#proving their lack of racistness by forcing me to judge | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

sometimes-men-need-help-too · 3 years

Note

What does modern feminism do that you don't agree with? This is genuine btw

A couple things before I start:

- This is not meant to bash all the feminists out there unless they fit into what I’m saying. I know there are good feminists out there

- When I say ‘you’ I’m not meaning you, I’m saying it in a general way

-I hope I get my point across and it’s clear. I sometimes struggle with that

Also I’m sorry this is so long and it’s in no particular order and I hope none of this comes across as being aggressive or anything

A lot of my issues with the movement boils down to attitudes. To me, that is very telling of its true colors. And I do try not to necessarily judge an entire movement from just the bad people because I know that isn’t fair, although I do feel like the bad feminists have taken over the movement and end up drowning out the good voices and that’s why we hear more negativity than positivity.

One thing that I have issue with the lack of respect towards those that disagree whether it’s with the movement itself or it’s a particular thing. For a movement that preaches about a woman’s choice, I don’t feel that really happens like it should. I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong here but depending on what the topic is I get a general impression like you’re not really supposed to disagree with what’s being side. You do and you might have someone lash out at you (that’s another point I have). Or if you say you’re anti feminist, you have people coming up with these reasons why they think you are; one being internalized misogyny and you get called a pick-me which I find a bit insulting. I should be able to have an opinion without someone assuming I’m trying to get a man’s attention or I can’t think for myself or I hate other girls. That isn’t it! Wouldn’t you think that is misogynistic?

And if it’s not internalized misogyny, then there are other factors; her being white (which usually then goes on to sound racist) or it’s because she has money or internalized racism or whatever they come up with. And it sounds condescending and that just bugs me. Hey, maybe instead of some underlying reason, we just don’t agree.

or you have people try to stick the label on anyway.

‘If you believe in equality you’re a feminist’

The label means nothing. I don’t understand why some will focus on this so much. I don’t want to be called a feminist. I don’t need to. In the same way, it’s not necessary for me to refer to myself as an MRA (men’s rights activist). And yeah, I know this says it’s an “MRA blog” that’s what I had when I started. But ultimately, the label isn’t important. I’m all for equality. It’s cool, it’s great. But I see this sort of thing (online that is) being forced on people and the thing is, with that wording it makes it sound like the movement is all inclusive when it’s not. You have to have certain politics and for the most part (unless you’re a religious feminist) you have to be pro choice otherwise you’re not a ‘real’ feminist.

My next issue is all the aggression. You can just tell sometimes with how people respond online or if you catch a video that someone posted. And not only that, but how quickly people fall into name-calling or just all around acting like a child. And for the most it seems pretty acceptable to some because it keeps happening. It’s not hard to find on this site or otherwise. If you can’t communicate your opinions about something without having a fit or blocking someone (excluding if they just keep harassing you) then you’re not mature enough. That shows me you don’t really care about having a real discussion. And some can say that it happening on here is probably done by teenagers and to an extent they’re probably right. But it happens on other sites and in real life as well and it’s more than just teens. It’s people my age and older and that’s not cool.

And then we have how some like to ignore the differences between men and women. Sure, yes, there are many things a woman can do just like a man but we also have to acknowledge our differences. I don’t see a lot of that with some forms of feminism. STEM, for example, is something I would attribute the differences more to just how men and women tend to be rather than sexism. Could there be certain circumstances where it is sexism? Sure, I suppose you can’t rule it out entirely. Otherwise I would say it’s just what they’re happy doing. I know girls who are doing science stuff or business things but I also know girls who are going to be teachers or psychologists or nurses. It’s not that they're actively being told by everyone that they can’t do it(I suppose unless they live in some other country like that). That’s just what they want to do, you know, their choice. Just like how some men go towards a job like with computers or farming or they’re pre-school teachers or gynecologists.

I found an interesting fact (source will be posted below) that said women are actually preferred over men two-to-one for faculty positions. The study was done by psychologists from Cornell University with professors from 371 colleges/universities in the US. It also noted that: “recent national census-type studies showing that female Ph.D.s are disproportionately less likely to apply for tenure-track positions, yet when they do they are more likely to be hired, in some science fields approaching the two-to-one ratio revealed by Williams and Ceci.”

Yet, we need to ask ourselves honestly, how often do facts like these get passed around vs the idea that women are suffering from misogyny and therefore are unable to fully represent in STEM jobs?

The next thing I want to address is misandry. Now there are a good portion of people who don't think it exists or if it does, it's really not much of an issue because of the "power" and the "privilege" men have within society. And to me, I have a problem with that. If feminism is supposed to be for men as well, I would think they would want to combat misandry as well as misogyny. If someone really doesn't think it exists, I would suggest that the person really take a look at what goes on in real life and online that's directed towards men.

There's the whole "male tears" thing which is on coffee mugs and t-shirts. There's the kill all men/yes all men thing. All of which are supposed to be jokes and if a man says something about it he gets mocked for his "fragile masculinity"

That's just not okay. They're being immature and a bully which they usually try to justify (men have done this and that throughout history to women) but you just can't.

I found this article, this really really atrocious article. It's one of those open letter things and found on this feminist website (feminisminindia) and I almost believed it to be satire with how.... stereotypically Tumblr it was. I did research and looked at the info regarding the site and nope, it's a serious site. I'll post the article below but I'll also summarize it:

Basically this woman is telling the men in her life that she will not stop saying "men are trash or other radical feminist opinions." She's saying it because women and others have suffered so much at the hands of the patriarchy because they're not straight white men. She goes on to say:

So let’s establish: misandry isn’t real. Just like unicorns and heterophobia, misandry is a myth because it isn’t systematic or systemic. Unlike misogyny, cis men don’t face oppression purely based on their gender. While they may encounter instances of racism, homophobia and ableism, they are not dehumanised as a function of their gender identity (read: cis privilege).

That is wrong. Absolutely wrong. Misandry is real. "Cis" people do face oppression purely based on their gender. Anyone can. To deny that lacks understanding.

And the rest is just saying that: It is time to start hating on men-as-a-whole and starting celebrating the men that you are.

And: Because at the end of the day, feminists need men. Whether it’s because you wield structural power or because we genuinely value your existence, we need to band together to destroy ‘men’ because men are trash, but you, if you made it to the end of this, are probably not. Prove me right.

I would imagine this is a common viewpoint. And it's not a good one. If you genuinely think a whole group as a whole is bad you need to reexamine your thoughts. It's not "men" that are bad, it's the sexist people.

To wrap this up (I'm sure you might be tired of reading this lol); like I said, the attitudes play a huge part of it. Modern feminism, in my opinion, is just not good enough for me to say I agree with it and want to identify as one. I just can't

Here is the link to the feminist article: https://www.google.com/amp/s/feminisminindia.com/2020/09/23/men-are-trash-and-other-radical-feminist-opinions/%3famp

And here is the link for the STEM thing: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/04/women-preferred-21-over-men-stem-faculty-positions

#mens rights #answered asks #i might have overdid this a bit....

23 notes · View notes

wreckofawriter · 4 years

Note

Could I have a male Harry Potter ship? I’m generally a positive, outgoing girl, who’s hates to back down from a challenge. Along with that I love sarcasm and friendly competition. I'm very protective of my friends and family and not afraid to hit back 10x harder. I know what I want in life and I’m not afraid to get it, but I also love to joke around and have fun. Thank you so much!

I ship you with...

Sirius Black!

Enemies to Lovers AU 10000%

Your hatred for Sirius Black started the day that he accused you of being a bully simply becaue you wore green robes

He had made an entire speech in Charms about how all Slytherins were evil, conniving, hate filled, racist assholes. You had tried to ignore him, your really had

Your friend was eyeing you with the 'I swear to god keep your ass in that chair' look but you knew you couldnt just bite your tounge and let him insult you

So you stood up, much to everyone's suprise smiling, you laughed right in his face, laughter so loud and full it stopped the boy in his tracks

You let your laughter taper of and stared him in the eye still smiling, "The fact that you accuse an entire house of people of being sick monsters just proves how ignorant you are Black."

The class was stunned

"Judging me becaue of the color of my robes is pathetic and juvenile, and the fact that you feel the need to put yourself above a fourth of the school simply becaue of a stereotype shows that you are nothing more than an attention seeking asshole with a tiny dick."

"Oo"s and "oh shit"s echoed around you but they all fell silent when Flitwick walked in, oblivious to what had just happened

Sirius had been enraged, mortified and completely humiliated. You had hit him where it hurt. His pride.

Remus agreed with you claiming you were right and Sirius was the idiot for saying things like that.

Sirius claimed his friend was only agreeing with you becaue you were attractive and Remus claimed he was idiot

James and Sirius both made sure to dump heavy artillery into pranking you, they pulled favors, spend a ridiculous amount of money and used hours of their day to create an unexpected and terrible prank

Which you avoided with one (1) charm. Sirius was livid. He was even more furious when you dumped him in foul smelling permanate green paint and having Slytherins sprinkle silver glitter on him the entire day

You yourself had him rooted in place in the hallway and blew glitter straight into his face and throwing human wink which did NOT make his heart skip a beat before walking past with your friends who finished him off with a bucket of the stuff

Sirius woke up screaming that night when he dreamed of silver glitter and your lips

He was absolutely furious with himself, it wasnt his fault you looked so hot being a badass

He pranked you back with a love potion, it was ment to make you fall for him, no he didnt do this because he liked you it was purely for embarrassment

Unfortunately, you ended in love with James for a day and Sirius felt sick to his stomach cutting of the prank early with the antidote and as much as Remus insisted and teased, no he was absolutely not jealous.

But he was when he was forced to watch you make put with some Ravenclaw nerd six tables away form him at the three broomsticks

Remus laughed at him as he bitterly bore holes into the guy you were sitting with, "You're so jealous."

"I am not jealous, stop saying that."

James agreed with Remus. He was most certainly jealous

Sirius could not figure you out. You were so nice to everyone, you helped his brother probably more than he had and yet you seemed to hate him with a passion

Remus pointed put Sirius was never exactly nice to you so he flipped a switch

Suddenly Sirius was flirting with you non stop, instead of throwing back sarcastic insults like he usually did he was throwing pick up lines and complements, you thought he fell and hit his head

Apon the discovery that he had a thing for you you had been appalled, you were so unsure on how to respond that you avoided him all together

Sirius was distraught at the lack of attention he received form you, sure the attention you gave him wasn't all that positive but it was still attention

Finally he cornered you and asked what happend and you ended up spilling some feelings you hands quite worked out yet

You took it slow, you said form the very beginning, you would not be one of the girls fucked for fun, Sirirus promised that was not the case

When you expose to the entire school you were kinda dating there was an uproar, you got completely berated by girls who you didnt even know. You would have dripped him right then if Sirius didn't almost punch a girl defending you

He was very protective as your relationship continued, he never let anyone bad mouth you

He was clingy to, constantly wanting your attention and whining if he didnt get it

He was always holding your hand or had his arm around your waist, he liked to kiss your neck and hug your from behind

You help keep an eye on his brother, making sure he was okay, james warned up to quickly and Remus already liked you

If anyone on the slithering house talked shit about Sirius they better be prepared to throw hands, because you dont let that happen

You guys are so disruptive in class that you spend quite a few dates in detention

Teacher fear classes where you are together and fear ones with you two plus Lucious even more becaue it is always a fight, mostly verbal, occasionally physical

Sirius struggles with emotions and you let him, you want to help but arnt sure how so you love him time a nd space when he needs it, letting him know he isnt pressure into dating or doing anything

He shows he loves you constantly though, he never fails to make you laugh or smile even if you're about to cry

(Not edited) Thank you so much for your lovely complements btw! <3

#harry potter #harry potter imagines #harry potter au #harry potter imagine #sirius black x reader #sirius black imagine #sirius black imagines #sirius black #harry potter ships #harry potter fanfiction #harry potter x reader #sirius #sirius imagine

68 notes · View notes

an-avid-reader · 4 years

Photo

The Hate U Give - Angie Thomas

my rating: 5/5 stars

On the night of a party gone wrong in Garden Heights, or “the hood”, Starr and her childhood best friend, Khalil, drive away only to be stopped by a white police officer. Khalil, unarmed, gets shot right in front of Starr’s eyes. Alas, Starr’s worlds—Garden Heights and Williamson, a predominantly white prep school—collide as word of Khalil’s death spreads and she is the only witness. Will Starr be able to bring justice to Khalil via riot and protests, or will he be remembered as a drug dealer and a thug?

"Funny how it works with white kids though. It's dope to be black until it's hard to be black"

Link to Goodreads || Spoiler-free review

A few things to check out:

Dear White People (Netflix)

When They See Us (Netflix)

Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race (Book)

A list of places to donate to / one YT video if you’re unable to donate

Here’s a post that is much more comprehensive

let me know if any of the links don’t work, I will update them :)

There’s a reason why this book has quite a few awards on the front—this book covers what some may consider a “taboo” topic aka racism, but it’s an issue. I’m writing this review slightly earlier than before I’m posting it, but right now the current news is about George Floyd’s death, which is arguably more brutal than what happened in this book, but the fact that some police officers still think race has something to do with one’s intentions is outrageous and disgusting. Even in Canada, there have been instances of racism across history (spoiler: Canada isn’t a ‘saint nation’, even though the population is very diverse).

For these reasons, I think this book, while it is triggering, I think it should be fit into the curriculum for students to read so that they may be educated on racism, and how it can literally kill others, as well as to try and dismantle the systematic racism that is imposed on us from a young age. I can never sit here and tell you that I can experience what Starr went through (or what any POC—black or otherwise—has ever been through), I can only educate myself and emphasize with what’s been said/done to you—please call me out if I’ve said something that may be offensive and feel free to correct me if I’ve said anything wrong.

Alright now on with the book review! This book is so raw and powerful, Thomas does a great job of describing the scenes and the emotions Starr goes through during each scene. We get to see how she feels about dating a white boy while being black herself, how her neighbourhood is beautiful despite it being described as the hood, we also get to see how Starr’s demeanor completely changes while she’s at school vs when she’s visiting her family. While Thomas’ writing may be simple, she does a great job of capturing those moments and the emotions tied within the scene.

As we get to see Starr becoming a witness and taking legal action, I wasn’t sure where the story was headed. Would Khalil get justice and would the cop go to jail? How would Starr’s mental health be affected? Will her family be okay? (Don’t you just love it when there’s so much more conflict in the story that needs to be resolved and yet there are only 2 chapters left) Etc. etc. The thing about The Hate U Give is that there are multiple story lines, which help to drive the story forwards. Those plotlines didn’t feel out of place or forced—everything seemed to progress at a reasonable pace.

I feel like one of the key parts of this story are the characters and their dynamics to the story. The most obvious being between Starr and her family. Although Starr has her own secrets that she keeps from her dad (*cough cough* Chris *cough cough*), I feel like they still have a strong bond, especially as the story went on and her dad, Maverick, stood behind Starr, even when things went south. (I could also 100% relate to Starr bickering with her brothers—even her half-brother). Then there’s Chris, which I kinda feel weird about him...which I feel like it’s a spoiler so I’ll talk about it under the cut. Overall, I’m glad that while he doesn’t understand what Starr has been through, he doesn’t judge her—he listens to her story and he also stays by Starr’s side at all times. I appreciate that Thomas didn’t put too much focus on the romance, otherwise I think it would’ve detracted from the main message. Finally, there are Starr friends. Even though we only got to know Khalil for a bit at the beginning, I like that Starr’s friendship with him was sprinkled throughout the story, even if it was in subtle ways. You could tell that, while their friendship may have fallen apart, Starr really cared for him and he was at the forefront of her mind. We also get to see Maya and Haliey’s friendship with Starr...and I can’t talk much about that without spoilers :/ let’s just say...it was interesting…

While I can’t exactly relate to Starr on an emotional/traumatic/life experience level, I love that we are both Harry Potter fans and she runs a Tumblr (which idk why but I’m always taken aback when books have Tumblrs?? Yet here we are). I appreciate that she tries to see the best in people, until they prove her wrong (or give her a reason to not like them). I think Starr is a strong role model in the sense that she stands up for herself and is determined to get justice, although she’s not cocky about it. It’s quite the opposite, she doubts herself—I just remember that there were so many parts where she blamed herself for not recalling every single detail of the incident or not putting emphasis on the type of person Khalil was to avoid him getting stereotyped. Starr also questioned her relationship with Chris, albeit she seemed a bit naive at some points. Because of Starr’s strong personality and her core values, the message of The Hate U Give is so much stronger, hence why I feel like everyone should read this novel.

Finally, I learned a lot from this novel. Regardless of the fact that this is a fictional book, it is very much based on the realities of Black people and the hardships they must endure on a daily basis. To be honest, I feel so dumb for not even realizing that the title spells out THUG and runs parallel with Tupac’s meaning of THUG LIFE. Mind you, now when I look at the cover, it’s all I see. I also didn’t realize that Black kids and teens are taught how to act around the police—all to be avoided to get arrested, shot, or killed—which is frankly, messed up. Thomas also takes the time to address the names she used, intentionally to give another layer of the book, which I feel that it is based on reality. I can definitely see why this book has received so many awards—and if this book were implemented in schools, it would allow the discussion on racism to be opened and it would also allow kids to see that not all authors are white, old men (looking at you, Shakespeare, which tbh the only good play I read was Macbeth).

I wanted to thank you for reading my review; if you’ve read this book, I’d love to know your thoughts. Below the cut, I have a spoiler section that I wanted to include (which I might add in future reviews, idk though).

Please stay safe and healthy,

~ Cassandra / an-avid-reader

THE REMAINDER OF THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS

Okay, I’m not going to lie, but I thought that no one knew about Chris; didn’t Starr mention within the first few chapters that she can’t introduce him to her family because she’s afraid of what they’ll say/judge her for dating a white boy? But then, it turns out it’s just her dad that doesn’t know about him??? Idk if my memory is really that bad or if it’s such a slim detail (maybe it actually is an inconsistency o.O). But anyways, I love how Maverick was just playing with him (and making it clear that Chris would be in big trouble if he hurt Starr). I’m also not sure if he has a fetish for Black women (which Starr also pointed that out)—which I don’t know how to feel about that. I know some people have a thing for people of colour (Asians are commonly a fetish too, for example) but then some guys also have a thing for super short girls? Um yeah. I’ll probably leave it at that.

I’m not sure if it was just me, but I deadass thought Seven was going to be a gangbanger. He was sooooo suspicious anytime King was mentioned (which I get King is with Seven’s biological mom, but still I can’t be the only one who was suspicious, right?). I have to give him props though for putting his sisters’ needs before his own and for also listening to Iesha’s point of view. This man doesn’t give on people easily, and that’s a nice change.

The last thing I wanted to include in this spoiler section is Haliey. I just— wtf man. She perfectly embodies the issue and idk she gave me such Karen vibes. It’s so frustrating that she just accepted the newspaper’s article story at face value—I don’t even think she even took the time to listen to the other point of view. I’m so glad that Starr punched her in the face, even though that resulted in her getting in trouble. And it’s not even towards just Starr that she was racist! When Maya opened up about Haliey’s comments, I was pretty infuriated. I think Haliey’s comments came from a place of ignorance or a lack of education, but it just bothered me that she just brushed it off. Smh “it was just a joke” or “get over it” *rolls eyes* Just apologize, Haliey, and educate yourself, please. Actually, maybe she could take lessons from Mr. Warren, their english teacher because he was lowkey a G. I was pleased to see he was a teacher (who are often seen as role models) that actually gave a crap about Starr and what she was going through. I guess we just need to be more attentive to what people have to say and be more empathetic when they’re hurt.

#just one more ~ queue #book review #the hate u give #angie thomas #blm #black awareness #booklr #reading #read #favourite

31 notes · View notes

makeroomforthejolyghost · 4 years

Text

this started off as navelgazing about a line from a book, then turned into an anxious rant about current events

“Inborn in nearly every artist is a tendency to accept injustice if it creates beauty” (Death in Venice, 21). well, idk about inborn, bc i had to go out of my way to shed the opposite tendency, but i do think it’s true that this mentality is necessary for… art and also other kinds of thought, anything where you need unfettered curiosity. but the painting of it as a vice interests me lately, because i’m starting to think i may have gone too far in this direction? the quoted line speaks to an assumption that indignation is a thing you should practice whenever relevant so you don’t lose it. that if something strikes you as unfair, you should always prioritize that impression over everything else you might notice about the situation that provokes that response. in this scene, that even though it’s not clear how it would help anyone for aschenbach to disapprove of this family’s treatment of the three daughters, it’s still a vice for him to brush it aside because he likes watching the son whose personality he thinks results from this favoritism.

i think we assume this because we fear that failing to deplore an instance of injustice when we see it makes us complicit? which, in and of itself, is clearly not true; that’s just thoughtcrime. like: unless you maintain that it’s his responsibility to tell the parents off, or to do something nice for the girls to compensate,* there’s no reason to view aschenbach’s feeling of “yeah well that sucks but it’s interesting to watch” as any worse than thinking “those terrible parents! how dare they deprive three out of four of their kids in this way”? bc there’s no consequential difference.

but. i think… maybe there is something to be said for cultivating this habit? because, at least for me, this kinda has led to a sort of complacency, a feeling that it’s not my place to judge people (or that there’s nothing i can do to fix injustice when i see it, but mostly the first thing: i tend to assume i don’t know enough about other people’s situations to judge, much less to try to correct or advise people). and that’s true??? like, in part i think this mental habit must have grown out of the axiom not to give medical advice to chronically ill people. i… have a tendency to internalize advice across the board, rather than situationally. i.e., to take this as meaning, “people know more about their own problems than you do,” and also, as meaning, “they’re already doing their best; nobody fails on purpose.” and generalizing that to situations where the “failure” is one of cruelty rather than of just not being as healthy/happy as it seems to you people should be. like: i have rooted out just-world hypothesis so thoroughly, i have so much contempt for that “obviously it’s possible to be better” mentality, that i apply it even when what i see looks to me like. someone being mean to their children. and to a certain extent this seems right to me??? like, parents fearing everyone around them thinks they’re evil because their kid is crying, when really all they deprived this poor child of is a piece of candy she found on the floor, is a real thing, and, i honestly cannot think of a time when i’ve seen a parent say or do something harsh to their child where something like this couldn’t easily have been the explanation. plus, the possibility they might take it out on their children still exists!

but i think maybe the specifics here are confusing the question? either that or the question is so abstract/fake that it’s not one i need to answer. so here: the root of my anxiety is this: i sometimes worry there’s something wrong with me because i’m not obsessed with the BLM protests going on, or at least, not in the way so many people imply i should be. it’s not that i lack empathy for the victims?—i do tear up when i think too hard about george floyd, or that man with the food cart who used to serve the cops for free. it’s just… that this sense of injustice doesn’t lead to any conviction. i don’t feel the righteousness of the protests; i’m detached enough to wonder intellectually about their effectiveness. although?? i guess that’s not wholly true either, because when i first heard about them my very first thought was “OH GOD NO NOT THIS AGAIN! YOU’RE ALL GONNA GET KILLED!”—a combination of fear at what might (…would, from today’s perspective) happen to the people involved, and dismay at the knowledge i was going to have to perform supportiveness about it.

for the record: i do think police brutality is evil, and that the police are corrupt and overpowered and groomed to be racist; also, from what i’ve heard, the protests have helped create a lot of policy changes, so from that standpoint i guess i support them. or, at least, congratulate them on a job well done. but: i think holding protests during a pandemic is fucking insane, especially since the thing protestors demand a stop to is unnecessary death. people keep telling me this is a crucial moment for the black community, and i think that at this point that’s true, but, afaik there’s no good strategic reason we can point to for why it had to be now, and i don’t like… well ok, let me start again. i wouldn’t mind having to say “yeah, well, straw that broke the camel’s back,” if i didn’t feel like that excuse precluded all criticism of the protests’ timing.** in my own life, when i reflect on times in my life when i’ve done things whose consequences i regret, i often have to conclude that under the circumstances i can’t have expected anything better from myself. but i still get to say i shouldn’t have done that. maybe i’m being greedy with my cake here, i just. ugh. it just pisses me off, the hypocrisy about covid, because the whole point of lockdowns and social distancing &c. was that no one person’s or group’s interests outweigh the risks to the human race at large. but now it’s apparently more important for even the unaffected members of said human race to stand in solidarity with the minorities who are affected by this latest crisis--as in, literally stand there, in public, right next to them, even if that means that two weeks later they come down with the plague. like?? you can’t even say “but this is a matter of life and death”! because covid is an even wider-reaching matter of life and death!!!!

also, the most common justification i hear is that the number of horrible things we’ve seen the police inflict on protestors proves we need to keep protesting. and politically speaking that does seem to be working? but IT’S STILL KIND OF FUCKING GHOULISH to hear that we as a nation have a responsibility to give the cops more opportunities to kill innocent people. like. i can intellectually say “yes, you’re right, i think it’s working,” but i can’t seem to feel that as a duty or a righteous cause.

…what was my point again? oh right: that i worry this makes me a Bad Person, or at least that everyone around me would think i was a Bad Person if i told them how i felt. and that i specifically worry my emotions are wrong, because i should be having… the kind of patriotism proust talks about (though for BLM and the left &c. rather than for america itself, obviously), but instead i’m like “aaagh ok fine if you have to but GOD I WISH THIS WOULD STOP.” and apparently, wanting it to stop means siding with the oppressors. and i guess… god, do you know what it is? honestly, i’m so short-sighted that a return to the status quo does sound better to me than this chaos. i don’t disbelieve people who assert that only a bitter fight like this can force change? intellectually i think maybe that’s true. but emotionally, i hate it, and on an animal level i don’t really believe it. the animal in me believes only that positive change is slow and unsatisfying, regardless of how you accomplish it.

*both of which seem to me Too Risky because option a might end with their harassing the girls over it (e.g., “this stranger over here thinks you’re being mistreated. if he only knew you like i do…!”), while option b, coming from an older, solitary man, might strike both the girls and their parents as a creepy, lecherous thing, in which case the girls might view it as insulting or even traumatizing rather than as a favor to them.

**especially the timing of protests like the one in my own town last weekend. they marched to the city police station--even though the one widely-known violent incident in our town in the last decade was perpetrated by the university police department--on, afaict, general ACAB principle. my friend who attended says the anger felt real, not just like a performance, but they weren’t agitating for any concrete changes here, you know?? so idg why it was worth infecting people.

1 note · View note

blackfreethinkers · 4 years

Link

Robert bowers wanted everyone to know why he did it.

“I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered,” he posted on the social-media network Gab shortly before allegedly entering the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh on October 27 and gunning down 11 worshippers. He “wanted all Jews to die,” he declared while he was being treated for his wounds. Invoking the specter of white Americans facing “genocide,” he singled out HIAS, a Jewish American refugee-support group, and accused it of bringing “invaders in that kill our people.” Then–Attorney General Jeff Sessions, announcing that Bowers would face federal charges, was unequivocal in his condemnation: “These alleged crimes are incomprehensibly evil and utterly repugnant to the values of this nation.”

The pogrom in Pittsburgh, occurring just days before the 80th anniversary of Kristallnacht, seemed fundamentally un-American to many. Sessions’s denunciation spoke to the reality that most Jews have found a welcome home in the United States. His message also echoed what has become an insistent refrain in the Donald Trump era. Americans want to believe that the surge in white-supremacist violence and recruitment—the march in Charlottesville, Virginia, where neo-Nazis chanted “Jews will not replace us”; the hate crimes whose perpetrators invoke the president’s name as a battle cry—has no roots in U.S. soil, that it is racist zealotry with a foreign pedigree and marginal allure.

The president’s rhetoric about “shithole countries” invites dismissal as crude talk, but behind it lie ideas whose power should not be underestimated. Warnings from conservative pundits on Fox News about the existential threat facing a country overrun by immigrants meet with a similar response. “Massive demographic changes,” Laura Ingraham has proclaimed, mean that “the America we know and love doesn’t exist anymore” in much of the country: Surely this kind of rhetoric reflects mere ignorance. Or it’s just a symptom of partisan anxiety about what those changes may portend for Republicans’ electoral prospects. As for the views and utterances of someone like Congressman Steve King (“We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies”), such sentiments are treated as outlandish extremism, best ignored as much as possible.

The concept of “white genocide”—extinction under an onslaught of genetically or culturally inferior nonwhite interlopers—may indeed seem like a fringe conspiracy theory with an alien lineage, the province of neo-Nazis and their fellow travelers. In popular memory, it’s a vestige of a racist ideology that the Greatest Generation did its best to scour from the Earth. History, though, tells a different story. King’s recent question, posed in a New York Times interview, may be appalling: “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization—how did that language become offensive?” But it is apt. “That language” has an American past in need of excavation. Without such an effort, we may fail to appreciate the tenacity of the dogma it expresses, and the difficulty of eradicating it. The president’s rhetoric about “shithole countries” and “invasion” by immigrants invites dismissal as crude talk, but behind it lie ideas whose power should not be underestimated.

The seed of Nazism’s ultimate objective—the preservation of a pure white race, uncontaminated by foreign blood—was in fact sown with striking success in the United States. What is judged extremist today was once the consensus of a powerful cadre of the American elite, well-connected men who eagerly seized on a false doctrine of “race suicide” during the immigration scare of the early 20th century. They included wealthy patricians, intellectuals, lawmakers, even several presidents. Perhaps the most important among them was a blue blood with a very impressive mustache, Madison Grant. He was the author of a 1916 book called The Passing of the Great Race, which spread the doctrine of race purity all over the globe.

Grant’s purportedly scientific argument that the exalted “Nordic” race that had founded America was in peril, and all of modern society’s accomplishments along with it, helped catalyze nativist legislators in Congress to pass comprehensive restrictionist immigration policies in the early 1920s. His book went on to become Adolf Hitler’s “bible,” as the führer wrote to tell him. Grant’s doctrine has since been rejuvenated and rebranded by his ideological descendants as “white genocide” (the term genocide hadn’t yet been coined in Grant’s day). In an introduction to the 2013 edition of another of Grant’s works, the white nationalist Richard Spencer warns that “one possible outcome of the ongoing demographic transformation is a thoroughly miscegenated, and thus homogeneous and ‘assimilated,’ nation, which would have little resemblance to the White America that came before it.” This language is vintage Grant.

Most Americans, however, quickly forgot who Grant was—but not because the country had grappled with his vision’s dangerous appeal and implications. Reflexive recoil was more like it: When Nazism reflected back that vision in grotesque form, wartime denial set in. Jonathan Peter Spiro, a historian and the author of Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant (2009), described the backlash to me this way: “Even though the Germans had been directly influenced by Madison Grant and the American eugenics movement, when we fought Germany, because Germany was racist, racism became unacceptable in America. Our enemy was racist; therefore we adopted antiracism as our creed.” Ever since, a strange kind of historical amnesia has obscured the American lineage of this white-nationalist ideology.

Madison grant came from old money. Born in Manhattan seven months after Robert E. Lee surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox, he attended Yale and then Columbia Law School. He was an outdoorsman and a conservationist, knowledgeable about wildlife and interested in the dangers of extinction, expertise that he soon became intent on applying to humanity. When he opened a law practice on Wall Street in the early 1890s, the wave of immigration from southern and eastern Europe was nearing its height. “As he was jostled by Greek ragpickers, Armenian bootblacks, and Jewish carp vendors, it was distressingly obvious to him that the new arrivals did not know this nation’s history or understand its republican form of government,” Spiro writes in his biography.

Jews troubled Grant the most. “The man of the old stock,” he later wrote in The Passing of the Great Race, is being “driven off the streets of New York City by the swarms of Polish Jews.” But as the title of his 1916 work indicated, Grant’s fear of dispossession ran wide and deep:

These immigrants adopt the language of the native American, they wear his clothes, they steal his name, and they are beginning to take his women, but they seldom adopt his religion or understand his ideals and while he is being elbowed out of his own home the American looks calmly abroad and urges on others the suicidal ethics which are exterminating his own race. Grant was not the first proponent of “race science.” In 1853, across the Atlantic, Joseph Arthur de Gobineau, a French count, first identified the “Aryan” race as “great, noble, and fruitful in the works of man on this earth.” Half a century later, as the eugenics movement gathered force in the U.S., “experts” began dividing white people into distinct races. In 1899, William Z. Ripley, an economist, concluded that Europeans consisted of “three races”: the brave, beautiful, blond “Teutons”; the stocky “Alpines”; and the swarthy “Mediterraneans.” Another leading academic contributor to race science in turn-of-the-century America was a statistician named Francis Walker, who argued in The Atlantic that the new immigrants lacked the pioneer spirit of their predecessors; they were made up of “beaten men from beaten races,” whose offspring were crowding out the fine “native” stock of white people. In 1901 the sociologist Edward A. Ross, who similarly described the new immigrants as “masses of fecund but beaten humanity from the hovels of far Lombardy and Galicia,” coined the term race suicide.

Grant blended Nordic boosterism with fearmongering, and supplied a scholarly veneer for notions many white citizens already wanted to believe. But it was Grant who synthesized these separate strands of thought into one pseudo-scholarly work that changed the course of the nation’s history. In a nod to wartime politics, he referred to Ripley’s “Teutons” as “Nordics,” thereby denying America’s hated World War I rivals exclusive claim to descent from the world’s master race. He singled out Jews as a source of anxiety disproportionate to their numbers, subscribing to a belief that has proved durable. The historian Nell Irvin Painter sums up the race chauvinists’ view in The History of White People (2010): “Jews manipulate the ignorant working masses—whether Alpine, Under-Man, or colored.” In The Passing of the Great Race, the eugenic focus on winnowing out unfit individuals made way for a more sweeping crusade to defend against contagion by inferior races. By Grant’s logic, infection meant obliteration:

The cross between a white man and an Indian is an Indian; the cross between a white man and a Negro is a Negro; the cross between a white man and a Hindu is a Hindu; and the cross between any of the three European races and a Jew is a Jew. What Grant’s work lacked in scientific rigor, it made up for in canny packaging. He blended Nordic boosterism with fearmongering, and supplied a scholarly veneer for notions many white citizens already wanted to believe. Americans’ gauzy idealism blinded them, he argued, to the reality that newcomers from the Mediterranean and eastern Europe—to say nothing of anyone from Asia or Africa—could never hope to possess the genetic potential innate in the nation’s original Nordic inhabitants, which was the source of the nation’s greatness. Grant gleefully challenged foundational ideas:

We Americans must realize that the altruistic ideals which have controlled our social development during the past century and the maudlin sentimentalism that has made America “an asylum for the oppressed,” are sweeping the nation toward a racial abyss. If the Melting Pot is allowed to boil without control and we continue to follow our national motto and deliberately blind ourselves to all “distinctions of race, creed or color,” the type of native American of Colonial descent will become as extinct as the Athenian of the age of Pericles, and the Viking of the days of Rollo. His thesis found eager converts among the American elite, thanks in no small part to his extensive social connections. The New York Times and The Nation were among the many media outlets that echoed Grant’s reasoning. Teddy Roosevelt, by then out of office, told Grant in 1916 that his book showed “fine fearlessness in assailing the popular and mischievous sentimentalities and attractive and corroding falsehoods which few men dare assail.” In a major speech in Alabama in 1921, President Warren Harding publicly praised one of Grant’s disciples, Lothrop Stoddard, whose book The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy offered similar warnings about the destruction of white society by invading dusky hordes. There is “a fundamental, eternal, inescapable difference” between the races, Harding told his audience. “Racial amalgamation there cannot be.”

Harding’s vice president and successor, Calvin Coolidge, found Grant’s thesis equally compelling. “There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside for any sentimental reasons. Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend,” Coolidge wrote in a 1921 article in Good Housekeeping.

The Nordics propagate themselves successfully. With other races, the outcome shows deterioration on both sides. Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.

Endorsing Grant’s idea that true Americans are of Nordic stock, Coolidge also took up his idea that intermarriage between whites of different “races,” not just between whites and nonwhites, degrades that stock.

Perhaps the most important of Grant’s elite admirers were to be found among members of Congress. Reconstruction struggles; U.S. expansion in the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii; high levels of immigration—each had raised the specter of white people losing political power and influence to nonwhite people, or to the wrong kind of white people. On Capitol Hill debate raged, yet Republicans and Democrats were converging on the idea that America was a white man’s country, and must stay that way. The influx of foreigners diluted the nation with inferiors unfit for self-government, many politicians in both parties energetically concurred. The Supreme Court chimed in with decisions in a series of cases, beginning in 1901, that assigned the status of “nationals” rather than “citizens” to colonial newcomers.

A popular myth of American history is that racism is the exclusive province of the South. The truth is that much of the nativist energy in the U.S. came from old-money elites in the Northeast, and was also fueled by labor struggles in the Pacific Northwest, which had stirred a wave of bigotry that led to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Grant found a congressional ally and champion in Albert Johnson, a Republican representative from Washington. A nativist and union buster, he contacted Grant after reading The Passing of the Great Race. The duo embarked on an ambitious restrictionist agenda.

As the eugenics movement gathered force in the U.S., “experts” began dividing white people into distinct races. In 1917, overriding President Woodrow Wilson’s veto, Congress passed a law that banned immigration not just from Asian but also from Middle Eastern countries and imposed a literacy test on new immigrants. When the Republicans took control of the House in 1919, Johnson became chair of the committee on immigration, “thanks to some shrewd lobbying by the Immigration Restriction League,” Spiro writes. Grant introduced him to a preeminent eugenicist named Harry Laughlin, whom Johnson named the committee’s “expert eugenics agent.” His appointment helped ensure that Grantian concerns about “race suicide” would be a driving force in a quest that culminated, half a decade later, in the Immigration Act of 1924.

Johnson found a patrician ally in Senator David Reed of Pennsylvania, who sponsored the 1924 bill in the Senate. A Princeton-educated lawyer, he feared that America was going the way of Rome, where the “inpouring of captives and alien slaves” had caused the empire to sink “into an impotency which made her the prey of every barbarian invader.” This was almost verbatim Grant, whose portrait of Rome’s fall culminated in the lowly immigrants “gradually occupying the country and literally breeding out their former masters.” (His plotline helped him preserve the notion that fair-haired and -skinned people are responsible for all the world’s great achievements: Rome’s original inhabitants were Nordic, but contemporary Italians were descendants of Roman slave races and therefore inferior.)

Grant’s slippery pseudoscience also met with significant resistance. The anthropologist Franz Boas, himself of German Jewish descent, led the way in poking holes in Grantian notions of Nordic superiority, writing in The New Republic in 1917 that “the supposed scientific data on which the author’s conclusions are based are dogmatic assumptions which cannot endure criticism.” Meanwhile, the Supreme Court was struggling mightily to define whiteness in a consistent fashion, an endeavor complicated by the empirical flimsiness of race science. In one case after another, the high court faced the task of essentially tailoring its definition to exclude those whom white elites considered unworthy of full citizenship.

In 1923, when an Indian veteran named Bhagat Singh Thind—who had fought for the U.S. in World War I—came before the justices with the claim of being Caucasian in the scientific sense of the term, and therefore entitled to the privileges of whiteness, they threw up their hands. In a unanimous ruling against Thind (who was ultimately made a citizen in 1936), Justice George Sutherland wrote:

What we now hold is that the words “free white persons” are words of common speech to be interpreted in accordance with the understanding of the common man, synonymous with the word “Caucasian” only as that word is popularly understood.

The justices had unwittingly acknowledged a consistent truth about racism, which is that race is whatever those in power say it is.

As the Immigration Act of 1924 neared passage, some in the restrictionist camp played up Grant’s signature Nordic theme more stridently than others. Addison Smith, a Republican congressman from Idaho, proudly invoked the Scandinavian, English, Irish, and other northern-European immigrants of his district, highlighting that among them were no “ ‘slackers’ of the type to be found in the cities of the East. We have ample room, but no space for such parasites.” Johnson was prepared to be coy in the face of opposition from other legislators—mostly those from districts with large numbers of non-northern European immigrants—who railed against the Nordic-race doctrine. “The fact that it is camouflaged in a maze of statistics,” protested Representative Meyer Jacobstein, a Democrat from New York, “will not protect this Nation from the evil consequences of such an unscientific, un-American, and wicked philosophy.”

“A fundamental, eternal, inescapable difference” exists between the races, President Harding publicly declared. “Racial amalgamation there cannot be.” On the House floor in April 1924, Johnson cagily—but only temporarily—distanced himself from Grant. “As regards the charge … that this committee has started out deliberately to establish a blond race … let me say that such a charge is all in your eye. Your committee is not the author of any of these books on the so-called Nordic race,” he declared. “I insist, my friends, there is neither malice nor hatred in this bill.”

Once passage of the act was assured, however, motives no longer needed disguising. Grant felt his life’s work had come to fruition and, according to Spiro, he concluded, “We have closed the doors just in time to prevent our Nordic population being overrun by the lower races.” Senator Reed announced in a New York Times op-ed, “The racial composition of America at the present time thus is made permanent.” Three years later, in 1927, Johnson held forth in dire but confident tones in a foreword to a book about immigration restriction. “Our capacity to maintain our cherished institutions stands diluted by a stream of alien blood, with all its inherited misconceptions respecting the relationships of the governing power to the governed,” he warned. “The United States is our land … We intend to maintain it so. The day of unalloyed welcome to all peoples, the day of indiscriminate acceptance of all races, has definitely ended.”

“It was america that taught us a nation should not open its doors equally to all nations,” Adolf Hitler told The New York Times half a decade later, just one year before his elevation to chancellor in January 1933. Elsewhere he admiringly noted that the U.S. “simply excludes the immigration of certain races. In these respects America already pays obeisance, at least in tentative first steps, to the characteristic völkisch conception of the state.” Hitler and his followers were eager to claim a foreign—American—lineage for the Nazi mission.

In part, this was spin, an attempt to legitimize fascism. But Grant and his fellow pioneers in racist pseudoscience did help the Nazis justify to their own populations, and to other countries’ governments, the mission they were on—as one of Grant’s key accomplices was proud to acknowledge. According to Spiro, Harry Laughlin, the scientific expert on Representative Johnson’s committee, told Grant that the Nazis’ rhetoric sounds “exactly as though spoken by a perfectly good American eugenist,” and wrote that “Hitler should be made honorary member of the Eugenics Research Association.”

He wasn’t, but some of the American eugenicists whose work helped pave the way for the racist immigration laws of the 1920s received recognition in Germany. The Nazis gave Laughlin an honorary doctorate from Heidelberg University in 1936. Henry Fairfield Osborn, who had written the introduction to The Passing of the Great Race, received one from Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in 1934. Leon Whitney, another of Grant’s fellow travelers, evidently received a personal thank-you letter from Hitler after sending the führer a copy of his 1934 book, The Case for Sterilization. In 1939, even after World War II began, Spiro writes, Lothrop Stoddard, whom President Harding had praised in his 1921 diatribe against race-mixing, visited Nazi Germany and later wrote that the Third Reich was “weeding out the worst strains in the Germanic stock in a scientific and truly humanitarian way.”

What the Nazis “found exciting about the American model didn’t involve just eugenics,” observes James Q. Whitman, a professor at Yale Law School and the author of Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law (2017). “It also involved the systematic degradation of Jim Crow, of American deprivation of basic rights of citizenship like voting.” Nazi lawyers carefully studied how the United States, despite its pretense of equal citizenship, had effectively denied that status to those who were not white. They looked at Supreme Court decisions that withheld full citizenship rights from nonwhite subjects in U.S. colonial territories. They examined cases that drew, as Thind’s had, arbitrary but hard lines around who could be considered “white.”

The Nazis reviewed the infamous “one-drop rule,” which defined anyone with any trace of African blood as black, and “found American law on mongrelization too harsh to be embraced by the Third Reich.” At the same time, Heinrich Krieger, whom Whitman describes as “the single most important figure in the Nazi assimilation of American race law,” considered the Fourteenth Amendment a problem: In his view, it codified an abstract ideal of equality at odds with human experience, and with the type of country most Americans wanted to live in.

Grant, emphasizing the American experience in particular, agreed. In The Passing of the Great Race, he had argued that

the view that the Negro slave was an unfortunate cousin of the white man, deeply tanned by the tropic sun and denied the blessings of Christianity and civilization, played no small part with the sentimentalists of the Civil War period, and it has taken us fifty years to learn that speaking English, wearing good clothes and going to school and to church do not transform a Negro into a white man. The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment, he believed, had failed to see a greater truth as they made good on the promise of the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal: The white man is more equal than the others.

Grant’s final project, Spiro writes, was an effort to organize a hunting expedition with Hermann Goering, the commander in chief of the Nazi air force who went on to become Hitler’s chosen successor. Grant died in May 1937, before the outing was to take place. A year and a half later, Kristallnacht signaled the official beginning of the Holocaust.

America has always grappled with, in the words of the immigration historian John Higham, two “rival principles of national unity.” According to one, the U.S. is the champion of the poor and the dispossessed, a nation that draws its strength from its pluralism. According to the other, America’s greatness is the result of its white and Christian origins, the erosion of which spells doom for the national experiment.

People of both political persuasions like to tell a too-simple story about the course of this battle: World War II showed Americans the evil of racism, which was vanquished in the 1960s. The Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act brought nonwhites into the American polity for good. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 forever banished the racial definition of American identity embodied in the 1924 immigration bill, forged by Johnson and Reed in their crusade to save Nordic Americans from “race suicide.”

The truth is that the rivalry never ended, and Grantism, despite its swift wartime eclipse, did not become extinct. The Nazis, initially puzzled by U.S. hostility, underestimated the American commitment to democracy. As the Columbia historian Ira Katznelson writes in Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time (2013), the South remained hawkish toward Nazi Germany because white supremacists in the U.S. didn’t want to live under a fascist government. What they wanted was a herrenvolk democracy, in which white people were free and full citizens but nonwhites were not.

“It was America that taught us that a nation should not open its doors equally to all nations,” Hitler told The New York Times. The Nazis failed to appreciate the significance of that ideological tension. They saw allegiance to the American creed as a weakness. But U.S. soldiers of all backgrounds and faiths fought to defend it, and demanded that their country live up to it. Their valor helped defeat first the Nazis, and then the American laws that the Nazis had so admired. What the Nazis saw as a weakness turned out to be a strength, and it destroyed them.

Yet historical amnesia, the excision of the memory of how the seed of racism in America blossomed into the Third Reich in Europe, has allowed Grantism to be resurrected with a new name. In the conflict between the Trump administration and its opponents, those rival American principles of exclusion and pluralism confront each other more starkly than they have since Grant’s own time. And the ideology that has gained ground under Trump may well not disappear when Trump does. Grant’s philosophical framework has found new life among extremists at home and abroad, and echoes of his rhetoric can be heard from the Republican base and the conservative media figures the base trusts, as well as—once again—in the highest reaches of government.

The resurrection of race suicide as white genocide can be traced to the white supremacist David Lane, who claimed that “the term ‘racial integration’ is only a euphemism for genocide,” and whose infamous “fourteen words” manifesto, published in the 1990s, distills his credo: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” Far-right intellectuals in Europe speak of “the great replacement” of Europeans by nonwhite immigrants and refugees.

In the corridors of American power, Grant’s legacy is evident. Jeff Sessions heartily praised the 1924 immigration law during an interview with Steve Bannon, Trump’s former campaign chief. Bannon regularly invokes what has become a cult text among white nationalists, the 1973 dystopian French novel The Camp of the Saints, in which the “white world” is annihilated by mass immigration. Stephen Miller, a former Senate aide to Sessions and now among the president’s top policy advisers, spent years warning from his perch in Sessions’s office that immigration from Muslim countries was a greater threat than immigration from European countries. The president’s stated preference for Scandinavian immigrants over those from Latin America or Africa, and his expressed disdain for the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship, are Grantism paraphrased.

