#not about like... politics in general

[cuddlytogas]

@originalleftist left this reply, which I think is worth digging into!

There is some truth to this, particularly that many pirates were seeking both an escape from and revenge for the harsh conditions of lawful maritime employment at the time (though I'm not sure if the Roberts quote is genuine). But I'm pretty sure a lot of this is incorrect, especially the claim that Golden Age pirates as a group were seeking to abolish nations, which is probably pure wishful thinking from modern anarchists. To the extent that they involved themselves in national politics, a bigger concern was whether the House of Stuart sat on the English throne (the name of Blackbeard's flagship, the Queen Anne's Revenge, is thought to be an allusion to this). I will also note that, ahistorical or not, dismissing the freedom to love as a diluted concept of freedom is simply contemptuous of the queer community, treating their rights as an afterthought, and is a great example of how a certain brand of Left wing politics makes the reductive mistake of treating economic class conflict as the sole issue, to the exclusion of all other concerns.

okay, fair enough on the quotation: nothing in the General History should exactly be taken at face value! XD but it still shows what was understood to be part of Roberts' - and by extension his contemporaries' - motives in turning pirate, so it's still useful

but the rest of your reply is mostly a misunderstanding of my point! so, terribly sorry, but this is about to get long...

firstly, I didn't mean to say that golden age pirates explicitly aimed to abolish nations. you're right, that's a very modern anarchist value. but multiple historians (Rediker in particular, but he's not the only one; I wish I'd digitised my notes already to give proper sources!) identify their uniquely anti-national - or perhaps non-national - energy. previous generations of C17th buccaneers and pirates often retained their nationalism, seeking letters of marque, or targeting the ships/ports of enemy nations. (Henry Morgan was knighted and made Governor of Jamaica after his buccaneering ended!) they were explicitly or tacitly endorsed by european officials as tools in the struggle for mercantile and naval dominance.

in contrast, the 1710s-20s pirates were much less discerning. the post-War of Spanish Succession period saw a (slave) trade boom in the Caribbean/North America, plus a flood of unemployed navy/privateer sailors, predictably leading to increased piracy. but now, they attacked ships indiscriminately, and denied - in action and sometimes word - national allegiances. and the authorities recognised this! merchants and officials begged for help, and the English cracked down harder than ever, because these pirates were no longer useful to crown interests, but a threat to all trade.

this included pardons in 1717 and 18, but also increased naval presence; active campaigns like Woodes Rogers' in 1713 and 18 against the Madagascar and Bahamas pirates respectively; and expanded anti-piracy laws in 1717 and 1721, reinforcing a 1698 act to set up colonial admiralty courts to try pirates rather than sending them to England, and treating the assistance, protection, or trade with pirates as piracy itself, rewarding/punishing sailors who defeated/surrendered to pirates. it was a violent cycle: by the 1720s, the navy and dwindling pirates were both growing increasingly brutal and indiscriminate.

(for more on pirates and labour, especially practices of asking a boarded crew how their captains treated them, there's a talk by Rediker on youtube. pop it on 1.5x speed, he's a slow talker XD)

as to Jacobitism, I honestly think this is a neglected area of research, and I'm yet to find proper, thorough work on it. (suggestions always welcome!) but of course, this period aligns with the 1715 Jacobite rebellion and its aftermath, following Anne's death and the end of the war. many rebels were jailed and executed, or fled, including to the "new world". the 1717 piracy pardon came two months after a Jacobite one.

however, I don't think we can infer much from pirate ship names like Queen Anne's Revenge and Royal James, or reports of pro-Stuart toasts. for one, Jacobitism seems like an easy way to further slander someone accused of piracy. more importantly though, it's very unclear how earnest these declarations were!

these pirates often exhibited a dark sense of humour. they were committed to (quoth Roberts via Johnson again) "a merry life and a short one", and are consistently reported as feasting, drinking, and carousing. Anstis' crew apparently spent a 1721 holiday running mock piracy trials of each other.

such people toasting the Pretender seems less a political statement than general anti-authoritarianism. they certainly never materially assisted Jacobite causes, nor (AFAIK) targeted Hanoverians. in my opinion, the evidence suggests that these toasts and ship names were generally provocative, an abstract allegiance with treason/disruption rather than a sincere political endorsement.

