#he's acknowledging the defendant as a person whose real life is affected by his actions. which is something vk trained out of him.

[anarmorofwords]

Hi! You're probably not going to like this ask, but before getting into it I'd just like to say that this isn't meant as Kamala hate or anything, and I don't really want to offend.

Having said that, wouldn't it make sense that we get to see how Kamala treated Anna after she came out? It's in all likelihood one of the things that's weighing on Anna the most.

Obviously Kamala had her valid reasons: her parents aren't as liberal as the Lightwoods, she believes (knows?) their love is conditional as she's adopted, she's not white and not being heterosexual could further any treatment she's suffered from being different... Her reasons have already been listed multiple times by multiple people. Kamala has the right to stay in the closet and fear coming out. And while that shouldn't be villianised, we can't forget that closeted people can harm those around them.

If Kamala had kept treating Anna like a good friend, rumour would've sparked, and even if it was denied, she'd have been harmed by merely associating with Anna. Especially with the life Anna began leading; she could have been labelled as one of Anna's 'conquests' by the Clave. That, as we've established, is detrimental for her safety.

But at the same time, it would create a breach between Anna and Kamala. And Anna had the right to be hurt by it and weary of it when Kamala said she wanted a relationship.

If we look at it from that perspective, Anna's actions (though inexcusable in how they treated Kamala --who was also at fault for not accepting a negative for four months) make sense. Kamala wasn't only a fling of a week*, but also the girl she lost her virginity with, who asked her to be her secret (until she married Charles, after which Anna's affections would be discarded), who hid her sexuality for two years and sat back while Anna suffered from homophobic commentary, and who now wants a relationship hidden from most of the people that know her.

Kamala shouldn't be forced to come out; but the harm that can do to the women she may engage with is reflective of what happens nowadays. I can mostly think of examples with gay men, so my apologies in advance. But how many women have seen their marriages ruined by their husband having affairs with men?

Creating characters that reflect a toxic part of the 'hidden' LGBT community shouldn't be seen as hating or villinifying. Thomas isn't out and he isn't labelled a villain by the narrative --because his actions don't harm anyone. The hate Alastair gets in-universe is because of his past as a bully, not because he's gay. Matthew's not fully out and he isn't villianised --like Thomas, because the decisions he makes to keep his sexuality hidden don't impact anyone negatively.

I'll even go as far as saying that not even the narrative villianises characters like Kamala and Charles. If it were, they'd be seen more like Grace in Chain of Gold. We'd see how Kamala's actions are affecting Anna's in more ways than anger (that in itself put the fandom against Anna), and the characters would note so. We wouldn't see scenes were Cordelia empathised with Charles, nor Matthew said he loved him.

Be it as it may, Kamala and Charles represent ugly parts of being closeted that can naturally occur when someone is in their position. LGBT people are human. Humans, when put into very difficult situations (and Charles risks his career; Kamala her safety), can make decisions that harm those around them. Consequently, the people they're harming have a right to feel, well, harmed in whatever range of ways --this goes mostly for Alastair, and very partly for Anna, whose treatment of Kamala was horrible.

Readers need to understand what is pushing these 'villianised' characters to harm (again, mostly for Alastair) the more prominent characters and go beyond how they are instantly depicted. Because these are complex characters based on complex real people influenced by very ugly realities we will move on from someday, but sadly not yet.

By the way, Charles and Kamala's situations aren't that similar beyond the closeted thing, but I crammed them together because of a post I saw you reblog.

Please understand I'm not justifying Charles's actions; that I understand the pain he's put Alastair through, and know that he shouldn't ever be near Alastair. Nor am I trying to justify Anna's actions nor hate on Kamala.

I'll just finish my pointless rant by adding that I do think cc has sensitivity readers. I think she asked a gay man to go through tec (I don't know if he still revised her other books, though), and know she asked POC's input when writing someone for their culture. I don't know much beyond that, but I doubt who revises her stuff is up to her. Wouldn't that be something the publisher is responsible for (honest question)?

*I've also noticed people using the argument that they didn't know each other long enough for Anna to harbour such ugly emotions towards Kamala, but Kamala also remembered Anna pretty deeply and is 'in love' with her. I just wanted to say that considering cc writes (fantastical) romance where someone can ask a woman they met two months ago marriage, stressing over time spaces doesn't make much sense. Just my take.

hi!!

alright, where do I start? probably would be best with stating that while I can analyse Kamala's situation with what I know/see/read about racism and discrimination and reasonably apply things I've read/heard from PoC to the discussion, as well as try to be as sensitive about it as possible, I'm still a white woman, so not a person that's best qualified to talk about this.

that being said - if someone wants to add something to this conversation, you're obviously more than welcome to, and if there's something in my answer that you don't agree with or find in some way insensitive or offensive - please don't hesitate to call me out on that.

back to your points though: (this turned into a whole ass essay, so under the cut)

I don't think Anna shouldn't be able to reminiscent on Kamala's behaviour/reaction to her coming out, or be hurt by it. what bothers me is the way CC talks about it - I can't remember the exact phrasing, but the post where she mentioned this suggested something along the lines of "you'll see how Kamala sided with the Clave and didn't defend Anna after her coming out", therefore putting the blame on Kamala and completely disregarding the fact that Kamala wasn't in position to do much at all. It suggest that their situation was "poor Anna being mistreated by Kamala". therefore I'm afraid Kamanna's main problem/conflict will remain to be portrayed as "Anna having to allow themselves to love again and forgive Kamala", while Anna's shortcomings - and Kamala's vulnerable position - are never discussed. I think it would be possible to acknowledge both Kamala's difficult situation and the possible hurt her behaviour caused Anna without being insensitive towards Kamala's character, but it would take a really skilled - and caring - author to do both of the perspectives justice. CC would have to find a balance between being aware of the racism/prejudice Kamala faced/ writing her with lots of awareness and empathy, and still allowing her to make mistakes and acknowledging them. As it is however, I'm under impression that she's just treating it as a plot device, a relationship drama.

I'd say no one expects characters of color to be written as flawless or never making mistakes, it's mostly the way these mistakes are written and what things these characters are judged/shamed/

And that's - at least in my understanding and opinion - where the problem is. it's that the narrative never even addresses Anna's faults, and portrays Kamala as the one that caused all - or most of - the pain, without ever even acknowledging her problems and background.

White characters in TLH make mistakes and fuck up - because they're human and they're absolutely allowed to - but the thing is, non-white characters aren't afforded that privilege. Anna's behaviour is never questioned - none of it, shaming Kamala for not being able to come out, dismissing her desire to be a mother, or any of the questionable things she did in ChoI. Same with Matthew, James, Thomas. Alastair and Kamala however? they're constantly viewed through their past mistakes, and forced to apologize for them over and over, forced to almost beg for forgiveness. Moreover, those past mistakes are used as a justification of all and any shitty behaviour the other characters exhibit towards them now, which is simply unfair and cruel. They're held to a much higher standard.

So I'd like to say that yes, Kamala was in the wrong to keep nagging Anna after numerous rejections, and she was in the wrong to not inform Anna about Charles prior to them having sex - but that doesn't give Anna a free pass to constantly mistreat Kamala. And let's be real, Anna isn't stupid - while at 17 she could be naive and uninformed, I can't imagine how after years of hanging out with the Downworlders and numerous affairs and being out and judged by the Clave she's still so ignorant about Kamala's situation. I definitely think she's allowed to be hurt, but to still not understand why Kamala did what she did? Anna isn't blaming her for not telling her about Charles earlier - which would be fair - but instead for refusing to engage in an outright romance with her. She's being ignorant - and consciously so, I think.

Overall, I think you're definitely right about how coming out - or staying closeted - can be messy and hurt people in the process, especially in unaccepting environments/time periods, and I've seen enough discourse online to know there will never be a verdict/stance on this that will satisfy everyone. I, for one, would really like to refrain from putting all the blame on a single person - but, at least the way I see it, CC is pointing fingers. maybe not directly, but she is. Kamala, Alastair and Charles have no friends or support systems, and the only people in the narrative that defend them are themselves (ok, Cordelia does defend Alastair from Charles, but not from shitty takes about him and his "sins"). Also, sorry, but I don't like how you say "hid her sexuality for two years and sat back while Anna experienced homophobic comments" - it sounds very much judgemental. Kamala had every right to do that? The fact that she slept with Anna doesn't means she owed her something, and certainly not coming out and most probably destroying her life, or even defending her at the - again - expense of her own reputation, or more possibly safety.

As for Charles - it's a different issue here, at least imo - I fear that it'll be implied that his refusing to come out will is his main "sin", and therefore not something he can be judged for, which ironically, will be villainizing, but mostly will mean his actual sins are dismissed. This is where the scene with Cordelia feeling a pang of sympathy for him comes into play, and it worries me. I've never hated Charles for not wanting to come out, but rather for, let's see - grooming Alastair, disregarding Alastair's needs and feelings, disrespecting his mother, being a sexist prick, being low-key far-right coded "make Shadowhunters great again" etc.

As for sensitivity readers - I'm no expert, so I don't think my input is worth much. From what I've gathered from multiple threads/discussions on twitter, tho it is probably consulted/approved by the publisher, many authors push for that - and authors less famous and "powerful" than her. I'm not a hater, but seeing fandoms' opinions on much of her rep, I think she could do better. Because if she does have sensitivity readers, then they don't seem to be doing a great job - maybe they're friends who don't wanna hurt her feelings? Or maybe she thinks a gay guy's feedback will be enough for any queer content - which, judging by the opinions I've seen from the fans, doesn't seem to be true.

Again, these are mostly my thoughts and I'm more than open to reading other opinions, because *sigh* I really don't know how to handle this.

Bottom line - I really really don't want to be hating on the characters in general, playing God in regards to judging the struggles of minorities, or even criticising the characters too harshly for being human, flawed etc. What my main issue is is how CC handles those complex and heavy topics.

I hope I make sense and this answer satisfies you somehow - I also hope someone better equipped to answer might wanna join this conversation.

* I desperately need a reread of TLH before I engage in any more conversations like this, but I didn't wanna leave you hanging. So yeah, I might be remembering things wrong. Again, let me know, I'm very much open to being corrected as well as to further discussion.

* I use she/her pronouns for Anna because that's what she uses in canon

#the last hours #tlh #alastair carstairs #shadowhunters #the shadowhunter chronicles #anti charles fairchild #is this anti anna? #kamala joshi #ariadne bridgestock #chain of iron #chain of gold #spilling the tea

[bigskydreaming]

Something to keep in mind with a lot of fandom or fic critical stuff is like.....causation and correlation are two distinct things, and they’re not always both present in like, the reason someone might have an issue with a thing.

What I mean by that is, sometimes there are fanon or fic trends that people take issue with BECAUSE of a certain root problem. They dislike this end result in fic, because it is derived from this specific cause, and that cause and effect are the issue in their mind. 

BUT sometimes there are fanon or fic trends that people take issue with because the problem isn’t like....due to a specific cause and effect, rather, the problem is a thing always going hand in hand with something else that IS a problem in someone’s eyes.

For instance, its no secret I think abuse apologism, intentionally or not, is a big problem in Batfam fandom. This is why I have a huge issue with fics who make direct reference to story events from canon that include clear and unequivocable abuse, like NTT #55 or NW #30....in the sense that they utilize the FALLOUT from these scenes, they pick up the story thread of what Dick did in the aftermath of these scenes, those actions and choices that were his direct REACTION to the ACTIONS of others........BUT many of these fics fail to acknowledge those actual inciting actions themselves, because they don’t want to portray Bruce as abusive or acknowledge that depiction. 

However, by removing the inciting action, but keeping the ensuing reactions, they PIVOT the conflict from being born of Bruce’s actions and that Dick was reacting to.....to now have Dick in the driver’s seat of that conflict, with what were originally his reactions to harm done to him now taken out of context and repurposed as its OWN kind of inciting conflict, that other characters then react to as though he’s the problem.

This issue is one of causation. Its a textbook example of abuse apologism where the abuser is by default protected via their defenders removing them from the context of the abuse entirely, and pivoting the focus to be JUST on the abused, making their reactions entirely divorced from the REASONS they’re acting that way. The problem lies entirely in writing Dick as the aggressor in these situations, with the direct CAUSE being not wanting to write him as the one justifiably aggrieved.

Now compare and contrast this with something like Dick being a jerk to Jason when he was Robin, or similar situations where a time when Dick was the injured party in one respect like, coincides with a time where Dick is heavily hyped up as being the offering insult or injury to someone who has nothing to do with whatever happened to him.

The issue I have here is one of correlation. Its not a simple cause and effect thing in play here, but there is still connection between say, a heavy focus on what a jerk Dick is (without much basis for that ever happening) and at the same time, a deliberately light focus on Bruce’s role in Dick and Bruce’s dynamic at the time and what very much did happen in events directly referenced, and which are then in turn referenced as being a big part of Dick’s mood without ever letting this truly come into focus.

See, the issue here is still purely between Dick and Bruce, but there’s a correlative effect in what’s going on between Dick and Jason......as the more people are focused on what Dick is or isn’t doing in his dynamic with Jason, and THAT being the focal issue....the less people are thinking about or invested in what’s going on between Dick and Bruce, even when there’s nominal acknowledgment that that’s the real root of the problem overall.

Of course, then sometimes correlation BECOMES causation. Because the more a trend builds and builds, without acknowledgment or discussion of related issues, the more the unacknowledged connection causes problems in and of itself, and it all loops back in on itself and feeds a never-ending cycle of cause and effect and correlation and avoidance that literally can only ever be broken by just.....critical thinking and direct analysis.

You might think I was building to a point here, but hahaha jk, not really. Tbh this is mostly just me trying to break down a fandom phenomenon into bite-size pieces to present for consideration, because the only real point here is like.....this shit is complicated. It SHOULD be complicated, as anything that pertains to not just liking certain characters and interacting with them, but also interacting with their STORIES and the real life problems they’re mirroring and the resulting behaviors that stem from them, like....should be. 

The problem with treating story-telling (as either a reader or a writer) as escapism, is that story-telling doesn’t exist TO be a form of escapism. Its often utilized as such, or aimed to be used as such, but story-telling is at its heart just......a means of talking about the human condition. Life. How we interact with it.

And thus, even though some stories very much DO work to provide escapism from life and its problems.....some stories very much will NEVER work as such, because you can’t escape from life’s problems by way of....stories that are meant to be examinations of life’s problems. 

(Something that’s particularly an issue with discussions of fiction vs reality. You hear a lot about how fiction isn’t reality, or how fiction does affect reality, but something we really need to talk about more is how some peoples’ fiction IS some other peoples’ reality. Like it may not be the equivalent of writing someone else’s personal memoir, but there needs to be more serious acknowledgment that when writing something that is abstract for you, personally, as in outside your realm of personal experiences because it pertains to aspects of identity or marginalization or lived experiences that aren’t a direct reflection of your own......these topics are not REMOTELY abstract for someone whose very real identity or lived experiences or oppression IS directly reflected in what you’re treating as simple fiction born of your imagination and nothing more. And thus how you interact with what you’re writing and reading and treating as nothing more than fictional, someone else is interacting with as something that’s a lot more real than that, feels a lot more real than that, that’s more personal than abstract). 

But anyway like, escapism isn’t a one-size fits all kinda deal, and CAN’T be. Because the things people want to escape from, the lives that they’re escaping from, and what they need to escape from it vs what will never allow them to escape from it because it will actually just be more examination and awareness of the reasons for their own want for escapism in the first place....none of these things are one size fits all, and that’s why fandom and fanfic are never ever ever going to be a one-stop shop for escapist fantasy the way too many people in fandoms try and treat them as.

And at a certain point you either gotta like, get on board with the fact that life is complicated and there IS no easy breakdown or solution to or discussion about extremely complicated topics like this, and that’s just the way it is so level up already and start treating it as such.....

Or you can do the other thing, which is double down on digging your heels in and pretending there is a simple, shallow, superficial way of dealing with or acknowledging super complicated shit, with that usually just being.....avoiding treating it as such.

Which is the part that tends to lead to perpetuation of cycles of bullshit and feeding directly back into a feedback loop of acknowledging fallout of issues without ever acknowledging the instigation of issues and whoops look at that, a pointed point crept up on me after all, myyyyyyy baaaaaaaaaad.

[raptured-night]

Hello, I have two questions this time. Why do you think we can’t really compare Death Eaters to Nazis? Why can’t we really compare purism with racism? Oh and do you think Death Eaters are more like nowadays’ terrorists or not?

So, it's no secret that I have drawn attention to the issue of Death Eaters being treated as literal stand-ins for Nazis or blood purism as a literal example of racism. Importantly, there is a difference between acknowledging the ways that Death Eaters or blood purity might work as semi-functional allegories for the Nazis and their ideology, white supremacy, racism, etc., and treating fictional representations of invented prejudices as if they were comparable or on par with non-fictional Nazi ideology, white supremacy, or systemic racism.

An article for Medium makes this point very well:

Silent resisters and ‘I don’t really care about politics’ people deserve our contempt. But what makes those who filter life through fiction and historical revisionism worse is that they are performing a soggy simulacrum of political engagement.

As a woman of colour watching, all I can do here is amplify the call to step away from your bookshelf. Let go of The Ring. My humanity exists independently of whether I am good or bad, and regardless of where the invented-fictional-not-real Sorting Hat puts me.

Realise that people are in danger right now, with real world actions needed in response, and not just because you want to live out your dreams of being Katniss Everdeen.

