#Of course there will almost always be racism in discussions of oppression

[miraculouslumination]

The audacity to be like "there's a problem with racism in transandrophobia discussions" while also unironically using the term "transandrophobia truther(s)"

[kithj]

i finished tell me i'm worthless... boy, was that disappointing.

i'll put this under a break because it's long and tw for antisemitism

most of my original criticism still stands. overall i feel like this majorly missed the mark. it's a shame because i think the core idea is interesting, but rumfitt didn't have the skill to pull it off.

one, i think this book is way too edgy. obviously i read and enjoy extreme horror so i'm familiar with it and i understand the purpose of it here (how could i not, she tells me a billion times directly in the book) but it did feel gratuitous and almost silly. i get that this was the house's influence - the characters are all breaking under FascismTM - but yeesh. this book could have existed entirely without most of this gratuitous writing and would have been better for it.

two, again, way too online. embarrassingly online.

three, some of the choices were.... Interesting. ila in particular was not working for me. it was obvious that ila existed just to counter alice's racism and antisemitism and that resulted in it being so incredibly forced - literally felt like the guy racist people online make up to get mad at. "well what if a jewish pakistani lesbian who is actually a closeted trans man was a T*RF and called me a slur?"

whatever rumfitt was trying to do with these characters, it failed. both characters are just empty vessels. alice feels like the main character, a white trans woman that hides her racism and antisemitism behind leftist speak and performative gestures. meanwhile ila was just a guy that was made up solely to foil alice as a T*RF and weakly attempt to counteract her white womanhood and ila was the flatter character because of it. of course ila is a person that could exist in real life i guess, and i do understand what was trying to be discussed here - this kind of intracommunity conflict, the way marginalized people will turn on each other & become complicit out of fear and desperation (the book literally calculates "intersectionality scores" for the three characters, for fuck's sake) but... come on. yes these people are horrible and the house is bringing it out of them, but could you be a little more subtle, have a little finesse? one of the girls literally has her body broken into the shape of a swastika. come oooonnnnn......

i wish this was a better book. the idea behind the house and the house being its own character is what interested me the most. the house as this symbol of their trauma, this haunted thing that is always looming over them. the walls of the house as the constant crushing pressure that marginalized people feel to conform under fascism. the house is a monster with roots that spread through the entire country. but this was wasted. i wish the book had focused more on that, i wish it was more of a haunted house novel instead of, again, a twitter call out speedrun. this book mentions twitter, 4chan, and tumblr, ila gets "cancelled" on twitter, and i cannot stress enough that the book calculates intersectionality scores. but there is no real commentary made, there is no real reflection or criticism of the "oppression olympics" on display here. it just points it out for us in case we didn't get it, and then later there's a chapter-long ramble that tries to take another swing at it and fails, in my opinion.

it's disappointing that both of rumfitt's novels revolve so heavily around twitter/the internet. i undersand its significance, as a gay person online, but these books are so limited in scope. they will not hold up to the passage of time, and anyone that is not super online will not connect with these stories. of course i'm not trying to say that everyone should be trying to write the next Great Classic, and i don't expect anyone to write something just to appeal to a wider audience, but in my opinion this reliance on twitter and 4chan and "cancel culture" is extremely detrimental and honestly embarrassing to read, and i also feel like i know way more than i should about alison rumfitt and how she spends her time online.

and rumfitt really needs an editor to tell her to pull back on the overexplaining. she seems to be really logged in so maybe she thinks her readers have the reading comprehension of a twitter user, but the overwriting is awful. the few times she does something interesting she immediately undermines it by overexplaining it or fumbling desperately to justify it for the next five pages. she takes quotes and ideas from other authors - audre lorde, shirley jackson, isabel fall, just to name a few, but she seems to fail to grasp what actually made their work so compelling. it's all very flat. she directly states the entire metaphor of the novel within the first chapter - the house is fascism and we're all haunted and possessed by it. and then she beats you over the head with it for the entire rest of the book.

i will say that i can appreciate her attempting to grapple with this conundrum of forgiveness (though i detest that it was presented through a lens of "cancel culture"). ila and alice both do horrible things, and we know why - they were desperate and afraid. but (supposedly, we don't ever see this on the page) they change and become better people by the epilogue. they resist the house, they resist fascism. this needed to be shown on page to work, but instead the book ends abruptly and we are given a single page summary of ila and alice getting together afterwards. where was the character development? what about all the people ila and alice hurt? what about hannah? i'm not asking for a happy ending, but give me something. these characters were literally empty. there was nothing there except the hateful ideologies they represented. ultimately i did not care enough for either of them to be invested in this question of forgiveness or what happened to them after the house. i just wanted the book to be over.

i'm honestly kind of baffled by how recommended and hyped this book is. though i do find this problem pretty often in the indie horror space; if something it gratuitous and shocking (here it's just racist and antisemitic and transphobic) people will rate it higher just because they think it's "transgressive" and that automatically makes it good and smart. it's not. this book is trying very hard to say something but somehow it says nothing to me.... there is no real substance.

[checkoutmybookshelf]

And the Familiar was a Sourdough Starter

This is actually not a book I picked up, it was a book a friend who is very into baking loaned me. And let me just tell you, it was a DELIGHT from start to finish. There were baked goods, an aggressive sourdough starter, and so, so many gingerbread cookies. There were also excellent questions about what it is to be a hero, the limitations and failures of authority, and under what precise circumstances climbing up a garderobe becomes a viable option (spoiler alert: it's when there are literally no other options). Let's talk A Wizard's Guide to Defensive Baking.

There will Be SPOILERS below the break! Be warned!

Fourteen-year-old Mona is a baker first and foremost. If she sometimes can save overworked dough with magic or make a like of gingerbread men can-can, well thats just a thing she can do. She is a baker. Until, of course, a dead body shows up on the kitchen floor.

Dead bodies showing up randomly is just never, ever a good thing.

Its even less a good thing when a bougie, dickheaded wizard from the castle decides you did it, and because a whole lot of people at a whole lot of levels failed catastrophically in their job, you end up in the position of having to climb a garderrobe to galvanize a weak leader into not doing a magical racism. And then because EVEN MORE PEOPLE FAILED TO DO THEIR JOBS, you at 14 are the last wizard left to defend the city (which is currently sans army) against a bunch of mercenary raiders. Oh, and your magic is entirely bread-based.

I, much like Mona was, would have been royally pissed that I had to be a city-saving hero at 14 because the system and a bunch of key individuals failed that hard and it somehow got left to me. And that is possibly one of the best parts of this book, is that discussion that heroes rarely feel heroic, and then asks WHY. And the answer is almost always some variation on "because a bunch of other adults fucked up." And that sucks, and it's hard, and it's unfair, and all of that is acknowledged in story. But Mona still has to step up and BE that hero.

Thankfully, however, the book at least acknowledges that the 14-year-old should never have to make the sacrifice play. Knackering Molly, a deadass (pun fully intended) horse necromancer who was heavily implied to have been forcibly employed by and subsequently deeply traumatized by the army in her youth, steps up to make the sacrifice play to save the city that did her so dirty. And she does it not because it's heroic or even because it's the right thing to do, no. She does it because if she doesn't, then another wizard kid--of whom she is rather fond--would have to. It's not fair that Molly has to take that hit either, but she was a grown-ass adult who was capable of making that choice, and I love that she did it for Mona. If Mona hadn't been in the picture, I think Molly would have let the city fall without a second thought. And that might even have been the right choice.

Wrapped up in Mona's hard lesson in adults fucking up is a hard lesson about the fact that authority can be weak and corrupt, and it can and will use state actors (the "all cops are bad" energy of a couple of scenes in this book is legendary) to oppress and murder people without power or authority. It encourages questioning and holding authority figures accountable. And once the fight is over, it acknowledges that being given a butt-ton of awards and recognition doesn't make any of it ok. Mona is still angry at the Duchess after all is said and done, and that is very much framed as perfectly understandable and acceptable.

Now, while the politics and power brokering and coming into an adult understanding of how systems of authority work are really excellent parts of this book, they're not the only excellent bits. We have got to talk about the magic system.