That nations make decisions about appropriate levels of immigration is not inherently evil or fascist. Nor does the return of Grantian ideas to mainstream political discourse signal an inevitable march to Holocaust-level crimes against humanity. But to recognize the homegrown historical antecedents of today’s rhetoric is to call attention to certain disturbing assumptions that have come to define the current immigration debate in America—in particular, that intrinsic human worth is rooted in national origin, and that a certain ethnic group has a legitimate claim to permanent political hegemony in the United States. The most benignly intentioned mainstream-media coverage of demographic change in the U.S. has a tendency to portray as justified the fear and anger of white Americans who believe their political power is threatened by immigration—as though the political views of today’s newcomers were determined by genetic inheritance rather than persuasion.

The danger of Grantism, and its implications for both America and the world, is very real. External forces have rarely been the gravest threat to the social order and political foundations of the United States. Rather, the source of greatest danger has been those who would choose white purity over a diverse democracy. When Americans abandon their commitment to pluralism, the world notices, and catastrophe follows.

4 notes · View notes

siriuslyparker · 5 years

Text

Reign of Artemis - Chapter 5

Pairing: Prince!Tom Holland x OC

Warnings: none

Words: 3065

A/N: i promise that Artemis and Tom will be meeting soon, these chapters have been just giving you background on their characters:))

series masterlist; masterlist

Harry and Harrison had stayed that night in the city before returning back to Thule in the morning. No matter how much they wished to explore the beauty of Baltia capital city, the trip was strictly business and not pleasure.

When they reached back to their home palace, Harry went to visit Paddy before returning to bed, too tired from traveling and the time change. This left Harrison to find Tom to discuss what was happening now. So, when he arrived at his best friend's room, he was surprised in seeing it empty and when the guard at the door told him that he last saw Tom heading to his father's office. And that meant nothing but bad.

Harrison wasn't at all surprised when he rounded the corner he heard shouting from the office. Tom was never one to back down when it came to differences between him and his father, almost as he jumped at all opportunities to fight with the king. With a knock on the door and a warning smile from the guard, Harrison was called to enter the room. The king sighed at Harrison entering, looking as he was calming down, while Tom, on the other hand, looked angrier by the second.

"Harrison, how did the meeting go?" the king asked, sitting back in his seat. Harrison, having known the king personally for many years, was able to tell he was very mad as well. "Well, Princess Artemis didn't seem very happy about the last minute change of Harry coming," Harrison said carefully. Tom let out a scoff and fell back in the seat in front of the desk. "I'm sure she understands last minute changes," the king sighed. "She was understanding of that," Harrison mumbled.

The king raised an eyebrow, "I sense a but," he said. Harrison glanced to his best friend before speaking, "She wasn't too thrilled on not being able to close the deal yesterday. From what I gather, she was to finalize the details and her father would've signed off. Apparently, the push would force her to sign it and need approval from the council again," he said. "Not to mention her mother and sister return this week, and requested the signing be pushed to Monday, but welcomed Tom to come that Friday morning to join them for a dinner," he explained.

"And I assume her council is against her?" the king asked. Harrison hesitated, "It would seem, but I received word from her advisor this afternoon when we landed they were more than happy to have her sign off with Tom..." he trailed off.

Tom looked up to his friend, "If they're against her, they wouldn't agree for her to sign off. It doesn't make any sense," he mumbled. "Unless they want it to fail," the king huffed. Harrison nods, "Harry and I assumed the same. They want the public against her as queen and hope for a civilian impeachment and have her brother take the throne instead. Much of her council has been very public about her taking the throne as a woman and a progressivist," he said.

Tom rose to his feet and turned to his father, his hand thrown out towards Harrison, "This is what I'm trying to tell you! Not only is General George against her, but so is her own damn council!" he snapped. Harrison couldn't hold back the flinch at the mention of the General, which was something that was noticed by the king. "The General isn't the greatest support of women in power, Sir. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he questioned and belittled Artemis to her face," Harrison explained.

The king sighed, "I would switch him out, but despite his views on the Princess, he does have what's best of our country in mind," he said. "Ah, yes, let's take the racist, sexist man to a woman of color who is first in line to the throne of the most powerful country on Upper-Earth. Brilliant plan, Father, truly. You're just helping her council into failure!" Tom laughed.

"You leave in two days, prepare for a Baltian dinner." the king ignored his son's comment, looking back down to his paperwork. Tom's jaw clenched as he rose to his feet and exiting the office, not holding back from slamming the door behind him. As much as Harrison wanted to follow his friend, fully agreeing with him, he had to stay back and update the king fully on the treaty and what the Princess agreed to give and much more.

Tom wanted nothing more than to yell more at his father, before Harrison had arrived, his father all but said that he was a disappointment to his parents and his country—but it was heavily implied. That he was willing to plead to the council to allow them to skip Tom in line of the throne and give the crown to Harry instead. And he wasn't even willing to hear what Tom had to say about wanting to help, all the research he did for the meeting, and how he wanted to be a better Prince but never given the chance.

He really tried to explain to his father why he did was he did, but all his father was willing to see was the picture of his son drinking and partying. It was the same thing Tom got his whole life, try to speak about his feelings to his father or mother and only for them to pay more attention to his actions as a prince than a son.

Tom now accepted that his parents just looked to him as Tom the Disappointment—much like his country did too.

He didn't need to prepare for the Baltian dinner as his father assumed. Tom had already known what is expected on him during his research on the meeting. He knew what he had to do as a politician, prince, and a guest. But of course, his father wouldn't have cared if he said that.

Too caught up in his thoughts, Tom didn't notice he had ended up in the gardens, or what's left of them. Much of the plants were dried up and dead, and the few that were still alive were beginning to brown. He sat down on the bench and looked to the fountain in front of him. The once white and flowing with water, was now off and greying from lack of use. Tom couldn't help but let out a bitter laugh as it was a metaphor for his own life. It used to be so nice when he was younger, his parents didn't yell at him, he wasn't expected to act a certain way. But now Tom was tired and yelled at, no longer of use to the Thule Royal family, much like the fountain. He thought it was a shitty metaphor, but one nevertheless.

He took a deep breath and leaned his head back with a frown. He wanted nothing more than to prove his worth and it seemed like he was never going to be given the chance. Tom spent the next few moments trying to calm his anger and not to let the tears from his eyes, no matter how much he wanted to cry in both anger and exhaustion.

"Tom?"

For a second Tom thought he was crazy to think his dog, Tessa, had talked, but then the royal dog walker, Alex turned the corner. She had been a close friend of the twins growing up and when the king had given Sam the power to hire people, he had suggested Alex take care of the dog for when the family was too busy. Three years later, Alex was still around to help with Tessa and even refused to get paid when money had begun running short from the drought.

Tom was able to tell that she, like most people in the country, has lost weight from the limited food. And he couldn't help the frown on his lips to deep as she walked over to sit next to him on the bench.

"You okay?" she asked.

He debated on ranting, telling her everything that was on his mind from his parents to the deal with Baltia to even his own mental battle, but he didn't want to throw that on her. Instead, Tom opted for a shrug, threw Tessa's ball and mumbled out a small, "I dunno." Sam had always said that Alex was a great listener and she would never judge and Tom had taken advantage of that in the past. The night he had a pregnancy scare with a hookup and the day he debated on resigning from the line to the throne.

And like the person she is, Alex didn't push, instead she hummed and looked at Tessa, "Sam said Harry and Haz got back this morning. I'd ask why you didn't go, but Sam already gave me your father's theories," she said. Tom looked over at her, silent. "Y'know, Sam tried to convince your dad into letting you go? I think that's why Harry was sent," she added.

This was new to Tom, from what he gathered, neither Sam or Harry had ever tried to speak up for him, at least not to his knowledge. Harrison had never made a comment on it, and the twins never gave a hint that they did.

"Harrison let slip that you did a lot of research and Sam tried to convince your father you were trying to be better," she said softly. Tom watched as she took the ball from Tessa once she returned and threw it for the dog.

"I want to be better, I really do. But I can't if I'm never given the chance to be," he whispered. "Have you told your father that?" she asked. "I tried earlier, but it only blew up into this huge fight. General George made some comments about Princess Artemis and I tried telling him that it wouldn't be best for him to go, but he wasn't having any of it. Said that I knew nothing to make a comment about whom he sends. When I tried telling him that I did know and I wanted to be a good prince he basically just called me a disappointment." Tom shrugged, swallowing the lump in his throat and looking away from her.

Alex sighs, "You're going to be a better prince, Tom. And this deal is the first step. You're not a disappointment, far from it," she pushed. Tom smiled sadly, "I just have this feeling like the deal isn't going to go as planned or something is going to happen," he said. Alex shrugged, "Then you'll try to fix it. You're not stupid, Tom, you're smart, kind-hearted, and respectful. Whatever may happen, I know you'll be able to fix it," she says.

"That makes one of us," he said.

"Well, looks like I'll just have to be encouraging and hopeful enough for the both of us," she shrugged. Tessa came back, somehow carrying a stick and the tennis ball in her mouth. Her paws were covered in dirt and some smudges against her body too. "And it looks like I'll also be giving her a bath," Alex laughs.

Tom laughs taking the stick and ball from her mouth, "Whadda you do Tess?" he cooed, trying to wipe some of the dirt off her fur, but had no luck. He laughs before standing up to throw the ball, Tessa let out a bark before running after the ball.

"Hey," Alex nudges Tom. "I know things look tough right now, but it'll work out," she promised.

"God I hope so," Tom sighed.

"Hey maybe even when you meet Artemis, you two may hit it off," Alex teased. Tom snorted as he bent down to pick up the ball Tessa dropped. "Are you suggesting that Artemis and I may get married?" he questioned. "You said married, I just suggested you two may hit it off, as friends or lovers," she laughed.

Tom shakes his head, "Friendship is more likely than anything," he said. "Why's that?" Alex asked, throwing the ball back again. "They need to marry someone that has been blessed by their Gods, so no outsiders. They tend to marry into noble families, it's only happened a few times they married outside their country," he explained.

"Don't they like run out of nobles? So, isn't that like distant incest?" she questioned. Tom furrowed his eyebrows, "I would assume it would be very far back, a lot of noble families marry commoners too. But it's not like other royal families hadn't done it before," he added. Alex's nose scrunched, "So, you're telling me your grandmum ways back probably married her brother or cousin?" she asked.

Tom shrugged, "Probably when during times when wanting to keep the line pure, but now we can marry commoners. Often the crown prefers to marry someone who has been knighted to from a family that has a knighted member," he explained. "So, your mum?" she questioned.

"Grandfather knighted her dad so Father married her cause she came from titled blood," Tom explained. Alex nods slowly, throwing the ball for Tessa. "And if they don't come from titled blood?" she asked. "Take a little more to convince Father to approve of the marriage, but it's allowed. Though the crown prefers someone that's upper class," he trailed off.

"What's got you so interested in marrying a royal?" Tom asked, glancing over at her. She avoided his gaze, pulling the sleeves of her jacket over her hands. Looking better at the jacket, he realized he had seen Sam wear the same one several times. He was able to tell it was Sam's from the small stain on the sleeve of the hoodie.

"How long?" Tom asked, throwing the ball. "Two years," Alex mumbles. Tom was surprised how they were able to hide their relationship so long, but Sam had always been a private person and with Alex working for the family it probably made things easier for the two. "Who knows?" he asked. "You and Harry," she answered. "I know my chances of being able to marry him are slim to none. He deserves someone better than a dog walker, we both know your father would never approve of me, I offer nothing to your family," she mumbles.

"You don't know that Alex, Father loves you, you're practically family already," Tom voiced. Alex shakes her head, "You said it yourself, the crown prefers upper class or titled blood, I'm neither." she crosses her arms over her chest with a frown.

Tom sighed and looked to Tessa, who was rolling around in the grass. "Things can change," he said. "Not that much, Tom, we both know it. I love Sam with all I have, but I'm not good enough for a prince, a maybe-king," she let out a shaky breath, "What we have, it's temporary, because I know he'll have to marry someone who can give what I can't; a title, money," she hesitated for a moment before speaking again, so soft Tom didn't hear, "kids."

He looks over at her, his lips parted. Alex looks down at her feet and sniffed, "We had a scare a few months ago, tests were saying both so I went to the doctor." Alex lifted her hand up to wipe her cheek, "It was positive, Sam was scared, yet so happy, he was ready to tell you all," she glanced at Tom with a sad smile.

Alex sighed, "Something happened, I don't know, I had this feeling something was wrong. I went to the doctor and they told me I was never actually able to fully conceive, said my uterus was hostile so they ran some tests. Premature ovarian failure. Less than ten percent chance I can get pregnant, even if I do, there's a small chance being able to go through it," she explained.

"Twenty and premature ovarian failure," she laughs sadly. "Sam doesn't deserve this," she mumbles.

Tom shakes his head, "Have you talked to him about it?" he asked. "He says that doesn't change anything, but I know it does, he mentioned wanting a big family before and I can't give him that," she said. Tom took a deep breath, "I can't speak for Sam, but there are other ways you two can have kids. You two can work through this. As for the crown approval, you deal with it when it comes. Don't throw away your love for each other over a maybe," Tom said.

Alex didn't say anything, a few tears running down her cheeks. Tom wrapped his arm around her shoulders, pulling her into his side. The two didn't say anything for a while, an occasional sniffle coming from Alex. "I've been oblivious for two years?" Tom questioned. Alex laughs, "No, the only thing that changed is what we do in private. He's still my best friend, and that's what you all thought," she said. "Huh." Tom nods slowly, "Not keeping anything else from me are you?" he asked.

Alex leaned her head away from his shoulder and hummed for a while, "Nope, I think my secret relationship for two years is about it," she said. Tom chuckled and shook his head, "Two years, damn," he whispered.

They heard leaves crunching behind them and they turn around, Tom's arm falling off her shoulders, to see Sam walking up, two water bottles in his hand. "And speak of the devil," Tom teased.

Sam furrows his eyebrows as he walks up to them, "Talking about me?" he questioned. "I kinda told him," Alex said. Sam glanced down at her as he handed the bottle over to her, "Both things," she added in a whisper. Sam rested a hand on her waist and looked over at Tom, "Not going to tell anyone, happy for you two," Tom said.

Sam nods, a smile on his face, "Thanks mate, I'm sorry about yesterday, I tried helping you out," he said. Tom shrugs, "It's fine, going to take a lot more for Father to see," he said.

Tom says bye to the two and heads back towards the palace, but before leaving the garden he turned to looks at the two. Alex had put the leash back on Tessa, a large smile on her face as Sam spoke. She pushed him back and he took her hand to pull her closer to him, pressing a quick kiss to her lips. Tom wore a soft smile as he turned and headed back to the palace, mentally making a note for his future self to allow any Thule royal to be allowed to marry whomever they want.

tags: @loxbbg @elioelioeli0 @emilyt0314 @spidey-pal

13 notes · View notes

vampiricmusings · 3 years

Text

On Being Oriented

A seemingly fitting topic for the first post on a new blog. I recently completed my orientation preceding my first year of medical school. In less than four years from this day, I will have my MD. This is a reality that doesn't feel real yet to me. It is also a reality that is leading me to make this anonymous blog.

Before you begin anything, chances are you have gone through a period of orientation. Whether that be formal and called as such, or simply something you must do yourself when starting something new or learning how to cope with changes to something you know how to do.

On the topic of formal orientation, the first thing that comes to mind is probably orientation for a school, program, job, college, or university. It is a daunting task for anyone. A new place with new people and a clean, fresh slate to be whoever you want to be. This opportunity to be whoever you want to be and show a side of yourself to new potential friends and colleagues is daunting, scary, and even exciting to some. The chance to get to be someone new, to erase past mistakes, and to put into practice those things you learned from your past mistakes. A new beginning to be a new version of yourself.

