#if you don't know what whitewashes means in this context

[colorisbyshe]

I just came across a tweet saying that Aaron Bushnell--the man who burned himself to death while yelling Free Palestine until he couldn't anymore--will be "in the history books" and that phrase has been coming up a lot. And it chafes me every time I read it, every time I hear it.

Cause, a. no, a lot of this won't be in the American history books. American atrocities, especially those overseas but even those against American people (especially American people of color), don't go in the literal history books. Or the figurative ones. Most American atrocities are wiped from the collective memory... sometimes as soon as they happen. They go unreported (like the first person to self immolate to protest this genocide), they go erased, they go whitewashed, they go falsely recontextualized, and they get twisted into pro-America sentiment--we were right for those atrocities, we were wrong for them but we learned, we didn't learn from it but we felt bad about it and should be comforted for that soreness.

And b. is harder to verbalize but I'm gonna try. It feels... performative in the literal sense. Like we only value what is happening today out of deference for how people in the future will perceive it. We aren't doing anything to change anything NOW, to care about other people NOW, but so that one day... we'll be remembered a caring. Like this man killed himself as gesture, as a move for his legacy.

And I see this phrase--"this will be remembered in the history books"--whipped out in extremely horrific contexts. A child's dead body hanging off a wall, "oh, this will be in the history books." What does that even mean? Was her death worth the historical context? Was it necessary to embellish the horror of it all?

Would the people reading these hypothetical history books not get the wrongness of the genocide without the death of a little girl that you're using as... window dressing?

It just seems so weirdly self satisfied. Like you're eager to note you just witnessed a real moment that people will remember decades from now. When... a lot of people won't which is what is so tragic. A lot of people don't even know it's happening right now.

Because, again, it's not being reported. And when it is being reported it's not being reported honestly.

I'm not saying this well but it just feels like such a gross reaction to things we're seeing in real time.

Why does it have to matter later to matter now? Why is the hypothetical reaction of a history book reader the thing you think about?

A lot of people won't live to read those "history books" because people, right now, aren't doing anything to help them.

#idk it feels like people want to pat themselves on the back #for witnessing an 'important' moment

[pessimisticpigeonsworld]

So, the atrocities Rhaenyra committed never happened because “unreliable source” but F&B is suddenly very trustworthy when it comes to the Greens, am I right ?

Most of the stuff that Rhaenyra was claimed to have done was stuff she did. Eustace primarily looked to whitewashing Aegon II with his whole “he didn’t care until his children were threatened” BS.

Most of what she did during her half-year tenure (the taxes, the murders, the lavish feasts while her people starve, refusing to offer credible surrender terms to the Greens, etc.) cannot be mistaken as anything but her doing, with the only exception of Haelana, who may have been pushed, may have committed suicide, or may even have been murdered by Larys Strong (I doubt that though). Arguing for people who doubted the Strong bastards’ paternity to have their tongues ripped out definitely happened (and as Tyrion stated, “when you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say”). Rhaenyra knew about Blood & Cheese beforehand, and never punished Daemon. Maelor’s death can’t be biased history, her Knights Inquisitor were publicly charged with finding Maelor. Ordering Lord Mooton to murder Nettles and ordering Addam Velaryon to be executed without trial was also something that definitely happened, writs of execution have paperwork.

The smallfolk of KL turned on her, and that can’t be explained away as propaganda after-the-fact, they were the ones living it. Their reactions can’t be explained away as propaganda; they slaughtered the dragons: the living symbols of Targaryen power, and justified their actions as righteous action. How can that be construed as anything but legitimately held rebellion against the very aspect of her rulership ? The heads that were placed on pikes above Maegor’s Holdfast too, are physical things that can be observed and confirmed (or disproven).

See, I don't think anyone taught you how to analyze unreliable sources. An easy way to do that is if there are other sources corroborating the story or see if the idea makes sense with the person being talked about. It's also important to consider the context of the decisions, which is analysis 101 by the way. So, since apparently holding your hand and walking you through something like I'm your fucking middle school teacher is necessary, let's go through your post.

First off, the taxes. Yes, I agree with you, the taxes are something Rhaenyra actually did, we know this because in a kingdom, tax records are always kept. This is how I know that you, much like all the Nettles stans who interact with me, have never fucking read a thing I've written. I've said that the heavy tax isn't something that's a sign of Rhaenyra being incompetent or a tyrant. It's a necessary cost of war, especially since the Greens stole the treasury, she needs money. The people did hate this and eventually riot, but, by looking at the context of the riot, it was rooted in hatred of the war, not Rhaenyra. They believed that if she took the throne, the war would be over, but it wasn't because of Aegon's cowardice. If Aegon was still on the throne, the people would have still rioted, they hated the war and blamed the monarch, end of story.

As for the beheadings, I hate to break it to you, but F&B takes place in a medieval world, meaning that beheading was the method for punishing treason. Aegon's supporters committed treason then, unlike Rhaenyra's supporters, tried to hide throughout the city. Now, am I saying that beheading your enemies and putting their heads on spikes on the walls is a good thing? No, it's something that's barbaric and cruel, however, it's no less than what Aegon did to her supporters, so condemning her for something Aegon does is extremely hypocritical and sexist. Also, it wasn't a witch hunt, Rhaenyra needed to find the treasury and Aegon in order to stop the war; was it extreme, yes, but, again, context is important. I find it interesting that you condemn the taxes she levied while also condemning her attempts to end the reason for the taxes, could it be you just hate Rhaenyra and are looking for any reason to shit on her?

Now we're getting into something that requires a little critical thinking, which I know is hard for you: the feasting. The only source that says Rhaenyra held feasts while she was in KL is Septon Eustace. Let's look at Eustace really quickly; he's the man who crowned Aegon and is known by the in-universe writers of F&B to be unreliable, he also wasn't in KL when Rhaenyra was ruling. So, if the maesters who wrote the sources F&B drew from deem him to be unreliable and he wasn't present during her reign, does that make Eustace a trustworthy source? And if the many courtiers who were in KL and weren't fans of Rhaenyra didn't corroborate this rumor, is it likely to be true? The answer to both of these is no. Eustace claiming Rhaenyra feasted during her time in KL is 99% a lie, and that other 1% would refer to the fact that nobles always ate better than their people.

Now, I have another question for you anon, I do hope you'll consider it. Would you offer mercy to the man responsible for the deaths of all but two of your children, your husband, your ex mother-in-law who acted as your surrogate mother, began a war based on your gender, and wanted to kill you and your remaining children? Unless you are literally a saint, the answer is, no, you wouldn't be inclined to offer that person "credible surrender terms". I think you're just referring to when Rhaenyra refused to split the kingdom between her and Aegon as well as refused to spare his life if she caught him while she was in KL. How exactly is throwing the kingdom into a shit storm by splitting it in half, despite the fact that a majority of the lords supported Rhaenyra, "credible terms"? It's not, it's fucking entitled and ridiculous, of course Rhaenyra rejected that audacious idea. Also, Aegon refused to surrender in any way, in fact he was more determined than ever to keep the war going (even after Rhaenyra was murdered, he kept fighting), what's the point of offering peace terms if they're going to be rejected again? She already offered very merciful terms at the beginning of the war.

"As for my half-brothers and my sweet sister, Helaena," she announced, "they have been led astray by the counsel of evil men. Let them come to Dragonstone, bend the knee, and ask my forgiveness, and I shall gladly spare their lives and take them back into my heart, for they are of my own blood, and no man or woman is as accursed as the kinslayer." (Fire and Blood: The Dying of the Dragons - the Blacks and the Greens)

Keep in mind, this is an official decree by Rhaenyra, terms delivered to Aegon and his council, meaning they were recorded and had official documentation. So not only are you not using any critical thinking, you're flat out lying and making shit up to try and support your argument.

Now, moving on to Rhaenyra's sons, her wanting people who are committing treason to be punished how the king decreed isn't an outlandish or unreasonable expectation. Jace, Luke, and Joff were declared the legitimate sons of Laenor by Viserys, Corlys, and Laenor himself, making them (at the very least adopted) Velaryons. Are you saying that people who are adopted are undeserving of inheritance just because of their blood? That's not even a medieval idea, since adopted heirs has been a custom since the Ancient Romans. Moving on, Viserys was the one who declared the punishment for the treason of questioning the boys' legitimacy, not Rhaenyra. There's also the fact that no one outside of the Greens cared about whether the boys were Laenor's blood or not, they are recorded by everyone, including Eustace himself, as true Velaryons. I'm not even going to address the Tyrion quote, since you clearly don't actually care about accuracy or literally any of the messages in ASOIAF.

Continuing your trend of blatantly making shit up, there's no evidence that Rhaenyra knew about B&C. All we have is Daemon's letter to her, which only said that Luke would be avenged, something which could be accomplished through taking her throne and executing Aemond. In fact, that's the most likely conclusion to be drawn from such a vague letter.

As for Maelor, Rhaenyra did order her knights to find him, as having Aegon's last child could motivate him to surrender. However, she didn't order him to be executed, that was clearly an example of how war twists people and drives them to atrocities. Rhaenyra offered a reward for his return, meaning she wanted him alive, it's not her fault that a mob tore him to pieces. Her people came to break up the mob, but they were too late, so they executed the people responsible. Rhaenyra gave Maelor's remains a Targaryen funeral, something Aegon and Aemond didn't bother giving to her children.

Rhaenyra ordering Nettles' and Addam's executions are actions that I don't defend and never have. Those are signs of how Rhaenyra is another gray character, a woman driven to intense paranoia and making unjust and harmful decisions. This makes her a gray protagonist, not an unredeemable villain, as you and her other antis seem to believe. If you guys want all good protagonists, maybe read a differen book series.

As I said earlier, the revolt of the KL smallfolk weren't against Rhaenyra herself, it was against the war. They killed the dragons because they were being led by a man who took their discontent and used it to support his religious fanaticism. The Shepherd wasn't preaching against Rhaenyra, he was preaching against the Targaryens, including Aegon. That's why they killed all the dragons they could, not just Rhaenyra's, they killed Jaehaera and Helaena's dragons, how is that an act just against Rhaenyra?

TG stans and Rhaenyra antis' arguments are driven solely by a lack of critical thinking, willful ignorance, and twisting of passages. You either have issues that aren't actually supported by the narrative or simply apply double standards to Rhaenyra while supporting other characters who do the same or worse. You seem to think that this ask was a "gotcha" moment, however, you have simply shown how even the Rhaenyra antis who have read the book lack critical thinking and don't understand how unreliable sources work. Have a good day/night anon, I do hope you'll eventually learn how to use logic and your critical thinking, I'm sure you can do it.

#anti rhaenyra antis #anti team green #anti team green stans #rhaenyra targaryen #team black #house of the dragon #asoiaf #fire and blood #hotd spoilers #kinda

[lemonhemlock]

What r ur thoughts on jace and luke. Do u like them?

not really, not much. they begin from a baseline that doesn't particularly arrest my attention and are not awarded enough complexity to become interesting to me. what bothers me the most about them is the hero framing and narrative bias they benefit from (much like in rhaenyra's case). without it, they would be much more interesting characters.

they start off as sweet, cherubic looking children that grow into affable young men, played very unambiguously so. the problem is that the way they are portrayed does not jive with what they actually do. they're bullies, but the narrative doesn't make it clear to the audience - the only adult that condemns it is alicent and the viewer is already predisposed to dismiss her concerns bc she is shown to have a bone to pick with rhaenyra. the viewer doesn't really believe they are bullies, lbr. they think alicent is exaggerating bc she is bothered by their bastardy.

they're violent. jace reacts by getting into a fight whenever he is insulted by being called a bastard. he keeps doing it even as a teenager and nowhere is it called out. luke slashes aemond's eye out and rhaenyra doesn't so much as give him a slap on the wrist.

they arrive in king's landing wide-eyed, eager and jolly and are taken aback by super-scary aemond, who gets anime-villain framing and sinister smiles. as if they weren't the ones to maim him in the first place and he just so happened to randomly become a sith lord in the meantime. they don't show any remorse or take any responsibility for what happened, so they must not feel at fault.

they know they are bastards and i admit they are shown to be SOME kind of conflicted about it, luke more so than jace. but they are mostly preoccupied with social perception and people not finding out / spreading rumours about it. vaemond is presented as this boogeyman out to get them. more work could have been put here, a couple more scenes, something. i don't think the lines we got were enough.

jace and luke should have had a few frames at least showing how horrified they are at the idea that a man was just executed unjustly, without due process, in order to cover up their mother's lies and directly for their benefit. something that implies that this is getting out of hand, they are in over their heads and don't know how to fix it.

instead they go to dinner and act totally normal about it, no care in the world, no guilt when alicent says a prayer for vaemond, no guilt for aemond's eye. even baela and rhaena reinforce their standing by being totally chill with their inheritance subsumed within rhaenyra's cover-up. rhaena even tells luke he'll be a great at ruling driftmark! (girl, that should have been you!) does luke even take this into consideration, i wonder? "hey, maybe the rightful ruler of driftmark is actually my girlfriend standing next to me?" viserys toasts him and it's all about his insecurities, he doesn't feel any kind of way about baela's and rhaen's claim.

no one calls them out for anything or points out the injustices committed in their name, other than the green characters. however, since rhaenyra has been so whitewashed, the audience is already predisposed to side with the blacks. "of course the greens are yapping back, but that doesn't mean they're right." i think it would have made a world's difference in this context if baela and rhaena were shown to have at least conflicted feelings about this entire affair.

aemond's outburst happens bc he has had enough of this toomfoolery, but after viserys' sick old man shtick, he comes off as rude and aggressive, goading people who just want to enjoy their meal in peace. jace and luke are poor victims again.

so what does this mean for their characters? they know they are bastards and their mother is resorting to theft and murder to give them fraudulent access to titles. the most they do is privately and gently express doubts, they don't actively challenge her or try to stop her. jace, at least, gets so bothered by the truth he reacts in a similar way to rhaenyra (violently). they don't feel responsibility or remorse for the shitty things that they do and don't show any concern for the people shafted in the process (aemond, vaemond, even baela and rhaena).

all the while they are unaware that this is a problem and they are oblivious to how they are socially perceived. i think the aspects that bother me about their characters are the same ones that bother me about rhaenyra - entitlement, righteousness, turning a blind eye, sweeping things under the carpet etc

essentially, if jace and luke were allowed to critically engage with these flaws on screen and weren't presented as being in the right all the time, i would enjoy them more as characters overall. lacking that, i'm not really the target audience for the goody-two-shoes nice-guy young hero type they are trying to embody, i prefer more melodramatic characters as a general vibe

#ask #anon #anti team black #anti jacaerys velaryon #anti lucerys velaryon

[icantspellthings]

there is literally someone on your post trying to argue that Oliver only killed one person. I've seen multiple people argue that Oliver isn't responsible for Felix or Venetia's deaths because he "just left the razor blades" or "didn't force him to drink the poison". I think people are really attracted to the obsessive elements of Oliver but they want to moralize him to themselves so they try to whitewash everything he's done. like, they want to lust after the bad guy but they don't want him to *be* a bad guy. it is silly to hate Farleigh for those reasons, I agree, but I think that's where some of the hate for Farleigh is coming from. there have been lots of comments about how Farleigh "deserved worse" or was "lucky" to get away with only losing his family but not his life. so to me a lot of the malice seems to be coming from people who want Oliver to be the true victim and put Farleigh in a malicious context to try and flip their narrative positions. I blocked a few but I ended up pretty much leaving the fandom and tag cause it was hard to find people who enjoyed canon Oliver not fanon Oliver.

They're not absolving Oliver of blame or even whitewashing him, it's just speculating on whether or not he truly was the cause of their death. Oliver might have only actually killed ONE person but he had full intent to kill ALL THREE. I really don't consider it trying to moralise his action because he DID attempt murder even if he wasn't the CAUSE of Venetia and Felix's deaths, he still TRIED to kill them. Trying to kill a person vs Succeeding at killing a person really is not all that morally different.

Emerald left it vague on purpose, there is no real evidence of what actually happened, aside from Elsepth's death we never got to really see how Veneita and Felix died. All this speculation is just viewers trying to fill in the blanks with their own ideas and theories, and that's the fun of watching films! you can interpret it in many different ways

so to me a lot of the malice seems to be coming from people who want Oliver to be the true victim and put Farleigh in a malicious context

You're literally conflating two different things together, but okay you can feel what you feel. Oliver is a victim of a situation he himself caused but that doesn't mean he isn't the villain of someone else's story. There can be multiple perspectives of a situation.

And personally, I don't even think we know that much about canon Oliver at all, he hides so much from himself and the audience. But this reply is getting really long already, so eh.

#aksies

[actualpunkpercyjackson]

My dni

Bullies of aspec people of any kind,terfs,transmeds,butch/femme gatekeepers,transandrophobia truthers,non-transfems who use the fb slur and all other queerphobes

Proshippers and people who think saying abusive relathionships and ped0philia are bad is 'purity culture' and 'cencorship'(Does not go for depicting them to show they're bad)

Anti-recovery and anti-self diagnosis

Speak over minorities you're not a part of on their issues

'Femcels' and ddlg accs

Taylor Swift,Drake and Johnny Depp fans(No context for him and Amber Heard but i know he dated Winona Ryder when she was underaged)

You use mental illness terms such as 'delusional','triggered' and so forth to mean anything but them as symptoms

Fans of actively harmful media such as South Park,Aot,Harry Potter,etc and this includes fanon

Whitewashers(Looking at you,people who make Leah Jeffries blonde because you can't stand normal black people and leave Cass and Duke out of Batkids content)

Bashers of kid/teen-characters for acting their age(Examples:Orihime Inoue,Avatar Aang,Gwen Stacy and Damian Wayne)

Rick Riordan defenders(I've gotten questions on this one a few times but the short version is that he's a bigot who's extremely cruel to both his minority characters and his fans who are them)

Shippers of the following ships:Jason/Roy or Stephanie,Clark/Lex,Dabi/Hawks,Bakugou/Shouto or Momo,Percy/Annabeth,Nico/Jason(Pjo) or Percy,Hunter/Edric,Luz/Hunter and Ichigo/Rukia or Grimmjow(These are proships but fandoms don't know what adoption is or that a 100+ year old dating a minor is ped0philia so i need to say it)

