#i stand with my fellow jews and victims

[cree-future-rabbi]

Had an antisemite reblog my fear post and say "this is me laughing at you whiny bitch".

Wow...

I guess I'm not human and don't deserve human rights and dignity.

[bobemajses]

I am half Sephardic & my ancestors came from the Balkan peninsula (not exactly Eastern Europe but South Eastern Europe), from Podgorica and Istanbul! I currently live in Istanbul.

I would like to say some things about the city that I live in. Here we had a large community of Jewish people. Mainly located in the European part of the city. But my family had been living in Yel Degirmeni (Anatolian side) – which is also a neighbourhood with great amount of Jewish population.

Nowadays the Jewish community have left the region although there's still a significant population in Turkey unlike other Balkan countries, most of them have migrated to Israel, USA, Spain etc.

If anyone would be interested, there's a book called Anyos munchos i buenos by Laurence Salzmann (Good Year And Many More, Turkey's Sephardim 1492-1992).

Very nice! The Jewish community of Istanbul and Turkey has such an interesting history and was earlier so diverse, being comprised of Sephardim, