#i mean. i don't want to say all northern europeans look the same. but it is true that they all have similar characteristics

[jackredfieldwasmyjacob]

Today on Italian class I was learning vocab to describe people and we got into this conversation about how Italians and Spaniards looked like and how tourists all looked the same and the kids especially are always identical whereas here it's impossible to mistake one sibling for another cause they don't really look the same (unless they're identical twins). Another Mediterranean win i guess.

[historia-vitae-magistras]

How much would you, based in your head canon, say is nurture as versus nature? I know you don't mean actual "blood relations" with family like Rat Dad and kids, but in general, how much of their relationships with each other is tied to the circumstances of how they were nurtured for as versus how they may be under other circumstances. That is, how much of their family is perception and choice?

Just for example, if Alfred had been raised by Antonio, would his relationship with Maria and Matthew be reversed? As in, would he be the younger sibling to Maria, while Matthew could be a friend but wasn't a sibling?

Oooh, good question. So in my mind, there are at least three major things for nations rather than two. Culture, geography, and privilege.

Privilege is the one that defines their relationship to a 'parent' most. Maria, for example, added so much to the Spanish economy that it collapsed the global economy. She's beautiful and intelligent, and Antonio, with his history as Hispania under Rome, used the word he knew from Lucius and set the precedent. That was a choice on the European part. And it was often a long period of that being unchallenged by those dubbed their offspring because of the respectability that could give.

But the second would be culture. The Anglosphere is a very weird concept. As adults, Zee and Jack have a strange time calling Matt or Alfred 'family,' but they and Matt usually don't outright deny it because they have yet to chuck the limey off the money and still look to Britain in some ways as the mother country. 100 year ago, Matt was extremely culturally British; calling him their elder brother was no problem. Alfred was never a part of their lives in childhood. But now Canada is largely French or Americanized and largely irrelevant in their affairs, and the word 'sibling' doesn't quite sit right, but they've perhaps yet to find a better word. Jack and Zee, however, would have a lot longer to go to break that definition between themselves, being both of British cultural background and geographically close. It's much the same in the Atlantic Archipelago. Rhys and Alasdair are both locked into Arthur with their borders in Britain. And they're locked into Brighid culturally due to their Celtic backgrounds.

So, geography often makes them close regardless of culture. Maria and Alfred will be in close proximity, regardless of their backgrounds. He and Maria shared much the same sense of closeness that he and Matt shared from the get-go, but they're translating nebulous dirt fuck feelings onto much more defined human concepts.

There are also the social mores of the time when these relationships were happening. In Matt's earliest days, there wasn't much English influence at all, and he's mostly a very mixed culture of French-Indigenous. So the cultural aspect of siblings isn't present yet. He's also male presenting. Alfred was trying to use human language to describe a relationship that is only partially human itself. When he was very little, the word others used was 'brother' and at that age it was the most appropriate. But when he was independent, he re-evaluated and wanted to find a word for his intense bond with his northern neighbor. But independent or not, he's taking into account what is acceptable, what is appropriate, and what feels right, and that hasn't changed much despite the revolution. The closest word he could find was the existing one. 'Brother.' Matt has always found it accurate enough to reciprocate, so their relationship remained familial, which was later reinforced by Canada's transformation into a largely Anglo culture and country.

Maria, presenting as female and coming to Alfred's point in life where he's a hormonal, self-righteous teenager, sent absolutely careening from any female attention, and Maria was no exception whatsoever. She was the best read and educated of any New World country then. She was in the throws of the enlightenment before Alfred was in many ways, and he was dumbstruck by her perspectives and knowledge at that age. There's this pull between them, the closeness of the future and their geography, and the best way in both their cultural contexts of the time to view and indulge that feeling was through a romantic and intellectual lens.

All that probably reads like a pretentious way of saying, 'Well, it depends,' but that's the thought process.

[annefic]

Ok so

I made that devilled pheasant recipe that was reported to be Anne's favorite in the issue of Country Life she guest edited (but with chicken rather than pheasant as it's a difficult bird to find around here out of season and expensive any time of year, and I didn't want to waste "shipping it in" money on something I might not even like)

Some thoughts:

I kinda had to guess my way through this because the recipe is super vague. No oven temperatures, very little indication of how long things should be allowed to cook, and based on the video I'm pretty sure the British are working with rather different definitions of "casserole" and "tender" than we are in the US

The spices the bird is boiled in smell divine by themselves, and I've saved the stock because I think it will make a great soup base. I about quintupled the garlic used because northern European recipes and especially British ones never use enough garlic. "One clove" is either a joke or like. Eating whole like a candy once it's dried or roasted amounts, not flavoring a dish to feed four amounts. I used three and also rubbed the meat in garlic powder before I did anything else with the recipe.

By the same token, I think it would materially improve the outcome if the meat were dry rubbed in all the spices (+extra garlic) and allowed to soak them in overnight before beginning the cooking process.

Included in the vagueness - it didn't say whether to keep or chuck the carrot and onions when you drain the meat. I chose to keep and I'm glad I did; the carrot in particular adds a lot to the final product

The only double cream available here comes already stiff... Not paying 15 fucking dollars for enough to have a full metric cup so I used one 6 oz jar and made up the difference with heavy whipping cream. They blended together quickly and easily.

The mango chutney-whipped cream-worcestershire mix used to dress it is... It tastes. It's very fruity and very strong. I think it would be more enjoyable if stood up against the gamey flavor of a pheasant; as it is it's very rich and rather overpowering. Definitely better evenly mixed in rather than slopped on top as the recipe asks, and I think it could stand either more heat or more time in the oven once the meat and cream are added together. (Due to the lack of a temperature in either real or fake units I assumed they meant to heat it in what Americans would call a "warm oven" - 175 to 200°F, not enough for further cooking to really occur just enough to get everything to a warm temperature.)

Overall thoughts: It's more positive than negative for me, but I don't think this is going to be the kind of dish just anyone would instantly fall in love with after the first bite. It's a very unique taste and uses fruit in a way I don't normally see it used with poultry. As I said already, I think the gamier taste of pheasant would probably help this considerably but I don't think that alone is going to make it a perennial favorite. The pheasant crumble pie in the issue Charles guest edited seems to have a more traditional flavor profile and I think that would fall more along my lines of preference - perhaps I shall make it later.

Uhhh, I don't know how to end this soooo

Bird

Frankly, it also looks more appealing mixed together. This has none of the darker more vibrant oranges showing in the picture of the finished dish on the website which is another reason I'm suspicious I didn't get the right idea of what "heat it in the oven for 10 minutes" was actually supposed to mean

[myel-stress-wd]

Hello, I want to discuss something with you regarding your post about Spain being a “father figure” to your Mexico and how this is not a very good take.

- You do realize that Cortez’s brief stay in Tenochtitlán, while “pacifist” was the beginning of what would be one of the most disgusting acts of violence against the Mexica peoples and later lead to the colonization of Mexico? Cortez and his men where later ran out during “Noche Triste” where they had to retreat and join forces with the Tlaxcalans, Otomi and several other tribes who where on bad terms with the Mexica just to sack and burn Tenochtitlán.

- Making your Mexico Spain’s kid (regardless of whether or not they’re biologically related) is unintentionally romanticizing the colonization and brutality the Spanish committed against the Mexica peoples. I’m not denying the Spanish influence Mexico has, I’m Mexican myself. I’m simply saying that colonialism shouldn’t be romanticized.

If you want me to elaborate on any of these points I will do so gladly. I mean no ill towards you, I simply want you to maybe take another look at how you write these character’s relationship.