This last one isn't as big of a deal but i'd rather you block me instead of interacting if you're anti Ichihime,Todomomo,Allurance,Huntlow or Bubbline.If you dislike them then that's fine but if you believe they're objectively bad ships and won't be respectful of me or others liking them,then please leave

#my dni #letters from summer

[super-hero-confessions]

i want to take a moment to talk about the "whiteness" in the superhero genre.

not in anger or anything like that, this isn't really a rant. it's more of a run on thought than anything. but due to the ongoing calls, trends or whatever else proposing or promoting different forms of censorship, or even the schisms that fandoms seem to like creating between "canon" and "fanon". i wanted to try addressing this the best i could.

i don't mean how the characters are traditionally or predominantly white. while that is a conversation to have on its own, it mostly ends with "the industry was fucked up for a long time and is still kind of fucked up".

when i say "whiteness" in this context, i mean it through a story lens. "whitewashing" a story, "watering it down", i've seen it called "disneywashing", creating a "rose-tinted lens", etc.

in essence, boiling down or censoring a story so it's more "mainstream" or "comfortable" for what is essentially "white america" or white americans. people who are used to and brought up to expect a sort of "feel good" storytelling style with a happy ending where the perceived "hero" wins.

just to be clear, i am not blaming white americans for existing or being brought up with this sort of thing, nobody gets to choose their reality before they have to live it.

but that's sort of the problem.

as far as the superhero genre goes, the boys does a really good job at bringing attention to this issue. the comics especially are excellent for making a point of this.

"but the real reason you won't hear about it is cause the public don't wanna know about it."

with the g-men saga, they make it a point to show that even with "representation" for people of color, it's still often done in a "whitewashed" lens for "white america" in a way that "white americans" will understand and be comfortable with. in a way where black people or other people of color are presented how white people perceive them to be, or how they "should" be. as more caricatures than humanized people.

abducted black kids are expected to conform to "black behavior" as part of a "black" super group, under instruction and supervision from a white man. one of those kids even expresses his unhappiness with that situation and what's expected of him when he never got to choose that path.

with transwomen, we're shown how they get fetishized or disregarded. disrespected or made invalid when they haven't fully transitioned or are "clockable" in any sort of way. when they aren't the "right" type of transwoman for the "mainstream". even what women in prostitution may have to deal with, not limited to transwomen.

one of hughie's friends, big bobbi, is a big, muscular transwoman. she's a bit of an asshole with the brightest, most fun personality, and beautifully flamboyant fashion sense you have ever seen. she can't afford the care that would allow her to transition. but it doesn't matter what other people around her think of that, she still chooses to be herself. and if they object, it's their problem not hers.

she's valid no matter what they say and she's amazing for it.

we are shown harsh realities that real people may have to face or make choices on. realities that white people, especially americans, aren't really comfortable with seeing or acknowledging the existence of. like a sort of strange untold rule that if you don't personally see something, then it somehow can't exist or "goes away".

the show i think in some ways is more subtle, but also goes further in others. it's certainly more brutal and gory than the comic, although that may just be inherent with live-action footage being far more visceral than a drawn stylistic comic panel ever could be.

however, you can't really get more descript or direct than the scene where a-train is talking about his childhood and how he discovered his powers.

he's told, by the white director getting his story, to make his story "a tad more upbeat" and leave out the gun violence.

he's told directly, to censor his own life so it's more comfortable for the "right audience". he is clearly uncomfortable with this fact but goes along with it because he knows who he works for.

this kind of thing isn't limited to the superhero genre at all, although it is painfully obvious how interwoven with the mcu this has become (the now antithesis of the spirit behind the source material and even original direction), it can also be very obvious between american media and foreign media. or even white made media and black made media.

"the color purple" is a good example as well.

again, to be clear, there's nothing wrong with feel good stories or happy endings. there's nothing wrong with liking or preferring that sort of stuff.

but the fact is this.

people who aren't "white america" or the "right target audience" may live and have to face these harsh realities. may even feel seen and heard when they see these realities talked about or well portrayed in media. may feel just as good from the feel good stories and happy endings as the next person.

but at the end of the day, we don't get to come back to a feel good life or rose-tinted reality. we have to go back to our own and are expected to remain as quiet and unseen about it as ever. for the comfort of the people who don't want to see or hear that we exist.

from a personal place, it can feel pretty fucking invalidating and painful to see people complain about the harsh realities i have to face as "unrealistic" or "unnecessary" because they personally have never seen or faced such a reality and thus were "forced" to acknowledge it for a few seconds of their life.

except they didn't have to look.

that's what content warnings and disclaimers are for, right? to give people a choice and protect those who might be triggered by it.

and maybe they were "unnecessary", that is generally the nature of injustice and hardship. but i, and many others, still had to live through them.

the reality is that a call for censorship is a call for expulsion of anything that doesn't fit with the "white american" or "right" world filter. more often than not, silencing victims.

telling them "your story's not okay to tell because it makes me uncomfortable" when you didn't have to stick around and listen or watch their story.

no one "forced" you to sit down and stay. you could have just kept moving along and found one of the thousands of other pieces of media made for you and people like you.

but most importantly, it's not about "you". it wasn't made for "you".

and it doesn't have to be.

it goes even further with "canon" and "fanon". the point of fanfiction is for fans to take their favorite characters in the media they like and create their own stories however they want to.

in spirit?

this is a beautiful, wonderful, incredible thing to see. it's media and artists inspiring more creativity and artists. it's people having fun. it's people playing with art freely.

but like anything, it's not without its flaws.

there's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to save a favorite character or "rewrite" a story your own way. yeah, sometimes "canon" writers can drop the ball or even make very stupid messes. whether narrative inconsistencies, badly executed twists, there's room for critique for them too.

that's not the problem with "fanon".

the problem is that many of the fans participating in "fanon" that is built are still fundamentally "white america" or from similarly founded societies. they are still people raised or indoctrinated in a form of purity culture and pro-censorship ideas that ultimately silence and talk over marginalized groups.

i was raised in that kind setting too, so i get it. i was raised to be silent.

and it is so difficult to realize, self actualize, and to break out of it. i am still working through it. your own world views and core beliefs falling apart right in front of you is no cake walk. it hurts to know you've been lied to your entire life and have to acknowledge it.

and i think freedom in fiction, fanfiction, art, expression, and more are really just a few of those things that have the right foundation to build on and help people break out of that.

but not when the same ideas get recycled and repeated and reinforced, just with new packaging.

people of color. but portrayed through the lens of "white america". although i won't say it's limited to "white america" because there is racism all over the world that presents itself in different forms depending on where you go.

there's nothing wrong with practicing the features of people from other cultures and countries. nothing wrong with referencing and actually doing facial studies. that should be encouraged and cherished, not shut down. but it takes listening to the voices, experiences, and critiques of the people in those groups before we actually see good representation.

lots and lots of lgbtqia+ content made by fans out there. but also portrayed through the lens of "white america", or filtered and censored in a way that makes straight people with a kink feel more comfortable than people who are actually lgbtqia+.

the boys show even did a scene to showcase that too. when ashley tells maeve and elena that audiences will react better to their relationship if there are "clear cut gender roles" and that two "feminine lesbians" would be seen as a "problematic" image.

that's "heteronormativity". even the way that fandoms tend to use the words "twink" or "babygirl". it goes without saying that the way these fandoms, predominantly cisgender heterosexual women, define or redefine "men" and "masculinity" for gay ships ends up being one of the biggest promoters and perpetuators for toxic masculinity i have ever seen.

speculating the sexuality of real people, actors or actresses, based on the random things they like or do and how "masculine" the women or "feminine" the men are is no different than "transvestigating", something only transphobes do.

if we're trying to normalize free expression regardless of gender, this is not how you do it.

i really don't think i should have to spell out how fandom repackages this and perpetuates it further. if you know, you know already, but for those that don't?

switching, interracial relationships, and two "masculine gays" are going to be among your most rarely explored (not kinks) themes in fanfiction.

it doesn't make people wrong or bad to want to explore kinks their own way either. there is nothing wrong with preferring a "top" and "bottom" or having a "dom" and "sub" kink. writing fanfiction should feel safe for the author and readers alike. do what makes you happy, just make sure to tag it correctly.

but i've also seen people put that they are trans or whatever in the author's notes to specify that they write from personal experience to prevent getting attacked for "inaccuracy". let's not ignore that issue, absolutely no one should be getting harassed or attacked over fiction (this includes canon writers).

it just goes to show that "white america" doesn't just have the habit of silencing and speaking over minorities in their own work. the people often hurling out those attacks? "white americans".

the people i see most try to use personal victimhood to censor other people, including victims? "white americans".

i've seen way too many fans promote a bubble of "fanon" while complaining or dismissing "canon", not because of actual narrative inconsistencies or issues with the writing, but because the detail may make them "uncomfortable" or "unhappy".

so they "whitewash" their favorite characters to not have those "flaws". i don't mean create an "au" where their favorite character can, alternatively, not have committed that war crime or groomed someone. i mean they personally absolve and ignore whatever the character did so they don't have to feel "guilty" about liking them.

please stop feeling guilty over fiction. it doesn't matter what the least educated people on the planet say, it's not real and has no bearing on who you are as a person whether you like the villain or not.

what does have a bearing? whether or not you are willing to dismiss or acknowledge what the villain does when your reaction to their actions should be your reminder that "you" are a human.

and again, we can not choose the realities we are born into or how we are brought up. but we can become aware of the world that is around us. and in making ourselves aware, we can also choose whether or not we participate and contribute to those segregated "realities".

societal and fandom awareness, or lack there of, are the problem. but censorship is not a solution. censorship can only exacerbate this.

this isn't some sort of cry to shut down criticism either. on the contrary, we can't have proper critique on media, good or bad, we can't have nuanced discussions when censorship reigns. that is a huge part of what this whole thing even is.

but with censorship? we can have victims who feel marginalized, insulted, and silenced because their personal experiences and harsh realities were deemed "inappropriate" or "unsafe" for the "right" kind of people, thereby leaving them as the "wrong" kind of people.

content warnings and informed viewer consent are what protect people.

censorship only has the goal of being divisive and filtering "people" from "scum".

