesn’t have to make sense). This is strictly about how Rowling’s personal biases and bigotry impacted the story and writing of Harry Potter.

Sketch Thing #1: Quirrell! I don’t see a lot of people talking about Quirrell and racism, but I feel like it’s a definite thing? Quirinus Quirrell is a white man who wears a turban, gifted to him by an “African prince” (what country? where? I couldn’t find a plausible specific when I was researching it for a fic. If there’s a country which has current/recent royalty that might benevolently interact with someone, and also a current/recent culture where turbans of the appropriate style are common, I couldn’t find it). Of course, it wasn’t actually given to him by an African prince in canon, but it’s still an unfortunate explanation.

More importantly, ALL the latent Islamophobia/xenophobia in the significance of the turban. Like, look at it.

“Man wears turban, smells like weird spices, turns out to be concealing an evil second face under the turban” really sounds like something A Bit Not Good, you know? If you wanted to stoke the flames of fear about foreignness, it would be hard to do it better than to tell children about a strange man who’s hiding something horrible underneath a turban.

Also, Quirrell’s stutter being faked to make you think he was trustworthy is a very ableist trope, and an unfortunately common one. “Disability isn’t actually real, just a trick to make you accommodate and trust them” is not a great message, and it’s delivered way too often by mass media. (Check out season 1 of the Flash for another popular example.)

Sketch Thing #2: The goblins. Much more commonly talked about, in my experience, which is good! The more awareness we have about the messages we’re getting from our popular media, the better, in my view.

For those who haven’t encountered this bit of analysis before: the goblins in Harry Potter reek of antisemitic stereotypes. Large ears, small eyes, crooked noses, green/gray skin, lust for money, control of the banks, and a resentful desire to overthrow the Good British Government? Very reminiscent of wwii propaganda posters, and in general the hateful rhetoric directed towards Jewish people by other European groups from time immemorial.

I’m also extremely uncomfortable with how goblin culture is handled by Rowling in general. Like, the goblins were a people that were capable of using magic, but prohibited by the British government from owning wands. That was never addressed. They also had a different culture around ownership, which is why Griphook claimed that the sword of Gryffindor belonged rightfully to the goblins--a gift isn’t passed down to descendants upon death, but instead reverts to the maker. This cultural miscommunication is glossed over, despite the fact that it sounds like Griphook’s voicing a very real, legitimate grievance.

To be honest, apart from the antisemitism, the way Goblin culture is treated by the narrative in Harry Potter is very uncomfortably reminiscent to me of how First Nations were treated by English settlers in North America, before the genocide really got started. The Goblins even have a history of “rebellions,” which both raises the question of why another species is ruling them to begin with, and more significantly, is eerily reminiscent of the Red River Rebellion in Canada (which, for the record, wasn’t actually a rebellion--it was Metis people fighting against the Canadian government when it tried to claim the land that legally, rightfully belonged to the Metis. But that’s another story)

In sum: I Don’t Like the implications of how Rowling treats the goblins.

Sketch Thing #3: Muggles. Ok because we’re all “muggles” (presumably) and because I’m white, talking about this might rapidly degenerate into thinly-veiled “reverse racism” discourse, so please y’all correct me if I stray into that kind of colossal stupidity. However, I am not comfortable with the way non-magical humans are treated by Rowling’s narrative.

The whole premise of Harry Potter is that Evil Wizards Want To Hurt The Muggles, right? Except that it’s not. Voldemort’s goal is to subjugate the inferior humans, rule over non-magical people as the rightful overlords, but that’s hardly mentioned by the narrative. Instead, it focuses on the (also egregious and uncomfortably metaphorical) “blood purism” of wizarding culture, and how wizards would be persecuted for their heritage.

But muggles, actual muggles, are arguably the ones who stand to lose the most to Voldemort, and they’re never notified of their danger. We, the muggles reading it, don’t even really register that we’re the collateral damage in this narrative. Because throughout the series, muggles are set up as laughingstocks. Even the kindest, most muggle-friendly wizards are more obsessed with non-magical people as a curiosity than actually able to relate to them as people.

I dunno, friends, I’m just uncomfortable with the level of dehumanization that’s assigned to non-magical humans. (Like, there’s not even a non-offensive term for them in canon. There’s “muggle,” which is humorously indulgent at best and actively insulting at worst, and there’s “squib,” which is literally the word for a firework that fails to spark.) It’s not like “muggles” are actually a real people group that can be oppressed, and like I said this kind of analysis sounds a bit like the whining of “reverse racism” advocates where the powerful majority complains about being insulted, but... it kind of also reeks of ableism. People that are not able to do a certain cool, useful thing (use magic) are inherently inferior, funny at best and disposable at worst. They suffer and die every day from things that can easily be cured with magic, but magic-users don’t bother to help them, and even when they’re actively attacked the tragedy of hundreds dying is barely mourned by the narrative.

It gives me bad vibes. I don’t Love It. It sounds uncomfortably like Rowling’s saying “people that are unable to access this common skill are inherently inferior,” and that really does sound like ableism to me.

Either way, there’s something icky about consigning an entire group of people to the role of “funny clumsy stupid,” regardless of any real-world connections there may or may not be to that people group. Don’t teach children that a single genetic characteristic can impact someone’s personhood, or make them inherently less worthy of being taken seriously. Just, like... don’t do that.

Sketch Thing #4: The house elves. Everyone knows about the house elves, I think. The implications of “they’re slaves but they like it” and the only person who sees it as an issue having her campaign turned into a joke by the narrative (“S.P.E.W.”? Really? It might as well stand for “Stupidly Pleading for Expendable Workers”) are pretty clear.

Sketch Thing #5: Azkaban. Are we gonna talk about how wizarding prison involves literal psychological torture, to the point where prisoners (who are at least sometimes there wrongly, hence the plot of book 3) almost universally go “insane”? This is sort of touched on by the narrative--“dementors are bad and we shouldn’t be using them” was a strongly delivered message, but it was less “because torturing people, even bad people, is not a great policy” and more “because dementors are by their natures monstrous and impossible to fully control.”

“This humanoid species is monstrous and impossible to control” is, once again, a very concerning message to deliver, and it doesn’t actually address the real issue of “prison torture is bad, actually.” Please, let’s not normalize the idea that prison is inherently horrific. Of course, prison as it exists in North America and Britain is, indeed, inherently horrific and often involves torture (solitary confinement, anyone?), but like--that’s a bad thing, y’all, it’s deeply dysfunctional and fundamentally unjust. Don’t normalize it.

Sketch Thing #6: Werewolves. Because Rowling explicitly stated that lycanthropy in her series is a metaphor for “blood-borne diseases like HIV/AIDS”. The linked article says it better than I could:

Rowling lumps HIV and AIDS in with other blood-borne illnesses, which ignores their uniquely devastating history. And Lupin’s story is by no stretch a thorough or helpful examination of the illness. Nor is its translation as an allegory easily understood, beyond the serious stigma that Rowling mentioned.

That Lupin is a danger to others could not more clearly support an attitude of justifiable fear toward him, one that is an abject disservice to those actually struggling with a disease that does not make them feral with rage.

This definitely ties into homophobia, given how deeply the queer community has been affected by HIV/AIDS. Saying a character with a condition that makes him an active threat to those around him is “a metaphor for AIDS” is deeply, deeply distressing, both for its implications about queer people and their safety for the general population, and for the way it specifically perpetuates the false belief that having HIV/AIDS makes a person dangerous.

Sketch Thing #7: Blood Ties. This isn’t, like, inherently sketch, but (especially for those of us with complicated relationships to our birth families) it can rub a lot of people the wrong way. Rowling talks a big talk about the folly of “blood purism,” but she also upholds the idea that blood and blood relations are magically significant.

Personally, I’m very uncomfortable with the fact that Harry was left with an abusive family for his entire childhood, and it was justified because they were his “blood relatives.” I’ve had this argument with ultra-conservative family friends who genuinely believe it’s a parent’s right to abuse their child, and while I don’t think that’s what Rowling is saying, I do feel uncomfortable with the degree of importance she places on blood family. I’m uncomfortable with the narrative’s confirmation that it is acceptable (even necessary) to compromise on boundaries and allow the continuation of abuse because “it’s better for a child to be raised by their Real Family” than it is to risk them to the care of an unrelated parent.

Genetic relations aren’t half as important as Rowling tells us. For people with a bad birth family, this can be a damaging message to internalize, so I’ll reiterate: it’s a pretty thought, the love in blood, but it’s ultimately false. The family you build is more real, more powerful and more valid than any family you were assigned to by an accident of genes.

I can think of one or two more things, but they’re all a lot more debatable than what I have here--as it is, you might not agree with everything I’ve said. That’s cool! I’m certainly not trying to start a fight. We all have the right to read and interpret things for ourselves, and to disagree with each other. And again, I’m not trying to ruin Harry Potter. It’s honestly, as a series, not worse in terms of latent bigotry than most other books of its time, and better than many. It’s just more popular, with a much bigger impact and many more people analyzing it. I do think it’s important to critically evaluate the media that shapes one’s culture, and to acknowledge its shortcomings (and the ways it can be genuinely harmful to people, especially when it’s as culturally powerful as Harry Potter). But that doesn’t mean you can’t or shouldn’t enjoy it for what it was meant to be: a fun, creative, engaging story, with amazing characters, complex plots, heroism and inspiration for more than one generation of people.

Enjoy Harry Potter. It is, in my opinion, a good series, worth reading and re-reading for enjoyment, even for nourishment. It’s also flawed. These things can both be true.

#harry potter #linden writes an essay #long post #THANK YOU for the ask lunar i am SO HAPPY to write all this #i do hope i didn't offend anyone though #please let me know if i've been unintentionally racist y'all i'm white as rice and very willing to learn and grow #also i think it's possible i missed mentioning something glaring because like. harry potter is good but jk rowling is... not #but i think i got most of my thoughts down #harry potter meta #racism #homophobia #bigotry #ask linden #jk rowling

33 notes · View notes

theplatinthehat · 4 years

Text

*nails my piece of paper to Philip Pullman’s front door*

So, I made a joke earlier today about writing up my grievances with the world-building of the His Dark Materials trilogy. I genuinely didn’t think anyone would be interested enough to ask me about this. But someone did, so I’ve abandoned the actual jobs I needed to do today and went away to cobble together this post to summarise My Thoughts (and no-one was more surprised than I to find that there were more than two).

