#but given the history of Christianity in the US | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

apenitentialprayer · 21 hours

Note

i know that as a catholic you just have to believe with what the church says but i really dont like the belief of the original sin, i feel like its such a horrible thing to believe about yourself and about other human beings too

There are actually ways of legitimately dissenting from Church teaching from less essential teachings in a way that leaves you in good standing with the Church; I'm not sure if Original Sin is one of those things, though, to be honest.

But, anon, I'm going to offer another perspective here, starting from a quote (perhaps ironically?) from my favorite heretic. One of the things that James Carroll believes is that Original Sin has been given a bad wrap. In Constantine's Sword, he says:

I referred to Augustine’s assertion of the idea that the human condition implies a perennial state of finitude, weakness, and sin, all of which will be overcome, even for the Church, only with the end of time. [...] Augustine is thus regarded as the father of a severe, flesh-hating, sin-obsessed theology, but that dark characterization misses the point of his insight. His honest admission of the universality of human woundedness is a precondition for both self-acceptance and the forgiveness of the other, which for Augustine always involved the operation of God’s grace, God’s gift. Only humans capable of confronting the moral tragedy of existence, matched to God’s offer of repairing grace, are capable of community, and community is the antidote to human woundedness. Augustine sensed that relationship as being at the heart of God, and he saw it as being at the heart of human hope, too. This is a profoundly humane vision.

I wish I had understood the spirit of this quote when I was in high school. I remember learning in my World History class that Islam teaches that all children are born good, and then the world makes them evil. And I remember my teacher asking how that compares with Christianity, and I raised my hand and said that Christianity teaches that all of us are born evil. Because I believed that at the time. And, really, the whole framing of that question was wrong and gave really simplistic representations of what Islam and Christianity teaches, but I don't think we're alone in having internalized that understanding, anon. And that's a shame.

I thin it's important to remember the worldview that the doctrine of Original Sin is actively defending us against; there was an idea, that gets called "Pelagianism" (the poor guy it got named after may not even have believed it), that said that humans were capable of being saved on their own, by their own power. Someone on this site recently asked what people's thoughts on Pelagianism were, so you can read my thoughts here. But to keep it short and sweet, I think Original Sin is an important doctrine because it saves you from the need to be perfect.

There are ways to treat Original Sin that I think are certainly unhealthy, and I think the doctrine can be a source of anxiety and fear. But I also think, very deeply, that Original Sin should be a reason why we treat ourselves and especially our neighbor with kindness and understanding. I can look at myself and say "What I do, I do not understand. For I do not do what I want, but I do what I hate. […] For I do not do the good that I want, but I do the evil I do not want" (Romans 7:15, 19). And I can say that because I know I am ontologically wounded; that all of us have our weaknesses. That while we may still be in the moral wrong for committing a morally wrong action, our wills are compromised in a way that causes us to incline towards the comfortable and the easy rather than the good.

I wish I could go back in time and tell that class that Christianity does not teach that people are born evil. I wish I could go back and tell them that it teaches that we are born in a state of dis-integration, that we are wounded beings yearning for wholeness; alienated beings seeking everlasting belonging; beings lost in darkness, seeking the light. But I can say it now: the doctrine of Original Sin doesn't have to be an occasion to think you're depraved and without value, but it can be an invitation to come to terms with your own woundedness, because doing that (to use the words of Lutheran theologian Nancy Eiesland) "opens a space for the inflowing of grace and acceptance."

#Christianity #Catholicism #Original Sin #James Carroll #asks #Saint Augustine #Pelagianism #grace #Epistle to the Romans #sin #weakness #Lutheranism

16 notes · View notes

ardri-na-bpiteog · 1 month

Text

I'm no fan of the Catholic Church but sometimes I see posts on here that make me wonder if some of you have ever actually interacted with a Catholic. Especially Americans blaming things on Catholics that are far more attributable to Evangelical Protestants.

Or saying things about Catholics that basically just sound like protestant anti-Catholic rhetoric repackaged in a "progressive" sounding way. In the US, the Catholic Church is not the dominant religious influence and it doesn't seem super productive to ignore the sources of the actual dominant Christian rhetoric and culture.

#i know it's a bit difference because protestants don't have a centralised institution like the RCC #but given the history of Christianity in the US #I'm a little suspicious of Americans who were raised protestant or in protestant-dominated areas taking shots at Catholics #probably going to be arrested for the capital Tumblr crime of Acknowledging Nuance

15 notes · View notes

solvicrafts · 6 months

Text

Just saw some people saying that the Loki s2 finale was crap because it wasn't approached with a Christian perspective.

Loki is based off of the Norse deity, you absolute chucklefucks.

#loki #there are things I do and don't like about the series and tbh I'm still not sure how I feel about the finale #BUT the symbolism was clearly meant to pay homage to Norse mythology #and it's not like this is the first time it's come up just in this season alone #fuck's sake it was even hinted at like 2 episodes ago #if anything I'm fucking glad they did their homework and tried approaching this series from a pagan perspective #ESPECIALLY given the history of Christianity and the Nordic pagan faiths #every second I think about this absolute garbage take on the series it gets even more gross #I legitimately do not understand Christians being 'fans' of a /pagan/ character that is also very very queer #and then just erasing everything pagan and queer about him #I used to see this all the time back in the day with RPers that would say in their bios that they didn't allow slash shipping with him #specifically because it offended their religion #WHY FIXATE ON THIS CHARACTER THEN?#there's nothing wrong with being Christian and being a fan of the character for the record #I follow Christians who love this series and character so don't get it twisted #BUT THERE IS SOMETHING /VERY/ WRONG WITH DECIDING THAT THE PAGAN PERSPECTIVE ON A PAGAN CHARACTER IS BAD AND WRONG #BECAUSE IT'S NOT CHRISTIAN AND/OR BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T GET YOUR STRAIGHT SHIP OUT OF IT

16 notes · View notes

gibbearish · 3 days

Text

ok i finished the first chapter and am gonna take a break now but im v excited to keep reading im really liking the way the author looks at things so far

#there are parts ive kinda disagreed with either what shes saying or how shes saying it but i mean given the whole point of the book i doubt #that the author would take offense at that and would in fact encourage it esp given that its a book and not a convo #like. i should hope i have some disagreements with just the introductory chapter‚ she hasnt had a chance to fully explain herself yet and #i feel like having a written record of my disagreement before potentially changing my mind is very much in the spirit of the ideas this book #is offering yknow #like at one point shes talking about religious perspectives on wrongness and says some scholars believe its abt like #our wrongness comes from eden‚ our lack of understanding of absolute right and wrong that god has #but its like. ok but the whole point with the garden of eden was that the lack of knowledge of right and wrong /was/ the extra knowledge #god had and we didnt that prevented us from sinning #eating of the tree and Gaining the knowledge of good and evil was what gave humans the ability to sin in the first place #because if we cant know something is wrong and choose to do it anyways then what is the sin?#its like how with animals we don't see them killing each other as wrong #because they dont have 'morals' like we do‚ they dont have a sense of right vs wrong so the things they do cant be classified that way #so idk if its like. thats just a difference in how my church taught us vs the scholars the author checked out #or just like. a misunderstanding in the story of eden?#i just dont get presenting eden as the example for 'we dont have the knowledge of right and wrong god does so thats what makes us able to #do wrong' when the whole thing with that story was like.#gaining the knowledge of right and wrong was what gave us that ability. like thats just backwards #(also disclaimer that i am not a christian and do not actually believe in these things‚ im just using the language as if i do here to kinda #speak from the perspective of my past self who /did/ believe it)#so im excited to find out if like. shes gonna expand further on that (next chapter is abt history so maybe) and ill be like #ohhhhh ok i see what that meant #or if ill be like 'hm yeah you just maybe had a misconception abt how the garden of eden story worked'#and like i can kinda see room for the first one already in that it said like 'we dont have gods /absolute/ knowledge of right and wrong'#so theyre saying like. we were given /some/ of the knowledge of good and evil‚ but that that in and of itself didnt /actually/ bring us up #to gods understanding of it #idk its been a while since i reread the bible‚ i do kinda remember there being a second tree? but i dont think it was like #'tree of full onniscience' i thought it was the tree of eternal life or smth #or maybe im just mixing up the bible and the narnia remix of it? i know there is a tree of eternal life in the magicians apprentice #origibberish

0 notes

firebirdsdaughter · 10 months

Text

Sometimes…

… I mystified by the worlds people apparently live in.