As most have probably learned, it is key, however, to focus on that last sentence. A new version of YOURSELF. Not a new person entirely. While people learn, grow, and change, you will always be YOU, even if it feels like an entirely new version of you. Forcing yourself to be someone you are not is hard and exhausting for yourself and leads many to feel like they cannot truly relate or grow close to their friends. It's like people don't know you. This is not as easy as it appears to be for some.

For some, orientation is just the continuation of a cycle of having to hide who you truly are. An event that establishes how someone is going to have to behave or be to avoid the scorn of either their classmates, colleagues, or even their superiors. An overwhelming event created to socialize, learn, and almost... prove yourself, in a way. Orientations are put into our minds as low stake events to help us, but really, they are just formal, usually structured, first introductions. And all the stakes are high.

For ND people and LGBT people, especially those that are closeted, it poses a new avenue of potential ableism, LGBT-phobic behavior, or other unsavory outcomes. Many are forced to hide who they are either long-term through masking for ND people, or they have to slowly open up after testing the waters to see if the location they will be inhabiting for the upcoming period of their life is friendly towards them. For things they cannot change. This becomes even more daunting and complicated for things you cannot hide, whether it be things related to being ND, related to being LGBT, or even the color of your skin given how racist many institutions still are. These lead you to feeling judged, unwelcomed, and scared either until you learn about the attitudes of the program or for the length you attend.

This does, however, go both ways. While it is your colleagues and the school's first view at you as their future peer or student/subordinate, it is also the institution's first opportunity to make an impression on you. How they make you feel and how comfortable the event makes people is crucial for making sure their incoming cohort is excited and engaged in what they too have been (hopefully) working to perfect.

But for many, it is hard. A hellish expectation for them to go through that is made without any consideration of how hard an orientation can be for others - especially for those that find themselves outside of the majority or "norm" for the area, industry, or institution.

The lack of being able to find people who relate is an added arm of this challenge. Many, to no fault of their own, hear that you are anxious, shy, or quiet and think that they understand what you're going through for they too are shy or have social anxiety. In my case, they do not understand the additional arm ASD brings into this social dynamic, and that is, again, not their fault. It can make venting hard, and that can make orientation events even more difficult.

There are three groups that come to mind when you think of venting and the supportive responses received. Those that wish for you to relate to them, those that simply wish for you to listen, and those whose preferences differ depending on the topic at hand. I, for one, am in the school of thought that I absolutely despise people attempting to relate to me WHEN I am upset and venting if I know that you do not experience what I am experiencing. It makes me want to stop venting, and I know that it is due to my own mental issues, but THAT is my reality. Someone responding to my vent with "mood" or "same" or any variation of supportive phrase that boils down to one of those will ensure that I do not open to them as deeply again.

The root of this very well could be my issues with relating to others, and when people make my issues something they directly relate to, I suddenly have trouble responding. My brain shifts the focus to them, and I feel the urge to console them, as I have cultivated in my mind what to do when people need me to combat my own lack of empathy. It causes me to view them as making my issues about themselves, even if that was not their intention. On the other arm of this same idea, I fear that I could make people feel alienated. I do not provide any words of relation when people vent to me as I do not want them to feel as it makes me feel, even if I can relate. I am vividly aware, however, that some people need to feel as though they are not alone. This is not the case, however, if the person directly asks my thoughts or how I would respond/if I've experienced, OR if I know they like to relate to others.

This is a topic I plan to expand on more later, as I feel that as someone with ASD who is not sure how to respond to a lot of social situations, people see me as a good listener and therefore tend to use me as a makeshift therapist. My mother often calls me to use me as one by proxy for my sister without asking about me at all. Being able to strike a balance between supporting people and making a boundary that makes sure I am not seen as a therapist without making them feel like they cannot vent to me is a skill I have not yet mastered. Because I want to hear, and I want to support people, especially my sister, but I also need people to worry about me too.

Since I have adequately strayed from the topic at hand, I want to part with one last point on the original topic - orientation. Hopefully, something that is comforting. Orientation does not define you, who you will be, or your experiences at your new program/job/etc. There is no way the whole institution would have met you, and they will slowly be getting to know you over the life of your attendance at that institution. It's hard. Really hard.

But, like with all things, we can do it.

0 notes

hillaryisaboss · 6 years

Video

youtube

8/25/2016: Hillary was the first to call out Trump's racist history and dog whistling to racists.

This speech should be required viewing. Required reading. The woman who got 3 million more votes called it. She was 100% right. She had the crystal ball. If only a few more of us had listened.

This speech needs to be burned into our memories forever:

"After all, it’s hard to believe anyone – let alone a nominee for President of the United States – could really believe all the things he says.

But the hard truth is, there’s no other Donald Trump. This is it.

Maya Angelou once said: “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”

Well, throughout his career and this campaign, Donald Trump has shown us exactly who he is. We should believe him."

~Hillary Rodham Clinton; 8/25/2016

She warned us.

"Everywhere I go, people tell me how concerned they are by the divisive rhetoric coming from my opponent in this election.

It’s like nothing we’ve heard before from a nominee for President of the United States.

From the start, Donald Trump has built his campaign on prejudice and paranoia.

He’s taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe take over one of America’s two major political parties.

His disregard for the values that make our country great is profoundly dangerous.

...

It takes a lot of nerve to ask people he’s ignored and mistreated for decades, “What do you have to lose?” The answer is everything!

Trump’s lack of knowledge or experience or solutions would be bad enough.

But what he’s doing here is more sinister.

Trump is reinforcing harmful stereotypes and offering a dog whistle to his most hateful supporters.

It’s a disturbing preview of what kind of President he’d be.

This is what I want to make clear today:

A man with a long history of racial discrimination, who traffics in dark conspiracy theories drawn from the pages of supermarket tabloids and the far reaches of the internet, should never run our government or command our military.

If he doesn’t respect all Americans, how can he serve all Americans?

Now, I know some people still want to give Trump the benefit of the doubt.

They hope that he will eventually reinvent himself – that there’s a kinder, gentler, more responsible Donald Trump waiting in the wings somewhere.

After all, it’s hard to believe anyone – let alone a nominee for President of the United States – could really believe all the things he says.

But the hard truth is, there’s no other Donald Trump. This is it.

Maya Angelou once said: “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”

Well, throughout his career and this campaign, Donald Trump has shown us exactly who he is. We should believe him.

When Trump was getting his start in business, he was sued by the Justice Department for refusing to rent apartments to black and Latino tenants.

Their applications would be marked with a “C” – “C” for “colored” – and then rejected.

Three years later, the Justice Department took Trump back to court because he hadn’t changed.

The pattern continued through the decades.

State regulators fined one of Trump’s casinos for repeatedly removing black dealers from the floor. No wonder the turn-over rate for his minority employees was way above average.

And let’s not forget Trump first gained political prominence leading the charge for the so-called “Birthers.”

He promoted the racist lie that President Obama isn’t really an American citizen – part of a sustained effort to delegitimize America’s first black President.

In 2015, Trump launched his own campaign for President with another racist lie. He described Mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals.

And he accused the Mexican government of actively sending them across the border. None of that is true.

Oh, and by the way, Mexico’s not paying for his wall either.

If it ever gets built, you can be sure that American taxpayers will be stuck with the bill.

Since then, there’s been a steady stream of bigotry.

We all remember when Trump said a distinguished federal judge born in Indiana couldn’t be trusted to do his job because, quote, “He’s a Mexican.”

Think about that.

The man who today is the standard bearer of the Republican Party said a federal judge was incapable of doing his job solely because of his heritage.

Even the Republican Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, described that as “the textbook definition of a racist comment.”

To this day, he’s never apologized to Judge Curiel.

But for Trump, that’s just par for the course.

This is someone who retweets white supremacists online, like the user who goes by the name “white-genocide-TM.” Trump took this fringe bigot with a few dozen followers and spread his message to 11 million people.

His campaign famously posted an anti-Semitic image – a Star of David imposed over a sea of dollar bills – that first appeared on a white supremacist website.

The Trump campaign also selected a prominent white nationalist leader as a delegate in California. They only dropped him under pressure.

When asked in a nationally televised interview whether he would disavow the support of David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, Trump wouldn’t do it. Only later, again under mounting pressure, did he backtrack.

And when Trump was asked about anti-Semitic slurs and death threats coming from his supporters, he refused to condemn them.

Through it all, he has continued pushing discredited conspiracy theories with racist undertones.

Trump said thousands of American Muslims in New Jersey cheered the 9/11 attacks. They didn’t.

He suggested that Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the Kennedy assassination. Perhaps in Trump’s mind, because he was a Cuban immigrant, he must have had something to do with it. Of course there’s absolutely no evidence of that.

Just recently, Trump claimed President Obama founded ISIS. And then he repeated that nonsense over and over.

His latest paranoid fever dream is about my health. All I can say is, Donald, dream on.

This is what happens when you treat the National Enquirer like Gospel.

It’s what happens when you listen to the radio host Alex Jones, who claims that 9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombings were inside jobs. He said the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre were child actors and no one was actually killed there.

Trump didn’t challenge those lies. He went on Jones’ show and said: “Your reputation is amazing. I will not let you down.”

This man wants to be President of the United States.

I’ve stood by President Obama’s side as he made the toughest decisions a Commander-in-Chief ever has to make.

In times of crisis, our country depends on steady leadership… clear thinking… and calm judgment… because one wrong move can mean the difference between life and death.

The last thing we need in the Situation Room is a loose cannon who can’t tell the difference between fact and fiction, and who buys so easily into racially-tinged rumors.

Someone detached from reality should never be in charge of making decisions that are as real as they come.

It’s another reason why Donald Trump is simply temperamentally unfit to be President of the United States.

Now, some people will say that his bluster and bigotry is just over-heated campaign rhetoric – an outrageous person saying outrageous things for attention.

But look at the policies Trump has proposed. They would put prejudice into practice.

And don’t be distracted by his latest attempts to muddy the waters.

He may have some new people putting new words in his mouth… but we know where he stands.

He would form a deportation force to round up millions of immigrants and kick them out of the country.

He’d abolish the bedrock constitutional principle that says if you’re born in the United States, you’re an American citizen. He says that children born in America to undocumented parents are, quote, “anchor babies” and should be deported.

Millions of them.

And he’d ban Muslims around the world – 1.5 billion men, women, and children –from entering our country just because of their religion.

Think about that for a minute. How would it actually work? People landing in U.S. airports would line up to get their passports stamped, just like they do now.

But in Trump’s America, when they step up to the counter, the immigration officer would ask every single person, “What is your religion?”

And then what?

What if someone says, “I’m a Christian,” but the agent doesn’t believe them.

Do they have to prove it? How would they do that?

Ever since the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock, America has distinguished itself as a haven for people fleeing religious persecution.

Under Donald Trump, America would distinguish itself as the only country in the world to impose a religious test at the border.

Come to think of it, there actually may be one place that does that. It’s the so-called Islamic State. The territory ISIS controls. It would be a cruel irony if America followed its lead.

Don’t worry, some will say, as President, Trump will be surrounded by smart advisors who will rein in his worst impulses.

So when a tweet gets under his skin and he wants to retaliate with a cruise missile, maybe cooler heads will be there to convince him not to.

Maybe.

But look at who he’s put in charge of his campaign.

Trump likes to say he only hires the “best people.” But he’s had to fire so many campaign managers it’s like an episode of the Apprentice.

The latest shake-up was designed to – quote – “Let Trump be Trump.” To do that, he hired Stephen Bannon, the head of a right-wing website called Breitbart.com, as campaign CEO.

To give you a flavor of his work, here are a few headlines they’ve published:

“Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy.”

“Would You Rather Your Child Had Feminism or Cancer?”

“Gabby Giffords: The Gun Control Movement’s Human Shield”

“Hoist It High And Proud: The Confederate Flag Proclaims A Glorious Heritage.”

That one came shortly after the Charleston massacre, when Democrats and Republicans alike were doing everything they could to heal racial divides. Breitbart tried to enflame them further.

Just imagine – Donald Trump reading that and thinking: “this is what I need more of in my campaign.”

Bannon has nasty things to say about pretty much everyone.

This spring, he railed against Paul Ryan for, quote “rubbing his social-justice Catholicism in my nose every second.”

No wonder he’s gone to work for Trump – the only Presidential candidate ever to get into a public feud with the Pope.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, Breitbart embraces “ideas on the extremist fringe of the conservative right. Racist ideas.

Race-baiting ideas. Anti-Muslim and anti-Immigrant ideas –– all key tenets making up an emerging racist ideology known as the ‘Alt-Right.’”

Alt-Right is short for “Alternative Right.”

The Wall Street Journal describes it as a loosely organized movement, mostly online, that “rejects mainstream conservatism, promotes nationalism and views immigration and multiculturalism as threats to white identity.”

The de facto merger between Breitbart and the Trump Campaign represents a landmark achievement for the “Alt-Right.” A fringe element has effectively taken over the Republican Party.

This is part of a broader story -- the rising tide of hardline, right-wing nationalism around the world.

Just yesterday, one of Britain’s most prominent right-wing leaders, Nigel Farage, who stoked anti-immigrant sentiments to win the referendum on leaving the European Union, campaigned with Donald Trump in Mississippi.

Farage has called for a ban on the children of legal immigrants from public schools and health services, has said women are quote “worth less” than men, and supports scrapping laws that prevent employers from discriminating based on race -- that’s who Trump wants by his side.

The godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism is Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In fact, Farage has appeared regularly on Russian propaganda programs.

Now he’s standing on the same stage as the Republican nominee.

Trump himself heaps praise on Putin and embrace pro-Russian policies.

He talks casually of abandoning our NATO allies, recognizing Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and of giving the Kremlin a free hand in Eastern Europe more generally.

American presidents from Truman to Reagan have rejected the kind of approach Trump is taking on Russia.

We should, too.

All of this adds up to something we’ve never seen before.

Of course there’s always been a paranoid fringe in our politics, steeped in racial resentment. But it’s never had the nominee of a major party stoking it, encouraging it, and giving it a national megaphone. Until now.

On David Duke’s radio show the other day, the mood was jubilant.

“We appear to have taken over the Republican Party,” one white supremacist said.

Duke laughed. There’s still more work to do, he said.

No one should have any illusions about what’s really going on here. The names may have changed… Racists now call themselves “racialists.” White supremacists now call themselves “white nationalists.” The paranoid fringe now calls itself “alt-right.” But the hate burns just as bright.

And now Trump is trying to rebrand himself as well. Don’t be fooled.

There’s an old Mexican proverb that says “Tell me with whom you walk, and I will tell you who you are.”

We know who Trump is. A few words on a teleprompter won’t change that.

He says he wants to “make America great again,” but his real message remains “Make America hate again.”

This isn’t just about one election. It’s about who we are as a nation.

It’s about the kind of example we want to set for our children and grandchildren.

Next time you watch Donald Trump rant on television, think about all the kids listening across our country. They hear a lot more than we think.

Parents and teachers are already worried about what they’re calling the “Trump Effect.”

Bullying and harassment are on the rise in our schools, especially targeting students of color, Muslims, and immigrants.

At a recent high school basketball game in Indiana, white students held up Trump signs and taunted Latino players on the opposing team with chants of “Build the wall!” and “Speak English.”

After a similar incident in Iowa, one frustrated school principal said, “They see it in a presidential campaign and now it's OK for everyone to say this.”

We wouldn’t tolerate that kind of behavior in our own homes. How can we stand for it from a candidate for president?

This is a moment of reckoning for every Republican dismayed that the Party of Lincoln has become the Party of Trump. It’s a moment of reckoning for all of us who love our country and believe that America is better than this.

Twenty years ago, when Bob Dole accepted the Republican nomination, he pointed to the exits and told any racists in the Party to get out.

The week after 9/11, George W. Bush went to a mosque and declared for everyone to hear that Muslims “love America just as much as I do.”

In 2008, John McCain told his own supporters they were wrong about the man he was trying to defeat. Senator McCain made sure they knew – Barack Obama is an American citizen and “a decent person.”