I don't know why it won't let me publish it in Spanish… but here I'm going to put images of what it says in Spanish and if you want, you can read the English translation at the end!

~~~~~~

Here is the English translation!

I'm not a fluent English speaker but I try to use it for the community on Tumblr! <3

Hello buddy from Mexico, I'm from Mexico too! I totally understand everything you are saying, but I wanted to make the explanation in Spanish so you could understand me in the best way.

Luis at the time of the conquest, he was less than 200 years old when he was born/appeared in the territory of Tenochtitlan, but his presence was important for the consolidation of what would later become "New Spain". Well, I take Antonio/Spain, to be the father figure of my Mexico because to begin with Luis was physically and mentally between 5 - 7 years old when the territory was taken, he was present at the murder of Moctezuma's offspring, but as you may notice he was just a little boy, what he did was to suppress the terrible and bloody memories about the bad times during the Spanish occupation of Mexico.

There are children who do not remember parts of their childhood, partly because as you get older your memory goes through a process of erasure from an early age, but with Luis he blocked out the experiences in reaction to prevent such a traumatic event from driving him mad. Antonio sheltered him in his arms and obviously he, not having overcome the mourning of his first father figure, sought desperately to cling to a new one with whom he would associate all the good and his new care.

In my interpretation I have 2 more Mexicans! Teresa is the South of Mexico and Mateo plays the North. None of the 3 share the same age nor the same experience of the invasion.

Luis would have been between 5-7 years old, Teresa between 9 -11 and Mateo is the youngest as the northern territory itself was not very populated, he had physical and mental years between 2 - 4 years old. Teresa was the most "mature" of the three and she and Mateo share the idea that Antonio was an invader, someone who took away their original home, but all three were born to be the representation of New Spain and later of the Mexican territory!

And as I have said before, Luis represents the centre of Mexico, the part with much more European influence than the north or south of the same country (not to say that there is no European influence in these parts. There are many cathedrals and government buildings in the centres of our states that have a colonial style!), but historically, Mexico did not stop pursuing the idea of "being like Europe" until 1921, a little more than 100 years ago.

A piece of information I heard in a podcast called "the true history of Mexico", by a Mexican historian and psychologist called Francisco Mendoza, he talked about the American invasion, in one of the chapters he explained that there was a president of Mexico who was so terrified by the idea of Mexico disappearing and decided to make a proposal to send a letter to Spain and ask them to send a prince, Obviously this person was removed from power, but I don't doubt that Luis could have been someone who supported the idea, because he lived all that time with the father figure attachment he gave to Antonio/Spain. His brothers later gave him a good beating for that, but he could have been the one behind the idea.

Even later, when the Austrian emperor arrived from France some time later, Luis received him with enormous affection and affection, and how could he not? He did a lot of good things for the Mexican people even though they didn't know about it because they couldn't read or write, and later the Ministry of Public Education (SEP in Mexico) itself had to take some of the many writings that Maximilian of Habsburg was going to propose to form the educational system that we have!

Also, in the Porfiriato itself, there were many buildings influenced by French architecture, such as the Palacio de Bellas Artes in Mexico City. Historically speaking, Mexico did not stop chasing Europe until after the Mexican Revolution, and nowadays the city centre still has a lot of European influence. We ourselves are the product of years of miscegenation.

I never meant to imply that the actions taken by the Spanish Empire in Mexico Tenochtitlan were good! I just want to make it clear that Luis was a child when all this happened and his attachment to Antonio came from the trauma of a loss at an early age. If you want me to explain more about my interpretation of my children you can ask me again and I will answer calmly! ✨

[mask131]

I know that it is kind of horrible for me to say that, but something within me, the part of me that loves balance and symmetry and neatly classifying stuff, is somehow satisfied with how we have two open forms of discrimination on each of the two opposite sides of the political spectrum, making a full racist rainbow: against Blacks and Muslims/Arabs for the extreme-right (because for them Muslim and Arab are the same thing), against Jews and Asians for the extreme-left.

Mind you, I am going to speak mostly about the situation in France here - but I do suspect the same logic and workings apply to other countries, such as the USA.

What is even more interesting with this four-way display is that it clearly shows you how racism, as a principle, can exist on radically opposite political poles. You think these two sides would not share such a vicious concept - and yet they do, and what is fascinating is to see why each side is racist at different levels. [Also there's something to say about how each time a political ideology gets "extreme" it also gets racist. That's just the Horseshoe Effect for you.]

For the extreme-right, we know why they are racist, but I'll still recap some stuff. Mainly... I would say xenophobia. The extreme-right in Europe and America, dominated by white people, by Christian people and by nationalists, hate the "other", the "different", the "foreigner", the one who isn't doing "like we are". Because they live in Christian countries, are Christians and want everything to stay Christian, they pick on what they present as the "rival of" or "anti" Christianity, Islam. But it is just a replacement for how before it was Judaism ; and who knows, when Islam won't be in fashion anymore they'll attack... I don't know Sikhism or Buddhism probably. And the religious motivation for the discrimination gets fascinating when you compare European countries where Catholics dominate, and the USA where Protestants dominate, because despite being two branches of Christianity, they still discriminate each other in the extreme-right perspective, because "they are not doing the proper Christianity". They are racist towards Black as a whole because they are obsessed with people coming from their own country, hate anyone who might descend from another culture or another country - even worse when it is another continent ; and the whole "There's a white continent for white people, a black continent for black people", blabla...

I mean we know all that and it is foul enough that I do not want to repeat it all here, it already gives me a migraine. They discriminate black people because they're not white, they discriminate Muslim people because they're not Christian, they discriminate Arabs and African people and diasporas because they come from "elsewhere" and are "foreigners". The extreme-right is born in a specific state of society where a given ethnicity and a given religion dominates - and they want to preserve this society at all costs, refusing openings, diversities or fluctuations in terms of culture. They demonize the idea of any "outside influence" and in return glorify a certain form of idyllic past during which nothing but the dominant factors existed.

And this is why when the extreme-right moves from country to country or continent to continent, they always keep the idea of one ethnicity/one religion that must dominate the others - but which ethnicity and which religion changes... Look at far-right movements outside of Europe and Northern America, and you'll see.

That being said, when it comes to the extreme-left, now things get viciously interesting! Because the left has precisely built itself against the ideals of the 20th century extreme-right, against all the racism and discriminations of a post-Nazi world. They have presented themselves as "against racism"... And yet they are being openly racist today, just racist towards ethnicities the extreme-right does not openly target. Why? Precisely in the name of "anti-racism" fight, and that's where things get crazy.

Everybody jokes about how the left hates the "rich old white dudes", right? I mean there's the whole Velma scandal going on and everybody jokes about it right? But it becomes less funny when you realize this hatred for the most racist group within a society (wealthy elderly white people) becomes a vehicle for... racism. Because by a perverse set of association, the extreme-left will derive in a game of "pick and choose your favorite minority", and thus decide which ethnicity is "worth" or "truly" a "minority" within their own country. Why are extreme-left movements targetting the Jews and the Asians? Or, to be more exact, why are they either completely ignoring the violences and hatred they fae, or silently/passively supporting the actual hate groups turned against them? Because that's part of the thing with the extreme-left - extreme-right politicians are very vocal about active discrimination, while extreme-left work on passive discrimination, through ignoring certain topics, silencing certain scandals, changing a situation's point of view, and passively supporting foul groups.

So why? Because Jews and Asians, unlike, for example, people of African or Arab descent, are too close to their taste to "white people". And because they are "too white", because they are too "well-inserted", precisely because they are what some call "model minorities", the extreme-left lumps them together with the "white people" and declare: They are not minorities, or rather they do not have the same rights at being a minority than other actual minorities. It is a fucked up "Who is the most prejudiced against" competition. We have seen before all the "Jews are White" or "Japanese people are White" posts and discourses, right ; but also consider how a lot of people who fall into the extreme-left declare that "racism", as a word, should ONLY be applied to Black people. For example, some people do declare that you can't be racist towards Asian for the same reason you can't be racist towards white people. Which is completely missing the fact "racism" is a discrimination based on race, not a discrimination about being black. One can be racist to people of India. And they're not black. One can be racist towards Arabs. And they're not black. Etc, etc...

And then, we slip into pure racism because of... wealth. I am, myself, quite baffled by how the extreme-left creates what I honestly thought was a joke more than anything, but is a real thing now: a classicist racism. As in, the extreme-left doesn't just associate the minorities and ethnicities it doesn't like with white people - it specifically associates them with the "rich white people", to completely wrap everything it was built to dislike into one neat little package. And from this dislike of hyper-wealth, and a capitalist society, or whatever - we slip into racist cliches. "The Jews are all rich and wealthy", "We know Asians have more money than regular people". Recent public investigations in France have proven that most of the people who are invested in left-leaning political parties do believe in myths such as "The Jews are part of the upper-class and naturally wealthier than other people" or "The Jews are well-placed and deeply linked to the world of finances and media". And this is coupled with a rise of violent, racist attacks that have been happening in France before these investigations were led - some years ago there was a whole series of violent street-robberies in the Parisian area targetting Chinese (or Chinese-looking) women, and when the thieves were arrested, they always said "Yeah, but it's because we know Chinese folks are rich and always carry with them lot of money". Asian-looking women, at the time, feared to get out because of this wave of delinquants that had their head filled with completely idiotic stereotypes... But this reflects what is happening in general, and why from ideals against discrimination, the left becomes "extreme" by feeding into racist stereotypes. From opposing a majority to defend minorities, it devolves into "We only defend the minorities worth defending".

[Mind you, the balance is not perfect. There are still in France active extreme-right groups who are virulently antisemitic and racist towards Asian people. Because the extreme-right in France will always be racist towards everybody that isn't a Christian-white. But the thing is that,for dozens of years now, the extreme-right has been doing a huge effort we call the "de-diabolization" to erase their embarrassing and shameful past as supporters of the Nazi and nostalgics of the Occupation, so now the defense and support of Jewish people is one of their most open priorities, which is... deeply ironic to say the least. But it also explains why they had to switch from one target to the other, and the rise of terrorist groups and the ungodly amount of Islam-inspired terrorist attacks in France made they go "Great, now Arabs are out shooting target." With the added bonus that they can feed off the whole "Arabs hate Jews" idea. And the further you go in, the more twisted and convoluted and messy it becomes...

EDIT: I just discovered that I was writing this whole time "extreme right" and "extreme left", due to this being the terms used in French - when American-English speakers use "far right" and "far left". As such consider that "extreme" is just synonymous with "far" - though I will keep using "extreme" because I think it is more appropriate than just "going too far"

[qqueenofhades]