Let me say that these are my thoughts and opinions on this particular canon of work. I don’t judge anyone who likes them (hell, I love the idea of daemons and I certainly think there are some interesting concepts explored in the series) and you are more than welcome to disagree with me on any (or all) of the points that I outline below. And you’re certainly allowed to acknowledge that there are issues with a text and still find enjoyment from them. I’m not looking to Cancel anyone – I just have questions and I’m prepared to shout them into the void.

If anyone does reblog this, I ask that you don’t tag it with #hisdarkmaterials or #hdm, because that’s unfair on the people who are using those tags to curate a positive fandom experience.

Caveat to all of this – I haven’t read the books, but I have watched the current BBC/HBO series in great depth. I’m also writing a fanfic called The Shadow Mandate set in the world of His Dark Materials and that has required me to do extensive research and engage with multiple sources about the world. It’s as a direct result of this research that much of these questions and critiques have arisen. I am planning to read the books soon though (mainly so I can roast them more thoroughly)

Don’t send this to Philip Pullman (or Philman, as I will probably refer to him from here on out). 1 – he isn’t going to care what I say (he’ll just say it’s a metaphor and to not read too much into it or something equally as infuriating) and 2 – I don’t care what he says.

Now all that boring stuff is done, let’s get to it. I’m putting this all under the cut so the poor folk who want nothing to do with this can ignore at their leisure.

This will possibly get a bit tongue in cheek in places – just a warning

One Church to Rule Them All, One Faith to Bind Them

So, one of my main questions about the world of His Dark Materials is the Magisterium and the Holy Church. And that question is “How?”

Overlooking the fact that this was probably a conscious decision by Philman to Make A Point, I still have questions behind this behemoth of an institution. Based on my research, I’m of the understanding that Lyra’s world parted from our own when John Calvin became the Pope, and transferred the seat of Papal power to Geneva. After Calvin’s death, the Magisterium was formed and they consolidated power from there.

In my mind, this just doesn’t work. Because it makes it sound like Calvin was the only person standing between the Catholic Church and the Protestant Reformation. Whilst he had a big role in the Reformation, he just wasn’t the only person working for reforms (I mean – Luther? Hello? He had 95 problems, and Indulgences were all of them). You could probably argue with me on this, as he was a significant figurehead of the Reformation, but there were so many people working for change in Europe at the time that I would have thought that someone else would have taken that place (you can read more here).

The lack of denominations also doesn’t really sit with me because if there’s one thing I know about Christians, it’s that we love to argue over teeny-tiny details and build whole new ways of worshipping around them. The fact that the Magisterium doesn’t just tear itself apart is, to be honest, quite surprising. And, you know, the Eastern Orthodox tradition was already a thing at the time… (here’s a brief overview of the East-West Schism of 1054)

I’d also like to point out that Papal power was dominant in Western civilization. That leaves a lot of the world for the Magisterium to then suddenly gain power of. Or did Philman conveniently forget that Judaism (although the Jewish people had suffered significant persecution in Europe by this time), Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism (and many others) were all already very well-established religions in other parts of the world that I doubt would have taken too kindly to the Magisterium’s political advances. This idea of a religion having such a heavy-handed control over the whole world just seems a bit too far-fetched for me to believe.

However, I have to acknowledge that I say this as a white, Western Christian – perhaps people genuinely feel that is the case.

I do know that the witches are mentioned at having their own religion, but I can’t really find any information about it, so I can’t really compare them. It could well be that other religions and faith practices are mentioned in the books themselves, but I’m struggling to find them (do the shamans count? I’m not sure). Perhaps this is just me, but one religion consuming the whole world (or, at least, the vast majority of it) doesn’t strike me as particularly plausible.

Beast from the East

This is probably my most serious critique of the series, and one that’s actually been the most nightmarish for me to deal with in my own expanded world-building of Lyra’s world for The Shadow Mandate. This is an issue that has been discussed at length Marek Oziewicz in the paper ‘Representations of Eastern Europe in Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials, Jonathan Stroud’s The Bartimaeus Trilogy, and J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter Series’ – which I highly recommend you read!

(And it dunks on Ms R*wling too – what a treat!).

I’ll do a little summary for those of you who haven’t got the time to read a whole paper:

The His Dark Materials trilogy is told from a very British point of view (understandable, the author is a white British man)

Britain is a positive and exciting place, where all the characters are individuals with the capacity for good or evil

The general geographical sense of the world-building is that the further East you go (in Europe) that the less ties the people have to the Holy Church and the more barbaric they are – see the Tartars and their ‘Breathless One’ practices

The Eastern European races are frequently described with qualities such as “cruelty, pitilessness, barbarism, fierceness, physical and emotional instability” (Oziewicz, p. 8)

A lot of nationalist stereotypes surround the peoples of these races/countries

I mean, the treatment of the Tartars (which is a living, breathing ethnolinguistic group) as a whole is pretty disturbing. They’re described to be like a ‘warmongering race of xenophobic genocidal humans who want to conquer the whole of the Earth’ (Quote) - compare that to the complexity of the characters from the West. Oziewicz notes that the Tartars are somewhat akin to the Imperial Guard of Star Wars, as their helmets have ‘no eyes – or at least you couldn’t see any eyes behind the snow slits’ (Northern Lights, p. 289). As far as I can tell, they’re pretty much just tarred with one brush – made particularly plain by the fact that all Tartars seem to have identical wolf/husky daemons – unless that was a requirement when the Magisterium put the job posting on Indeed.

So, a whole nation of people has been reduced to a single archetype – one that plays on existing prejudices in British culture. That just feels like extremely lazy world-building to me – I don’t know a single country or ethnic population that could accurately be described as one archetype.

I also feel that a lot of other countries in the world are written off with sweeping generalisations – or just kinda lumped together? So, a lot of my research has involved me looking at the canonical list of Globetrotter Maps, and a whole bunch of countries tend to get lumped together – particularly, I’ve noticed, the South American countries. It does this really intriguing and complex world a major disservice. As I said, this is something that I’ve had to grapple with for my own work – and I hope that I’ve done enough work so as to begin to dissemble what Philman started.

A new and exciting way to get around the ‘G’ slur

For those of you who are unaware (although, you’re on Tumblr – how could you possibly not be aware?) the G-slur is considered to be a pejorative description of the Romani ethnic group, associated with idleness and itinerancy. It comes from the mistaken European belief that the Romani people came from Egypt (they aren’t). You can read more about that here and here.

Philman decided to name his ethnic group known for travelling and trading as they go ‘Gyptians’. I won’t insult your intelligence by explaining any further.

Should I let this slide with the explanation that the term is so pervasive in Britain that it’s actually a legal term? Perhaps, but I’m not going to.

Kill Bill God

My only issue with this is that if Philman wants to kill God, he should kill… God. Not some angel with a superiority complex. But seeing how badly some people took it, I can understand why he didn’t. I still think he’s a coward.

Sex, Dust and Dragons

I have a whole other bone to pick with Philman about his obsession with sex in children’s literature, but that’s not what you’re here to talk about. No, you came to hear about His Dark Materials.

It’s established in the world that Dust doesn’t settle on children because they don’t have experience – they are too innocent. Based on the research I’ve done, and the language used in both the film and the mini-series is this maturation from childhood to adulthood is though protosexual experiences e.g. kissing. And this is what Mary Malone’s role as ‘the serpent’ is – she’s the one that make Lyra think about her sexuality for the first time:

As Mary said that, Lyra felt something strange happen to her body. She found a stirring at the roots of her hair: she found herself breathing faster. She had never been on a roller-coaster, or anything like one, but if she had, she would have recognised the sensations in her breast: they were exciting and frightening at the same time, and she had not the slightest idea why. The sensation continued, and deepened, and changed, as more parts of her body found themselves affected too. She felt as if she had been handed the key to a great house she hadn't known was there, a house that was somehow inside her, and as she turned the key, deep in the darkness of the building she felt other doors opening too, and lights coming on. She sat trembling, hugging her knees, hardly daring to breathe, as Mary went on...

Marzipan, The Amber Spyglass

(That’s such a long quote)

It’s then made explicitly clear that it’s the intimacy of Lyra and Will’s relationship, and the touching of one another’s daemons, that causes Pan and Kirjava to settle in their true forms.

Andrew Lloyd Webber was right – love really does change everything.

Here’s where things get a little bit petty.

So, if Dust begins to settle on children once they’ve had their first ‘sexual awakening’ – what about those people who don’t ever experience that? Because, believe it or not, asexual people have existed for a very long time. If they don’t experience this, then would their daemons settle? What are the implications of this? Are asexual people remaining in the ‘childlike innocence of the Garden of Eden’? (Quote)

Asexual fans of His Dark Materials, I pass this question to you – do you lack a soul because you’ve never experienced sexual desire? Is sex truly instrumental on the road to maturation? I’d love to hear your thoughts, and what you’d do if your daemon never settled. Would you let them shift into a dragon? I know I would if I were in that position.

This issue, to me, is massively indicative of the prevalent attitudes towards the asexual community. There is a tendency for media products to portray a-spec people as immature because they don’t experience sexual attraction – which is just not true. The ace community has said many times that they feel that this attitude infantilizes their orientation, and it’s a view that needs to be challenged. Check out this source for more information on the microagressions faced by this community – section six is particularly relevant. Asexuals are mature – despite this lack of ‘experience’ that Philman seems to think all people need to have in order to become free-thinkers. This just isn’t true. I don’t understand why society seems to believe this theory, but with its prevalence in media it’s not too difficult to see why this view pervades.

Anyway, the only reason I’m so petty about this particular aspect is that I’m so bored of reading stories where sex and romance are the most important thing. I think heresy is a much more interesting sin than sex, so that’s what The Shadow Mandate will be about once I’ve finished it.

I also have some more minor world-building issues both in HDM and the later Book of the Dust trilogy including, but not limited to:

Why is it New Denmark? The Dutch were quite famous for reaching America – New Amsterdam being the original name for New York. Admittedly I’m only cross about this because I got mixed up in my own world-building.

