#for context i live in south america

[bladesymphony]

i don't need cowboy boots i don't need cowboy boots i don't need cowboy boots i don't need cowboy boots i don't need cowboy boots i don't need cowboy boots i don't need cowboy boots i don't need cowboy boots i don't need cowboy boots i don't need cowboy boots i don't need cowboy boots i don't need cowboy boots i don't—

[chemicalarospec]

.

[fursasaida]

This article is from 2022, but it came up in the context of Palestine:

Here are some striking passages, relevant to all colonial aftermaths but certainly also to the forms we see Zionist reaction taking at the moment:

Over the decade I lived in South Africa, I became fascinated by this white minority [i.e. the whole white population post-apartheid as a minority in the country], particularly its members who considered themselves progressive. They reminded me of my liberal peers in America, who had an apparently self-assured enthusiasm about the coming of a so-called majority-minority nation. As with white South Africans who had celebrated the end of apartheid, their enthusiasm often belied, just beneath the surface, a striking degree of fear, bewilderment, disillusionment, and dread.

[...]

Yet these progressives’ response to the end of apartheid was ambivalent. Contemplating South Africa after apartheid, an Economist correspondent observed that “the lives of many whites exude sadness.” The phenomenon perplexed him. In so many ways, white life remained more or less untouched, or had even improved. Despite apartheid’s horrors—and the regime’s violence against those who worked to dismantle it—the ANC encouraged an attitude of forgiveness. It left statues of Afrikaner heroes standing and helped institute the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which granted amnesty to some perpetrators of apartheid-era political crimes.

But as time wore on, even wealthy white South Africans began to radiate a degree of fear and frustration that did not match any simple economic analysis of their situation. A startling number of formerly anti-apartheid white people began to voice bitter criticisms of post-apartheid society. An Afrikaner poet who did prison time under apartheid for aiding the Black-liberation cause wrote an essay denouncing the new Black-led country as “a sewer of betrayed expectations and thievery, fear and unbridled greed.”

What accounted for this disillusionment? Many white South Africans told me that Black forgiveness felt like a slap on the face. By not acting toward you as you acted toward us, we’re showing you up, white South Africans seemed to hear. You’ll owe us a debt of gratitude forever.

The article goes on to discuss:

"Mau Mau anxiety," or the fear among whites of violent repercussions, and how this shows up in reported vs confirmed crime stats - possibly to the point of false memories of home invasion

A sense of irrelevance and alienation among this white population, leading to another anxiety: "do we still belong here?"

The sublimation of this anxiety into self-identification as a marginalized minority group, featuring such incredible statements as "I wanted to fight for Afrikaners, but I came to think of myself as a ‘liberal internationalist,’ not a white racist...I found such inspiration from the struggles of the Catalonians and the Basques. Even Tibet" and "[Martin Luther] King [Jr.] also fought for a people without much political representation … That’s why I consider him one of my most important forebears and heroes,” from a self-declared liberal environmentalist who also thinks Afrikaaners should take back government control because they are "naturally good" at governance

Some discussion of the dynamics underlying these reactions, particularly the fact that "admitting past sins seem[ed] to become harder even as they receded into history," and US parallels

And finally, in closing:

The Afrikaner journalist Rian Malan, who opposed apartheid, has written that, by most measures, its aftermath went better than almost any white person could have imagined. But, as with most white progressives, his experience of post-1994 South Africa has been complicated. [...]

He just couldn’t forgive Black people for forgiving him. Paradoxically, being left undisturbed served as an ever-present reminder of his guilt, of how wrongly he had treated his maid and other Black people under apartheid. “The Bible was right about a thing or two,” he wrote. “It is infinitely worse to receive than to give, especially if … the gift is mercy.”

[quetzalpapalotl]

whenever something good happens in this godforsaken country, or any other country in latam, there is always some dipshit saying something about how shamefull it is that the US is losing at progressiveness. I swear to god, people in the global north are so fucking condescendent. You people have not let go of the enlightenment's ideas of progress, as if everyone else is a buch of backwater people taht cannot possibly have complex thoughts about their lives and society.

Argentina has some of the best trans policies in the world, transfeminicide is typified in its law. Transfeminicide is also now typified in Mexico city's law, after the hard efforts of trans women who fought to get this done. The US and many countries in Europe don't even have feminicide typified, which Mexico and many otehr coutnries in Latam ahve had for years. People here organize and figth for their rights despite having to go against the goverment, the police, organized crime and the influence of the global north that actively works to stop progress in the global south for its own interests, often getting killed for it. Did you know Mexico is considered the most dangerous place to be a journalist? And yet people don't stop.

I have sat at meetings with different feminist organizations across Latin America and they are have very profound things to say about these topics in the context of living in wars, under imperialism, with a fragmented identity due to colonization, etc. There is very rich literature on all kinds of social problems that you guys don't know about because it's written in a language you don't speak and your academies have long looked down on. We don't have to learn from you or follow your example, we don't need you.

[what-even-is-thiss]

In English, North America and South America are two different continents but in Spanish they’re just one continent and continents are a made up concept and what constitutes as a continent has no useful definition that fits all of our regular lists of continents and why are Europe and Asia and Africa three different continents in the first place and is Australia actually just a very big island?