People who hate soft magic systems should leave now, because the magic system in this book is softer than raw dough. There is no Sandersonian breath counting here. But I have always thought that magic systems shouldn't get in the way of a good story, and I like a good soft magic system. This one also goes back to basics with what they call sympathetic magic--basically, if you have a bit if a thing, you can command the rest of the thing (you might recognize this as thaumaturgy).

This works beautifully for baking magic, because you can do a LOT of this with dough. And Mona does, from little magics like saving overworked dough or stopping biscuits from burning to full on bad gingerbread men who sabotage the enemy and GIANT BREAD GOLEMS. Seriously, the magic and the baking works together with a natural synergy that just happens effortlessly. The gingerbread men are sassy and wonderful.

But of course I would be remiss if I didn't mention Bob the Sourdough Starter. Bob is...an accident, more or less, from when Mona panicked that she had killed her aunt's sourdough starter and threw magic at it. Bob was the result. Bob eats flour, sugar, odds and ends of baking, and the odd dead fish when nobody's looking. He also has definite opinions about people. Mona is the center of his world, and Spindle and Aunt Tabitha are acceptable. Uncle Albert gets growled at, and when Mona yeets Bob at the Spring Green Man during his attempted assassination of her, Bob burns the Spring Green Man like acid. Needless to say, when the city is besieged, they yeet chunks of Bob at the oncoming hordes and it is...disturbingly effective.

In this house, we stan Bob. From a safe distance and with a haddock I hand, if at all possible.

Overall, this book was a delight to read, and I'm a little sad I have to return it to one of my book buddies. Mona was a treat as a protagonist, the supporting cast was colorful and fun, and the stakes were realistically high. I highly recommend this treat of a book.

[hungerofhadarr]

Me and my close friends have had this talk before bc it comes up every so often but sometimes . Some of you . Like to use your queer identity like a bargaining chip or as a shield against criticism . Can’ t bring up any possible discussion that could be constructive without someone ( usually . Not always but very commonly white ) brining up their queerness to almost try and kill the conversation . That this cannot apply to you because you’ re queer in some manner . How can you be bigoted ? You experience oppression . And … yes . You do . No one is denying that fact .

But to use your identity as a weapon , to hold out this piece of you to try and silence others , especially ones within your own community , you understand what you’ re doing . You have to . From every white queer listing the countries they are “ banned in “, playing make believe that they would ever visit any one place and imagining the harm they would experience at the hands of ( 9 times out of 10 ) non white individuals . From every gay man saying that they don’ t care for women in media , not because they are misogynistic , but because they’ re not attracted to them so they cannot find a reason to care .

From every non - trans queer saying they cannot be transphobic , they’re queer , so how could they ? From every tme queer saying they cannot be transmisogynistic , they’ re trans , so how could they ? From every endosex person saying that they cannot be interphobic , we’ re all different anyways , it’ s all fake , so how could they be ? From every person pushing back on learning , on understanding , on criticism , and using their identity as the shield . The catch-all . The end of a discussion

And it doesn’ t stop in queer only discussions . Many times have I found myself trying to be silenced in discussions of racism because … people don’ t want to talk about it . It’ s uncomfortable for them , to possibly face the fact they’ re being harmful or having someone discuss the things they do with clear distaste . Most of these reactions are not born of ignorance , but of a hate at the pushing of their own comforts . They know what they are doing . And they can use their queer identity , proof of oppression , to tell me to shut up . In a passive aggressive manner , of course . But it’ s still the same message .

How can I hurt others ? I get hurt too ! But you’ ve never unlearned anything . You’ ve never understood what is hurting others . You’ ve never took a step back and tried to see the world from outside of your own lens . You’ ve never wanted to challenge your own comfort even for a second , and you’ ve decided hurting people is easier . Hurting people is good , because it upholds you . And you’ re the only one that matters

[opinated-user]

Videos Lily makes around specific fandoms are the dumbest because she literally only interacts with the part of the fandom she is in love with, and the part that she absolutely hates.

I hate this character! Why? Too many people like them.

I hate this character! Why? Fans talk about them rather than my fave!

I hate this character! Why? Because they remind me of my ex, and therefore they are the worst by default!

No gray area. But then again, that’s par for the course for her at this point.

indeed. LO has almost no interaction at all with fandom. she brags about not reading any fanfiction, she doesn't interact with any fanartists in any fandom. literally all her artists friends were first fans of her that came to her through her content. i can't stress enough how LO also said herself that all her opinions about fandom racism come from one source and one source alone, Stich, and that always, always, will mean that her perspective is skewed, limited and not a general consensus. even among POC fans, stitch is a controversial figure (and likewise, stitch also calls them pick mes for disagreeing with them), but even if they weren't... you can't really limit yourself to entirely one POC to inform you about everything to do with racism, just like you'd never stay with the opinion of one marginalized person to speak about the whole oppression. if you really want to support BIPOC... then actually do that. listen to them. to more than one. get out of your comfort zone and go find them. they're talking, they have videos, they have essays, they have spoken about a lot more things than the Zabini debacle and continue to do so. to reduce all of the discussion to the words of one single person is frankly insulting to all the BIPOC who also spend years being part of fandom and talking about fandom, some of them even before LO made up her first incest fanfic.

[crvvys]

I have maybe 4 books to read before giving an entire fully baked opinion on this but what some AfAm academics have contributed to social activism is tragic. at least in recent years. a lot of different academic conversations seeped online and made shit worse or annoying but this one keeps sticking out to me as of late.

the spreading of afro pessimism in certain circles which of course spreads to the internet and then the rest of the world. I won’t say afro pessimism is wholly responsible for ALL of the shenanigans bc that’s not true but the idea that a philosophy steeped in American exceptionalism and from what I’m coming to understand, misreadings of other black academics, gaining foot on a global scale to define blackness and the world’s relation to blackness…feels very wrong.

it also creates separation when there should be common ground among people with different backgrounds and experiences. and that isn’t always clear cut either bc some people do take and misinterpret and remove cultural context from words or situations which I also don’t like. but I still think there can be understanding and building between groups that suffer oppression. and afro pessimism severs this connection between oppressed people in the global north to help and stand with people in the global south.

I listened to an interview from one of the major proponents of afro pessimism, Frank B Wilderson III and I was so bothered by a lot of it. it felt very America knows best and better about everything including blackness. despite the fact that blackness in the US differs from other countries, African American history differs from other countries with African diasporas so the historical context can’t be applied the same way. and also AfAms tend to feel very insecure in our place in the world which at times has not led to…positive things. the whole fiasco with African Americans arguing with Egyptians about Egyptian history comes to mind. that is its own discussion but the gall you have to have to argue with people about history that’s not even your own? I understand the context of the argument and the African American perspective and I still think it was audacious.

the mindfuck that is being African American gives context to this stuff but it doesn’t excuse it. and I become more bothered by what we’ve put out into the world that ultimately may be black but is also still American and potentially harmful to others.

I just refuse to believe that anti blackness is this necessary social structure to all other societies. i feel like that’s a very narrow view of the world and ignores a lot of ethnic conflicts that are found everywhere and can often be much more intense than racial conflicts. racism against black people is found in many places obviously but I don’t think we are at the immediate lowest social rank in every society. I just don’t buy that.

i think every nation state has its own population of people whether for ethnic/religious reasons, whatever differs them from the accepted main society, that the state wishes to abuse or crush and those are the people worth listening to and seeking solidarity with.

not to mention afro pessimism seems to legitimise race as like biological almost? which I also don’t like? I just don’t believe that black American academics know enough about the world to make these claims that ultimately defines blackness for everyone else or if they do know enough, they’d admit that race is not static and that it has a historical context within the society that it develops. i have many undeveloped thoughts and criticisms on this though.