There’s even more ‘othering’ of non-British races – particularly the Skraelings who are analogous to the Inuit people (but possibly a term for all Native-American peoples) who carry out ‘barbaric’ practices such as trepanning

Witches can’t forgive men that turn them down. Well I don’t have much of a problem with this as such, but it just makes me think of that quote about fairies from Peter Pan – “Fairies have to be one thing or the other, because being so small they unfortunately have room for one feeling only at a time.”

The treatment of Pantalaimon by Lyra in subsequent adventures

Malcolm Polstead needs to leave Lyra tf alone

I appreciate that this is a very long and whingy list about things that I don’t like, so congrats on making it this far! I’d love to give you something – perhaps your time back – but alas, my powers only extend so far. I appreciate that the His Dark Materials books are well-loved and that most people would probably disagree with what I’ve said – I just have lots of questions and Philman doesn’t have as many answers as I would like. But then again, should I really read this much into the work of a writer who seems willing and capable to ignore the personality of their protagonist for a whole book? I don’t know. But I do know, that axolotl daemons would require a lot of work.

(I have beef with Philman – thank you for humouring me)

Leave your hatemail in my inbox <3

#rant post #his dark materials rant #is this what i'm going to be known for?#maybe so #philip pullman do not interact #philman #hdm rant

4 notes · View notes

helsung · 4 years

Text

one conceit of integra’s characterization in canon that i wholeheartedly disagree with & have elected to rewrite completely is her unwavering patriotism & dedication to serving the british crown . while not at the forefront of her motivations, it’s an implication of her objection to all which mocks the values she upholds, the values of her country, her people & her religion . integra chastising others for not befitting the british standard & her aversion to that which is foreign ( iscariot ), or other / unnatural ( vampire-kind ) . it’s persistent & unquestioning, she bows before the queen all the same, she accepts the unfairness of the round table’s treatment, the unreasonable blame based upon her, even when her servant rejects it as the injustice that it is . she’s molds herself in the archetype of the british gentleman, self-assured, cocky, almost mocking in her adherence as the men she grew up around failed to match it as much as she .

she is presented as a woman whose sense of national & cultural identity is quintessentially british, a woman whose loyalties lie with with the heart of the british empire itself, the royalty which oversees all from the shadows of secrecy .

it’s no surprise then that so many fanworks whitewash integra to hell & back, ignore an aspect of her character written down very clearly in her design sheet, that she’s of indian descent . the manga & OVA too overlook it, the only attention brought to the fact is in her design, being visibly non-white . we see the only existing depiction of integra’s mother in the gonzo adaption, wearing what appears to be a saree, & that’s it . it’s honestly so bad that i’ve had at least two people thank me for choosing to write integra as indian, which is nice to hear but i shouldn’t be thanked for doing the bare minimum & it illustrates just how much hellsing fails at acknowledging that one of its leads isn’t white, not just in the act of never having integra acknowledge or interact with the culture of her ancestry, but having her serve the empire & royalty which has oppressed the indian people for almost a century .

which is why i’m intensely uncomfortable with the idea of integra’s unwavering patriotism, i don’t wanna write the story of a woman of indian descent brainwashed from birth into believing the lie of the greatness of britain’s empire, &��i don’t think integra lacks the awareness or ability to recognize that britain’s foundation is built on fabrication . a history of colonialism & oppression twisted into tales of bravery & heroism, monsters turned into saviors, victims turned into perpetrators, blamed for their plight, every country with a colonialist past rewrites its history in order to justify its continued existence . britain is a rotten place, with museums filled to brim with the pillaged treasures of more successful civilizations, & integra is not one to ignore the truth the government is trying so desperately to hide . after all, she’s apart of it .

she serves not the crown nor its bearer, not the interests of the round table on which she sits . these are merely allies of circumstance, allies guaranteed by birth-right to a woman born in a dying hereditary hierarchy, allies who have spent much of her early life attempting to undermine the authority she was entrusted, allies she grows to resent for more than the injustices committed against her . in due time, integra reasons that what she does serve is her father’s memory, the legacy he left in her hands, twisted as it was by him & abraham & their duty to the british empire . she reasons that her duty is to the people of britain, the many whose spirits have been crushed by decades of austerity upheld by her peers, that for them more than herself she must feign unflinching loyalty to the british flag, to the lie of its greatness, for a time, until her power grows greater than its, & hellsing can fulfill its purpose, riding the kingdom of monsters .

integra spent a lot of her early childhood travelling through & from mumbai, her father wanting her to connect with her late mother’s side of the family, who until integra’s birth & jayashree’s subsequent death had maintained little contact with the van helsings . they too were monster hunters of a sort, with dealings of their own, & not too pleased with their daughter when she ran off with arthur to london, but after the tragedy of jayashree’s death, they wanted to offer arthur & his daughter everything they could . for arthur these visits were under the guise of selling the helsing estate in mumbai back to his wife’s family, business as expressions of hurt & mourning . for a young integra, they were a chance to learn about a mother she never had the chance to meet, & she quickly found herself apart of a family which until then felt so much smaller, her aunt was a warm & welcoming figure, a mentor much like her father, her cousins were eager to accept her into their games, & grew to be like brothers in short time . she learned of maharashtra & its history, its culture, learning to speak marathi, of another aspect of her legacy . it was a childhood quite unlike the one in london, & arthur took her on many trips in his business dealings with jayashree’s family, they were brief moments of levity from the dread hanging off the hellsing mansion’s walls, until the day of his death .

afterwards, integra could never find time to return, with her father’s organization in her hands & so much training left to do, she could only manage infrequent contact with the other side of the family . letters, phone conversations, urging her to return, or better yet, urging her to leave behind the hellsing organization & live with them, she was always welcomed there, she always had a place in mumbai should london become a weight too hard to carry . she’s considered it, many times, of course, the memories of mumbai were her fondest, but duties always came first . her father had left her much to do, & she owed him for everything he’d done for the semblance of a normal childhood . she’s tried, constantly, to make time for her family, a large gap is a busy schedule to allow for travel, but it never worked . instead, her aunt elected to send her gifts, for any reason she can muster, birthdays & other holidays, always packed with food & whatever tokens she thinks will remind integra of mumbai . for her birthdays, integra always receives a new, finely crafted saree which she wears for special occasions .

it’s a careful balancing act, to forego the values you were taught growing up, to become something other than the role you were prepared for, the role you were made to fit & yet still met with rejection from those who expected someone else . all the while maintaining the good graces of the crown & the stolen jewels which adorn it . for a long time, integra tries to unlearn the conservative anglican principles on which the hellsing organization was founded, to which the van helsings gave themselves to in exchange for the power to vanquish their historic enemy . she grows distant from the memory of arthur & the lessons left to her in the last years of his life . the more she grows as her own woman, the closer she becomes in spirit to her mother, to the other aspect of her legacy, & she’s better for it . integra builds something new from everything her parents left her, crafting her own place in history, & the hellsing organization gains a greater purpose, not to defend the united kingdom from the inhuman creatures which reach its shores, but to rid it of the ones already there .

#* ( could've been so much better ┊ ooc. )#i don't have a meta tag ):#* ( signed & printed ┊ headcanon. )#* ( doing hirano's work for him ┊ worldbuilding. )#i spent a whole day on this meta so i hope to god it's alright #consider this my grand return we're back to long form nonsense about sir integra fairbrook wingates hellsing

18 notes · View notes

qqueenofhades · 5 years

Note

So dare I ask what the nightmare in detail is regarding Brexit right now?

@tollers-and-jack said: I’m asking for the rant…

@rhymeswithtessa said: I’m a big fan of your rants gimme your thoughts on brexit

@onlymorelove said: Ahem. I am interested in your rant. If you feel like sharing. 💗

Ahaha wow. Apparently this is something the people really want to hear about. Disclaimer, just remember that you asked for this, and that this is, as Captain Holt would say, a trigger for me. So if this periodically devolves into incoherent screaming/application of capital letters and exclamation marks, and what have you, just know that.

So… I wrote these posts soon after Brexit in 2016 explaining what a spectacularly stupid idea it was even then. If I said anything optimistic in those posts, in a sort of grasping-at-straws-maybe-this-will-work sort of flailing way, please disregard it. We have had empirical evidence of how this played out. Spoiler alert: it failed. It failed so comprehensively on every possible level that it seems almost ludicrous for a supposedly modern political system, but this is 2019, the world is dogshit, and we are all retreating into our little late-capitalism xenophobia bubbles with our right-wing strongmen and our populist rhetoric and the UK is now a global laughingstock. Which believe me, the ex-British Empire richly deserves, especially given the part that anti-immigration paranoia played in this whole debacle, but also, I live here and really would Rather Not.

I do not even know how to sum up the ridiculousness of the past few months, where – almost at the end of the two-year period of triggering Article 50, with just a very short amount of time to the original exit date (29 March 2019) – the UK finally managed to secure a withdrawal deal. Mind you, it was a shit deal that both sides hated, but by golly, It Made Brexit Happen, and since the Theresa May-bot has only been able to repeat over and over that she will Make Brexit Happen, there you have it. Not surprisingly, it proceeded to be comprehensively defeated in Parliament by the largest majority ever seen since World War II. It then was subject to surface-level makeovers and cosmetic tinkering about the backstop in Northern Ireland (since among many other things, the ardent Brexiteers forget that oh yeah we share a land border with an EU country and peace in Ireland is kind of a thing that should be paid attention to). The DUP (Democratic Unionist Party) of Northern Ireland, whose 10 MPs prop up the minority Tory government, absolutely hated it and would not support it, since it would effectively introduce different regulations for NI than the rest of the UK and thus jeopardise the, you know, United Kingdom. Plus it would require the EU’s assent to end the arrangement, and also we can’t have that. Because reasons.

