#(This story is already so historically inaccurate both on my part and the source material's but hey a nerd can try.)

[shirokokuro]

PART 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 / 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 / 20 / 20.5 / 20.75 / 21 / 22 / 22.5 / 23 / 24 / 25 / 26

(Before 1871, Japan was divided into different domains with each being led by a daimyou (feudal lord) who managed it under the shogun. Trying to preserve fealty and restrict their power was a large concern of the Tokugawa shogunate. For this story, however, I'm streamlining things to have the Tokugawas be the imperial family because it makes my job easier. (Plus, Shige Shige reminds me a lot of Emperor Meiji...?))

[candicewright]

Hola it is I, here to request the costume design thoughts. I love costuming and dress history and all that, so would love to know your thoughts!! 😊

Hello, my friend, you're once again going to get one of my super long rant posts because I have thoughts. This is also for @marshmallowmcgonagall who asked me about my thoughts on this too. Thank you both for indulging me💜

Disclaimer here: I am not a costumer nor a fashion historian and I barely have any idea of what I'm talking about here, so just bear with me.

So the first thing you want to know when watching a period drama is if the costumes are historically accurate. Note that there can never be 100% accuracy because that is just not how costumes work, there are a lot of things to keep in mind besides accuracy (mainly budget, artistic vision and practicality among other things).

The short answer to this question in Merlin's case is no, they are not accurate. The Arthurian Legend is meant to be set during the sixth century and most of these silhouettes are something that is more common in the latter part of the Middle Ages and even then they are not exact. Anglo-Saxon fashion in the 6th century was way less delicate, using fabrics such as linen or wool much more than the silks, chiffons, satins, and velvets we see in Merlin. The garments were way less structured, using a belt or girdle instead of corsets or stays, sometimes using veils or head coverings. The dresses would have been ankle-length and worn over an undergown. So, not at all like the ones we see in the show.

The thing with the Arthurian Legend though is that historical accuracy isn't a thing that exists in it. It's a story that mixes elements from multiple periods as well as with straight-up fantasy so you can literally throw any pretense of being historical out the window. Which leaves us with a mostly blank slate and a lot of room for artistic liberty.

Which brings us to the costumes in Merlin. It's obvious from watching the show that they did do some sort of research into medieval fashion, though they only took inspiration from it instead of straight-up reconstruction, which would have been pretty useless.

Let's take the example of a fan favorite: Gwen's red dress from Season 5.

This dress is gorgeous and it obviously seems to take inspiration from actual 15th century tunics. I know this because I watched a reconstruction of a 15th century gown and I immediately started drawing parallels to this particular look. I'm going to go ahead and venture that this has about 6-7 panels since the dress doesn't seem to have a waist seam (which an actual garment from the period might have had). The sleeves seem to be lined with some sort of silk or satin which I believe is something you could find in very upper class clothing like this. Also, the belt and general shape of the gown seem to look accurate as well. The neckline is, though very flattering, not at all historical and probably the embroidery isn't either but I don't really care because embroidery you know? The dress would have probably been worn over some sort of chemise and would have opened with buttons or a variant of them at the front instead of lacing at the back.

The lacing is also pretty inaccurate. Corsets or stays (which I believe didn't really exist at this point anyway) would have been laced with one single strip looping instead of the double strip crossing that we see in these. Do I really care? No, it looks very pretty and if we're already going so off, might as well make it look good.

You know what I'm also a sucker for besides embroidery and historical patterns? Undergarments and structure, which all of Gwen's dresses seem to have. I mean:

Very structured looking for just being a satin gown with nothing underneath. I will venture to say she has some built-in corset or something similar, though I may be completely wrong.

I may not be, however, because we sometimes get to see these structural garments:

And however inaccurate this is I. Love. It.

Another thing that I appreciate a lot is that they didn't seem to cut corners with the fabrics. Yes they used some synthetic ones but there are a lot of actual silks in there, as well as other pretty costly fabrics. And they used a lot of them which is probably why the costumes look so good in the first place.

Also, have I mentioned I love embroidery?

Those two dresses are probably my favorites because look at them! They are purple and pretty and shiny! My gay heart can't take it!