Like I know no one’s experiences are universal, but like.

Just saw a post that was talking about being raised w/ no knowledge or experience w/ Christianity whatsoever, and having people be shocked that they didn’t know… Obscure facts about Christian beliefs that even I, whose mother went to Catholic School, don’t know (although we are areligious and I’m sure I could ask her).

Like there were other things mentioned in the post like not knowing about the actual crucifixion etc. and it was also like, talking about being in an art history thing. But like. I didn’t know about the crown of thorns until I personally asked about it after seeing a picture, and I’ve never heard of water coming out of his wound. If you asked me to name monk denominations I could maybe do one on a good day.

This isn’t to say that Christianity isn’t treated as very common place, like my mother’s family is from the MidWest US, it’s very mainstay out there, and it’s very prevalent in a lot of European culture and history bc variations on it were the main religion of several European countries.

It’s just sort of a fascinating thing of three different angles all looking at each other in bewilderment, bc there’s people who know nothing about it apparently in situations where they are expected to know specific details, and then me, who was actually raised adjacent (like I said, not religious at all, Pagan at most), also really confused bc in my experience that’s mostly not common knowledge, either.

The world works in mysterious ways.

#Firebird Randomness #this actually makes sense #like I said three angles all looking at each other in confusion #it's not one of those 'prove you've never been to the us w/out saying it' posts I see a lot on here #and there's a lot #but it just kinda took me back for a sec bc #like #what?#I guess it's a lot more prevalent/expected in Europe maybe?#like knowing that Jesus gets crucified that's often pretty well known #but I wouldn't be surprised if most people weren't aware of the crown of thorns #or of the water thing bc like I said I didn't know #but given the Christian themes in so much art I can see why it'd be confusing #honestly the whole thing is more interesting than the more vocal ones would have you think #a lot of people cite religion for things religion actually says nothing about #or they twist words to mean what they think it means #happens pretty much anywhere #esp when you have so many people editing the books for their own purposes all across history

1 note · View note

gothhabiba · 6 months

Note

Hi, this is very ignorant. I'm trying to read as much as I can on Palestine and Zionism but there is one point I cannot find an answer for. Given that Zionism is not Judaism, given that at the beginning most Jewish people did not share this view and was actually supported by christians with antisemitic views, given that it was conceptualized as a colonial project that could only be actualized by ethnically cleanse Palestine, one thing I don't know how to disagree with Zionists is the idea that Jewish people do come from that land. Even if European jews are probably not genetically related to the Jewish people from there, I think Jewishness is something that can be constructed as related to that land. This of course does not mean that Palestinians are not natives too and they have every right to their land. However I don't really know how to answer when Jewish (Zionists) tell me that Jewish people fled that land during the diaspora. Other than "yeah but the people that stayed are native that underwent christianization before, arabization later, grew a sense of nationhood in the 19th century and are Palestinians now"

It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what "indigeneity" is to believe that it means "whoever has the oldest claim to the land." Rather, to describe a people as "indigenous" is a reference to their current relationship to the government and to the land—namely that they have been or are being dispossessed from that land in favour of other private owners (settlers); they have a separate, inferior status to settlers according to the law, explicitly; they are shut out of institutions created by the settler state, explicitly; they are targeted implicitly by the laws of the settler state (e.g. Israeli prohibitions against harvesting wild thyme or using donkeys or horses for transportation); the settler state does not punish violence against them; &c. &c.

It is a settler-colonialist state that creates indigeneity; without one, it is perfectly possible for immigrants to move to and live in a new location without becoming settlers, with the superior cultural and legal status and suppression of a legally inferior population that that entails.

If all that were going on were some Jewish people feeling a personal or religious connexion to this land and wanting to move there, accepting the existing people and culture and living with them, not expelling and killing local populations and creating a settler-colonialist state that privileges them at the expense of extant populations, that would be a completely different situation. But any assertion of the land's fundamental Jewish-ness (really they mean white or European Jewishness—the Jewish Arabs who were already in Palestine never seem to figure in these arguments) is a canard that distracts from the fundamental issue, which is a people's right to resist dispossession, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.

Decolonize Palestine lays out some of the ethnic and cultural history of the region, but follows it up with:

So, what does this all mean for Palestine? Absolutely nothing. Although the argument has many ahistorical assumptions and claims, it is not these which form its greatest weakness. The whole argument is a trap. The basic implication of this line of argumentation is as follows: If the Jewish people were in Palestine before the Arabs, then the land belongs to them. Therefore, the creation of Israel would be justified. From my experience, whenever this argument is used, the automatic response of Palestinians is to say that their ancestors were there first. These ancestors being the Canaanites. The idea that Palestinians are the descendants of only one particular group in a region with mass migrations and dozens of different empires and peoples is not only ahistorical, but this line of thought indirectly legitimizes the original argument they are fighting against. This is because it implies that the only reason Israel’s creation is unjustified is because their Palestinian ancestors were there first. It implies that the problem with the argument lies in the details, not that the argument as a whole is absolute nonsense and shouldn’t even be entertained. The ethnic cleansing, massacres and colonialism needed to establish Israel can never be justified, regardless of who was there first. It’s a moot point. Even if we follow the argument that Palestinians have only been there for 1300 years, does this suddenly legitimize the expulsion of hundreds of thousands? Of course not. There is no possible scenario where it is excusable to ethnically cleanse a people and colonize their lands. Human rights apply to people universally, regardless of whether they have lived in an area for a year or ten thousand years. If we reject the “we were there first” argument, and not treat it as a legitimizing factor for Israel’s creation, then we can focus on the real history, without any ideological agendas. We could trace how our pasts intersected throughout the centuries. After all, there is indeed Jewish history in Palestine. This history forms a part of the Palestinian past and heritage, just like every other group, kingdom or empire that settled there does. We must stop viewing Palestinian and Jewish histories as competing, mutually exclusive entities, because for most of history they have not been. These positions can be maintained while simultaneously rejecting Zionism and its colonialism. After all, this ideologically driven impulse to imagine our ancestors as some closed, well defined, unchanging homogenous group having exclusive ownership over lands corresponding to modern day borders has nothing to do with the actual history of the area, and everything to do with modern notions of ethnic nationalism and colonialism.