The deal was then thumpingly defeated for a second time, people got worried because uhhhh aren’t we supposed to leave the EU in like a week, Parliament had to institute emergency measures and hold a series of votes on Brexit alternatives, those also got defeated and May would not even commit to honouring the will of the House, 6 million people signed a petition asking for Article 50 to be revoked and the Brexit process cancelled (the biggest in parliamentary history) and got ignored. Meanwhile, Nigel Farage led a pathetic procession of 200 diehard Leavers against literally 1 million people in London calling for a new referendum, the deal got defeated for a third time after they had to do all kinds of fancy-dancing to get it back for yet another vote, they got the EU to agree to a crunch extension to 12 April, and now that that is three days away with absolutely no consensus in sight, have sent May back to Europe to beg Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron to extend the deadline to 30 June. They actually had to pass a bill (by one vote) forcing her to do this in order to avoid a no-deal Brexit. The EU is justifiably exasperated with this utter, unbelievable incompetence, the fact that the hard right wing of the Tory party pulled this absurdly irresponsible jackshit without any clue how to do it, and the way the UK still thinks it can just pick an a la carte deal where we’re great and the EU sucks and blue passports and blah blah Great Britain is Great!!! And there has been absolutely no collective awareness from either major party that maybe, just maybe, trying to undo a legal and political and cultural alignment that has existed since at least 1973 when we were a founding member of this project, in two years, with no idea how, to please a xenophobic lying campaign, WAS A STUPID FUCKING GODDAMN IDEA!!!!!!!!!!!!

(we pause while the blogger breathes and drinks heavily)

Anyway, that is the short version of Nobody Still Knows What The Fuck Is Going to Happen. Technically if we stayed in the bloc past 22 May, we’d have to hold elections to the European Parliament, which bitch bitch whine whine, the Brexiteers don’t want to do. Maybe we think we’re entitled to more special treatment (no scratch that, we definitely do) because we can’t sort our heads from our asses and have been so wildly and bogglingly arrogant and incompetent that it would almost be funny if people’s lives and livelihoods and futures weren’t at stake. And we have the goddamn European Research Group (aka the hard Brexit wing) yapping about how no deal wouldn’t be that bad and we should just take it on the chin because Blah Blah Blitz Spirit, Nationalism Patriotism Our Freedom From The Tyrannical EU. (Sidenote, if someone just punches Jacob Rees-Mogg in the elitist Little Britain face, you don’t know where I was, God I hate him so much.) Every single business, manufacturer, industry, finance, medicine, food, education, you name it outfit has been warning that no, actually, no deal would be catastrophic and the UK is not remotely prepared for it. To the point we have the military on standby to deliver basic goods if it happens??! How. How is this acceptable??!?!? I don’t understand??!?!

(And the Brexiteers who are like “this is Britain let’s all just hunt hares and grow food in our back gardens,” which, yes, is something I heard actually said, are out of touch to a truly stupendous degree. Yes I’m sure that a modern first-world country wants to resort to subsistence farming to feed its 66 million people. Do they. Even. Hear Themselves. Racism is a hell of a drug, my friends! And if you want to be like “oh no it’s not about racism/anti-immigrant sentiment, it’s about the economy,” let’s just say that the newsreader covering a Brexit march said that he’d never seen so many white people in one place and was forced to apologize, because racist white people don’t like it being pointed out to them that they are racist white people. That tells you a lot. And the Leave campaign has been convicted multiple times for breaking electoral law and just flat-out Lying to the public, so the people who voted Leave thinking they were in fact getting a better economic deal were deceived outright and have indeed often expressed regret that they were so wildly and deliberately deluded. So anyway. Fun!)

I cannot emphasise enough the sheer, staggering arrogance and delusion of the people who proposed this project and then forced it through, because the British public has believed throughout its entire history that it’s better than the whole world (see again: imperial nostalgia and Oh No The Foreigners Are Coming and etc) and has been fed for a good 25 years on this point on a lot of bullshit stories about how terrible and Liberal and Anti-British the EU is, because the British popular press is a flaming dumpster fire (you think Fox News is bad, and it is, but so many of the tabloids are basically Fox News UK). So the Brits feel as if they’ve been so unfairly repressed by the EU and need to Take Back Control (once again, there is a very long history of this rhetoric of the English being supposedly attacked and repressed by foreigners, dating back to the idea of the “Norman Yoke” resulting from the Conquest, which became a big deal in the 19th century – I am a historian, I can pull receipts for days on this). Once again, they think they can just do whatever they want, the EU is the bad guy for not giving it to them, that we should set ourselves on fire and jump out the window rather than sit at the table like grownups with the rest of Europe, and just take our ball and go home and yet still think we are entitled to preferential treatment.

I just…. I don’t even. I DO NOT EVEN. I seriously lack the words.

So we may get another rolling series of short-term extensions, we may not, nobody can come to any agreement on what should be done, May promised to resign to get the deal through, the deal did not get through, the whole setup is so unsustainable that it feels like a general election is an inevitability, and the obvious solution would be another referendum to see if the people even still goddamn want this. But the Brexiteers, for all they bluster about upholding the will of the people to leave, resist this with all their might (what are you fucking afraid of? If you’re so confident that you’re still the majority, you should WANT another referendum to confirm it, but you’re cowards and you know you’d lose and you’re tied to this stick of dynamite for Ideology Reasons, god damn it). The message has been always that We Must Deliver Brexit and This Is What The People Want, while the people are breaking records saying that no, actually, we’d like another say, because everyone has now seen that this is an absurd shitshow that cannot be accomplished (and ONCE AGAIN WAS NEVER! FEASIBLE! IN THE FUCKING FIRST PLACE!!!!) and it hey, actually was not a bad idea to be in the EU.

This is again, the alignment of the entire post-WWII political and legal world. It confers countless benefits, freedom from tariffs, the single market, a customs union, visa-free travel, no roaming charges, the right to live and work in 27 other countries, etc. But because the ex-British Empire (which really wishes it was still the British Empire) has its fragile racist panties in a bunch about other people coming to live here (when as ever, the problem isn’t immigrants, it’s austerity budgets and the Tories absolutely gutting government and NHS funding and social programmes and thinking that the solution to knife crime is to punish teachers for not noticing their students getting into it), they have decided this is actually the best course of action. Because we don’t want those Non British People telling us what to do. Ew gross.

As people have said, it’s like trading a gourmet three course meal for a bag of crisps and feeling self-satisfied about it, because boy we sure showed them. It has been bungled to a degree truly stupefying to everyone who isn’t a marching Brexiteer ideologue, Labour have…. really not inspired any confidence whatsoever that they’d be able to handle it better (since they have wildly see-sawed between what they will and won’t support, if they’d revoke Article 50 or support a new people’s vote or so on) and the Prime Minister has failed on an utterly fundamental degree to build cross-party consensus or engage with other European leaders or display any ability to consider alternatives. The Tories have truly felt that they can ram this through without any reference to anyone or anything else, and fuck consequences, I guess. The British economy has already lost approximately £66 billion as a result of Brexit uncertainty and loses more every day, every major firm is moving its headquarters to somewhere they can take advantage of EU law, this will leave us poorer, more isolated, less secure, with fewer options, and generally a worse deal in every imaginable way, and yet, because again, racism and xenophobia is a hell of a drug, there are still some factions who feel like yes, this is absolutely what we should do.

It is truly a slow motion car crash of nightmares, it’s completely avoidable and yet nobody has the backbone to do that, Parliament and the PM have completely broken down, nobody is listening to the British people for whom they are supposedly doing this, and once again, the British Empire absolutely 100% deserves this. But as someone who lives here and would actually kind of like to get a job here, Jesus Christ. Jesus. Christ. JESUS. CHRIST.

#politics for ts #brexit for ts #did i say everything #i'm not even sure i did #god #long post #romancelvr #ask

42 notes · View notes

berniesrevolution · 5 years

Photo

JACOBIN MAGAZINE

Review of Economics for the Many (Verso, 2018).

“. . . A New Britain where the extraordinary talent of the British people is liberated from the forces of conservatism that so long have held them back, to create a model 21st century nation, based not on privilege, class or background, but on the equal worth of all. And New Labour, confident at having modernized itself, now the new progressive force in British politics which can modernize the nation, sweep away those forces of conservatism to set the people free.”

– Tony Blair, 1999

“Economics are the method: the object is to change the soul.”

– Margaret Thatcher, 1981

Though they didn’t know it at the time, those who observed Britain’s 1979 general election and the Labour Party’s defeat were witnessing far more than a simple change of government. The Thatcherite ascendency that followed would not only reconfigure the institutions of the British state but establish — through a combination of luck, guile, and brute force — an entirely new political consensus that would consciously reshape British society in the process. By the time Labour returned to power nearly two decades later, a wholesale ideological counterrevolution was underway and its own leaders were among its most zealous partisans.

Perhaps no other European country in the postwar era (with the possible exception of Russia) has experienced a comparably drastic ideological shift, and certainly no working class has suffered such bitter repression and defeat in such a short time. After 1990, much of the global left faced a period of retrenchment but Britain’s political sclerosis, and the widespread sense of defeat it engendered, was particularly acute.

What the late Mark Fisher called “capitalist realism” — the pervasive sense that “capitalism is not only the only viable political and economic system, but also that it is now impossible even to imagine a coherent alternative to it” — reigned supreme, simultaneously afflicting the Left and animating partisans of the new order. Henceforth, “progress” was to imply only an ever-more dizzying advance into a global capitalist modernity from which no escape was conceivable and “conservatism” was anything that even momentarily stood in the way.

As a consequence, parliamentary socialists — those who survived — were forced to assume an increasingly defensive posture in a (sometimes futile) effort to preserve welfarist institutions or at very least mitigate damage. Within the Labour Party itself, the initially promising leadership of Ed Miliband ended in disappointment and defeat. Outside the electoral sphere (with a few exceptions) the Left grew more abstract in its analysis of power and less programmatic in its prescriptions for confronting or reconfiguring it. While individual causes and struggles like the anti–Iraq War movement and the 2010 student protests inspired heroic activism, its overall position was nothing short of dire and the malaise ran deep.

As many socialists immediately understood, therefore, Jeremy Corbyn’s surprise 2015 election as leader of the Labour Party opened up horizons of political possibility previously unimaginable. Gone would be the former leadership’s triangulating positions on austerity, immigration, and welfare policy and back on the table were familiar social-democratic objectives around taxation, redistribution, and public ownership.