Anyways that’s why I don’t type things like USAmerican because in English they’re just Americans but I understand why some people do get annoyed with that but at the same time I’ve seen zero Spanish speakers in my personal life argue for speaking that way in English and I guess my point is that we should probably be more aware of how certain people see themselves and be respectful of that but also at the same time I’m an English speaking person in an English speaking country and if I use America to refer to what we call The Americas in my everyday life people will assume I’ve made a mental typo or that I’m being contrarian and if I tried to make that a thing in my everyday speech patterns I’d come off as a pretentious idiot. If I’m speaking Spanish that’s a different story. Then yeah there’s other words for US Americans like estadounidense. Or famously gringo, more colloquially.

I’m not looking to start arguments here. Like I said I totally get why people make that distinction. But there’s also like the nuances of the lived reality of living in certain cultural contexts that I think people forget about.

I’m not here to tell you to not make that distinction in your speech. I’m not even here to tell you that you’re not allowed to be frustrated about it. I’m just here to explain why I don’t do that and why most English speaking people don’t and why it’s not inherently malicious when people do. Like if someone fully dismisses your perspective on the issue and how you view your own identity yes they’re the asshole. But also generally in English it’s The Americas or North, Central, and South America. And yes maybe that’s stupid but so is the existence of Europe as a concept and we all seem to believe that Europeans are a real thing.

And to reiterate. I’m not trying to tell anybody how to speak or how to feel here. Just trying to insert some nuance into this conversation. Because people I call Americans and you might call USAmericans are only gonna call ourselves Americans. That’s just how we view ourselves, how we understand our own identity as a nation. And some people will be jerks about it. But many of us are also just living in the world we live in, referring to ourselves in the way we always have, not aiming to tell anyone else how they ought to view themselves.

I’m American. Soy estadounidense. Some stuff unfortunately gets lost in translation.

Also continents don’t exist. If we try to get rid of the concept of continents we’d all be too confused at all times to have these disagreements. Confusion superiority. We go by tectonic plates. California is on the same continent as Japan now.

[backtothefanfiction]

Nicknames

Summary; explaining where you and Felix get your nicknames for each other from.

Warnings: fluff, tragic backstory, neglect, sibling bullying

A/N: the whole point of the Summer at Saltburn shorts is that you can read them in any order and they make sense but this is probably one with the most context as to why reader lives/spends their school holidays at Saltburn.

Summers at Saltburn Masterlist

You can’t remember a single summer you haven’t spent at Saltburn. Even as a kid, before your father ran off to South America (when he came under investigation for embezzling company funds), you had always spent some time at your Godfather’s house; because his kids were the same age as you. You were the youngest of four, a “happy” accident 6 years after your older brother had been born. He was supposed to be the baby of the family, not you and the age difference between you and them (they all had only a year or two between them) made them cruel.

Felix had started to call you Daisy in response to hearing your older brothers and sister refer to you as Oopsy at one of his parents parties.

“Why do you call her Daisy, my darling?” Elspeth had asked her son when she realised he’d started to refer to you exclusively as the small yet resilient dainty flower.

“Because her family call her oopsy, as in oopsy Daisy.” He says through a mouthful of food.

“Oh how horrible. Is that true darling?” She says turning towards you. Elspeth had always treated you as if you were one of her own and the thought of people being so cruel to you made her blood simmer under her collected exterior.

You paused before saying “yes,” unable to look her in the eyes.

“Well,” she said, patting your hand that lay resting on the table between the two of you, “I much prefer Daisy, because you are. You are beautiful and strong and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.”

——————/////—————

You had taken to calling Felix “Fix” only a few summers back, when he finished secondary school and brought his first school friend home for the summer. It wasn’t until another 3 summers later and Felix brought Oliver home for the summer that he finally asked you why.

You had decided to hide yourself in the field in hope of actually trying to get through one of the books you’d brought with you to read this summer. You actually hated the field. It had a very specific rule, if you were going to lie out in the field, you have to do it naked. It wasn’t the rule itself that made you hate it, but the fact you always seemed to get bit by something hiding in the long grass.

You’d managed to sneak away and remain undetected for all of 30 minutes (which was a new kind of record because searching the whole house for someone could take up to an hour at times) before Felix came stalking across the field towards you.

“Clothes.” You called out from behind your book.

He was silent as he stripped off his polo shirt and shorts before stomping through the long grass towards you. He remained silent as you continued to read but his fidgety fingers and legs told you there was something he wanted to talk about.

“Just say it.” You say, your eyes pausing at the end of a paragraph to make sure you wouldn’t lose your spot, hoping his question would have a quick answer and you could go back to the novel in your hand.

“Why do you call me Fix?” He says.

It’s not a question you were expecting and find yourself dropping your book into your lap to turn and look at him. “I thought it was obvious.” You say, peering over the tops of your sunglasses at him.

“Well apparently it’s not.” He replies.

“It’s because you like to fix people.” You say, lifting your book back up to your eyes, figuring it was answer enough, but alas, Felix protested.

“I don’t like to fix people.” He scoffs and as you look over the top of your book at him, you can see the small scowl forming on his face around his furrowed brow.