all this to say: I didn't mean that golden age pirates were political anarchists trying to abolish nationhood. but their practices - allying with their own, democratic communities rather than any state - contains anti-national energies that I wish were more often expressed by modern pirate media. again, if we're going to valourise these pirates, we might as well extrapolate the highest of their actual ideals, and wouldn't that non-national, radical-democracy energy be a great place to start?

as to "dismissing the freedom to love as a diluted concept of freedom [compared to class conflict]"... I mean - come on. that's obviously not what I meant. my frustration isn't with the freedom to love as an abstract political concept, and TBH, as a righteous queer, I don't appreciate being accused of 'treating queer rights as an afterthought'.

my frustration is with how modern popular media utilises a shallow and unchallenging idea of 'freedom to love' to epitomise rebellion, while also erasing the actual rebellions. queer rights aren't advanced by endless anodyne, straight romances in pirate movies with a veneer of defiance because they're a noblewoman and a pirate (sometimes also a nobleman in disguise).

like, we could talk about how class/racial marriage equality paved the way for same-sex marriage; how cross-class relationships were and are oppressed; Anne Bonny/Mary Read's freedom in pirate relationships compared to on land; homosocial male communities and potential freedom from anti-sodomy laws; etc etc etc. all of which would be fascinating, exciting lenses through which to examine piracy historically and in modern media!

but golden age pirates themselves didn't mention that. to repeat the original post, what these pirates expressed - and what's left out of mainstream pirate media - was a specific response to specific social and economic oppressions. the erasure of this isn't frustrating to me because I'm a leftist focused on class struggle above all, but because it ignores and defangs actual political history.

maybe it's just the Radical Rediker talking, but there's something pointed in the way that, say, popular pirate media like Pirates of the Caribbean dilutes the pirate's freedom to "bring me that horizon" as opposed to, say, "plenty and satiety, pleasure and ease, liberty and power" (Bartholomew Roberts).

broadly speaking, most pirates chose the life in order to escape and revenge the hard labour, corporal punishment, overworking, and unequal pay of merchant/navy/privateer ships; or the privations of their sudden unemployment once a war was over, ignored as soon as their ability to die for the state was unneeded. yes, many were thugs, but, consciously political or not, they were responding to a particular, material reality.

the pirate's desired freedom was from the effects of exploitative modes of statehood and capital production. but popular media usually shifts this into a general desire for freedom: freedom to roam, freedom to love (usually merely a cross-class white, heterosexual union), or freedom from the personal pressures of social norms. it's a vague, ahistorical, post-Enlightenment, libertarian ideal rather than a response to a real social and economic situation.

to be clear, this only really applies to specifically the late golden age of piracy, in the first quarter of the 18th century. earlier generations of pirates/buccaneers often displayed nationalist/religious motives, and were lauded, tolerated, or even encouraged by the French and English states for aiding their fights against the Spanish and Portuguese. only the last gasp of age of sail pirates had a truly anti-national energy, and both figured themselves, and were figured by the imperial powers, as the enemies of all nations.

but if we are to valourise the late golden age pirate, at his best, his ideals were for true democracy, and the abolition of nation, hierarchy, and labour exploitation; not "the horizon". he was striking out in response to specific political, social, and economic oppressions, rather than a general individual restlessness, and that reality - and its similarities to our own - are important.

I dunno, I just... have a lot of thoughts about the defanging of piracy in modern media. obviously there were a lot of things bad about them, too, and the level of egalitarianism varied between individual people and ships. but again, if we're going to be valourising them anyway... there were idealists. and they weren't subtle about they wanted.

"I shan't own myself guilty of any murder", said William Fly in 1726. "Our captain and his mate used us barbarously. We poor men can't have justice done us. There is nothing said to our commanders, let them never so much abuse us, and use us like dogs. But the poor sailors --"

[aqlstar]

Minorities do not have to be perfect to deserve your support.

2. Your method of providing support for minorities should not amplify bigotry towards another minority.

^ Two statements that are both true.