I would also be careful about mentioning a sense of "nationhood" or "national identity" in this context, as it could seem to imply that people need a "national" identity (a very specific and very new idea) in order not to deserve genocide. Actually the idea that Palestinians lacked a national identity (of the kind that developed in 19th-century Europe) is commonly used to justify Zionism. Again from Decolonize Palestine:

This slogan ["A land without a people for a people without a land"] persists to this day because it was never meant to be literal, but colonial and ideological. This phrase is yet another formulation of the concept of Terra Nullius meaning “nobody’s land”. In one form or the other, this concept played a significant role in legitimizing the erasure of the native population in virtually every settler colony, and laying down the ‘legal’ and ‘moral’ basis for seizing native land. According to this principle, any lands not managed in a ‘modern’ fashion were considered empty by the colonists, and therefore up for grabs. Essentially, yes there are people there but no people that mattered or were worth considering. There is no doubt that Zionism is a settler colonial movement intent on replacing the natives. As a matter of fact, this was a point of pride for the early Zionists, as they saw the inhabitants of the land as backwards and barbaric, and that a positive aspect of Zionism would be the establishment of a modern nation state there to act as a bulwark against these ‘regressive’ forces in the east [You can read more about this here]. A characteristic feature of early Zionist political discourse is pretending that Palestinians exist only as individuals or sometimes communities, but never as constituting a people or a nation. This was accompanied by the typical arrogance and condescension towards the natives seen in virtually every settler colonial movement. That the early settlers interacted with the natives while simultaneously claiming the land was empty was not seen as contradictory to them. According to these colonists, even if some scattered, disorganized people did exist, they were not worthy of the land they inhabited. They were unable to transform the land into a modern functioning nation state, extract resources efficiently and contribute to ‘civilization’ through the free market, unlike the settlers. Patrick Wolfe’s scholarship on Australia illustrates this dynamic and how it was exploited to establish the settler colony.

#Anonymous #questions #long post /#Palestine #Israel

5K notes · View notes

unbidden-yidden · 11 months

Text

In general, I think it's currently really important for progressive Christians to be very loud about being both progressive and deeply religious Christians, and for everyone else fighting for progressive values to be supportive of them doing just that. I know that's like, idk, counter-intuitive or cringe or whatever, but seriously folks, the alternative is that progressive Christians have to be quiet about their faith to be accepted within broader secular and interfaith progressive advocacy, which means that the regressive asshole Christians (a) sound that much louder and (b) dominate the USian religious landscape all the more. That's a problem, for all of us.

We need people pushing back within the faith as well as outside of it, because that destroys any edifice that this is about Christianity and religious freedom.

You can be a devout Christian and also:

Openly, proudly, and without being forced to remain celibate or otherwise limit your full expression of self, identify as LGBTQ+ or be a supportive ally.

Advocate for full reproductive autonomy and comprehensive sex education.

Love and support people of other religious groups, non-religious people and/or atheists, by choosing to believe that a truly loving God would not pursue anything less than universal salvation.

Stand against evangelism and proselytizing as they have thus far been interpreted and used, because there are ways to interpret the Great Commission that don't promote colonialism and cultural genocide.

A steward of the earth, protecting God's beautiful creation and lovingly tending to it as the unique and incredible gift that it is.

A believer in science, rationalism, and human progress as part of God's divine plan for humanity.

A believer in history and someone who understands that the Bible can be both divinely given and open to interpretation (no really)(if you're confused, please talk to a knowledgeable traditional Jew)

An ally to Jews, who stands against supercessionism and antisemitism in the church.

And in before regressive Christians come shouting at me that (1) what do I know, I'm a Jew and (2) no lol you can't because of ___ reason:

My source is that I've personally met and talked to Christians of great faith and integrity - people who embody the closest forms of kindness I've seen to what Jesus himself advocated - who are each of these things.

It is 100% possible; you just choose to believe otherwise.

#every hour is theology hour around here apparently

13K notes · View notes

eelhound · 5 months

Text

"I think Homer outwits most writers who have written on the War [fantasy archetype], by not taking sides.

The Trojan war is not and you cannot make it be the War of Good vs. Evil. It’s just a war, a wasteful, useless, needless, stupid, protracted, cruel mess full of individual acts of courage, cowardice, nobility, betrayal, limb-hacking-off, and disembowelment. Homer was a Greek and might have been partial to the Greek side, but he had a sense of justice or balance that seems characteristically Greek — maybe his people learned a good deal of it from him? His impartiality is far from dispassionate; the story is a torrent of passionate actions, generous, despicable, magnificent, trivial. But it is unprejudiced. It isn’t Satan vs. Angels. It isn’t Holy Warriors vs. Infidels. It isn’t hobbits vs. orcs. It’s just people vs. people.

Of course you can take sides, and almost everybody does. I try not to, but it’s no use; I just like the Trojans better than the Greeks. But Homer truly doesn’t take sides, and so he permits the story to be tragic. By tragedy, mind and soul are grieved, enlarged, and exalted.

Whether war itself can rise to tragedy, can enlarge and exalt the soul, I leave to those who have been more immediately part of a war than I have. I think some believe that it can, and might say that the opportunity for heroism and tragedy justifies war. I don’t know; all I know is what a poem about a war can do. In any case, war is something human beings do and show no signs of stopping doing, and so it may be less important to condemn it or to justify it than to be able to perceive it as tragic.

But once you take sides, you have lost that ability.

Is it our dominant religion that makes us want war to be between the good guys and the bad guys?

In the War of Good vs. Evil there can be divine or supernal justice but not human tragedy. It is by definition, technically, comic (as in The Divine Comedy): the good guys win. It has a happy ending. If the bad guys beat the good guys, unhappy ending, that’s mere reversal, flip side of the same coin. The author is not impartial. Dystopia is not tragedy.

Milton, a Christian, had to take sides, and couldn’t avoid comedy. He could approach tragedy only by making Evil, in the person of Lucifer, grand, heroic, and even sympathetic — which is faking it. He faked it very well.

Maybe it’s not only Christian habits of thought but the difficulty we all have in growing up that makes us insist justice must favor the good.

After all, 'Let the best man win' doesn’t mean the good man will win. It means, 'This will be a fair fight, no prejudice, no interference — so the best fighter will win it.' If the treacherous bully fairly defeats the nice guy, the treacherous bully is declared champion. This is justice. But it’s the kind of justice that children can’t bear. They rage against it. It’s not fair!

But if children never learn to bear it, they can’t go on to learn that a victory or a defeat in battle, or in any competition other than a purely moral one (whatever that might be), has nothing to do with who is morally better.

Might does not make right — right?

Therefore right does not make might. Right?

But we want it to. 'My strength is as the strength of ten because my heart is pure.'

If we insist that in the real world the ultimate victor must be the good guy, we’ve sacrificed right to might. (That’s what History does after most wars, when it applauds the victors for their superior virtue as well as their superior firepower.) If we falsify the terms of the competition, handicapping it, so that the good guys may lose the battle but always win the war, we’ve left the real world, we’re in fantasy land — wishful thinking country.

Homer didn’t do wishful thinking.

Homer’s Achilles is a disobedient officer, a sulky, self-pitying teenager who gets his nose out of joint and won’t fight for his own side. A sign that Achilles might grow up someday, if given time, is his love for his friend Patroclus. But his big snit is over a girl he was given to rape but has to give back to his superior officer, which to me rather dims the love story. To me Achilles is not a good guy. But he is a good warrior, a great fighter — even better than the Trojan prime warrior, Hector. Hector is a good guy on any terms — kind husband, kind father, responsible on all counts — a mensch. But right does not make might. Achilles kills him.