But as the party’s left celebrated a stunning turn of events amidst historically weak fortunes, critics of Corbynism overwhelmingly saw something primitive and atavistic at work. “A return to the 1970s” quickly became a favorite theme of Britain’s right-leaning press, which cast Labour’s new leadership as both a pre-Blairite and pre-Thatcherite throwback: the desiccated corpse of the “Old Labour” anachronism born anew. Even after the party’s success in the 2017 general election, versions of the narrative have persisted, as has likeminded opposition from the “modernizers” on its now diminished right flank.

Much in this genre of analysis can undoubtedly be put down to poor historical memory, political opportunism, or simple bad faith. But its ubiquitousness, particularly in commentary on the center and center-left, is evidence of how just deeply the dogmas of the 1990s — and the conservative modes of thinking they reflect — ultimately run.

Economics for the Many

“To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.”

– Clause IV, Labour Party Constitution, 1918

If the Labour Party’s 2017 election manifesto emphasized somewhat familiar (though nevertheless bold) themes like nationalization and redistribution, its next one promises to be considerably more expansive — encompassing, among other things, different forms of public ownership and industrial democracy.

Radical thinking of this kind has only grown more urgent. By virtually any imaginable standard — even those its adherents have set themselves — Britain’s ruling economic consensus has been a failure. Austerity has not, as successive Tory chancellors have insisted with such fanatical certitude, delivered the promised economic recovery. The legacy of the Conservative government’s deflationary fiscal policies can instead be seen in human costs that can only be called catastrophic: stagnant wages, dire and rising levels of poverty among both children and adults, crumbling public services, and a corroded social fabric alongside an ever more gilded existence for Britain’s economic and cultural elite.

The underlying problems, of course, predate both austerity and the 2008 crash. A bloated financial sector with its talons deep in the Treasury has produced lopsided and regionalized growth heavily favoring metropolitan London and largely servicing unsustainable consumption at home and environmentally destructive extraction abroad. Precarity and high levels of household debt for ordinary families, meanwhile, have followed an overall shift from the older manufacturing economy to one structured heavily around services and global finance.

Economics for the Many — a new collection of essays edited by Labour’s shadow chancellor John McDonnell — is simultaneously an intervention into these realities and a programmatic sketch of radical left thinking for the twenty-first century. As its title suggests, the book is also an effort to reclaim economics for the Left, an easily stated though admittedly daunting task amid neoliberalism’s persistence as the economic lingua franca.

Simultaneously localist and internationalist in scope — and encompassing everything from trade, the environment, and alternative models of firm ownership to fiscal policy and the challenges posed by platform monopolies and the data economy — the essays are accessible and minimally abstract, both in their concern with the practicalities of policy and their awareness of the difficulties of implementation in the face of political constraints.

This, however, makes them no less innovative. In chapters on democratic alternatives to private enterprise, for example, Rob Calvert Jump, Joe Guinan, and Thomas M. Hanna explore cooperatives, community-based systems of ownership, social entrepreneurship, and workplace democracy, their analyses including case studies from across Europe, North America, and within the UK. Building on Labour’s 2017 manifesto, which promised to make workers the first potential buyer should a company go on sale, Guinan and Hanna propose active investment by local authorities in the cooperative sector.

(Conitnue Reading)

#politics #the left #jacobin #jacobin magazine #uk politics #jeremy corbyn #john mcdonnell #labour party #democratic socialism #socialism

24 notes · View notes

northafricanus · 6 years

Text

The English speaking Algerian.

There is no arrogance in being an Algerian who is not from France. There is, again, no arrogance in being an Algerian who is not in Algeria. It is a different experience with different opportunities presented, handled by people of a similar culture. And that’s just it: it’s different.

Here lies the problem that is coming to the surface for many Algerians who are displaced elsewhere in the world; and in particular the Anglophone world. A disclaimer is much needed as I begin writing this, too: I write from my experience, my conversations, and my readings only. I appreciate that what I am about to share can be shared with other groups of people. Take what resonates with you, absorb what you didn’t already know, and hopefully engage in a different way of understanding identity.

For many years, the immigrant identity of an Algerian outside of Algeria was always linked to that of the French experience. I cannot, and will not, speak on behalf of the French-Algerian identity as this is an identity that is so heavily politicised, ostracised and for many, misunderstood. As of late, Algerians from the Anglophone world have slowly come to surface. Albeit, never as strong as the French, but they are making a mark slowly but surely.

Identity is an extremely politicised sentiment and the actual act of identification, naming, labelling and wading through what your identity may be is tarnished with politics. To be and to realise your being is politics.

As an Algerian who has grown up in England, UK, the identity from day one was assigned to me of British, as well as Algerian. I can’t remember a time when I was not mindful of Algeria, and the strong awareness that I was far away from a society that looked like me, perhaps shared names with me and shared the same form of religion with me. Having said that, I was also lucky enough to never feel lesser because of this in England. I was very much British with my English (and accent), my education, my appreciation for queues and organisation, and apologising profusely when it is not at all necessary. As much as these sounds like stereotypical British traits, they are actually something that come to surface when I am in Algeria. And vice versa. I will feel extremely Algerian in Britain in other situations.

Through various conversations growing up, it was always apparent that being an Algerian from England was quite the novelty. Alas, I spoke English (ki chghoul ta3 BBC), and this in itself was very different. Algerian darja (the Arabic language variant spoken in Algeria) is laced with vocabulary borrowed (or should I say, forced) from the French language. So naturally, there was an assumption that I understood all of the French words I was using when speaking in darja. However, and quite funnily as I look back, I hadn’t a clue. Sure, I was studying French at a young age and read French, but I never made the link between what I was saying in darja, and how it was French. So, when someone in Algeria was aware that I was ‘from abroad’, their initial assumption was that I have come from France, and so they began speaking in French.

Utter panic and horror fell over me.

I would mumble in darja that I don’t speak French. The speaker was always a little confused, and moved away. Until someone said ‘hadhou jow min lengliz!’ (these came from England) and that’s when the cooing and ahhing begin.

A novelty.

I think I remotely remember singing the nursery rhyme that every British child will know of ‘twinkle twinkle little star’ on the Casbah stairs as a 6 year old to some friends I’d made and they thought this was utterly brilliant. Looking back, how I’d made myself into an English language star was truly by pure luck.

Fast forward to the teenage years, an already bewildering time to say the least, and one’s sense of identity is yet again put under the lens. Adolescents are critical of themselves at the best of times, so can you imagine this awkward, quiet, Algerian who happened to speak English trying to navigate her way through these years? Luckily, I’m here to repaint that picture in all of your minds, for better or worse.

At first thought, my teenage years were not a time where being Algerian was a forefront thought. Rather, I was Algerian every summer (and Ramadan), and British during the school year. Other than that, I spoke darja, again, when needs be to my family on the phone (after trying to avoid the cringe-fest of family phone calls, it was always me out of my siblings who would bite the bullet and take the phone) and I’d support the Algerian national football team whenever they played.

It then became slightly estranged when I realised that my Arabic, was different to their Arabic. You know what I mean? I had always been enrolled in Arabic classes since the age of 6; writing and reading and the children in my class were from all varying backgrounds and shade of ‘Arab’ speaking countries. I had Lebanese friends, Libyan, Sudanese and Kuwaiti. But why wasn’t the Arabic I was reading and writing, the same as the one I spoke to my family? Why did I say ‘laabas’ for ‘how are you’ instead of ‘kayf el-hal’ like the other Arab speakers?

Language is a form of identity. I was confused, again.

But I digress. The language lessons and the Casbah trips only really contributed to a healthy view of self in the long run. The beauty was that I was not conflicted with having to shift myself from British or Algerian. I could indeed be both and no one was bothered. Was this this Britain effect? Britain, especially among its more diverse cities such as London, Manchester and Birmingham is known for having a wealth of cultures living and working together. Now, one is not saying that it’s all peace and harmony and love. By nature, humans will chalk ‘n’ cheese their relationships often with people they don’t know or understand. However, as an experience, I only saw negotiating between the two identities as a skill. After all, identity is a fluid concept and if I master the movement of it, wasn’t I the winner?

At some points, I feel much more in touch with Algeria and other times, I feel more British. I cannot, by default, say I am more this than that, or deny one side of it completely because the reality of my existence doesn’t allow for that. What it has encouraged though, is a self-appreciation and move away from (self) ridicule.

Is there an Algerian identity crisis for those who are outside of Algeria? (and not in France) A quick Google search suggests that people are still masquerading with the French identity and to find an identity that is Algerian in the Anglo-world is hard to come by. I will always remember reading the articles, blogs and watching documentaries of Algerians in France, and never really being able to relate. And also having a sense of ‘but what about me? (us)’ as the English speakers existed, but also didn’t exist.

As social media increased, so did the discovery of Algerians from all over the world. And I was one of them. I was allowed to share a part of my identity that I only ever really experienced within the realms of my own home in Britain, and in Algeria. I could be whatever I wanted to be online, share whatever made sense to me, and it was all in English. However, the Algerians who spoke English, at first, were far and few. Then it increased. The majority within Algeria. This was already a small success. Then slowly followed the Algerians from the English speaking world.

Then the meme was created. How I love a meme. So much communication in such a small image and space. And then with this came the ‘Arab vines’ string of videos (that I laughed at, a lot), and the ‘You know you’re Algerian when…’ series. I enjoyed these. Until they were posted in French. Then, once again, I was shut off because it wasn’t me. Or my brother. Or the Algerian in Australia or Canada (the English speaking part, anyway). I could see Anglo-Algerians clutching at straws to relate and laugh and share these memes, but it eventually led to a break away and a creation of a different experience entirely.

This is still the case now. Twitter and Instagrams from fellow Maghrebians in English, from the UK, USA, Canada and so forth really have forged a bond of jokes and relations and it was the language that bonded them.

And I still grapple with what it means to be Algerian.

The Algerian identity can be a chaotic one, from whatever route you choose to take it from.

#language #identity #algeria #britain #english #arabic #french #darja

30 notes · View notes

almostmellowrebel-blog · 5 years

Text

Great British Apathy

The last two girls I dated wanted to change the world. Their enthusiasm each day left me feeling genuinely insecure about what it was I was doing with my life, what I wanted personally, and if this in any way mirrored what I wanted to see in the world. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that both were not British. And though one of them was German, her eagerness to return to Africa and South America, despite the very potent threats of violence, meant she never had the feeling of British restraint or German realism. And I mean that in the best of senses. The other was from the Middle East and spoke with such hope and passion about Palestine that I could only listen with envy and, honestly, a growing sense of impotence. This hope had not been sparked in the UK and, at least to me, seemed like it might be snuffed out by remaining here.