The male costumes in the show are way less impressive to be honest, though I really appreciate Arthur's pretty armor and sexy tunics. My favorite male wardrobe is probably Uther's, to my utter dismay. But to be honest, it's much better than that of any other character, which makes sense since he cares about conveying status more than any other character in the show. No, but for real, look at this:

So good! Very royal! I would have loved to see Arthur in something like this in the later seasons, especially next to Gwen looking as gorgeous as she does in all those fancy dresses. They are also probably wildly inaccurate but I couldn't find any male 6th century dress reconstructions so I don't really know for sure.

If I can make two complaints about the costumes in the show, they would be the following:

I would have pushed Merlin's costumes a lot more as the show progressed. I feel like with him being the protagonist we were left with very little in terms of his wardrobe which frankly, having such a gorgeous man like Colin Morgan, is an absolute sin.

I would have loved to see the fantasy aspect of the show being reflected way more in the costumes. Maybe accentuating the magical aspects of certain characters by going father away from historical fashion and more into complete fantasy territory. They did this a little bit, but not enough to be very noticeable and I think it would have kicked the entire thing up a notch.

If I'm being completely honest though, I love the costume design in this show and I would love to recreate so many of these dresses because they are simply gorgeous. When you have a source material that allows such artistic liberty, you might as well make the most of it and they certainly did.

I may have gotten a lot of this stuff wrong. Again I have no idea what I'm talking about, so please feel free to correct me or add onto whatever you want!

[scripttorture]

Ok so I have a character that I want to be captured and held for several months for experimentation. She’s never awake for the experiments but when she is awake she’s chained to the ground by her wrists and blindfolded. She’s also an amputee from both of her mid-calves down on her legs and her prosthetic legs have been taken away so basically all she can do is sit down and lay down. If she was able to stand the chains would be just about long enough for her to stand up straight 1/?

I understand that her recovery would be a very long and difficult process, her shoulders would probably be ruined, her legs would be incredibly weak, and she would probably be bruised all over since she doesn’t have any cushioning under her. But my main problem is that I’m not sure what psychological effects she would experience. Every so often someone will come and speak to her but mostly just to agitate her. I plan on her being far more impulsive and easy to anger after she escaped 2/3But I don’t really know what else she would experience in changes of behaviour. Also wouldn’t the lack of light hitting her eyes for so long also mess up her vision?

-

I will give a more thorough answer because I don’t know how to be brief but there are several masterposts that I think could help you.

 I have two posts on medical testing. This one covers the basics of how medicines are tested. This one covers unethical experimentation.

 If you haven’t already I recommend reading the second one for the discussion of the differences between unethical experimentation and pseudo-scientific torture. From your description this scenario could be either.

 I’d caution against showing torture as reasoned, controlled or directed by logic. Because it isn’t.

 I talk about the long term effects of torture on survivors (and torturers) here. I have a post on the effects of solitary confinement here and I highly recommend Shalev’s sourcebook which is linked as one of the sources at the bottom.

 I don’t know whether a total lack of light would have long term effects on her vision.

 One of the possible physical effects of solitary confinement is worse vision. It’s suggested (though not to my knowledge proven) that this could be due to poor cell conditions and living in low light for prolonged periods.

 However, low light is different to total darkness. I know of at least one historical case where a prisoner was kept in total darkness for months and reported no vision problems afterwards.

 One case does not constitute proof and a lack of reporting does not necessarily mean a lack of symptoms. You might get a better answer from an optician. Once again, I’m not a medical doctor of any kind. And I’d rather be clear about what I don’t know.

 Which I think brings us to the main part of the question: the physical effects the character is likely to suffer from and long term psychological effects of torture and solitary confinement.

 Let’s start off with the physical.

 You haven’t said whether the character’s hands are cuffed behind her or in front of her. I’d suggest in front because that would give her a greater range of movement, allowing her to feed herself and reducing the chance of uh- essentially sudden death.

 Because the character’s movement is already significantly reduced by taking her prosthetics away. Having enough mobility to be able to shuffle and crawl would help prevent some of her muscle mass dying off. This in turn reduces the chance of kidney failure.

 Being able to feed herself more easily reduces the chance of death by starvation, dehydration of malnutrition. She’s imprisoned long enough for this to a be a real concern and generally guards are unlikely to take the time to hand feed every prisoner three times a day.

 Your instincts about the character’s long term injuries are generally pretty good, but depending on the type of cuffs used, the weight of the chains and how she’s handled by guards I think nerve damage at the wrists could be more likely then long term shoulder injuries.