The famous Helen plays a quite small part in The Iliad. Because I know that she’ll come through the whole war with not a hair in her blond blow-dry out of place, I see her as opportunistic, immoral, emotionally about as deep as a cookie sheet. But if I believed that the good guys win, that the reward goes to the virtuous, I’d have to see her as an innocent beauty wronged by Fate and saved by the Greeks.

And people do see her that way. Homer lets us each make our own Helen; and so she is immortal.

I don’t know if such nobility of mind (in the sense of the impartial 'noble' gases) is possible to a modern writer of fantasy. Since we have worked so hard to separate History from Fiction, our fantasies are dire warnings, or mere nightmares, or else they are wish fulfillments."

- Ursula K. Le Guin, from No Time to Spare, 2013.

#ursula k. le guin #homer #quote #quotations #the iliad #trojan war #storytelling #fantasy #fiction writing #war #conflict #tragedy #john milton #paradise lost #greek mythology

2K notes · View notes

omgthatdress · 1 year

Text

the major takeaway from last night is that Karl Lagerfeld was more of a personality than a designer and that Yves Saint Laurent was the clear winner of that rivalry.

For those who aren’t familiar, Karl Lagerfeld and Yves Saint Laurent were both fashion wunderkinds who emerged in the late 1950s, both appointed heads of major brands at the same time, and had very intense rivalry. Yves Saint Laurent took over Dior after the passing of Christian Dior, helped cement the brand as a major player in fashion, and then after a disastrous stint being drafted into the French army, built his own fashion brand that went down in history with its unique and diverse and always evolving looks.

Karl was always kind of behind Yves. He designed for a lot of major fashion brands, and managed to establish himself at the top of the game at Chloé, but he didn’t get his full on legendary status until he took over Chanel in 1983. This history of the Chanel brand was already pretty frought, with Coco Chanel modernizing and defining the fashion of the 1920s and 30s, but being forced to shut down during World War 2, during which she collaborated with the Nazis. Behind the Bastards did a pretty great two episodes on her. When the brand returned in the 60s, fashion had changed tremendously. Dior, Givenchy, Balenciaga, and Balmain had all taken over mid-century fashion, and now that aesthetic was being taken over by mod, the miniskirt, and the likes of Mary Quant, Pierre Cardin, and Paco Rabanne. So when Chanel came back it was largely seen as a stuffy old lady brand, which it remained until Karl took it over.

Now, this is where Karl actually did something really impressive that you honestly can’t take away from him: he took a fashion house in severe decline, one that had been in its flop era for literal decades, and he made it hip again, while still managing to stay true to the ethos that Coco Chanel had laid out.

Chanel is clean, minimalistic, and classy. It is easy to wear, effortless, and always extremely glamorous, which is what made it so iconic in the 20s and 30s. Given that the 50s and 60s were all about making a fucking effort, the thing that the brand managed to keep doing well was its suits. You know what kind of suits I’m talking about. Tweed jackets and midi skirts, neat tailoring, delicate pastel colors, pearls and camellias and chains. It’s not so much that it was edgy and exciting but it was expensive and it was *Chanel* and people wore it for the status symbol alone. That is what Karl took advantage of and managed to re-invent.

That sort of aesthetic fit perfectly into the you-can-never-be-too-rich-or-too-skinny 80s, when wearing status symbol clothing was everything.

Then, in the 90s, he managed to keep things exciting by following exactly what was on-trend at the time and incorporating elements of street wear and hip-hop.

However, after that, he kind of lost his edge and just rested on “it’s Chanel” rather than actually pushing the fashion envelope. By the time he died in 2019, he was a fucking dinosaur and fashion had long since moved past him. The thing that he was ultimately most well known for was his own very distinctive look and flamboyant personality.

Before I ever started studying fashion, I knew who Karl was because I’d seen him so many times, and I’d seen parodies of him so many times. I knew *him* but I didn’t really know his work. And I think having an incredibly boring Met Gala dedicated to him reveals that: his actual artistic legacy is skinnier than the models he used to berate. Karl Lagerfeld built his brand on his diva personality, and that sort of personality and outlook just isn’t hip anymore. Fashion is always about moving forward, and Lagerfeld’s beliefs should remain fossilized in the past.

#Karl Lagerfeld #Met Gala

2K notes · View notes

is-the-thing-actually-jewish · 6 months

Note

are Hanukkah sweaters a Jewish thing? i've seen them before but 90% of the time, they're people trying to make christmas displays more "inclusive." so are they legit Jewish or no?

Rating: Capitalism.

Hanukkah sweaters are a prime example of what I previously characterized as "capitalism's tendency to tepidly repackage any Christmas symbols in literally or metaphorically blue-and-silver wrapping paper to appeal to a Jewish market." As the "ugly sweater" phenomenon has grown more popular, retailers saw an excellent opportunity to widen their market by having "Hanukkah" versions.

That said, there's a wide range of Hanukkah sweaters out there, some of which are more problematic than others. Ones that are literally just recolored Christmas designs with a couple Jewish-y things tacked on, like this "Shalom Gnome" design or this "Oy to the World" design are more problematic than enthusiastically tacky designed-from-the-beginning-to-be-Jewish ones. The former says "Hanukkah! It's Christmas for Jews! Jews! They're just Christians without Santa or Jesus!" while the latter says, "Oh, you're going to walk around with an eyesore sweater full of tinsel and actual little jingle bells as though anyone could possibly forget that it's Christmas season in this country? I see you, I see you, and I'm just going to casually wear this sweater with a menorah and candles that actually light up because Judaism rocks, that's why."

Then there's a whole genre of Hanukkah sweaters with, let's say, more adult content, and people's mileage may greatly vary on how they feel about them. Personally, I find the ones riffing off more secular aspects of the holiday to be largely harmless, such as this "You Spin Me Right Round, Baby" design with dreidels. On the other hand, while some may find it amusingly subversive, I find ones making fun of the religious part of the holiday (i.e., the actual hanukkiah/menorah) to be in poor taste at best. There are a plethora of "let's get lit" Hanukkah sweaters like this one that genuinely annoy me. (For one thing, Hanukkah isn't even a drinking holiday! If you want a drinking holiday, we actually have those but Hanukkah isn't it!) Ones like this that make it into a creepy pick-up line actively disgust me. And this "gelt digger" one is genuinely antisemetic, given the stereotypes about Jews and money.

I would be remiss not to mention what I personally think is the best of the Hanukkah sweater subgenres: animal puns. My fiance owns this Meowzel Tov sweater with a truly garish design. What does "mazel tov" have to do with Hanukkah, you may ask? Absolutely nothing, but hey, cats! Can't be upset about Jewish cats! Similarly, llamas? Not Jewish at all! But Happy Llamakka? Okay, cute pun, cute graphic, I'm reluctantly charmed. Your Menorasaurus would not be kosher for actual use as the candles are all different heights, but you know what, that actually makes me smile.

So, basically: If you get joy out of being loudly Jewish during a season where everything is yelling about Christianity all the time, go ahead and wear your ridiculous ugly sweater to the company party. Just take a close look at the design to make sure it's not actually full of Christmas trees, not pretending something extremely Christmas is Jewish because it's a pun now, doesn't use Charedi men as a cartoon stand-in for anyone Jewish, and doesn't makes being Jewish primarily about not being Christian.