"whiteness" is just another pervasive, invasive way for people to keep pretending that everything is "fine", but only for the "right" type of people.

we all have a choice to listen. and we all deserve a choice to speak up. but no one should be silenced.

trauma does not come with a nondisclosure agreement, please stop acting like it does.

#confession #superheroes

[darklinaforever]

The problem with Alysm*nd is that the show might make it as some tragic love story as opposed to the book (and even there their stans argue it was all based on true love and shit) and make Alys a victim of her family and Aemond her savior. The thing is, even if she was indeed mistreated by her family like they claim, realistically she would still have absolutely no reason to get in bed with their murderer unless she had no choice but to do so. But who knows what the writers may decide to do. If they still decide to whitewash the greens I believe they will also make this ship more palatable. It's also very troubling that there are some out there who think Aemond was the victim all along. How? Yeah, she may have manipulated him but this happened only after he had taken her as his prize of war (and we know what this actually means for a woman in this context, never in the books was this term used to describe a consensual relationship) and she only did so in order to survive and eventually free herself from him. I imagine he must have deluded himself into thinking she fell in love with him and he with her considering he went into his fight with Daemon with full confidence that he was going to win, something that Alys surely encouraged by telling him he foresaw his victory. And to think how much greens romanticize this relationship and say things like "she was proud to have his baby" or "they're the healthiest relationship in F&B" (I also saw green fans saying this a while ago on twitter or reddit)...what's funnier is that if Daemon or any other man from team black had been the one to take a woman as his war prize the very same greens who are currently shipping Alysm*nd would've undoubtedly called it out for what it actually means for the woman but since it's Aemond doing it...it's a love story between a lowborn woman abused by her evil family and the handsome one-eyed prince who's rescuing her

Frankly, given how the series is about Aemond being a victim, I think there is more of a twist that makes him a victim of Alys' manipulation, rather than a romance. Especially if they decide to fully dive into the seeds they've ridiculously planted for a possible relationship with Helaena and Aemond... I swear thinking Aemond was in love with Helaena or Alys in the books is ridiculous. He got seduced by Alys because she was smart to ensure his survival after he took her as a prize of war and probably raped her. And there is no indication of Aemond's romantic affection for Helaena in the book, and the series, if it goes in this direction, will only offer a pale copy of Naerys & Aemon's romantic relationship. Coming back to Alysmond, I don't understand the romanticization of this relationship. This is simply inconceivable to me. And yes, as you say, if a member of the Black team had priced a woman as a war prize, they would have cried foul. Which is...well just the truth. Alysmond is interesting only in the sense that Alys leads Aemond to his death at the end. Any story trying to make it into a grand romance is ridiculous. Also, this tendency of these people to try to make Aemond morally gray or outright calling him anti-hero makes me laugh. Basically, they want him to be Daemon. Because in case these people have forgotten Daemon is the gray character, the ultimate anti-hero of the story. Aemond is meant to be the opposite (negative) of Daemon. Not the opposite. Literally Daemon is a protagonist / anti hero and Aemond is an antagonist / villain.

#fire and blood #grrm #grr martin #george rr martin #anti hotd #anti house of the dragon #hotd #house of the dragon #anti aemond targaryen #anti aemond stans #alys rivers #anti alysmond #anti helaemond #helaena targaryen #anti team greens #anti greens stans #anti greens #team blacks #pro team blacks #daemon targaryen #pro daemon targaryen #the rogue prince

[winxwiki]

hi! i was wondering how you felt about that "one" scene in winx club that was banned? did the scene go differently in the original italian version?

as a black girl who loves winx, it was sad for me to see </3 im just curious how the reception in other places was

Hi there! First of all, I have the banned episode from this ancient Mondo DVD, since it's been taken down from youtube and other streaming services, even in italian. I will sub this ep regardless of the infamous scene, since I don't think there's anything controversial outside of that

In short, TLDR, in my humble opinion, the scene is racially insensitive and overly meanspirited from the heroines we should root for. The average italian kid didn't think much of it when it aired and re-ran, Italian adults lack the cultural context of black hair outside the country so most didn't understand the complaints and non-white italians did not seem to make any noise about this online. If anybody can prove me wrong is welcome to provide sources that I missed.

More under the cut!

There was some disco resurgence in the early 2000s around, in Italy and Japan, so that's what inspired the scene, likely.

A frog! With an afro!

Bucatini dance!

Is there a history of discrimination over textured and curly hair in Italy? As far as I know, no. You see white people with dreads and braids all the time and for historical reasons, curly and textured hair is common in people's genes. From what I've seen from italian forums and social media, I have read no complaints from black italians about the scene, so it definitely didn't move the italian black community or anything to stir any controversy.

Alright. With that out of the way... As a kid, I didn't think too much of the scene. I didn't think "wow, that hair is bad/ugly/something mean", or anything of the sort, and this seems to be the general sentiment from other italian watchers. I didn't think anything of the poor black girl being mocked. Being from a filler episode, the scene is rather forgettable to the average euro person.

I thought the hair wasn't even normal afro hair. And so did many others, according to italian social media posts...

I thought it had become JELLO! The hair is shiny and makes a strange noise when Bloom touches it. I'm still sure it's jello.

Bloom touching the hair unprovoked is also kind of nasty.

Some don't believe it's jello at all and I can't fault them for it, since the poor girl doesn't say any details. Just that her straight hair turned into "this thing".

The language used in this scene is meanspirited.

"What did she put on her head?" is a bit too much from Stella. You see a girl crying and you mock her?

The Winx don't even do anything for her, just standing back and watching. The Trix mocking her is one thing, but the Winx could have tried to help, only for them to give up as the girl has a breakdown, I dunno, better than nothing or Bloom's terrible attempt. The whole scene isn't easy to save and I don't think anybody should bother, not even the 4Kids edit improves it much. Just cut it out.

The joke was likely at afro hair looking funny itself, rather than make the black girl seem undesiderable for having an afro, as I've read from some interpretations. All italians I've read and asked agree that they didn't think maliciously of the scene as kids nor now. At least there's that.

A surprising amount of people thought the scene wasn't racist at all though, and couldn't understand why would this be offensive, while those who agreed it was bad still argued that banning the episode was too much.

The italian side has been very focused on the whitewashing discourse, though. Not since Magical Adventure as some have noted, but ever since the fairy couture dropped.

These are from 2022! What have they done to Aisha!

Anyway, thanks for reading all the way there. I'd like to hear more opinions, provided they're brought in a civil manner. Because I've seen a lot of nastyness on this argument and I'd rather not deal with trolls.

These poor girls!

#text #reply #LONG POST #s1e12

[blorbologist]

I absolutely adore your historical Quebec AU!!! My friend is also super excited to see what you do with it. Do you have a tag for it?

!! Oh, thank you so much! I think I had the tag filles du roi AU, but I only see the original idea pitch come up for it. Which is unfortunate, I know I've written a lil snippet for it. AHA, found it! Enjoy <3

I'm not sure when I'll get around to actually writing it - longfics are a scary undertaking for me because I want to see them to their end, and I know just at a glance that it'd be a massive undertaking:

I am a huge nerd. Though my focus is biology, I have a visceral reaction to people spreading falsehoods or inaccurate information. I don't want to do that to part of my own history, which would mean a lot of research. Which is kind of tough, when I'm already laden with research for gradschool and history isn't my forte. Seriously, I don't want to describe a kind of paint that wouldn't exist, or the wrong type of snowshoe, or a prayer to a saint that was actually not well-regarded. Because this is a very rural context, I couldn't easily handwave a lot of the details without detracting from the immersion. So I need to know how Vex would skin and sell beaver pelts, and the going-rates for materials for Percy's pepperbox or I'll go completely insane and tear my hair out in shame.

I think trans Vax would fit into this setting super well (get an extra dowry from the king by posing as another Fille du Roi with his sister, even if he's Absolutely Not), but. Though I'm queer, I'm not trans, and want to respect Vax and not just have him endure getting misgendered by the church and crown constantly.