Hey, I loved your post about queerness in historical fiction. I was wondering if you could help me find a better way to explain (or know of someone who could) to the white (usually male) fans of Tolkien who are currently losing their minds because in the series for Amazon they have cast Sir Lenny Henry (a black man) as a hobbit. It feels like the exact same argument that was dealt with when Anya Chalotra was cast as Yennefer for The Witcher. It just seems like only white people are screaming that the entire cast must be white in both the case of the Witcher and Middle Earth in order to be "historically accurate to the Dark Ages" when it's all fantasy. I'm a white person and I don't get it. It's really frustrating that the only way to convince them that people of color should be allowed to play characters who aren't evil-doers is to bring up the existence of the potato in both Middle Earth and The Witcher. In this most recent fight, I've been called all kinds of names (one dude keeps saying I'm racist when I haven't brought up race or anything like that) and it's ridiculous because Henry was cast as a Harfoot who were hobbits with dark skin that they claim means Mediterranean not Black.

Ooof. I admire your initiative, I really do, but also: there comes a point where all good-faith efforts are totally futile, because these people don't actually WANT their beliefs challenged, and there won't be anything you can do about it except to exhaust yourself. You can throw all the material or documentary evidence at them that you want, but it won't work, because racism, white superiority, and the assumption of a monolithically white medieval history are a helluva drug. They are eager to split ridiculous hairs like "dark skin means Mediterranean instead of black" because, well, racism, whether or not they want to acknowledge that. Because Mediterranean is at least European, whereas for them, Black is Bad, Inferior, or otherwise Unacceptable. This doesn't even get into the types who want to claim that Ancient Rome (which was rather notably, y'know, Mediterranean and North African) was actually lily-white, because even dark-skinned Southern and Eastern Europeans can't ultimately make the racist cut.

Tolkien himself obviously had problems with his depiction of race and racialized people (witness the Haradrim, "men from the South," being the only people of colour in the story and generalized as an indiscriminate evil force fighting for Sauron against the white/Northern European heroes). That's not to say Tolkien was actively racist (see: the letter he wrote to the Nazi German would-be publishers of The Hobbit, inviting them cordially to get fucked), but it does mean that he was steeped in the usual assumptions and expectations of a white upper-class British man in the 1920s and 1930s, and not least the mindset that the (white) rulers of the (nonwhite) British Empire were superior, morally correct, and the privileged resisters of "evil" political systems. (This isn't even getting into how Germany was admired throughout the long 19th century for its perceived cultural and social superiority, the American eugenics movement directly influenced the Nazis, a lot of people thought that Hitler's only mistake was being too obviously crazy, and America and Britain only actively entered World War II when their territory/perceived global power was infringed upon.)

White people tend to assume that if they personally don't hold discriminatory attitudes (and they usually do, just because that's what society has taught them for almost all of modern history), they can't be racist, and it's a personal insult to call them that. They know that Racism Is Bad, but likewise, it's always someone else's fault, not theirs. See the huge brouhaha over the supposed plan to teach "critical race theory" in American public schools, which is really just acknowledging that centuries of racism and discrimination have created a system that disadvantages people of color at every level. This is absolute heresy for today's right wing (which has become ever more extreme, reactionary, and historically amnesiac) to admit. They can admit historical racism, sometimes, maybe, only in demonstrably "bad" people, but as far as they're concerned, there was no lingering effect whatsoever, and it's "un-American" (read: anti-white supremacist) to insist otherwise. Land of the free! Everyone treated the same! Etc. etc. The continued inferior or disadvantaged life outcomes of people of color is, according to these types, simply a result of them not being motivated/ambitious/smart enough to fix their own broken circumstances. Those centuries of genocide, cultural destruction, use as literal chattel slaves, etc, has nothing to do with it.

If this sounds ridiculous: well, obviously, it is. But as reactionary mindsets have become troublingly normalized and social media has allowed people to spread both passively and actively racist content to unprecedented degrees, it has also leaked into media. The type of white-man-fan you're arguing with won't accept any "historically accurate" argument for the inclusion of non-white people, even as they're staking their own (bad) arguments on that hill. This is because they want to claim the sole privilege to create a nostalgic/imagined/fantasy space that looks just like them. Their underlying belief is that people of color never had any power or consequential role in history, and shouldn't have, so they don't want to see a space, even an explicitly fantastic/non-historical setting (like LOTR, The Witcher, GOT, etc.), where this is the case. Whether or not they want to say it, or even if they're aware of it, they feel that even if they've been unhappily forced to accept a small lessening of their cultural power just because we no longer automatically accept that white men get to run everything, they at least can take comfort in a (white) past. And now, or so they think, the "politically correct" types also want to ruin their racist fantasy comfort zone. They can't even escape from multiculturalism in media, as it too has become steadily more diverse.

Basically: it's racism, Jan. It's many levels of racism, you can't argue those people out of it, and you have to identify and understand that, especially since their favorite diversionary tactic will be the schoolyard maneuver of going, "no, YOU'RE the racist!!!"

(Also: "historically accurate to the Dark Ages" should tell you everything you need to know. These people know absolutely nothing about history, but that won't prevent them from weaponising it in defense of the perceived threat to their cultural and racial domination. Besides, yet again, fantasy universes have no claim to historical accuracy, and if you say that, I assume you just want to feel justified in creating a fictional universe where the only powerful/consequential people are white heterosexual western European-coded men, because you not-so-secretly wish it was still that way in reality.)

[dramionediscussion]

Hello! I didn't want to, but since I keep seeing a very warped representation of the racial discourse in Europe, it's become necessary to clear things up. Two things are important. First of all, BIPOC is indeed being used in the racial discourse in Europe, and secondly, "indigenous" means the same thing in Europe as it does in the Americas. 1/2

Contrary to popular belief, "indigenous" does not mean "indigenous to this particular place" but "peoples who lived in a particular place *before* the arrival of (white) western-Europeans". So "indigenous" includes the same groups of people in Europe as it does in the Americas, i.e. (usually) indigenous peoples of the Americas, Australia, or the Asia-Pacific region. "Indigenous" in, say, Wiltshire, does not mean people of Anglo-Saxon decent. 2/2

So I looked into it. From Wikipedia:

Indigenous peoples, also referred to as first peoples, first nations, aboriginal peoples, native peoples (with these terms often capitalized when referred to relating to specific countries), or autochthonous peoples, are culturally distinct ethnic groups who are related to the earliest known inhabitants of a particular geographic region.

Peoples are usually described as "indigenous" when they maintain traditions or other aspects of an early culture that is associated with a given region

Notable indigenous minority populations in Europe that are recognized by the UN include the Uralic Nenets, Samoyed, and Komi peoples of northern Russia; Circassians of southern Russia and the North Caucasus; Crimean Tatars, Krymchaks and Crimean Karaites of Crimea in Ukraine; Sámi peoples of northern Norway, Sweden, and Finland and northwestern Russia (in an area also referred to as Sápmi); Basques of Basque Country, Spain and southern France; and the Sorbian people of Germany and Poland.

So from that, the Indigenous People of Europe are not the same as Indigenous People in the Americas, Asia, Africa, and Australia. They are distinct groups.

But yes they too are discriminated against in Europe.

But what the other Anon is saying is that these groups are different and Europe has its own Indigenous Peoples, and they don't think the acronym BIPOC fits properly. And people will just think that the word "Indigenous" means what it means in the US, the Native Americans, and they won't understand that the term actually refers to many people worldwide, and in Europe specifically, the peoples/communities listed above. They were just saying that American culture is spreading all over and people are not truly understanding the context behind some things.

- Lisa

[mariacallous]

I think one of the big big flaws of the post-WWII world order is an near obsessive holding onto borders at all costs even when they were set my Monarchies or European powers who knew little and cared less about the people who lived there, it leads to valuing freezing conflicts in place rather than trying to fix the problem, Bosnia and Herzegovina is a Franken-country with two sub countries nit together I feel like sooner or later they'll break apart, in a good or bad way.

I mean, the obsessive holding onto of borders has been happening since time immemorial, but I also don't really see it having played out any other way, for the most part. And we're not seeing that go away (hence Russia and Ukraine, China and Taiwan, etc.) either.

Yugoslavia and its succeeding countries tend to be what people think of in regards to artificial borders and ignoring conflict.

Depending on how you look at it, the effort to assert a unique Bosnian identity pace the neighboring Serbian and Croatian ones goes back to either during Ottoman rule or Austro-Hungarian rule and for a variety of reasons has always been the most ethnically-diverse of the former Yugoslav countries, which is part of the issue and why, really, the only other comparable examples would be Kosovo (vis-à-vis Serbia) and, at one point, Montenegro (ditto).

Part of the issue is that the Dayton Accords were intended as a "construction of necessity", to stop the fighting and hold everything in place to allow for an actual long-term plan and resolution to be established. Between a variety of failures (inconsistent focus from the US and EU, intransigence and disagreement among the different factions in Bosnia, the locking in place of the Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (and the independent Brcko district), the power-sharing structure which helped stop the fighting and try for stability but which undermines the overall country) that's not happened, and in the last several years, and particularly in regards to the Republika Srpska (with Serbian and likely Russian backing), the blocking and resistance to getting anything done has increased, as well as being one of the eddies in the right-wing populist wave that's been sweeping over Europe and elsewhere during that same time period.

I think I saw an article where Bosnians were polled about their support for the Dayton Accords and majorities in all three (Serb, Croatian, and Bosniak) groups would have voted for and support Dayton versus those who would have voted against it (the article was published last year but I think the data they reviewed was a few years older) which is kind of interesting, if you think about how in Poland a majority of citizens support the EU and want to remain with their government challenging and battling against Brussels.

I will say that I'm fully expecting a Srpskxit, or a full attempt at one, before the end of the decade. That's been the trend for a while now, and Republika Srpska is where something like 95%-96% of Bosnian Serbs live within Bosnia and Herzegovina, Banja Luka is where essentially all of the major Srpska institutions are based, etc. I don't know how much this would affect Bosnia's current EU membership application and its NATO membership action plan, and the only real benefit, such as it is/would be, is to essentially break the deadlock and lack of progress in dealing with pretty much any of Bosnia and Herzegovina's issues.

I think a Srpskxit would be incredibly disruptive to the region (caveat here is my assumption it'd be a unilateral action taken by Dodik and the Republika Srpska leadership), with similar border issues compared to Northern Ireland and the UK and Ireland, massive confusion as to the status of minority groups in both the Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a potential derailment to both the NATO and EU membership plans for the overarching Bosnian country, an emboldening of Serbia (and possibly of Kosovo), and an encouragement to other leaders that being intransigent and then forcing your way pays dividends. (Ironically, or perhaps not, this is what the initial breakup of Yugoslavia was like in a lot of ways).

Unless there's a mutual agreement that gets negotiated to help avoid most of these issues, that is.

[sometimesrosy]

I am worried about inclusiveness in my story. I've had these characters in my head for more than 10 years, maybe even 15. When I created them I was a child. As I grew up, I started "upgrading" my story & making it much more fitting to my age now, an adult. However, I don't have much inclusiveness in it. It's in a high fantasy world. The main character is bisexual, & his ex-boyfriend has darker skin. But other than that... I'm having a hard time changing the characters from what I imagined them.