We need that kind of leadership again.

Every day, more Americans are standing up and saying “enough is enough” – including a lot of Republicans. I’m honored to have their support.

And I promise you this: with your help, I will be a President for Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. For those who vote for me and those who don't.

For all Americans.

Because I believe we are stronger together.

It’s a vision for the future rooted in our values and reflected in a rising generation of young people who are the most open, diverse, and connected we’ve ever seen.

Just look at our fabulous Olympic team.

Like Ibtihaj Muhammad, an African-American Muslim from New Jersey who won the bronze medal in fencing with grace and skill. Would she even have a place in Donald Trump’s America?

When I was growing up, Simone Manuel wouldn’t have been allowed to swim in the same public pool as Katie Ledecky. Now they’re winning Olympic medals as teammates.

So let’s keep moving forward together.

Let’s stand up against prejudice and paranoia.

Let’s prove once again, that America is great because is America is good.

Thank you, and may God bless the United States."

~Hillary Rodham Clinton; 8/25/2016

The woman who warned us.

Trump is a con-man propaganda artist:

Never Normalize Trump.

#strongertogether

#hillary clinton #bill clinton #barack obama #bernie sanders #donald trump

74 notes · View notes

prelawland · 4 years

Text

How The Use Of Dolls Helped De-Segregate Public Schools

By Stefania Valera, University of Rhode Island Class of 2021

June 27, 2020

I significantly remember sitting in my English II Honors class sophomore year of high school. I was fascinated by the intelligence of my teacher and was intrigued by the video she had planned for the class to watch that day. My eyes glared onto the screen in front of me, unaware of what would play, all I knew was that it would have some relevance to Harper Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird, as that was the book we were currently studying. She pressed a button and the video began. What my class and I were witnessing was a project in which dolls were used to analyze the psychological effects of racism on children. The video showcased different black children who were asked a series of questions as two different baby dolls were placed in front of them, one black and one white. The children were asked to identify which doll was white and which one was black in which they pointed to the correlating doll. Furthermore, they were asked questions such as, “which doll is the pretty doll?” and “which doll is the nice doll?” to which all children pointed to the white doll. Finally, they were asked, “which doll is the bad doll?” and “which doll looks like you?” Slightly discouraged, all of the children participating in the study pointed to the black doll. As the video ended and my teacher turned the lights back on, I remember feeling sad that at such a young age, children of color felt so dispirited about themselves. This experiment was not only a lesson to my English class but was also used as a piece of evidence in proving the detrimental effects of segregation in the United States Supreme Court Case Brown v. Board of Education (1954).

The 1954 Supreme Court Case of Brown v. Board of Ed. defined that segregated schools were a violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. The Equal Protection Clause “refers to the idea that a governmental body may not deny equal protection of its governing laws.” Additionally, this clause forces the government to “not draw distinctions” amongst citizens “solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective” [2]. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) presented the Doll Test which was conducted by Dr. Kenneth Clark and his wife Mammie Clark as a piece of evidence to explain the influence of segregation on black children. Although the video my class was presented was not footage of the original test, its results were relatively close. By using the Doll Test, Dr. and Mrs. Clark desired to overturn the precedence of “separate but equal” which was established in the historic case Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)[3]. After the study concluded, Dr. Clark examined that “color in a racist society was a very disturbing and traumatic component of an individual’s sense of his own self-esteem and worth” [4]. His conclusions were taken seriously as the NAACP, who represented student Linda Brown, won the case. The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Earl Warren who alluded to the Doll Test stating that separating black children “from others of similar age and qualifications” because of their race “generates a feeling of inferiority.”In 2010 American Psychologist Margaret Beale Spencer conducted a similar study in which she examined 133 kids with differing racial and income mixes. Spencer discovered that there was a significant positive reaction towards the black dolls from black children, however the white children seemed to favor the white doll for their answer to each question [5].

56 years later and the results of the infamous Doll Test remain moderately the same. It is essential to understand that although time has passed and the integration of mixed races in the public-school system exists,most people, and in this case children, continue to divide themselves and other humans by the color of their skin. It can be evaluated that as a country the United States continues to lack in the infiltration of acceptance when it comes to different races. The questions asked within the Doll Test gauge how each child feels about a certain doll based simply off of the color of their skin. The test does not ask any questions in which the personality or actions of a doll are examined, again it only highlights skin color. Therefore, it can be inferred that 66 years ago and present day, the citizens of the United States are subconsciously taught to judge others based off their appearance. From these tests it can be stated that these judgements begin from a very young age and carry through a person’s life until their brains are finally fully developed.

The Doll Test was used as distinct piece of testimony in Brown v. Board of Ed. in order to make a point in how segregation affects children psychologically. Both Kenneth and Mammie Clark “concluded that integration was the remedy or protective factor that would counter Black youths’ (assumed) feelings of inferiority” [6]. Although the social study was an aid in winning the court case for Brown, this conclusion does not seem too realistic nor true. Due to the feelings of the black and white children used for the recent Doll Test that occurred in 2010, these feelings of superiority or mediocracy in comparison to others because of their race have not necessarily altered because of the integration of races in public-school systems.

[7]

On May 25th, 2020 George Floyd was arrested and pinned down by a police officer as two other cops stood there and watched. Floyd was arrested after a convenience store employee called the cops believing Floyd had paid for cigarettes with a counterfeit $20 bill [8]. Once video footage of the murder spread through the internet, the Black Lives Matter movement had taken over all of social media. Numerous users of social media sites stood in solidarity with the black lives lost due to police brutality and shared ways in which people could help. The Doll Test speaks volumes of much of the effort that needs to be taken in order to move towards a more peaceful nature for the United States of America. According to the chart above, police are twice as likely to use force against people of color than they would on a white person. The connection amongst this data and the Doll Test is that a high percentage of assumptions are made because of skin color. Additionally, the integration of public schools was pursued due to the fact that segregation would cause psychological issues towards children. However, in 2020 not only is this brutality and racism causing physiological issues, but it is taking lives. It is time to reform our mode of thinking and acknowledge that the color of our skin should not make us a good or bad doll, but rather focus on the actions and ideas that identify us as who are as people.

The Doll Test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZryE2bqwdk

________________________________________________________________

1. “Brown v. Board: The Significance of the ‘Doll Test.’” NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 17 Mar. 2020.

2. “Equal Protection.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute.

3. “Brown v. Board of Education Topeka (1).” Oyez.

4. Beschloss, Michael. “How an Experiment with Dolls Helped Lead to School Integration.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 6 May 2014.

5. Blakemore, Erin. “How Dolls Helped Win Brown v. Board of Education.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 27 Mar. 2018, www.history.com/news/brown-v-board-of-education-doll-experiment.

6. Spencer, Margaret Beale. “Lessons Learned and Opportunities Ignored since ‘Brown v. Board of Education’: Youth Development and the Myth of a Color-Blind Society.” American Educational Research Association, vol. 37, no. 5, 2008, pp. 253–266.

7. Initiative, Prison Policy. “Police Stops Are Still Marred by Racial Discrimination, New Data Shows.” Prison Policy Initiative.

8. Hill, Evan, et al. “8 Minutes and 46 Seconds: How George Floyd Was Killed in Police Custody.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 1 June 2020.

0 notes

toldnews-blog · 5 years

Photo

New Post has been published on https://toldnews.com/world/united-states-of-america/can-a-woman-win-2020-candidates-offer-an-easy-answer-i-have/

Can a Woman Win? 2020 Candidates Offer an Easy Answer: ‘I Have’

CRESTON, Iowa — Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York had a request: Before anyone mocked her claim that she was the Democratic presidential candidate best positioned to take on President Trump, at least listen to the evidence.

Ms. Gillibrand won her first House race in an upstate conservative district that had “more cows than Democrats,” as she likes to say. She ran on Medicaid expansion as early as 2006, long before it had become a litmus test for the progressive flank of the Democratic Party, which often derides her as inauthentic.

In her 2018 Senate re-election campaign, she flipped 18 counties that had voted for Mr. Trump just two years earlier, and in 2012 she received a higher share of the vote in New York than any statewide candidate before or since — better than Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, better than former Senator Hillary Clinton, better than former President Barack Obama.

While many voters don’t know much about Ms. Gillibrand yet, she also sees a set of assumptions about male and females leaders at work.

“The first-blush analysis is inadequate,” Ms. Gillibrand said in an interview. “This is what makes me the best person to take on Trump — electability. Experience. Track record.”

“I’m the most elect ——” she stopped. “I have the type of experience they’re looking for.”

At this early stage of the Democratic presidential primary, much of the discussion among voters has focused on the singular desire of defeating Mr. Trump, and selecting a nominee who’s best suited to that task. But while that line of thinking has largely been associated with well-known veteran male politicians, particularly former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the women running in the historically diverse Democratic field, several of whom have a demonstrated track record of winning over Republican voters, have been telling anyone who will listen that they, too, are equipped to beat the president.

In addition to Ms. Gillibrand, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota has drawn on her electoral success in red counties to position herself as a bridge-builder in increasingly polarized times. And Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts — who soundly defeated a popular Republican incumbent in her first election — has focused recently on addressing concerns that she’s simply an “ideas candidate,” combining her rhetoric about economic inequality with a more explicit pitch on her ability to beat Mr. Trump. (A fourth leading female candidate, Senator Kamala Harris of California, has enjoyed most of her success thus far in Democratic strongholds.)

As they now campaign for president, they are encountering some of the same misogyny that Mrs. Clinton faced when she ran in 2016. They are running up against assumptions voters and pundits have about what presidential leadership looks like, battling a presidential archetype where men are the only touchstones.

As a result, they are frequently asked to explain why they believe they have paths to victory, and prove they can win over prized working-class voters in critical states like Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania. This has come even as polls have consistently found that numerous Democrats — including multiple women — enjoy an early edge in head-to-head matchups against Mr. Trump.

“We have 45 presidents who have been men. And seeing a woman in that role is still something that we’re not used to,” said Kimberly Peeler-Allen, a co-founder of Higher Heights, a national organization building the political power and leadership of black women.

She noted that the Democratic women running for president had been forced to answer for Mrs. Clinton’s defeat in 2016, and to allay concerns from voters that a woman can win the presidency. The men in the race don’t face such burdens.

She also pointed to last year’s midterm elections, in which more than half of the House districts that flipped from Republicans to Democrats were won by women.

“We have to, as an electorate, change our mind-set on what executive leadership looks like,” Ms. Peeler-Allen said. “Women lead differently. And that’s not a bad thing.”

Ms. Gillibrand has addressed the question head-on. She kicked off her recent “Rural Listening Tour” throughout southwest Iowa with a clear focus on highlighting her ability to win Republican votes. “Secretary Clinton and I, while I admire her, are very different people and we have very different stories,” she said at one stop. “I’m from the upstate part of New York. She’s from the suburbs of Illinois.”

On the campaign trail, Ms. Klobuchar touts the 42 counties Mr. Trump carried that she won during her re-election race last November. She won 51 of the state’s 87 counties in all, and she outperformed the other Democrats running statewide, earning 86,500 more votes than Senator Tina Smith and 76,000 more than Gov. Tim Walz.

She has made her understanding of rural issues and her ability to reach across the aisle central to her campaign pitch, trying to sell voters on what she’s termed “heartland economics.” In Nevada, Iowa, she vowed to protect the state’s farmers, suggesting she could form a coalition that could bridge divides between the agriculture industry and environmentalists.

“When I see those wind turbines out there and think of solar, and how that benefits us more in the middle of the country, you could put together a package that the Midwest would like,” Ms. Klobuchar said, pointing across the street to several turbines spinning in a chilly wind.

“I grew up in the metro area, but just on the border of farm country,” she said. As a child, she would ride her bike to her best friend’s dairy farm. “I was very close to that whole world. That was something that I grew up with and understand.”

In a race defined by early uncertainty, Democratic candidates such as former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., have garnered significant attention and high first-quarter fund-raising totals, outraising all the women in the Democratic field except Ms. Harris, who has relied on the liberal donor circuit in her deep blue home state. But their success has also fueled a backlash, as critics say their rise, in spite of their comparative lack of experience, is indicative of a presidential landscape that prefers male figures.

When asked in a phone interview if she believed her candidacy was being hampered by gendered notions of “electability,” Ms. Warren demurred.

“I can’t talk about everything in this race,” she said. “I can just tell you what I’ve done and what I plan on doing.”

In an interview in Iowa, Ms. Gillibrand specifically alluded to Mr. Buttigieg and Mr. O’Rourke, saying, “I don’t think either of them have won red and purple areas. I have.”

She also added a warning for the Democrats trying to occupy a more moderate lane, as Mr. Biden has since entering the race.

“If your ideas aren’t progressive or bold enough, you will not win the respect of the grass-roots,” Ms. Gillibrand said. “You will not win young people. You will not win black women — all the people who were responsible for electing a Democratic majority this last election cycle in the House of Representatives.”

The themes represent another fault line for a Democratic Party at an existential crossroads. After the surprise election of Mr. Trump, a sizable portion of Democrats began to voice concerns that the party’s embrace of gender and racial diversity had put it at odds with some of the electorate, and that Mr. Trump’s willingness to use racist and sexist political rhetoric had put Democrats at a disadvantage, especially in rural America or among Republican-leaning independents.

“We were not heard in ’16,” said Patty Judge, a former lieutenant governor of Iowa who started an organization called Focus on Rural America. “People did not understand the frustration and the anger that is out there in rural Iowa.”

When asked in surveys, most voters say they could support a woman for president. A recent poll found that 84 percent of Americans said they’re comfortable with a female candidate, more than those who said they were accepting of a candidate who is a Muslim, an evangelical Christian or over the age of 75.

But when pressed on the issue in interviews, Democratic voters in early primary states point to Mrs. Clinton’s Electoral College defeat as a sign that others — their family, friends or large swaths of the country — won’t back a female candidate.

During Ms. Gillibrand’s listening tour, voters who were asked to explain what it meant to be an “electable candidate” were fairly clear. They said Mr. Trump’s presence may require a man to lead the Democratic ticket.

“You’ll always hear ‘there’s no way a woman can win this,’ and they go back to Hillary,” said DeAnne Butler, who attended Ms. Gillibrand’s campaign stop in Clarinda, Iowa. “Even among my female friends.”

Ms. Warren said in a phone interview that she does believe voters sometimes forget about her 2012 Senate victory against Scott Brown, a well-liked Republican incumbent. Ms. Warren became the first woman elected to the Senate in Massachusetts history when she unseated Mr. Brown in a hotly contested race. A Boston Globe poll at the time found Mr. Brown had a higher favorability rating than Ms. Warren and that he was seen as the more “likable” candidate.

In her view, the question of who is best positioned to beat Mr. Trump depends on more than just poll numbers or the ability to flip red districts. It hinges on who can tell a cohesive story and put forth an “affirmative vision,” as she called it, that excites voters and draws contrasts with the current administration.

“The 2020 election is about big issues facing our country: who government works for,” Ms. Warren said. “We must beat Donald Trump, but we must do so much more.”

Ms. Warren, Ms. Gillibrand, Ms. Harris and Ms. Klobuchar can all claim an interesting distinction: They have never lost an election in their political careers. All of the most prominent male Democratic candidates, including Mr. Biden, Mr. Buttigieg, Mr. O’Rourke, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, have lost at least one.

#c usa football news #ireland v usa news #n korea vs usa news #usa news for india #usa news volleyball #wusa news director

0 notes

lj-writes · 7 years

Text

@illiterallylondon The sheer length of our thread was verging on a health and safety violation, so if you don’t mind I’ll start a new one and make use of the cut tag. I will also attempt to categorize and summarize the issues, for any poor soul following along at home.

As I understand, the issues are as below:

1. Whether Finn could be interpreted to be a match for Kylo Ren according to your shipping pattern

2. Whether it is unfair to Kylux fans to argue that the popularity of Kylux is motivated in part by subconscious racism

3. Whether Hux is, in fact, more popular than Finn and Poe

4. Whether Hana Yori Dango proves the popularity of your stated shipping pattern unaffected by race

5. Whether you are a sea lion who leeches off others’ time and energy, then claims moral victory when others won’t give it to you

6. Miscellaneous

I will proceed in this numbered order, rearranging the points and statements as necessary.