The problem with discussing Harry Potter’s fictional examples of prejudice as if they were literal or completely comparable with real-life prejudices is that it does lead to an oversimplification of the reality of prejudice (whether white supremacy, racism, homophobia, transphobia --looking at you Jo-- or otherwise) and the very real people who experience these prejudices every day. The fantasy of being Harry Potter up against Umbridge or Voldemort in a YA series where the line between the good and bad guys is almost clearly denoted by the narrator is a far cry from the reality of what activism is or what living under oppression is like for many marginalized people. 

I would argue that this is also a leading reason why the “social justice” (yes, in many cases I believe that deserves to be enclosed in dubious quotations) discourse in Harry Potter fandom trends more towards performative than it does sincere (one need only look at the defense posts for Rowling in response to real marginalized groups criticizing her for things ranging from her offensive representation of Asian people, Indigenous and Native peoples, or her failures in representing the lgbtq+ community particularly in light of her coming out as an open TERF and they can get an idea of how those “I’m an intersectional feminist/social justice ally and that’s why I read HP!” fans quickly shift gears to throw the bulk of their allyship behind Rowling instead) because when you spend all of your time debating fictional prejudices it’s much easier to detach oneself from the reality of non-fictional prejudice and its impact on real people.

Fiction has no stakes. There is a beginning, middle, and end. In Rowling’s fictional world, Harry Potter ends with Harry and “the side of light” the victor over her allegorical representation of evil and he gets his happily-ever-after in a world we are led to believe is at peace and made a better place. In the real world, decades after the fall of Hitler, there are still Nazis and white supremacists who believe in the glory of an Aryan/pure-white race and are responsible for acts of violence towards marginalized groups; even after the fall of the Confederacy in the U.S. we are still debating the removal of monuments erected in their honor (and the honor of former slave owners and colonialists like Christopher Columbus) while the nation continues mass protests over the systemic police brutality Black people and other people of color have long faced (not to mention the fact the KKK are still allowed to gather while the FBI conspired to destroy the Black Panther Party and discredit them as a dangerous extremist organization).

As a professor in literature, I’ve often argued that fiction can be a reflection of reality and vice versa. Indeed, it can be a subversive tool for social change and resistance (e.g. Harlem Renaissance) or be abused for the purposes of propaganda and misrepresentation (e.g. Jim Crow era racism in cartoons). So, I am not underscoring the influencing power of fiction but I do believe it is important that when attempting to apply fictional representations to real-world issues we do so with a certain awareness of the limitations of fiction. As I have already observed, there is an absence of real-world stakes for fiction. Fictional stories operate under a narrative structure that clearly delineates the course they will take, which is not the case for real life. In addition, the author’s own limitations can greatly affect the way their fiction may reflect certain non-fictional issues. Notably, a close reading of Harry Potter does reveal the way Rowling’s own transphobic prejudices influenced her writing, not least in the character of Rita Skeeter (but arguably even in her failed allegory for werewolves, which are supposed to reflect HIV prejudices, but she essentially presented us with two examples of werewolves that are either openly predatory towards children or accidentally predatory because they canonically can’t control themselves when their bodies undergo “transformations” that make them more dangerous and no surprise her most predatory example, Fenrir Greyback, seems to have embraced his transformation entirely versus Lupin who could be said to suffer more from body dysmorphia/shame). 

Ultimately, fiction is often a reflection of our non-fictional reality but it is not always an exact reflection. It can be a simplification of a more complex reality; a funhouse mirror that distorts that reality entirely, or the mirror might be a bit cracked or smudged and only reflecting a partial image. Because fiction does have its limits (as do authors of fiction), writers have certain story-telling conventions on hand through which they can examine certain aspects of reality through a more vague fictional lens, such as metaphor, symbolism, and allegory. Thus, the Death Eaters can function on an allegorical level without being problematic where they cannot when we treat them as literal comparisons to Nazis or white supremacist groups (particularly when we show a greater capacity for empathy and outrage over Rowling’s fictional prejudice, to the extent we’ll willingly censor fictional slurs like Mudblood, than we do real-world examples of racism and racial microaggressions). As an allegory, Voldemort and his Death Eaters can stand in for quite a few examples of extremism and prejudice that provoke readers to reflect more on the issue of how prejudice is developed and how extremist hate-groups and organizations may be able to rise and gain traction. Likewise, blood prejudice looked at as a fictional allegory goes a lot further than when we treat it as a literal comparison to racism, wherein it becomes a lot more problematic. 

I’ve discussed this before at length, along with others, and I will share some of those posts to give a better idea of some of the issues that arise when we try to argue that Voldemort was a literal comparison to Hitler, the Death Eaters were literal comparisons to Nazi, or that blood purity is a literal comparison to racism.

On the issue of blood prejudice as racism and Death Eaters as Nazis, per @idealistic-realism00.

On the issue of blood prejudice as racism, my own thoughts.

On the issue of Death Eaters and literal Nazi comparisons, per @deathdaydungeon and myself. 

Finally, as I have already argued, the extent to which fiction can function as a reflection of non-fictional realities can be limited by the author’s own perceptions. In the above links, you will note that I and others have critiqued Rowling’s portrayal of prejudice quite thoroughly and identified many of the flaws inherent in her representations of what prejudice looks like in a real-world context. The very binary (i.e. good/bad, right/wrong, dark/light) way that she presents prejudice and the fact that her villains are always clearly delineated and more broadly rejected by the larger society undermines any idea of a realistic representation of prejudice as systemic (we could make a case for an effort being made but as her narrative fails to ever properly address prejudice as systemic in any sort of conclusive way when taken along with her epilogue one can argue her representation of systemic prejudice and its impact fell far short of the mark, intended or otherwise). In addition to that, the two most notable protagonists that are part of her marginalized class (i.e. Muggle-born) are two comfortably middle-class girls, one of whom is clearly meant to be white (i.e. Lily) and the other who is most widely associated with the white actress (Emma Watson) who played her for over a decade before Rowling even hinted to the possibility Hermione could also be read as Black due to the casting of Noma Dumezweni for Cursed Child.

Overall, Rowling is clearly heavily influenced by second-wave feminist thought (although I would personally characterize her as anti-feminist having read her recent “essay,” and I use the term loosely as it was primarily a polemic of TERF propaganda, defending her transphobia, and reexamined the Harry Potter series and her gender dichotomy in light of her thoughts on “womanhood”) and as far as we are willing to call her a feminist, she is a white feminist. As a result, the representation of prejudice in Harry Potter is a distorted reflection of reality through the lens of a white feminist whose own understanding of prejudice is limited. Others, such as @somuchanxietysolittletime and @ankkaneito have done well to point out inconsistencies with Rowling’s intended allegories and the way the Harry Potter series overall can be read as a colonialist fantasy. So, for all of these reasons, I don’t think we should attempt to make literal comparisons between Rowling’s fictional examples of prejudice to non-fictional prejudice or hate groups. The Death Eaters and Voldemort are better examined as more of a catch-all allegory for prejudice when taken to it’s most extreme. Aicha Marhfour makes an important point in her article when she observes:

Trump isn’t himself, or even Hitler. He is Lord Voldemort. He is Darth Vader, or Dolores Umbridge — a role sometimes shared by Betsy DeVos or Tomi Lahren, depending on who you’re talking to. Obama is Dumbledore, and Bernie Sanders is Dobby the goddamn house elf. Republicans are Slytherins, Democrats are Gryffindors.

The cost of making these literal comparisons between Voldemort or the Death Eaters to other forms of extremism, perceived evil, or hate is that we impose a fictional concept over a non-fictional reality and unintentionally strip the individual or individuals perpetrating real acts of prejudice or oppression of some of their accountability. I can appreciate how such associations may help some people cope and for the readers of the intended age category of Harry Potter (i.e. YA readers) it might even be a decent primer to understanding real-world issues. However, there comes a point where we must resist the impulse to draw these comparisons and go deeper. Let Voldemort and the Death Eaters exist as allegories but I think it is important we all listen to what many fans of color, Jewish fans, lgbtq+ fans, etc. are saying and stop trying to fit a square peg into a round hole by treating these fictional characters and their fictional prejudices as if they were just as real, just as impactful, and just as deserving of our empathy and outrage as the very real people who are living daily with very real prejudices --because they’re not equal and they shouldn’t be. 

#anti-rowling #systemic racism #nazi mention: cw #white supremacy #godwins law #allegory #harry potter #harry potter meta

[kokkuri3]

I think VnC’s treatment of female characters is better than in PH, where most of them were props, tools to further the development of males, *coughLacieyoudeservedbetter*, tools to humanise the males *coughAdayoucan’tfixhimwithlove, endlessly forgiving and impossibly saintly *coughreallyAlyssyou’rejustgonnaforgiveJacklikethatyouarenotangryatall??*, amongst other problematic tropes.

VnC’s treatment of female characters is absolutely better than PH’s-- in fact, I’d say VnC was one of the few shounen manga to consistently treat its female characters with the same passion and respect as its male ones. One thing I say often is that VnC feels as thought it was written with Mochizuki having acknowledged PH’s problems (the complete lack of nonwhite characters, the continual mistreatment of female characters, the at times facetious treatment of issues such as incest or pedophilia which is... Not A Fan) and to that effect, I think she is making a deliberate effort to make multiple female characters with their own arcs which exist outside of men, who have important relationships with other women, who are capable of agency in the same capacity as their male counterparts.

This post isn’t really about VnC though so I’m not gonna sing its praises much anymore. I’ve talked before about how, despite being written by a woman, despite clearly acknowledging misogyny as a chronic problem among violent men PH is... not especially self aware when it comes to the misogyny of its own narrative.

I’ve made my thoughts on Lacie clear before (see here) and particularly how I believe her treatment was one of the times where PH’s treatment of women was particularly remarkable in that it’s good, despite her arc being drenched in misogynistic abuse and violence. I absolutely wish that the atrocities pinned on Lacie being not her fault was made more clear (aside from what I said in the post, and Oz saying that Lacie would never desire for the destruction of the world she loved) but I don’t think her writing itself was misogynistic-- I’d even go as far as to say it was feminist, though, obviously, I’m open to disagreement.

What most certainly does piss me off, however, is the writing of Ada’s arc. Yesterday I joked about Ada being the ‘anti-Lacie,’ and while it was a joke, I still intended some seriousness with it. Unlike Lacie, who was forced to constantly reevaluate her morals and the positions of her and her loved ones as a person whose existence was an inherent sin and who was abused throughout her life, Ada’s arc is built around the fact that she has never had to question anything. Similarly, while Lacie’s arc is about how she sought her own agency despite being surrounded by and allowed only those who were at best complacent in her suffering, Ada’s arc is about how... she continually sought out and apologized for a misogynistic predator despite being surrounded by better options.

The gender of the Core of the Abyss is something which I think warrants a separate post, but the official translation refers to the Core as being female, and for nearly the entire story she takes the form of a girl. Lacie reached out to an entity referred to and most often perceived as female, sought to understand her, and was abused as a specific consequence of this. Ada, meanwhile, made no real attempts at sympathy for her female counterparts. She never sought to question the circumstances of Noise, or Echo, or their relationship with Vincent. She gave forgiveness for crimes she had not been affected by nor did she even understand; her defense of Vincent was done not out of concern for Noise’s psyche but out of unquestioned pity for her abuser.

Ada’s arc bothers me for its utter lack of agency. She was a teenaged girl, expected to fix a predatory, abusive man in his twenties, and throughout her arc she is given no real means of choosing other options nor protecting herself. Her decision to defend a predator was not even an educated one; she simply did not know. Nor did she ever really come to understand anything about Vincent, aside from brief glimpses into his past. Ada is dragged around by the plot, pursuing an abuser she did not know was an abuser yet still felt sure she could heal, being forbidden from choice-- where she was not denied choice in the sense that she lacked the knowledge to make one, she was denied choice via other characters forbidding her. She was not allowed to protect Vincent though she wanted to because Vincent felt it was too dangerous to allow her to, she was not allowed to remain beside her friends and family though she wanted to because they felt it was too dangerous to allow her to, she wasn’t allowed to stay with Vincent because it was too dangerous, she wasn’t allowed to see him again because it was too dangerous... and she’s never given the choice to do anything but go along with it.

Alyss’s forgiveness of Jack is... a more complicated issue. That Ada “forgive” Vincent-- along with many of their other interactions, I might add-- felt utterly meaningless to me. Ada had never really perceived Vincent as performing a slight against her, being perfectly willing to assign any violence he committed against her as either her own fault, or part of his mental illness, thus Not His Fault. That Alyss forgive Jack, who was violent towards her, who she understood as victimizing her and others... I don’t like it, exactly, but at least it’s not the same.

I’m not sure “forgive” is even the correct word for what she did-- she acknowledged him, and she was gentle, but she never told Jack that she forgave him. Vincent’s dialogue during Retrace CIII supplements this in saying he suspects that Alyss’s feelings for Jack are the same as his own.

Vincent feels unable to either forgive Jack nor reject him entirely, feeling that he had done too much good for him to ever really hate him. Alyss, similarly, felt too strong a love for Jack to reject him outright. She never expressed sympathy for his actions, nor did she make any attempts to defend him. There was no misunderstanding on Alyss’s part on whether her love for Jack was unhealthy, but she loved him nonetheless. When she finally “finds” him, she offers no words of kindness. She simply expressed her gratitude in having done so before calling him a hopelessly lonely man, making no further attempts at even acknowledging him.

Of course, there is the inherent misogyny of a character arc about a young girl infatuated with an adult man, to the point of destroying her other relationships in pursuit of it. That Alyss was deliberately isolated and that Jack be the only person aside from the other Alice and the Core of Abyss-- two entities that cannot be meaningfully separated from herself-- is an obvious contributor, but that does not erase the problematic aspects of her arc. Then there’s the matter of Alyss’s wish to die being the only one treated as though it was a necessary evil, as opposed to a reflection of the individual’s personal instability that should be addressed through supporting them as opposed to killing them. It’s sort of an unfair double standard, and that the plot make Alyss’s death a necessary evil is a matter of author choice, not something inherent to the work.

On the topic of other instances of misogynistic writing in PH as a whole, there’s the matter of Alice and Sharon’s arc. While I don’t think either arc is in itself misogynistic, both characters are totally ignored in favor of their male counterparts. Despite Alice being one of the most important characters in the series, she has almost no narration and is frequently characterized as, to quote a friend of mine, a “feral animal.” She’s not given the same emotional or psychological depth as Oz or Gil, despite having around the same number of appearances and being the plot’s catalyst. Sharon has her own arc, theoretically, but we only ever see it within the context of Break or Reim despite being more of a main character than the latter. That Sharon spend entire volumes not appearing a single time is a recurring joke. A major part of her characterization-- that she feel insecure in relationships due to her halted aging-- is not revealed until the last chapter of the comic. Her arc ends with her marrying to a character who... I wouldn’t have been upset if the two of them had had any real interactions outside of Break, but they didn’t. There’s no inherent problem with their relationship except it’s boring and rushed.

Then there’s the matter of the sheer number of female versus male characters whose purpose in the plot is to die violently-- the Flower Girl, Vanessa Nightray, Bernice Nightray, Miranda Barma, Mary, etc. All of these characters did little or nothing to actually progress the plot, and all are murdered by a male character with the exception of the Flower Girl (who is a sex worker in the anime adaptation, and while I don’t know the canonicity of that, I feel it worth mentioning). 

Ultimately, PH suffers a lot for Mochizuki’s internalized misogyny. Her narrative seems over eager to forgive perpetrators of misogynistic violence, and in many ways over eager to characterize sympathetic men as misogynists. A Pandora Hearts without its themes of misogyny seems... nearly incomprehensible, though that’s in large part because of how meticulous the narrative as a whole is. The improvements Mochizuki has made subsequently, though, are noticeable and greatly appreciated.

#pandora hearts #answers #gisellehexen89 #OP I am you #ph spoilers #abuse ment #This is REALLY long so I put it under a readmore #Pandora Hearts huh.......... #ph #mochijun #animanga

[shaizstern]

Article from NYT: How Not to Apologize in Quarantine

Refusing to accept responsibility is not a sign of strength. It’s a sign of narcissism.

Image: Dominic Kesterton

By Adam Grant

No matter how hard we try to avoid it, we’re all doomed to hurt those we love. In quarantine, despite our best efforts, we’re all destined to annoy those we love.

People are discovering they can’t stand the way their partners chew, talk and brush the cat. One woman even told her partner that if he dropped his pen one more time, they’d be heading for divorce. “This entire experience has made me very much aware that I want a man in my life, just not in my house,” Chris Enss, a comedian, quipped. “Yesterday the man asked me where we keep the spoons. The spoons, for God’s sake! We’ve been married 31 years. The spoons are kept where they always are kept — in the silverware drawer!”

That hit close to home. A few weeks ago, during my annual attempt at cooking (making pancakes), I asked my wife where I could find the spatula. She kindly responded by rolling her eyes.

Since we probably can’t anticipate when our behaviors will irritate others, we need to learn how to make amends afterward. Before the pandemic, the #MeToo movement offered a crash course in how not to apologize. Indeed, some celebrities’ apologies were essentially a second insult, making 2017 not just the year of bad behavior — but also the year of the bad apology.

There’s the if-pology: I’m not saying I did it, but if I did, I would be really sorry.

Then there’s the no-fault apology: Sure, I did something wrong, but I didn’t know it was wrong at the time.

There’s also the pre-pology: I’m owning up to my sins before anyone accuses me, but I’m the real victim here. I have many childhood demons.

And finally, there’s the un-pology: My apology was genuine, but I didn’t do the thing I apologized for, so I hereby deny it.

We know a fake apology when we see it. There’s evidence that if executives apologize for corporate wrongdoing while looking happy, rather than sad, their companies have poorer stock returns over the next three months. Investors pick up on the insincerity.