 Essentially there are major nerves close to the skin in the wrists that are vulnerable. Thin cuffs, cuffs that are capable of tightening (ratcheting cuffs) and heavy cuffs/chains are all going to put more pressure on the wrists. Which over those months is going to cause irreparable damage to the nerves resulting in less mobility in the hands.

 Long term loss of fine motor control. Struggling with things like turning the pages of a book or doing up buttons.

 Now if that’s not what you’re going for the easiest solution is to describe the cuffs as wide (perhaps as much as a third of the forearm), made of lighter softer material such as leather and closed in a manner that will not tighten further, such as a buckle.

 None of this would necessarily cause shoulder damage. The pressure, the weight, is unlikely to be resting there for long periods of time and the character would have enough mobility to relieve that.

 Chronic pain in the shoulders (and knees) is certainly possible. But it doesn’t necessarily mean there’d be mobility issues or easily identifiable damage.

 If on the other hand you want the character to have long term damage the shoulders there’s an easy way to do that in this scenario. How are the guards transporting her? Dragging her, with a grip on the arm below the cuffs, would cause bruising and put a lot more pressure on her shoulders. Done repeatedly over time I think that could cause damage to the muscles and ligaments of the shoulder.

 As a final not if you haven’t already I’d suggest looking up the ulcers amputees can get on and around their stumps.

 I think that covers the physical effects, let’s move on to the long term psychological symptoms survivors experience. :)

 We don’t have a way to predict who gets which particular symptoms. We know which symptoms are possible but we don’t really understand why some survivors experience some symptoms and not others. We just know that most people don’t experience every possible symptom and what is broadly possible.

 So my general advice is to approach picking symptoms like an author. Think about what adds the most to your character and story.

 Think about which options can have an interesting impact on the plot, create interesting problems for the character or show the audience something about the character.

 What you’ve got so far is a good starting point. But it is a starting point, it’s one symptom when I think the character is much more likely to have something in the range of 4-6.

 That’s a slightly higher range then I quote on the Common Effects of Torture masterpost because the character is also in solitary confinement, which would make the symptoms of torture worse.

 What you’re describing sounds like the mood swings that are a common symptom in solitary survivors. Like I said, that is a good place to start.

 Given the restraint torture being used, the lack of appropriate bedding and the fact she’s a double amputee I think chronic pain is also incredibly likely. It can also fit very well with severe mood swings in a narrative. It can provide ‘reasons’ for shifts that seem really sudden to other characters making the mood swings seem more understandable and relatable to readers.

 Memory problems are incredibly common in survivors but are rarely portrayed well in fiction. Depending on the kind of story you want to tell memory problems could be a good fit.

 Based on what you’ve said I don’t think memory loss would be a good fit with this story. I think it would be hard to detect and have very little impact on the character and plot.

 Forgetfulness might be a good fit, but given the extent of the impact it can have on a survivor’s life it might effect what the character is capable of later in the story. And it might do it in ways you don’t want.

 Intrusive memories and inaccurate memories could both fit very well with this story. Intrusive memories particularly could be linked to the character’s mood swings and (if you use it) chronic pain.

 Again, this could be used to help the audience understand the character’s anger and her mood swings. It could really help put them in her shoes.

 Hypervigilance, anxiety, social isolation and long term personality change would all fit quite well.

 The solitary confinement masterpost has information that also applies to social isolation.

 Long term personality change isn’t very easy to strictly define. It varies widely between individuals. From a writing perspective I think the main thing is trying to balance showing a radical change in the character with making that change understandable to the reader.

 I think you could do that here, especially when you’re using anger and mood swings as your groundwork.

 The NHS website has a pretty good introduction to anxiety disorders here. It also briefly discusses hypervigilance (which it terms hyperarousal) as one of the symptoms of PTSD.

 Both can include physical symptoms like chest pain, heart palpitations and dizziness.

 Wrapping this up, remember that my symptom suggestions are just that: suggestions. If you see something on the symptom list that seems like a better fit for your story or character then use that. You know the story better then I do, you know what fits.

 I hope that helps. :)

Availableon Wordpress.

Disclaimer

[queenvibranium]

About Confederate...

I don’t like to react too quickly to things. Actually, that’s not quite true. I typically react quickly, but I don’t like to vocalize those reactions until I’m ready to go in.