Britain, as viewed by me, is almost cloyingly self-aware and yet utterly unmotivated. It seemingly faces no major threats to its survival, whether existential or cultural, and so the few things that appear to minutely threaten whatever it has concocted itself to be is thrust into headlines. Frankly, these periodical croaks represent the country for the very few. Our country feels like it can’t attain progress because it’s empire, and the national vision of empire, is still dying. It’s still apologising awkwardly for the faux pas of colonialism, unsure how to inject itself into the conversation. Like rolling up your sleeves and cracking on with the day immediately after a wake, we don’t know what work we can accomplish without causing offence. We’re fed lines like ‘punching above our weight’ to replace the growing feeling that we’re increasingly side-lined around the Globe. That the world speaks our language only makes the viewing of it growing up without us more tangible. But this isn’t about establishing a national vision of Britain that is seemingly elusive. My point is that among this necessary return to reality, we’ve taken our hands off the wheel entirely. We’re just not in control of it. We’ve been robbed of our impetus by our history and, increasingly, by manufacture.

But in this strange epochal transience it’s very difficult to shout anything. Everyone agrees. There are pockets of trauma, don’t get me wrong, but it remains constrained socially or geographically. This seems to contrast strongly with the U.S.. Just as the world is battered by America, America is an equally committed masochist too. Great art often comes from the self-destructive and America has always seemed like a nation divided, under threat from within. Anytime that things looked a little boring, it would reflexively self-harm, as if it knew that snorting 2 grams of cocaine was the precise quantity required to finish off a new chart topping hit. Britain kind of feels like that sometimes, like its trying to cut into itself in the hope of provoking something visceral. You might be shocked at the amount of people I spoke to that voted against ‘Brexit’ but secretly hoped that it would come to pass regardless (safe in the knowledge they wouldn’t be holding the smoking gun), because they had been assured it would be hellish and chaotic. Chaos it undoubtedly is, and Government departments are essentially gridlocked under the strain of it. But people wanted fire, bloodcurdling screams and a rallying call across Trafalgar square that made us drop our witty placards and grab pitchforks; not an apologetic shuffling of paperwork. Now frustrated that the ‘Brexit’ chaos only really meant more filing, we’re done with the whole thing and just want to get on with it. We could only look on with horror, slight superiority and even more subtle envy when Trump took up the Presidency. Who better to shake things up after Mr. Cool than the king of daytime TV? Now that’s entertainment.

And maybe that would all be well and good if there weren’t any problems. If the technology we created wasn’t increasingly shaping us, if the cost we were given for stability wasn’t instability elsewhere and if the prices we pay reflected the prices we didn’t. The things we have created have made us complacent but threaten what it means to be human more than any bomb yet invented. When do the tools used by businesses to compete become so effective at predicting choice that the choice is essentially non-existent? We know we need kicking awake for something, but we don’t yet know what. Change first necessitates conflict and so our cultural trope of agreeing forthrightly with the diagnosis while taking no particular steps towards the argument’s conclusion is dooming us faster than any other state.We’re not sure whether we have a right to complain. We crave the shock that will probe is into activity, but we instinctively feel it lacking around us. We sense that the crisis isn’t yet here. The appetite is growing but we don’t have our enemy. We pounce occasionally upon figments of our collective imagination, but nothing satisfies the deep sense that something larger is wrong and out of balance. We’ve been told the problems are inevitable and so we sleep walk into them. To me this is clearly not a reflex to contentment; it is not a society approaching a healthy, developed equilibrium. As a species we need problems yes, but progress brings with it new problems and, if only technologically, we are progressing with frightening speed. Right now there should be more cries of alarm, not less. But we don’t know yet how to spell out the enemy’s name and without our pantomime villain we become ineffective. And so the media, itself too ephemeral a target, obscures us from uttering the name of a tangible foe. As always, it will be greed and fear but we cannot as a society explain what form it has yet taken. This too is being robbed of us. But now more than ever it has the tools needed to snuff us all out with finality.

We are sleepwalking into an abyss, fumbling for something to scream.

#politics #uk #ukpolitics #opinion #rebellion #uk-us relations #usa #donaldtrump

1 note · View note

dipulb3 · 3 years

Text

Analysis: Why you won't find Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson on British TV

New Post has been published on https://appradab.com/analysis-why-you-wont-find-sean-hannity-and-tucker-carlson-on-british-tv/

Analysis: Why you won't find Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson on British TV

“The mob that stormed and desecrated the Capitol … could not have existed in a country that hadn’t been radicalized by the likes of [Fox News hosts] Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, and swayed by biased news coverage,” wrote Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan.

But are the airwaves of any democracy free of this kind of harmful propaganda and downright fiction? The United Kingdom, for one, comes pretty close.

Though the UK media scene is defined in part by a freewheeling and often partisan tabloid press with its own share of conspiracy theories, its TV news channels largely frame their coverage down the middle, with broadcasters such as the BBC and ITV maintaining high levels of public trust. Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News is no longer on air in the country after failing to generate a significant viewer base.

A big factor in this is media regulator Ofcom, which enforces rules on impartiality and accuracy for all news broadcasters. Those who breach the rules can be censured or fined — putting pressure on TV channels to play stories fairly straight.

Russian state-funded news channel RT, for example, was slapped with a £200,000 ($272,000) penalty for repeatedly breaking impartiality rules in its 2018 coverage of the poisonings of former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, as well as the conflict in Syria. It has not been fined since.

“What the impartiality rules do is ensure you cannot have the kind of shock jock culture — [a] far right, or indeed far left, one-sided interpretation of events,” said Steven Barnett, a professor of media and communication at the University of Westminster.

The UK system isn’t perfect. A review of BBC coverage ahead of the 2016 Brexit referendum found that its main news program was more negative on the European Union than Russian President Vladimir Putin. And two new media ventures expected to launch shortly could again push the limits of what’s allowed. But according to experts, the framework has protected against the kind of disinformation peddled by Fox News in the United States.

No Fox News

Ofcom, which was established in 2003, has two important standards that the news broadcasters it licenses must abide by — “due impartiality” and “due accuracy.”

This does not mean that equal time needs to be given on television and radio to both sides of an issue. But broadcasters do have a responsibility at least to acknowledge opposing viewpoints, and to quickly correct “significant mistakes.”

When Fox News was on the air in the United Kingdom, its top stars were found to have violated the regulator’s rules.

Ofcom said that a Hannity program about President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting travel from seven majority-Muslim countries didn’t do enough to surface the viewpoints of those who opposed the order. Ofcom also said that a separate Carlson broadcast following the 2017 Manchester terror attack — which included claims that UK authorities had done nothing to stop terrorism or to protect “thousands of underage girls” from rape and abuse — did not adequately reflect alternate perspectives.

Fox News was pulled off air in the United Kingdom later in 2017 when Murdoch, the billionaire chairman of News Corp and Fox News’ parent company, was seeking government approval to purchase the shares he didn’t own of European pay TV network Sky. (He ended up selling his Sky holdings to Comcast.)

21st Century Fox, the network’s parent company at the time, said it made the decision because Fox News had attracted “only a few thousand viewers across the day” in the United Kingdom, and it didn’t make commercial sense to continue broadcasting. But the move also came amid scrutiny from Ofcom, which had previously slammed Fox’s handling of sexual harassment allegations against former network boss Roger Ailes and former star host Bill O’Reilly, calling their alleged conduct “deeply disturbing.”

Such warnings hint at the trouble Fox News could have faced had it stuck it out during the Trump era.

Hefty penalties awarded to other channels, such as RT, have effectively communicated the consequences of slipping up to media executives, said Trevor Barnes, a TV and radio compliance consultant and former Ofcom official.

“They’re aware that if they misbehave, they’ll be hit with a fine,” he said.

The United States, meanwhile, doesn’t have these kinds of rules — and hasn’t since the Reagan era, when the Federal Communications Commission stopped enforcing the so-called Fairness Doctrine for TV and radio stations. Historians believe the demise of this rule, which required broadcasters to present a variety of views on issues of public importance, paved the way for the explosion of conservative talk radio in the late 1980s and 1990s, which later served as a model for Fox. Those talk radio shows continue to be popular today.

As a cable network, Fox News wouldn’t have been bound by the doctrine, which only applied to broadcast channels. But Julian Zelizer, a history professor at Princeton University and Appradab contributor, said its removal changed the rules of the game.

“It served as a kind of check,” Zelizer said. “It was always on the mind of everyone who was in the news business.”

Now, even members of the Murdoch family are reckoning with the role Fox News has played. James Murdoch, who made a dramatic break from his family last year when he resigned from the board of News Corp, said in a statement on Friday that “spreading disinformation” has “real world consequences.” While he did not mention Fox News by name, it was clear his focus was on the network controlled by his father and brother.

“Many media property owners have as much responsibility for this as the elected officials who know the truth but choose instead to propagate lies. We hope the awful scenes we have all been seeing will finally convince those enablers to repudiate the toxic politics they have promoted once and forever,” James Murdoch and his wife, Kathryn Murdoch, said in a joint statement to the Financial Times.

New networks may test the system

The United Kingdom has largely watched the Capitol riot and its aftermath in horror.

“The events … have been the ultimate demonstration of what can happen when those fundamental pillars of democracy break down: accurate information [and] fair information,” Barnett said.

But two outlets expected to debut shortly in the United Kingdom could test the bounds of the regulatory system, including Ofcom’s appetite for enforcement.

Murdoch’s UK operation, which still controls three big British newspapers — The Sun, The Times and The Sunday Times — is working on a new video venture, having recently received a license under the name News UK TV. Details haven’t been announced.

Meanwhile, upstart competitor GB News, which recently secured £60 million ($81 million) from investors, is hiring journalists as it prepares to launch a 24-hour news channel.

“Many British people are crying out for a news service that is more diverse and more representative of their values and concerns,” former BBC host Andrew Neil, who will serve as the chairman of GB News, said in a statement last week. Neil was previously the editor of Murdoch’s Sunday Times and executive chairman of Sky TV.