[inkskinned]

you know, you know. no gods, no masters, no kings on pedestals. everyone is fallible. death of the author. you know! you are balanced about your intake of media - you allow the wiggle room, the grace, the gratitude, the skepticism. nobody above criticism.

but still. a weird gut-punch feeling, something akin to betrayal. you read the article. surprise! an author you love is actually: a serial fucking predator.

well, shit. what now. no, you knew he was a person (all people are), but now you're wondering - what have i overlooked by accident? what messages have i internalized that are strange and cruel? and also, like, what the fuck?

his actions lay a thick glaze on top of everything. like each place is now ruined, opaque in a new way. but okay, fine, you've done this before. you knew better, right? you've been betrayed by many a cherished childhood author.

still, this stickiness. fuck. can you pick up that book again. will you read it to your children. you've recommended it to others - will you ever do that again? and of course, of course, no parasocial relationships. you were theoretically above this kind of sentiment. but the artist informs the art, right.

so it's not something as clear-cut as feeling he owed you, specifically (a stranger) better behavior - just that you kind of, in a distant and odd way... sort of trusted him to do better. it's not like a real trust or something speakable, just the faint hope that the product (good books) was a thin representation of the soul. now it feels like the product (good? books?) was a mask. in some small or insignificant way, your previous support of this person lent them power. your money and your time and your laughter.

and the thing is - you have this terrible, echoing sensation. how many times will this happen? over and over. you find out that the singer you love is actually a predator. you learn over drinks that your favorite high school english teacher is in jail for what he did to her. you listen to the news idly and suddenly discover that a woman you used to idolize has been abusing her kids for an actual eon.

what can you touch without the static melting off. you can't even really complain about it too much (you were supposed to know better, and besides, you don't want the same re-split "it's not your fault, love what you love" basic advice), but now it's here. somehow, it feels like - you let him into your life.

it's not that things need to be pure or an artist has to be like, endlessly perfect, mindful. demure. it's more just this terrible truth that has been replayed through your veins so often it feels criminally vain. power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. did you want any one person to be worth that power?

it's just that he wrote books where he seemed to understand that. he seemed to know about hierarchies and unfair systems and bigotry and privilege. you thought they were books about what it means to struggle. you thought they were about having power and still using it for good rather than for control. he spooned you a narrative of being a good guy, a kind soul. you fucking bought what that fucking monster sold.

maybe that's why they were fantasies, after all.

[obibail]

"Still not helpful."

[chaoticbuggybitchboy]

“If you dont like it, move” how fuckin dare you tell me to abandon my home because fascists. I love my home and I will make it better. I do not want to leave my home. I will not abandon it until it is very blatantly apparent to me that my options are to leave or to be killed and even then I’ll probably stay and do my damn best to fight back anyways. I don’t want to leave my home, this is a place I love full of people I love. Do not ever tell me to ‘simply’ leave it.

[rayroseu]

You know what's sick as hell about the design of the Briar Senates??? It's that their design mirrors the weapon of the Draconias 😭✨

I know they're getting flak rn bcs they feel like "boomers who's against any progress because they value toxic tradition" but i don't really think they're like... entirely evil lol or the root of every bad thing that happened in Malleus'/Lilia's life (though im side eyeing them as one of the perpetrators still lol)

Tbh, removing them would also cause more harm (just some social issues inside the fae society tbh) than good imo, (I know many ppl say this bcs they think removing the Senates would make it possible for the peace between human and faes, but the thing is, the Senates aren't the only group that thinks this way, almost the entirety of Briar Valley does lol so forcibly removing them now would only come off as "Malleus forcing "human ideals" on the faes just because he has spent 4 years with the humans"(plus is the understanding between humans and faes truly achieved if you try to silence one group(even if that group is kinda disagreeable with anything human related lol), plus realistically the faes would trust their fellow faes first rather than some humans,

so for me, Briar Senates doesn't give off the vibe of toxic old people who drags others down in their toxic practices (while that can be an accurate description i feel like it generalizes too much about their behaviour), rather than that, Briar Senates feels more like thorns, like thorns that surrounds Briar Valley, they're not exactly harmful unless you go against them, but ultimately they're still protection for Briar Valley.

Which makes it fitting that their design has a similarity with the Draconia's weapon, they're the thorns that protects the Draconias, even if it means sheltering them.