In sum: RIP my browser history, I'm going to be getting such terrible ads for the next several weeks. Click the links at your own risk.

~Mod Leora

#rating: capitalism #hanukkah #hanukkah sweaters #christian hegemony #jumblr #animal puns

666 notes · View notes

bringmemyrocks · 2 months

Text

On the Neturei Karta: Contextualizing criticism of an ultra-religious group

TL;DR: The Neturei Karta is a far-right ultra-orthodox religious Jewish group that is politically and religiously opposed to Zionism and is pro-Palestine. They believe in a strict interpretation of the Torah and are extremely socially conservative. They see Israel as dangerous for both Jews and Palestinians. Like most religious adherents to Abrahamic religions, they believe in end times where a messianic figure will come. Like most people who hold these beliefs, these long-term messianic beliefs are not central to their religion and do not impact their allyship or activism in any meaningful way (think 1000s of years hence, like Jesus returning in Islam, or in Christianity outside of groups who think this is immanent/connected to modern Israel).

Additionally, most orthodox Jews, including ultra-orthodox Jews, are pro-Israel or at least are not pro-Palestine. Most “non-Zionist ultra orthodox Jews” including the Satmar do not support Palestine.

Note: This summary is about anti Zionist ultra Orthodox Jewish groups in the USA. I don't know about all such groups in Jerusalem, but I do know NK has a presence there. I am not arguing that NK are progressive. They are not, but neither are many others across the world who support Palestine. Read this post and make up your own mind.

This post does not go into great detail about all the different types of Judaism or all the different streams of Zionism. Some info will inevitably be left out. I recommend learning more history yourself; the first few chapters of The Hundred Year’s War on Palestine are a great start. Avoid Zionist publications like Jewish Virtual Library.

I highly recommend this interview that Palestinian-ally activist Miko Peled does with NK Rabbi David Feldman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSd_eZ5qcbo&t=32s

Miko is an excellent narrator, and this is one of his best yet.

Brief history of the NK

The Neturei Karta is an ultra-orthodox Jewish group that opposes the state of Israel and actively works against it and supports Palestine. This is different from non-Zionist ultra orthodox Jews who disagree with Israel from a religious perspective, but are still willing to support it politically. The NK believe only the Messiah can establish a Jewish state in Palestine (as an eschatological belief; not a political one), but they do not believe in an enforced Jewish majority at any time.

Their website, NKUSA.org is best accessed through the Wayback Machine, as many of their pages are currently under construction: https://web.archive.org/web/20090228203457/http://www.nkusa.org/aboutus/index.cfm

Instructions for those unfamiliar with the Wayback Machine: https://help.archive.org/help/using-the-wayback-machine/

Summary of NK beliefs re: Zionism

The Neturei Karta believe that no Jewish state should exist in Palestine without the coming of the Messiah. They believe this so strongly that they actively oppose the state’s existence and engage in Palestine solidarity work.

The Neturei Karta also argue that no ultra-orthodox Jew believes in religious Zionism, often citing the lack of Israeli flags in ultra orthodox neighborhoods. This neglects the many ultra-orthodox Jews who support Israeli politically but not religiously.

Such still-politically-Zionist Jews will refer to the state of Israel as “Eretz Yisroel” rather than “Israel” thus acknowledging the land but not the political state’s significance. They will engage in pro-Israel politics, but do not see the Nakba (1948) or Naksa (1967) as religious events. This does not mean that everyone who uses the phrase “eretz yisroel” is secretly a Zionist.

See Yated’s website: this is an ultra-orthodox publication that heavily supports Israel even if they do not believe the state is religiously legitimate. However, politically they are Zionist as in they support Israel.

Glossary

Orthodox Judaism

Orthodox Jews believe in the divine origin of the Torah, given to Moses at Sinai. They are more strict about dietary laws, laws of family purity, and laws of the sabbath than more liberal or progressive Jews (such as Conservative/Masorti, Reform, Reconstructionist, etc.--all beyond the scope of this post)

Ultra Orthodox/haredi (very broad strokes)

Orthodox Jews who believe in a strict interpretation of the Torah and are more insulated from the larger world, including the Jewish world. They often dress differently and are even stricter about dietary laws, and are more socially conservative than the Modern Orthodox (women often don’t attend synagogue, adhere to very strict rules of modesty, arranged marriages, etc.)

Within the ultra orthodox world, there are hasidic (charismatic, such as Satmar or Chabad, usually following a dynasty, often from Eastern Europe) and non-hasidic groups (everyone else, including haredi sephardim and the Neturei Karta.) The Neturei Karta are not hasidic.

Many ultra-orthodox groups, including the Neturei Karta, would be considered high-demand religious groups (cults). Given how strict they are, I don’t think this is an unfair characterization. I note this because liberal zionists use the NK’s religious stringencies as a means of discrediting their allyship to Palestine. Bad faith, but still worth noting.

Political Zionism:

This is the belief that Jews should establish a Jewish-majority state in Palestine. Popularized by Herzl’s Der Judenstaadt. Plenty of Zionists support Israel without it being a pillar of religious belief for them, but:

Religious Zionism:

This is the belief that the modern nation state of Israel is part of the fulfillment of religious prophecy (you find both Jews and Christians believing this). There are plenty of ultra-orthodox religious Zionists, although ultra-orthodox non-zionists/anti-zionists will claim that these groups should not call themselves “ultra-orthodox.”

Non-Zionist: 2 definitions in the Orthodox world

Ultra-orthodox Jews may describe themselves as not Zionist to other religious Jews to differentiate themselves from religious Zionists. They may still support Israel, just not as a part of their religious faith, or they may oppose it but not be pro-Palestine (see the Satmar Hasidim.) You will probably not run into this on Tumblr or in progressive/pro-Palestine spaces--please don’t use this as an excuse to make anti-Zionist Jews “prove themselves”--you won’t run into these people on Tumblr or at pro-Palestine actions. “Non-zionist” may mean “anti-zionist in all but name” in non-orthodox Jewish spaces.

When I speak about ultra-orthodox religious Jews describing themselves as not Zionist in religious Jewish spaces, this refers only to their interactions with other Jews. If you are not Jewish and someone describes themselves as anti-Zionist to you, you should assume it means they are pro-Palestine unless they make it clear they believe otherwise.

The Satmar (religiously but not politically anti zionist ultra-orthodox hasidic Jews) formally denounced the NK in 1967 (note: the NK were never Satmar, nor were they hasidic at all–this is simply a religiously antizionist sect distancing themselves from those who are both religiously and politically antizionist.)

https://x.com/HQSatmar/status/1744693660787040553

Some orthodox Jews are genuinely politically anti-Zionist. Examples include Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro, the Neturei Karta, and plenty of individuals although not many institutions.

More info on ultra-orthodox Jews and zionism at this Pew Research page (I don’t think Pew is great at surveying American Jews, but this particular page on haredim in Israel is interesting): https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2016/03/08/views-of-the-jewish-state-and-the-diaspora/

This article: https://forward.com/opinion/411615/think-all-orthodox-jews-are-zionists-think-again/

To any Jew, especially someone who knows the orthodox world, there are many over-simplifications here. The purpose of this post is to talk about the Neturei Karta, so I’m glossing over a lot of the intricacies. You’re welcome to fight about “Is Chabad Ultra-Orthodox” in the comments.