Critics fear the News UK TV venture and GB News could move to take on the BBC and fill a perceived gap in right-wing broadcasting, sparking concerns about whether UK regulators are up to the task of maintaining due impartiality, or whether Britain could soon have its own Fox News-type problem.

Both outlets may play things fairly safe at first, and Barnes noted that the rules will give them some latitude.

“There’s no requirement under due impartiality for a channel not to have a bias,” he said. “All it requires is you reflect, to a pretty small degree, what the opposing viewpoint is.”

But Barnett is worried that over time, there could be a slow erosion of norms — combined with an anti-Ofcom push from Murdoch’s powerful papers, who may level criticisms of a “nanny state regulator telling us what we can and can’t say.” News Corp declined to comment.

“I will make a prediction that within a year we will see a concerted attack within the Murdoch press on Ofcom,” he said. And if support for the regulator fades, all bets will be off.

0 notes

trecblog · 3 years

Text

The Good Immigrant: A Collection Of 21 Essays - Review

Recently (as of the time of writing this review) Sainsbury’s released their Christmas advert for the 2020 holiday season. The advert features a family talking about how excited they are to celebrate Christmas together. It is nice, and positive, and basically what you would expect from a typical Christmas advert. The advert has however received complaints from some viewers because the family featured are black. While the complaints have been the minority they have been loud with people saying they plan to boycott the supermarket chain as a result. I know this is a book review but I want to let that sink in for a moment. There are people who saw an advert featuring a black family celebrating Christmas and are offended enough to boycott a supermarket chain. A boycott because of an advert.

This reaction shows in Britain White (and if you want to get more specific straight white male) is still considered the default and for lack of a better term “normal”. Anything else is considered “other”, and a break from what is normal. This Britain, where a Christmas advert can be considered offensive is the Britain in which The Good Immigrant was written in 2016, and is the one we are still living in in 2020. The Good Immigrant is a collection of 21 essays from Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnicity writers from across literature, and the media curated by editor Nikesh Shukla. It is an anthology focused on the experiences of immigrants, the children and grandchildren of immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers living in the UK. These essays are a mixed bag as could be expected, and differ in tone, subject matter, and focus but a few shared themes, and subjects emerge over the course of the collection.

One of the themes that comes up multiple times throughout the different essays is a deep frustration and anger, but also the inability to express that anger. Anger and particularly public displays of anger are unfortunately still the privilege of White men specifically. When a white man is angry he is called passionate, when a white woman is angry she is called hysterical. When a Black person is angry they are called a thug. When an Asian person is angry they are called a terrorist. These are but a few examples of the way words are used to defend the anger of white men as righteous and justified, and to dismiss and invalidate anger from anyone else. Throughout these essays to be a “Good immigrant” seems to be synonymous with being quiet and taking the everyday indignities, biases, and micro-aggressions without complaint such as the question which is called out several times in these essays as a particular source of frustration: “No, where are you really from?” This book offers the relatively rare opportunity for the writers to complain, to express anger, to pour their completely justifiable frustrations onto the page. However it is important to note that this is not a purely angry book just shouting at the reader from start to finish. Each writer brings their own voice and their own writing styles. Many are funny, and each is unique, and as a white reader they are eye opening and reveal life experiences I have not considered, or at least have not considered as much as I should.

Alongside this anger, and frustration there is an undercurrent running throughout the book about the struggles with assimilation. To be a “good immigrant” seems to not only be quiet, and non-threatening, but to fit in with the mainstream as much as possible. White British people are generally held as the judges of culture and behaviour in this country. As said above we are considered “normal” anything outside of that from non-anglicised names, to cultural practices is categorized as “other” as a result. To live outside of the norm, to be in the box labelled other means living under an extra level of scrutiny that never goes away, an extra burden for these writers to prove that they belong in Britain, even when they were born here. Reading these essays a commonality comes through of the push and pull between wanting to belong with wanting to retain your own cultural identity. It is a balancing act all of the writers have had to hone and perfect as a matter of survival in a society which does not always react well to difference. It is a balancing act which I as a reader have never really had to learn, and an added burden that I have never had to carry.

Given the rise of the stereotype of the “immigrant” as somehow being a lazy benefit sponge while simultaneously taking seemingly all the jobs this book serves an important purpose. It casts a light on the sneakier form of racism that has become more prevalent in modern day Britain. While open and proud racists still exist racism has evolved to fit in a Britain that will proudly tout its commitment to multiculturalism while quietly enforcing conformity. This quieter racism is names being mispronounced. It is words being misunderstood and misused. It is actors being pigeonholed into certain parts because of their skin colour. It is not seeing yourself represented in the media as anything other than a stereotype or token best friend. It is small comments and digs here and there which multiply over time like racist compound interest. This book gives valuable insight as to what it is like to live in a country that does not seem to want you living in it, and always considers you an outsider even if you were born in it.

To conclude this piece these essays are at times funny, at times sad, and at times anger inducing at the state of the world the writers have to live in. We all live in our own lives created by our own experiences, and perspectives. The racism and anger seen in reaction to Sainsbury’s advert shows this. Some people have such a lack of understanding for what exists outside of their worldview that what they have categorised as “other” entering their lives is cause for anger, and a boycott. Ultimately what this book offers is an opportunity to step out of our lives and into the lives of these 21 writers. It is a chance to gain some much needed perspective and awareness. Given the reception the advert received this chance to see how the “other” lives is one we need more of right now, and while it will not magically fix everything on its own, this is a book more people should absolutely read.

0 notes

boldtendencies · 7 years

Text

Art and Turmoil During The Troubles, 1968–1998

During my traineeship at Bold Tendencies I was given the opportunity to write a piece for the blog. I wanted to do something that interested me but didn’t know much about. I had studied history in Ireland during my Leaving Cert, a part of this course was learning about The Troubles in Northern Ireland and my class took a trip there for a weekend. We visited many sites including some of the many political murals in the city of Belfast. That trip still sticks with me and has impacted how I view art in public spaces. This summer I realised though I didn’t know much about the murals besides very surface level information which is why I decided to research it as part of my traineeship.

The Troubles was a time period of political conflict between Irish Republicans and British Loyalists in Northern Ireland from 1968 to 1998. Over 3,500 people were killed and over 47,000 injured. Irish Republicans wanted to be independent of Britain and join the Republic of Ireland while British Loyalists wanted to stay a part of Britain. This separation was made greater by religious difference, the Irish were Catholic and the British were Protestant. For years discrimination and oppression against Catholics such as gerrymandering made tensions grow until the late 1960s with the formation of the Ulster Volunteer Force, civil rights marches and the Battle of the Bogside which brought the first deployment of British troops into Northern Ireland. During these 30 years artists responded in various ways. Murals became a form of propaganda on both sides while artists who were more critical of the situation had a difficult time having their work shown in galleries due to fear of attacks from either sides.

Belfast has the highest concentration of militant murals, located in neighbourhoods where the message is supported. Unlike graffiti where at times there’s different artists competing for different areas, a Republican mural in a Republican neighbourhood and a Loyalist mural in a Loyalist neighbourhood, never trying to convince the other side of their view but to reinforce it on their own supporters or those of the same religious denomination. The imagery used by either side is unique but the style very similar. Loyalist murals started long before The Troubles with depictions of William lll becoming a symbol of Loyalist victory in 1908. William lll (protestant) defeated James ll (Catholic) in The Battle of the Boyne in 1690 and this event has been used as pro-protestant propaganda ever since. Republicans began creating murals in the 1970s, mostly to commemorate events such as Sunday Bloody Sunday and various protests like the H-Block Maze Hunger Strikes in 1981. Both sides used murals to declare their own victories in an attempt to encourage support and as a reminder of the past. History was an extremely important aspect on both sides, as these tensions had been brewing since the 1600s. Both had their stories, both had their reasons for wanting one way over the other. These murals reflect identities, ideologies and histories during these 30 years of fighting. And though the fighting has stopped, tensions remain 20 years later and these murals set as a reminder or a warning.

Depiction of William lll

Sunday Bloody Sunday mural

In Belfast, two of perhaps the most famous murals from The Troubles were painted. On the Republican side, the mural of Bobby Sands still stands, painted on the side of the Falls Road Sinn Fein office. Sands died in May, 1981 during the H-Block Maze hunger strike and the mural was painted some time after that. Although it has been vandalised over the years the piece still stands and has become a tourist attraction. It is a popular image that Republicans use to this day, a reminder of those who came before them and what they stand for. Others would see Sands as a terrorist or at least a criminal, his supporters see him as a martyr. This sparks debate around the still standing piece, the question of whether or not it, like many other propaganda murals, should be removed to let way for Belfast in peace times.

The second mural is a UDA piece with the nickname of ‘Belfast’s Mona Lisa’. It depicts a man holding a gun straight at the viewer, the barrel follows one wherever they stand (hence it’s name). It was painted on the side of a residence in the Lower Shankhill area of Belfast which was knocked down in 2015 for a regeneration project. It not only showed the UFF member with a gun but on each side depicts banners for the Ulster Defence Union and Ulster Defence Association. They plan on ‘re-imagined’ murals to take the place of the old once the project is finished, this decision was made closely with local residents. The removal of murals is a sensitive subject in Northern Ireland, even 20 years after. Some argue to keep them as supporters of those causes, others argue for their historical significance. Those for removing the murals argue that Northern Ireland must be able to move on, that these murals represent a time of violence and fear. Despite disagreements over what should be done with the murals, all are aware of how careful they must be. IRA and Loyalist paramilitaries still exist and are active, though not close to how they once were, they still pose a threat to whatever decision is made. How can a city move on yet respect the past? How do these murals play into that? These questions are still being debated.