[gabesblog1123]

Blog Post #4

AF AMER 112A

Professor Due

February 11, 2024 

Blog 4

The lectures and discussions from Tuesday and Thursday, I feel, helped give more examples and a deeper understanding of many of the themes that we have gone over so far throughout the quarter. I feel as though with each week, my understanding and knowledge of the underlying messages and themes in black horror films are strengthened because of the many excellent films and stories we go over, which exposes me to these themes firsthand. In this week’s discussions, Thursday’s lecture in particular, I was very intrigued to learn more about the theme of how magic and spirits are used in many black horror films where in this case, it was seen throughout “Eve’s Bayou”. Many aspects revolving around magic, rituals, and even curses were brought up in the film and discussed during the lecture, which caught my attention. This theme in particular stood out to me because I recall first discussing this at the beginning of the course a few weeks ago. Back then, I remember being very curious about this due to the fact that I had not previously been made aware of its significance. However, on Thursday when we went over “Eve’s Bayou”, we were given a very good example of these magical themes taking place. Typically, I find that being provided with visual examples always helps me learn better and grasp concepts more, as well as develop a better visual idea too – which is what I feel has been accomplished after discussing this film. I have since been able to think back to a number of other movies where this theme is seen as well, making connections to this class. Another topic that was brought up this week which I actually do not recall ever being exposed to was the theme of Black Complicity in Racism, which was seen in “Tales from the Hood”. This theme touches on the concept in which when black communities experience racism, the racism that is experienced will actually be internalized and even participated in by the community being oppressed. For example, as a result of societal pressures and internalized racism, racist beliefs and stereotypes may actually be perpetuated by the community being affected. In terms of this theme, I had not been aware of this phenomenon being something that takes place, however, it now makes a lot of sense as to why this theme may actually occur in real life – even almost as a sort of survival strategy for whoever is impacted by the horrors of racism.

[badboypoirot]

Not exactly sure what it is, but /r/popular on reddit only gets shittier with time. I used to get national headlines, original art and comics, etc., but now it's primarily AITAH, heaps of ragebait, and /r/TrueUnpopularOpinion which almost always is someone being ignorant, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or all of the above. And the comments are no better.

(Specific racism content below the cut.)

Apparently there's a new-ish subreddit called /r/memesOPdidnotlike. The lovely post that crossed my desk was from /r/TerribleFacebookMemes. It has MLK, Jr.'s face imposed on Jim Halpert in that meme with the white board or whatever, and the first panel is "Calling someone priveleged because they are white," and the second panel is "Is judging someone by the color of their skin." The post title on /r/memesOPdidnotlike is "Someone is mad that racism is bad."

Questions:

How the fuck is this post 64% upvoted but still makes it on /r/popular?

Why is this meme in black-and-white????

Does anyone actually know how to fucking spell privileged?!

Against my better judgment, I read through the comments. Of course it's a cesspool of people asserting that the concept of white privilege is inherently racist; white privilege doesn't exist because poor white people exist; black and brown people have privilege too; this is just reverse racism; blah blah blah blah blah!

Thank the stars above that there were a few sane people in the comments, trying to explain that white privilege is NOT the same as judging someone by their race. But naturally, they were way down on the list of comments.

What really gets me is the bad faith posting and the willful ignorance. In the year of our Lord 2023, you still don't understand what white privilege and systemic racism is? I swear to Christ, some of these redditors got called a cracker or something when they were 12 and they've clutched to that oppression to pull out as a gotcha whenever racism is discussed.

The willful ignorance on reddit isn't anything new, really, but I found it easier to avoid in the past. Scrolling through /r/popular has become an exercise of avoiding threads that will only piss me off.

I always have my front page, which is pretty well curated, but it never seems to refresh or move quickly enough in a given day. Tumblr and Twitter have started to take up a larger share of my screen time than Reddit. But obviously none of them are great. I need to get offline more, go in on a hobby or something.

[blogassignmentnumber4]

Blog Post #4

The lectures and discussions from Tuesday and Thursday, I feel, helped give more examples and a deeper understanding of many of the themes that we have gone over so far throughout the quarter. I feel as though with each week, my understanding and knowledge of the underlying messages and themes in black horror films are strengthened because of the many excellent films and stories we go over, which exposes me to these themes firsthand. In this week’s discussions, Thursday’s lecture in particular, I was very intrigued to learn more about the theme of how magic and spirits are used in many black horror films where in this case, it was seen throughout “Eve’s Bayou”. Many aspects revolving around magic, rituals, and even curses were brought up in the film and discussed during the lecture, which caught my attention. This theme in particular stood out to me because I recall first discussing this at the beginning of the course a few weeks ago. Back then, I remember being very curious about this due to the fact that I had not previously been made aware of its significance. However, on Thursday when we went over “Eve’s Bayou”, we were given a very good example of these magical themes taking place. Typically, I find that being provided with visual examples always helps me learn better and grasp concepts more, as well as develop a better visual idea too – which is what I feel has been accomplished after discussing this film. I have since been able to think back to a number of other movies where this theme is seen as well, making connections to this class. Another topic that was brought up this week which I actually do not recall ever being exposed to was the theme of Black Complicity in Racism, which was seen in “Tales from the Hood”. This theme touches on the concept in which when black communities experience racism, the racism that is experienced will actually be internalized and even participated in by the community being oppressed. For example, as a result of societal pressures and internalized racism, racist beliefs and stereotypes may actually be perpetuated by the community being affected. In terms of this theme, I had not been aware of this phenomenon being something that takes place, however, it now makes a lot of sense as to why this theme may actually occur in real life – even almost as a sort of survival strategy for whoever is impacted by the horrors of racism. 

[neon-junkie]

Hey everyone,

This will be my final post addressing the fandom conflict that has quite frankly gotten out of hand. Although it’s very likely this post will be picked apart, no matter how well intended it is, I will no longer be addressing, interacting, or responding to any further accusations made against me. Of course, if people have questions from a genuine place of interest, I will be happy to clarify anything for you, either via DM’s or non-anon asks. I will not be answering anonymous asks on this, as I do not want anything else posted on this topic. 

As a side note: For anyone tempted to wade into the debate, I sincerely ask you not to get involved. Do not make yourself a target, do not feel you need to ‘pick a side’, and please do not think you have an obligation to reason with either side. It seems to be well past the point of that, so please find people you get along with in this fandom and curate a space for yourself away from all this conflict.

Warning: This post will contain uncensored slurs, mentions of racism, paedophilia, transphobia, LGBTQ+ phobia, death threats, threats of violence, targeted harassment, and abusive language.

To start off, I want to apologise to everyone who has somehow gotten drawn into this mess by either defending me, following me, or interacting with my content. This whole situation with me began well over a year ago when I wrote a crack-smut fic featuring Javier/Micah, posted back in August 2019. A crack fic is defined as “a work of fan fiction that is absurd, surprising or ridiculous, often intentionally.” It was inspired by a camp interaction between Micah and Javier, and like many other fanfiction writers, I decided to write smut about it. The fic was titled ‘Dirty Fucking Greaser’, and if that shocks you, I’m sure you can imagine how shocked I was to be informed afterwards that ‘Greaser’ was in fact a very serious 19th century slur for a Mexican individual. My first encounter with this word as insult was via RDR2, where it was used like a very casual insult. My only prior knowledge of this term was in regards to the greasers youth subculture, so the severity was lost on me. This obviously does not excuse my ignorance, and I should have researched the term better, but this is just again to apologize for that oversight, the insensitivity, and to highlight that my use of this term was not meant maliciously. Following this being pointed out, I proceeded to make 3 separate apology posts [Unfortunately I can only find the third one: HERE], renamed the fic, and added slur warnings in both the tags and the fic description. When I continued to receive complaints and increasingly aggressive abuse (which included being told my apologies weren’t good enough and I should delete my account and even kill myself), I attempted to delete the fic and mistakenly abandoned it instead. I contacted AO3 to see if it could be removed, but they said there was nothing they could do. I contacted their DMCA takedown team, who also said they couldn't remove it. Please note that all this happened 7-8 months ago, and has been dragged on for almost a year. 

So, from this one unfortunate incident, I’ve been branded a racist, and someone who attacks POC, when all I have done is tried to defend myself and correct my past mistakes. I could have done this more gracefully in the past, but frankly when you’re suddenly the target of unrelenting callout posts and nasty anons, it’s very hard to be open to criticism of this sort, but this is what I’m trying to move past.

Over the course of the year, this one mistake has spiralled, and the crusade against me has somehow coincided with moral conflicts over certain characters and ships. This has devolved into dehumanizing abuse, witch hunts, death threats, doxxing, anon hate, and much more unpleasant behaviour.