This is a good and complicated question. I’m glad you asked.

There are problems here, and I think you’re finding you’re confronting them but you can’t quite identify them.

The thing about inclusiveness, about adding diversity to your work, is that it can’t really be solved by surface changes like-- oh this character is black now, all better.  BECAUSE diversity is actually about more than just the color of a character’s skin.

Diversity is about differences of life experience, culture, mindset, history, perspective, values. It’s about recognizing that the world is not just one, standard existence, but a multiplicity.

We are in a time now that is *changing* the way we understand people and identity. 

You started this story when you were a child and didn’t recognize all these complexities, and to tell the truth, society itself didn’t really recognize them at a larger level. There’s a reason why you as a kid didn’t see them.

Because our culture as a whole has identified white people as the default people. Specifically white, middle/upperclass, christian, able bodied, straight, cis men as the default person. ANYTHING you have other than that has to be identified, otherwise, we assume they are the default person.

The HERO is always this default person until we define them as otherwise, female, Black, poor, atheist, deaf. Oh look. There’s a new character who has a distinctly different experience than our default person. And you then have to WRITE them with that experience in mind, or you’re just writing the default person in a mask that is only skin deep.

So what I’m trying to tell you is that it’s not really diversity if you just change the color of your character’s skin without letting it reflect upon who they are as a person. And then how that affects your story. You can’t JUST make someone in a wheel chair without changing their part of the story on a fundamental level, don’t you think? If you switch your character from non stated but assumed Christianity to Judaism... how does that affect your story or character? And if it doesn’t, well lets say it’s irrelevant to the story, then how do you share that bit of background of the character, make it authentic and not seem as if you’re just checking boxes on the diversity list?  Do you even know enough about Judaism to write them fairly or will you just toss in some yiddish-- “Oy, what a shmuck!” and leave it at that? Ok well maybe your fantasy world doesn’t have Jewish people. Fair enough. 

But now I need to question your world building. Is everyone in your book of the same culture? Are there different races, religions, creeds, classes, ethnicity? If there aren’t, why not? Are you writing a world where no one travels? Where there’s an oppressive force that requires everyone to worship the same gods? Even JRR Tolkien had multiple races, languages, belief systems and cultures. I say “even” because Tolkien is often taken as the “whiteness model” of fantasy. The British/northern European ideal.

You might be attached to the way your characters look. You’re also probably attached to the world view that white is the default. We all are, frankly. The first novel I wrote I made it about a blonde white woman from the Bronx, where I am from, where blonde white women are few and far between. And I didn’t address how this white woman lived in The Bronx surrounded by mostly brown Latinx people. To be honest, I think I had internalized that concept of white people being the default, of ALL books being about the white experience and that was just how you write a story. If I were to rewrite that book now, I would make her Latina. I could keep the main story the way it was, but switching her to Latina would require a hefty rewrite as her character, experiences, understanding, perspective and the way she looked at herself and her world would be different. 

What you need to do, IF you want to add diversity to your novel, is to do a major overhaul of your understanding of what it means to be human and how our differences and intersections shape our identity and experiences. That means a major overhaul of your story. 

OR you could leave your story the way it is and don’t add diversity to what seems to be a complete story already, just to fit the times and concerns of the day, STILL do the work of overhauling your personal understanding of diversity, and then in the next book, build that diversity in from the bottom up. 

Even if you leave the book with everyone looking the way they already do, you might try adding an AWARENESS of race, diversity, otherness, bias, bigotry, etc. White people ALSO move through this world with people who don’t look like them. Acting like white people don’t have any repercussions from living in this racist society is making a statement that not only is the white experience the default experience and the way things should be, but also racism is just a given and doesn’t need to be examined, since it only affects POC.

Any way you take it, it’s a lot of work. That’s because confronting your own biases, blindspots, assumptions and unspoken prejudices is HARD and takes constant work.

[96thdayofrage]

As someone who has researched school segregation and interviewed hundreds of white parents, I know that one of the biggest barriers to achieving meaningful integration in public education is how the most politically powerful parents in any school system — usually many of the white parents — come to understand what the “good” schools are and what is “best” for their children.

As a former public school parent and a white woman with a white son who performs well on the metrics that get students into the most selective public schools, I know the peer pressure that white parents feel to get their children into these high-status schools. I remember another white parent, when she learned that my son was not going to the most selective, predominantly white middle school in our district, looking at me in disbelief and saying, “I thought he had high tests scores?”

Yes, he did have high test scores and, yes, he most likely would have been accepted to the selective middle school, which many of his friends’ parents were determined to get their children into. But he did not want to go to that school.

He thought the students there looked bored when he toured it. I did not want him to go there either, because he was a sensitive kid who needed a school with a strong sense of community and care, which that school lacked. We were both upset by the almost completely white student body in this selective school located in the center of a racially and ethnically diverse community school district.

Really, the only reason to send him there would have been because it would give him — and, by default, his parents — a sense of status and prestige. This school had the highest test scores in the district, my son noted, because it only accepted the students with the highest test scores. In his middle school mind, being selective in and of itself did not make a school “good.” He had higher standards for a school than that. Too bad more white parents do not see it that way.

New York City has become the poster child of intense racial segregation, but the issues here are not unique to the Big Apple, nor is the challenge of implementing solutions. The New York City Mayor’s School Diversity Advisory Group has released its preliminary report outlining next steps for the city’s Department of Education to lessen chronic racial and social-class segregation in the public schools. This Advisory Group, of which I am a member, laid out reachable goals to address equal access and resources, school accountability for diversity, and new teaching strategies to ensure that all students feel valued and affirmed.

One of the most pivotal factors in how far these recommendations can go in New York and elsewhere is the amount of support that such plans receive from public school parents. In particular, white parents too often say they want integration while simultaneously opting out of diverse schools in favor of those that are more selective, of higher status among their peers, and predominantly white and/or Asian.

Thus, as white parents navigate the shifting terrain of school choice and enrollment, they need to understand that having one’s child at the top of a rigid and segregated hierarchy of schools is not always the best parenting decision, on several levels. Taking a deep breath and paying less attention to what other white parents say and more attention to your children and their teachers will enable you to make choices that can not only better fit their learning styles, but also do more to make our public school system more integrated and better.

Cutting-edge research in brain science and education tells us that students learn better and deeper when their ways of knowing a topic are challenged by those who have different life experiences and worldviews. A recent report on learning by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine demonstrates that the culture of our families and communities plays a major role in how we learn.

This means that in many instances there is not a single right or wrong way of understanding a concept or interpreting a work of literature. We understand things in slightly different ways because of our histories and backgrounds. Having your children exposed to these different ways of knowing prepares them for a world of cultural complexity and constant uncertainty.

Indeed, for the first 175 years of public education in the United States, the “right” answers to most questions have been normed around white and mostly northern European culture. In the last 30 years, we have codified these culturally specific ways of knowing in high-stakes standardized tests that Asian students also tend to perform well on, particularly in math.

Taking a deep breath and paying less attention to what other white parents say and more attention to your child and their teachers will enable you to make choices that can not only better fit their learning style, but also do more to make our public school system more integrated and better.

The result is that we consistently sort and select students based on their cultural histories, ways of knowing and prior opportunities to learn. This racial hierarchy becomes so ingrained that even when schools enrolling mostly black and Latino students have high test scores, we still see them as “bad” schools.

In fact, in a study we conducted on Long Island, we found that the race of the students in the school system affected property values of otherwise identical houses in districts with the same test score data by as much as $50,000. In other words, the perception of “good” schools is too often about the perception of race, even when black and Latino students perform well on tests normed toward white students.

And still, despite this evidence and the call for more integration, many white parents continue to derive status and honor from one another when their children are selected into predominantly white or Asian schools regardless of the climate or characteristics of these schools. As the viral video of a parent meeting on the Upper West Side of Manhattan last year demonstrated, white parents can become very angry when the admissions policies to these schools change.

Too often the parents live vicariously through their children, and thus feel “gifted” or elite themselves when their children are admitted to selective schools. But the fact is that children usually want to be in schools where they feel emotionally safe and cared for by the adults and other children at the same time that they are engaged and challenged to think more deeply about complex issues than the possible answers on a multiple-choice test. As the rich evidence in the National Academies Report demonstrates, students learn best in these settings, even if they’re not the schools with the highest test scores or the most white and affluent students. In fact, it’s the latter schools that often have high rates of anxiety, cheating, drug and alcohol abuse and bullying.

It can be difficult for some parents to choose a more nurturing school for their child if it does not confer status and approval from their family, friends and acquaintances. But until more white parents make those choices, the hierarchy and the racial segregation will remain. While the NYC Mayor’s Advisory Group’s sage advice to rate schools based on diversity as well as test scores is a solid first step to address these race-based perceptions of “good” schools, white parents must also listen to their children and their hearts before saying they support integration while choosing segregation.

[shamaste]

Some history lessons from a Dutch coach / shaman:

So, whats realy the case is about slavery, and when did it begon? First of all, it aint true what they told you about slavery, it's just because to make you feel bad about yourself, and also to make them feel better about themselves, over you. Making you feeling quilty. This is called: being a slave of the past. Sooo,...!

Lets take a look at this theme, a hot not so pleasant issue these days: slavery. Slavery, it has a long history. It excist much longer before the first Pharao ruled, it's started... With the early Egyptians whom needed work people. By concuring tribes, they've get tose slaves. So it was by warfare. That was 'the normal' in those days. And that will keeping on for millennia until now. And now: We humans, we have slaves. Yes, our slaves, our pets, cats, dogs, horses and more...! Only for our own pleasure, to fill a gap of.....? Having pets? It's for me also a form of slavery. I don't have any. I don't want them either. That's why. Its as a 'higher lifeform' uses a 'lower lifeform' for the need of something, that's missed, to forget, to make money with, to fill a gap. And a life is taken away from its natural habbitat. Just to obey you, for making you happy and even making money with them...! Get it?

Slavery, is old as humans exist and what is realy the case? People are sometimes also treated like pets. To serve a few. A small group gets better by having slaves. That's the case. Now, renew your view in this aspect and ask yourself: is that what i think i know the real truth? Truth.......: Its in the eye of the beholder, just like beauty is. Its a matter of perception. First: It's what you think, what is influenced by others. Therefore its not necessarily the thuth, so it seems.