I also do not want to whitewash the history of Nouvelle-France: the French stole this land from the Native American people that lived here and co-opted them into their conflicts. There is a long history of discrimination, and genocide, that I'd want to tackle carefully, both as a white author, and because Vex and Vax would be Métis, with a French father. It's delicate, in a way that other historical AUs usually sidestep. (I would like to help educate people that Canada's image as the squeaky-clean goody-two-shoes cousin of the USA is a complete fucking fabrication, though, so it'd be worth the headache and heartbreak.)

It would also require a very different sort of prose and dialogue than I'm used to. Trying to figure out a nice balance between keeping that Old feeling while also having it distinctly come off as French (more than that, French Canadian) would be a mess! A delightful challenge, though :D

I really do love this AU, and the idea of sharing this fascinating (if very, very complicated and messy and tragic) part of history with the fandom means so much to me! It's just very daunting for lil' ol' me - the fact even two people are excited really made my day, though <33

Have a bit of worldbuilding: the Briarwoods killing Percy's family still happened... only it was because they owned land that produced excellent deposits that colored glass a rich, incredible green. They call it residuum, and sell it as a luxury good and claim it has many arcane properties. Because it glows in the dark.

It's actually uranium glass and thus mildly (very mildly) radioactive :3 But it's fun to think of the Briarwoods and their cronies irradiating themselves with their hubris! While feeling a bit magical for the time and setting!

#critical role #perc'ahlia #filles du roi AU #I'm seriously so happy anyone remembered this au at all ;;;;;; of all my cool and flashy and dramatic stuff!! my lil slice of history! #tho the cons list is long I do have to note the pros are many too. vex with a french accent. trinket is an actual bear. etc.

[fandomshatepeopleofcolor]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I feel like since The Little Mermaid live action is very different from the original and kind of its own thing, we could say that in this specific version, Ariel’s race does have a special place even though it doesn’t affect the plot at all? I mean, I’m pretty sure that the change from a European setting to a more Southern American one (where there’s plenty of Black and Brown people) was heavily influenced by the casting of Halle Bailey (which is absolutely not a bad thing)! And it fits perfectly with this specific version of Ariel!

Because I don’t think it would have happened if they had cast a white actress? And I feel like either they had planned the change of setting way before casting and already wanted a Black or Brown girl before auditions even started (and I remember seeing an article that said they were looking for a woman of color) or when they picked Halle they had the idea to change the setting to make something new and make it stand apart from the original?

I’m not sure wether I’m being clear or not but what I mean to say is that this specific of version of Ariel was made specifically for Black and Brown children and if they make, like, a stage adaptation of it, a white woman as the lead wouldn’t really fit? Same way that if they had decided to set it in South Asia, having a white actress playing her wouldn’t really fit, you know what I mean??

Ok so I totally agree with you but I only disagree on one point: I don't think that we can legitimately say that Prince Eric's mother the queen was queen of a south american country. Like geographically yes I know what you mean about it being tropical and surrounded by coral which only grows in a certain temperature. HOWEVER, I find it hard to believe that the live action little mermaid was based on any country in our history with the engrained chattel slavery.

Like let me see if I can give an example. So black panther is set in a similar earth to ours but the way they isolated themselves with technological advances means they weren't victim to slavery. but that history of slavery globally still impacts them and the fandom was very adamant about not shipping white women with T'Challa a Black king of an African country.

Whereas Prince Eric was the adopted son of a Black queen who I suspect didn't feel the need to only adopt a black son. The Queen didn't even seem to mind that the previously hostile mermaids were changing. Like King Triton overcame his prejudice for humans and made a solid show of mending their relationship. So I don't think its a similar setting wrt race relations to our history.

But I'm not black so I defer to other Black bloggers. Like Ariel's race matters to us because we see her in our context but that racial barrier is removed from the Queen's viewpoint because she herself is Black. So yeah if they ever cast a white Ariel taking it from the movie it would be whitewashing.

mod ali

[tungtung-thanawat]

https://www.tumblr.com/chawarin-panich/738091897550225408/hello-i-dont-mean-this-in-an-inflammatory-way

what about DBK? or the now airing Cherry Magic Thai? i mean yeah Tay isn't technically even dark skinned but as compared to the rest of the gmmtv roster... also maybe joong in every series? idk. there's not a lot. sigh.

tagging @burgcheeser since anon is trying to add more context for the question you asked me. sorry for taking so long to respond but I needed some time to first finish laughing at the irony of being recc'd an Aof show in the rampant colorism in Asia diskhorse that I started in response to Aof's colorism hahahahahaha

As someone who's not Thai, I really don't know the specifics of skin tone variations that are acceptable or not in Thailand. I think who's fair and beautiful changes based on how dark the local population gets. Most actors back home (for me) are the same skin tone as Earth (as this is considered quite fair where I'm from) whereas he's 'too dark' for Thai standards. I think in general, if you're looking for a way to support dark skinned actors, the best thing you can do is keep calling for the portrayal of actors' natural skin and oppose whitewashing them regardless of whether you think they are dark skinned or not.

While acknowledging that pinpointing who is or isn't being victimized the most b/c of their skin tone is NOT the focal point of standing against colorism in Asian media. The two people you bring up have always been interesting to me. 1) For all intents and purposes Tay seems like he should fall into the dark skinned actor category but he almost always never does. Is he actually not that dark? Does his own upper class status shield him from it? idk im glad he's having a good time he seems like a wonderful person.

2) Mixed race actors like Joong or Bright who aren't the Korean dewy white that's so popular in Thailand right now but also their relative darkness bears no noticeable consequences to their profession either. I have no idea what the standards of attractiveness is for mixed race actors in Thailand. One thing I can say though is that the lack of darker mixed race actors is not a coincidence - you think there are no Thai/Black mixed race people or what lol

#nani answers #colorism in asian media #colorism in thai bl

[hamliet]

Thoughts on daemon choking rhaenyra?

My thoughts on Luke literally, and Aemond and Daemon's characters are basically this:

I'm not opposed to Daemon acting like a jerk because he's a Byronic hero. He's the most Byronic hero George has written in ASOIAF. It's the most Romantic (literary) archetype in existence.

Doth no one know what a rogue is anymore? -me, being a drama queen

He's mad, bad, and dangerous to know, like the trope's namesake. He's also a sentimental wounded bad boy idealist. I mean look at what the man has named each of his children. His daughters are after his father and his mother in law (the book directly says it). His sons are both after his brothers, including the one who died extremely young. He's even got a hidden wife at one point and mad women in the attic!

So in principle, I'm not opposed. What makes me be like... hm. Is the proliferation of major writing issues that make me take back a lot of my early optimism, lol. In other words, I have no faith that scene was in there to do anything thematic or character-building. Instead, it seems like it's just there for drama.

Removing all agency from the characters is really like. Ugh. The problem in Game of Thrones, writers, wasn't just that they were sexist or that people did bad things. The first couple seasons were so powerful precisely because of choices. Even the choices made with the absolute best of intentions--see Ned trying to spare Cersei's kids and Catelyn desperate to save her daughters--had major consequences that couldn't always be foreseen. Good people making choices out of love isn't always rewarded. That's gritty and realistic, but that doesn't inherently mean the choices are always wrong, and it doesn't mean that they're right either.

Alicent misunderstanding Viserys instead of like, actually poisoning him? Lame. Aemond losing control of Vhagar? Lame. It's hard to care about characters when they're just subject to the whims of the world around them. That's not really a Romantic message. Yeah, Alicent hearing what she wants to hear, sure, Aemond underestimating a dragon, sure, except that's just not the human heart against itself. It's not ASOIAF thematically. "Whoops" isn't a compelling plot twist.

Again, a lot of these things could work theoretically without being "whoops." Much like the choking, I'm not, in principle, opposed. The problem is context. I just don't like how the show's simplifying the characters, so I don't have faith that they intended a message about overestimating how in control you are of the consequences of your actions. Given all their other creative decisions, it seems more a ploy to not alienate the audience, but the irony is it's having the opposite effect.

I'm someone who really likes Aemond's character in the book, and Alicent's. They're complex and fascinating just like Daemon and Rhaenyra are. They don't need to be whitewashed.

I'm very concerned that by whitewashing these characters they might remove other aspects of the coming seasons. But since GRRM said there'd be four seasons, I have some hope. If they erase Sara Snow because of Jace and Baela, or Alys Rivers and her kid with Aemond, like they erased Laena and Rhaenyra's relationship, I will be throwing hands.