1. Whether Finn could be interpreted to be a match for Kylo Ren according to your shipping pattern

So you insist, over and over again, that your interpretation of the characters is the only valid one and your interpretation of why Finn can’t be part of a megaship with Kylo Ren (or whomever) must hold true. You kept gerrymandering the hell out of your so-called shipping pattern, saying the characters can’t be moral opposites, can’t want to kill each other etc.

Except you admit that shipping patterns are malleable and not that rigid and furthermore don’t hold across fandoms, see Point 2 below:

2. Whether it is unfair to Kylux fans to argue that the popularity of Kylux is motivated in part by subconscious racism

“Yet you imply that Kylux is only popular due to racism by saying that if the shipping pattern was a major factor in the pairing’s popularity then Finnlo would be a ship, thus people only like Kylux because they like white people. Which, yes, is saying that race overrides characterization.”

You are completely misunderstanding what I was trying to do there. What I’m getting at is that your “shipping pattern” is bunk. You acknowledged yourself that this is malleable and based on fandom thinking by saying in regards to the shipping pattern applying to Drarry (emphasis added), “regardless of how in-character that may be.”

Also you contradicted yourself when you said near the end of your post:

‘I said in my original paragraph that your argument is that fans of Kylux are moved “primarily” by racism. And did not mention it being the “only factor” anywhere. At. All.’

You... literally said “[I] imply that Kylux is only popular due to racism.” So you did, indeed paint my argument as race being the only factor of Kylux’s popularity? LOL.

To address your constant assertion that I’m saying I’m saying Kylux is only popular due to racism (with ridiculous claims that characters of color should have no fans at all if this were true), let me try to explain it this way:

Let’s say a show has two characters, A and B, and ten fans. There are a number of reasons why any given fan might like A or B. It could be characterization, gender, their plot, background, all these are factors to different degrees. If race is a factor, it would--together with other factors--weight preference one way or the other. So if A is white and B is Black, seven fans might like A while three like B. If A is Black and B is white, four fans might like A while six fans like B. Under this scenario there are three fans who would have liked B better regardless of race, but for the fandom as a whole race still played a role in who was more popular. It doesn’t have to be a primary or exclusive factor, as you kept trying to paint as my argument, it can still be a decisive factor without being either.

That’s all I was saying from the start, that race affects fandom preferences as a whole. I’m not talking about individuals, but in the aggregate there are discernible patterns which you have acknowledged. If you agree, as you claim, that race can affect fandom preferences and is a factor, then we’re in agreement. There’s nothing to discuss and you caused us both to waste a whole lot of time and words over nothing. Happy?

“…Again, I’m forced to repeat myself, but Kylux shippers are people. Calling out racism in fandom is calling out the shippers who participate in said fandom. Unless you’re saying that shippers aren’t people.”

I “called them out” as being affected by subconscious racism. The exiestence of which you acknowledged. The only sense in which I called anyone racist (words that you put in my mouth, by the way) is in the sense that they are affected by racism in their fannish preferences, which is a systematic issue and not a matter of personal morality. The only sense in which you could possibly feel judged by this assertion is by making these systematic issues about yourself, which is exactly what you are doing.

Put another way, if you think subconscious racism in fandom exists but it’s unfair to say fandom racism has any meaningful effects (because they affect people, obviously, and that according to you is calling them racist), what would be a good way to talk about fandom racism? Is there a way to talk about fandom racism that you think doesn’t call people out or judge them for being racist?

Also notice the giant dose of hypocrisy in this:

“Thanks, again not a part of some of these fandoms but I’m taking your word for it [that conflicting explanations are given for CoCs’ comparative lack of popularity].”

So like, you think it’s sooooo unfair for me to supposedly call Kylux shippers racist, but it’s okay to call Rick/Darryl shippers or Steve/Bucky shippers racist? Because I’m actually applying the exact same logic to all these ships, that their popularity, and the lack of popularity of characters of color ships, are driven in large part by subconscious racism. Yet you’ll take my word for it when it comes to fandoms you don’t know. Why do you think it’s okay to call a bunch of people you don’t know racist?

Also, if you think this:

“Not personally a part of the MCU fandom (I tend to strongly dislike superhero movies) so I can’t speak to this point.“

is the same thing as this:

“I’m taking your word for it and accepting that as someone who is a part of the fandom”

...then you really need to update your communication skills. Like seriously.

3. Whether Hux is, in fact, more popular than Finn and Poe

“Hux does not surpass the hero in popularity in the majority of fandom, just as Boba Fett and Tarkin and TR-8R do not. However in more niche communities (Kylux AO3 fandom, Boba Fett/Tarkin fansites and certain SW fansites) they surpass the heroes in popularity.“

This is an unwarranted change of subject. From the very first post I was talking about what one might call “deep” fandom--the part of fandom that writes fanfics and ships characters. This is by no means the majority of the moviegoing audience, so your trying to shift the discussion to the larger casual fandom is a derailment.

4. Whether Hana Yori Dango proves the popularity of your stated shipping pattern unaffected by race (+ Buffy fandom)

“So let me get this straight: you previously argue that people of color can be racist (which I agree with btw), then go on to imply that the fans of BOF are Asian-American therefore racism likely isn’t a factor…?“

That is not what I argued at all, please read again. What I said was, emphasis added:

“Actually race still does affect fans [then going on to cite the disproportionalely Asian-American viewership of K-Dramas]“

This was in response to your statement that “I explicitly cited HYD as an example for race not affecting fans of a series.”

So like... I’m not sure how you got from here to there, but maybe calm down and stop jumping to conclusions?

Also, the part where I said “Also telling fans that they have nothing to complain about because Finn and Poe still have followings” was in response to this part:

“Kylo and Hux are more popular. It doesn’t mean Finn and Poe are unpopular within the AO3/Tumblr fandom at all. There’s nothing lacking in their characters, they just don’t fit the mold.“

Since my entire OP was about comparative popularity, not about Finn and Poe having some sort of following, this misses the point and comes across as disingenuous. Also, as discussed above, your whole “mold” argument is bunk.

“Buffy is more popular than Spike but Kylo is also more popular than Hux.”

Um... false comparison because Kylo’s not the hero, in case you haven’t noticed.

“My point in HYD is that. Again. The ship is non-white and falls into the shipping pattern, and is popular. Indicating that race didn’t bother HYD fans,”

Okay, so you’re moving the goalposts again and again here. I specifically talked about popularity comparisons between characters of different races in the same show, but you’re trying to drag the discussion to a monoracial show. Also, as I have said and you have accepted, this same shipping pattern does not hold in multiracial shows such as the MCU and The Walking Dead.

Besides, as I have already said, race (race, not racism), does in fact affect the viewership of K-Dramas. So in addition to being a derail your basic premise fails.

“The American version would’ve been much more popular if all people cared about was race and not characters that fall into a pattern of interest.”

I. Never. Said. All. People. Cared. About. Was. Race. Stop putting fucking words in my mouth, and if you want to rehash this point again please read my “A and B” example above. Carefully. Also you contradicted yourself yet again when you claimed you never claimed that I said race was the only factor.

I specifically made intra-show comparisons between characters in the same show because there are too many factors that affect the comparative popularity between shows. The American version of HYD failed because it sucked. I never said a show’s quality doesn’t matter and that race overcomes all other factors. Again, stop derailing and stop putting words in my mouth.

I already addressed your point about the YouTube video. Don’t try to waste my time more than you already have.

“To start with, I didn’t say that younger girls don’t write fic, just that most HYD fans who are teens (especially having a shitload of content for their OTP) aren’t as likely to produce content for said OTP. Which makes sense seeing as there is a disproportionate amount of fans vs the amount of fics in the HYD FFN archive.”

How do you know it’s disproportionate? This goes back to my point about casual fandom and deep fandom. Deep fandom is only a tiny, tiny drop in the sea of casual fandom. Only a small portion of HYD fans will write fic, but the same is true of any show. So your attempt to extrapolate some vast hidden fan base for HYD out of proportion to the number of fanfics doesn’t work, really. Especially since the original topic in the first place is deep fandom, not casual fandom, so chalk this up as yet another derail.

Also your points about K-drama and FanFiction.Net demographics are either hilariously deceptive or hilariously ignorant, I can’t decide which?

“Because compared to the other numbers in that study the 16-20 group made up the majority of K-Drama viewers.“

That’s... that’s not what a majority means. A little over one-third of K-Drama viewers are in the 16-20 group, which contradicts your assertion that “most of the HYD fans are teenaged girls.”

“Also in pointing out that FFN tends to have younger writers kind of confirmed my argument that searching for HYD fic in AO3 would be taking an inaccurate sampling since most teen writers use FFN.”

Um, “most FFN writers are teens” is not the same thing as “most teen writers use FFN.” Just pointing that out.

“The people who wrote fic for HYD were bound to post it on FFN, but most of the HYD fandom really couldn’t be bothered to write fic for it. Otherwise we’d have much more than 1k fics in the FFN archive right now.“

What... you’re not even making sense anymore... do you notice the circular reasoning? You’re starting with an assumption (FFN underrepresents HYD’s popularity) that is also the conclusion (HYD is a lot bigger than the number of FFN fics would indicate). Holy shit, this is such a mess. It’s like a car accident I can’t look away from.

“I gave you evidence which you responded to once and never mentioned again. How do you explain the millions of views on videos like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVxQ_g2NL6g) otherwise? If we’re taking the amount of fic to equate to the amount of fans (about 1k) then where are these millions of English-speaking people coming from?”

As I said above, only a small proportion of fans of any work actually write fanfic for it (”deep fandom”). This is true of HYD but it’s also true of any fandom. You have failed to show, except with your hilarious circular argument above, that the number of HYD fics is disproportionately small in proportion to its actual fan base. Of course the number of fics is smaller than the number of fans, because it always is.

5. Whether you are a sealion who leeches off others’ time and energy, then claims moral victory when others won’t give it to you

“I literally said that if antis really cared about their cause that much they’d be ‘more open’ to conversation. Not ‘they’d be open to spending enormous amounts of time’ debating with me.”

This is disingenuous, coming from someone who makes it impossible to carry on a conversation that doesn’t take enormous amounts of time and energy. For instance, my OP was 175 words long. Your reply was more than twice as long at 448 words, and you derailed and deflected and changed the subject and strawmanned in every single post until the thread grew into a monstrosity that I’m afraid to even do a word count for, mostly because I’d hate myself for how much time I wasted with you. I mean, I’ve already spent four hours after finishing a major project replying to your ridiculous points.

“If you think productive activism is screaming at someone who wants to talk then blocking them off without letting them speak, I’m sorry, but you’re not being productive.”

What I’m doing isn’t productive, either, talking to someone who debates either as dishonestly or badly (I don’t even know which, I think it’s the former driving the latter) as you. This is not being open to conversation.

“I have been very open to discussion and have actually had my opinions completely changed and renewed…I’d consider myself at least relatively open-minded, yeah.”

Open to discussion... by constantly putting words in my mouth. (And not even keeping your story safe on which words you’re putting, lmao.)

Open to discussion... by making a discussion that I made clear was not about you, about you.

Open to discussion... by constantly changing the subject.

Open to discussion... by using terrible math and terrible logic.

Sure, Jan.

“What am I doing now? Ignoring all your comments and not reading them?“

The part about “educating yourself” completely flew over your head, right? To be clear, “educating yourself” does not mean “demand that others educate you.” The subject of the verb “educate” is different in these two clauses, just so you know.

“So I’m meant to listen to the ‘grievances of fans of color’ but also shouldn’t ask fans of color to spend time talking to me. Gotcha.”

Are you really this amazingly literal-minded or are you being purposefully obtuse? Googling “fandom racism” is a thing? Reading the many, many articles by fans of color about fandom trends and fandom experiences is also a thing?

Going on to people’s posts and shoving your unwanted, stale opinions on them is not listening. Opening with “actually, this is why you’re wrong (and also how dare you call me racist)” is not listening.

“If you don’t think there’s anything wrong with pretending to be an activist so you can jump on a bandwagon of sending people hateful messages, then I really don’t know what to say.“

All it takes is searching “harassment” on my blog to learn where I stand on that sort of thing, but nice try painting me as something I’m not. :)

“So if I really was a sealion, I would have demanded that you respond to me in what was meant to be my final response by calling you a coward or something“

Did you read the meme originator comic? Being a sea lion isn’t limited to calling people cowards, it’s about implying that those who don’t respond are unable to defend their points or are in some way lacking--which is exactly what you did by saying antis would be more open to a conversation with you if they “truly wanted to change the situation, or help.” I.e. by not answering your points, they’re not being open to conversation, hence not changing or helping anything. People who didn’t want to talk to you (not talking about harassment, just quitting out of frustration) didn’t bother because, again, it’s nothing we haven’t heard before and you've shown yourself to be a dishonest debater. Also because they know when to quit, unlike me.

“If I really was after validation or whatever, I’d be using tags. You know, so like-minded Kylux shippers could find my argument and agree with me.”

Goalpost moving, after you’ve had it explained to you very clearly what claiming moral victory is. Not that I expect any better from you at this point.

6. Miscellaneous

“Also, Star Wars isn’t groundbreaking storytelling? Are you kidding me?”

So again we run into the problem of using words in different senses. What I meant is that there’s nothing terribly new about the characters or storytelling, directly in response to your assertion that Finn and Poe don’t fit “the mold.” You seem to have taken it in the sense that it’s not popular or good, which... isn’t the meaning of groundbreaking? But I see now that you mean the mold as in the mold of AO3 shipping, so whatever.

“Hilariously enough I actually disagree with the Hux fans (which you probably assumed I’d side with), although I do think TFO’s attack on Hosnian Prime is pretty comparable to America bombing Hiroshima.”

I didn’t assume, I only showed what I sometimes do on this blog. Thanks for assuming what I assumed, though? And no, it’s not comparable. Like, I believe the bombing of Hiroshima was a war crime, but it was not the deliberate extermination of an entire population without warning or declaration of war. Monstrous as Hiroshima was, Hosnian Prime is incomparably more monstrous.

#hooooooly shit #wtf am i doing #this rabbit hole goes deep indeed #it's a hilarious ride though #fandom racism #troll in the dungeon #illiterallylondon

13 notes · View notes

knightofbalance-13 · 7 years

Text

https://sokumotanaka.tumblr.com/post/158693391644/its-weird-to-me-that-the-humans-in-remnant-are-so

“It’s weird to me that the humans in remnant are so shitty as people, If you remember the faunus WOR it does state humans used to attack and kill faunus for just being different, an act that wasn’t met by retaliation from the faunus at the time or by any humans who thought it was wrong.“

... So just people then? Because we’ve been doing this as a race of thousands of years: Killing anything that is different. I fail to see why they are held to sucha higher degree than you or I. Pretty sure 90% of the cast of RWBY are better people than the both of us.

“And it continues to get weird because humans lived alongside faunus yet I find it strange no one calls out cardin, our naive optimist protagonist doesn’t tell weiss it’s not fair to judge faunus as one unit because their people, not objects, yell yang the most outspoken member literally just sits there, yang a roamer looking for her mom at some point and doesn’t have anything to say? I’m not saying the injustices need to escalate to make the problem seem “real” but there needs to be some damn consequences to human behavior; ruby wanted to be a hunter to help people yet when velvet is getting bullied literally just watches!“

Because they can’t do anything? Listen, I have been arguing with you for months about your toxic behavior, much in the same way with Cardin, and you haven’t changed. You can call out a racist all you want, you shouldn’t expect them to change. Plus, people tend to not get involved with big affairs. America didn’t get involved with the World Wars until it started affecting us directly. Once again: Why are they held to a higher regard than the rest of humanity?

I seem not to be the only one who feels this either, many people bring these issues up when talking about the faunus.