Apologizing seems to be less of a problem in cultures with stronger norms of collectivism or politeness. In Japan, one company apologized for a train departing 20 seconds early. And in Canada, if you step on someone’s foot, they might apologize.

As a social scientist, I’ve been curious about how we can genuinely express remorse and repair relationships. After combing through the research on apologies, I’ve learned that a good apology has three components.

First, show regret about the impact of your past behavior. “I’m sorry if …” isn’t an apology. It’s an expression of doubt that you did anything wrong. As early as age 5 or 6, children spontaneously say they’re sorry for hurting their peers, and even occasionally their siblings.

A sincere apology acknowledges that your choices negatively affected others. “It’s the acknowledgment of the wrongdoing of the hurt, even if you think you were legitimate and justified,” Esther Perel, a therapist, said recently on my TED podcast, WorkLife. “The acknowledgment involves an element of remorse or guilt — sometimes for what you’ve done to the other person, not necessarily for your own action.”

We’re often so focused on defending our motives that we fail to see and own up to the consequences of our actions. It doesn’t matter whether we intended to hurt someone. The reality is that we did, so we ought to fess up to it.

Second, take responsibility in the present. Refusing to accept responsibility is not a sign of strength. It’s a sign of narcissism.

In many circumstances, we’re too busy finding fault in the other person’s actions and interpretations instead of accepting our role in the problem. “It doesn’t matter whose fault it is that something is broken if it’s your responsibility to fix it,” the actor Will Smith explained after having a disagreement with a friend.

“Taking responsibility is a recognition of the power that you seize when you stop blaming people,” he said. “Taking responsibility is taking your power back.”

Third, describe how you plan to improve in the future. You can’t right your wrongs if you don’t explain how you’re going to fix or prevent the problem moving forward.

Some people recommend a fourth step of asking for forgiveness. In my view, we should follow through on our commitments first. After all, integrity is about consistency between words and deeds. Forgiveness shouldn’t be granted when we promise to change. It should be earned once we live up to that promise.

The three steps are relatively easy to undertake. The hard part is finding the motivation to apologize, because it means feeling guilt about having done a bad thing and maybe even some shame at the thought of being a bad person. Psychologists have discovered a good solution to that: When you’ve hurt someone, think about your core values. If compassion, justice or generosity show up on your list, you might realize that apologizing doesn’t mean admitting you’re a bad person. It’s merely a step toward becoming a better person.

What if you’re the one being annoyed during lockdown? It’s worth remembering that when people disappoint us, it’s not because of their actions. It’s because their actions fell short of our expectations. You can’t control what people do, but you can choose not to let their actions drive your emotions.

I didn’t mean to be clueless about where the spatula is, but I’m sorry I was. I understand how exasperating it must’ve been! Knowing the precise location of all utensils is clearly my responsibility as a member of this household. To make sure it doesn’t happen again, I’m putting a temporary, removable label on the spatula drawer until I’ve memorized its location.

Once the lockdown is over, I’ll take a trip to Spatula City to stock up. Next time I can’t find something, I promise to check every drawer in the kitchen before imposing on you. As you watch me ransack our house like a burglar, I hope you’ll take a short break from laughing at me and find it in your heart to forgive me.

[rathbian]

edit: uh apparently i didn’t add a readmore whoops mb

I didn’t think I needed to say this but ad hominem attacks don’t lend well to discourse. Even worse are baseless accusations while ignoring disclaimers and evidence. Worse still is blatantly discrediting testimony from the people who y’all supposedly defend, whether now or from ages ago. Ain’t my wheelhouse so I can’t refute much but I suppose if we’re going to stoop so low as personal attacks, anything’s fair game, huh.

In completely, totally unrelated matters, let’s actually discuss a little bit about Kaito Momota and why supporting him completely uncritically or, at least, speculating that he could be a mlm or trans guy is harmful. Under the cut will be an explanation of why wholly uncritical support for his characterization is an issue and why supporting him in that way detracts from one’s credibility when discussing matters of bigotry and representation in fictional media.

I understand damn near everyone knows this by now, I know it’s old and tired but we need to discuss the original Japanese scene from the Daily Life segment chapter 2. Because I hold no credibility on my own for saying he’s transphobic/homophobic from his comment to Shinguuji, I will defer to a handful of other sources. Various trustworthy dictionaries(please use Google for this) refer to okama(オカマ) as a derogatory term for trans women and effeminate and gay men when used against someone. You can find the line he says here at about the 01:08:01-01:08:09 marks. Further context of this scene is described here and here, both sources by trans people and fluent Japanese speakers who have done their research into this topic.

Because of these sources, I have reason to believe that he said a transphobic and homophobic line, on top of all of his other moments of accusing men of not being manly enough for his standards which is a sentiment borne of misogyny and homophobia. This alone, would be enough but I’m certain that there exist some camps of people who will defend him with varying excuses so I’ll take a moment to refute a few hypothetical defenses for him. Should you find another point of refutation I’d be happy to argue against it, so please let me know.

“If the intent of this line was to be homophobic/transphobic, the translators would have kept it in.“ - I will give on the point that Kaito is not intended to be a bigoted character, at least, in Kodaka’s eyes. Intent, however, does not equal impact. In writing him as an archetypal shounen hero with the associated machismo and bullheadedness and having the narrative laud him over and again for having these views, he comes off as a character whose chauvinistic ideologies are praised or, at least, excusable. Even in NISA’s English version, one can at tell that even his misogyny and homophobia remained, albeit, tamely or localized in the bonus mode. I may not be a conspiracy theorist but it’s not far-fetched to claim translator bias colored the way he was localized as well, considering NISA’s lack of hesitation in translating slurs and the like for Miu, to make him seem more affable due to his archetype. Despite that, because a number of his actions and words are so deeply rooted in this view, it could not be removed entirely from him. Knowing this, we can come to the conclusion specific line was essentially lost in translation, as he was watered down but still capable of exhibiting the toxic behavior associated with his character type on top of clear bias. 

”The NISA English version is the only one that most of the fandom has been exposed to so it’s okay to only base Kaito’s characterization off of that.” - An understandable point insofar as not everyone has access to the original version of the game. This is, then, up to the fandom to do just a little bit of research when people are trying to bring up this version of the game to educate others of the original intent of the game, seeing as translation errors abound through attempts at localization. Though NISA’s version is the generally accepted translation, it will not change that it is a derivative work and that the source material's faults cannot remain without scrutiny. To do so is to allow misinformation and misinterpretation to run rampant. I do not find fault in those who do not yet know but those who either are unwilling to accept his flaws ingrained in his behavior or unwilling to listen or learn when someone tries to show context are willfully ignorant of his bigotry.

“It was left uncriticized by the narrative so it’s Kodaka’s fault/the fault of Japanese culture so we can remove that from his character traits.“ - Aside from the rather dubious assumption that Japan as a society is so backwards that Japanese people cannot be trusted to know what is bigoted or not, nothing will change that he had said what he said and did what he did within the canon of NDRV3. We cannot extricate Kaito from those by blaming the author for his traits without acknowledging that all the other traits written into his character are also simply the fault of the author as one should not be selective in acknowledging canon. Things which were written by an awful person remain awful and to ignore that is to shy away from the true nature of the material at hand, to enjoy uncritically is the same as condoning such things. As a personal plea, I ask of you to think critically: why go through these lengths to excuse a character’s bad traits that would be looked upon as offensive? Why ignore homophobia, transphobia, and misogyny in favor of making this character look better or for the sake of a headcanon?

Why is it so important to know that Kaito is indeed bigoted and just why is it bad to headcanon him as attracted to men or is trans? I will acknowledge the possibility of internalized homophobia and transphobia. However, recognize that his actions stem from that bias and that the narrative will not speak against him on these matters as it only calls out his foolhardiness and reckless abandon. If you can recognize these, you should also think a little bit about why making headcanons about a character having internalized bigotry that is not recognized as awful would run parallel to the incredibly harmful stereotype of assuming that bigots are really just in the closet. Internalized bigotry, especially when left without criticism, does not make for the greatest headcanon material.

I will not police those who are fans of his, as it is not a crime to enjoy characters who would be considered awful. I will neither make assumptions about nor judge those who like him without context as I’m not one for attacking others on a personal scale and I’m sure that people will give their reasons unwarranted anyway. However, trying to preach about bigotry affecting real people through representation while not only excusing bigotry from a character but also disregarding those who this bigotry would affect is hypocritical, I’d say. Objectively, it’s still harmful to headcanon a bigot as a part of the group that they’re bigoted against because in contributes to the idea that the real oppressors are members of their own community. It’s a belief that warps real people’s perceptions of other real people and making a headcanon out of it has similar effects to negative stereotyping in coding. To use a colloquial phrase, is this who y’all stan?

#kaito momota #danganronpa #i'll be kind and provide a readmore this time #in other news #don't attack folks over irrelevant topics #please don't bring anything other than evidence or relevant discussion #doing so neither benefits your case nor detracts from your discourse partner's #also it's just uh an asshole move #rath rambles #panic at the discourse #long post #rath writes

[overdrivels]

The Hanzo-disliking anon here. I would have actually preferred discussing this w/ you privately but I prefer to be on anon for the whole "doesn't like a beloved popular character" thing. The reason I don't like Hanzo is how he seems to have the audacity to act like the offended party with Genji when he's the one who did wrong. It's not even that he doesn't realize he did wrong. He abandoned his clan due to guilt. I can't for the life of me understand what appears to be his victim complex. (1/2)

(2/2) He goes around calling Genji “trash” to his face in the Japanese version of OW for goodness’ sake. That Genji is dead to him and stuff. It could be that he feels Genji betrayed him by refusing to join the Shimada business or that he feels like his redemption quest has been for nothing, but those are terrible reasons and don’t excuse his shitty behavior. I’ve been trying to think of what the writers are trying to go for with him, but I just can’t imagine anything that justifies his attitude

(3/2 I miscalculated 2 asks aren’t enough) I hope I didn’t come off as a jerk. I have no issue with people who like Hanzo and I don’t want to disrespect or undermine them. I’m just irritated at how self-entitled the character seems to be. The reason I actually brought this up with you is bc I was hoping you’d have some insights on this that will help me understand why he’s the way he is.

You’ve been very respectful in the way you express your opinions and well articulated in your reasons, so I’m actually extremely happy that you’ve presented this to me and feel comfortable enough to share. (You have no fucking clue how pleased I am to have a discussion like this, really.)

This is rather long (very long), so I’m placing this under a cut. To everyone else, please be mindful of each other’s opinions, especially when it’s being conveyed so civilly. Understandably, if you are of the opposite opinion, you may feel angered, but I ask that you refrain from attacking anyone and if need be, present your opinion and thoughts in the same manner as this anon.

(I also ask that this doesn’t get reblogged because I don’t think I can handle my inbox getting wrecked by people who weren’t initially a part of the conversation or know the context of the entire discussion leading up to this.)

I’d be happy to discuss it with you on chat or something, but as it is, this’ll have to work. I’m going to preface this by saying that Hanzo doesn’t need to be (shouldn’t need to be?) justified as a character because sometimes, a character does shitty things and that shittiness (shittyness?) needs to be acknowledged and not justified for any reason because there’s no good enough explanation.

(I’m sure we’ve all experienced or done something like that in real life–did something so inexcusable without proper explanation, but there really isn’t one, and we have to accept it as is.)

I think it’s easy to look at the singular action of Hanzo killing Genji in a vacuum. Based on that singular event alone, and seeing how Hanzo acts afterward, it’s very easy to paint him as an asshole whose actions are inexcusable and he doesn’t deserve to claim that he’s the one who is hurt. In which case, absolutely. He should not act like he’s been wronged when he’s the one who started it.

But what if we start further?  

I want to look at the cause and what could’ve led up to it. Not to justify it, but to see where this could’ve come from. It’s my own opinion, but I think that people are very used to writers having their characters as is–no background unless it’s relevant to the plot, no thought of what sort of life they’ve lead up to this point, and is presented as a given. However, I see that the Overwatch team has put some effort into characters (the level of effort can be debatable, but I’m not interested in debating that), so I want to show some level of respect to the writers by trying to dig a little deeper into where, why, how–who is this character?

And I think a lot of it may have come from Hanzo’s circumstance, his relations with his brother, and his past. To understand it, we have to take a deeper look into Japanese culture (or Asian culture, in general). Now, I can’t claim that I have a complete understanding of anything, so a lot of this is just what I know (and perhaps experiences) and some speculation and logical deductions.

In life, Genji was given a freedom that Hanzo, as the eldest and the heir to a criminal syndicate, never truly enjoyed. That isn’t to say, however, that Genji didn’t have his own fair share of troubles. 「一族の恥」(ichizoku no haji)、the clan’s shame/the embarrassment of the clan is what they called him. We can leave the discussion about Genji for another day, but let’s look at how this affects Hanzo.

So from birth and even after his father’s death, he was held to a strict standard. Everyone was watching him. He was chosen by the dragons. He must not make a mistake lest he bring shame to his entire family.

In Japanese culture (and Asian culture), losing face is probably one of the worst things that could happen to you. In Western culture, it’s not that big of a deal if you embarrass yourself a little or you’re not as successful or you don’t have the respect of your subordinates. People will tease you about it, and move on.

In Asian culture, you’re pretty much fucked. No one will let you forget it, it becomes a part of you now. You will lose the respect of everyone around you, and depending on the level of face you lose, every piece of success you’ve built up can be lost in a second. It is an integral part of your identity and society. Losing face could make you a nobody, scorned, and an outcast. It can affect your job, your family, relations with neighbors, cost you that raise or promotion–it’s a big deal that cannot be contained to the words, ‘embarrassment’ or ‘shame’.

(For example: you’re at someone’s house and you’ve finished off your glass of juice, but you’re still thirsty, so you reach for more from the fridge. You’ve now made the host lose face because, by getting your own drink, you’ve shown your host that they suck at what they do and should be more attentive to you, their guest. You’ve made your host lose face. Now your host is embarrassed and that’s going to be a mark on them for a long, long time. If there were other people there, they would notice this, too, and give that person shit. This sounds absolutely silly because it’s a glass of juice, but it’s a big deal.)

Hanzo was losing face. He couldn’t control his brother. That’s a deep scar on his image, on everything he’s built up in his life. For Sojiro, his father, it was less of a deal–he let Genji do it and probably made it openly known that this was acceptable. And no one will go against Sojiro, the master of the clan and who could have them all killed in an instant.

But Hanzo?

He doesn’t have that rapport yet, so he’s subject to the scorn and nasty comments of his elders and the like. (I’m assuming there are elders and those in the clan who are of a high power that Hanzo cannot take action without consulting. It’s kind of like a Japanese company. While a President delivers the decision, the decision isn’t made it without consulting those who are affected and knowledgeable.) He can’t defend himself against them. 

Why? 

Because of the hierarchy. There’s a very specific type of hierarchy in Japan that’s difficult to explain because to understand it, you have to understand the intricacies of the culture and the dynamic of the clan, which we don’t particularly have.

(There’s a very good post about it by someone about Hanzo losing face on tumblr, but I can’t seem to find it at the moment.)

Regardless, that must’ve built up a lot of tension and repressed anger that he wasn’t allowed to express. Expressing your anger is not taken the same way as in the Western world. It’s…well, not to say it’s not acceptable, but it’s not taken the same way as it would be outside of Japan.

So, Hanzo has quite a bit on his plate. Why can’t Genji just do what he’s told? Why does he have to stand out? (As a side note, standing out in Japanese culture or disrupting the status quo is not looked kindly upon.There’s even a saying in Japanese: a nail that stands out gets hammered ( 出る杭は打たれる ).) So Genji’s defiance is another point of contention. Why does he have to keep disobeying his elders? Hanzo is Genji’s older brother. It’s his absolute responsibility to make sure his brother is kept in line. That’s the burden of being the eldest. If Genji isn’t in line, Hanzo has failed in his basic duties in being an older brother. (The implications are much more serious, and I’m not quite sure how to express it.)

He may be acing his studies, and listening to his father, but he can’t seem to exert the right amount of authority over those who should be listening to him. And his father isn’t helping by letting Genji do what he wants. He also has this constant pressure to do better because his best isn’t enough from both his family and the clan. Logically, they wouldn’t follow someone who is weak or doesn’t have his shit in order. But he doesn’t. There’s always something tripping him up, and that’s his brother. Not to blame Genji, because again, he has his own share of troubles, but from Hanzo’s point of view, he was likely the source of a lot of his resentment.

In short, Hanzo is a failure. His accomplishments, his perfectionism, none of it means anything if he’s constantly getting shit thrown back at his face.

I seriously believe that all the lines he says in-game to himself such as, “Never second best,” or “Unworthy,” or “You will never amount to anything!” were all just Hanzo projecting.

In the Japanese version, he refers to Genji as 「くず」 (trash). I don’t know what to make of this. I could take the angle that it’s Hanzo projecting onto Genji still, or I could speculate that he truly believes he’s superior, or take it a little more neutrally, he’s repeating what everyone else calls Genji. But if I had to guess, it’s a mixture of everything. This is something that stumps me a little bit, but the above is the best explanation I have for it.

When Hanzo becomes the master of the clan, he was probably told to put Genji in line. And Genji didn’t want anything to do with the clan. He wanted to live his life, enjoy it. But that sort of enjoyment came with certain responsibilities that he has shirked since the time of their father. But with Hanzo as the new leader of the clan, he had to put Genji in line or…do something about it.

It’s very likely that the rest of the clan saw this as an opportunity to make their name good, to get rid of those who stood out, to right everything. Their new leader is young and inexperienced without his father to protect him. So, Hanzo was presented with those two choices: straighten Genji out or kill him lest you bring more shame to the clan.