I have so many problems with Confederate being something that had that many people say “yes” to.  One central problem stems from the desire of these men to immerse themselves in an “alternate” history where centuries-long intergenerational violent subjugation from which we have never fully healed, continued for the last 150 years, because they think it sounds fascinating. One problem is that we do not live in some utopic present where the Union won the Civil War and then white supremacy was dismantled along with the end of slavery. Instead, in our very real American history, the only efforts for any sort of revolutionary remedying died along with Reconstruction, in no small part due to the emboldened white paramilitary terrorist groups and an indifferent white North. 

White supremacy has not only adapted beyond slavery but was modernized almost immediately and in so many ways.  I’m not talking about the era of mass incarceration only, but the continuity that stemmed from the creation of a caste system, targeted racial violence, legal segregation, legal and extralegal sexual control, voting restrictions, housing restrictions and red-lining, educational gate-keeping, widespread attempts of dehumanization, and racist state violence. The fact is, even with this list, I haven’t included everything. I couldn’t. Quite simply, slavery did not just end. The remnants of slavery exist and the ideology that created slavery is more than alive. Therefore, how does one accurately speculate on the end of something while failing to understand all the ways it hasn’t ever actually ended?

Another essential problem directly comes from the fact that this history from which they want to deviate has still never been properly recognized, taught, nor accepted in our country. How can we and why should we create an alternate history when we cannot even get our compatriots to acknowledge, understand and fully denounce the real history? From the Dunning School of historians to the first blockbuster, “The Birth of a Nation” screening in the White House, and even to the curriculums that dedicate a lone week in school to discuss Reconstruction, our history had been propagandized almost immediately after it happened to minimize the impact of slavery, the evils of slaveholders, and even lionize Confederates soldiers and antebellum Southern life.  

Even when we do not go as far as to exalt slaveholders and the KKK, we still have a nation that just does not get what happened to end slavery. These creators would do well to read Du Bois and some Eric Foner. To say that the South successfully seceded does not necessarily imply the continued use of slave labor. Racial slavery ended, in no small part, because enslaved people acted as revolutionary opportunist during that time, and ran, fought, rebelled, and organized to challenge the system and ensure that they would not return to slavery. The Union had their hand forced. Lincoln would not have freed the slaves if enslaved people had not made it known they had every intention of getting free.  David Benioff and  D.B. Weiss want to write a series about the third such war and my understanding of that history would tell me that slavery would not have made it through two of these wars regardless of what military victories the Confederacy could manage. 

I’m a fan of historical fiction as well as alternate futures. There’s no doubt that an alternate ending of the Civil War would have a lot of interesting and terrifying political implications. Maybe I’d be more interested in how that could be explored if I didn’t see Confederate flags waving, even in states that were part of the Union. We still can find monuments inaccurately memorializing the Confederacy. We saw populations of white people shift, permanently, to Republicans party voters, in large part, because they disagreed with the end of de jure racial segregation. Furthermore, and of primary concern, black pain that endures from this legacy should not be used and triggered for the sake of a story that does not also heal us. They will be taking on a project with immense responsibility. I do not see how these men are prepared for that. As viewers, why should we immerse ourselves into an “interesting” world of our nightmares? One, I might add, many people of this nation love to remind us that they long for. 

David Benioff and  D.B. Weiss already have shown they would not be up for the job, if it were, in fact, a job that should be done. Even in a fantasy show with an unlimited creative license in casting, they still could only see black people as enslaved and formerly enslaved, and even then, we barely saw any.  Even in a fantasy world, they showed sexual violence gratuitously while only seeming to truly show empathy for experienced trauma when that trauma is suffered by white men (i.e. how Theon’s trauma is treated vs. Sansa’s). I worry about how they will treat this trauma and how much empathy they will show to the black people in their world. Furthermore, If they inserted sexual violence into a fantasy show gratuitously, beyond the source material, I shudder to imagine how they will treat an institution in which sexual subjugation was a primary element. I also worry about who they portray as heroic actors in this story, and if this becomes a narrative where things happen to black people. I have no reason to believe they see us as actors in a story, at this point, and when it comes to the Civil War, enslaved and formerly enslaved people certainly acted as consequential historical actors. 

I do not imagine HBO changing their minds at this point, but I hope that these men spend some time understanding what they have taken on. 

When it comes to alternate worlds, I find these fantasies of victorious oppressors to be both harmful and tiring, especially because enduring white supremacy hardly deserves the descriptor of “alternate”. It’s telling that these creators (and those for a certain Amazon show), do not find it nearly as fascinating to explore an alternate history where white supremacy never reigned and disrupted the world in the first place. Now, that is a much more compelling story to tell. 