“Oh yeah?” You say before you both get distracted by the sound of another pair of feet making their way across the field towards you. You look to see Oliver making his way towards you both and it’s like the god’s have just handed this to you on a plate. “Ahhh look,” you say, seizing the opportunity, “here comes exhibit C.” You say to Felix, before shouting a reminder of “Clothes!” At Oliver.

Felix doesn’t say any more about it that afternoon, but when he corners you that evening before dinner, he has to ask. “Okay, so if Ollie is exhibit C, I’m assuming Michael was exhibit B…” he pauses as he waits for you to give him a small nod of confirmation before he asks, “Who’s exhibit A?”

“Me.” You say, as if it’s obvious. One look at his face tells you that you’ve stunned him into silence. Your face is calm and confident as you make your way into the dining room, leaving him alone in the hallway to ponder his thoughts.

[molsno]

I've already written about why male socialization is a myth that needs to be discarded, but in the responses to those posts, I sometimes find tme trans people who concede that yes, the concept of male socialization should be rejected, but refuse to let go of their own supposed female socialization. this always makes me quite reasonably angry, for two reasons:

I dislike it when people hijack my posts about transmisogyny to talk about things that aren't transmisogyny.

rejecting male socialization but embracing female socialization is still innately transmisogynistic.

you might find yourself wondering how that second point could possibly be true. it's true for a lot of reasons, and I'll explain to the best of my ability.

"female socialization" is the idea that people who were assigned female at birth undergo a universal experience of girlhood that stays with them the rest of their lives.

right off the bat, this concept raises alarm bells. first, it is a bold (and horribly incorrect) assertion to claim that there is any universal experience of girlhood that is shared by all people who were afab. what exactly constitutes girlhood varies greatly based on culture, time period, race, class, sexual orientation, and many, many other factors. disregarding transness for a moment, can you really say that, for example, white women and black women in modern day america, even with all else being equal, are socialized in the same way? the differences in "socialization" only become more stark the fewer commonalities two given people have. to give another example, a white gay trans man born in 2001 to an upper middle class family in a progressive city in the north is going to have a very different life than a cis straight mexican woman born in 1952 to an impoverished family and risked her life immigrating to the us in the deep south. can you really say anything meaningful about the "female socialization" that these two supposedly have in common? I think that b. binaohan said it best in "decolonizing trans/gender 101":

Then in a singular sense we most certainly cannot talk about 'male socialization' or 'female socialization' as things that exist. We can only talk about 'male socialization**s**' and 'female socialization**s**'. For if we take the multiplicity of identity seriously, as we must, then we are socialized as a whole person based on the nexus of the parts of our identity and our axes of oppression. ... Indeed, it gets complex enough that we could assert, easily, that each individual is socialized in unique ways that cannot be assumed true of any other person, since no one else shares our **exact** context. Not even my sister was socialized in the same way that I was.

and while I could just leave it at that and tell you to read the rest of their book (which you should), it wouldn't sit right with me if I just debunked the concept without explaining exactly why it's transmisogynistic at its core.

now, I should preface this by saying that I believe trans people have a right to identify however they want, and I think that trans people deserve the space to talk about their lives before transition without facing judgment. there are tme trans people who consider themselves women and there are trans men who don't consider themselves women at all but nonetheless have a lot of negative experiences with being expected to conform to womanhood. I don't want to deprive these people of the ability to talk about their life experiences. however, I do want them to keep in mind a few things.

first of all, "female socialization" is terf rhetoric. terfs talk all the time about how womanhood is inherently traumatic, which they regularly use as a talking point to convince trans men to detransition and join their side. when your whole ideology hinges on the belief that having been afab predestines you to a life of suffering, who is a better target to indoctrinate than trans people for whom being expected to conform to womanhood was a major source of trauma and dysphoria? the myth of female socialization is precisely why there are detransitioners in the terf movement who vehemently oppose trans rights.

that's why when tme trans people talk about having undergone female socialization, it's almost always steeped in the underlying implication that womanhood is an innately negative experience. even if they don't buy into the biological determinism central to radical feminism, that implication is still present. because, you see, womanhood can still be innately negative because the result of being viewed as and expected to be a woman is that you are inundated with misogyny.

that right there is why clinging to the notion of female socialization is transmisogynistic. it allows tme trans people, many of whom don't even consider themselves women, to position themselves as experts who understand womanhood and misogyny better than any trans woman ever could. that's why I find it disingenuous when a tme trans person claims to reject male socialization but still considers themself as having undergone female socialization; how could they possibly benefit from doing so, other than by claiming to be more oppressed than trans women, by virtue of supposedly experiencing more misogyny?

by being viewed as more oppressed than trans women on the basis of female socialization, they gain access to "women's only" spaces that trans women are denied access to. their voices are given priority in discussions about gendered oppression. people more readily view them as the victims when they come into interpersonal conflict with trans women. they become incapable of perpetrating transmisogyny on the basis of being the "more oppressed" category of trans people.

how exactly could such a person not be transmisogynistic, though? if they believe that gendered socialization is a valid and universal truth that one can never escape from, then what does it even mean for them to reject the concept of male socialization? if they were to actually, vehemently reject it, then they would no longer be able to leverage their own "female socialization" to imply that trans women aren't real, genuine women on account of not having experienced it. and make no mistake - there are very few tme trans people who subscribe to the myth of gendered socialization that even claim to reject male socialization. most of the time, they're very clear about their beliefs that trans women have some "masculine energy" that we can never truly get rid of after having undergone a lifetime of being expected to conform to manhood. and as a result, they continue to treat trans women as dangerous oppressors.

that's why gendered socialization as a concept needs to be abandoned wholesale. there's nothing wrong with talking about your experiences as a trans person, but giving any validity to this vile terf rhetoric always harms trans women, just like it was intended to do from its very inception.