The first victims of slavery were? Those were the white people. For at least 2500-1500 years, maybe longer! Greeks, Kelts and other people conquered by Romans, worked as house slaves. Everyone seems having slaves. The slaves were transported or to be shipped thru Europe and also Africa. Doing dirty labor, for the wealthy Romans, Arabs, in return for shelter, food, safety etc. Also by Africans, especially from the northern of Africa and Middle East: the Pharao's, Berbers, Arabs, Nubiers (black Pharao's) and other rulers, had their slaves too. When they are in war, with eachother... by conquering them. And mostly, those slaves came from the southern of Africa, and they were negros, very dark skinned and they called them: Lam Lam. The men who can't speak, with no house, meaning, culture etc..! They considdered them as a 'lower lifeform'. And still some do. About this they say: -the negro's- have inherited their slavery and it is therefore in their dna and passed on from generation to generation. "Once a slave always a slave!", they say. just like the castes in India. Once born in a lower vast, always in that. Thats still going, even in these days.

And those people from the North Africa, Middle Eastern still saying: cNegro's , they have inherited their slavery. Its in their blood, and its passed on, to be a slave" ...... so the say. That's racist. . So, is everyone who's a descendent from Africa by nature a slave? Thats cultural divided. Still it happends now in Africa, do you remember the war between 2 tribes, groups, between negro's, and their tribes: Hutu's against Tutsi's. That was then a real heavy clash. 10 Thousends of people died. And still they hate eachother, even now, still they do. Unwilling to forget the past. One tribe feels -because of the other tribe- a form of discrimination. A tribe was considdered by the other one as not... or at least entitled as 'lower humans'. They felt dicriminated by the others. Please note this: It's between by black people.

Thats the way it goes, or still goes on in Africa, for also thousands of years. Yes, even that its going on. A long time before white people came to that continent.

It happends long before white traders bought theirs slaves from them. Then a new wave was coming, to get or make new slaves. This time, because of religion. The moslims, who used black people as slaves, for spreading their believes and the word of the prophets, Allah. Or forced to go to war for them. Also long before 'the whites' had their slaves. Till the year 1200 - 1300, they used slaves. Everyone, who didn't had the same faith as they, didn't believe in Allah was considdered a enemy of them. They were an unbelievers, apostate and unclean. That was for the moslim the only reason, -in that time- a good reason to inslave people. Also the unclean white Christians. Crusader tours had their heydays at that time, heretics against heretics. Or other non-believers.

Slaves, especially those from early Europe, were chosen ..... -not because of their skin color-, but because of their cultural background. By rejection their way of living, or believes. Slavery was everywhere in those days. And it still is, even these days..

Knowing this, that the Africans, Muslims were the great motivators of slavery. Where lays now the confession of guilt?

Christians were well trafficked too and well earned as slaves, as hardworkers shipped to Baghdad, Cairo and Constantinople (now Istanbul) .. those nations, these city's, they trived on slaves. In those days was having a slave: status, prosperity, welth. Like a farmer having a big stock... of cows.

Jews also became a slave trading people. Welth? Is that seen as cultural. I think it. Rich nations develope a culture of welth. Welth created by slavetrades. Until the 14/15th century, only Black Slaves were shipped in Africa, between Middle Eastern Persia, north African and Turkey. 16 th Century.. its the beginning of the golden age im Europe, upcomming nations, Spain, the Dutch, England, Portugal... France. Looking to expand their kingdom. By conquering. War is everywhere in Europe, even in my country, Spanish, France. The Dutch was tryving. Rich, but a small country, but good in trading, they founded the VOC. 16th century. USA doesnt exist that time. Amsterdam was the capital. Means New Amsterdam something to you? Etc.

In ancient Rome were mostly European slaves, mostly white, from conquered countries. In Africa later there were Persians, Egyptians, Arabs, Berbers who shipped Nubiers, Ethiopians etc. They were sold as slaves, they've captured.

That was big busines, slavetrading. Slaves, they were used as war material. To spread the faith. To make money, to make a country welthy and great. Its wasn't about skincolour, but about healthy, muscles, for labour.

So ... A little review: Its a part of mankind for a few thousand years. Especially, later when the Muslims, tribes of North Africa and Middle East thought that they could make you slave as appropriate unbelievers, by different culture or believes. And therefore there were quite a lot of slaves those days, made and traded by them. A long time before white people got that same idea of getting slaves. Not a single white man to be seen.

Only from 16th Century, centuries later: the time those wealthy whites came to negotiate with these groups, black slavetraders, to buy the slaves from them. So, in those days......: slave trade, it was like investing in welth, thru people, they work, you urn it. Prosperity, expansion drift, money. Those days, that were the biggest motivators. Not because of the skin color. Some slaves were realy wanted, very popular and therefore very expensive to buy and they made a lot of money for traders. So what was realy the reason about about slavery? The prosperaty youre living in, was created by all the ancesters. All of us, blacks, whites, reds, yellow. Our biggest lessons is not te blame or making others feeling quilthy, because one cannot be achieved without the other. Prosperaty works both ways. Youve have to work for it, also for your own freedom. As i did for mine. If you are poor? Ask yourself this question: why is that? Is it your believing that it isnt for you? Because of your skin? Well look at Obama, he is Brown. But sees himself not as a victim. Do you?

Thats my history lesson this morning. Umbraise yourself.

That's how it begon and works.......Slavery. It is something else that a small group of people wants us to believe thats its the error of the whites, where black slavemasters sold them on the whites. So i think, It is something Cultural, based on faith and money. Not from skin color. When its skincolour the reason? Then its all about money, and the jalousy of having enough! Why should people plundering those stores? Not because of skincolour, the want that big screen tv , radio, expensive clothes they coulndt effort, so then steel it? Its a pitty to react that way.

Slavery has existed for as long as man has existed, from all over the world. Most of Africa itself., the beginning. This is my vision from a historical reality and what really happend in those days, point of view. But thats the past and we are here, the now, we are the future, not the past. Remember.

Good day.

[scripttorture]

Your National Styles post is very helpful! I was wondering though if you could talk about what kinds of torture were common in pre-modern India? I don't have a specific time period in mind, I'm just after inspiration for a fantasy setting that's loosely inspired by India. Thanks.

This made me smile. Thank you Anon, any excuse to read more Indian history is a gift.

 I don’t have good sources for the entire sub-continent. Most of what I have focuses on the north. I’m also not 100% sure what you mean by pre-modern so I’m going to try to describe as much as I can, adding rough areas and time periods. That way you can pick and choose things that suit what you’re going for in your story. :)

 I’m not going to try with the Harappans. Partly because their writing system still hasn’t been deciphered but mostly because I intend to continue imagining they created an egalitarian utopia. Until such a time as some one finds proof of kingship or other crimes. We all have our stories we like to cling to.

 I actually started out with Keay’s India: A History (imaginative title isn’t it?) because the local library had it. It actually turned out to be a pretty good sign post for other sources.

 India has an incredibly rich history, but much of that history wasn’t written down until hundreds of years after the events took place. Which is something it has in common with most northern European countries, although most European countries have less thorough oral histories.

 India is quite interesting as a case study in the depth and accuracy of oral history. The presence of separate oral records for the same events and separate strands of written records- well it builds up an interesting picture. Apart from pure historical interest it’s also interesting to see what people remember, attempts to change records and how (with the right systems in place) oral history can be remarkably resistant to change.

 I digress.

 The point is Arthashastra is available in full online here. It’s a kind of guide to the organisation of a state. We don’t have exact dates for it (it was probably written by several people complied over quite a long period) but it’s probably mostly from roughly 200 AD. It is focused on the Mauryan empire dated as beginning in roughly 320 BC.

 It was pretty damned big. Conservative estimates have the empire stretching across the north of the Indian peninsula from ocean to ocean, from Pakistan, Punjab and Nepal all the way across into Bangladesh and south into Orissa and Maharashtra. Just looking at a global map, we’re talking conservatively of an area the size of France, Germany, Poland and Italy.

 The translation I’ve linked to has some issues that I can see from a casual read. For instance the references to ‘eunuchs’ were probably rendered in the original as a domination of tritiya-prakriti; literally ‘third kind’. The closest English translation is probably ‘queer’ as the term encompasses homosexual, bisexual, transgender, gender nonconforming and intersex people as well as people who can’t naturally conceive. Some of the subtleties in the original are probably lost in translation and there may well be references I’m missing.

 Now like most historical cultures the Mauryans tortured and tried to impose legal limits on torture. We know from modern analysis that legal restrictions on torture don’t work: torturers will always ignore them.

 So it’s highly unlikely that the tortures the Mauryans allowed by law were the only tortures that happened in the Mauryan empire. But we can be pretty confident that the tortures they listed as legal were used through their empire.

 Arthashastra describes torture as a punishment and torture as an attempt to force a suspect to confess. At the same time the text acknowledges that torture can force false confessions and appears to cite a named legal case where this happened.

 I feel it’s also worth stressing that the vast majority of punishments the text suggests are fines. Apparently in ancient India you could get fined for almost anything.

 Arthashastra’s description of tortures starts with a list of people who can not legally be tortured. Now torturers will generally ignore this but I feel it’s worth including for some cultural context:

 ‘Ignoramuses, youngsters, the aged, the afflicted, persons under intoxication, lunatics, persons suffering from hunger, thirst, or fatigue from journey, persons who have just taken more than enough of meal, persons who have confessed of their own accord (átmakásitam), and persons who are very weak,--none of these shall be subjected to torture.’

 ‘Those whose guilt is believed to be true shall be subjected to torture (áptadosham karma kárayet). But not women who are carrying or who have not passed a month after delivery.

 Torture of women shall be half of the prescribed standard. Or women with no exception may be subjected to the trial of cross-examination (vákyanuyogo vá).

 Those of Bráhman caste and learned in the Vedas as well as asceties shall only be subjected to espionage.

 Those who violate or cause to violate the above rules shall be punished with the first amercement. The same punishment shall be imposed in case of causing death to any one by torture.’

 Now I know this is a little dense so in case that’s not clear the second passage is saying that women should be tortured less then men and pregnant women or women who recently gave birth shouldn’t be tortured at all.

 The last paragraph states that the punishment for a torturer for violating the rules, or for killing someone while torturing them is a fine. And not a particularly steep one. (Based on modern research I’d say it’s unlikely these limits were enforced, consistently or at all).

 The text describes whipping, beating with canes, suspension and ‘water-tube’.

 It particularly talks about beating the thighs, palms of the hands, soles of the feet (I refer to this as falaka) and the knuckles.

 It states there are two kinds of suspension but doesn’t describe them. Most suspension tortures involve hanging a person by their arms in some manner, but not all. I honestly can’t tell from the text what sort of suspensions were used.

 ‘Water tube’ could mean- well a lot of things. It could mean pumping, which is forcing someone to swallow liquid until their internal organs are painfully swollen (often causing vomiting and diarrhoea). It could mean waterboarding. It could mean the ‘Chinese water torture’ (incredibly misleading name), continual dripping of water on to someone’s eyes, which is actually a form of sleep deprivation.

 There’s also this ‘the hands being joined so as to appear like a scorpion’ which sounds like a form of finger milking. That’s bindings around the hands or arms restricting circulation and causing the hands to swell painfully.