[theoptimisticpatriot]

Beyond a 90-minute nation

On the verge of the Euros, how can we build an inclusive Englishness outside of the stadium - my part of this new report by British Future and the Centre for English Identity and Politics.

Although much progress has been made, English identity has lagged behind the inclusivity of Britishness. As a national identity, rather than a community identity, Englishness must be open to everyone making their lives in England. There are real dangers if we make progress too slowly. Sport has had to carry too much of the weight of projecting an inclusive Englishness. It is now time for many other organisations across civic society, politics and the media to step up and share this national responsibility. This chapter examines the development of Englishness as an inclusive national identity, and then looks forward to suggest some principles that should underlie efforts to articulate Englishness in a diverse nation.

England as a nation

England is a nation with well-defined boundaries. Since UK devolution it has very largely had its own separate domestic policy and legislation across education at all levels, in health and social care, in the provision of water, and in much of transport, agriculture and the environment. It has no national democracy nor machinery of government — that’s for another discussion — but its politics and governance are distinct from the other nations of the union. England is not a ‘cultural idea’, but a political and governmental nation.

English and British identities predominate here. Four out of five say they are strongly English and, with much overlap, a similar number are strongly British. Most hold these identities proudly. There is a slight tilt towards Englishness over Britishness, with around 35–40% saying they are equally English and British; 25%-30% ‘more English than British’; and 20–25% ‘more British than English’.

No one should feel they ‘ought’ to have a particular identity; nor that a particular identity is ‘not for them’. Major public policy debates should not be distorted by any sense that national identities are proxies for other divisions. In building strong and inclusive local communities in England, English and British must available as shared national identities, not stand-ins for communitarian or ethnic identities.

There has been much positive progress but there is no room for complacency. In the coming years England may well become more fragmented by geography, income and education. Major cities are rapidly becoming ever more diverse and the chosen home of graduates. Other parts of England are changing more slowly. A nation — or town — in which these divisions were reflected in different national identities would not be a happy or cohesive place.

It is true that over the past twenty years the extent to which an individual identifies as English or British has become associated with different views about the governance of England and Britain, and England’s relationship with the Union and the EU. But debates about England’s governance, the future of the union and the UK’s relationship with Europe and the EU will rage around us for some time. Whatever our views on these questions, a healthy political nation needs both of England’s national identities to be open to all.

The current state of play

Britishness is more widely adopted by ethnic minority residents than Englishness, but the difference is not as stark as some suggest. Around a third of ethnic minority residents identify strongly as English and are proud to do so. That’s half the rate of the white majority but not an insignificant number. It demonstrates the potential for Englishness to become a much more inclusive identity. That potential is underlined by British Future’s most recent polling which asked BAME respondents about their ‘sense of belonging’ to both Britain and England: the responses at 30% ‘strongly’ and 35% ‘somewhat‘ were identical.

In recent years the majority population has become dramatically more open to a diverse English identity. Over the 7 years from 2012–2109, the number saying that English was a white identity fell from one in five to one in ten with the fall being most marked amongst older voters .

In 2021, a significant minority of visible ethnic minorities already identify as English. The majority population, including those who emphasise their English identity, are more open to an inclusive English identity than ever before. Before looking at how to make Englishness more open to ethnic minorities, it’s important to understand why Britishness is currently the more inclusive identity.

Englishness, Britishness and multiculturalism

A common myth claims that the British Empire’s cosmopolitanism makes Britishness the more natural identity for minorities originating from former colonies. But as late as the 1980s, British identity was widely seen in England as inherently racist, colonialist and imperialist. Today’s more inclusive Britishness was forged by the promotion of British multiculturalism by grassroots campaigns with endorsement from the state and civic society. British multiculturalism used a shared legal citizenship to demand equal respect and treatment. Englishness was neglected entirely and the surprise might be that it has changed as much as it has. (In Scotland and Wales, by contrast, political and civic society focused on making Scottish and Welsh identities more inclusive rather than British identity).

In 2018 85% of white respondents felt ‘strongly’ English compared with 45% of ethnic minority respondents. 84% of white residents were strongly British compared with 73% of ethnic minority residents. 61% of white residents were ‘proud’ to be English, and 32% of ethnic minority residents (Less than 10% of either group would actually be embarrassed to be English).

A second challenge is that those who staff England’s most influential institutions such as the civil service, academia, the media, NGOs and cultural organisations are significantly more likely to emphasise a British rather than an English identity .