I have been in fandom for a very long time, and at the heart of all fandom circles is the fear of censorship and subsequent purges, so the ‘ship and let ship’ mentality was more or less the pinnacle of fandom philosophy. And yes, this can be problematic in some contexts. People have their right to be uncomfortable with content, have a right to be offended by content, but that is not content meant for you. This argument has devolved into ‘what material is morally right to engage with’ and that is a mentality in which fandom will not survive, because for every person who is telling me I’m an awful person for writing about Micah, there are three other people telling me how much they appreciate me making that content. For every fic in which I characterize Javier and Flaco a certain way, some people are made uncomfortable by it and others tell me they enjoy it. And this isn’t just white people, but POC too, which makes it very difficult to know whether I am genuinely in the right or the wrong, especially when it comes to the concept of ‘fetishization’ which I have been made aware I need to educate myself on. I intend to do so, but I disagree with the common accusation that finding non-white men romantically and sexually attractive is inherently fetishistic and makes me racist. It’s pushing a catch-22; don’t find POC sexually attractive? Racist. Find POC sexually attractive? Racist.

I am always willing to be (politely) approached about anything my readers may be concerned about, but if it’s something I’ve specifically tagged for (such as themes, scenarios, etc.) I’m afraid you consented to reading it and with that I cannot help you. You are just as responsible for curating your space and what you see/read just as much as I am responsible for tagging it appropriately.  

On the topic of racism, I want to bring up my prior use of ‘white racism’ which has obviously been a point of contention among both white and people of colour. The (literal) black vs white concept of racism is incredibly American-centric, and as someone from Europe, which has a history of oppression against white cultures and those of people of colour, it feels inaccurate. However, this has recently been discussed with me and I came to the realization that while growing up, especially in the UK, ‘xenophobia’ and ‘racism’ were marketed as one and the same. So, with this little revelation in mind, I will no longer be using ‘white racism’ (Or ‘reverse racism’) to identify the abuse I have been receiving, but will instead call it by what it really is; dehumanizing, debasing, xenophobic, puritanical.   

Very briefly, I will also touch on the NewAustin situation, which has also been dredged into this. I did not ‘chase a POC from tumblr’. NA was a minor who for some reason was on my 18+ blog and took issue with me, likely from the ongoing discourse regarding my fic and initial mistake, as well as my interest in Micah. They were subsequently harassed into deleting their account by anonymous hate following various conflicts with other users for their support of me or their ships in general. I have never encouraged my followers to target anyone, and have always asked to be blocked and blacklisted by those who do not like me or my content. When NewAustin messaged me following the deletion of their blog, I was admittedly indifferent to the point of being unkind, and accused them of sending the hate themselves. This was based on the anon hate being racially-driven without there being any prior knowledge or publication that NA was a person of colour. This aside, I should have at the time, whether I believed it was my followers or not, condemned this behaviour. Regardless of the issues I’ve had with these people, it is never ever ok to send hate to anyone, no matter the motivation behind it, and that should have been stated at the time.

All I can do at this point is acknowledged and apologize for my past mistakes, and try to improve myself going forward.  

It is not my place to dictate the morals of the character/ship-aspect of this argument, and I am not interested in waging a war of opinion. This post is simply to clarify how I am involved in this, and why I am so viscerally targeted. You can draw your own conclusions, but I am no longer interested in this endless back and forth.

To my mutuals/followers, I stand by my request to not interact and to block and move on, as this is what I’ll be doing too.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, and I hope it makes things from my perspective a little clearer.

-RAT <3

EDIT: Just after this post was made, the fic in question was finally removed. I had to go through a DMCA take down, which can take months, since I originally abandoned the fic, thinking that meant delete. I explain this in more detail above. Said fic is gone, and has been gone since this post has been around.

[nicanario]

this post is a product of its time

tw: discussion of racism, homophobia, misogyny and a short mention of sexual abuse.

ok, this is basically gonna be a very long rambling post about my not fully developed thoughts on the justification many people give to bigotry when talking about the past: "it was a product of its time"

it would be fair to say, with me being a raging SJW socialist scumbag, that I don't think this is a very good argument and is most of the time actually an excuse to not think about the problems inherent to our society, historical or not, and, by extension, the problems with ourselves. but I do think that sometimes, just sometimes, this can be a valid point, or at least one that raises some interesting questions.

I'm going to cite examples from several pieces of media, but fear not, I'll try to make this as accesible as I can.

so, let's take Star Trek: The Original Series (TOS) as our first case study. this show has, correctly, been called progressive by everyone except for clueless people who don't know much about Star Trek's history, Star Trek's crew, Star Trek's cast, or, frankly, Star Trek. because if you ignore the clear, sometimes in-your-face political history and present of the franchise, I don't think you know much about it at all. I do think you can call yourself a fan if you like it, you may have watched every single episode for all I know. but lots of mental gymnastics are needed to ignore the political progressiveness Star Trek has had since its very beginning.

episodes like Let That Be Your Last Battlefield are obviously anti-racist, at least in their intention. but the episode in question really is "a product of its time," and at the very end fails to uphold its ideals. the episode ends with the two aliens (who are LITERALLY. BLACK ON ONE SIDE. AND WHITE ON THE OTHER. BUT IN THE OPPOSITE SIDES.) fighting each other on their devastated planet, and the crew is like, "oh yeah if they both would give up on their hatred that they both share both of them equally" when it has been firmly established that one is the oppressor and the other one is the oppressed.

and that's a lot of Star Trek, not just TOS. even Discovery, one of the most recent series, has done Bury Your Gays (and Trans) TWICE (though both times literally rectified it, which is cool). there are episodes of the franchise that are overtly racist, or misogynistic, etc. TOS is lauded, mostly justifiably, as very progressive, especially for the standards of the time. they put a woman of colour as one of the senior staff, for fuck's sake. of course, when you analyse that same character, as with most of their intentions at being progressive, you'll see that she was relegated and sometimes even outright mistreated when she had the potential to be much more. but, at that time, it was a lot.

I had a friend (emphasis on "had") who, after I told him about TOS's both progressiveness and constant misogyny, told me something like "imagine feminists trying to complain about a show from the 60s." so, with unearned spite, he was, in some way, trying to make the argument that it was a product of its time.

you could say Star Trek, all of Star Trek, is "a product of its time" in the sense that it's not always perfect. uh, yes, I would agree. but that doesn't mean people have to accept it. well, I mean, the show is kinda over, you have to accept it's that way. but you don't have to accept that it's not wrong just because it was a product of its time.

H. P. Lovecraft, as another example, was a greatly influential writer whose works still shape a lot of people's ideas to this day. I have only ever read like one of his stories, so don't expect me to have an opinion on his works. but I can have an opinion on what I know about him as a person (he did have a life outside his writing, after all). and, yeah, he was a huge asshole. if you want to know more in depth about the subject, please watch Hbomberguy's video on him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8u8wZ0WvxI

but basically, he was incredibly racist & homophobic. some people might even say, "he was a product of his time." well, there are two possible rebuttals to that. the surface level one, and the one that examines why that argument is wrong to the core.

The Surface Level Response to "it was a product of its time": um, no it wasn't. Lovecraft was more racist than a lot of people even in his time. he wasn't just a guy who carried the racist beliefs of his society like everyone else, he was a reactionary who actively thought and discussed how racist he was, and how right he was for being that way. but that's only applicable to Lovecraft. one can't argue the same for Star Trek: TOS, because TOS did try to be more progressive and more anti-racist than the rest of its society. that leads us to the next response.

The Response that Actually Deals with the Fact that No Matter How Progressive You're Trying to Be, Your Failings Can Still be Criticized: the thing is, trying to excuse Lovecraft's or Star Trek's bigotry because they were "products of their times" misses the fact that racism is still wrong, and some people knew that in those times as well. people from these times weren't all naive or stupid or whatever. they had the capacity for rational thinking. they could stop and think, "hey, maybe what we're doing is wrong." and the fact is, some people did. not perfectly, not to our standars, but they did. everyone could have stopped and think. but most of them didn't, and we can criticize them for it. racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. HURT PEOPLE. horribly. massively.

also, even if you agree with the "it's a product of its time" argument, some people aren't criticising people's or work's bigotry: they're explaining why they don't want to experience it.