And, tbh, if the Senates other job is to ensure Draconias lives, they're kinda doing a "decent job"??? If we can assume through Maleficia's (and Malleus' case), since we didnt hear about her leaving the Senate's side, she managed to survive for so long, unlike Meleanor😭 Also could explain why they're so enraged when Lilia arrived with the news that Meleanor died and why they hated the weak bcs what would weakness could protect JJDSJD Kinda wish their hatred against Lilia wasnt that he was a weak bat fae, but rather they doubled down on the fact he failed protecting Meleanor, imagine if Gen. Lilia wasnt as great in magic as the fae nobles were, yet he still managed to earn a position beside the Princess, all that hard work only to fail at the most crucial time, it wouldve make sense in the Senates' side to say, "Meleanor shouldnt have appointed him" (because "he's weak from the start")

oh additionally, this is just my assumption, bcs I felt like the way the Senates recoiled when Lilia hatched the egg was kinda... random?? so this is my made up reason lol Remember, the Senates were adamant that Maleficia should only be the one to hatch the egg because she's a Draconia, but Lilia did it and he's not a Draconia, What if because Lilia hatched the egg, it also affected the development of Malleus?? Like maybe for instance, it affected Malleus' lifespan, maybe he still lives more than one thousand years but he won't live for another thousand years like a pure Draconia because he's been hatched by Lilia as opposed to who they wanted it to be, which is Maleficia, OF COURSE Lilia hatching the egg is heaps better than Malleus dying before being born, but this is just my auto thoughts regarding the random hate reaction the Senates did when Lilia hatched Malleus lol

Interestingly, the placement of the stone of Draconia against the thorns (of the Senates) can also be hinted at their relationship with them??? In Meleanor's case, her stone is on top of the thorns, which may indicate that she's not under the Senate's commands or that its just telling she just lived distantly from the Senates, most importantly her stone is bigger than the thorns which may tell the fact that the Senates worships her because she's powerful and greater than them, and she's not someone who can be trapped/ordered around within the Senates. But, tragically, in Malleus' case, his stone is under the thorns, like its telling that he's under the Senates protection at all cost and his stone is little compared to Meleanor's because he's still young.

I also have a theory that the Senates are part of Briar Valley's land, like its been canonically said that they're the dead faes of Briarland, which makes think that their death is similar to the death of Conall from Maleficent 2, when Conall was buried, his body literally morphed to the land, which makes me think this is how the Senates used to be buried, when they die, they become one with the land, that's why you can't just remove them, when they are literally the Lands of Briar Valley,,,, get it lol

Though this is making me think that if this is the case then Maleficia's city,,, if the Senate's presence are the strongest there bcs that's where they're nearly buried, does that mean around Black Scale Castle is just lowkey a graveyard.... Is that why Halloween is special for Briar Valley bcs they have close ties/respect for the dead and Halloween is essentially about honoring the dead 😭✨

Off topic, but maybe the thorns part of the Draconia's staff may also tell about their age. Notice how Meleanor's staff has 3 twists which may tell that she's atleast 300~ years old, (if each twists signifies a century), while Malleus' staff only has one twist on its thorns which is accurate considering he's only 178 years old (one century).

If this is true, I'm kinda curious about Maleficia's staff... does that mean hers will be convered in thorns (she needs at least 7 twists (7 centuries~ and more) there on her staff 😭✨)

[sunlight-shunlight]

i don't have an excuse for this. woe. young solas be upon ye.

[gabelew]

I wanted to draw teen Sidon and Bazz hanging out in Sidon's room, so it was a good moment to finally plan out said room study (that is just a part of his quarters).

It's actually Dorephan’s old quarters, repurposed after he outgrew them. He's responsible for like, half of the clutter, the rest is all Sidon.

[nonbinary-vents]

This has been an absolutely horrible couple weeks for the Jewish and Israeli community, so I want to throw in at least a tiny bit of hope in here. Amina Hassouna, the Bedouin girl who was severely hurt in Iran’s missile attacks, has been recovering well and seems to be in good condition! She is described as being ‘fully conscious’ and ‘communicating and smiling’. Two bomb shelters have been placed in Al-Fura, the town that she and her family are from, as well.

[roguekaiju]

Agnes should be allowed to bring the previous pope back from the dead and kill him herself for throwing one of her Sisters into the viper pit for the sake of stopping a potential successor

[3liza]

this is such a dumb post im about to make but im trying to watch Ryan Murphy take a run at Hannibal and doing it mostly incoherently (a show called Grotesquerie) like he does everything but it reminded me that the trope in both crime media AND real life criminal forensics is that assumption that for a killer to do something a certain way, he has to be or is more likely to be a professional in that field. the old chestnut that jack the ripper or whoever must be a surgeon or a mortuary worker or a butcher in order to "know anatomy" is complete nonsense. i know how to do so many things that have nothing to do with my actual job or training, including butchering meat, and cutting up a dead body takes like. less than "deboned a chicken five or six times" levels of expertise.

its really not some rarified skill and its pretty self-explanatory as soon as you start separating joints etc. i imagine it only takes a couple minutes of trying to saw through a human femur with garden tools before you start looking around for a better way and then figure out on your own that separating cartilage is a lot easier. which is why there are so many actual irl cases where entire human corpses have been dismembered in a fairly short period of time in order to fit them into luggage or trash cans or barrels, and the killer was just some guy. you dont need any expertise when cutting up OR sewing together parts of a carcass because surgical expertise is about doing as little damage as possible and maximizing survival, which doesn't apply to doing morbid tableaux with people who are already dead, or concealing a victim in a crawlspace or what have you. its an incredibly dumb thing that people say both on tv and in real life and its so annoying. this applies to really any forensic claim about expertise with the exception of skills that actually do take many years to get even vaguely competent at, like idk, drawing realistically. like if you are the fictional detective and you found a blood painting with excellent draftsmanship at a crime scene, that would probably be forensically relevant because not a lot of people know how to draw and its not something you can get GOOD at without a few hundred hours of investment. but just cutting up meat and sewing it back together? and not even taxidermy or tanning or skeleton articulation or clean maceration or whatever???? not relevant. tired of seeing it in crime media. its dumb. actually being able to set up a department store window scene with 200lb human bodies without them falling over or liquifying or collapsing takes a lot more specialized experience than slicing and dicing. like if i walked into a church with a bunch of dead people arranged as the last supper i would be looking for someone with a theater tech degree, not a surgeon

[hooked-on-elvis]

'69 1174 Hillcrest 8MM Footage. All the fans footage here: youtube.com

[st-just]

It is kind of funny that 'boost military spending up to the levels the Americans are demanding' is now a universally accepted priority among the Canadian political class (and even the populace ime) but this has occurred entirely in tandem with the vibe shifting from 'we need to pull our weight as lackeys strategic partners' to 'we need to prepare for a potential war of national defense'.

[stuck-in-jelly]

On today’s episode of “More Dragon Prince Character Interactions I Would’ve Loved To See” I think these two deserve their own awkward one on one scene

[helenvaughans]

[meanderingstream]

Thoughts on Leverage OT3 and Canon

I think that if some of the things that the OT3 said to each other were said by a man and a woman in a TV show, the audience would clearly read it as romantic. Like if a hetero ship said:

“For better or worse, we change together,” from the Rundown Job {for better, for worse, in sickness and in health…}

and “til my dying day” from the Long Goodbye Job {to death do us part},

and (you never really need anything.) “Yeah, I did [soft, loving look], but thanks to you I don’t have to search anymore,” from the Long Goodbye Job

and Hardison’s “for tonight, [name] has perfect pitch. You ever wonder how Britney Spears sounds so good on her tracks? Well, this is it, except mine's is in real time, Baby.” From the Studio Job,

and Parker’s [I’ll] “be here for you forever and we’ll always be together” from the Harry Wilson Job,

and Hardison’s “I’m here if you need me. Anytime,” from the Fractured Job

and the Hurricane Job with Parker and Eliot’s “I can’t do this without you.” “Well, that’s never gonna happen, [name].” “The arm around me was a nice touch,”

and “I’m making a four-course meal for them” from the Date Night Job

and “maybe I don’t like watching someone I care about take punches meant for me. You know, maybe I don’t wanna do a job that involves me watching you get hurt all the time.” From the Weekend in Paris Job

and “I mean, I’m in a great relationship, but would I even be in it if it were up to those swiping machines?” “We are in trouble.” “Nah, I mean, [me and you]? That’s fine. That’s working.”

If all those things had been said between one male and one female character, I feel like the audience would pretty clearly read it as romantic. I mean, my mom insists that Joan Watson and Sherlock Holmes got together romantically at the end of Elementary because of the hug and the line, “I’m staying. Of course I’m staying,” even though it did not read it that way to me. General audiences will read a lot of things as confirming a m/f couple because they see that kind of story so often that it’s what they expect.

Now granted, TV shows do like their slow burns because it provides tension without having to create problems in an established relationship, so fans of straight ships often do have a long wait for canonization. However, people didn’t question whether Josh and Donna from The West Wing or Tony and Ziva from NCIS were romantically interested in each other. It was clearly canon that they had those type of feelings or that type of interest for each other, there were just other things getting in the way of them actually starting to date. If a hetero ship said all those quotes listed above to each other, their romantic interest would absolutely be read as canon by the audience, even if they had not yet been shown on a date or kissing in the show. But because this is between 3 people, the OT3 is a somewhat niche ship in the general audience of Leverage outside of tumblr and AO3.

Like many of us here, I also felt let down when the Maria plotline happened in season 1 of L:R, especially after John Roger’s tweet that they’d canonized the OT3 after the Long Goodbye Job and his tweet that “your OT3 is safe” about the reboot. He specifically called it the OT3 in both cases, which pretty clearly refers to polyamory. If he meant that the characters that make up the OT3 (Hardison, Parker, and Eliot) are safe as in alive and healthy, then he should have said that. If he meant their friendship was safe, then he should have said that. If he meant they are in an open relationship or that Eliot is in a queer  emotional relationship with the other two but is not romantically and/or se✖ually involved with them, that should have been made clearer in the show. Instead, by the end of season 1, we got Eliot looking for fulfillment in life by trying to find a girlfriend to settle down with, and Parker qualifying her statement that they'd be together forever with “I know it's not the same [as a romantic relationship].”

Parker and Hardison’s romance is clearly stated and shown in the series (as it should be because they are awesome <3), but Eliot is not included in this unambiguously romantic relationship. While I am loving the partnership between the 3 of them and all of the OT3 nods so far in the 3rd season, I am also a little frustrated that they are just nods.

The burden of proof for a queer and/or poly ship is higher than a m/f pair. There is enough canon evidence to make a compelling argument that Eliot is the life partner of Hardison and Parker. However, the burden of proof for this type of relationship is higher because it is not what audiences are trained to expect. I adore the 3 of them together, and whether the series would show them all kissing or give us open, explicit discussion of their relationship as something like a queer-platonic partnership (probably not using that term, but that kind of relationship), I would love it either way. As it is now though, we get hints and nods that make OT3 shippers freak out, but that can be easily overlooked by general audiences as just good friends. If they are meant to be read as just really good friends, I wish John Rogers would not have used the term OT3, the definition of which includes the word “polyamory.” If they are meant to be polyamorous, I wish the show would make it unambiguous that’s what is going on, meeting that higher burden of proof for queer relationships.

On the other hand, I don’t want to complain about queer-baiting, because I feel like it’s not allowed to confirm your main characters are in a polyamorous relationship in a procedural like this that doesn’t center relationship drama. That seems like it’s just not possible yet. They are allowed to have a canon lesbian main character now- unlike in the original series- but I feel like maybe polyamory is still not an option. So the only other option than what the writers are currently doing is to totally disavow the OT3, which I obviously don’t want to happen. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong by the end of L:R season 3. I would absolutely love that to happen (dear God, please make that happen). But I’m not holding my breath.

I do still really appreciate John Rogers for the way he runs the show (both in the original and for season 3 of L:R) and for openly acknowledging and even supporting polyamorous ships, which is rare to find. I am aware that they fought for more queer representation in the original series but were only allowed that one cop lady from the Experiment Job in a single episode. Maybe this is the most they can get away with now, or maybe they are choosing to walk the line between hinting for the shippers while maintaining plausible deniability for everyone else. An intentional position of strategic ambiguity.

My point is that even if you don't account for the OT3 tweets, the canon status of the relationship between Hardison, Eliot, and Parker is complicated. It has enough textual evidence that if it were about a m/f pairing, then at minimum their interest/intent would be considered obviously canon. However, it does not meet the higher burden of proof that general audiences need in order to clearly realize when a queer relationship is happening. So it's left in this limbo between fully canon supported and totally unnoticed.