Organisations that could be taking the lead in promoting an inclusive Englishness often shy away from doing so. At worst they may perpetuate the worst and most out-dated stereotypes of English identity.

Looking to the future

The lesson of Britishness (and Scottish and Welshness) is that national identities can be consciously refashioned as inclusive, but that this will require the commitment of every organisation and institution that engages with England and its people. This includes non-government and civic society groups, arts and cultural organisations, the media, political parties, sporting organisations, and the state at local and national levels.

I suggest seven principles to guide this work:

1. Acknowledge the English dimension to our work.

Many organisations that engage with England often avoid naming it, using ‘ the country’ or ‘Britain’ or even the UK when talking only about England. (Nearly all political parties do this, for example). Some organisations describe themselves as ‘UK’ even when they have separate Welsh and Scottish branches. Making England invisible as a geographical, policy and organisational nation reinforces the idea that English identity is a cultural not a national identity.

2. Ensure that any visual representation of England and its people are fully representative of England’s population

A 2018 survey found that many St George’s Day events promoted by local authorities and even state-sponsored charities such as English heritage used overwhelmingly white images of activities. This not only reinforces the idea that Englishness is an ethnic communitarian identity but excludes the large number of non-white people who already identify strongly and proudly as English.

3. Sharing our stories in today’s England

At the heart of any national identity are the stories we share about who we are, how we came to be here and what we value in common. Englishness must be open to all who are making their lives here. Our shared stories of England need to include the stories of those people whose families may have moved here in the relatively recent past and those (some of whom will have their own migrant heritage) who have lived in England much longer. It is easy to underestimate the power of actually taking the time to share our stories, whether at work, in local communities or in national organisations.

4. Avoid deliberately or inadvertently promoting or reinforcing inaccurate or out-dated representations of English identity

It is commonplace to find English identity openly associated in the media and social media with racism, xenophobia, far right politics, nationalist politics, little Englanders and the like. Cultural representations of English identity often promote similar conceptions. These come not just from fringe sources but mainstream politicians, prominent commentators and powerful cultural influencers. This unfair misrepresentation makes English identifiers reluctant to say so and, of course, makes Englishness unattractive to anyone who would find such values understandably threatening. Exploration of historic and current manifestations of Englishness is, of course, legitimate and important, but this should be done fairly and accurately.

5. Find opportunities to celebrate English identity

St George’s Day is one opportunity to acknowledge and celebrate English identity (provided it is done inclusively). Southampton’s St George’s Day produced discussion material linked to the PHSE curriculum asking ‘what modern dragons need slaying’, worked with the local newspaper to run a St George’s community award whose nominees came from all sections of the community, and offered small grants to encourage community organisations to run St George’s Day events. Sporting events provide many other opportunities to ensure that the flag belongs to all of England. Organisations that serve England might look for an activity or event that particularly marks that relationship. Englishness should not be restricted to those born here but being born in England is overwhelmingly accepted as making someone English. This ‘birth-right’ of being born English may be woven into all celebratory activities.

6. Join the local with the national

Work to promote cohesive communities often focuses on local belonging and identity, understanding rightly than different communities may share a local allegiance even where national identities differ. But there are good opportunities to link the two. A distinct feature of Englishness is that it is usually also associated with a strong local identity. Being ‘from here’ can open the door to English identity to many. And the new British Future polling shows that ethnic minority respondents are much more likely to agree that English identity is open to them in areas where different races get along well together and to disagree in areas where they do not. Promoting an inclusive English identity can be a positive part of promoting a cohesive local identity.

7. An inclusive Englishness benefits us all

For obvious reasons, the focus of inclusivity is on ensuring that people in England from an ethnic minority background feel that Englishness is fully open to them. But the British Future data also shows that a significant minority of white residents are not certain that the St George cross or St George’s Day are fully open. Some may feel they represent a reactionary Englishness that they reject. By building an inclusive English identity we can ensure that Englishness, including its symbols and celebrations, are fully shared.

8. Do not be afraid of engaging with English identity!

Because the staffing and leadership of many NGOs, arts and cultural institutions, academia and the media, are much less likely to identify as English than the general population, these organisations often lack confidence in engaging with English identity. Many internalise all the worst misconceptions of Englishness and fear that to associate with it is to endorse those imagined values. This challenge needs to be recognised and tackled. As more organisations do so, and share good practice, the collective confidence of these crucial ‘cultural influencers’ will grow.