The Talons of Weng-Chiang is a 1977 Doctor Who serial, and it's one of the show's more racist stories. almost all the villains are Chinese, every single Chinese person is a villain. there's yellowface, slurs, stereotypes, the Doctor speaking nonsense words instead of actual Chinese, and a general belittling of Chinese culture.

note that I'm neither Chinese nor of Chinese descent. I have been searching for hours for a few posts I've read a while ago (some by people who are of Asian descent) about this episode and I can't find them. sorry.

suffice it to say, even though I love Jago & Litefoot (the audio series and the characters), it's not an acceptable episode at all. but it's also important to remark that, because of it, some people aren't going to want to watch it. sometimes, people aren't saying "the episode shouldn't be this way," which causes others to answer that it was "a product of its time." sometimes, people are just saying, "this is an episode that attacks real people. I don't want to see it. I don't care if it was common in that era to be racist, i don't want to experience it."

however, there is an interesting point to the "it's a product of its time" argument. after all, everything is influenced by its society, for better or worse. and we can't change it anymore. TOS sometimes didn't quite understand the political themes it wanted to explore. Lovecraft was a horrible bigot. Talons was racist towards Chinese folks. and that's that. I don't think we should change the episodes/stories or anything. edit them in any way. that would be, in a sense, changing history. and we wouldn't learn anything from it, about how we can do better.

I think there are two solutions to this:

1. warnings before starting the text: this was done with The Talons of Weng-Chiang. on Britbox, where you can watch Classic Who, this serial has a content warning before the start. that's good.

2. the removal as a whole of the text from some places: I think before applying this one, there should be a lot of thought put into each case. I don't think removing a whole serial of Doctor Who or Lovecraft's stories from anything would be, well, fair. especially on tv episodes a lot more people worked on those, not just the writers and the directors. Lovecraft's writing influenced thousands. we shouldn't erase them or anything. but sometimes, for some cases, we should.

those in the US might seen a Confederate statue being taken down. that is, in a way, a form of removal of a piece of history.

but that is a good removal. statues glorify. one sees a statue and probably thinks "this was a person worthy of admiration." they should be taken down, maybe even with a permanent mark of why this was done (a plaque that reads "a statue of X was here, but he didn't deserve it because of Y" could be put in place of the statues, for example).

another example is the removal from DVDs of the short episode A Fix with Sontarans, a Sixth Doctor minisode that featured Jimmy Savile, a presenter who was later found out to be sexually abusing children.

the removal of that minisode is good, actually. it's not a full episode (it's not even Doctor Who). some might say that's "erasing history" but, like, you can still find it online or information about it if you want. this minisode deserves removal from DVDs and Blu-Rays and whatever more than content warnings. it's not an important part of the show and it prominently features a horrible person who did horrible things during that time.

so, after all that, I have explained why I don't like the "it's a product of its time" argument. it is an interesting point that deserves to be examined, but it's not very good.

I have had this in Drafts for so long I've probably forgot some of the points I was going to make, but eh, what can you do? hope you enjoyed reading this.

bye

[iwanttobeyourwonderwoman]

I can barely breathe when you are near.

I’m just gonna say I totally loved the show. Mad love. 

And in case you haven’t figure it out yet, or watched the show to get it, I’m talking about Ginny and Georgia. 

So many important topics touched on so many feelings and oh so many love triangles.

So join me as i dissect the whole show hehe .

Alright basic plot-

Young single mom Georgia and her teenage daughter Ginny, and younger son Austin, are always on the road and have now moved across the country to the small town of Wellsbury, Massachusetts from Texas, where they encounter a whole load of quirky characters. Ginny, who never had friends, slowly starts fitting in with the popular sophomores, mainly her neighbour Maxine, who also has a twin brother Marcus while Georgia befriends their mother Ellen. The series follows their attempts and struggles of fitting in with the town, all while developing their own love triangles (square in Georgia’s case). And the best part is, the unfolding of Georgia’s dark past filled with teen mom struggles and a little bit of murder mystery as to how she has gotten to where she is now. 

Teen mom and daughter combo again? Been there done that!

Well yes, as everyone compares it to Gilmore Girls (my personal favourite show ever) here are some similarities and differences as well as other show references.

*SPOILERS!!

It does explore that close relationship that Ginny and Georgia have, but obviously the kind of bond that Rory and Lorelai had were a lot stronger and had their own personal quirks and wit. There were often rifts in G&G’s relationship caused by the secrets of Georgia’s past as well as Ginny feeling inferior to her own mother in terms of looks and her ability to be a chameleon to fit in anywhere. Rory was more focused on her grades and was comfortable just having her few friends. Ginny on the other hand wanted to be liked and wanted to fit in with her school friends and eventually becomes part of MANG and the boys. And in the case of the mothers, Lorelai focused on raising Rory and worked her way up to eventually owning her own Inn while Georgia snuck and tiptoed her way around swindling money wherever she could but all in the best intentions of her kids more than herself, desperate to give her kids the life she never had. 

Also in a way I feel like this is also similar to Jane the Virgin except of course Jane’s character is older, but if you take the standpoint of the mother-daughter relationship and love triangle(Jane/Rafael/Michael) as well as a little psychotic Murder mystery Petra vibes.

, I feel like G&G is a good mix of Gilmore and JTV.

When it comes to love interests, Ginny was stuck between boyfriend Hunter and neighbour Marcus. Sweet, innocent Hunter (my favourite character in the whole series because if you know me you’d know I’m a hopeless romantic) was pretty much Dean to Rory, while cool skater and stoner guy Marcus was Jess. And honestly I see a similar trend here where most people are Team Jess/Marcus whereas I’m team Dean/Hunter for the main fact that Dean and Hunter both treated the girls really good and I like that. 

Georgia, as I mentioned was more of in a love square than a triangle, because why the hell not right? There’s Joe, the owner of the cafe where everyone spends most of their time, then there’s Mayor Paul, who Georgia pushes her way to work for to get on his good side. And then of course, Zion, Ginny’s father. Sounds a lot like Luke, Jason and Christopher doesn’t it. I love that Joe had a more interesting and different story, where it was depicted in the flashback scene where homeless young Georgia, just found out she was pregnant at a gas station and comes out to a crowd of high schoolers, which is when she meets Joe. She says to him  “I’ll look you up if I’m ever in Wellsbury” Joe was already attracted to her as a teenager and doesn’t realise it’s the same Georgia he met years ago till the last episode whereas Georgia has known all this while. I don’t know about you but I feel like now Georgia has the funds to move to somewhere she aspired to be, where she knows her kids will get the best and where she received “a sandwich and a pair of raybans that changed my life” Also let me just add that Raymond Ablack (Joe) is INCREDIBLY HOT.

Moving on to Paul, Georgia is attracted to him but there is that underlying greed because Paul can provide her stability and security and power. And that is when she will finally feel like she has achieved wheat she needs to. Towards the end, she almost chooses Zion because of her deep affection for him as ‘her penguin’ as she refers to him as. Being with Zion also means she can let her guard down and relax a little, and obviously is a great father to Ginny and even Austin who isn’t even his biologically. Which also makes both guys equally good contenders for Georgia. 

Another thing I love about the show is MANG. Their friendship is real, it’s not just Abby and Norah accepting Ginny because of Max. Yes Abby did throw her under the bus in the beginning but they soon became really close and never singled her out after the shoplifting incident. It wasn’t a whole case of Regina George and the plastics all over again. They didn’t care that she was different. 

So I feel like Abby is a very interesting character also. I read that her character was created based on a friend of the writer. So abby puts up a very strong front when actually she is feeling quite distraught from her parents ongoing divorce as well as her own issues with body image. Abby is very petite but still is not satisfied with her body so she tapes her thighs to make them look smaller and wear tight jeans so that she can look slimmer. I the Halloween episode, Press even calls her “whale legs” and she obviously gets upset and you can see it affects her because she’s striving for such a perfect image all the time but also I feel like she has a thing for Press so that really messes her up. You can also see she does get a little jealous of Ginny and Max’s friendship but that’s mainly because she feels lonely and unheard and she ends off being estranged from Norah and Max feeling like her whole world crumbled. I really hope MANG gets to patch up. They were the ideal friend group along with the guys.