[writingwithcolor]

Representing Biracial Black South American Experiences…Through a White/Asian Mixed Race Character in Europe

@colombinna asked:

I have a YA story that's in very early development - pre-alpha, if you will. For now what I have developed is the characters: one of the MCs is a biracial asian queer girl (her dad is thai-american and japanese, her mom's white), she has a medium/dark brown skin, and lives in a very white context in a fictional European country. The contact she has with her extended family is limited to phone calls and regular visits because her dad moved from the US to said fictional European country.

I'm a biracial black queer girl myself, living in a very white community in South America, my extended black family also lives in a different place, and I'm taking a lot of my experiences of being not white and queer whilst living in white communities into her story (the feeling of not belonging, the impostor syndrome, standing out as one of the only POC kids in class, etc) and thinking back to what I've heard asian friends and classmates say about their experiences in the same school/community context as mine. But I want to know how different her experiences as a dark-skinned asian girl would differ from mine and my friends' in a similar context (white community, small number of other asian people - and POC in general - in the social circles, and limited contact to her extended family), and what experiences could make sense if the character was biracial black like myself, but won't if she's biracial asian.

Why not write a biracial Black girl if those are the experiences you want to represent? 

This MC is straddling, like, 3 different cultures. Having multiple immigrant identities in not-Europe is not the same experience as being Black in South America; while both are complex minority experiences, there are too many differences in intersections and histories to compare. Not to mention, it really depends on what European culture(s) you’re basing your not-Europe on. 

I think you’ll find that the written result will ring much more genuine and rich in depth if you either translate your experiences more directly or pick a more narrow focus, instead of assuming that there is a universal for racism and colorism against biracial people that is transferable across contexts. Because there isn’t. There can be overlaps, but if you’re looking to cover the entire range of What It’s Like in general, it won’t work.

This isn’t to say that people can’t use other identities to write about specific experiences of their own, but in this case you need to think about what story you want to tell and what your reasons are. Marika’s commentary will go more into when and how this can be done effectively. 

Also, if the point is to make her a dark-skinned Asian, as a white/asian mix myself, I implore you: why must you make her 1/4 Japanese and 1/2 white? Even with the Thai ethnicity thrown in, Thai people very much range in skin tone and have their own domestic issues with colorism. It’s not impossible for dark-skinned examples of your MC’s ethnic makeup to exist, but still I don’t recommend it for two reasons: 

It's going to make researching people whose experiences fit that much more difficult. Most experiences of colorism, othering, and other forms of discrimination that mixed white asians tend to face are completely different from mixed race asians who tend to have darker skin & features.

There's enough Japanese & white mixed Japanese rep in the Asian rep sphere as is. Consider that this individual could be mixed Asian (not Japanese) with something else (not white)! 

But again, think over your motivations. I’ll spare you the copy/paste of our Motivations PSA, but re-read it and consider. Why do you wish to write a mixed Asian character to tell the story of your experiences as a mixed Black individual instead of a mixed Black character? What does it add to the story? Is it an effective vessel for the experiences you want to convey? 

~ Rina

I think Rina brings up some good points here: I’m not hearing a lot of specificity in your query. As you doubtless know firsthand, the more intersectional and complex an identity, the more of a chance the identity may come with unexpected baggage and nuances that fly in the face of what is common sense for less intersectional identities. This can make writing such characters challenging just because there is so much choice on which identity themes to emphasize. 

I once spent about 15 minutes explaining to a person the thought process I used to determine when I could wear jeans depending on which country I was living in as a mixed race person who is perceived as different things in different places. It might seem trivial, but it’s actually very important to me for the purposes of identity, safety and gender presentation, so I personally think it’s interesting. But will my readers think a character’s multi-page internal monologue on whether or not to wear jeans is especially compelling? Does the writer-version of me want to research the version of myself musing on my specific jeans conundrum to that extent? Or do I want to talk about other things related to attire a lot of other people would relate to? I think those are all YMMV questions, but hopefully, they provide some perspective that will help you be intentional about how you might want to tackle something potentially very time-consuming.

When I say intentional, I mean that when covering a complex identity with which you are peripherally familiar, it will always be more effective and easier to use it to tell a specific story extremely clearly than to be extremely broad in scope and try to include almost everything about your own experiences, especially because some of those experiences might not be as relevant for your character’s background as they are to yours.      

One of my favorite childhood picture books is written and illustrated by a Nikkei writer-illustrator team. The book is titled Ashok by Any Other Name (link). The story features a desi child growing up in the US who wishes he had an American name his friends and teachers wouldn’t think was strange. It covers how being othered for his name makes him feel, and how he copes with that feeling. Speaking as someone both Japanese and desi, I think through the plot device of names perceived by the majority of Americans as foreign, this book aptly shows how many immigrant/diaspora creators are capable of relating to the pressures of assimilation experienced by other immigrant, even if the creator, the audience and the story’s subject’s backgrounds all don’t completely overlap 100%. 

There will be aspects of your Blackness, mixed identity, skin color, sexuality and living in a local community lacking diversity as a member of many minority groups that you will find resemble/ resonate with the experiences of mixed-race, Japanese individual in a Europe-themed setting, and I think any story that leans into those themes will be considerably easier for you to research. In other words, instead of asking us “How does my experience differ?” I would approach this issue by deciding what narrative you want to show about your own experience and then research the specific contexts within which your desired story overlaps with elements of mixed-race Japanese experiences. 

- Marika.

[muxas-world]

This tweet is a perfect example of the subtle racism and xenophobia F1 fans (Twitter and Tumblr too) use to speak about Checo and his fans. It's crazy how some of you don't realize it.

Most of the drivers on this grid are there not just for their sporting caliber, but also because of their commercial appeal. This is a money sport, and commercial success is a significant factor when signing drivers. Checo is not an exception to this rule, so when discussing him, always remember that many others are in the same position, but he is singled out, particularly because he is a POC rider. If you don't realize how problematic that is, I don't know what to tell you.

2. Why does it bother you all so much that the only Latino rider is being supported by Mexican and Latin fans? Why does the idea of someone having our support seem worse or less than the support of European or American fans? You all imply this by saying people support him only because he is Mexican and not because of his driving skills, while European and American fans do the same with other drivers. There are fanbases full of people stanning drivers because of their looks. So why should Latin American fans be treated as if their opinions and support are less valid than others? If you all don't understand how racist that is, I can't help you.

3. Referring to his fans as South American (when Checo is Mexican and the majority of his fanbase is from Mexico, which is in North America) shouldn't need explaining in the context of the world we live in. Using that kind of tone to talk about the identity of a Mexican driver and confusing his nationality is racist. I'm not saying you have to like Checo Pérez (I'm not his biggest fan because of some of his past comments and driving), but there's a difference between disliking and being hater of someone and being ignorant. Maybe you don't get how it's racist, but that's the thing with subtle racism—it’s not obvious, but it’s still racist and xenophobic.

[enbycrip]

Folks, if you are talking about or sharing anything about “native plants”, please mention *your* location and *where* the plants are native to, not only country-wise but environment-wise.

So many people are learning about rewilding, gathering, foraging and gardening for food in harmony with the environment entirely online. Making your information clear for those people takes you little effort and limits confusion and misinformation getting out there.

The internet isn’t only “not just America”; many nations contain different environments with materially different conditions.

I live in Scotland. Most of the gardening and foraging information I get in the UK is calibrated for the south of England, which is a really different environment from mine - spring can come up to a month later and the south is semi-arid, which Scotland is *not*.

These days I actually look at a lot of Danish and Swedish gardening advice because their environment is a lot closer to mine. And that’s within one small nation. The world is wide and full of incredible diversity.

I am seeing UK-based pages sharing information about “native lawns” which contain plants from arid areas of the US because there’s no specificity in the original post. A small amount of information in the post, even a few lines, about locations, environments, context and goals would prevent this sort of confusion and incorrect information from spreading.

A lot of people are really enthusiastic and ready to be engaged in gardening for food, rewilding, gardening in harmony with the environment, soil preservation etc, but confusion and feeling they can’t trust information sources can really kill that. Make it easy for people new to the movement where you can, please.

ID: some photos of my native rewilded lawn from Scotland, UK, containing buttercups with butterfly eggs on them, yellow rattle, a willow tree, wild orchids, and many different grasses, and my small garden pond upcycled from a Belfast Sink surrounded by wild grasses, ladies’ mantle and wild geraniums and with woundwort and pondweed growing in it. There is a short path mowed in the lawn to allow safe passage of mobility devices and a wooden bench sitting in the long grass. A somewhat overgrown gravel drive and a front door with three steps up to it can be seen. The photos were taken in early June 2023.

[madmwyrd]

So, my brother and I watched Dinosaur (2000) relatively recently, and besides the fact that it's a bad movie with horrendous character design, one thing pissed him off more than anything else: the movie's use of the word "carnotaur".

Now, to him, this word was just an infuriating attempt at saying "carnivore", which in context, makes sense. What neither he nor I knew at the time is that this is not the case. Carnotaurs are real dinosaurs. And they're really cool.

Carnotaurus sastrei, the only one of its genus, is one of the few dinosaurs we have with some of its skin preserved. We know from those preservations that it had scales, which is one of the things we assume generally about dinosaurs that we have very little evidence for. Carnotaurs also were the only known carnivorous dinosaurs with horns, which is why it's named after a bull. The other half of its name (carno-) means "meaty", and even just looking at the skeleton, you can tell that it was one THICC ASS BOI.

I'm at least 90% certain this motherfucker looked like a sausage with teeth and thighs. We all clown on the T-Rex for its tiny arms, but look at this motherfucker. We're talking whale pelvis levels of vestigial here.

Another cool thing is that geographically, the movie having these as the main hunters makes more sense than having Tyrannosaurs. T-rex lived in what is now North America, whereas these death bratwurst lived in South America. We know that the asteroid that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs landed in the Gulf of Mexico, and given that we see in the movie that very asteroid hit the earth, I don't think it takes place in what would one day become California.

All this to say, Elliot, I know more about dinosaurs than you. Suck it.

[rrcraft-and-lore]

Monkey Man and why I loved the heck out of it

At it's core, it's a Bollywood flick presented to the West with familiar nods to previous action films - I definitely picked up hints of Tony Jaa's influence on Asian action flicks throughout.

It's heavily focused on police corruption, something commented a lot about in India, and here, more importantly, Indian films. Just like America has its love affair with mobster flicks, Bollywood has a long history featuring films that showcase police corruption, sometimes tied into political extremism, fanatical or greedy religious leaders, and Monkey Man comments on all this as well and pays nods to that commonality. We've got televangelists and religious leaders in the states funnelling money, preaching prosperity gospel, and using it to influence politics and fund lavish lifestyles here.

Monkey Man shows this happening in India, and is filled with Indian culture and symbolism through out. The focus on Hanuman, the god and one worshiped by the strong, chaste, wrestlers, champions, and fighters. It's a common thing to have a household deity if you will. Some families might choose to focus worship on Ganesh, others Hanuman, some might do Mata Rani or Lakshmi. Here, it's the divine Vanara (monkey people race) - one of the Chiranjivi - immortals/forever-lived.

Hanuman. Themes of rebirth, common in South Asian history and mythology are present from Kid being a ringer, beat up fighter getting whooped for money to being reborn and facing his trauma through a ritual/meditate process that I don't want to get too much into to not spoil the movie. Post that, he begins his own self alchemy to really become the true Monkey Man. Nods to Ramayama, and an unapologetically Indian story featuring dialogues throughout in Hindi - don't worry, there are subtitles.

And of course a love for action flicks before it, all the way back to Bruce Lee. A beautiful use tbh of an autorickshaw (and you might know them as tuk-tuks in Thailand) which are popular in India with an added kick...I swear, that thing had to be modified with a hayabusa motor. Which is an actual thing people do - modding those dinky rickshaws with motorcycle engines, and considering they weigh nothing at all, they can REALLY FLY once you do that.

Monkey Man brings to the big screen other elements of India people might not know about, such as the gender non conforming and trans community that has a long history in India, presenting them as action stars as they go up against a system of corrupt elites oppressing part of the city, marginalized communities, and minority voices as depicted in the film. I'm not sure if people are going to get all of that without having the context, but I love that it does it without holding anyone's hands.

It's a fun action flick to see in the age of superhero films, and I say that as an obvious superhero/sff nerd. Also loved that Dev included a little bit about Hanuman's own story in the film, and the loss of his powers - almost mirrored by Kid's own loss of self/skills, strength until he confronts his trauma and is reborn, and in fact, remade (not necessarily the same). Also, the use of music was brilliant, including one scene with a tabla (the paired hand drums of south asia) - and Indian music is central to Indian stories.

This is a culture with evidence going back to the Paleolithic with cave murals showing art of Indian dance nearly 30,000 years ago. Yeah, that far back. As well as Mesolithic period art depicting musical instruments such as gongs, lyres, and more.

Indian music is some of the earliest we can find that has high developed beat and rhythm structures such as 5, 7, 9 and now the extremely common and known 4/4 and 3/4 - which so much of Western music is built upon. The foundations and experimentation of/in Jazz. John Coltrane and John Cage were heavily inspired by Indian music and incorporated a lot from it into their works. And Monkey Man blends Eastern and Western music through the narrative as comfortably as it does an Indian story in a very familiar Western accessible structure.

Dev did a wonderful job. And thanks to Jordan Peele for bringing it to screens.

[notashadowbutawave]

i almost posted this on the true detective subreddit episode thread but thought better of it:

I've gotta say… I feel like a lot of complaints people are having about this season of the show don't pass muster objectively when held up against Season 1. Melodrama, "unrealistic" dialogue, complaining about being shown too much about people's personal lives and not caring about the characters…

There is so much unrealistic dialogue in season 1. The way Marty and Rust during their video interviews just come in talking about some big philosophical idea or "life wisdom" nugget in the middle of the episode (nobody talks like that IRL). The scene with Marty's daughter and the princess crown, for example. Marty cheating on his wife multiple times isn't like, objectively "more interesting" than Evangeline's sister having mental health issues or Liz being sexually promiscuous and a mess.

I've seen season 1 probably 10 times and I adore it but a lot of the angry comparisons people are making to S1 kind of just come off as straight up misogyny at a certain point. Like it rubs people the wrong way because it's women. Complaining about Liz and Evangeline going to the dredge without backup but when Rust and Captain America Marty Hart do something like that it's believable?

I don't think anyone's obligated to like the season by any means but you can just say you aren't feeling it as opposed to trying to make these apples-to-apples comparisons to season 1 that really don't hold water; I think people are just a lot more willing to accept this type of storytelling when it's about men and kind of has a fetishization/shame angle with masculinity in general. Like S1 is very masculine but it's also a love story. idk. I'm gay so I should probably stick to Tumblr for talking about this show, ya'll are wild.

----

idk watching people who are probably white dudes complain on Reddit that we are seeing too much "native culture" on the show strikes me as really icky.

i recognize that these are reddit comments and not like, actual media criticism but i think it says a lot about how people are conditioned to understand storytelling in general. like there's still so much fucking misogyny and white supremacy in our mainstream media and i realize a lot of people wouldn't say it out loud but i think they genuinely just find it exhausting that they're being asked to contemplate the interior lives of native alaskans and women by watching this show lmao

(that's not a value judgment about how well it is doing at depicting  Iñupiat culture because i'm not the person who gets to make that judgment but it REALLY rubs me the wrong way that people can't STAND even seeing it depicted)

(i think the fetishization of the American south also has a lot to do with it, like people are very willing to accept the aesthetic style of the American south as a vehicle for crime/mystery/possibly supernatural storytelling because it really doesn't challenge any conceptions they might have about the genre) (it helps that Woody Harrelson and Matthew McCounaughey are native southerners with great acting talent and natural screen chemistry who really took Season 1 to a higher level, in no small part thanks to their uncredited script doctoring. with lesser actors I think the story falls flat as hell because you need them to sell a rich relationship and complex inner lives with their performances because SO MUCH of their relationship is subtextual) (so when people see these great acting performances in the context of a police procedural set in Louisiana i think they're very pre-conditioned to elevate it to an almost mythical status in the genre because it doesn't present TOO many challenges to a conventional worldview about who has power and agency in stories)

like I said i've watched season 1 probably 10 times. it's very good. but it does MANY of the same things that people are complaining about regarding season 4/night country in terms of showing a lot of relationship/sexual drama for the leads and their Tragic Pasts. they just don't like it. which is fine. i just think it's a disingenuous angle to approach criticism of the show.

like if any actor other than McConaughey were doing Rust's monlogues in S1 it would not have been very good because it would have come off like self-serious edgelord shit, which is what it actually was (pizzolatto sucks) before it ended up in the hands of competent producers and performers. instead it really comes off like a man who has suffered and developed this worldview genuinely, within himself, not as a way to wield power over others but to protect himself from harm.

anyway....

for my part, i wanna know what the fuck is up with the spirals and the bad CGI polar bear visions and i'm going to be disappointed if it's not just some massive red herring designed to freak people out a little because that's what we deserve.

but in terms of like, the characters' lives, i generally find them very interesting. the opening scene of episode 3 with annie genuinely moved me to tears. annie seems like a fucking cool person and i would love another flashback about her.

i love that liz is a fucking asshole who is constantly being forced to confront her own behavior as racist, self-centered, impulsive, etc.

i love that evangeline is a very lonely person just barely keeping it together. kali reis is putting on an amazing performance. also, for the record, i'm VERY gay.

i wanna know more and there are only 2 episodes left and i hope it sticks the landing so i can write a big actual essay about what it did well from a storytelling perspective!

gosh i just love serialized fiction on the television

[rustingways]

I don't think Armand wants to be in charge. I think he knows what happens when you aren't in charge (rape, brutalizations, becoming a slave again) and he knows that all his abuse and torture when he was groomed into being the coven leader would all be for naught. Ripping Riccardo into pieces, the starvation, watching all his brothers being burned: all of that would be for nothing is he let up and gave Santiago the reigns.

But Louis doesn't understand because, despite not being privileged himself as a black man in America, he's still privileged as a rich, affluent black man in a way average black folks just aren't. It's almost laughable how much Louis doesn't understand slavery and being someone's personal lap dog despite spending his adult years living on the edge of that life style. He was never brutalized or raped due to what he was born as. He was exluded, and humilated from white folks, but Europe doesn't work that way and he doesn't seem to understand that (even pertaining to claudia).

Context: so uhhhhhh I was pretty on the fence about replying to this cause I’m ngl it feels real dicey but here goes—skip to the last paragraph for my response about Louis specifically

I was basically saying that Armand hates being in charge of a coven but needs to feel in control of a situation to feel safe because he’s made of trauma. Giving the reigns to Santiago doesn’t only feel like it’s gonna be a disaster, it feels inherently unsafe.

But I don’t really agree that he’s hanging on to whatever torture he suffered at the hands of the Children of Darkness (as we don’t know specifics yet for show Armand) as justification for being the coven leader. For one, the Children of Darkness are gone. While there’s some crossover in membership with the theater, and the core rules are (probably) the same, the theater is a very different entity than the original coven. Imo, Armand’s inflexibility stems from fear. He can’t move on by himself; he needs a tether. He knew the Paris coven was crumbling, he tries to latch on to Lestat. That doesn’t work, so he latches on to the theater. Claudia (correctly) calls out all the members of the theater turning inward which is why he’s trying to move on to Louis. He tries to latch on to Louis, but then he’s so scared of being hurt he picks the theater instead. Armand needs something to devote himself to because it’s through devotion that he endures.