What next for Englishness?

The continued development of an inclusive English identity, open to all, is essential to averting future identity-based divisions. It is a shared task that cannot be left to one organisation or one area of activity. Every organisation than engages with England has a role to play and, while some will take to this more easily than others, our ability to do so will grow as we work together

[lucioyslyon0101]

Google launches new effort to flag upsetting or offensive content in search

Google is undertaking a new effort to better identify content that is potentially upsetting or offensive to searchers. It hopes this will prevent such content from crowding out factual, accurate and trustworthy information in the top search results.

“We’re explicitly avoiding the term ‘fake news,’ because we think it is too vague,” said Paul Haahr, one of Google’s senior engineers who is involved with search quality. “Demonstrably inaccurate information, however, we want to target.”

New role for Google’s army of ‘quality raters’

The effort revolves around Google’s quality raters, over 10,000 contractors that Google uses worldwide to evaluate search results. These raters are given actual searches to conduct, drawn from real searches that Google sees. They then rate pages that appear in the top results as to how good those seem as answers.

Quality raters do not have the power to alter Google’s results directly. A rater marking a particular result as low quality will not cause that page to plunge in rankings. Instead, the data produced by quality raters is used to improve Google’s search algorithms generally. In time, that data might have an impact on low-quality pages that are spotted by raters, as well as on others that weren’t reviewed.

Quality raters use a set of guidelines that are nearly 200 pages long, instructing them on how to assess website quality and whether the results they review meet the needs of those who might search for particular queries.

The new ‘Upsetting-Offensive’ content flag

Those guidelines have been updated with an entirely new section about “Upsetting-Offensive” content that covers a new flag that’s been added for raters to use. Until now, pages could not be flagged by raters with this designation.

The guidelines say that upsetting or offensive content typically includes the following things (the bullet points below are quoted directly from the guide):

Content that promotes hate or violence against a group of people based on criteria including (but not limited to) race or ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality or citizenship, disability, age, sexual orientation, or veteran status.

Content with racial slurs or extremely offensive terminology.

Graphic violence, including animal cruelty or child abuse.

Explicit how­ to information about harmful activities (e.g., how tos on human trafficking or violent assault).

Other types of content which users in your locale would find extremely upsetting or offensive.

The guidelines also include examples. For instance, here’s one for a search on “holocaust history,” giving two different results that might have appeared and how to rate them:

The first result is from a white supremacist site. Raters are told it should be flagged as Upsetting-Offensive because many people would find Holocaust denial to be offensive.

The second result is from The History Channel. Raters are not told to flag this result as Upsetting-Offensive because it’s a “factually accurate source of historical information.”

In two other examples given, raters are instructed to flag a result said to falsely represent a scientific study in an offensive manner and a page that seems to exist solely to promote intolerance:

Being flagged is not an immediate demotion or a ban

What happens if content is flagged this way? Nothing immediate. The results that quality raters flag is used as “training data” for Google’s human coders who write search algorithms, as well as for its machine learning systems. Basically, content of this nature is used to help Google figure out how to automatically identify upsetting or offensive content in general.

In other words, being flagged as “Upsetting-Offensive” by a quality rater does not actually mean that a page or site will be identified this way in Google’s actual search engine. Instead, it’s data that Google uses so that its search algorithms can automatically spot pages generally that should be flagged.

If the algorithms themselves actually flag content, then that content is less likely to appear for searches where the intent is deemed to be about general learning. For example, someone searching for Holocaust information is less likely to run into Holocaust denial sites, if things go as Google intends.

Being flagged as Upsetting-Offensive does not mean such content won’t appear at all in Google. In cases where Google determines there’s an explicit desire to reach such content, it will still be delivered. For example, someone who is explicitly seeking a white supremacist site by name should get it, raters are instructed:

Those explicitly seeking offensive content will get factual information

What about searches where people might already have made their minds up about particular situations? For example, if someone who already doubts the Holocaust happened does a search on that topic, should that be viewed as an explicit search for material that supports it, even if that material is deemed upsetting or offensive?

The guidelines address this. It acknowledges that people may search for possibly upsetting or offensive topics. It takes the view that in all cases, the assumption should be toward returning trustworthy, factually accurate and credible information.