“Oppression Olympics, let’s go.”

I don’t know guys, this line really stood out to me.

Basically this is the scene in episode 8 where Ginny and Hunter argue about racism and why Ginny deserved to win that writing contest with her unique style (girl used slam poetry for goodness sake that essay was amazing!!??) But Hunter won and he is clearly the favourite of their teacher. He talks about how he is half Taiwanese and the Asian stereotypes he faces here as well as the White remarks he gets from the Asian side of his family. Ginny too says she can’t fit in because she is half Black and how this town had a very small black population and people are not sure how to look at her. I feel like touching on these topics of race was really vital to not only the show but to the actors as well. From the bts, I read that Antonia (Ginny) and Mason (Hunter) were in a room with the writer and jus spoke about the kind of remarks they have personally faced which helped develop the argument scene because it was so real and raw and quite upsetting to watch. It’s something very relatable to the audience which also just amplified that whole episode overall. 

I mentioned earlier my favourite character is Hunter. I admit I have a major crush on both the actor and the fictional character. Ok so I think Hunter was a great character, a very good boyfriend too, I mean look at the way he cared for Ginny, supported her, just that unfortunately she was more attracted to Marcus in the end but also that ugly oppression olympics fight just gave his character more depth to show that Hunter wasn’t as perfect as he seemed. I think girls watching the show deserved to see what a good guy looked like. He was smart, in a band, a very caring boyfriend, popular but not cocky. If you compare to let’s say the character if Peter Kavinsky, I think Hunter made a better boyfriend. DO i also think Kavinsky is a damn dream boat? Of course I do. but then again, I thought John Ambrose was a much better guy in the TATB series. Kavinsky was originally dating another girl before the whole fake couple thing started. Whereas going back to Hunter, he already admired Ginny from the first episode and stayed truly respectful until the end of the show. And that’s something girls should see and aspire to have.

Yes I loved the song I loved the fact that he sang it for her, I am such a hopeless romantic and I absolutely hate that poor Hunter/Mason has been getting a lot of backlash for the song/character. I’ve rewatched a lot of the Hunter/Ginny scenes multiple times just because. Hunter was a good guy. Period. 

So looking forward, I think a lot of important topics were touched in this show, slightly different from let’s say 13 Reasons Why, and I hope that they can continue to delve into those stories such as racism,self harm, body image and so on which really hit home for me. Important discussion topics, important for kids to see like oh hey this character is kinda like me, and if they are facing these issues, how can they get through it?

Also I need answers to all my questions - Where did Ginny go? How does Georgia get away with everything? Will MANG get back together? Does Abby have a deeper story to tell? Do Marcus and Ginny end up together? AND WHAT ABOUT MY POOR BBY HUNTER??? Lots of unanswered questions, lots of stories to dig deeper into, and so many secrets. I loved the mother l-daughter relationship, the same way I loved Lorelai and Rory’s relationship too.

I obviously totally enjoyed the show, I’ve recommended it to many friends and I hope they enjoy it as much as I do, and get more people on my Hunter Chen bandwagon hahahaha! Let’s hope for a season 2!!

Another super long post, finally done. I can move on to watching other shows now (and still constantly wish I too had cool stuff like Sophomore sleepover)

Hate you, kidding! Love you, mean it!

(just gonna leave these here because why not????)

[raptured-night]

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

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

An article for Medium makes this point very well:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[arcticdementor]

The massacres at three massage parlors in the Atlanta area this week, leaving eight human beings dead, others injured, and their families scarred, were horrifying. Read this deeply moving story about the son of one of the women killed to remind yourself of this. It’s brutal. The grief will spread and resonate some more.

But this story has also been deeply instructive about our national discourse and the state of the American mainstream and elite media. This story’s coverage is proof, it seems to me, that American journalists have officially abandoned the habit of attempting any kind of “objectivity” in reporting these stories. We are now in the enlightened social justice world of “moral clarity” and “narrative-shaping.”

…

We should not take the killer’s confession as definitive, of course. But we can probe it — and indeed, his story is backed up by acquaintances and friends and family. The New York Times originally ran one piece reporting this out. The Washington Post also followed up, with one piece citing contemporaneous evidence of the man’s “religious mania” and sexual compulsion. It appears that the man frequented at least two of the spas he attacked. He chose the spas, his ex roommates said, because he thought they were safer than other ways to get easy sex. Just this morning, the NYT ran a second piece which confirms that the killer had indeed been in rehab for sexual impulses, was a religious fanatic, and his next target was going to be “a business tied to the pornography industry.”

We have yet to find any credible evidence of anti-Asian hatred or bigotry in this man’s history. Maybe we will. We can’t rule it out. But we do know that his roommates say they once asked him if he picked the spas for sex because the women were Asian. And they say he denied it, saying he thought those spas were just the safest way to have quick sex. That needs to be checked out more. But the only piece of evidence about possible anti-Asian bias points away, not toward it.

And yet. Well, you know what’s coming. Accompanying one original piece on the known facts, the NYT ran nine — nine! — separate stories about the incident as part of the narrative that this was an anti-Asian hate crime, fueled by white supremacy and/or misogyny. Not to be outdone, the WaPo ran sixteen separate stories on the incident as an anti-Asian white supremacist hate crime. Sixteen! One story for the facts; sixteen stories on how critical race theory would interpret the event regardless of the facts. For good measure, one of their columnists denounced reporting of law enforcement’s version of events in the newspaper, because it distracted attention from the “real” motives. Today, the NYT ran yet another full-on critical theory piece disguised as news on how these murders are proof of structural racism and sexism — because some activists say they are.

…

And on and on. It was almost as if they had a pre-existing script to read, whatever the facts of the case! Nikole Hannah-Jones, the most powerful journalist at the New York Times, took to Twitter in the early morning of March 17 to pronounce: “Last night’s shooting and the appalling rise in anti-Asian violence stem from a sick society where nationalism has been stoked and normalized.” Ibram Kendi tweeted: “Locking arms with Asian Americans facing this lethal wave of anti-Asian terror. Their struggle is my struggle. Our struggle is against racism and White Supremacist domestic terror.”

When the cops reported the killer’s actual confession, left-Twitter went nuts. One gender studies professor recited the litany: “The refusal to name anti-Asianess [sic], racism, white supremacy, misogyny, or class in this is whiteness doing what it always does around justifying its death-dealing … To ignore the deeply racist and misogynistic history of hypersexualization of Asian women in this ‘explication’ from law enforcement of what emboldened this killer is also a willful erasure.”

In The Root, the real reason for the murders was detailed: “White supremacy is a virus that, like other viruses, will not die until there are no bodies left for it to infect. Which means the only way to stop it is to locate it, isolate it, extract it, and kill it.”

Trevor Noah insisted that the killer’s confession was self-evidently false: “You killed six Asian people. Specifically, you went there. Your murders speak louder than your words. What makes it even more painful is that we saw it coming. We see these things happening. People have been warning, people in the Asian communities have been tweeting, they’ve been saying, ‘Please help us. We’re getting punched in the street. We’re getting slurs written on our doors.’” Noah knew the killer’s motive more surely than the killer himself.

None of them mentioned that he killed two white people as well — a weird thing for a white supremacist to do — and injured a Latino. None pointed out that the connection between the spas was that the killer had visited them. None explained why, if he were associating Asian people with Covid19, he would nonetheless expose himself to the virus by having sex with them, or regard these spas as “safer” than other ways to have quick sex.

They didn’t because, in their worldview, they didn’t need to. What you see here is social justice ideology insisting, as Dean Baquet temporarily explained, that intent doesn’t matter. What matters is impact. The individual killer is in some ways irrelevant. His intentions are not material. He is merely a vehicle for the structural oppressive forces critical theorists believe in. And this “story” is what the media elites decided to concentrate on: the thing that, so far as we know, didn’t happen.