Issues of social conservatism (homophobia, misogyny, etc.)

Neturei Karta’s social conservatism

As with virtually all ultra-orthodox Jews, the Neturei Karta are extremely socially conservative. They believe that men and women have distinct roles (thus you never see any women with the NK at protests) and that homosexuality is evil. Women are required to raise children, cannot become rabbis, and have to dress extremely modestly. If you’ve ever seen the documentary “Trembling Before God,” a documentary on LGBT orthodox Jews, the rabbis at the beginning protesting against homosexuality are the Neturei Karta. Again, no women present.

I should note that the Neturei Karta are no more conservative than other ultra-orthodox Jews (and the Modern Orthodox Jewish world has been moving rightward for decades). But many liberal Jews will defend orthodox Judaism, even when it comes to denying children basic education and healthcare. You see this on Tumblr constantly. Orthodox Jews do terrible things and are defended by other Jews because “they’re more visible” and (some) Jews are convinced that any public criticism of orthodoxy will harm Judaism as a whole by making very damaging parts of it look bad.

But these liberal Zionist Jews will never defend the Neturei Karta. Their criticisms of homophobia and misogyny in this particular orthodox group are done in bad faith when they insist (for example) that women and LGBT people are perfectly fine within orthodox spaces. This is false.

TL;DR: Social conservatism is huge in orthodox Judaism. The Neturei Karta are not unique in this.

US Muslim social conservatism

I should note here that most US Muslims and Muslim institutions are socially conservative. (In a similar way to Jewish anti-zionism, there are some smaller openly pro-LGBT Muslim communities, but they are not supported by the larger US Muslim establishment.) Before the Bush era, most American Muslims and Arab Americans were staunch Republicans, supporting free markets and opposing LGBT rights, including LGBT-inclusive curricula in schools: https://newrepublic.com/article/168180/growing-religious-alliance-ban-lgbtq-books

To any liberals reading this in shock, here’s a post detailing how Palestinian American Imam Omar Suleiman is homophobic: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C1f7Do7gZei/

Many US and Canadian Muslim leaders can be found alongside conservative Christians protesting against LGBT education in schools, drag queen storytimes, and trans healthcare. Most recently, many Muslim leaders signed a homophobic/transphobic statement “Islam and the LGBT Question: Reframing the Narrative” earlier in 2023: https://www.instagram.com/p/Cs9lFR0AcG_/?igsh=bnJubGVodDAxczJz

This is similar to the Nashville Statement against homosexuality from many Christian leaders, or the Torah Declaration on Homosexuality in favor of conversion therapy from Jewish leaders. Muslims are not uniquely homophobic, but it’s important that progressives are aware of anti-LGBT prejudice in Jewish and Muslim communities in order to be good allies to queer Jews and Muslims. Omar Suleiman and the NK are not uniquely homophobic–they are emblematic of institutional prejudice within their respective religious communities. Homophobia/transphobia are not an excuse for genocide.

TL;DR for this section: Supporting Palestine does not make someone socially progressive.

Why aren't there more liberal Jewish anti Zionist rabbis speaking at pro Palestine rallies? Why give the microphone to the NK?

Many rallies do have anti Zionist progressive Jews speak. But they are usually lay people who do not represent Jewish religious groups. They may be independent, or from JVP or other similar groups (IJV Canada, etc), which will show up to pro Palestine actions even if they don't have a speaking slot. More notes on JVP here: https://bringmemyrocks.tumblr.com/post/736264435582238720/i-will-gladly-say-free-palestine-from-the-river-to

It's basically impossible to become a progressive Jewish rabbi as an anti-Zionist. All non-orthodox rabbinical schools that follow the traditional ordination process (5 years of education culminating with ordination, rather than an in-service further education program for those already serving as rabbis) require the candidate to be at least politically pro-Israel if not religious Zionist. All such programs require students to spend a year studying in Israel (generally in Jerusalem, although plenty of Orthodox institutions include a year of study in illegal settlements like Gush Etzion, Bat Ayin, etc.) If an anti-Zionist wants to become a rabbi outside of the NK or other ultra-orthodox institutions, they need to be willing to spend that year in Israel and hold their tongue re: Zionism until they are ordained. That's why so many liberal anti-Zionist rabbis have stories of leaving Zionism–they couldn't have been ordained if they'd left Zionism beforehand.

There are several synagogues in the USA that are friendly to anti-Zionist progressive Jews. However, these synagogues are not usually openly anti Zionist (with a few exceptions) and thus can/do still rely on mainstream Jewish sources of funding, whether individuals or their local JCRC (Jewish Community Relations Council). Synagogue councils can also threaten rabbis who speak out and can easily get them fired. Synagogue boards/councils/membership have the authority to fire the rabbi–the rabbi does not own the synagogue. I know several anti Zionist Jewish rabbis with largely anti-Zionist congregations who would still lose everything if they spoke at a pro Palestine rally. Rabbis in this position tend to speak at candlelight vigils rather than at rallies where people are chanting “intifada” (although their congregants often do!) A lot of it comes down to keeping the community in existence *or* letting the world know how anti Zionist they are.

Tzedek Chicago is the exception because of the amount of money they were able to raise–they still don't have their own building, and need to pay for spaces they use. Outside of a tiny pop-up minyan that can fit in someone’s house, saying of a community “this community should be willing to lose everything” isn't reasonable–they would have to shutter completely if they were 100% anti Zionist, not to mention the attacks the rabbis and congregants would get--Tzedek Chicago keeps its online services very secure to keep congregants safe.

Notes on Jewish eschatology and bad faith arguments:

With the exception of religious zionism (see people trying to build the third temple right now), Judaism as a religion is not overly concerned with eschatology (the end of the world). Jews may pray for the coming of the Messiah, but the religion itself is not overly concerned with the Messiah and the end times.

The Neturei Karta, as with many orthodox groups that don’t adhere to religious zionism, believe that when the Messiah comes, he will rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. Some believe this to be on the same site as Al-Aqsa; some do not. The Neturei Karta believe that the land of Israel (biblically, eretz yisroel) will at some point become governed by Judaism with a third temple built, although they emphasize that Palestinians will stay in the land and everyone will live together peacefully. Again, this is eschatology. It’s not unusual for it to be vague, especially in the Jewish tradition, and nobody is preparing for it immediately.

I was actually inspired to make this post because someone posted this Vashti Magazine article "Neturei Karta are not your Allies" as a gotcha, even though the interview itself clearly shows that the Neturei Karta support Palestine even into their end-times prophecies…I’m not surprised most of the interview wasn’t published. If you look at what the rabbi said versus what the writer claims he said, it’s not even a bad interview. The writer herself notes that these prophecies are vague--I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt that she doesn’t know that much about religious Judaism. A lot of secular Jews are unfamiliar with those who believe in the Torah’s divine origins. This includes activists who support Palestine.

I regard this as a bad faith accusation because this has no bearing on current events. It is no different from Christians or Muslims who believe someday the entire world will be Christian/Muslim. I’m usually the last person to cry Christian-normativity, but plenty of religious people have end-times beliefs that have very little impact on their theology or their politics. This is not analogous to John Hagee the Christian Zionist with his end-times beliefs.