Now, Hanzo is given an opportunity to redeem himself and his image and the clan’s image. This goes beyond the redemption quest he set out for after Genji’s death. I think he was on one even before then. He can save face and fix everything if he listens to his elders (his betters in the hierarchy). He can fix everything if he can get rid of the problem–Genji.

He did it. He did not take an insult to his power passively, he rectified it by putting an end to it. He restored confidence in his clan as an assassin, as master of the clan, as his brother.

…but it wasn’t so.

After killing his brother, we all know he left the Shimada clan. We’re not sure if it was immediately after or some time after. The timing may be very significant, but as we do not readily know, we’ll skip over it for now. We can easily call his leaving an act of cowardice, or the result of his guilt, or that he wanted to do something he always wanted to do but never found an opportunity to do so. He wanted to leave. He wanted the freedom that Genji had, but couldn’t have because his immediate family still existed.

By leaving, he thought for himself for once.

Ah, not to mean that he was blindly following anyone’s orders or anything, but for once, he thought of himself. He was selfish. In Japanese culture, the collective comes first. The clan, the whole of Hanamura, the whole of society comes first.

But for once, Hanzo became selfish, and so, left everything behind. Here’s the funny thing though, by killing Genji, he found a way out for his freedom, but by killing Genji, he also managed to never fully express the envy and hate he may have had for his brother.

In many or most cultures, you’re supposed to revere the dead. It’s pretty much the same in Japanese culture.

Now he’s been mourning for ten years, still unable to express that hate that he has supposed buried when he killed his brother. And guess who shows up? Genji. Back to sling shit into his face again. Not only is he a failure as a brother for being unable to keep his brother in line, as the master of the clan by leaving, but also as a killer by having one of his most life-altering kills come back from the grave.

So, under such circumstances, I would absolutely be pissed beyond hell and vent in almost any way I can because pride is a fragile thing. Or at least, it is for Hanzo.

But here’s an interesting thought: I also wonder if he knew, deep down, that it would come to this. He didn’t seem entirely too surprised beyond the first few seconds. As a matter of fact, he seemed to have gone back to something more childish, acting almost immediately like a big brother–scolding his younger brother for something and telling him to get his life together. He slips into the role almost too easily.

We can chalk it up to shock, but couldn’t it be that he also knew he never actually dealt the finishing blow and that’s been nagging at him this whole time? Not that he gave his brother a chance to live, but that he let his brother suffer. If you’re going to kill someone you love, you’d make it quick and painless, right? We can argue that he never loved his brother, but we can also argue that he was warring with himself and couldn’t bring himself to do it.

I must sound like a broken record, but to me, it’s very interesting to speculate and think about. There are so many angles we can take on this and the possibilities are endless. But it could also be that his character could also be very simple broken down as an man who mistakenly thinks he is being wronged all the time.

But yes, your thoughts are valid and meaningful to me in a way that I can’t explain. They also gave me some perspective on why some people might not like him, and I really want to thank you for helping me expand my horizons. In light of that, I hope I’ve been able to articulate why he may be the way he is, whether he is justified in his behavior or not is a completely different story. I’m just interested in why.

(There was a lot more I would’ve love to elaborate on, but I think this would’ve actually turned into a research paper. I hope this has been helpful and sufficient in answering your questions even though it’s a little disorganized in its presentation. Again, it’s perfectly fine to dislike a character–not all characters are made to be liked, and not all people are expected to like all characters.)

#anon #ask #character analysis

[womenofcolor15]

LeBron James, Teammate Malcolm Jenkins & More CHECK Drew Brees Over Protest Comments & Still Mentioning ‘Disrespecting The Flag’

LeBron James, Malcolm Jenkins, Richard Sherman and several more athletes are condemning NFL QB Drew Brees over comments he made about Colin Kaepernick’s National Anthem protest. He said he will never agree with someone “disrespecting the flag,” totally missing the whole point of the peaceful protest launched years ago. Peep the outraged reactions - some from his own teammates - inside…

  If he doesn’t agree or see the reason why people are pissed off, then why the hell did drew brees kneel 3 years ago pic.twitter.com/K5Xw3Qp4Ba

— edwardo #blacklivesmatter (@greycartoons) June 3, 2020

  Drew Brees STILL doesn’t get it. Or, he gets it and still doesn’t give a damn.

The New Orleans Saints quarterback – who the league touts as their poster boy – emphasized his stance on how he feels about Colin Kaepernick’s peaceful protest he launched in 2016. Kaepernick took a knee during the National Anthem before the first game of the season to protest police brutality. That's it! Kneeling has NEVER been about the flag! Ever. And Kaepernick has explained this NUMEROUS times.

During an interview with Yahoo Finance, he was asked his thoughts about "players kneeling again when the NFL season starts” in response to the killing of George Floyd.  

”I will never agree with anybody disrespecting the flag of the United States of America or our country,” he responded. “Let me just tell you what I see or what I feel when the national anthem is played or when I look at the flag of the United States. I envision my two grandfathers who fought for this country during World War II. One in the Army and one in the Marine corps both risking their lives to protect our country and to try to make our country and this world a better place.”

He continued:

”So every time I stand with my hand over my heart, looking at that flag and singing the national anthem, that's what I think about. And in many cases, it brings me to tears thinking about all those who have sacrificed -- not just those in the military, but for that matter, those fought in the '60s and all that has been endured by so many people up until this point."

"Is everything right with our country right now? No, it's not. We still have a long way to go. But I think what you do by standing there and showing respect to the flag with your hand over your heart is it shows unity. It shows we are all in this together, we can all do better and that we are all part of the solution."

Peep the clip below:

Highlight: @readdanwrite asks @drewbrees what the star NFL quarterback thinks about "players kneeling again when the NFL season starts."@drewbrees: “I will never agree with anybody disrespecting the flag of the United States of America or our country.”

Full exchange: pic.twitter.com/MpCkFyOMed

— Yahoo Finance (@YahooFinance) June 3, 2020

The fact he intentionally chose to not even acknowledge the death of George Foyd or any unarmed black person at the hands of racist cops or racism in general, says everything that one needs to know.  It also says plenty that he still is determined to co-opt the arrative about why Colin Kaepernick knelt during the anthem.  He has said countless times this has nothing to do with the flag, and other military professionals - both active and veterans & both black and white - have said they support Colin's actions and in no way take offense.  They have said this is exactly why they fought for the USA, to defend Colin's right to do exactly what he was doing.   

Drew Brees then posted this message of "unity" on his Instagram account:

        View this post on Instagram

                  Words to unite.. A mentor of mine once told me that if you listen closely, the sound of children playing is the same no matter where you are in the world. The laughing, shouting, screaming, giggling… No matter what language you speak, no matter what your race, color, religion… the exact same.  At some point we all change… The reasons… Our environment, experiences, education...The voices and influences around us.  If you are reading this, you are probably one of those whose voice and influence is very powerful in the life of a young person. So when you ask what difference you can make in this world… It’s exactly that. Raise, teach, but most importantly model to young people what it is to love all and respect all. There is a saying in every locker room I have been in… Don’t just talk about it, be about it.  Acknowledge the problem, and accept the fact that we all have a responsibility to make it better. “Your actions speak so loudly I can’t hear what you’re saying”

A post shared by Drew Brees (@drewbrees) on Jun 3, 2020 at 6:47am PDT

Again, the kumbaya statement that is just performative, but not actually saying anything except for an empty call to unity.  Why call for unity if you can't point out why we are not unified in the first place?

Below is a picture of Drew with his wife, Trump and Melania:

Hmph.

Drew Brees’ comments sparked outrage in the sports world, which resulted in several athletes checking him for his ridiculous comments.

Los Angeles Lakers baller LeBron James criticized the Saints QB for MISSING the point of Kaepernick’s protest, which has been explained in depth countless times over the years.

WOW MAN!! . Is it still surprising at this point. Sure isn’t! You literally still don’t understand why Kap was kneeling on one knee?? Has absolute nothing to do with the disrespect of and our soldiers (men and women) who keep our land free. My father-in-law was one of those https://t.co/pvUWPmh4s8

— LeBron James (@KingJames) June 3, 2020

"WOW MAN!! Is it still surprising at this point. Sure isn’t! You literally still don’t understand why Kap was kneeling on one knee?? Has absolute nothing to do with the disrespect of [U.S. flag emoji] and our soldiers (men and women) who keep our land free. My father-in-law was one of those," King James tweeted.

men who fought as well for this country. I asked him question about it and thank him all the time for his commitement. He never found Kap peaceful protest offensive because he and I both know what’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong! God bless you.

— LeBron James (@KingJames) June 3, 2020

"Men who fought as well for this country. I asked him question about it and thank him all the time for his commitment. He never found Kap peaceful protest offensive because he and I both know what’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong! God bless you," LeBron continued.

Some of Drew's teammates called him out as well....

Saints safety Malcolm Jenkins (who joined Kaepernick's peaceful protest when it first launched) BLASTED Drew in an Instagram video: "I considered you a friend, I looked up to you, you're someone I had a great deal of respect for, but sometimes you should shut the f**k up."

        View this post on Instagram

                  As I was trying to muster up the energy and find the words to address Drew Brees’s comments I recorded this video. Before I could post it, Drew reached out to me to discuss his point of view. All in all, I’m still posting this video because it’s important for anyone who wants to consider themself an ally to know how these words and actions affect those who you want to help. Drew’s words during his interview were extremely painful to hear and I hope he rectifies them with real action.

A post shared by Malcolm Jenkins (@malcolmjenkins27) on Jun 3, 2020 at 2:42pm PDT

Saints wide receiver Michael Thomas posted a "sick" emoji in response to a reporter's tweet that read, "How can anyone watch George Floyd get murdered and their first response when asked about it is ResPEcC tHe fLAg."

Mike also tweeted, "He don't know no better," referring to Drew.

He don’t know no better.

— Michael Thomas (@Cantguardmike) June 3, 2020

And this: "We don’t care if you don’t agree and whoever else how about that."

Check it:

  We are literally TELLING him. Yeah, YOUR grandfather came back from the war and was treated equally. MY grandfather sat in the back of buses after he fought.

NO MORE ENERGY IN EXPLAINING TO THOSE WHO DONT CARE!

— Freaux Deaux (@neorevolut1on) June 3, 2020

  Saints running back Alvin Kamara posted a tweet that didn't mention Drew's name, but his one-word reaction was clearly a response to his comments:

oop...

— Alvin Kamara (@A_kamara6) June 3, 2020

49ers cornerback Richard Sherman served up a mini history lesson as he responded to Drews' comments:

He’s beyond lost. Guarantee you there were black men fighting along side your grandfather but this doesn’t seem to be about that. That uncomfortable conversation you are trying to avoid by injecting military into a conversation about brutality and equality is part of the problem https://t.co/ON81UsOWPw pic.twitter.com/HH3EVTIH8p

— Richard Sherman (@RSherman_25) June 3, 2020

"He’s beyond lost. Guarantee you there were black men fighting along side your grandfather but this doesn’t seem to be about that. That uncomfortable conversation you are trying to avoid by injecting military into a conversation about brutality and equality is part of the problem," he tweeted.

Philadelphia Eagles cornerback Darius Slay responded to Drew's comments:

Damn drew hurt me with that one !!

— Darius Slay (@bigplay24slay) June 3, 2020

"Damn, Drew hurt me with that one!!," he tweeted.

Las Vegas Raiders running back Josh Jacobs retweeted the interview and in the caption he posted a facepalm emoji with the words, "This ain't it."

.... This ain’t it https://t.co/XOew9MW6gu

— Josh Jacobs (@iAM_JoshJacobs) June 3, 2020

Drew Brees' comments said NOTHING to acknowledge the pain, strife and injustice the black community faces, despite leading a team full of black men every season. He only stated why he is against kneeling - a peaceful protest - during the National Anthem, despite this argument being had ad nauseam with several military - both active and veterans. Those military professionals have made it known Colin Kaepernick’s protest is exactly why they fight/fought for our freedoms and it’s not disrespectful to them.

  i could type a long text about how kneeling during the anthem was never about “disrespecting the flag” but ima just say fuck drew brees & the NFL too. they ain’t wit us.

— black (@6LACK) June 3, 2020

  Why can't people like Drew Brees understand this? Short answer? Well, you KNOW the answer.

Meanwhile, here's Dak Prescott, Dallas Cowboys star QB, speaking about the issues at hand head on:

        View this post on Instagram

                      A post shared by Dak Prescott (@_4dak) on Jun 3, 2020 at 8:34am PDT

  Photo: Getty

[Read More ...] source http://theybf.com/2020/06/03/lebron-james-malcolm-jenkins-more-athletes-check-drew-brees-over-national-anthem-protes-0

[sage-nebula]

What do you think of the direction the Pokemon anime is taking on Lusamine? They are trying to make her more sympathetic and she don't seen to be abusive. I feel conflicted because will they are whitewashing the only female villain, they are also going into to the USUM route without the unfortunate implications.

Well, first, before anything—I mean no offense, but I just feel that you should know for future usage that “making a villain out to be a good person” is not the correct use of the term “whitewashing.” 

“Whitewashing” is a very specific term which relates to portraying a character of non-white ethnicity as white in adaptations of the original work. So for instance, the characters Katara and Sokka were whitewashed in the live action film adaptation of Avatar: The Last Airbender, because although they have dark skin in the original cartoon, they were played by white actors. The character Yagami Light was whitewashed in the recent Netflix film adaptation of the series Death Note, because although he is originally a Japanese character, he was portrayed by a white actor and his name was changed to Light Turner, and so on and so forth. “Whitewashing” applies specifically to the depiction of race (and sometimes culture) within media adaptations, and doesn’t at all refer to the heroics or villainous traits present within the characters. Again, I don’t mean to call you out on this or attack you or anything even remotely close to that, but I just thought you should know for the future, since there are some reactionary people on this website who might get a little more volatile about it, even though it’s just an honest mistake on your part.

As for the actual content of your question: It’s complicated.

First, before anything else, it needs to be said that Lusamine is still abusive in USUM. Gladion’s line about how he was “an ornament to [his] mother” is still in tact, as is all of the verbal abuse she hurls at Lillie and Gladion right there on screen when you confront her at Aether Paradise. I actually transcribed this while playing through that scene last night, so I can share that now:

LUSAMINE: “A gifted young trainer like [player] … and they bother with someone like you? How disappointing. […] My … you do say such imcomprehensible things. Calling me mother? I don’t have any children! Certainly not any wretched children who would run off and reject my love! So tell me how you’ll save that pokémon. What can you do, Lillie? You failed to convince me to listen to you. You don’t even have the strength of a trainer. The only thing that you’ve ever done on your own is steal someone else’s research material! It’s so terribly unattractive. But know that my fathomless love will save even someone like you … when I protect this entire world from darkness!”

The very first thing the player witnesses Lusamine saying to Lillie, her daughter, is that it’s disappointing that the player has “bothered” with someone like Lillie. The fact that Lusamine takes the time to point out that the player is gifted hammers in the point that she feels that Lillie is not. By saying that the player is a gifted trainer bothering with Lillie, Lusamine is—in essence—saying that Lillie is not worth their time. She is not good enough for the player. She is worthless. Given that this is the first thing we witness Lusamine saying to Lillie—and that this is the first time they’ve even spoken in person in some time—we can see right off the bat that she’s an abusive mother.

But she doesn’t stop there. When Lillie tries to defend herself by saying that she doesn’t need Lusamine’s approval, and that she will save Nebby, Lusamine says that she says “incomprehensible things”. This ostensibly applies to everything Lillie just said, but Lusamine decides to drive the nail in further by disowning her (and Gladion, though not by name), saying that she doesn’t have any children, and that the children she does have by blood are wretched children who rejected her. Even if you wanted to argue that Lusamine is just lashing out in anger and rejecting those who she perceives rejected her first, the truth of the matter is that Lusamine is the adult. She is their mother. She is supposed to love and support them, and do the right thing, which she has not done. She treats them, as Gladion tells us, like objects and possessions, and when they don’t behave the way she wants them to, she throws them out and blames them for how poorly she treats them. This is emotional abuse.

And again, she doesn’t stop there! She continues to berate and belittle Lillie right in front of the player character, to the point where Lillie ends up bowing her head in shame and hurt. She blames Lillie for her own refusal to listen to or acknowledge Lillie’s concerns, saying that it’s Lillie’s responsibility to convince her rather than her own responsibility to listen. She insults Lillie for not being a trainer, and calls her a thief (while at the same time reducing Nebby to an object, calling him “research material”). She then goes on to call her unattractive, and to say that she’s going to save someone like [Lillie], once again pointing out that she sees Lillie as the lowest of the low without directly saying that. All of this is verbal and emotional abuse. All of it. It’s extremely realistically written, something I can say from personal life experiences with my own biological mother, and it is high-key abusive.

And then, shortly after that, we get:

HAU: “:Daughter? Son? Wait … you all are a family?!”

LUSAMINE: “Perhaps once we were … sweet Hau. But those wretches beside you left me.”

She straight up once again says that Gladion and Lillie are no longer ones she considers family, and calls them wretches on top of it. (Note that, despite the fact that Lusamine says this to Hau, Hau still calls her “a good person” later. Have I mentioned how much my opinion of Hau has plummeted by this point?) Despite the fact that her intention now is to save the world, and despite the fact that she has moments where she does things like call Gladion “a sweet boy” for seemingly worrying for her, it’s more than evident that Lusamine is every bit as abusive toward her children in USUM as she was in SM. If anything, Lusamine changing her tune only when her children seem to care about her is even more indicative that she’s an abuser. Abusers will act nice and sweet toward their victims when their victims “behave”; it’s when they start to “step out of line” that abusers bring down the hammers of pain, and that’s exactly what Lusamine is doing here. Oh sure, she’ll act like a sweet, caring mother if her children are doing what she wants them to do, but the second they try to think or act for themselves she declares them wretched traitors that she wants nothing to do with. Considering the last conversation I had with my own biological mother ended with her calling me a traitor because I got out of her house (and me saying I didn’t have to listen to that, and her saying I did, and me saying I didn’t before I hung up the phone), yeah, that’s all very familiar to me, and it is absolutely abusive.