 The last three things acknowledged as torture in the text are these ‘burning one of the joints of a finger after the accused has been made to drink rice gruel; heating his body for a day after be has been made to drink oil; causing him to lie on coarse green grass for a night in winter.’

 I honestly haven’t a clue what the significance of the rice gruel might be in this context.

 The combination of drinking oil and heat sounds like a strange combination of tortures. Drinking oils can uh- basically give someone diarrhoea. Oil can also be flammable but I don’t think this is implying immolation. I think it might be indicating a combination of pumping, dehydration, starvation and a temperature torture.

 Because forcing a prisoner to drink something that would make them sick would quickly make them dehydrated. Subjecting them to extremely hot temperatures would then be even more painful and dangerous.

 The final description seems to a straightforward form of exposure. It’s exposing a victim to cold winter temperatures. The implication is that this also involves sleep deprivation. The ‘grass’ may or may not be significant. There are plenty of plants you wouldn’t want to lie down on for a night but I’m unsure whether the ‘coarse’ description indicates something that could cause pain.

 The text also describes beatings, branding the face (of Brahmans specifically) and amputation as punishments. It describes death by ‘torture’ but the particular torture is not specified. It describes capital punishment in general terms ie ‘those who commit this offence shall be put to death’. A few offences called for beheading specifically. It also describes the use of jails.

 The amputations I could find listed were: a finger, a hand, a nose, a leg, ears, male genitalia. There’s also a description of blinding by the application of chemicals.

 As a final note before we move on there’s an interesting passage on sudden death and signs to look for on a corpse that could indicate the cause of death. It’s pretty interesting as an example of how people conducted investigations into murders before we had forensic labs.

 You can probably assume Ashoka is broadly covered by what I’ve described. His ethical pronouncements including prohibits on torture but nothing suggests a complete and enforced ban on the practice so it’s likely to have continued under his rule.

 Now I tried to find some sources on the southern Indian empires, like the Chola but I couldn’t find anything I felt was a clear description of the criminal justice system. Similarly I didn’t find anything clear on the Sangam period.

 I’m honestly not sure if this is because sources don’t exist or because there are less translations from Tamil.

 There is a lot of Tamil poetry from the Sangam period that’s available in translation and touches on Tamil history and wars. These might well serve as a good source of inspiration but I don’t think they’re necessarily a good indication of common practice.

 I am, admittedly, making assumptions based on epic poetry from other countries. My impression though is that these kinds of literary pieces tend to record unusual practices rather than common ones. When they mention common ones they don’t always give the full context of what terms mean. So for instance the Norse Eddas describe several unusual (for the culture) methods of execution and torture, but references to more common ones are usually a word or two without explanation. The Eddas mention blood eagles but don’t actually tell us what they were. This kind of description seems common in the epic poetry I’ve read and as a result I’m assuming the Tamil poetry will be similar.

 The next thing I went to was a couple of Chinese sources recounting travels to India. These were from Buddhist pilgrims so remember that bias while readings their accounts.

 Faxian (Fa Hian) wrote an account that’s available in translation here. I only had a quick flick through but from what I can see it’s more useful for establishing the wider historical context of the countries and the religious climate at the time then it is figuring out ideas about justice and torture.

 The next thing that really stood out is the famous Record of Western Lands, the inspiration for The Journey West by a monk whose name is Romanised in about half a dozen different ways. Hsuan Tsang and Xuanzang seem to be the most popular renderings with the former used predominantly in Indian studies.

 Now the first volume is relatively easy to find but I’ve had difficulty getting access to the other 11.

 Hsuan Tsang periodically recounts stories of Indian history, some involving ideas of punishment, justice and torture. Now a lot of these probably don’t show common practice and some of them seem to have been misinterpreted by Hsuan Tsang (I think the account of voluntary castration is more likely to be describing a queer Indian identity then a punishment) but they’re useful nonetheless.

 Generally Hsuan Tsang seems to be confirming that the practices described in the Arthashastra were still in use while he was travelling. As well as fines he describes imprisonment and social shunning of criminals which may amount to isolation/solitary confinement.

 He describes amputations as punishment, of the nose, ear, hand or foot. He doesn’t describe castration as a punishment per say but it seems likely this continued even if it was rare.

 Hsuan Tsang claims that torture wasn’t used to force confessions but then describes torture being used to force people to plead when they ‘refuse to admit their unlawful activities ashamed of their faults’. Which sounds to me like torture used to force confessions and/or something analogous to the historical English custom of being ‘pressed to plead’ (ie people who refused to plead guilty or innocent were tortured until they pleaded one way or the other).

 The tortures described are a form of near (or likely actual) drowning by putting a person in a weighted sack and throwing them in a river. He also describes a burning torture using hot iron. The other descriptions in this section sound more like ways of divining a person’s alleged guilt and I’m going to ignore them.

 He describes blinding as a punishment. And also a vampire story that I wasn’t expecting.

 As we get into the 700s there’s increasing Arab contact, which at this point is mostly via traders and pirates. My initial notes include some questions about whether this is when falaka was introduced to India but going by the Arthashastra it seems likely falaka was in use long before the Arabs arrived. In fact the spread may have gone the other way.

 It’s also possible that Ancient India and Ancient Egypt both hit upon similar practices separately due to the simple nature of torture. I digress-

 Writings by Arab scholars and travellers about India start becoming more prominent from the 900s onwards. Most of these recount hostile encounters between Muslim forces and Hindu or Buddhist groups. The accounts are a lot less interested in the history and politics of the region then the Chinese travellers three or four hundred years earlier.

 The most easily available one is probably Chach Nama which was written in the 1200s-1300s and claims to be a translation of an earlier work on Arab conquests of Pakistan and north western India during the 800s. However- it’s accuracy on several points is disputed. A lot of people don’t think it’s a translation but an original work combining and re-imagining earlier historical documents. Some of the older accounts, such as those of Al Baladhuri and Al Biruni, contradict it.

 Personally I have slightly more faith in the accuracy of the Chinese accounts then the Chach Nama. I think it’s likely it was constructed to justify conflicts of the 1200s by creating a supposed historical basis for those conflicts. I think it also displays a vested interest in making conquered people appear uncivilised, a pattern that’s common in a lot of historical accounts of foreign countries by the people who conquered them.

 In light of that- I think Al Biruni’s A Critical Study of What India Says, Whether Accepted by Reason or Refused, a better bet. Especially since he seems to have been more interested in Indian society then Indian rulers. (Though take into account my personal biases here; I think Al Biruni is a nice example of how Islamic scholars influenced scientific and historical thought. I think our modern philosophy of science owes a lot to the ideas of truthfulness (al-haqq) Al Biruni and people like him championed. I’m going to own my academic admiration.)

 This looks like your best bet for an easily accessible copy.

 I feel like I should stress, having recommended a bunch of foreign scholars as sources on Indian history, that throughout this period we’re pretty sure Indians were writing their own histories. However not many of them have survived. That’s thought to be because of a combination of the climate and the way things were commonly recorded. The theory I see repeated is that Indians were commonly recording things by carving on wood. This almost invariably rotted away. Similar things have occurred in other countries as well: much of England’s early history literally went up in flames during the Great Fire of London when one of the principal libraries burned and Alexandria’s destruction is generally cited as the reason we don’t have a lot of important classical Greek works, like first hand accounts of Alexander’s conquests or say more Sappho.

 Aaaaand that was the point where my friends staged an intervention and the library demanded financial restitution for my kidnapping of their books.

 Spoil sports. The rest of this is from my general knowledge.

 European forces and settlements in India would probably have introduced more tortures. The Dutch regularly used waterboarding, but I can’t find any indication that this became common practice in India.

 However the British army’s combination of stress positions and exposure did. A punishment the British called ‘crucifixion’ was used throughout India. It involved tying the victim standing with their arms outstretched in a T shape in full sun.

 The stress position itself is incredibly painful, combined with the climate it was likely to cause dehydration and possibly heat stroke as well.

 I couldn’t find any other instances where it seemed like part of a European National Style had been adopted by Indians.

 I found historical references to murgha stress position in India, including an illustration from the early 1800s. I’m not sure how far back the usage goes but that could be because it was generally used against children. Punishments towards children are not generally recorded as torture historically and it can be difficult to trace their usage.

 I couldn’t find any historical references to pepper (putting irritating substances such as pepper or chilli into mucous membranes, eyes, nose, genitals etc). That doesn’t necessarily mean it wasn’t practiced historically. Again, this is a form of torture that seems to have been associated with abuse of women and children in the home, rather than legislative punishments.

 I think you could use both in a story set in historical India without it appearing out of place. It might not strictly be historically accurate but both would have been possible.

 Judging by the Arthashastra falaka has been in India for a very long time indeed. I couldn’t find enough sources to confidently state it was in continuous from the late BC until today- but virtually every period I could find records of torture in India for included falaka. I think it’s likely that it was used continuously; I can’t prove it.

 Blinding turns up continuously throughout India history as a punishment aimed at people of high social rank or power.

 I’ve read some accounts of burning people alive as a punishment, but these are from later on in Indian history; the 1700s and 1800s. The particular account that springs to mind is Farzana’s ordering a group of arsonists to be burnt alive. The context for this is that they set fire to a group of buildings housing women who lived in purdah and that if the fire hadn’t been put out these women would have burnt alive rather then leave the building. Farzana’s punishment was interpreted as ‘an eye for an eye’.

 I feel like I should probably also briefly mention ritual suicide. There are a lot of historical Indian accounts of people killing themselves rather then renouncing a particular principal. One of the things that shows up repeatedly is women killing themselves when their husbands die. Sometimes this appears to have been voluntary. In other cases it seems as though the women were given no reasonable choice.

 I don’t think this fits the modern legal definition of torture, but it’s certainly an abuse of human rights aimed particularly at women. Starvation, burning on the husband’s funeral pyre and being thrown off tall buildings are the methods I see cited most commonly.

 The position of women in India is- well it’s a couple of books worth of material in itself. And I’d like to stress going in to this that there are very few countries/cultures that treated women well historically. Keep in mind when I describe the position of women and Dalits that the position of women and slaves or ‘barbarians’ in Greece and Rome was not any better.

 There’s a long history in India of confining women and limiting who they can interact with. The Arthashastra describes curfews inflicted on women and recommends barring women from leaving the home without an escort. It also legally limits the people women can invite to their homes.

 In historical Indian society it seems as though- it looks to me as if it would have been very easy for family members to isolate individual women in conditions akin to solitary confinement. This would probably have been unusual but from what I can see of the law and custom it wouldn’t have been seen as illegal or immoral.

 I’ve seen recent pieces claiming that the caste system is a recent invention. But I find this difficult to believe when the caste system is repeatedly cited in historical sources before European colonialism reached India. It’s cited by Al Biruni, Hsuan Tsang and in the Arthashastra.