#ask hamliet #hotd #hotd spoilers #fire & blood #daemyra #alicent hightower #aemond targaryen #daemon targaryen #rhaenyra targaryen

[masonscig]

"stop giving them european features"... M is literally european fam. Us euro mediterraneans come in various skin tones, sure, from to pale to tan but we nonethless are white. Tanned skin, dark eyes and dark hair aren't features exclusive to any race here. I get tumblr mostly adopts american stance on race meaning that tan=poc but that's really not the case here, we don't need you defending us, we're good thanks lol M being drawn as paler than their description is the same as a long haired character being drawned with short hair to us: inaccurate (as most fan art ever made) but not offensive as pale vs tan doesn't have racial connations here. Obvs it could be different if we knew that M was greek in terms of nationality but not necessarily have greek origins but we were told they were greek in an ask about UB *ethnicities* so literally... no need to get upset on our behalf, we don't need you to, it just comes off as weird for you all to act this way tbh

it's so funny you started off with that line because when i posted it, i thought to myself "i don't need to clarify that that's about felix/farah/nate/nat right? no way! people can figure that out!" but i guess i was wrong :)

i did not need an essay about race versus ethnicity in my inbox, because regardless, this isn't about that. this is about artists having skintone palettes straight from the author and blatantly going lighter than that, whether it's about mason/morgan or not. (i myself am mixed race but only refer to myself as white because you wouldn't know i'm mixed race at first glance without discussing it with me. i get it. trust me.) and the point you made about hair is just.. not a good stance to take. you cannot compare skintones to hair in any context.

my question is, how do you not see this – what you've sent me – as enabling behavior? you would rather allow people to run rampant *like they already are* and continue to draw mason/morgan lighter than their canon description because? you personally don't feel a type of way about it? you can feel however you want to feel about it, but that doesn't solve the problem i – and so many players of color in the fandom – have brought up.

and just to reiterate, there are other characters that i mentioned. felix/farah and nate/nat, who get the most egregious whitewashing. instead of spending your time sending me a long anon about how you don't think pale mason/morgan art is whitewashing, you could care more about the other two massive issues that i presented. they don't just vanish because you're annoyed that i worded something poorly.

i understand where you're coming from, but there are bigger problems than me saying "stop giving them european features" instead of "stop giving f and n european features".

#i understand what you're trying to say but to me whitewashing is whitewashing #lightening skintones is wrong no matter how you try to twist it #this is more about setting and maintaining a standard than anything #i'm not trying to argue with you in my inbox though – if you send another im gonna have to block you sorry #asks

[snowdeong]

My opinion on what just happened (because I'm black and African and while antisemitism and anti-blackness aren't the same, they way that these issues show up in kpop are similar and I've wanted to rant about them for a while)

Also this is so messy but I'm one of those people that needs to write out my thoughts in longform to understand how I feel about something so if anyone actually reads this hwghwg sorry.

First things first, at the end of the day Chae's probs not an anti-semite. Ofc that's not for me to say like I said I'm black and ugandan, not Jewish, but simplifying the whole thing to just Chae as an individual won't solve the real problem at hand here. THAT BEING SAID wearing that shirt and posting a pic on her ig with a fuck tonne of followers from different places in the world is insensitive and anti-semetic plain and simple whether she's aware of that or not. She's not just posting this to certain fans who'd know all the context lmao. And again context or not, that symbol is harmful all the context in the world won't erase that. We as fans should be educating her not trying to hide that it happened wtf? The problem is bigger than just chae or the group or even the kpop industry yes but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't raise awareness about wtf happened and talk about it.

Idk why kpop stans boil serious issues down to "protecting their faves" or attacking an idol they dislike. This is serious and fucking hurtful in a real way wtf??? I really think our concern should be for all the Jewish folk and other affected groups randomly seeing someone they might stan wearing such a hateful symbol casually and then also having to see people defend her like??? Liking someone or something should also mean having the capability to criticise that person or thing. You can stan someone and call them out on bullshit.

Also something I think a lot of koop stans don't seem to understand is that all these companies don't actually give af about us beyond our money. So being a global group doesn't actually mean the company will do the work to teach their idols that being a global group means that there's some shit you should be aware of. And I say teach the idols not because I don't expect them to do individual work, but because we've seen how this cycle goes lmao. An idol says or wears something offensive, the fandom gets mad, they rush an apology and the loop continues. Companies that actually gave af about us would see this shit happening to other companies and go "okay here's shit you should and should not know" to their idols. But they don't and they won't ever probably and the sooner we learn that the sooner we'll stop being so "surprised" when this shit happens.

Now about Chae as an individual. I'm def dissapointed but again I'm also not surprised. And I don't mean that in a "oh obvs she's bigoted" way like Chae is such a loving person and I really admire and love her I wouldn't stan the group if I thought they were shitty people. If she said she said that she didn't know what that meant I'd really believe her because I know that if she did she's not the sort that'd be out here flaunting hate on her instagram of all things. I might be deluded from stanning and all but I genuinely believe that.

Pop culture is racist, pop culture is anti-semetic, pop culture is queerphobic, pop culture is bigoted. The way that a Ugandan would probably be confised if you asked them what that symbol is, I'm sure is the same way it is in SK because the western content that's transferred over is extremely whitewashed shit (that's the context I mentioned earlier). When I say whitewashed I don't mean just white people I mean that the majority of it is white approved tm, it fits within the white patriarchal cishetnormative framework that's been established and pepetuated for years and years and years. That's not to say we shouldn't do our individual research ofc like especially if you're going to be an idol ffs, we should always be mindful. But again, if all the stuff readily available to you is bigoted then you're not going to look at a shirt with a certain symbol on it and immediately get that wearing that is fucked up.

(We also need to take into account the fact that that symbol means something totally different within different Asian religions. Not an excuse for her, just a fact that a lot of people unfortunately don't know cause they don't know anything about Buddhism and the like. I personally only learnt this last year while reading Bleach)

I don't say any of this as a defense I just think that we as minorities need to understand that the world is designed in a way where our trauma is constantly downplayed and erased. And that fucking sucks but that's how oppression keeps perpetuating itself. As a black kpop stan I've had to see so much bullshit lmao so I know it's hard to accept that there's a possibility that none of this will change. I'm all for assuming the best of people but it's also important to keep this in mind about everyone.

I really hope Jewish and other affected folks heal from this and recieve a genuine apology for the love of fuck. I do believe that Chae's not a hateful person truly but I hope that this teaches her, the girls and all other artists that it doesn't stop at just not being hateful. We have to put in work to be mindful, that's the best way to be loving to the people around you. I also hope jyp as a company takes this as an initiative to actually teach their idols shit about world issues if they're gonna be promoted globaly (but tbh I'm not holding my breath on this lmao like companies ain't shit)

#tldr: she fucked up and should apologise #it doesn't matter if she's actually anti-semetic herself or not people are hurt by that symbol and accountability must be taken #i also really hope jyp will be the company that breaks the trend but lmao I fucking doubt it #this is long and rambly but it wasn't leaving my brain #at the end of the day this issue is bigger than her #and it will unfortunately probably still happen with some other idol sooner than you'd think because no one actually cares

[dmclemblems]

Nopes really whitewashed almost everyone tbh. Edelgard for one. Duke Aegir and Count Gloucester don't even seem as bad; I even agree with Count Gloucester that Claude isn't to be trusted in GW! SB tries to convince you that Lonato not bad, actually, and that Ashe will ditch Faerghus for Lonato. Gustave reunited with Annette way earlier this time around (this isn't whitewashing, it's more that he has a faster character arc lol). Felix is also way nicer in general, Hubert less aggressive, etc.

To an extent I don't mind them adding in humane traits for some of those characters. They shouldn't be all black and white, good or evil. Most real people aren't like that and in a story like the one they're telling in the Fodlan games it'd be odd to have so many characters specifically on one end. It's one thing to have a small few at best, but I do enjoy seeing aspects of characters that are good when we've only heard bad things about them.

That said I do agree that they made some characters a lot softer and kinder like Hubert. Felix makes sense imo because things happened differently in this timeline. He became the Duke very early and presumably spent a lot more time with Rodrigue and grew into his position. With Dimitri I think it's that maturity that he's grown into that helped reduce how cruel he was.

Rather than just making some of them kinder and whatnot though, I noticed they took a lot of characterization away from some character. For example, Dorothea, Raphael and Caspar were... pretty bland. Normally I like Dorothea but I borderline couldn't stand her in this game. All she does is bitch and moan about the war that she willingly fights in this game and worries about Edelgard constantly at camp. There's basically nothing to her character in the main story outside of simping for Edelgard and I feel like the only reason she's recruitable in AG is because she's so popular and they figured they should make her recruitable in all routes. Her supports with Flayn would be cute if not for Dorothea going on about how she thinks she should've died with the other soldiers and how much she laments being there. She fought for Edelgard because she wanted to, which makes Flayn directly her enemy and yet she acts fine and dandy around Flayn in their supports. If not for the context in the rest of the game their supports could've been cute, but I can't really see it that way with all the things Dorothea goes on about.

Lonato is definitely worse in this game imo if only for the fact that he's willing to go along with the guilt tripping against Ashe. The whole thing came off as even worse than Houses made it out to be.

There's a lot of give and take with the characters in this game that I've noticed. Some of them are worse at the expense of making others better. Hilda for example I like a lot more in this game and she feels more like a real person than her Houses counterpart, but Dorothea only seemed kind of decent to me in some of her supports. Caspar was reduced to not caring who or what he fought for other than the Empire, even if it was being led by Thales and people were burning entire villages to the ground and murdering all the residents (even though his father even told him he could flee and he wouldn't blame him for it).

I'm okay with seeing characters like Erwin have some good traits and qualities. It's one thing that he seems scummy in Houses, but that doesn't mean he's devoid of all humane traits. I can see it working out that his people would love him/his leadership but he's doing underhanded things behind the scenes when he doesn't trust other nobles (like the former Duke Riegan and how he didn't like or trust him. You could argue he did it out of concern for the Alliance based on what we know in Hopes while still acknowledging that it was a scummy way to go about things).