Your first link is dead and the second comes from a guy tried to argue Jaune got too much screentime to himself this Volume despite the fact that “too much” was 5:42 minutes. Not great sources.

We’re in a world (eerily similar to our own.) Where people will say “Wow that’s fucked up.” yet don’t really seem to care the difference here, these characters became hunters to help, to act where certain people couldn’t/wouldn’t. And for a young faunus who probably gets attacked (There are probably people out there who are worst than cardin) when you’re treated like shit, attacked for being different and pushed into a corner…consider, your young, vulnerable and now feel unwanted, this is a real feeling, and very relatable.

Yeah and how much stupid shit do people in our world do all the god damn time? A lot going just by the rwde tag alone.

Again, this seems like you make our world out to be better when it’s not. We do this shit all the time and considering that it’s one form of racism against the tens of types of racism we have today, it’s so unrealistic to expect them to be better.

Now consider the faunus who only feels safe among their own, who wants humans to stop attacking and hurting their kind, so joing the white fang seems pretty enticing, remember before the series began the white fang didn’t preform anything too rash. We didn’t start hearing about hostile takeovers ans such until cinder took over which was directly after blake left. I understand there are people who hear the phrase white fang and have a few things to say. I want you to take the time to read this. I don’t support the murder of people in remnant, but I do support the white fang’s existance, now hear me out! Remember the white fang started out with peacful protest and as I watched the series could not wait to see the peacful side of the white fang; (That’s an issue for another post) To them attacking SDC cargo and taking away potential ammo from their oppressors/screwing the people using their race as labor slaves seem ideal to a young mind despite how detrimental it might be. (It’s two choices for these people either force a difference or wait for people to change after eons, remember blake states that the peaceful side of the white fang has been going on for centuries.)

Uh...it began five years before the series so yeah, I have no doubt that the White Fang has been doing shit like that before. Especially considering our own history in which even outside of the black panthers the CRM had people doing violent shit in it’s name.

Then how about the killing of innocents? Because Adam tried that bullshit in the Black Trailer which was before Cinder’s takeover, evident by the implications of Blake being in the White Fang on Cinder’s first attempt but not the second. Because that’s the real issue here. The instant you take an innocent life, you lose the right to ask for equality because you ARE equal now: you’re the same as the shit you fought. And no, you don’t get to kill innocent humans because their ancestors did horrible shit. Those humans are not their ancestors and had no control over them and shouldn't bear any guilt. Just as well, judging by SUn the only Fanaus we’ve focused on outside the WHite Fang considers them a cult, Fanaus themselves hate the White Fang so that argument doesn’t work.

But fine let’s say they are allowed. That also means you can’t complain when one black guy shoots another black guy because tribes in Africa enslaved their kinsmen and you can’t speak up about ISIS because Muslism were killed off by Christians in the Crusades. See how dangerous and stupid that mindset is?

In a world where the white fang of the new age are now extremist and humans are innocent, there seems to be a lack of effort that makes me not care for the cast. Humans innocence is shown to us by being indifferent but that plays against them because these characters who have a strong sense of justice like Ruby, Pyhrra and Jaune see this act infront of them and don’t react at all. We’re given lines that sound phoned in and tired, These people who want to help the world don’t do anything!

They all glare at the fucker. What more can they do against an asshole, call him out? He ain’t gonna care, evidence being when I call you out you shrug it off. Punch him? Newsflash, they'd bet in trouble. Been there, doen that. Prank him? Then he automatically assumes Velvet did it.

But back tracking a bit: That’s because the conflict isn’t theres. They have no stake in it and there is a lot more serious shit going on like a humanoid Grimm trying to kill everyone and an infinite amount of Grimm to kill.

Okay then: Fanaus innoncence is shown by them not saying a word about the White Fang kill regular, normal humans and aiding Cinder. Ergo, by your own logic, we shouldn’t care about the White Fang. Whereas The main group is facing much bigger threat, ergo we should care about them.

Weiss is calling a race, trash and flithy and no one reacts, at all. Again they stand there blinking and their lack of reaction make them seem stiff and inhuman, if you want to prove humans are a complete innocent part, then show some effort RT! You could put some flavor text in a line, on a newspaper a character picks up, a sign etc that says “Hey there are humans who fight these prejudice.” -I want fox anf yatsuhashi to loom over cardins team- And I’d be satisfied, I’ll expect to see a glimpse of them at some point, but I think a small effort is better than zero. Especially with this writing crew.

In Volume 1...afterward she was better around Blake, started liking Sun and risked her life trying to save Velvet. That argument is invalid.

... What gave you THAT idea? The SDC is obviously treated as malevolent and evil and Cardin is treated as a giant jackass, humans are constantly killing each other-This makes no sense! Especially considering a certain writer’s involvement in RvB’s Chorus Trilogy which made a big point in showing that war often times just has two sides with differing opinions! Don’t go blaming the show when you’re the one reading it wrong.

Oh look, potshot against the writing staff. Guess that means I can amek potshots too. But unlike rwde’s, mine will be funny.

Being indifferent is not the same as being innocent, if you watch people beat, tease or harass a person for them races, sexual orientation etc, rather than say something, do something or call anyone who can do stop it, you don’t actually care.

Glass houses motherfucker, I was suicide baoted by a regular in your tag, pointed it out and no one ever said a word, especially you. By your own logic, you don’t care and are not innocent!

3 notes · View notes

fantasysuiteleague · 7 years

Text

Week 7: Cry Me A River. Build Me A Bridge.

This week’s episode picks up the morning after Nick’s breakdown in the girls’ house, where he wept on the arm of a couch and told the girls he might be too fragile to continue. Even after a night of rest on the beautiful island of St. Thomas, the girls are still pretty shocked and a little nauseated by Nick’s tearful outburst the night before. Even Chris Harrison heard he had a pretty gross breakdown rough night, as evidenced by his check-in session on the beach with Nick. Like any good friend, he lets Nick fall back into his loop of misery and complain that this might not be the best place to meet someone who is actually interested in being with him. But Chris Harrison doesn’t have much sympathy.

After a few more tears, he gives Nick two options: walk away right now and die alone, or go back in there and finish this show like you promised you would, and then die alone. Seeing as he is contractually obligated to finish the show, Nick chooses the path of love and heads back to the girls’ house to apologize for being so disgusting the night before. As he struggles not to cry, he explains that even though he’s insecure, he’s scared, he’s miserable, he’s broke, he’s losing hope, he’s letting his lisp slide, he ultimately feels more for the remaining women than he ever did for ditzy D-Lo, and to prove it he’s cancelling the rose ceremony and everyone is heading to Bimini.

Easy as 1, 2, 3.

In desperate need of sunglasses, Nick’s livestrong band and Vanessa squint into each others’ eyes as they discuss their shared question of whether Nick would come on this show and force himself to fall in love with someone (because that’s how this works), or if he was going to be a real genuine boy. Nick reassures Vanessa that he doesn’t need to force anything with her, stammering that “I know so much about you I feel like I know you without knowing the details I still don't know.” Woah. Deep. After that wall-breaking conversation of just knowing what you know when you know even though you don’t know, they splash around in the ocean and then Vanessa falls in love with Nick the moment they start making out underwater. At this point, she’s pretty sure they’re on the same page and can’t wait for the night portion of the date to let Nick know how she feels. Nick opens up the dialogue with “so, hometowns are next week...” Magical. Vanessa takes this opportunity to launch into her well-rehearsed speech about how *easy* it is to be with Nick, which is what she’s been looking for. He’s not challenging, he doesn’t make her think, and she loves that about him. So she lets him know she’s falling in love with him, and after a not-so-passionate kiss, Nick really drops the ball. He gives a long-winded explanation of how hes said “I love you” before on this show and even though he’s totally not ashamed of that, if he’s going to do it again it needs to be different and he definitely can’t say it right now. Vanessa, who looks pissed and embarrassed, doesn’t have much to say back.

Yikes.

Swimming with Sharks

If you remember a few weeks ago, Kristina was the only girl that really got under Corinne’s skin by telling her that her fake anxiety attacks and napping were very uncool. This nugget gives an entertaining twist to the otherwise boring tension between Corinne and Kristina, caused mostly by Corinne’s desperate need for attention and reassurance, and partly by Kristina’s I-grew-up-in-fucking-Russia fervor. Nick buys into the games like any dumb boy would, rubbing Kristina down in suntan lotion and reassuring Corinne that she won’t be eaten by sharks unless she’s on her period because sharks can smell the blood. Meanwhile, Raven stays above the fray and off to the side, unphased by the petty games and ready to punch a shark in the face, which comes as no surprise considering she drove across state lines to beat her cheating boyfriend over the head with a shoe. Ultimately, Kristina wins the date by getting too scared by the sharks and needing to get on the boat and cry. Later that night Nick pays her back by pulling Kristina away first to…cry. Again. Can you imagine escaping from fucking Russia and then dating a 36-year-old man who cannot stop crying because he’s terrified of looking dumb on TV (despite having signed up, 4 times, to go on TV and look dumb).

After weeping with Kristina, Nick kicks off his 1-on-1 time with Raven with the age old “so, hometowns are next week...” It’s like he’s not even trying anymore. Not that he ever was? Raven talk about her parents who are still together because that is apparently now something to brag about on this show? Getting a little deeper, Raven reveals she quit law school because her dad got lung cancer, but now that he’s in remission she can make him proud by going back to school on the Bachelor. After 2-3 bottles of chardonnay, Corinne finally gets her 1-on-1 time with Nick and she’s just drunk enough to be obnoxious and whiny and willing to do whatever it takes. Nick reassures her that she’s clearly doing something right as she’s still around despite being the least realistic choice for a wife on the show.

Goodbye, Girl Next Door

Back when Nick was forcing connections and willing to play The Bachelor Game, he and Danielle hit it off because she was the sleepy girl next door from Wisconsin and it all made sense. Now that reality has set in, however, it’s pretty clear that Danielle’s lack of personality just isn’t going to cut it. Besides, she always looks like she’s moments away from that green ambien butterfly landing on her nose and taking her into a deep and dreamless sleep, which is strangely not appealing to Nick. It’s easy to see this breakup coming from a mile away after Nick says things like “have you learned at all about some of the history on the island?” and his favorite “so, hometowns are next week...” But somehow Danielle thinks this is all going really well. Later that night, the awkwardness continues in what feels more like an SNL skit than anything else:

Danielle: I really liked being playful today. Riding bikes. Just being the two of us, and the production crew. It was great

Nick: You’re fun to have fun with.

Because he’s an asshole, Nick lets Danielle open up about feeling something *real* for him even though she’s scared because “the last time I was in love with someone, they died…..” Yikes. Nick breaks up with her by saying that he doesn’t long for her and doesn’t really think about her at all.

Not So Platinum Vagine

Corinne is fed up with not getting enough attention from Nick, and wants to prove that she would, in fact, live in a shack with no diamonds for Nick. When she wants something, she gets it. She’s not a runner up and will not be outshined.

So she decides to break the rules and pop over to Nick’s room to let him know she’s here for fame him. Nick, being the gentleman that he is, invites her in for a nightcap which shockingly leads to them making out and then casually going into Nick’s bedroom and closing the door, sans cameras. Behind closed doors, Corinne instructs Nick to “keep two hands all at all times. Never jiggle. Lightly massage.” If she’s not talking about her boobs, then I have to admit I have no idea what kind of heavy petting they’re doing. After some rustling and smooching (as described by my closed captioning), Nick “remembers” that the last time someone fucked before the fantasy suite dates it didn’t go over too well, so he tells her she’s *amazing* but it’s time to go. Corinne is forced to take a walk of shame and punishes herself by avoiding the automatic doors, choosing instead of waddle out the manual door in her 6 inch Louboutins.

The Next Blachelorette

I would say that hindsight is 20/20 and the editing and setup of Rachel’s story seems so obvious, BUT, I called this Episode 1 (along with many others), so I’m not surprised when Nick takes her to hang out with the locals and tells the camera “she’s an incredibly beautiful woman who is incredibly smart and charismatic.” This is true, but coming from Nick it doesn’t sound genuine at all. And here’s my theory on why (besides all the obvious stuff like Nick sucks, has no personality, etc.): Rachel was specifically approached and put on this show in order for ABC to finally get their first black Bachelorette. No, this isn’t me being racist, but here are the #facts:

She’s a real lawyer who has been practicing for 5+ years (unlike Andi who literally had a job for 2 months before leaving to film), and actually has something to lose (like the respect of every lawyer ever).

Her dad is a federal fucking judge.

I’ve heard from people who went to law school with her that she is super nice and isn’t the type to seek fame (although obviously a part of her is otherwise she’d have turned this down).

Nick has always been looking ahead with Rachel and saying things that make it seem like he knows she’s going to stick around to at least home towns. He’s brought up her dad more than Corinne brought up Raquel.

She got the first impression rose (I know this isn’t dispositive, but still)

Nick has been on this show 100x and is close with the producers.

A black girl has never made it past week 5 before, and this year there were 3. In fact, there were more women of color on this show than any season in the past.

Now this isn’t to say that none of this has been real (it hasn’t), but it’s not too far-fetched to believe that Rachel was approached by producers and promised that if she came on the show and dealt with this bullshit, she would make it far enough and get enough screen time to rally Bachelor Nation behind her as the first ever Blachelorette. And seeing as Nick has proven himself to be a puppet time and time again, it’s very easy to imagine a conversation with Nick wherein the producers told him to keep Rachel around and actually try to have meaningful conversations with her and then he would be able to say he’s the guy who kept a black girl around long enough to be the Bachelor. And Rachel made it easy because she seems so cool and nice and normal that Nick was probably happy to keep her around and make himself look legitimate. Now I’m not saying that Nick doesn’t actually like her, it actually makes a lot of sense for him to pick her in the end. She has a stable job that pays good money, he is broke, and she is an incredibly respectful choice. But he and I both know that there’s no way in HELL that Rachel would actually want to get engaged and marry Nick Viall. No one wants to do that, especially no one with a brain.

Cutting Ties with Russia

After Rachel’s date, Corinne continues her downward spiral figuring out that she’s last on the totem pole because Nick was all over Kristina on the group date, Raven has a rose, Rachel just came back from her date and is going to be the next Bachelorette, and Vanessa has a strong connection with Nick. What she doesn’t know is that while she’s panicking over nothing, Nick is having yet another sob session with Chris Harrison about how hard it’s going to be to dump Kristina because he has a deep love for her and might even respect her. Wanting to get this over with as quickly as possible, Nick breaks up with her outside of a rose ceremony on the porch of their villa. Kristina is pissed that he never gave her a chance and recoils from Nick as he cries that he did give her a chance and he does love her but there are “stronger relationships in the house” and it’s just not fair to her. By stronger relationships he obviously means: “I’m going to pick Vanessa, I already gave Raven a rose, I need to keep Rachel to hometowns so America can meet her family, and I really want to fuck Corinne.” But I do think he actually likes and kind of respects Kristina--not enough to not be all over her during the group date, but enough to save her the embarrassment of a rose ceremony or the additional heartache of being dumped after home towns or fantasy suites. This all seems best case scenario for Kristina who at least got to go to Bimini and doesn’t have to bother introducing Nick’s limp dick to her family...

Did you notice . . .

Vanessa is completely absent after her 1-on-1 date. At no point when we cut back to the girls in the house sitting around the couch talking is Vanessa anywhere to be seen. I thought this was weird, but then coupled with Corinne’s assessment that Vanessa has no depth and is just a special needs teacher named Vanessa, it seems to be like there’s some tension between Vanessa and the rest of the girls in the house that we aren’t privy to. I hate to put my tinfoil hat back on, but I have to wonder if the other girls don’t like her for some reason but it didn’t make the cut because Corinne was easy entertainment and because they wanted to make Vanessa, a clear front-runner, look as good as possible.

Nick’s swim trunks. Again.

Nick wearing shoes on the beach.

Minority Report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTBYcPwRk1o

#The Bachelor #bachelorabc #fantasysuiteleague #bachelor recap #chris harrison #nick viall

3 notes · View notes