From the guidelines:

Remember that users of all ages, genders, races, and religions use search engines for a variety of needs. One especially important user need is exploring subjects which may be difficult to discuss in person. For example, some people may hesitate to ask what racial slurs mean. People may also want to understand why certain racially offensive statements are made. Giving users access to resources that help them understand racism, hatred, and other sensitive topics is beneficial to society.

When the user’s query seems to either ask for or tolerate potentially upsetting, offensive, or sensitive content, we will call the query a “Upsetting-­Offensive tolerant query”. For the purpose of Needs Met rating, please assume that users have a dominant educational/informational intent for Upsetting­-Offensive tolerant queries. All results should be rated on the Needs Met rating scale assuming a genuine educational/informational intent.

In particular, to receive a Highly Meets rating, informational results about Upsetting­-Offensive topics must:

Be found on highly trustworthy, factually accurate, and credible sources, unless the query clearly indicates the user is seeking an alternative viewpoint.

Address the specific topic of the query so that users can understand why it is upsetting or offensive and what the sensitivities involved are.

Important:

Do not assume that Upsetting-­Offensive tolerant queries “deserve” offensive results.

Do not assume Upsetting­-Offensive tolerant queries are issued by racist or “bad” people.

Do not assume users are merely seeking to validate an offensive or upsetting perspective.

It also gives some examples on interpreting searches for Upsetting-Offensive topics:

Will it work?

Google told Search Engine Land that has already been testing these new guidelines with a subset of its quality raters and used that data as part of a ranking change back in December. That was aimed at reducing offensive content that was appearing for searches such as “did the Holocaust happen.”

The results for that particular search have certainly improved. In part, the ranking change helped. In part, all the new content that appeared in response to outrage over those search results had an impact.

But beyond that, Google no longer returns a fake video of President Barack Obama purportedly saying he was born in Kenya, for a search on “obama born in kenya,” as it once did (unless you choose the “Videos” search option, where that fakery hosted on Google-owned YouTube remains the top result).

Similarly, a search for “Obama pledge of allegiance” is no longer topped by a fake news site saying he was banning the pledge, as was the previously case. That’s still in the top results but behind five articles debunking the claim.

Still, all’s not improved. A search for “white people are inbred” continues to have as its top result content that would almost certainly violate Google’s new guidelines.

“We will see how some of this works out. I’ll be honest. We’re learning as we go,” Haahr said, admitting that the effort won’t produce perfect results. But Google hopes it will be a big improvement. Haahr said quality raters have helped shape Google’s algorithms in other ways successfully and is confident they’ll help it improve in dealing with fake news and problematic results.

“We’ve been very pleased with what raters give us in general. We’ve only been able to improve ranking as much as we have over the years because we have this really strong rater program that gives us real feedback on what we’re doing,” he said.

In an increasingly charged political environment, it’s natural to wonder how raters will deal with content that’s easily found on major news sites that call both liberals and conservatives idiots or worse. Is this content that should be flagged as “Upsetting-Offensive?” Under the guidelines, no. That’s because political orientation is not one of the covered areas for this flag.

How about for non-offensive but nevertheless fake results, such as “who invented stairs” causing Google to list an answer saying they were invented in 1948?

Spotted by @brentdpayne, my favorite wrong One True Answer from Google so far. Stairs. We know the inventor who created them. In 1948! http://pic.twitter.com/NZTyiobPmX

— Danny Sullivan (@dannysullivan) March 8, 2017

Or a situation that plagues both Google and Bing, a fake story about someone who “invented” homework:

I just can't. Kids believe "Roberto Nevilis" invented homework in 1095 according to Google, 1905 according to Bing. He's not real. OMG. http://pic.twitter.com/a0ajGd7zXo

— Danny Sullivan (@dannysullivan) March 9, 2017

Other changes to the guidelines might help with that, Google said, where raters are being directed to do more fact-checking of answers and effectively give sites more credit for being factually correct than seemingly being authoritative.

2017年Google搜尋引擎演算法不斷與日俱增，正當Google已經將AI技術納入SEO演算法時你有跟上最新的SEO資訊與技術嗎?透過專業的seo公司能夠幫助您以最新技術不斷優化網站與提升網站排名。除此之外為了提升使用者體驗，你的網站已經採用RESPONSIVE WEB DESIGN RWD網頁設計了嗎? 根據最新的Google SEO演算法指出，RWD網頁設計不僅能提升使用者體驗，同時也影響著SEO排名。

googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display("div-gpt-ad-ch-seo-articlemodule"); });

from Google launches new effort to flag upsetting or offensive content in search