Mural of Bobby Sands in Belfast

‘Belfast’s Mona Lisa’

As well as murals during The Troubles, other art forms emerged in an attempt to discuss or make sense of the time the artists were living in. Unlike the murals which seemed to portray a political ideology or give praise to a certain party, certain artists were criticizing the violence which was permeating the country. One must know though that during the times of The Troubles, people did not talk about it. It was not taught in schools until recently in the Republic of Ireland and is still a sensitive subject in the North. There was a great fear of being overheard and having a differing opinion, to question was to ask for conflict. Galleries attempted to avoid this by not displaying art that dealt with the issues of The Troubles including the Ulster Museum who refused to display these types of works until 2009. Artists such as John Keane, Patric Coogan and Conrad Atkinson through painting attempted to portray the violence and decay of Northern Ireland. Each artist has a different way of approaching the subject. Despite the very mainstream perspective of art in Northern Ireland, not all the pieces are car bombings and blood. These pieces show despair, the despair people must’ve felt during these times. There is the decay, abandoned streets, no figures needed to show just how bad things had got. There is a feeling of endlessness to them. No solution, just violence. Perhaps these artists were ignored more or less because people did not find the commentary helpful, perhaps they were scared, perhaps the artists did not have a political backing from either Republicans or Loyalists thus leaving them as an outlier.

‘What’s in the Bag?’ by Patric Coogan

‘The Other Cheek’ by John Keane

‘A Shade of Green, an Orange Edge’ by Conrad Atkinson

The art that took sides (the murals) have started many debates and raised many questions about the future of Northern Ireland while the pieces that questioned either or both sides are often not brought up within this debate. Perhaps 20 years is not enough time for the viewer to be subjective. Perhaps it is because the issues feel unresolved. It is easier to see black and white, republican or loyalist. How does this issue raise questions in the art world as a whole? How does political art play into our society today? Does it still have an affect? It is just a part of a history lesson or does it still have a message? This essay is not to resolve anything, it is not to answer questions but to ask them. Using this as an example, how do we as artists take part in our world today? Do we take sides or question all sides? Even if ignored, do we still have something to say?

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

For further reading or information one can look up: The Bogside Artists Ulster Museum Poetry by Seamus Heaney Troubles Archive

*Note: Although the majority of murals in Northern Ireland have a political message not all of them were. A minority of them are sports or culture related. Art Trainee Enya Nolan

#artistic responses #2017

1 note · View note

avanneman · 5 years

Text

Ilhan Omar: The strange case of the little girl in the headscarf who noticed that the emperor has no clothes

Oh, Ilhan Omar, what have you done? Yes, speaking the truth in the halls of Congress has always been hazardous to your health, but when little Ilhan, newly elected representative for the fifth district of Minnesota (basically Minneapolis and environs), remarked that “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is okay for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country” (meaning, of course, Israel), the walls of hypocrisy in DC really began to shake and sway.

From my perspective, it’s perfectly okay to “to push for allegiance to a foreign country,” as long as you’re willing to admit that that’s what you’re doing.1 But U.S. Likudists like Bill Kristol and Jennifer Rubin—both of whom I vehemently agree with on some issues—insist that, when it comes to Israel, simply making the charge of “dual loyalty”, as it’s usually framed, is in itself anti-Semitism in its purest and most vicious form. Old-fashioned liberal Jonathan Chait, whom I very often praise, writes furiously that “Ilhan Omar’s smearing of pro-Israel activism as a form of dual loyalty” is evidence that anti-Semitism may rip the Democratic Party apart as it has done to the Labour Party in Great Britain.

But nothing is more obvious that many champions of Israel, both Jewish and non-Jewish (e.g., evangelical Christians), insist that the U.S. has a moral duty to support Israel’s interests as defined by Israel, regardless of this policy’s effects on U.S. interests. On the death of Charles Krauthammer, I wrote a piece remarking on his endless efforts to sabotage and wreck the Democratic Party, for the single sin of less than absolute fealty to Israel—for Charlie, like so many Jewish neocons, was quite “liberal” on most social issues and “really” belonged in the Democratic Party.

Chait’s attempt to make the mere charge of dual loyalty a thoughtcrime, and to argue that any criticism of “pro-Israel activism” equates to a charge of dual loyalty, thus making any criticism of U.S. policy towards Israel a thoughtcrime. reflects the larger agenda of the Israeli lobby to take any rational consideration of the relationship between U.S. and Israeli interests off the table. President Eisenhower’s first secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, that great Presbyterian, intoned that “Israel is a millstone around our necks,” a piece of realpolitik that no politician would dare utter today, but much closer to the truth than the usual proclamations regarding the indissoluble ties that bind our two nations together. We kowtow to the Saudis, who are certainly more obnoxious than the Israelis, but who still hold the power to set the world price for oil. Israel, on the other hand, can do us no such favors, “defending” us against countries who hate us solely because we are allied with Israel. Every recent secretary of state, upon retiring, writes a memoir in which she complains about what a pain in the ass the Israelis were, how they never give and always take. But such statements are never made in office—not, at least, since Secretary of State James Baker, serving under George H. W. Bush, uttered the immortal line “Fuck the Jews. They never vote for us anyway.”

The furor over Omar’s comments, nicely dissected/discussed by the Washington Post’s Paul Waldman, “The dishonest smearing of Ilhan Omar” and New York’s Eric Levitz, “Ilhan Omar Has a Less Bigoted Position on Israel Than Almost All of Her Colleagues”, coincides with another Israeli-related furor, the “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” movement, directed against Israel, and the anti-B.D.S. movement, pursued by pro-Israeli groups through state and federal legislation, as well as pressure on universities and colleges. I understand that Omar supports B.D.S., which is not an encouraging sign.

I don’t see the point of singling out Israel for punishment when the U.S. (for example) is surely just as wicked, if not more so. The B.D.S. movement, though not entirely anti-Semitic (it seems), is largely so, and appeals to (some) academic types, particularly in the, uh, “liberal” arts,2 who are discovering that, well, nobody gives a damn about what they have to say any more, so they want to start making a racket about something. What (I suspect) mostly worries pro-Israeli groups is that B.D.S. appeals to frustrated academics desperate to prove that they “care”, particularly if they can do so in a way that offends conventional opinion, but, more importantly, in the arguments that will be/are ensuing over B.D.S., publicity will be given to the many less than savory activities that Israel engages in. Under Benjamin Netanyahu and his merry band of Likudists, Israel has slid steadily towards a deeply conservative, anti-secular culture that is bound to offend any woke folk and could significantly tarnish the Israel brand. And so we see a collision between two groups who both want to significantly stifle free speech. Charming!

Afterwords For decades, Israel’s most fervent supporters—The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), in particular—took it for granted that no one in Washington would dare defy them. Now they are attempting to claw back by force what they lost through vanity. The Washington Post’s David Von Drehle gives a rundown on the many constitutional issues raised by anti-B.D.S. legislation. The New York Times Catie Edmondson explains Republican strategy in crafting pro anti-B.D.S. legislation in Congress as a device to damage Democrats. The American Conservative’s Kelley Beaucar Vlahos provides more background. I have, on numerous occasions, accused right-wing supporters of Israel (basically, the entire Republican Party3) of trying to promote international tensions around the globe in order to convince the American people that we are in a permanent state of international crisis and need every ally we can get (i.e., Israel), while striving to suppress awareness of this fact.

UPDATE The New York Times' Thomas Friedman, in his column today, confirms Omar's unfortunate (unfortunate and amusingly nuanced) embrace of "B.D.S." and offers copious detail on AIPAC's sins. I very largely agree with what Friedman has to say, except for his notion (Friedman is, of course, Jewish) that Israel's existence is justified on the basis of “the right of the Jewish people to build a nation-state in their ancient homeland,” a “right” that I suspect Mr. Friedman does not extend to anyone else—the Algonquins, for example.

Israel is the solution to a Western problem (anti-Semitism) imposed on a non-Western people, a very clumsy one, excusable only on the grounds that no other feasible solution was available. It would have been much better if the U.S. had just accepted all the remaining European Jews into the U.S. after World War II, but unfortunately that was politically impossible. The Zionist movement created by Theodore Herzl that led to the creation of Israel was premised on the need for safety, not a return to the “ancient homeland”—Herzl, a thoroughly secular Jew, did not propose a return to Israel and the "reclaiming" of Jerusalem. European Jews, after all, had thousands of years to go back to their “ancient homeland” and never made the trip. It was only the rampant anti-Semitism of 20th century Europe, British control of the Middle East following World War I, Jewish political influence in Great Britain (and, ultimately, the U.S.), and, finally, the early triumphs of the Zionists in creating Israel in the years following World War II that led to the creation of the myth to which Mr. Friedman now subscribes.

For many years, the Irish Republican Army, a blatantly terrorist group, was openly financed and covertly equipped with arms by supporters in the U.S. in order to murder the soldiers and citizens of Great Britain, our most important ally. This was dual loyalty with a vengeance. Disgracefully, Democrats and Republicans alike looked the other way while a brutal terrorist group operated openly in the U.S. This shameful episode in our history has never given the attention it deserves. We seem to do this a lot. ↩︎

Yes, I am generalizing wildly. So sue me! ↩︎

In a recent piece loudly not lamenting the demise of Bill Kristol’s mouthpiece the Weekly Standard, I said the following: This is not to say that the neocons' pièce de résistance, the invasion of Iraq, was a “Jewish plot” as is absurdly alleged in some places. During the Clinton Administration, the entire Republican Party had become obsessed with taking out Saddam, aka “The Great Satan”, largely because they had nothing better to do. “We need a war,” said Lynne Cheyney famously. The Bush Administration had Saddam in their sights from the get-go, and the unholy trio who made it all happen were the seriously un-Jewish George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. Bill Kristol was only the cheerleader—though he did wave his pom-poms with a passion. ↩︎

#Ilhan Omar #Israel #AIPAC #Jonathan Chait #BDS

0 notes

eyeofhorus237 · 5 years

Link

The fictional universe of British author J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter series of fantasy novels comprises two distinct societies: the Wizarding World and the Muggle world. In the novels, the Muggle world is the world inhabited by the non-magical majority, with which the Wizarding world exists coextensively, albeit mostly remaining hidden from the non-magical humans. The plot of the series is set in 1990s Britain, but in a veiled and separate shadow society wherein magic is commonly used and practised, and those who can use it live in self-enforced seclusion, hiding their abilities from the rest of the world. The term "Wizarding World" refers to the global wizard community that lives hidden in parallel with the Muggle world; the different terms refer to different communities within the same area rather than separate planets or worlds. Any new works taking place in this universe are released under the "J. K. Rowling's Wizarding World" brand.

Fundamentals