So make no mistake: Lusamine is still an abusive mother, and is still the most realistically written abusive parent that we’ve had in Pokémon to date (far more so than Ghetsis, whose dialogue makes him sound more cartoonish than anything). Even though the anime is clearly looking to adapt USUM, that shouldn’t affect the fact that Lusamine is an abusive parent to Gladion and Lillie, because she is. The only real difference is that here it doesn’t seem as if her abuse is being blamed on Nihilego toxins; instead, it’s just being handwaved and treated as though it isn’t abuse at all (along with Lillie’s experiences pre-canon being erased, since we no longer have the, “… you left me alone with Mother. She became so bad after you left!” line that she delivers to Gladion on Poni Island in the original games). And honestly, that’s kind of even worse, since now the fandom’s awful behavior of ignoring / downplaying Lusamine’s abuse and excusing her because she’s a woman is being validated by Game Freak themselves. Disgusting.

With all of that said, I would argue that Lusamine’s behavior still carries shades of emotional abuse in the anime as well. It’s clear from the few interactions that she has with Lillie that she doesn’t actually respect Lillie’s autonomy or agency very much at all. She ignores Lillie’s personal space, and handwaves the fact that Lillie is upset being hugged and cuddled by her. She also completely disrespected Lillie’s wishes regarding her old clefairy, treating Lillie as though she was an ignorant child and evolving the clefairy despite the fact that she knew Lillie wanted to raise the clefairy as a clefairy, rather than as a clefable. Whether Lusamine was right in that it was illogical to raise a pokémon in a pre-evolved form simply because it was cuter that way or not is irrelevant. The point is that she railroaded over Lillie’s wishes and boundaries, and she seems to have a habit of doing so. That said, you’re right: That is far less overt than the emotional abuse she hurls at Lillie and Gladion in the games, so it does seem as though they’re treating her as though she’s just an oblivious, overbearing mother rather than an actively abusive one in the anime.

As for how I feel about it? Well … I would think that would be obvious.

I’m livid at the way Lusamine has been handled in all forms. I was so, so excited to finally have a female Big Bad, and I had so many high expectations for her. Game Freak and TPCi have successfully ruined and destroyed every last one of them. In USUM, which the anime is clearly taking its cues from, she’s not even a villain anymore; she’s an antihero at best, because although she clearly abuses her children and is willing to sacrifice Nebby, her decision to sacrifice Nebby is not one borne out of selfishness, but rather is one borne out of perceived necessity. If Necrozma comes over to this dimension, he’ll steal the light, and presumably everyone and everything there will die. Lusamine is taking the tack that sacrificing one life is worth it if it means saving billions. That’s logic that can’t be easily argued with. It’s an ethical dilemma, and ethical dilemmas often don’t have hard line right or wrong answers. (Often, but not always. There are some “ethical dilemmas” which aren’t ethical dilemmas at all and do have hard line right or wrong answers.) They’ve completely stripped her of her villain status, presumably because in their minds women just can’t be villains. (And by “their” I mean “Game Freak’s”, because remember, the anime staff did have Hunter J back in DP.) It’s upsetting and infuriating both on the basis that I really wanted a competent, dangerous female Big Bad for once, and also because she’s still a blatantly abusive mother in the games, and that’s just treated as if it doesn’t matter. I guess, in the eyes of Game Freak (and a large part of the fandom) abuse just doesn’t count or isn’t that bad if it comes from one’s mother. What a great fucking message to send. [/s]

Anyway, I’m not happy about it, but there’s also nothing I can do to change it. So long as Alan is left out of the Team Rainbow Rocket arc coming up (or at the very least, if he’s involved, he doesn’t have his character assassinated), I don’t have it in me to get very worked up about it, emotionally.

#white-gehenna

[seiikas]

Hello! I need to catch up on Naruto and I would like to know since you are a fan of Sasuke why do you like his character ? I often think Sasuke is misunderstood by a lot of people, myself I have sometimes a hard time understanding him but I find him interesting ! Hope this question don't bother you, have a good day! :)

Hi! Don’t worry, your question doesn’t bother me at all! My reply is under the readmore. I’m sorry that it got so gigantic! It almost turned into a novel lol. It also may contain mild spoilers so please proceed with caution :)

One of the reasons I like him is because he’s human. Sasuke went through extreme trauma and mental torture at the age of 9, received absolutely no treatment or therapy for it, and was sent to live by himself in the same house his parents were murdered in. He didn’t get any help to deal with his trauma as he grew up. Would a normal human be able to get over such a thing simply because they found friends? to me the fact that Sasuke still suffers and is so affected by his trauma is what makes him realistic. He always needs to rely on a big life goal, put all of his thoughts and efforts into it, whether it’s revenge or justice or redemption, because if he doesn’t have one, it would be just him and his trauma to focus on, and would anyone be able to actually live like that? To me it’s amazing that Sasuke was even able to go on living by himself, to go to school and study and even find emotional attachment to people, protect them and sacrifice himself for them.

In general, most humans aren’t simply good or bad. The majority of us can be kind and generous while still being mean and selfish at times. We can be strong and still have moments of absolute weakness. The majority of us struggle with our mental illnesses and don’t just “get over it”, especially without any help. Sasuke is kind and selfless; he sacrificed himself for Naruto during the Haku fight, was ready to sacrifice himself again to save Naruto and Sakura during the Gaara fight, during the chuunin exams Kabuto pointed out how soft he was because he refused to attack him to get his scroll despite the fact that that’s what the exam required of him, in early shippuden he refused to kill anyone and ordered Taka not to kill, he learned how to extinguish the Amaterasu flames in order to save Karin, he threw himself in front of Sarada to protect her, he gave up on a peaceful life for himself for the sake of protecting their hard-earned world peace. But he also had times when he could be mean and selfish, when the pressure and the sadness were just too much, when he didn’t know how to deal with the trauma and the lies and the shock. And to me that’s a character that I can support, not because I think his mistakes were justified but because he’s not a messiah, he actually has to struggle with himself and his flaws, he has to fight against his trauma and his mental illnesses, which is what most humans are like instead of simply being wise and strong and flawless from the start.

What people fail to understand about Sasuke is that he’s a good person; that’s exactly the reason why his cruelty during the Gokage meeting arc was so shocking to every character in the story, because it was there to show that he wasn’t himself anymore; that’s exactly why the explanation of the “Uchiha curse” exists; and yet for some reason people tend to take that as being Sasuke’s actual personality, despite the fact that the manga had shown him in his normal state before, that we had actually gotten to see his gradual fall into darkness and his reason for it.

I like how Sasuke tends to be silent and distant on the outside but soft and kind on the inside. It’s thanks to him that team 7 gets accepted by Kakashi in the first place, because he decides to feed Naruto even though he was told not to. When he hears that Itachi is in the village, the first thing he worries about is Naruto’s safety, not his own safety or his own goals. He notices when Sakura is feeling down and comforts her by praising her abilities. He rarely ever expresses his feelings in words but he shows them with his actions; by sacrificing himself for someone, by protecting them, by showing pride towards their accomplishments, by gestures like the forehead poke. You’ll rarely find him saying cheesy things but if he cares about you and loves you, you’ll know. On the inside, he loves intensely. (Btw, how cute is it that he feeds cats and makes friends with them during his travels?)

Another thing I like about Sasuke is his extreme love and loyalty towards his family. Maybe it’s because I’ve been raised in a culture where family is always the most important, but I can’t help but appreciate how none of the things he did throughout the series were for himself, but for his family. People think Sasuke is disloyal because he “betrayed” Konoha but the truth is, Sasuke’s loyalty was never with Konoha to begin with, from the start it was always about family, he wanted to be acknowledged by his father, he wanted to join the Uchiha police force. He loved his mother and brother so much, cared about his father’s impression of him, was so proud of his family. And every single thing he wanted to do throughout the series was for them, wanting to avenge them, restore their honor, protect Konoha for Itachi’s sake. The fact that Sasuke and the rest of the Uchiha saw “the Uchiha” and “Konoha” as two separate entities and were only loyal to one of those was a result of Konoha’s own choice to alienate the Uchiha; you can’t treat a group of people like shit and then expect them to somehow love you and be loyal to you.

Sasuke doesn’t fit any generic shounen character type. His character is complex. He starts off as the typical rival but soon his character goes its own way. He has his own goals, his own path in life, his own relationships and his story doesn’t revolve around the main character or catching up to him. In fact it’s the opposite, it’s Naruto whose story mostly revolves around Sasuke. He’s one of the characters who makes this story unpredictable and interesting. Because let’s be real, the plot of Naruto is rather predictable. Naruto meets villain, Naruto has training arc or gets a powerup, Naruto defeats villain, rince and repeat until he becomes Hokage. Even one of the biggest “mysteries” of the series, Tobi’s identity, was predicted by everyone after his very first appearance. Throughout all of this it’s Sasuke who keeps the story interesting, because you’re never really sure what he’s gonna do, how he’s gonna react to things, where he’s gonna end up. That’s the reason why he was/is often the main subject of discussion even among people who don’t like him. Even up until the very end some people were saying he was gonna come back and become anbu, some were saying he would leave with taka, some thought he would die. No one could really guess where he would end up, whereas with other characters things were much more easy to predict.

I like Sasuke because I actually stop to look at things from his point of view as well; I know it’s hard to do so when the narrative always presents things from Naruto and Sakura’s side. It’s easy to just look at the surface and say: Sasuke made Naruto and Sakura sad, therefore he is bad. But when I look at things from Sasuke’s point of view, I understand all of the things he does, and I realize the choices he makes are often the most realistic considering his situation.

Let’s start from the very beginning. A lot of people hate Sasuke because they think he “treated Naruto like shit” throughout part one. But if you actually take the time to read the manga, who was the one who showed contempt towards the other first? It was Naruto. He hates Sasuke because he’s popular and Sakura likes him. This is established from the very beginning. The accidental kiss happened because Naruto tried to provoke Sasuke as a result of his jealousy. Naruto was the one who attacked Sasuke first—tied him up and tried to kiss Sakura while posing as him. And yet only minutes after that Sasuke still chose to defend him against Sakura. Throughout the rest of part one Sasuke and Naruto do bicker and fight a lot, but all of those fights and insults are two-sided and yet for some reason I only ever see people focus on Sasuke’s side.

It’s the same with all of the more serious fights between them. The majority of them were actually started by Naruto. People claim that Sasuke mistreated and/or abused Naruto and Sakura; but the truth is, if Sakura and Naruto hadn’t chased after Sasuke, Sasuke wouldn’t have even met any of them between chapter 180 and 631. That’s the space between when he left Konoha and when he joined the war. That’s more than 450 chapters. Naruto is the one who started the first big Nar/Sas fight. He chased after Sasuke and told him he’d “break his arms and legs and bring him back like a broken stick” if he had to. The fight against team Kakashi in Orochimaru’s lair happened because they chased after him and tried to bring him back. The fight in the Gokage meeting arc happened because Sakura chased after Sasuke and tried to kill him by herself. Sasuke simply left and made it clear to them that he had severed their bonds; they’re the ones who went after him. You can’t be an abuser when you don’t even want a relationship with your so-called victims. Every single time, he was either rejecting them and/or retaliating against their own attacks. Am I saying they shouldn’t have tried to stop him even when he was a criminal? No, but people shouldn’t pretend that Sasuke was specifically going after Sakura and Naruto to hurt or “abuse” them, when they’re the ones who chased after him. He was an enemy of Konoha because the village had murdered his family in cold blood. It’s not about “abuse” or Sakura and Naruto’s feelings.

And it’s easy to only consider their feelings in this situation; oh, they loved him and wanted to save him but he rejected them, he’s such an ass. But the truth is Sasuke doesn’t have to go back to the village that killed off his family, made him miserable and offered him no support as a childjust to make them happy. He doesn’t have to put their feelings before his own. He doesn’t have to put them, teammates that he had been with for a few months at most, over his family that raised him for 9 years. People are allowed to reject relationships they don’t want. Yes, rejection hurts, but it doesn’t automatically make the person who rejected you an asshole.

It’s easy to judge Sasuke for his decisions without paying attention to the circumstances that caused him to make them. “He betrayed his friends and left Konoha”— even though he had just had the shit beaten out of him by his brother, had been mentally tortured for days within a genjutsu, had been told he was weak because he didn’t have enough hate. People just expect a twelve-year-old to deal with it and move on.“He flip-flopped too much”—despite the fact that he had had his entire world turned upside down because he had been told that his whole life was a lie, his abusive brother loved him all along and it was Konoha who had caused his misery. I don’t know how or why people expect someone to just stay strong while being put through all of that.

I have a lot of issues with the series itself and the morals it tries to convey. For example, the series tries to pit “talent” and “hard work” against each other; Kishimoto seems to think that talented people don’t work hard or that they are somehow assholes by default (it’s also hypocritical because later on we find out Naruto himself actually had a lot of natural talents and advantages as well). I see a lot of people make arguments such as “Sasuke had everything handed to him while Naruto worked hard”. They ignore how hard Sasuke worked to learn the fireball jutsu and the Chidori, or how he trained with Orochimaru for three years, they also ignore that Naruto was able to learn the Rasenshuriken with minimal effort because of his naturally high chakra reserves or that almost the entirety of his power as an adult relies on Kurama, something that was given to him at birth. They ignore that everytime Sasuke got a free powerup Naruto got one too.

I also hate how the series tries to portray Sasuke and anyone else who wants reform or justice as a villain. Kishimoto thinks status quo > reform. It doesn’t matter if keeping the status quo means sweeping genocides under the rug, trampling on the rights of smaller villages with less power, ignoring the discrimination happening within clans. As long as “the village” is still standing, everything is okay. Don’t try to fix anything. Accept the “darkness” of the village. I come from a country with a dictatorship, so it’s much easier for me to understand Sasuke who wanted change rather than Konoha and their obsession with keeping everything as is. Yes, Sasuke’s method of fixing things was wrong, but people forget that this boy’s role model was Itachi, the one who thought the best way to protect a little kid was to torture him and tell him to live with hate, and it’s not like anybody actually condemned those actions. Everyone who knew the truth about Itachi thought he was the wisest person in history—the fandom does as well. And yet people are surprised when Sasuke thinks the best way to fix the system is through making people hate him. Only then does the fandom start talking about how “Sasuke should’ve learned from Itachi’s mistakes”, despite the fact that every other time they deny Itachi even made mistakes. The fact that Sasuke is ready to live a life of misery where everyone hates him is proof of how selfless he is, because yes it’s a misguided decision but it’s not a pleasant one, it’s not something he’s doing for himself. In the end instead of finding a better way to fix the system, Naruto just decides to keep the status quo.

Of course I like his design and abilities as well. I mean let’s be real, the duckbutt is almost iconic at this point, lol. Sasuke has the most interesting fighting style, the swordplay combined with the fire and the way he evolved Kakashi’s Chidori into so many different weapons. Not to mention his switcheroo ability after he gets the rinnegan. In my opinion he also gets the most interesting fights as well, Sasuke vs Deidara is still one of my favorites.

Anyways I’m sorry that this post got so long. This is why I never write character analysis, I tend to ramble way too much lol. Hope you have a nice day and thanks for the ask!

#sasuke uchiha #pro sasuke #yaemia #naruto / #ask

[fugginnugget]

Lets Talk; Naruto Shippuden

So, I’ve been out of the fandom for a while; just sort of recovering from the terrible, hetero-normative ending that was shoved violently down my throat. I was upset; not just as a shipper, because that’s not reason enough to rile my feathers as much as this did, but because of the unlikeliness of how the series ended; because of how the message of the series got skewered and warped.

Allow me to explain myself; 

(Spoilers and personal opinions ahead, read at your own risk. All opinions are mine, and I’m not trying to force them down your throat. If you don’t agree, power to you.)

Lets start with Sasuke. 

Yes, as all of us fans starting out with the SasuNaru kisses and queerbaiting, at the beginning of the main series; Naruto, I was intrigued by the secrets this character held. However, following the series, his actions and the way he treated people led me to loose interest. The powerful pretty-boy with all the girls falling at his feet? Not my type. 

Further, as we got into Shippuden, the story shifted from childhood into teenage drama, and Sasuke’s character went down the toilet. Why do I think that? Because hatred can drive you to do stupid things; but it isn’t a force strong enough to cause the reactions and subsequent actions that Sasuke developed. No, that’s mental breakage, loss of control, obsession that’s gone too far. His ending? Getting the girl who he abused, mentally and physically? Never should have happened. Being accepted back into Konoha? Never should have happened. Having the happy ever after with the kids and smiles? Never. Shoul’ve. Happened. 

Lets look at why; 

Sasuke is a self-centered maniac who cast aside his village and comrades in order to exact revenge for a crime that’s origins he didn’t know. Furthermore, he regrets his entire life choices after the death of his brother because he was so focused on his obsessive, selfish need for revenge, that he never saw the truth. He allowed the reanimation disaster that started the third shinobi war, then had the fucking balls to go stop it like a hero. He doesn’t deserve what he got. 

Moving on; 

Sakura.