Ludwig is a special case in AG because in SB he's still total trash. Pretty sure SB Ludwig had zero redeeming qualities lol. Like I mentioned before, I feel like they needed to use him because they had nobody else they could use to take the same role Cornelia and Shahid had in their respective routes. AG gave him more opportunity to not be quite as awful. It makes sense to me because if he was just total scum of the earth, I can't see how Ferdinand would even care about him, father or not. In Houses he's distraught at his father's death, so there had to be something there.

Matthias though to a point I do agree was altered a little bit on the "too good" side. He tried to get Sylvain to go alone to stop the remaining bandits from Miklan's group and Sylvain expresses to Byleth that there's no way he's doing that and thinks it's weird of his father to even suggest that. The way he also mentions Matthias to be "pulling his weight" in the timeskip makes it sounds like he... doesn't do very much for the Kingdom? Like, my impression of him from Houses was that he was a total dick but very loyal to Faerghus. Like, he'd do what he had to do for his country but was so emotionally detached that his own son didn't expect much of anything from him. He's kind of in a similar boat as Erwin, where I do like seeing the humane aspects of them but it feels like they really pushed toward the good side instead of the middle (when it would've been totally fine if they made them a bit better than how Houses portrayed them but not quite so seemingly kind).

Yuri kind of seemed a little less... scheme-y and antagonistic (even jokingly/tauntingly/teasingly), so I do prefer him in Houses.

#Hopes I feel like kinda just turned all the characters on their head from how they were in Houses #for better or worse because some characters definitely sucked for me this time around #then you had the small handful like Linhardt who didn't really change all that much #they took out some of his one note behavior of constantly talking about naps #to the point it still is there but not to the drastic extent it's there in Houses #Sylvain imo was basically the same but actually written well in the main story #and not reduced to annoying one liners that were the same thing all the time despite five years passing #I was glad to hear him say he cringes at his behavior at the academy bc it shows a lot of growth #that really just wasn't there in Houses when it should've been considering it'd been five years #and five years of WAR at that and yet he seemed... hardly grown up at all #DCE Ask

[phantomasc]

I’m going to tell you a story backward from end to beginning. I came across Kumu Hina about a girl dancing hula with the boys in her hula class because she was mahu or in white terms Nonbinary. (I identify as GenderFluid) It resonated with me, so I came out to my Mom and she accepted me. What led me to research indigenous culture is a tragic story. 

 The story starts when I told my Mom “I hate Indians” after being scared of the male Indians in  Disney's Peter Pan for years! My Mom responded “An Indian made your first baby booties” I knew I had said something wrong! Sometime later we went to Pueblo of Laguna, where after a tour, I picked up the tiniest Indigenous-made mouse and said, “Her name is Cheesy.” and sometime after that a new Peter Pan was obtained. This Peter Pan starred a “girl” or rather woman- Mary Martin- and was a cute, cheesy, production. 

The Indians, however, made me retch the first time I saw them, because of the negative portrayal in the Disney version, that would only happen once, and after they were considered white, like me, the six-year-old watching. This is called direct Representation, and as racist as whitewashing is, my literal brain needs a Tiger Lily who looks like me. This Tiger Lily was chief of her tribe, she rescued Peter after he rescued her; on a scooter, no less, in return, she was friendly kind, and loyal as illustrated by these “Ugg-a-Wugg” lyrics;

We'll just send for Tiger Lily I'll just send for Peter Pan! We'll be coming willy-nilly Lily Send up a flare And I'll be there! You know you really got a friend A Friend! We'll be true blood brothers to the end

So now we talk about racism. Most lyrics in the song are unintelligible, which means "Hard to understand" to which my reader might respond "Indians say ugg! What's so hard to understand about that?" Well, you may have put a feather on Sondra Lee's head but her hair is still blonde, and her skin looks like mine, so in the year 2000, I had no other context than my speech impairment caused by Cerebral Palsy, to contextualize what I was hearing. I heard something I should try harder to understand. The song is about Peter Pan and Tiger Lily making a promise to help each other, so "Ugg-A-Wugg" became "help" and "Ugg-Ugg-Wa" became "I promise" thanks to the brilliant choreography, by Director Jerome Robbins, as my Gif Illustrates;

So I made a promise to be loyal to Peter and Tiger Lily and by extension the people who played and wrote them. Loyalty is always a good thing, right? Turns out I'd get my wish to be Peter Pan and save Tiger Lily, it was just not how I expected it to happen.

Enter Peter Pan Live! It was 2014, we had just moved to Alabama the year prior, due to the death of my Dad, and I wanted to go home back to New Mexico! With all the change around me, I needed consistency, and that is why I was glad to have Peter Pan come back because it felt like home. I realized "Ugg-A-Wugg" was racist in an "Indians don't talk like that" type of way, (I was 19 after all) but that didn't make what happened any less shocking or painful for me.

NBC's Peter Pan changes offensive lyrics of the song 'Ugg-a-Wugg' that stereotypes Native Americans

I had known that NBC had aired the original Mary Martin version so to me, NBC broke a promise the same promise I had made to be loyal to the Original Broadway Cast, and the other artists behind that production, not to mention the cast of Cathy Rigby's version! I was white so it was clearly implied that the racism was my fault because by consuming Peter Pan I was telling Hollywood I wanted more of that. This is how that feels; Also people on Twitter were against a woman playing Peter Pan so up the Culture shock! So the Change to "Ugg-A-Wugg" is comforted forever with the attitude about gender/crossdressing/sexism/transgender it's a lot.   

Monster - Frozen Broadway lyrics

But that song wasn't out at the time, so I cried alone. I didn't interact with it much until the day of the broadcast. There are two articles that I want to mention the first is the Salon interview with Jerod Tate the Chickasaw consultant hired by NBC;

Exactly. It becomes a piece of history. 

Now in my emotional state, I correlated that with my history with Peter Pan, which felt comforting to me the next quote was by far his kindest.

But a little more background: “ugg-a-wugg” — again, remember, this is a British musical theater piece, so we had people from across the pond who were thinking very stereotypically and — it was very uniformed. I don’t think there were any bad intentions or malice or anything like that. It wasn’t like that. It was just uninformed. 

This quote makes my heart melt! He could have taken his justified revenge like everyone else involved but instead offered the original writer's compassion. to quote Veggietales Jonah

Compassion means giving someone forgiveness even when they don't deserve it.

but the next article I found told me I wasn't alone in having good memories of Peter Pan and that that was also ok.

Original Tiger Lily will skip NBC’s ‘Peter Pan’

First of all, I thought Sondra Lee was dead because the movie was made a long time ago. Secondly, I mentioned that "Ugg-Ugg-wa" meant "I promise" well I was ready to attempt suicide the day of the broadcast, until Sondra Lee, who I politicly disagree with saved my life, exactly like Tiger Lily does for Peter. She kept her promise! which meant a lot at the time. It was like magic! Thus with the knowledge, I was not alone, I watched Peter Pan Live!

Now NBC thought it was a good idea to add new songs as well as change "Ugg-A-Wugg" and hired Amanda Green, daughter of Adolph Green to do the new songs. What could possibly go wrong? The first new lyrics were for the "Pirate March" She changed "massacre Indians" to "terrify natives" and "kill little boys" to "scare little boys" and added the cute rhyming lyric "you'll do as he wishes or swim with the fishes" thus sugar coating the song. When the villains can't sing they "massacre Indians" which people actually did, you've gone too far. The next new song was "Vengeance" which my first thought was "-what the heck-?!" it sounded too happy and not threatening at all. This was added because Christopher Walken wanted a tap-dancing number, which he could've done during "Hook's Tarantella" The next new song was "Only Pretend" which turned the adventurous Wendy into just a love-struck girl. The song that replaced " Oh My Mysterious Lady" was "Wonderful World Without Peter" While being the best of the worst, it couldn't replace "Oh My Mysterious Lady" with a long shot. By the way, "Oh My Mysterious Lady" is a great commentary on sexism, which is what this production needed. Most people were weird about Peter being played by women, to say the least. This brings us to "True Blood Brothers" formerly known as "Ugg-A-Wugg" After the other new songs I was relieved to find it was still good. The Chickasaw word chosen was "Oh Wah hey" which means "danger" or "come here" which didn't make sense to me. I was happy for a few minutes until "Distant Melody" came on. It made me cry because the song is about remembering a song from your childhood that you're never going to hear again. What sadistic monster thought that changing the song right before that one was a good idea? Then came "When I went Home" Its themes of betrayal, abandonment, loss, and sadness fit my mood perfectly. I wasn't surprised to read that it was originally written for the show. Most people haven't experienced anything like that which explains why the audience didn't respond well to it. The latter three songs together are powerful. This leads us to the best new song "I'm Flying (Reprise) that sounded like it was cut from the original show. The last new song was "Only Pretend" (Reprise) sung by Mrs. Darling, and while it doesn't have as much impact as her simply saying "but they'll never come back... never" it serves its purpose very well. Christopher Walken performed his role in monotone is the best way to describe it. However, when he sang his voice was great. During "Hook's Tarantella" Smee said "You left out the part where you kill Tiger Lily and destroy the island." It's OK to say that, but not "massacre Indians" What's the difference? Peter teaching someone how to crow missing! Yes, that part does contain the word "Gay" Jerome Robbins, the original Director and choreographer was gay, he allowed it to be there IT IS SPEECH THERAPY! The rest of the cast was very good. They added a bunch of extra stuff that was unnecessary.