Something I will NOT be doing on my blog is speculating how much a Black man in the 1900s American South may or may not understand slavery, holy shit. But calling the racism Louis experienced “exclusion and humiliation” feels criminally reductive, regardless of his access to wealth and education. The first anti-lynching law in America was signed in, uh, 2022. Louis’ entire life would’ve been perpetuated by the threat of violence and brutality, not just on an interpersonal level but an institutional level as well. I’m not going to try and compare Louis and Armand’s traumas. I’m also not going to try and dissect how racism works in Europe vs America. I don’t personally experience anti-Black racism. I am not qualified to speak on it. There are better, smarter, and more knowledgeable bloggers around who are talking about race and racism, and its portrayal and presence in the show. But like… saying Louis didn’t experience violence for how he was born feels like a gross understatement of his experience at best.

[tyrefire]

I really wish that everyone who is like "why is louis so closed up and closeted about his feelings for lestat" would actually analyze the show from louis' point of view

why doesnt he say "i love you"? because the last person he said that to jumped off a roof right in front of him, ya know his brother?

why does he feel so much shame about being with lestat? because he is a black catholic man living in the jim crow south america's own racial apartheid. Unlike other instances in historical fiction where queer men pretend to be friends, louis has to pretend to be lestat's valet aka his racial subordinate where he isnt even given the privilege to be considered his friend, not even his equal or equal partner

several instances of him "being proud" is him asserting his personhood and the rights he deserves. he hates the word fledgling because it makes him a subordinate to lestat. that doesn't mean he isnt proud: he is as you saw with the "no whites" sign, but he was violently punished for in canon by a race riot that destroyed the black community (literally!)

his (metaphor for an eating disorder) animal diet left him with a weakened libido, and the depression he fell into after Claudia left did the exact same. he wasnt denying lestat intimacy and sex as some punishment he was not in the mood in general! plently of people have the criticism that the show chose to remove ace representation by making the vampires sexual, yet seem to ignore louis' common ace/sex repulsed narrative of being cheated on because you wont put out

that doesn't mean that lestat cant feel hurt by his pushing and proding or his low libido and inability to say "I love you" but damn you all can take instances where louis wants to be considered an equal or you ignore the context of the world they live in to characterize him as the uppity emotional abuser which is frankly unfair and a very biased reading to the facts the story is providing at the moment

[demonqueenart]

hi! first of all, i'm so sorry you're feeling the way that you are. you've helped open my eyes to things i admittedly didn't know (dan's comment at wad, for example) or didn't notice. i'm glad you're receiving at least some support from other phans! i don't know if this helps at all (and it's not me trying to excuse dan), but i wanted to add some context to his "third-world country" reference. as an american, i can tell you that we grew up learning "this"third world" as the proper term. most of my colleagues, friends, family members, etc. STILL use it casually to refer to developing nations/the global south - we were literally taught to use it in school. of course it has since become obsolete, as the wording is incredibly offensive. i know about this because of my time in academia, but this awareness hasn't at all spread to the general population (especially in dan's/my generation of millennials and older). as smart as i do think dan is, i wonder if that's also the case in england. he has the responsibility to educate and inform himself and he needs to acknowledge that he's hurt and alienated a large proportion of his fanbase, so i still hope he'll do that soon.

as for the tour, one of my my best friends is mexican (and lives in mexico) and she was really disappointed during ii when they had to cancel the announced mexico dates. they had assumed the dates would work out, but - if i remember correctly - were presented with a lot of visa/permissions issues. they tried to make it work but it didn't, and they waited much too long to tell anyone. my guess is that they wanted to avoid a similar disappointment this time and not give anyone false hope, nor accidentally say anything negative about those countries as they explain their reasoning (which, of course, just comes off worse - ignoring is never the issue).

other artists have had similar issues with asian and middle eastern countries as well, as there is increased censorship and visa requirements. i've spent four years of my life in asian countries (and a few months in south america) and know that there are phans there who'd love to see them, but it might not be feasible.

ultimately, however, dan and phil owe everyone transparency and need to acknowledge if they're having difficulties with bookings in other countries and why. they usually go back and add dates later, so fingers crossed that they're trying to work out some dates in latam and may yet still add them.

It’s the lack of transparency that is the issue here. How am I supposed to trust them when they won’t tell me anything in the first place? And if they expect me to assume for the best, I don’t think I can do that. Not with all the time they tried to bury their mistakes when people have been hurt as if it’s nothing. I’m sorry but if they’re choosing to look good in the public eye before choosing us, then I don’t think I can trust them anymore. And it’s not that they’ll look bad when they’re talking about this stuff, but the fact they have never once talked about it ever really makes it feel like they want to keep this shut. And that hurts a lot.

Thank you for your perspective tho. I think it helps seeing where they can possibly come from.

Auto-message: This ask’s purpose is to acknowledge dnp’s past/present exclusivity, not to cancel them! But to embrace mistakes that they’ve made so that 1. we won’t exclude people in need in this community, and 2. we can normalize bringing up exclusivity so that improvement can happen. Hopefully this will one day help dnp realize that this is a safe space for them to talk about their mistakes, so that this space can become safe for people of all kinds too <3

*If you don’t understand what is happening, scroll through my blog for context. And I’ll be taking time to answer my asks, so don’t think I’m ignoring youuu*