Sakura worked hard to get where she was at the end of the series. She mastered the 100 healings and succeeded in carrying on the will of fire and the spirit of Tsunade. She is the embodiment of female strength in the series, she is the heroine of the story, no matter how much of a selfish, shallow bitch she can be. Do I like her? No. Appreciate her presence in the series? No. I never saw her as the model woman. She was strong, but she was also selfish and greedy; the sort of feminist people hate. The one that wants the attention, the one that wants the respect without earning it. The one that lives off of the social obligations of others. She could never stand on her own. Her ending? It was what I would have expected from any romantic drama; she gets her man and lives happily ever after. It was a disappointment. She remained shallow and never learned from her mistakes, her sacrifices all led to her personal gain. I predicted her every reaction based off of all media written today; there was nothing special about her; nothing but the two men’s backs that she couldn’t reach. 

How about Hinata. 

This is a very sore subject for me, and as I’m writing this, the bitterness in my stomach is sloshing around and making me nauseous. Why? Because she was painted as the one person who acknowledged Naruto when he was a child, but she really wasn’t. Sure, she was a shy little girl who was weak and needed protecting, and her family was of high prestige, so when they dragged her away, it still counted. Right? Those times when she saw his true nature, when she disagreed with all the others, it counted right? No. Why would it? Naruto never heard that, never saw that. She never defended him outright, she never did anything that would make her a true candidate for his affection until she stood against pein to try and save him. And would that cause him to feel real affection towards her? The pain of seeing his comrade die in front of him, the one thing he had been trying to avoid? The girl who was weak, the one he had stood up for, fought for, defended. The one he tried so desperately to protect, because she didn’t deserve to be treated like him. Called a failure. But was that fight only for her? Was that reason only for her? No. Naruto defended everyone who was in position like his. Rock Lee, with his genius of hard work vs “true” genius. Gaara, when they worked together on missions, when they fought against the artisans, after he died at the hand of the akatsuki. No. His passion for defending “failures” is greater than Hinata. He didn’t pay her any special attention, never professed his love for her like he did Sakura. There was no real chemistry or even time to progress a relationship, and yet they marry. They have children, and Naruto neglects his son for work. It’s not logical, it doesn’t fit. 

Speaking on defense; 

Gaara was a character whose entire world, his life, his outlook, his emotions, his understanding was changed by Naruto. Naruto was the one person who was strong enough to defeat the Shukaku, the only person who truly defeated Gaara. He was the only person to understand how Gaara truly felt, understand what he had been through. Naruto was Gaara’s first love, to be blunt. Let’s be honest;  I ship this. Naruto and Gaara get each other, they understand, they protect each other cannonly throught the series. Gaara starts a war for Naruto, to protect Naruto; Naruto nearly beats Deidara to death with his own hands trying to save Gaara, expends his chakra to save Gaara, stands with Gaara as he recovers. IT DOESN'T”T HAVE TO BE ROMANTIC, BUT IT IS LOVE. This relationship wasn’t obsessive. This was the only “healthy” relationship in the series. They depended on eachother to the extent of life or death, they trusted eachother to the extent of life or death. In the infinite tsukoyomi, Gaara DREAMS OF NARUTO. It’s platonic, Naruto was his closest friend, even in his prefect dream of family and love. Naruto is still there. 

Now this isn’t to convince you to sail with me on my ship of existential crisis; no. This is only to show you another aspect of how Naruto’s ending was so full of holes. Where did this relationship go? Are they penpal’s who only see eachother at gokage summits? Is the love and trust and dependency that they shared somehow broken by the sudden relationship with Hinata? By the seat of Hokage?  It’s full of holes.

Now; Naruto.

What the fuck happened to Naruto. Where is the man that spent his who life fighting for his dreams, following his nindou, leading the people, protecting his village, his friends, his nakama. Where is the man who saved the world, the descendant of the Sage of Six paths? That man is not the one who would neglect his son. That man is not the one who is so bland at the end of the series. So aged, so... seasoned. Sure, there is experience; a lot of experience, but that level of seasoning is too salty for me. The wholesomeness of the series; that feeling of family and the necessity of protecting who you love. The message that Naruto represented is lost. The boldness of charging in on pure emotion, the need to protect, to defend, the need to end the cycle of hatred and sadness and war, to unite all ninja, to lead a people to happiness; where did that message go? Did it get lost in the building of romantic relationships? Lost in the merge between prestige and popularity? Did the duality of his existence suddenly dissipate? Did the righteous power he sought, he mastered, did it suddenly make him flat. Normal. Equal. 

The power Naruto wields is the power of the outcast. The power of understanding, empathy. The power of forgiveness, acceptance; Naruto is love. Naruto is light. It’s been established both verbally and artistically in both the anime and manga. It’s cannon. 

So then why?

Why the dissatisfying ending? Why the baseless romance? Why?

I’m not asking for you to join my crew, I’m only asking you to look at the holes in the story. If I had it my way; I wouldn’t have included romance. There would be no Boruto. The series would have ended a legend that narutards like me could worship; a sandbox of inspiration and freedom. The ending ruined this series for me, and it’s taken me a very long time to be able to watch it again. It can never have the respect I gave it again; because the message died with Shippuden. The inspiration dies with the bonds that were ended with no purpose. 

I can speculate, I can scorn, but I still don’t truly know. They say “It’s a shounen anime, there can’t be homosexuals”, “It’s not that kind of manga”. 

Fuck that, why does Homosexuality have to fall into specific genres? 

Why do those genres treat it as a kink, a obsession? It’s sexualized for sales to heterosexual women. 

Don’t tell me it wouldn’t sell, everyone knows it would. 

#narugaa #naruto shippuden #naruto #lets talk #my opinion #agnst #Naruto #naruto uzumaki #sasuke Uchiha #sakura haruno #rock lee #hinata hyuuga #sabaku no gaara #gaara #boruto #anime #Manga

[jobsearchtips02]

What it really suggests to be an anti-racist, and why it’s not the like being an ally

“ Anti-racism is an active and mindful effort to work against [the] multi-dimensional aspects of bigotry,” Robert J. Patterson, professor of African American Studies at Georgetown University, informed Service Insider.

Anti-racism is a “white issue,” states author Robin DiAngelo

Visit Organisation Insider’s homepage for more stories

” Please just think of how COUNTLESS black people had to die in this nation prior to you decided to appreciate race,” tweeted author Megan Reid on May 31

It was 3 months after Ahmaud Arbery was shot by a former police officer while running, two weeks after Breonna Taylor was shot and eliminated in her home by the authorities, and 6 days after George Floyd died under the knee of a policeman.

These names are just a few of the many black Americans who have been eliminated by the cops in the previous decade alone. But it was Floyd’s death that intensely woke America up to authorities cruelty and the horror of systemic racism that has leaked into America’s underbelly because slavery started in the United States four centuries ago

— Megan Reid (@meg_r) May 31, 2020

The Black Lives Matter movement, which came from July 2013 after George Zimmerman was acquitted for the killing of unarmed teen Trayvon Martin, is out completely force throughout the nation and around the world

However for a non-black person to totally understand anti-racism, they should endeavor to understand the underlying context of Reid’s Tweet: Black lives (and voices) have been marginalized and silenced to the point of death for centuries. They’ve been attempting to tell us about the fatal issue of institutionalized bigotry; the white community has not been listening to them and has not been acting to repair it.

A masked protester sits to check out British writer Reni Eddo-Lodge’s book “Why I’m No Longer Talking With White People About Race.”.

Hollie Adams/Getty Images.

Racism versus black Americans isn’t perpetuated amongst white Americans alone, and black Americans are not the only racial group to experience bigotry. That is to state, bigotry and anti-racism exist in wide ranges. It was white European colonialists who were at the helm of slavery 400 years earlier, laying the foundation for today’s structural racism that everyone is born into.

In investigating and composing this post, I was carried back to my readings and research studies on colonization and bigotry from college African-American literature classes. I realized with pain that I should not have stopped my education on the subject even if I no longer had an official class– perhaps I earlier would have understood how racism has actually embedded and benefited my every day life. However, I also understood that my white opportunity is not a burden to bear, but a way for me to enact change.

The first step is discovering what racism and anti-racism are, what it indicates to be anti-racist, and how to do something about it. The guideline below is simply a beginning point of understanding all of it.

What is anti-racism?

” Anti-racism is an active and mindful effort to work against [the] multi-dimensional elements of racism,” Georgetown African-American studies professor Robert J. Patterson told Business Insider.

Patterson, who authored “ Harmful Desires: Rhythm and Blues Culture and the Politics of Racial Equality,” added that we need to jointly move our thinking of bigotry as conscious, intentional, overt actions to unconscious, hidden, and unintended actions. He added that while racism can take place individually, it typically happens institutionally.

When abolitionist Anthony Benezet established America’s first abolition society in 1775, it may have signaled the very first known act of anti-racism in America. Anti-racism has its foundations in abolition and the post-liberation defend structural change in addition to 20 th-century civil liberties movements, Malini Ranganathan, a faculty group lead at the Anti-Racist Research & Policy Center at American University, informed Anna North of Vox

But it’s challenging to trace the specific origin of the term “anti-racism.”

Merriam-Webster will tell you the very first recognized use of “anti-racist” remained in 1943– the very same year Marxist historian Herbert Aptheker dismantled the longstanding argument that African Americans accepted slavery in his book “American Negro Slave Revolts.”

Aptheker, who later on ended up being the literary administrator for author and civil rights activist W.E.B. DuBois, consequently overturned the then widely-held idea that all whites universally accepted bigotry in his book “Anti-Racism in US History: The First 200 Years.”

Ibram X. Kendi has actually popularized the principle of anti-racism.

The Washington Post/Getty Images.

What does it imply to be anti-racist?

You do not need to be complimentary of bigotry to be an anti-racist, Ijeoma Oluo, author of “ So You Desire to Talk About Race,” when tweeted.

Racism sees a racial group as culturally or socially inferior. An anti-racist, per Kendi’s book, is “one who is revealing the idea that racial groups are equals and none requires developing, and is supporting policy that decreases racial inequality.”

But to comprehend what an anti-racist is, one need to likewise understand what an anti-racist is not: a non-racist. There is no such thing as a non-racist, Kendi writes, because it represents neutrality.

” One endorses either the idea of a racial hierarchy as a racist, or racial equality as an anti-racist,” he says. “ One either thinks issues are rooted in groups of individuals, as a racist, or finds the roots of issues in power and policies, as an anti-racist. One either enables racial inequities to stand firm, as a racist, or challenges racial injustices, as an anti-racist.”

Patterson, the Georgetown teacher, stated that people “collapse identity and habits” when they misconstrue not being racist as being anti-racist. In the process, they underappreciate how action signals anti-racism and underestimate their own impact in taking apart the systems that support racism.

To be an anti-racist, one need to comprehend how they’re affected by systemic bigotry prior to taking dedicated action to challenging racist policy and power.

Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images.

Patterson said Kendi’s view of anti-racism highlights the method racism is socialized into behaviors– how racial inequities and variations are embedded in private and public life. We should decipher those habits by thinking of and pulling back assumptions we make about “the naturalness of things,” he stated.

If your default thinking is “I’m not racist,” a more educated viewpoint would be recognizing how you’re informed and influenced by the embeddedness of race and institutionalized racism. “It’s really critically thinking of and examining how race matters in seemingly non-racial context,” he said.

To be an anti-racist, Kendi said in an interview with Vox, is to admit when we’re being racist and then challenging those racist concepts. “We adopt anti-racist concepts that state the issue is power and policy when there is injustice, not individuals.” That is, it is the system, not a racial group, that needs to be changed. ” And after that we invest our time, we spend our funds, we invest our energy challenging racist policy and power.”

What is the distinction between an ally and an anti-racist?

” I think that individuals think that racism is black people’s issue,” Patterson said.

It is not. Misinterpreting whose problem racism is and who can fix it misplaces the concern of obligation to fixing bigotry onto the disadvantaged group.

” Bigotry is a white problem,” Robin DiAngelo, sociologist and the white anti-racist author of “ White Fragility,” informed The Guardian in a February 2019 interview.

That leaves the onus on white individuals for personal responsibility: understanding and acknowledging the financial and social advantages and advantages this system bestowed upon them (including this author) and taking action to change these conditions.

This involves getting previous white embarassment and guilt.

Demonstrators kneel as police officers in riot gear push back, outside of the White Home, June 1, 2020 in Washington D.C., during a protest over the death of George Floyd.

JOSE LUIS MAGANA/AFP by means of Getty Images.

But in using white privilege for different viewpoint to speak about anti-racist practices, it is essential to not promote black people’s experiences, Patterson said. That “type of enhances the concept that black people can’t promote themselves or that you require a white voice to validate what the black viewpoint is,” he stated.

To be clear: It is action that lies at the heart of anti-racism.

— Ijeoma Oluo (@IjeomaOluo) June 1, 2020

How do you take the step from ally to anti-racist, moving beyond the black squares of Instagram to doing real work?

Believing you can’t do enough to enact change, Patterson stated, leads to inaction.

Keep in mind that anti-racism isn’t about sitting on info, however acting on it.

It took too long for non-black people to capture on to the Black Lives Matter movement.

More:

Antiracism George Floyd Protests George Floyd protests

Chevron icon It indicates an expandable section or menu, or often previous/ next navigation alternatives.

.

.

%%.

from Job Search Tips https://jobsearchtips.net/what-it-really-suggests-to-be-an-anti-racist-and-why-its-not-the-like-being-an-ally/

[bountyofbeads]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/trump-two-years-in-the-dealmaker-who-cant-seem-to-make-a-deal/2019/01/20/ecdede96-1bf9-11e9-88fe-f9f77a3bcb6c_story.html?__twitter_impression=true

He’s carrying out #Putin’s orders to sow discord. Why isn’t this obvious to anyone else?

Also remember #Republicans love shutting down the government, they've never liked the big federal government. This is a dream come true for the #GOP

He is doing deals, but the real deals they’re making are selling off public lands and mineral and oil rights and gutting all the departments. The normal oversight people are furloughed. No telling the amount of harm they are doing.

Trump two years in: The dealmaker who can’t seem to make a deal

By Philip Rucker, Josh Dawsey | Published January 20, 2019 at 6:24 PM | The Washington Post | Posted January 20, 2019 |

Donald Trump was elected president partly by assuring the American people that “I alone can fix it.”

But precisely two years into his presidency, the government is not simply broken — it is in crisis, and Trump is grappling with the reality that he cannot fix it alone.

Trump’s management of the partial government shutdown — his first foray in divided government — has exposed as never before his shortcomings as a dealmaker. The president has been adamant about securing $5.7 billion in public money to construct his long-promised border wall, but has not won over congressional Democrats, who consider the wall immoral and have refused to negotiate over border security until the government reopens.

The 30-day shutdown — the impacts of which have begun rippling beyond the federal workforce into everyday lives of millions of Americans — is defining the second half of Trump’s term and has set a foundation for the nascent 2020 presidential campaign.

The shutdown also has accentuated several fundamental traits of Trump’s presidency: His apparent shortage of empathy, in this case for furloughed workers; his difficulty accepting responsibility for a crisis he had said he would be proud to instigate; his tendency for revenge when it comes to one-upping political foes; and his seeming misunderstanding of Democrats’ motivations.

Trump on Saturday made a new offer to end the shutdown, proposing three years of deportation protections for some immigrants, including young people known as “Dreamers,” in exchange for border wall funding.

But before Trump even made it to the presidential lectern in the White House’s stately Diplomatic Reception Room to announce what he called a “straightforward, fair, reasonable, and common sense” proposal, Democrats rejected it as a non-starter.

“What the president presented yesterday really is an effort to bring together ideas from both political parties,” Vice President Pence said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “I think it is an act of statesmanship on the president’s part to say, ‘Here is what I’m for. It includes my priorities, it includes priorities that Democrats have advanced for some period of time,’ and we believe it provides a framework for ending this impasse.”

Such an accord has proven elusive, however, in part because Democrats believe they have the upper hand politically in opposing Trump’s wall and feel no imperative to give ground.

“What really drove him was ‘Art of the Deal,’ that he could get stuff done in D.C. and deal with the knuckleheads,” said Republican strategist Mike Murphy, a sharp Trump critic. “People saw him as some sort of business wizard. That’s all disintegrating. It’s like McDonald’s not being able to make a hamburger.”

Trump has approached the shutdown primarily as a public relations challenge. He has used nearly every tool of his office — including a prime-time Oval Office address as well as a high-profile visit to the U.S.-Mexico border — to convince voters that the situation at the souther border has reached crisis levels and can only be solved by constructing a physical barrier.

Trump’s advisers argue the president has been successful at educating and persuading Americans even though his efforts have not led to a bipartisan deal. “You can’t turn an aircraft carrier on a dime,” said one White House official who, like some others interviewed, spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid.

But the data tell a more troubling story for the president. One month into the shutdown, the longest in U.S. history, a preponderance of public polls show Trump is losing the political fight. For instance, a Jan. 13 Washington Post-ABC News survey found that many more Americans blame him than blame Democrats for the shutdown, 53 percent to 29 percent. And the president’s job approval ratings continue to be decidedly negative.

“Even though he thinks he’s doing a great job for his core, it’s ripping the nation apart,” said one Trump friend, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity. “I don’t think there is a plan. He’s not listening to anybody because he thinks that if he folds on this he loses whatever constituency he thinks he has.”

Behind the scenes at the White House, some aides acknowledge the difficulties.

“The president is very much aware he’s losing the public opinion war on this one,” one senior administration official said. “He looks at the numbers.”

Other Trump advisers insist that the president is not driven by political considerations and is focused entirely on protecting the American people and finding a solution to illegal immigration.

John McLaughlin, a pollster on Trump’s 2016 campaign, said Trump’s suggestion to temporarily extend the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which grants protections for some people brought to the United States illegally as children, is key to increasing his popularity.

“The White House needs to press that button and more often dangle that out there,” McLaughlin said. “We need to remind the voters every day that the president is willing to compromise and give legal status to DACA recipients in exchange for increased border security, but the Democrats are too intense about trying to defeat Trump right now.”

Some political professionals cautioned against rushing to judgment about the shutdown’s impact on Trump’s reelection, saying that November 2020 is a virtual eternity from now.

“This could all be forgotten in a week if and when we come to an agreement, the government opens and the wall is built,” Republican pollster Neil Newhouse said. “Nobody knows how this is going to turn out until we get a resolution. So it’s a national game of chicken.”

Trump has long seen his stewardship of the economy as his political calling card. Yet the instability in Washington is threatening to wreak havoc, with fresh gyrations in the stock market amid concerns about Trump’s trade war with China and fears of a prolonged shutdown.

Trump’s management of the impasse has also drawn criticism about his competence as an executive. The administration this past month has been playing a game of Whack-a-Mole, with West Wing aides saying they did no contingency planning for a shutdown this long and have been learning of problems from agencies and press reports in real time. Officials have scrambled to try to respond as best they can and keep key services operating, but they fear they may soon run out of so-called Band-Aid solutions and temporary pots of money may run dry in February, one official said.

Inside the West Wing, morale has been low in recent weeks. Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, has not sought to impose the same level of discipline as his predecessor, John F. Kelly, so aides flow in and out of the Oval Office, reminiscent of the early months of Trump’s presidency.

Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, is an increasingly powerful figure who has asserted himself, along with Pence and Mulvaney, in negotiations with lawmakers and believes there is a “big deal” to be had.

Two senior Republican aides said senators are skeptical that Pence speaks for the president, after Trump undercut him early in the shutdown.

Trump has been preoccupied by the political messaging and stagecraft of the shutdown showdown. He has personally met with outside allies to ask them to go on cable television to defend his position, and he has spent time calling those who have praised him.

The president has also gone days without speaking to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), leaving negotiations effectively at a standstill despite Trump’s latest offer Saturday.

“The shutdown has turned into a test of strength between the president and Washington Democrats, particularly the speaker, and how it ends and when will tell us a lot about whether they can forge a relationship over the next two years,” said Michael Steel, a GOP strategist who has been a top aide to former Republican House speakers John A. Boehner and Paul D. Ryan.

In private conversations with advisers, Trump alternately complains that nobody has presented him a deal to end to shutdown, complains about Pelosi and Schumer and asks how the fight affects his reelection chances. Aides said they have shown him polling that he is losing the shutdown battle and that most Americans do not think the situation at the border is a crisis, as he and his administration have termed it.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) repeatedly has told Trump that he believes Pelosi is trying to embarrass him, two people familiar with the conversations said.

Trump has accused Democrats of being insensitive to the dangers of illegal immigration. “They don’t see crime & drugs, they only see 2020 — which they are not going to win,” he tweeted on Sunday. He went on to single out Pelosi for behaving “irrationally” and acting as “a Radical Democrat.”

Pelosi and other Democrats, meanwhile, say Trump is immune to the hardships of federal workers who are going without paychecks.

“I don’t think that he understands the real-life impacts,” said Sen. Jon Tester (D), whose home state of Montana has one of the highest concentrations of federal workers. “Look, the guy was born with a lot of money, and that’s great. I wish I was born with a lot of money, too. I was born with great parents, okay? And so I don’t think he really can relate with people who live paycheck to paycheck. That’s why I don’t think there’s urgency on his part.”

#donald trump #u.s. news #politics #trump administration #republican politics #president donald trump #trump #republican party #politics and government #white house #national security

[lucashabte-blog1]

Reflections

Lucas Habte, Silent Witness

These images are a series of screenshots from video footage I shot in Ethiopia and France between 2015 and 2017. The camera here becomes a social object that initiates and intensifies relationships, rather than simply aestheticizing what it records. I’m documenting these people to grasp my own identity in addition to communicating their stories to the broader public. The camera is a tool that allows me to see my friends and family differently, and it’s therefore a means of understanding who I am, reflected by people I love. Shared identity between filmmaker and subjects here is critical – we are all Ethiopians with complicated but different relationships to the country. We therefore all have something specific and nuanced to learn about ourselves from each other. 

Betelhem Makonnen, Who is that dark child on the parapets?

The opaque is not obscure, though it is possible for it to be so and be accepted as such. It is that which cannot be reduced, which is the most perennial guarantee of participation and confluence. […] I thus am able to conceive of the opacity of the other for me, without reproach for my opacity for him. To feel in solidarity with him or build with him to like what he does, it is not necessary for me to grasp him. For Opacity, The Poetics of Relation, Édouard Glissant, trans. Betsy Wing, The University of Michigan Press, 1997. Although darkness is most often depicted as a threat or an unknown source of fear and danger, paraphrasing Audre Lorde from Poetry is not a Luxury, for those of us not afforded the membership and protection of the dominant culture, darkness is a place “of possibility within ourselves,” where one could survive and grown strong.  How many experiences make up a life? How many events make up an experience? How many moments make up in an event? And if these experiences are one of strife and struggle trying to survive in an environment that does not acknowledge your presence, in an environment that is hostile to your existence. Opacity as a means of resistance can delay a potentially dangerous encounter allowing time to  find safety. Opacity can be used as a defence against being grasped or being captured.Psalm 17 is often interpreted as the lament of those betrayed by their trust and love for others. The first line, “Hear the right, O Lord” is other times written as “Hear a just cause, o Lord.”  To some, Psalm 17 echo the cry of the marginalised and oppressed. The works presented by Lucas Habte come from a context of enduring a history of uncertainty and danger.Appearing tangentially linked at first glance, with longer viewing, a number of strong unifying elements emerge connecting the 7 digital stills presented by Lucas. It is necessary to watch these images rather than merely see them.  After all, they are actually arrested moving images. Firstly, there is a dominant figure in on all the images that is hard to clearly see. In two of the images, the figure has its back to us, while in the others, either through the use of shadows or a physical obstruction, the audience’s direct view is intentionally limited. Transparency, as in access of information or ease of understandability is denied.  The foreground in all of the images is patterns of repeated lines and shapes. An opposing clarity in communication to the deliberately obscured central figures.  Another connecting thread that runs through all the images is the feeling that the actions depicted are all in the process of execution—someone appears to be mid-thought, just about to take a drag on a cigarette, a gentleman mid-step, a decision about to be made, a bottle about to fall… All of the images of the polyptych presented by Lucas are digital stills. Again, spending more time with the work, one realises that each image is actually a still of a still. Depicted in each of the 7 images is a fleeting moment of in-betweeness— a mid-action transformed to an eternal now, the pregnant present about to birth the future, or simply suspended potential. Not dispensing of the protection of opacity, yet fully utilising the power of expansion of the punctum, Lucas' images give the viewer a direct view of the labor present in an ephemeral moment.

Rachael Zur, Love as a Verb

Any artist worth their salt is a deep thinker, but those who are unforgettable have heart.  It was last summer at a screening of his film, “Shadow of His Wings,” that I became acquainted with Lucas Habte’s work.  Immediately I found an amazing generosity and candor to it.  The film captures both Lucas navigating how his father fits into his life after years of being absent, and homophobic death threats prompting Lucas’ lover to leave Ethiopia, seeking refuge in France.  In this online art piece, an offering of poetry and film stills, there is much that could be said about Lucas’ sharp intellect; but it’s the strength in his heart that illuminates the work.

The most telling film still is the only one that does not include human figures, it contains two lionesses in what appears to be a zoo, one lovingly grooming the other.  The lioness is a powerful, nocturnal huntress, who not only hunts for her family’s survival but who will fiercely defend them.  Despite this imposition of captivity, one lioness tenderly grooms the other—their spirits unbroken—we must never forget these are fantastically powerful creatures.  When I think of a lioness she reminds me of the fierce love that I feel for my own children, how I would do anything to protect them.  Lucas conjures another powerful protector by using Psalm 17, which references David’s plea to God for protection while being pursued by enemies.  It’s a prayer that illustrates a complete confidence in God delivering those he loves from harm.  By pulling both from the lioness who is an allegory for the primal devotion of mothers, and an ancient scripture of an all-powerful celestial deity, Lucas shows that love is greater than a feeling of attraction or a deep affection.

While it may seem that the film stills are trying to evade being read, (figures are clearly the subjects, but not one of their faces is fully visible) -- this is not work that is trying to hide, rather it is work that is conjuring the feeling of hiding and all the anxiety that comes with it.  It demonstrates what is felt by these young men as they navigate their relationship in a country where same sex relations are illegal.  It illustrates that love is bigger than a feeling, it’s an action, love is the risks and sacrifices that are made for someone else.  Though there are many rich layers to this piece, it’s the simple reminder that love is a verb that I find the most satisfying.   

Jamie Boley, Let There Be Light

Shadowed pathways, through light cast, show me your way O God, Silence, empty, hidden in what is real, warm red, ceiling tiles, the stars beneath his feet, “A life in the way that he who experienced it remembers.” In these paths, between the vanishing points, there was a soldier in Paris, you in blue skies, it is as they say within this light, THIS LIGHT, cast in shadows, upon form, within darkness, HE hears….your cry.  

Lucas Habte’s work is pure and brilliant in essence. The digital stills capture a transitory and ephemeral moment that I find poetic in light and shadow. Theorist Craig Owens believed that as an allegorical art “photography preserves that which threatens to disappear, and this desire becomes the subject of the image.” Habte’s documentary work feels illuminatingly real with cultural and political contexts. I find it pure joy to follow his journey.

Kris Schaedig, The Power of Poetry

Both here and there, but neither here nor there. The liminal space of not belonging, but yet existing in a place.

Calling for protection from oppression, awareness of equality, awareness of justice.

Pleading for justice.

Pointing out pride, unfairness, ugliness, inhumanity, unpredictable oppression.

Leaving familial, ancestral, familiar land, and immigrating in hope of something better.

Seeking refuge.

Being forced to leave ancestral land.

Settling into a new life, but never settled, instead being oppressed.

Being exploited.

Being used for your labor to make someone else wealthy.

Through the personal narrative emerges a universal connection with others oppressed, exiled from both Eastern and Western hemispheres. Not accepting oppression.  Fighting back, but fighting nonviolently, by using prayer and poetry: the power of poetry.

what’s poetry, if it is worth its salt,

but a phrase men can pass from hand to mouth?

From hand to mouth, across the centuries,

the bread that lasts when systems have decayed,

when, in his forest of barbed-wire branches,

a prisoner circles, chewing the one phrase

whose music will last longer than the leaves,

whose condensation is the marble sweat

of angels’ foreheads, which will never dry

till Borealis shuts the peacock lights

of its slow fan from L.A. to Archangel,

and memory needs nothing to repeat. 

These are qualities present in Lucas Habte's work. Poetically, peacefully and powerfully exposing oppression.

[yourgenderole-blog]

CAS 115: Approaches to University Writing

20 October 2017

An Analysis of Equality, Women’s Sexuality and Empowerment in The Naked Screen

Florence Jaugey’s, La Pantalla Desnuda (2014), set in Nicaragua, is a film that shows a society’s treatment of young women's sexuality as well as unequal gender relations and women's empowerment which is experienced by the protagonist, Esperanza, after a video of her having sex with her boyfriend Alex is leaked by his supposed friend Octavio. The majority of the film has to do with the repercussions of the leaked video, repercussions unfairly aimed mainly towards Esperanza. My goal in this essay is to analyze the repression and oppression of young women's sexuality, unequal gender relations, and women's empowerment in the film, specifically through the characters Esperanza, her mother Margarita, Octavio’s mother Leonor, and Alex’s father Alejandro. By analyzing specific scenes such as the club scene, the street scene, the seamstress scene, and the attempted rape scene, I argue that gender inequality is what causes women to be the main targets of both sexual oppression and rape culture: that society’s failure to hold Alex and Esperanza to the same standard leaves her and her only harassed and brutalized.  

In the club scene, Jaugey demonstrate the powerful hold toxic machismo culture has over men and how it strongly affects women. Esperanza, out clubbing with friends gladly accepts a dance with a man who recognized her from the leaked video she yet didn’t know about. She is completely blindsided when the man proceeds to strengthen his grip on her waist, begins to kiss her neck and fondle her. After she shoved him off, he calls her offensive terms such as “bitch” and grabs aggressively to prove to himself and Esperanza his strength and power over her. Although it is known that Alex is also in the video, it is Esperanza's sexuality that is exploited while Alex’s sexuality is celebrated. In the film, it is clear that women whose sexuality has been brought to light are seen as “sluts who have no respect for themselves” and “easy” and in general are depicted as being mens for the taking. In contrast, when a mans sexuality is brought to light, he is seen as a “real man” and is applauded for his conquests. Throughout the film, Florence Jaugey depicts women's sexuality in society as being taboo and unconventional, especially young women, and women who aren’t married as clearly shown through Esperanza’s experience. The differences in how Esperanza and Alex were treated and viewed throughout the film show that the depicted society is both repulsed by and obsessed with women's sexuality. Therefore, teaching women to suppress their sexuality and oppress the sexuality of other women. Esperanza’s consensual and safe sexual encounter with her boyfriend is now wrongly perceived as a “whorish act” that she will gladly do with any man.  

The street scene offers a deeper insight in the thoughts belonging to a man with roots deeply embedded in machismo, Alejandro, Alex’s father. After a random run in on the streets, Alex is questioned by his father regarding the fact that he wasn’t in class. He proceeds to ask Alex, “Why are you showing off with that slut?” Alex, offended and protective over Esperanza tells his father that she is not a “slut” and reminds his father that he was the one who filmed the sexual encounter. Alejandro asked Alex if it was Esperanza’s idea to film them, with an accusatory tone in his voice as if he knew the answer to his own question. Alex quickly explains to his father that it was his idea and his actions that led to the videos creation. Alejandro at this point angered at his son for not demonizing Esperanza and for not viewing her as a slut, continues to berate her and tells Alex to “man up” and in an attempt to hurt Alex’s masculinity, calls him a “faggot.”  The double standard in this scene is crystal clear. By Alejandro calling Esperanza a slut, he contributed to the oppression of women's sexuality in that society. He sees her sexuality as an attempt to possess his son but sees Alex having a sexuality as normal and inoffensive. This is because male sexuality is expected and therefore normalized in the society while women are expected to be pure for their one and only partner that will one day be their husband. The gender inequality in the film is so blatant not only because of the way Florence Jaugey directed the film but because it is so often seen, in part due to our digital era. This particular scene can be related to “Bandera Negra”, a song written by female rapper Rebeca Lane whose lyrics read, “I have millions of eggs in each ovary it doesn’t make me more of a woman, or you less of man.” The essence of this line of lyrics implies that anatomical differences should not define respect between women and men.

In the seamstress scene, women’s sexuality becomes a debate between two women with two different outlooks. Esperanza’s mother visits her friend and seamstress Leonor, also Octavio’s mother, soon after the video is leaked. Looking for someone to confide in, she expresses her sadness over her daughter’s misfortune to her friend stating, “She’s my little girl. As pure as when she was born.” In which Leonor tells her that she must realize that her daughter is not as pure as she’d like, insinuating that by her having sex she is now dirty and not as good of a person as she once thought. Esperanza’s mother, Margarita, immediately defends her by saying, “Yes she is. She didn’t do anything bad. At her age she’s entitled to a sex life.” By saying so she denounces her friends ideology that young women must be pure to be worthy. Rather than shame her daughter for having sex, Margarita supports and loves Esperanza during a time that she is under severe scrutiny not only because she is under scrutiny but because she knows her daughter has the right to own her sexuality and should have the freedom to express it with whom she desires. This scene can be reflected in Rebeca Lane’s song, “Bandera Negra”, particularly in the first line of the lyrics which reads, “My only virtue and defect is that I’m imperfect.” A line that reflects the way she views herself and the way society views her. In her lyrics, Rebeca Lane, not only acknowledges the fact that she is imperfect but also celebrates it. She celebrates her humanity and self defined femininity but likewise acknowledges the fact that to society she is imperfect but her imperfections are not celebrated, rather she is picked apart by a society that claims her self defined femininity isn't “feminine enough.” Margarita shows women empowerment and an air of women's sexual liberation. Leonor later goes on to say, “I’m glad I only had boys.” A statement where the learned internalized hatred and disgust of women's sexuality is evident. This learned hatred, constructed by the patriarchy, was embedded in this society with the intent to make women afraid of not being seen as “pure” or “worthy” by others in society.

In the attempted rape scene, the society’s treatment of young women’s sexuality can be seen through the mistreatment of Esperanza at the hands of two complete strangers. After being tricked by Octavio to leave her house earlier than she planned to escape with Alex, Esperanza finds herself at a gas station waiting for Alex when a man who recognized her from the video asked, “You’re the girl from the video aren’t you?” Esperanza who appeared extremely uncomfortable and embarrassed began to walk away. Esperanza who is still walking away is approached by the two men in their truck who begin to shout obscene comments at her such as “Hey, you look cute when you’re screwing. How about a quick blow job?” Esperanza is then grabbed and thrown into the large pickup truck while several civilians stand, watch, ignore her cries for help, and not do a single thing. This entire scene proves that rape culture in that society had become normalized and the civilians became desensitized. Esperanza, in the fight of her life, is screaming and kicking and actually kicks the man driving. Now angered he tells the other man, “Calm that slut down!” In which he replies, “She’ll calm down once I get the tip in.” A comment that would instill fear and panic in anyone's heart. She is then repeatedly called a “slut”, “whore”, and “bitch” and is thrown out of the car like a piece of garbage. Florence Jaugey’s inclusion of this scene is crucial to the film because too often women are just seen as warm bodies not as true human beings who are not for the taking and whose traumatic experiences such as what Esperanza went through, are ignored rather than viewed as severely damaging. A lyric in Rebeca Lane’s “Bandera Negra” that can be related to this scene is, “ On the platform wearing high heels not because I’m a piece of ass I like looking good while I sing on the mic.” Meaning that what she wears she wears for her own enjoyment and because she wants to feel confidence within herself not for the approval of men. Likewise, Esperanza’s private sexual encounter that she participated in was for her enjoyment not for her to be harassed by strange men.