…

But notice how CRT operates. The only evidence it needs it already has. Check out the identity of the victim or victims, check out the identity of the culprit, and it’s all you need to know. If the victims are white, they don’t really count. Everything in America is driven by white supremacist hate of some sort or other. You can jam any fact, any phenomenon, into this rubric in order to explain it.

The only complexity the CRT crowd will admit is multiple, “intersectional” forms of oppression: so this case is about misogyny and white supremacy. The one thing they cannot see are unique individual human beings, driven by a vast range of human emotions, committing crimes with distinctive psychological profiles, from a variety of motives, including prejudices, but far, far more complicated than that.

There’s a reason for this shift. Treating the individual as unique, granting him or her rights, defending the presumption of innocence, relying on provable, objective evidence: these core liberal principles are precisely what critical theory aims to deconstruct. And the elite media is in the vanguard of this war on liberalism.

…

The more Asian-Americans succeed, the deeper the envy and hostility that can be directed toward them. The National Crime Victimization Survey notes that “the rate of violent crime committed against Asians increased from 8.2 to 16.2 per 1000 persons age 12 or older from 2015 to 2018.” Hate crimes? “Hate crime incidents against Asian Americans had an annual rate of increase of approximately 12% from 2012 to 2014. Although there was a temporary decrease from 2014 to 2015, anti-Asian bias crimes had increased again from 2015 to 2018.”

Asians are different from other groups in this respect. “Comparing with Black and Hispanic victims, Asian Americans have relatively higher chance to be victimized by non-White offenders (25.5% vs. 1.0% for African Americans and 18.9% for Hispanics). … Asian Americans have higher risk to be persecuted by strangers … are less likely to be offended in their residence … and are more likely to be targeted at school/college.” Of those committing violence against Asians, you discover that 24 percent such attacks are committed by whites; 24 percent are committed by fellow Asians; 7 percent by Hispanics; and 27.5 percent by African-Americans. Do the Kendi math, and you can see why Kendi’s “White Supremacist domestic terror” is not that useful a term for describing anti-Asian violence.

But what about hate crimes specifically? In general, the group disproportionately most likely to commit hate crimes in the US are African-Americans. At 13 percent of the population, African Americans commit 23.9 percent of hate crimes. But hate specifically against Asian-Americans in the era of Trump and Covid? Solid numbers are not yet available for 2020, which is the year that matters here. There’s data, from 1994 to 2014, that finds little racial skew among those committing anti-Asian hate crimes. Hostility comes from every other community pretty equally.

The best data I’ve found for 2020, the salient period for this discussion, are provisional data on complaints and arrests for hate crimes against Asians in New York City, one of two cities which seem to have been most affected. They record 20 such arrests in 2020. Of those 20 offenders, 11 were African-American, two Black-Hispanic, two white, and five white Hispanics. Of the black offenders, a majority were women. The bulk happened last March, and they petered out soon after. If you drill down on some recent incidents in the news in California, and get past the media gloss to the actual mugshots, you also find as many black as white offenders.

…

The media is supposed to subject easy, convenient rush-to-judgment narratives to ruthless empirical testing. Now, for purely ideological reasons, they are rushing to promote ready-made narratives, which actually point away from the empirical facts. To run sixteen separate pieces on anti-Asian white supremacist misogynist hate based on one possibly completely unrelated incident is not journalism. It’s fanning irrational fear in the cause of ideological indoctrination. And it appears to be where all elite media is headed.

[thehollowprince]

The way Mason Hewitt gets utterly erased by fandom, replaced by Theo to be Liam's friend and anchor. And I think one reason he's left out of fic so much is because as we've discussed he is basically Fanon!Stiles. And to have him around in a story with Fanon!Stiles would look suspicious because... they're the same, except Stiles is actually nothing like fanon. And they'd rather *die* than portray intimate scenes with Mason because they find Black people disgusting to be frank (pt. 1)

and I've seen it in every fandom. They gush about loving ~the gays~ but ignore canon gay/bi boys, esp if they're PoC. And it's all about straight yt boys boning, and what they get off on. And because they don't find Black or Brown ppl attractive, they get no love scenes. Mason was openly thirsting for Brett, but fandom was silent because "eww, canon Black gay expressing lust healthily?" And this is what we mean when white fangirls fetishize gay/bi male ships/dynamics (pt. 2)

And I touched on that yt fangirls will misappropriate progressive language when it suits their agenda. Like dismissing Scott as a "cishet yt boy" yet worshipping Stiles + Derek. And they often try to make that worship seem progressive by claiming Stiles or Derek are nonwhite/Jewish, or claiming werewolves are a allegorical oppressed group (no) yet ignore Scott is Brown *PLUS* he's a werewolf too, so they claim he's an intruder on ~werewolf culture~ and a colonizer (final)

You are not wrong in any aspect.

We've talked ad nauseam about the appropriation of mlm sexuality and giving it to the straight, white characters. And as you said, its almost exclusively the white fangirls who get off to two guys together rather in the same way that straight men get odd to lesbian porn. The fact that they don't see that they're just doing the very same thing that they hate men for doing is... well, sad is the first word that pops into my mind.

I know you don't watch any of the SKAM shows, but I experienced a similar problem over there. By far the most popular storyline across any of the remakes is the season three story, that being a closeted gay man coming to terms with his sexuality and embracing it rather than trying to suppress it. But the thing is, if you actually go through the tags, that's not the sense you get at all. Most of the people that watch these shows, or at the very least the ones who are the most vocal in the tags, are only focused on the romance in the story.

They didn't care the actual struggles of being in the closet and the journey that character has to go on to accept themselves. They just wanted to see two boys kissing. That became very apparent during the last remake to do that story, WTFOCK. They changed up the timeline and didn't introduce the love interest until the third episode, and those three weeks were just filled with constant complaints. This was further compounded when we saw the main character, Robbe, do what a lot of closeted young people do, and he tried to have a relationship with a girl, hoping that it would "make him normal". The tags were littered with homophobic jokes about how Robbe was "secretly straight" and it was extremely disheartening, especially from the fandom of a show that preached acceptance.

And you can't call them out on this behavior. I did and half the fandom blocked me because I, an actual gay man, wouldn't let a bunch of horny fangirls be the voice of a gay man's struggle. I was also bugged down with anons (similar to the one that's haunting my inbox right now) claiming that the reason they were so keen on the love interest showing up was because he was a "healthy representation of mental illness". Of course, they then went about proving how much they didn't actually care about that by spending the entire season trying to diagnose Sander at every opportunity, but the romanticizing of mental illness is another matter entirely.

To circle back to the point, we were given actual, healthy mlm representation on Teen Wolf, but fandom outright ignores it in favor of focusing on a non-existent relationship that was based entirely on negative stereotypes. But that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? They don't care how their behavior actually affects gay and bisexual men, so long as they get their own sexual satisfaction. You point out how having an adult and a minor in a relationship just reinforces the predatory gay pedophile stereotype that the Christian Far Right have tried to categorize us as for decades (if not longer) and they cry "it's just fiction!" But these same people talk about the stigma of unhealthy body types for women because the girls of these shows are skinny and petite while able to run marathons and fight of almost anything.

This is never more prominent than when they continously call for more LGBT representation, always mlm and never wlw, and then go out of their way to ignore that representation because it wasn't what they wanted (ie. completely thowing out their stories for Stiles and Derek and devoting everything to making them a couple, often at the expense of everything else.)

The term double-standards clearly means nothing to them.

And we could shout until our voices are gone about the racism in this fandom, but those who perpetuate it don't care enough to listen. They don't want to hear how them going out of their way to erase or put down Scott, the Latino lead of the show, at every opportunity is racist. They don't want to hear how them taking all of Scott's most prominent attributes (his compassion and loyalty and persistence) and giving them to Stiles to make him more palatable is racist. They don't want to hear how them completely ignoring the canon gay characters, who are also characters of color, in favor of taking straight characters and "turning them gay" is not only racist but homophobic.