The Palestinian activists and allies I’ve spoken to about this agree with this. One was asked during a Q and A that I attended “what do you think about the Neturei Karta’s belief that in the end times the third temple will be rebuilt?” He responded “we’ll deal with that when the Jewish Messiah comes.” Because it’s an end-times prophecy that they believe they have no control over, not a political position that impacts their allyship. And anyone who isn’t a religious Jew doesn’t believe it will ever happen anyway.

It also bears mentioning that most people who bring up this particular point are themselves liberal Zionists trying to paint anti-Zionist orthodox Jews as actually worse allies to Palestinians than liberal Zionists because of vague beliefs they hold that will never crystalize (unless you are an orthodox Jew yourself). Vashti Magazine’s use of the phrase “Israel-Palestine” leads me to believe this is their motive as well. Thus my accusation of bad faith, particularly when the NK has shown up for Palestine protests for decades.

Accusations of Holocaust denial

The Neturei Karta has met with some less than Jew-friendly individuals throughout their history in the hopes that this will help curb worldwide antisemitism. This gets thrown around a lot by liberal zionists intent on making themselves look better. In 2006, some members of the Neturei Karta met with Iranian president Ahmedenijad. This meeting is often used to accuse them of Holocaust denial, even though the rabbi in question, Dovid Weiss, specifically named the Holocaust re: reasons he doesn’t support Israel.

"The Zionists use the Holocaust issue to their benefit. We, Jews who perished in the Holocaust, do not use it to advance our interests. We stress that there are hundreds of thousands Jews around the world who identify with our opposition to the Zionist ideology and who feel that Zionism is not Jewish, but a political agenda."

The same is true for their attendance at the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust; they strongly believe the Holocaust happened and made sure all attendees were aware. There were Holocaust deniers in attendance, but this conference was not a “Holocaust denial conference” although I’m not going to defend it. One could argue that these particular Neturei Karta members should not have attended such a conference, but they never engaged in Holocaust denial and actively fought against it. Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20070328235234/https://www.nkusa.org/activities/speeches/2006iran-weissspeech.cfm

If you’ve ever heard the Neturei Karta speak, you’d know they don’t deny the Holocaust. They bring it up constantly.

If you don’t like all of the Neturei Karta’s positions, that’s fine. This post is not supposed to make you like them, but rather to explain and contextualize things you may have heard about them.

#neturei karta #anti zionism #judaism #antizionism #nk #history #long post #i

423 notes · View notes

opencommunion · 3 months

Text

since zionists want to act obtuse about why we're criticizing a superbowl ad, here's an explanation from before the ad even aired. it was openly designed to act as pro-genocide propaganda. fighting antisemitism is a worthy goal but that's not what's happening here:

"The New England Patriots’ 81-year-old owner, Robert Kraft, writes seven-digit checks to the right-wing Israeli lobbying machine AIPAC, but his personal, political, and financial ties to Israel run deeper than the occasional donation. The multibillionaire married his late wife, Myra, in Israel in 1963 when Kraft, then 22, was older than the nation itself. Together they set up numerous business, athletic, and charitable ties to Israel, a record of which is proudly proclaimed on the Kraft company website. In particular, the Kraft Group boasts of its 'Touchdown in Israel' program, where NFL players are given free, highly organized vacations to see 'the holy land' and come back to spread the word about 'the only democracy in the Middle East.' (Not every NFL player has chosen to take part.) Kraft also attends fundraisers for the Israel Defense Forces, currently—and in open view of the world—committing war crimes in Gaza."

Now, as Israel wages war against the civilians of Gaza—more than 25,000 Palestinian have been killed with at least 10,000 of them children—Kraft is again flexing his financial and political muscles in order to defend the indefensible. His Foundation to Combat Antisemitism (FCAS) will be spending an estimated $7 million to buy a Super Bowl ad titled 'Stop Jewish Hate' that will be seen by well over 100 million people. Under Kraft’s direction, the ad’s goal is to create a propaganda campaign to counter the reports and images from Gaza that young people are consuming on social media.

... The content of the Super Bowl ad is not yet known, but FCAS has afforded Kraft the opportunity to make the rounds on cable news saying things like, 'It’s horrible to me that a group like Hamas can be respected and people in the United States of America can be carrying flags or supporting them.'

This is Kraft enacting the mission of FCAS: fostering disinformation. He is far from subtle: A Palestinian flag becomes a 'Hamas flag,' and people like the hundreds of thousands who took to the streets of Washington, D.C., last month to call for a cease-fire and end the violence are expressions of the 'rise in antisemitism.' Without a sense of irony or the horrors happening on the ground in Gaza, Kraft says he is giving $100 million of his own money to FCAS, because 'hate leads to violence.'

Let’s be clear: What Kraft is doing politically and what he will be using the Super Bowl as a platform to do is dangerous. He appears to think any criticism of Israel is inherently antisemitic. For Kraft, it is Jews like myself, rabbis, and Holocaust survivors calling for a cease-fire and a Free Palestine that are part of the problem. Kraft seems to think that opposition to Israel, the IDF, and the AIPAC agenda is antisemitism.

... Right-wing Christian nationalists, with their belief in a Jewish state existing alongside their conviction that Jews are going to Hell, are welcome in Netanyahu’s Israel and Kraft’s coalition. Left-wing anti-Zionist Jews are not. The greatest foghorn of this evangelical right-wing 'love Israel, hate Jews' perspective is, of course, Donald Trump. Kraft, while speaking of being troubled by events like the Charlottesville Nazi march and the right-wing massacre at the Tree of Life synagogue, counts Donald Trump as a close friend and even donated $1 million to his presidential inauguration.

No one who provides cover for the most powerful, public antisemite in the history of US politics should ever be taken seriously on how to best fight antisemitism. No one who funds AIPAC and the IDF and opposes a cease-fire amid the carnage should be allowed a commercial platform at the Super Bowl. But given that the big game is always an orgy of militarism, blind patriotism, and big budget commercials that lie through their teeth, perhaps that ad could not be more appropriate. We can do better than Kraft’s perspective on how to fight antisemitism. Morally, we don’t have a choice."

#zionism

611 notes · View notes

metamatar · 4 months

Text

So the real crime of fascism was the application to white people of colonial procedures "which until then had been reserved exclusively for the Arabs of Algeria, the 'c***s' of India, and the 'n***s' of Africa." (p. 36) Here we must situate Cesaire within a larger context of radical black intellectuals who had come to the same conclusions before the publication of Discourse.

As Cedric Robinson argues, a group of radical black intellectuals,including W.E.B. Du Bois, C.L.R James, George Padmore, and Oliver Cox, understood fascism not as some aberration from the march of progress, an unexpected right-wing turn, but a logical development of Western Civilization itself. They viewed fascism as a blood relative of slavery and imperialism, global systems rooted not only in capitalist political economy but racist ideologies that were already in place at the dawn of modernity. As early as 1936, Ralph Bunche, then a radical political science professor at Howard University, suggested that imperialism birth to fascism. "The doctrine of Fascism" wrote Bunche, "with its extreme jingoism, its exaggerated exaltation of the state and its comic-opera glorification of race, has given a new and greater impetus to the policy of world imperialism which had conquered and subjected to systematic and ruthless exploitation virtually all of the darker populations of the earth." Du Bois made some of the clearest statements to this effect: "I knew that Hitler and Mussolini were fighting communism, and using race prejudice to make some white people rich and all colored people poor. But it was not until later that I realized that the colonialism of Great Britain and France had exactly the same object and methods as the fascists and the Nazis were trying clearly to use." Later, in The World and Africa (1947), he writes: "There was no Nazi atrocity-concentration camps, wholesale maiming and murder, defilement of women or ghastly blasphemy of childhood which Christian civilization or Europe had not long been practicing against colored folk in all parts of the world in the name of and for the defense of a Superior Race born to rule the world. The very idea that there was a superior race lay at the heart of the matter, and this is why elements of Discourse also drew on Negritude's impulse to recover the history of Africa's accomplish ments. Takirng his cue from Leo Frobenius's injunction that the "idea of the barbaric Negro is a European invention," Cesaire sets out to prove that the colonial mission to "civilize" the primitive is just a smoke screen. If anything, colonialism results in the massive destruction of whole societies-societies that not only function at a high level of sophistication and complexity, but that might offer the West valuable lessons about how we might live together and remake the modern world.