 Yes there are historical incidences of people taking up occupations that were associated with different castes. Indian farmers and merchants did become Kings. But showing there was some social mobility and that caste was more (or less) flexible at different periods of time isn’t the same as showing that people were in no way limited by their parentage.

 Al Biruni describes the treatment of Dalits as ‘untouchable’ and describes different castes eating and washing separately as well as society relegating Dalits to work that was deemed dirty or unsafe.

 The Arthashastra describes different punishments for different castes (analogous to Old English law ascribing different punishments to different social classes). Unsurprisingly the rulers and ‘pious’ men are usually let off with a fine, while the poorest and the Dalits are supposed to be maimed, tortured or killed for the same transgression.

 It’s more then possible that living conditions and treatment of people at different levels of society was- perhaps not legally torture but certainly inhumane. I can’t find any clear indication that Dalits were made to live separately in the past. But if they were, judging by how the sources say they were treated by law, it seems likely their living conditions would have been worse. They may have had poor access to water, food and adequate shelter.

 I feel it’s also worth noting that Rejali talks about law enforcement targeting these kinds of minority groups for torture as a punishment for social transgressions. Things like- homeless people daring to walk down the streets of a ‘good’ neighbourhood.

 This sort of behaviour is typical of torturers, even when it’s not supported by the law. It occurs today, and I see no reason why it wouldn’t happen in a hierarchical historical society.

 Slavery was present in India. I can’t say for certain that it was present throughout all of Indian history, and it certainly does not seem to be as prevalent as it was in Greece or Rome but it occurred. I’ve seen more accounts of it in the Mughal period then prior to that but this might be due to better record keeping.

 Many of the Black Indian groups around today are descended from freed or escaped slaves brought to India by Arab traders. Beyond that I don’t know much about slavery in historical India. I’m unaware of any one particular industry slaves were funnelled into or of particular punishments (alla the bleeding Romans-).

 If you’re thinking of using slavery in your story I’d suggest sticking to the most common global tortures used against enslaved people: starvation, exposure, lack of medical treatment, beatings, dehydration and over work.

 From what I’ve read I’d say that India generally fits in with my pet theory about changing torture practices over time. I think that it’s only relatively recently that people have thought of torture as primarily a way to ‘get the truth’ (see here for why this idea is bullshit).

 What I’m interpreting from these sources is that in India, like most of the world, torture was used as a punishment, people were sentenced to it. It was also used to force confessions. And although there was an idea that torture could be used to find the truth, this was not seen as it’s primary purpose.

 And I think that’s probably where I’m going to have to leave this. At four thousand words it’s actually shorter/less detailed then I’d hoped. I blame my mates for insisting I have a social life.

 I think it should be enough to get you started though. :)

Availableon Wordpress.

Disclaimer

[pinewhisky]

The “white” version of a spirit animal is fylgjur (norse) or fetch (celtic). There are numerous religions and spiritualities that are a mix of more than one belief system, especially in diasporic and mixed populations. There are many African diasporic religions that have embraced the terms and concept of chakras and karma too. Words mean things, but you might not always understand someone’s religious point of perspective. Most nature related belief systems are extremely similar when everything boils down because it’s typically the same energy behind similar deities, check out the similarities between icelandic magic staves and umbanda symbols for example, but small details (like associated colors) change. Everything is connected and energy is universal. True magic and faith will always be connected to the land beneath your feet, the environment around you, and the blood in your veins. I think you’re one of the few people on here that may understand this lol

Tbh I saw the beginning of this and went "ok.here we go..." then impulsively went to the end to see how it wrapped up and had an "...oh" moment before reading through the entire thing heh.

Basically, I totally agree, and thank you.

So you promoted a long post lol

I don't post specifically to pagan/witchy tags so much as I used to, but if I did I might use the tag "syncretic" more. It's a concept that gets a bad reputation, and for good reason - the biggest being the people who use it to illustrate an attitude of "well, it doesn't matter," especially.in things like smoke cleansing being called "smudging." The kind of mentality that gets the Seal of Solomon and Hebrew put onto "spoooooooky" mass-produced things.

You may MEAN "smoke cleansing" and have been taught "it's all the same, it doesn't matter the word used," but using "smudging" for something that is not a Smudging Ritual pulls the term away from those it originated with and furthers the idea of blending things without consent.

Syncretic means the idea that things overlap. How you actually act on that idea is what matters. For example, I'm very interested in trickster, "antihero" archetypes in paganism. It doesn't mean, as someone of mostly northern European descent, I get any claim to Kokapeli because "it's all the same."

This also reminds me when I had a vegvisir sticker on my car, and someone I worked with asked if it was veve(?) from hoodoo. They look similar. It really wasn't, but that's more what I mean. Cultures do overlap, and have similar concepts. But it doesn't mean everything is the same and should be treated as such, even if you can appreciate similarities and have personal beliefs about all sun gods being cousins, or something like that.

Syncretic means I believe Loki and other "tricksters" in folklore and various cultures may be the same or at least objectively related outside "mythology," and knowing about how they appear in other cultures and paths can inform my own.

But unless I am directly invited, it's hands-off when it comes to integrating things that directly relate to the people that originated with. People want to think appropriation is a binary system, without layers. And mostly they want to tell white people they can't do something, but they can't tell that person why, exactly, it works that way. Other than that they're white, which isn't the point.

Layer one of appropriation is straight up stealing something and claiming it as your own.

Layer two, calling something a certain term, when it really isn't. Contributing to the idea that what the original thing is it doesn't matter, because it's a blanket term, when it's not. Don't say dandelion when you mean Rose, just because they're both flowers.

Layer 3, I would argue, is assuming if something is considered "open" you can't appropriate it. You can still take it and use it inappropriately, Because it's not just about permission to use it, it's about how you use it.

I know what post this was prompted by, but I also wanted to take this space to also say

YOU CAN APPROPRIATE FROM "WHITE" CULTURES TOO

Okay, I'm done.

Thanks for coming to my ted talk

[ruffoverthinksthings]

I headcannon that China is more of a cultural influence as it's the only Asian country. They make anime, Chinese Dramas are very popular, and the food is well-known. Fashion is extremely unique as you see a lot of young people trying to look like their favorite C-Pop star (but some fashion trends make the elders raise eyebrows). Music is a special blend of C-pop, J-pop, and K-pop. (I want Lonnie and other girls to dance/sing/listen to the Chinese version of Miss A's I Don't Need A Man).

Hooboy, this is going to be a while, just like the Xiongnu and Youask!

Anyway,some historical parallels and details to establish here first andforemost:

Ibelieve that Mulan takes place during the 15th Century,with some obvious anachronistic elements and historical and regionalinaccuracies, such as the fact that the Xiongnu were actuallyabsorbed into Chinese culture by this point, the invention of thefireworks that feature so prominently in the movie itself, anddetails like the voice actors using the wrong accent when pronouncing“Fa” as they are explicitly in the northern regions.

Inour timeline and our China, this century was a time of greatexploration and expansion of trade deals with foreign countries,along with a fascination in exotic treasures and animals (such asgiraffes) during the former half of the period, with an isolationistperiod and an economic decline in the other half.

It’sreally interesting as it fits really well with the sort of attitudethat you would expect a country to have BGU to even been amenable tothe negotiations and extensive preparations for joining Auradon, andthe resulting reaction when the country doesn’t prove nearly asstable and perfect as it was advertised to be.

Tocompletely and thoroughly discuss all the effects Auradon’s fusionhad on the Chinese people would be a BOOK, not a long tumblr post, soI’m just going to stick with your ask and focus specifically on theculture.

Sowithout further ado, 

“Culture in China, Before and After the GreatUniting”:

Tosay that the fusion and the introduction of many foreign, andsometimes temporally advanced, ideals, cultures, andinformation shook China to its very core is an understatement.

Inits own home realm, it was already a mecca for arts and culture,which is why they have indeed become the center for all Asiancultures because of foreign artists, dignitaries, merchants, andex-patriots from countries like Japan, Vietnam, and India, and someEuropean countries like that of Spain and Portugal.

AGU,it became an even bigger focus due to the vastness of its population,the massive growth and spread of wealth to the common man as career,commerce, and education opportunities abounded, and of course, thealready existing and thriving diversity within its own regions.

Thoughthe list of arts, trends, and cultural changes that exploded from theGreat Uniting are VERY, VERY, VERY NUMEROUS, you can verygenerally classify them into two movements:

Oneis the “Mulan” Movement (named after the famous War Hero, LiMulan, nee Fa), featuring themes, philosophies, and attitudesinvolving rebellion, breaking of age-old traditions, challenging thegender and/or societal roles (they were often intertwined, as womengot more freedoms and economic influence), liberal and democraticvalues originating mostly from London and its stores of knowledge,and an emphasis on personal realization and following through onindividual passions no matter what—being “true to your heart,”as it was popularly phrased.

Thoughthe movement was seen as a very valuable period of experimentation,exploration, and empowerment of many of the working class,minorities, and those that never would have stood a chance atpursuing their crafts BGU, it was heavily criticized for what manyaccused as “irreverence for irreverence’s sake,” the cheapeningand blasphemy of sacred traditions and elements of their society suchas the Emperor, the corruption of culture, and an unhealthy affectionand love for foreigners’ culture over that of their own, the lastmostly being attributed to majority of the new artists of this perioddrawing extremely heavy inspiration from the other states, if theyhadn’t copied it outright as is the case with covers and wholestyles like Coronian lute arrangements.

Itdidn’t help that it happened beside and sometimes instigated a HUGEamount of conflict, societal disruption, and even violent run-inswith the law, as many of the performers and fans oftentimes heldtheir events in remote locations in the mountains or seedy (forAuradon’s standards) underground venues, there was quite a lot ofworking class children who tried for stardom and ended up crashingand burning when they got roped up in drugs, too much partying, andthe fickle tastes of the masses, plus a LOT of the people whoidolized Mulan were also incredibly passionate, but WAY more violentand lacking in self control.

Thesecond is was simply known as “China’s Conservationist Period”where majority of the culture-and-future-shocked citizens retreatedback to what was familiar and established in the face of drastic andtoo rapid societal change, and what they sometimes believed was anattack on themselves and everything they held dear, an attempt toerase their very history and what makes them Chinese, to adopt thecultures and attitudes of foreigners and completely become them.

Thisxenophobic attitude was very apparent with critics and punditsreferring to many foreign acts and faces of culture as “invaders,”especially the controversial ones like the “Sex, Drugs, and Rock‘n’ Roll” idols from London.

Itenjoyed its own period of success independent of the Mulan Movement,owing to the fact that there were also plenty of foreigners whowanted to see this brand new culture and were already familiar, orsick of, the twists, new elements, and foreign Chinese artists wereintegrating into their works (“foreign” and “alien” are allrelative, after all).

Thetwo movements began to wane as societal and political tensionssettled, people at large adapted to the brand new reality they had,and gradually became more open to the change and less hostile tointegrating foreign ideals.

Theartists themselves also realized just how incredibly fleeting anddifficult it was to keep an audience’s attention in thishyper-accelerated and connected world, what with its increasinglyshort attention spans and the constant spotlight on both theirpersonal and professional lives, having to keep up a good front andappearance at all times.

Athird and very important factor was that the teenagers of thatgeneration became the “old farts” they were criticizing yearsearlier, and found themselves unable to keep up, or have legitimateinterest in the latest trends and developments, as they no longerrelated to the themes.