They don't want to hear any of that. They want to live in their little fantasy world where everyone recognizes their genius and that they right all along. The real kicker is that I'd be more than happy to leave them alone in their own little world, but they refuse to be put out to pasture, hence the reason Athena is still jumping on pro-Scott posts, or that someone posted anti Scott content in the Scott McCall tag, or the ever present anon. They refuse to leave us alone so we have to rehash these same arguments over and over in the futile hopes that maybe this time it'll stick.

[qqueenofhades]

I have a question about your opinion as a historian about how to deal with problematic past. I am French, not American, so not quite as aware of what is happening right now in the US regarding statues as I probably should. My question is the following: many of the politicians who promoted (admittedly white) social equality in France, worked on reforming labor laws, etc, in the 19th / 20th century were certainly not anti-colonialist. How to deal with this "mixed legacy" today? Best wishes to you!

First off, I am honoured that you would ask me this question. Disclaimer, my work in French history is largely focused on the medieval era, rather than modern France, and while I have studied and traveled in France, and read and (adequately?) speak French, I am not French myself. So this should be viewed as the perspective of a friendly and reasonably well-informed outsider, but not somebody from France themselves, and therefore subject to possible errors or otherwise inaccurate statements. But this is my perception as I see it, so hopefully it will be helpful for you.

(By the way if you’re interested, my post on the American statue controversy and the “preserving history!” argument is here. I originally wrote it in 2017, when the subject of removing racist monuments first arose, and then took another look at it in light of recent events and was like “WELP”.)

There’s actually a whole lot to say about the current crisis of public history in a French context, so let me see if I can think where to start. First, my chief impression is that nobody really associates France with its historical empire, the same way everyone still has either a positive or negative impression of the British Empire and its real-world effects. The main international image of France (one carefully cultivated by France itself) is that of the French Revolution: storming the Bastille, guillotining aristocrats, Liberté, égalité, fraternité, a secular republic overcoming old constraints of a hidebound Catholic aristocracy and reinventing itself as a Modern Nation. Of course, less than a generation after the Revolution (and this has always amused/puzzled me) France swung straight back into autocratic expansionist empire under Napoleon, and its colonialism efforts continued vigorously alongside its European counterparts throughout the nineteenth and well into the twentieth century. France has never really reckoned with its colonialist legacy either, not least because of a tendency in French public life for a) strong centralization, and b) a national identity that doesn’t really allow for a hyphen. What I mean by that is that while you can be almost anything before “American,” ie. African-American, Latino-American, Jewish-American, Muslim-American, etc, you are (at least in my experience) expected to only be “French.” There is a strong nationalistic identity primarily fueled by language, values, and lifestyle, and the French view anyone who does not take part in it very dimly. That’s why we have the law banning the burka and arguments that it “inhibits” Muslim women from visually and/or emotionally assimilating into French culture. There is a very strong pressure for centralization and conformity, and that is not flexible.

Additionally, the aforementioned French lifestyle identity involves cafe culture, smoking, and drinking alcohol -- all things that, say, a devout Muslim is unlikely to take part in. The secularism of French political culture is another factor, along with the strict bureaucracy and interventionist government system. France narrowly dodged getting swept up in the right-wing populist craze when it elected Emmanuel Macron over Marine Le Pen (and it’s my impression that the FN still remains relatively popular) but it also has a deep-grained xenophobia. I’m sure you remember “French Spiderman,” the 22-year-old man from Mali who climbed four stories of a building in Paris to rescue a toddler in 2018. He was immediately hailed as a hero and allowed to apply for French citizenship, but critics complained about him arriving in France illegally in the first place, and it happened alongside accelerated efforts to deny asylum seekers, clear out the Calais migrant camp, and otherwise maintain a hostile environment. The terror attacks in France, such as 2015 in Paris and the 2016 Bastille Day attack in Nice, have also stiffened public opinion against any kind of accommodation or consideration of non-French (and by implication, non-white) Frenchpeople. The Académie Française is obviously also a very strong linguistic force (arguably even more so than the English-only movement in America) that excludes people from “pure” French cultural status until they meet its criteria. There really is no French identity or civic pride without the French language, so that is also something to take into consideration.

France also has a strong anti-authority and labor rights movement that America does not have (at least the latter). When I was in France, the joke was about the “annual strike” of students and railway workers, which was happening while I was trying to study, and we saw that with the yellow jacket protests as well. Working-class France is used to making a stink when it feels that it’s being disrespected, and while I can’t comment in detail on how the racial element affects that, I know there has been tension and discontent from working-class, racial-minority neighborhoods in Paris about how they’ve been treated (and during the recent French police brutality protests, the police chief rejected any idea that the police were racist, despite similar deaths in custody of black men including another French Malian, Adama Traoré.) All of this adds up to an atmosphere in which race relations, and their impact on French history, is a very fraught subject in which discussions are likely to get heated (as discussions of race relations with Europeans and white people tend to get, but especially so). The French want to be French, and feel very strongly that everyone else in the country should be French as well, which can encompass a certain race-blindness, but not a cultural toleration. There’s French culture, the end, and there isn’t really an accommodation for hybrid or immigrant French cultures. Once again, this is again my impression and experience.

The blind spot of 19th-century French social reformers to colonialism is not unlike Cold War-era America positioning itself as the guarantor of “freedom and liberation” in the world, while horrendously oppressing its black citizens (which did come in for sustained international criticism at the time). Likewise with the American founding fathers including soaring rhetoric about the freedom and equality of all (white) men in the Constitution, while owning slaves. The efforts of (white) social reformers and political activists have refused to see black and brown people as human, and therefore worthy of meriting the same struggle for liberation, for... well, almost forever, and where those views did change, it had to come about as a process and was almost never there to start with. “Scientific” white supremacy was especially the rage in the nineteenth century, where racist and imperialist European intellectuals enjoyed a never-ending supply of “scientific” literature explaining how black, brown, and other men of color were naturally inferior to white men and they had a “duty” to civilize the helpless people of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and so on, who just couldn’t aspire to do it themselves. (This is where we get the odious “white man’s burden” phrase. How noble of them.) So the nineteenth-century social reformers were, in their minds, just doing what science told them to do; slavery abolitionists and other relief societies for black and brown people were often motivated by deeply racist “assimilationist” ideas about making these poor helpless people “fit” for white civilization, at which point racial prejudice would magically end. This might have been more “benevolent” than outright slave-owning racism, but it was no less damaging and paternalistic.

If you’re interested in reading about French colonialism and postcolonialism from a Black French perspective, I recommend Frantz Fanon (who you may have already heard of) and his 1961 magnum opus The Wretched of the Earth/ Les Damnés de la Terre. (There is also his 1952 work, Black Skin, White Masks.) Fanon was born in Martinique, served in World War II, and was part of the struggle for Algerian liberation from France. He was a highly influential and controversial postcolonial theorist, not least for his belief that decolonialization would never be achieved without violence (which, to say the least, unnerved genteel white society). I feel as if France in general needs to have a process of deep soul-searching about its relationship to race and its own imperial history (French Indochina/Vietnam being another obvious example with recent geopolitical implications), because it’s happy to let Britain take the flak for its unexamined and triumphalist imperial nostalgia. (One may remark that of course France is happy to let Britain make a fool of itself and hope that nobody notices its similar sins....) This is, however, currently unlikely to happen on a broad scale for the social and historical reasons that I discussed above, so I really applaud you for taking the initiative in starting that conversation and reaching out for resources to help you in doing it. Hopefully it will help you put the legacy of these particular social reformers in context and offer you talking points both for what they did well and where their philosophy fell short.

If there does come a point of a heightened racial conversation and reckoning in France (and there have been Black Lives Matter protests there in the last few weeks, so it’s not impossible) I would be curious to see what it looks like. It’s arguably one of the Western countries that has least dealt with its racial issues while making itself into the standard-bearer for secular Western liberalism. France has also enthusiastically joined in the EU, whereas Britain has (rather notoriously....) separated from all that, which makes Britain look provincial and isolated while France can position itself as a global leader with a more internationalist outlook. Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel are currently leading the effort for the $500 billion coronavirus rescue package for the EU, which gives it a sense of statesmanship and stature. It will be interesting to see how that continues to change and develop vis-a-vis race, or if it does.

Thanks so much for such an interesting question, and I hope that helped!