La Pantalla Desnuda was a film in which imagery played such an important role as Esperanza’s overall image and reputation was ruined by a video of her sharing an intimate experience with her boyfriend was leaked. The images attached to this essay were inspired by the expected behaviors and “saint like” persona that women in that society were expected to follow. Florence Jaugey’s film uses the protagonist Esperanza as an example of what happens when those expectations and said persona are completely thrown away and depicts how that society reacts when a young woman’s sexuality is seen by outsiders. The inequality of genders has caused the hypersexualization of a woman's natural body to be seen as taboo. While mens bodies are not hypersexualizied and generally accepted. The overall treatment of women in the society depicted in the film shows how women are to “please men and fulfill their needs,” therefore women are definitely not seen as equal which in turn leads to the oppression and repression of their sexualities and overall gender

In her film, La Pantalla Desnuda (2014), Florence Jaugey showed the society’s mistreatment of young women's sexualities as well as unequal gender relations and women's empowerment. All said factors were experienced by Esperanza, the films main protagonist after a video of her sexual encounter is leaked by her boyfriend’s supposed friend. My goal in this essay was to analyze the repression and oppression of young women's sexuality, unequal gender relations, and women's empowerment within the film, specifically through the characters Esperanza, her mother Margarita, Octavio’s mother Leonor, and Alex’s father Alejandro.

            Work Cited

La Pantalla Desnuda. Dir. Florence Jaugey. Camilla Films. 2014. Film.

Lane, Rebeca. “Bandera Negra.” Canto (2013). By Rebeca Lane.

[shifugoedecke]

ENTER AN (Isshinryu) DRAGON

DRAWING A LINE IN THE SAND

Recently, an isshinryu practitioner reached out to me to let me know he was reading my latest book, Rebel Isshinryu, and to share a thread from an isshinryu Facebook forum discussing my work.

With all due respect to the many years of martial commitment and value brought by the two respondents in their thread, Charles James and Victor Smith are out of their venue of martial expertise when speaking on the topic of Internal Isshinryu and the controversial subject of KI as it relates specifically to the underlying technicalities of this art and which forms the basic platform of my work.

In the future, I hope that such critics qualify their experience when commenting on such topics as Ki and isshinryu, so we understand they are offering their ‘guesswork’ opinions. Those who know me are aware that I am always open for dialog and ready to learn. I will also defend my turf.

As a senior U.S. karateka with nearly fifty years of active martial experience, I find it ironic that we have two career martial artists offering vague disputations on a subject outside of their purview,  and who do not actually comment on any of the 57 Challenges outlined in the book as you will read below.  

                                      THE QUESTIONABLE THREAD

              (Mr. James and Mr. Smith’s comments are italicized below.

Charles E. James An Example of Rebel Isshinryu (he refers to my book) In the book one of the short chapters refers to the existence of ki or chi or qi and then explains how it works with a more creative articulation thus resulting in a confusion and bastardization of its true meaning. It forgets that terms and explanations and definitions and meaning of ancient concepts such as chi or ki is simply the best possible way to convey a subject of those times. Examples follow: In the book he uses a term that literally does not exist except as a term loosely defined as relating to another term, biomechanics. Here is what it says:

biomechanistic (not comparable) 1 Relating to biomechanics The branch of biophysics that deals with the mechanics of the human or animal body; especially concerned with muscles and the skeleton. (biology) The functioning of a particular part of a body.

Now, what I would actually say about ki is the following: Ki, as it is assumed to exist, has literally nothing to do with biomechanics for biomechanics deals with the mechanics of the muscles and skeletal system of the human body. It is the study of the functioning of the body and pertains to the individual parts thereof.

Let’s start with the term that I use often; biomechanics |ˌ the study of the mechanical laws relating to the movement or structure of living organisms. From a martial perspective, biomechanical laws dictate that if one postures correctly with their legs, for example, their musculo-skeletal structure will become more resistant to pushes or pulls. A proper or correct body ‘biomechanic’ is better able to generate or withstand certain angles of force. Anyone disagree here? There is no debate, just nitpicking?

Mr. James comments about Ki’s relationship to biomechanics are false and misleading. I am neither bastardizing nor misusing the term ‘ki,’ as understood in the world’s internal martial arts community. I have observed, for decades, that the physical structure, when either still or in motion, greatly affects the flow of Ki (an immaterial ‘charge’ science is still trying to define) and vice versa, in precise and recordable ways. There is an intimate relationship between underlying Ki flow and hard-matter, musculo-skeletal actions. I quote from an excellent work, The Field, by L. Taggart; ‘For a number of decades respected scientists in a variety of disciplines all over the world have been carrying out well-designed experiments whose results fly in the face of current biology and physics. … At our most elemental, we are not a chemical reaction, but an energetic charge.’

I’d be happy to prove the value of this statement to him within the martial construct. He can then make up his own mind what he thinks is causing the phenomenon and choose whatever label he deems fit. The 3,000 year Chinese history of using the word Qi suffices for me.

Ki [気] is translated, a Japanese term much like Chi or Qi as termed by the Chinese, as, “spirit; mind; heart; nature; disposition; motivation; intention; mood; feelings; atmosphere; essence.

It is something that is more philosophical than reality for all the applied definitions are philosophical rather than real. Use the wheelbarrow test, if it cannot be put into a wheelbarrow then its reality is questionable at best and more of an emotional effort to explain the unexplainable.

Mr. James personal opinion that Ki is ‘something that is more philosophical than reality’ is contrary to Tatsuo Shimabuku’s own understanding of the term. In several, many hours long personal interviews with the late 10th dan, Frank Van Lenten, this respected expert, who studied directly with Isshinryu’s founder, stated that Shimabuku was the first Okinawan sensei to talk about Ki as it related to Sanchin kata training and even more specifically, in raising body temperature. Shimabuku was referencing a concrete experience—the Kiko practice of Sanchin.

                    THE WHEELBARROW TEST LACKS SUBSTANCE

Mr. James use of the wheelbarrow test to dismiss Ki, though witty, is irrational. You can’t put wind, love, mathematics, consciousness into a wheelbarrow. Is Mr. James suggesting these do not exist? You can’t put the sound of my voice into a wheelbarrow, yet I’m sure I could rile Mr. James up if I shouted loud enough in his ear. So sound isn’t real either? Can you put intention into a wheelbarrow? Compassion? Mind? God? Quantum Physics? This is just a small sampling. Is Mr. James suggesting that none of these constructs exist? Hmm!

Mr. James and Mr. Smith’s comments properly represent the conventional isshinryu paradigm. They add nothing unique except a newly whitewashed ceiling. They are spokespersons of an historical view that is being surpassed.

Mr. James does not seem aware of cutting edge work in Quantum Physics particularly, ‘quantum entanglement’, the strange properties of waves and particles apparently influencing everything. These frontier scientists are proving the value and power of intention, for example, to affect (with statistically significant data), that humans can influence both machines and people without any physical movement involved. If we just took the power of voice alone – which you can’t be put into a wheelbarrow, human sound has catalyzed all manner of extraordinary accomplishments.  

                    (image below from the book REBEL ISSHINRYU)

                       CHI’S NON-REALITY REALITY—REALLY?

It’s fine if Mr. James himself wants to relegate Ki to a conceptual, ‘non-reality’ box. I do not put the subject into such a box, because I have reams of evidence compiled with the aid of other advanced martial artists, acupuncturists, engineers and a noted biophysicist who strongly suggest otherwise. Many intelligent people have experienced a ‘Ki’ phenomenon first-hand in our research. Did I say flying through the air? Nowhere in my book is a fantasy world hinted at or embraced. The use of the term Ki is and has been, for centuries, a useful model to describe unexplainable events that can produce predictable and reproducible results. Thirteen Advanced martial artists with experiences ranging from 15-60 years were asked to comment on Ki’s reality in my last book Internal Karate: Mind Matters and the Seven Gates of power. No one denied its existence as a mysterious phenomenon, nor were they coerced to say so. Neither do many acupuncturists, Chinese medical Chi Kung healers, and an impressive slew of other energy practitioners along with increasing scientific studies to back up their observations.

Mr. James is speaking outside of his purview, attempting to define another’s martial experiences as perhaps, false, off base, and incorrectly labeled. But his own observation appears based upon his lack of actual hands-on experience within this field of study. Other than his dictionary challenge and personal opinion, I simply hear one man espousing his ‘theory’ of ki with far less substance and research backing it. 

I acknowledge Ki as a catchall term for unexplainable behaviors in Rebel Isshinryu. In his own words James states; “(Ki) is at best and more of an emotional effort to explain the unexplainable.”

Really? An emotional effort—at best? At least, he agrees with me that there is an unexplainable. Rebel Isshinryu points out how Ki influences our kata and individual technique - without emotionalism.

Chi, the Chinese term for the Japanese term “Ki”, is translated as, “the circulating life force whose existence and properties are the basis of much Chinese philosophy and medicine. Qi, Blood and Body Fluids are the most basic substances that constitute the human body and maintain its functional activities.”

So, I would go on again to say that, in essence, even in the West as is in the East, Chi or Qi or Ki or Energy is a manifestation of a product that is generated energy fueled by physics, fundamental principles of physiokinetic such as structure, body alignment, body stability and so on as well as the healthful, fit, and strong flow of that fuel we feed our bodies that is changed into the blood, and its oxygen and other fuels, and other body fluids that make the body alive and functional. It is contained within the body and cannot be transmitted from the body, especially through the air, to effect other objects including the human body of others to move or damage or disrupt that body.

Modern science has already proved Mr. James’, Cartesian view of the martial world is an old an overturning paradigm. Frontier scientists, using rigorous methodology, have proved that humans can transmit through the air via wave frequencies, the ability to effect objects including the human body, in significant ways.

Outside of a basic health platform, citing the biochemical properties of cellular metabolism or ATP energy production is an aside regarding the nature of isshinryu kata and Ki’s known energy affects in the assembly and execution of karate moves.

Yes, Ki is blood, breath, cellular metabolism etc. But Ki is also behind ‘Kiko’ principles in isshinryu.  I did not invent the term ‘[Ki]ko.’ The Okinawans karate masters did. Mr. James cleverly points his intellectual finger at the validity of martial artists metaphorically fixating on the ‘right’ view. His insistence you look there doesn't mean the left viewpoint is any less real. My finger and my book Rebel Isshinryu points to new and emerging information on the left. This is precisely why I have a brief section in the book called, ‘Why Draws Its Sword On What Is.’ Mr. James and Mr. Smith offer us the standard ‘What is?’ I offer something more expansive. 

The use of ki, or chi or qi is about how the body makes use of fuel, i.e., proper dietary intake along with water and air that is converted within the digestive system to feed the body the appropriate fuels to run it where the levels of proper fuel, appropriate levels of air intake and maximized and efficient conversion to a fuel the body can use to generate the energy necessary to make the mind function and the body move as it was meant to exist in the world at large. The energy generated within the body allows it to be, if properly applied within the limits and maximum capability of physics and principles such as physiokinetic to achieve efficient maximum output is how we make use of chi, qi or ki to apply our bodies in martial arts, etc.

This is an accurate description but a misdirection of the subject discussed in my book. James fails to make mention of scientific observation of the body to produce ‘wave frequencies’ that have been proven to alter the functioning of another human body. My interest has been on the martial behavior of Ki as it influences the body’s functioning and vice versa in contests of strength to resist or overwhelm an opponent. Some quantum theorists are observing that physical mass is not equivalent to energy but that Mass is energy. So fundamentally, there is no mass. There is only charge. This open up a whole new way of thinking.

The ancients were keen observers of natural laws that could be used in intriguing ways. Modern scientific understanding of the principles behind these ‘ways’ wouldn’t even begin to investigate until centuries later.  

When you're a batter trying to hit a ball are you concerned in that moment with your cellular metabolism?  Neither were the karate masters when it came to generating power in a karate technique.  

Reply · October 11 at 5:31pm Charles E. James

Charles E. James In a nutshell, ki is merely the energy generated by a fuel in the body that if manifested in accordance with properly applied physiokinetic such as balance, structure, body skeletal alignment, strength of stability of bodily musculature while moving the body mass toward a target and then applying methods and energy and force levels would maximize energy use and internal consumption to ensure maximum power and force is reached at point of application to another body. Ki or the body fuels has already been consumed and used to generate energy that the body uses to move, remain alive and other such mundane natural nature's things.

Jame’s ‘nutshell’ definition is a misdirection. His science is right but his statement “Ki is merely…..,” offers no method or new information for enhancing actual karate performance. I see this as one man’s attempt to shoo the topic and others away from engaging it because it’s not familiar to him. If you fall for his charade you will miss vital information about the isshinryu art. 

Reply · October 11 at 5:35p Victor Donald Smith

Victor Donald Smith Thank you Charles, that answers some questions I have about the book. I can’t see getting it, money has better uses at this time :-)

The real challenge for these men would be to prove that Ki does not exist as an actual particle/wave phenomenon or that my observations are invalid? Don't minimize my work by simply waving your hands with dismissive and static dictionary definitions, or offer personal opinion that science itself refutes. This subject is a complex one, which we professionals all need to engage in. I welcome all challenges to the ideas in my book. If you can’t connect to the subject in a tangible manner. I’m only a phone call away.

I’ve met far too many arrogant and white tower martial artists who don't want to dialog—just dismiss, distort, or control the information flow. It’s easy for some men to assume guardianship for information they do not grasp. I come from a very different teaching background that heartily contests such positions.

Those of you who are one the fence about all of the above, my advice for you is to keep your mind open, question, be ready to change, and most importantly, when speaking amongst your peers, dialog and challenge in a fair manner, and yes, expect rebuttal. We all grow through stronger through healthy exchange.

Reply · October 11 at 5:37pm Charles E. James

Charles E. James HI, Victor Donald Smith, don't get me wrong, it is entertaining and within he does makes some excellent points but if you wish to find something more concrete on Isshinryu or martial arts then it may not be one's cup of tea. As I indicated, its entertaining but as to worth the expense ... an individuals decision. 2.99 would be more appropriate for its words, length and content which upon more mindless meandering would be ....

I like what a colleague of mine recently wrote about Mr. Smith’s assayment of my book as, ‘entertaining’:

“Someone, somewhere said that the way they (referring to Smith and James) are trying to get rid of new-paradigm ideas these days is exactly this way: they are being pushed away into the "entertainment" category. It is actually a more effective killer than burning the author, as that would draw much more attention to the fact that something remarkable is going on here.” 

I do agree with Mr. Smith that if you want to stick to the ‘same old game’ (my words, not his), there are better books out there that will keep you fixated. My book discusses what isn’t being seen or said. Of course, shame on me if I could have articulated better. I’ll do my best to write more clearly in the future.

October 11 at 5:40pM Charles E. James

Charles E. James Oh, and I have gone off on tangents myself in my blogging but you won't find me trying to make money off of it. I have a blog on the kenpo gokui as a philosophical work with a lot of Chinese and Japanese ancient tao type references as a teaching tool to connect with reality but as to karate applications and self-defense I kind of leave those writings separate except when it benefits the teachings reality. Mysticisms has its place and it ain't in reality. Yet, if it leads to reality and makes the journey fun then use it but make sure the reader and student understand the differences. It is way to easy to lead the student down the wrong path with stuff like this.

God forbid someone should be making money from their life work. I guess karate instructors should teach for free? Mr. James here is offering readers an opinion about what he deems reality and non-reality. If anyone is leading students down the wrong path, it will be someone telling you what is and what is not real. People need to determine that for themselves.  

Trash talk Mysticism? Mystical practices, as an aside, have held major value in many cultures throughout the world. In just one example, esoteric Buddhism was conveyed for centuries in this manner. And there are many fine books on the subject.

Victor Smith: For instance, there was a really awesome martial artists who let himself be deluded to believe he could project his Ki, etc. only to be embarrassed when others would challenge him and his students, etc. It was a shame because it ruined his reputation in the end.

Mr. Smith’s point above is what? Beware, those of you who talk about subjects some professionals do not understand! Maybe that instructor was awesome because of his ki work. Plus, people get deluded for many reasons. Since the individual isn’t named or the specific facts leading to his downfall are not revealed, the above is merely innuendo. It’s a ‘beware of stepping outside of the box’ statement with no real value.

It’s easy to be duped in this world. As the Buddha urged, don't believe anything until you’ve experienced its truth or falsity for yourself. I didn’t believe or disbelieve in Ki for twenty-five years in my career. Honestly, I didn't really care about the subject. Then one day I decided to investigate. I’m now part of a growing group of professionals in multiple systems looking at a fascinating subject that has engaged long-term martial artists, scientists, and philosophers from around the world for centuries.   

Mr. James and Mr. Smith’s comments misrepresent Rebel Isshinryu in the above thread with misleading opinions and false understandings that touches nothing substantive in the book. I invite them both to gain a better understanding of our research here. They are entitled to hold to their current paradigm, but if it involves public statements regarding my work, I will continue to be the rebel and challenge them with equal fervor and with a different perspective.

Readers must choose for yourself, which way they want to proceed. I merely point to some exciting alternatives.

Hayashi Tomio, Shifu