Happilymarried individuals rather found they don’t want to hear about thelascivious exploits of a guitarist who swears she will never getattached to any one girl.

Still,they didn’t want to abandon culture, music, and their craftsaltogether, which led to the “New Horizon” movement, generallyfeaturing fusions of traditional and modern instruments and styles,modern techniques for classic arts such as legends being told throughadvanced holograms than puppets, and the integration of “pagodas”and vibrant, Royal Palace style gardens in modern, mostly concreteand glass buildings.

Independentof periods and movements, and focusing on specific styles of cultureand arts:

Theaterand live performances experienced a massive surge given that there’ssuddenly so many avenues for performers to perform in for cheaper andwith less barrier to entry, it’s much more easy to organizethemselves logistically, and they have a willing crowd that can paythrough all manner of means, and “patrons” are not exclusivelylimited to rich merchants and the ruling class.

Recordeddramas also experienced the same popularity due to the demand and theease with which they could be produced and profit, though obviouslythey have their own market, with some overlap to the former.

Literatureexploded now that self-publication and distribution wassuddenly available, and you better believe that fanfiction bloomed assoon as people got wind of it. As with Sturgeon’s Law, though, mostof it was EXTREMELY bad, especially when you consider culturaldifferences and people only getting the appeal of certain memes,jokes, and themes VERY superficially.

Animationwise, I wouldn’t call what China produces “anime,” since Idefine anime as “animation originating from Japan,” though I canunderstand with how foreign countries produce shows clearly inspiredby and mimicking many of the distinct styles and elements from iconicanime shows, you would come to describe South East Asian animation ora certain style originating from there as “anime.”

(IfI missed any specific form of art you’d like, such as that ofpainting, it’s because this is already a lot of work as is, andthey can be answered in a later ask when I’ve had time to rest.)

Backto Movements, some common themes in these works, from both the Mulanand the Conservationist:

Rebellion,evil emperors, and impossible threats being conquered by herofigures, who are frequently outcasts, eccentrics, and vilified bysociety at large until they prove that their strangeness is whatallows them to become great.

Fantasiesinvolving being trapped in heavily restrictive and unimaginativedystopias, and breaking away the metaphorical and sometimesfigurative chains that keep the populations in line, and a sense ofoptimism and idealism despite the uncertainty and chaos that awaitstheir victory.

Loveletters to the Chinese Imperial System, with Emperors often beingcast as Divine Forces of Good, or heavenly beings locked in battlewith Evil, and needing the assistance of the protagonists to bringpeace back to the land.

Idealistic,oftentimes inaccurate, and heavily romanticized accounts of theirhistory, such as that of their legendary heroes being reborn inmodern times to revive the lost traditions and ideals, benevolentfeudal lords fighting back to the invading barbarian hordes and theirradical, dangerous new ideas and ways, oftentimes by discovering orpreserving the artefacts and culture bequeathed onto them, frequentlygiven some form of personification like benevolent spirits (inspiredby Shintoism), or even the souls of their beloved ancestorsthemselves.

Ontofood: you bet your ass the food is popular!

Iactually imagine that Mulan’s China becomes a love-letter to“Cooking Master Boy” (and still is, to this day, complete withsecret techniques, mystical glows of deliciousness, and flyingingredients from the sheer speed and force of chopping) due to howimportant the culinary arts is to their culture, and how they wereall too eager to share it with the rest of the world, both to make aliving, and to make a name for themselves in the world.

Withthe Silk Trade being one of their most enduring legacies and highestpriorities, yes, fashion did explode with China, now that they had amassive audience that are constantly hungering for new designs,incredible ease with which orders could be fulfilled and shipped allover Auradon, and the creative bloom as everyone was constantlyrubbing elbows with foreign influences, citizens, dignitaries,culture, now that physical travel was easier than ever, and massmedia really got a foothold.

(Ona side note, if you thought the current congestion and traffic inmodern day China is bad, Auradon’s unexpected automotive boom wasleagues worse, whichincidentally caused a gigantic boom in services and companiesspecializing in streaming media on the go.)

Yes,China has a massive influence with their music, especially due to themany different styles and regional differences in their country, andhow easily they could experience, sample, mix, distribute, and moreimportantly, profit from them.

Auradondidn’t have as much problem with illegal pirating and downloadingas we do, and as I’ve said earlier, the recent interest in fusionof the old and the new has lead to such songs and styles like you’vementioned.

DidI miss anything or did not expound as much as you’d like, If so, Iapologize, and please ask again, I’ll get to it when I have theenergy and interest once more.

[punkscowardschampions]

Janis & Jimmy

Janis: 😒 Janis: already sick of 'em and they ain't even here yet Jimmy: 🎻 Jimmy: Them or Gracie, like? Janis: 🔨📍on the head there Janis: being such a twat and dad's made enough tapas to sink several ships Janis: coming here to experience our culture, not their own imitated, ffs Jimmy: If I put on an accent can I grab some of that? Jimmy: Starving here Janis: as long as you lisp at grace that she looks fine Janis: about to facetime you Janis: so important, obviously Jimmy: Coming here to experience our culture, mate 👍 Janis: who's culture now? Jimmy: Grace's by the sounds Jimmy: You can leave her too it after a quick hola Jimmy: You should be #buzzing Janis: yeah, great as it is she's offering herself up for entertainment Janis: still gonna be a random twat in my gaff for however long it even is Janis: do the school do background checks? doubt it Janis: could be a murderer, or from a family of murderers and he's scoping us out for when we turn up with our spanglish Jimmy: It's alright, you can come and be the random twat in my gaff Jimmy: 😂 Jimmy: Can't handle it? 💪 Ultimate challenge to accept, that is Jimmy: 🥊💀 Janis: so sweet 💘 Janis: let's face it, better taking my chances with them than with your dad, ain't I Jimmy: Bring 'em round they'll soon wanna pack up and do one Jimmy: Can't get a warmer welcome Janis: At least we live in a fucking city Janis: googled where they're from earlier Janis: middle of fucking nowhere doesn't cover it Janis: been stitched up big time lads Jimmy: Unlucky Jimmy: You'd have been better off coming on a trip down memory lane to my old Northern haunts. Least we aren't pretending its nowt but shite Janis: Seriously Janis: do my report on all the weird shit you so Janis: more 🤔 than spanish tbh Jimmy: #realtalk Jimmy: When they showing themselves? Time wise, not for the twats they are, like, that'll be immediate Janis: Ha, we're picking 'em up tonight, let them have a day off tomorrow before they have to join us in hell, like Janis: Pablo reckons he's already scoped out the decents girls, if you would like that list forwarded to you, sure it can be arranged Jimmy: I was gonna ask if I could see you but there's a better offer if I ever heard one Jimmy: Tah mate Janis: he's just shouted his snapchat handle down the stairs Janis: such a delight Jimmy: Here's hoping he can get some lasses to agree or 💔🎻 Janis: love to reckon the spanish girls have got a bit more about 'em than the locals Janis: but i ain't the optimistic one Jimmy: Either way, unlucky for him or Grace Jimmy: Gonna be a laff finding out who'll come out the winner Janis: yeah, it's the little things, ain't it babe Janis: one of us needs to be not 😖🔫 about it Jimmy: aww mate Janis: I know Janis: tragic Janis: all I wanted was the easy pass and a ticket outta here Jimmy: Let's go then Jimmy: Can't get in the shit for not being a welcome wagon if they can't find you Janis: Ha, where? Janis: Nowhere in Dubo far away enough that I won't get dragged back in order to save my last shred of good manners Jimmy: Can just drive, can't we? Jimmy: See where the road takes us Janis: sounding so dad rock babe 😘 Janis: better not, gracie would fucking love that Jimmy: Piss off. Was gonna sing you a power ballad but now you can whistle Jimmy: Yeah, good reason as any then Janis: aww please 🙏 Jimmy: Come find me and I'll think about it Janis: Playing hide and seek now? Janis: honestly, the europeans are coming and you've gone all melodramatic and fruity Jimmy: 😂 Jimmy: Only in my second home, aren't I? Jimmy: Your true love makes better decisions than you, happy to run off with me she was Janis: Don't wanna do her down 'cos she's suddenly competition but she'd go with anyone with a pocketful of treats Janis: #jussayin #truthtea #scalding Jimmy: Don't need to be telling me, you're the one 😍💕 I've always seen her for the bitch she is Janis: Yeah well you're as bad as I am, according to general consensus here 🤷 Jimmy: You what? Jimmy: Who's chatting shit about me now Janis: 😂 Janis: no need to 🥊 up quite yet Janis: when ur biggest fan turns Janis: knew it couldn't last forever Jimmy: when she isn't excited about the Spanish lads, just how busy you'll be with 'em Jimmy: still trying to snatch me #long game Janis: oh mate Janis: ain't gonna deflate your massive head to bring you down, like Janis: sure that's the master plan Jimmy: 😎 Janis: come at me then fucking... Janis: rodrigo and Janis: juan Jimmy: I'm pissing myself Jimmy: Just shit up some random nan Jimmy: Hope she isn't a mate of yours Janis: The grey hair massive Janis: you'll find out soon enough 👊 Jimmy: 💪 ready as I'm gonna be Janis: don't tell her i've been training you Janis: the betrayal Jimmy: Strong, silent type, me Janis: 😏 code for moody twat if i've ever heard it Jimmy: Oi Janis: 💞 Jimmy: You better be walking to meet us Jimmy: Hanging round like a dickhead in case, like Janis: Yes, dear 🙄 Janis: dad needed more ingredients so easy out in the end Jimmy: He's done you one favor then Jimmy: And me, since I burned my bridges with that 👵 Janis: no GILFs tonight boy Jimmy: Good Janis: ah the romance Jimmy: You have that when you show up Jimmy: 💕 Janis: Yeah, Twix gives the best hellos 👅 Jimmy: Funny Janis: don't be jelly Janis: hot houseguest ain't even here yet Jimmy: Piss off Jimmy: Don't remind me Janis: as if he will be, gonna be some poor greasy spic Jimmy: Find out soon enough Janis: anyway, Gracie'd have my hand off if he was Janis: no chance 😂 Jimmy: 🎻 Jimmy: Gutted for you, mate Janis: Ikr Janis: Really feel it Jimmy: I do Jimmy: Get a move on, I wanna see you before it's dark Janis: tell you what, keep it coming with the lines tonight, babe Janis: never heard that before 😳 Jimmy: It's not Janis: yeah well Janis: you know Jimmy: Yeah Janis: she literally ran out of hairspray Janis: tells you how my day has been Janis: no point going home if i pick up the wrong one, like Jimmy: Don't then Jimmy: Snuck you in and outta here enough times to know what I'm doing Janis: Don't tempt me Jimmy: 😏 Janis: Yeah and I've got the rep Janis: s'all you Jimmy: Not sorry Janis: I know you ain't Janis: shameless Jimmy: I want you, no shame in it Janis: Yeah? Jimmy: Yeah Jimmy: My day's been about missing you, mate Janis: I missed you too Jimmy: We got a lot of time to make up but I'm up for that Jimmy: Been thinking about you a lot Janis: Really? You can tell me all about it when I get there then Jimmy: I will Janis: Gonna have to go back to yours, like Janis: park's seen enough action, and that's just from Twix 😶 Jimmy: Filthy bitch, she is Jimmy: It's alright, pops ain't there as per Janis: don't care if he is Jimmy: Big talk Janis: if you doubt i can back it up then Janis: ✌ Jimmy: Not saying that Jimmy: I like it Janis: good Jimmy: You're good Janis: Got more work to do if you think that Jimmy: Challenge accepted Janis: not how it works, accepting on my behalf but good to know you're a willing participant like Janis: awkward at this point to find out otherwise Jimmy: And there's gonna be enough #awks when the exchange kids roll up Janis: ugh Janis: don't remind me Jimmy: Sorry Jimmy: How long they gonna be about? Janis: 2 weeks then same over there Jimmy: 😒 Janis: I know Janis: 'cos odds are at least one or two of 'em will be unbearable Janis: likely more, we don't need to add any more twats to the pot Jimmy: I'm the foreign dickhead in these parts, lads Jimmy: No room for you Janis: n'awh no more new boy shine forreal Jimmy: 💔 Janis: end of an era, mate Jimmy: Fully gutted Janis: you'll always have tam Jimmy: Thank god 💍 Jimmy: Girl's committed Janis: Yeah, so ride or die Janis: one hoe that is loyal Jimmy: ride or die like she might kill me Janis: I mean Janis: you keep playing Janis: girl gon snap Jimmy: you gonna protect me or what? Janis: who am i to stand in the way of true love Janis: or that girl's reach Jimmy: 😂 Jimmy: It was quality when you smacked Mia though, not even mad you also decked me Jimmy: Good times Janis: years in the making that one Janis: when bae LOVES the pain 😏 Jimmy: Is she having a Spaniard because they better love it if it's a yeah Janis: Duh Janis: love the clout of being like here, have the west wing Janis: no idea what hers is like, poor fucker regardless Jimmy: She should've bowed out like I did Jimmy: Talk about doing a runner Janis: shoulda woulda coulda Janis: too late now Jimmy: Whoever she gets won't say no to me Jimmy: You had your chance, mate Janis: Shut up Jimmy: You getting jealous of a fictional foreign kid over there, like? Janis: You wish Jimmy: I do Jimmy: It's quality when you try and fake that you aren't Janis: 🖕 i hate u Jimmy: You don't Janis: okay, hate's a bit strong, like Jimmy: 💕 Jimmy: Cute Janis: give you cute in a minute Jimmy: I know Jimmy: Come here to me then