After the broadcast I spent three weeks in the worst isolation, you can't imagine it! Looking back, I did everything I could to ease my distress. I made I playlist of show tunes to express my feelings. I also researched Indigenous stereotypes, which broke me.

 Remembering #PeterPanLive

The Playlist has evolved a lot since December 2014.

Look Away Overture I'm Flying My favorite song in Peter Pan Flying Solo; My I Want song One Step Closer How Jerome Robbins Choreographed Ugg-A-Wugg I Gotta Crow (Reprise) I went to speech therapy as a kid with Cerebral Palsy, and this is something that resonated with me at six years old because I had trouble with the “R” sound. Top of the World How I Feel about Mary Martin Almost Christmas Peter Pan Live! aired at Christmastime, and my Dad died. Poor Unfortunate Souls Stars like Sondra Lee are NBC property Hook's Tarantella NBC stole my democratic Mother and broke promise to be loyal to Sondra Lee, and children sang in Ugg-A-Wugg No One Would Listen my response toSondra Lee's NYPost interview Hi-Diddle-Dee NBC hies Alanna Saunders Hellfire NBC sexually Exploits Alanna Saunders breaking promise to represent Indigenous people authentically Savages NbC's Us VS. Them set-up in promotional articles and the response of #NotYourTigerLily post-broadcast Tell Me It's Not True My Response to the Us VS. Them and fallout This is the Thanks I Get NBC's Response to #NotYourTigerLily Your Fault WHo's fault is Ugg-A-Wugg? Mine I made "Ugg-Ugg-Wa mean "I PROMISE" Humiliate The Boy/Invisible My Reponse to Peter Pan Live because people on twitter said Peter can't be played by a woman When I Went Home My feeling Unloved by NBC and My Mom Reflection: Well, If Peter can't be played by a woman anymore, I'm a boy! Monster My White skin harms Indigenous people Tevye's Denial Broadway Horoscopes: Father’s Day (Tevye

@FiddlerBroadway) Edition http://playbill.com/article/broadway-horoscopes-fathers-day-edition…#SondraLee original Tiger Lily #Libra need balance justice & harmony Traditional Ugg-A-Wugg important to her Broadway Horoscope: Siblings (Tzeitel, Hodel, and Chava

@FiddlerBroadway ) Edition http://playbill.com/article/broadway-horoscope-siblings-edition… Free-thinking, progressive and bold, #Aquarius,

@alannasaunders3 you're not afraid to shake up the status quo and try something new. Tradition is all well and good for most, but you are drawn to the path less traveled—much like the three sisters in Fiddler on the Roof, Ugg-A-Wugg is gibberish and must be changed

@alannasaunders3#Aquarius perspective. Playbill’s Broadway Horoscope: Movie Musical (

@FiddlerBroadway fan) Edition http://playbill.com/article/playbills-broadway-horoscope-movie-musical-edition…

@stargreenfan#Cancer value family and community, and easily empathize with the feelings of others. To start off with #JeromeRobbins was the original director of #MaryMartin#PETERPAN AND

@FiddlerBroadway so the stars aligning like that is his doing. I feel compelled to do something (because I Identify with #PETERPAN) to get #SodraLee &

@alannasaunders3 to try to work out their differences with each other!

There was Hope for a Happy Ending until I sent this to Alanna Saunders on Instagram, who deleted it, I know that was babyish and stupid! She shouldn't have to "get over it." I just thought that maybe there could be healing… No Good Deed My Feeling about FAILING at being Peter Pan Tomorrow belongs to Me I used Artistic License to give myself a complete character arc because what good is singing "No Good Deed will I do again!" if character me didn't follow through on that threat. What would be the message/point of the story? My White skin is ALL THAT MATTERS about me, that's DEHUMANIZING!

This is why on New Year I ended up being taken to the hospital in Psychosis! (Which is of course the first time I told my Mom I was a Boy)!)

I moved back in with my Mom, my cat, Zelda, was given away, and I lost my little bit of freedom. I'd have two more Psychotic breaks, the one in 2018 was so embarrassing I don't feel comfortable going into detail, but I got the right diagnosis, Bipolar 1, which led to the right medicine. 

So why tell this story? You don't know who your media impacts.

One more thing;

Broadway Horoscopes: Father’s Day (Tevye

@FiddlerBroadway) Edition http://playbill.com/article/broadway-horoscopes-fathers-day-edition…#SondraLee original Tiger Lily #Libra need balance justice & harmony Traditional Ugg-A-Wugg important to her Broadway Horoscope: Siblings (Tzeitel, Hodel, and Chava

@FiddlerBroadway ) Edition http://playbill.com/article/broadway-horoscope-siblings-edition… Free-thinking, progressive and bold, #Aquarius,

@alannasaunders3 you're not afraid to shake up the status quo and try something new. Tradition is all well and good for most, but you are drawn to the path less traveled—much like the three sisters in Fiddler on the Roof, Ugg-A-Wugg is gibberish and must be changed

@alannasaunders3#Aquarius perspective. Playbill’s Broadway Horoscope: Movie Musical (

@FiddlerBroadway fan) Edition http://playbill.com/article/playbills-broadway-horoscope-movie-musical-edition…

@stargreenfan #Cancer value family and community, and easily empathize with the feelings of others. To start off with #JeromeRobbins was the original director of #MaryMartin#PETERPAN AND

@FiddlerBroadway so the stars aligning like that is his doing. I feel compelled to do something (because I Identify with #PETERPAN) to get #SodraLee &

@alannasaunders3 to try to work out their differences with each other!

There was Hope for a Happy Ending until I sent this to Alanna Saunders on Instagram, who deleted it, I know that was babyish and stupid! She shouldn't have to "get over it." I just thought that maybe there could be healing…

"Peter Pan" was my first Broadway musical, and is one of my favorite musicals besides "The Phantom of the Opera," "Annie," and "Oliver!" When I was six my family and I went to BlockBuster and got the VHS tape of "Peter Pan" my mom had asked me "Do you know a woman named Mary Martin played Peter Pan?" I had seen the Disney version, so a woman playing Peter was special. I liked Peter because he didn't grow up, and he could fly.  I watched the Mary Martin version with my family. My Brother, Sister, Mom, Dad, and me. I LOVED it more than the Disney version. Though we lived out in rural New Mexico I saw it as often as I could, my Mom would make the special trip to get the VHS tape all the way from town.

My siblings loved it too: we played this version of Peter Pan my sister made waves and costumes for all of us to wear. We built the house for Wendy with this toy building set we had and sang the song (I was Wendy though my favorite character was Peter) “Tender Shepherd” was sung after “Rock-a-Bye baby” at bedtime (it worked well because there are three of us and three Darling children.) Of course, my favorite part was the part where you would clap to save Tinkerbell. and it was always magical to see Tinkerbell come back to life. Being as young as I was I assumed Mary could see me through the camera and I would make eye contact with her and form an emotional bond with the woman whose name was read to me every time before the movie started. I couldn’t read then. Of course “Oh my Mysterious Lady” made me laugh my head off. The rescue of Peter by Tiger Lily and the Indians on scooters was also funny, the look on Cyril Ritchard's face is priceless.

Then of course came "Ugg-A-Wug" I had been born with Cerebral Palsy and thus had to go to speech therapy so I assumed I was misunderstanding the characters and tried to understand them. The limits of my six-year-old vocabulary meant that all of the words meant "help" except "Ugg-Ugg-Wah" which meant "I Promise" Jerome Robbins' choreography is the reason I can get the meaning of the words

I went to speech therapy as a kid with Cerebral Palsy,  and the I Gotta Crow (Reprise)  I think resembles that because I had trouble with the “R” sound! Mary Martin was a #TransRoleModel as Peter Pan for me at six years old!  This is really the only thing I remember seeing that was positive and affirming of my disabled identity.

Then my seventh birthday came, and I got my own Mary Martin Peter Pan VHS tape by that time the Cathy Rigby version had come out and my Mom heard about it and got it for me for Christmas. I watched it with almost the entire side of my Dad’s family who was there for Christmas. My sister reminded me of Cathy Rigby, with my CP, my sister seemed like she could do anything. and I  watched both versions on a TV that was above my head. I would look up at women doing what I wanted to do, go to Neverland!  To me a small child they were larger than life and in a way still are. I also felt that I was in love with Mary Martin though at six years old with only exposure to straight romances in children's media coming out was impossible without the language. I also connected strongly with the fact Mary Martin and Cathy Rigby both played a boy. To me it was I can be a boy and a girl at the same time, The basic definition of Genderfluid was shown, taught, and absorbed without the need for the word. "Peter Pan" makes me feel how I want to think in my AFAB-gendered body, which is neutral!

Then my mom decided that we should perform "I Won't Grow Up" in the school talent show because she thought it was cute and funny.  This led to my VHS being taped over because it was always in the VHS player. I cried, of course. My Mom bought me the DVD, which I still have to this day. The VHS getting recorded over turned out to be a good thing. After all, all our VHS tapes got given away because we moved to Alabama.