Robin DG Kelley's A Poetics of Anti Colonialism, published as introduction to a new edition of Aime Cesaire's Discourse on Anti Colonialism

#fascism #imperialism #robin dg kelley

594 notes · View notes

dailyadventureprompts · 6 months

Text

Heavy Topics: A Child's Vision of Evil

One of the first big “aha!” moments in my journey to retrofit d&d’s laughably bad lore was the realization that the way the game treated evil didn’t make much sense. As a dungeonmaster I was asked to create dramatic stakes for my players but the out-of-the-box antagonists supplied to me were as laughably one note as the pollution loving villains in Captain Planet. Who would ever worship the demon god of killing everything that lives? Of torturing you for all eternity? Of being unpleasantly covered in slime?

None of it really made sense until I started to understand the world and recent history through a political lens, at which point several things became clear:

Despite how large a bogyman it played in the satan scare of the late 80s, the people who laid the foundations for the lore of d&d came from a background of conservative american christianity, and baked a lot of that ethos into the game.

The conservative christian imagination can only see things in black and white. People who disagree with them can’t just have a different opinion, even if that opinion is objectively good, they need to be wilfully evil . In fact they must be trying as hard to be evil as the christian is trying to be good, because they’re a backwards person, a monster, a demon.

This idea of the “Backwards Person” is the exact process that gave rise to the bloodlibel, to the witchpanics, to the redscare, and yes, the 80s fear that satanists lurk around every corner sacrificing babies and putting poison in candy because they love evil that much. It’s the same thought that’s given rise to Q-anon and the groomer panic. “People who disagree with just can’t just have a different opinion, they must be demons.”

D&D’s classic enemies are similarly all “backwards people”, hardwired to do evil so that players always have an excuse to kill them. While on the surface it seems harmless or even childish it leads to the default d&d world being one where peace is impossible and genocidal violence is the only correct answer.

We can do better in our writing than a bunch of shut-ins who wanted nothing more than to play cowboys and indians while ripping off Tolkien. Whether you want to write a sweeping epic or a mindless dungeon crawler, there’s a way to reconfigure d&d lore.

Join me below the cut for a discussion of different ways to use evil in your games.

Children cannot control their emotions nor their fear, they lack the life experience necessary to contextualize things beyond a surface level reading. If you ask a child to "imagine something bad" they're going to take something that scared them, something gross or unpleasant or threatening and imagine it blown up to cartoonish proportion. Tolkien got bit by a spider as a kid and the entire fantasy genre has never lived it down.

D&D is weird because it keeps these childish ideas about evil and drags them forward into an adult context. Those three demon gods I mentioned in the intro make a sort of sense when you realize they're fears of dying, pain, and uncleanliness made manifest. That said most of us having outgrown our childish simplicity understand that those things are neutral, Spiders might personally gross you out but we all understand that doesn't make them bad on a spiritual level. In the base d&d lore however that personal distaste is ALWAYS true: Evilness is synonymous with ugliness and monstrousness, drawing a thick crayon line between the good people and the bad things.

That's where we get our particular flavor of backwards people, because one of those fundamental (pun intended) fears d&d inherited from it's creators was xenophobia, fear of the strange, but also fear of the stranger. When the white, suburban, middle class, christian creators of d&d imagined the other they took all the bad things they had been told in their youth about people who were not them and made them into monsters: That's why the default thinking enemies of d&d are tribal primitives who squat in the ruins of greater civilizations worshipping demons while coveting the beauty and wealth of cultured people. It sounds hyperbolic, but there's a one for one parallel between between the weird sexual anxieties conservatives have about black men and orcs raiding human lands to kidnap women as breeding stock. Same fears about emasculation and race mixing and ethnic replacement, only d&d gives the good ol' boys a narrative vehicle where they can revenge themselves upon their imagined foe.

Most modern d&d is not like this, and I chalk that up to the demographic shift that's happened both because of time passing and the influx of new voices that came along with the 5e renaissance. We're all media literate enough to avoid the obvious racial pantomime... except in cases like the Hardozee when the devs port something almost word for word from an older edition and we get a thanksgiving uncle/facebook aunt screed about how the silly monkey people are really SO happy to work for the refined and civilized and white elves.

What's left behind however is that pervasive childlike worldview: Where perfectly natural things that creep us out (like rot) or frighten us (like pregnancy) are made universally villainous regardless of any themes that are going on in that specific story. Ask yourself why the creators of a piece of media made their badguys look and act like they did, rather than just accepting that it's that way because "the lore says so".

Anyway, that's my rant over, and I promised you guys some different versions of how to use Evil:

Classic demons or lovecraftian horrors make for good bossfights but are thin on character, one of the basic building blocks of story. To remedy this, pair your unremitting force of darkness and destruction with a troubled and nuanced mortal agent, someone who is trying their general best but has been forced down this low road by circumstances beyond their control. This gives your roleplaying focused players something to play off against while your combat focused ones battle a building sized monstrosity. Raw evil isn't interesting, it becomes interesting when we see what it makes morally grey people, even good people, do in reaction to it.

Extremity is one of the best ways to turn normal people into villains, a looming disaster or recent crisis that's putting the pressure on everyone and preventing anyone from thinking beyond protecting themselves and their own. Beyond the people acting rashly, you're also going to have a legion of opportunists offering to fix the problem as your higher rank of antagonists to overcome.

Similarly, if you're going to have your villain backed up by legions of faceless mooks you're going to need a reason for their loyalty. Your villain is offering them something worth dying for, which gives your heroes an alternate win condition for overcoming their numbers beyond genocide.

If you're willing to take a step into a more fanciful, cartoony universe, feel free to play with the idea of good and evil as arbitrary teams: It's the badguy's job to cause chaos and it's the goodguy's job to stop em, they're all working professionals and the dungeon is the workplace comedy. This is fun, but then lets you escalate the tension when someone doesn't play by the rules. What happens when a zealot starts executing evildoers who'd already surrendered? what happens when the villain summons something that is more interested in devastation than wacky hijinx?

Think of morality like a punnett square: There's the party, and then there's the villain who wants the opposite of what they want. THEN there's the villain who wants what the party wants, and the ally who wants the opposite of party wants. Suddenly rather than a simple binary, the party is forced to balance the interest of varying groups as well as their better judgment. This can be made even MORE complex by creating different categories of "what the party wants", which is generally how you get complex political dramas like game of thrones.

#heavy topics #writing advice #dnd #dungeons and dragons #d&d #ttprg #pathfinder

611 notes · View notes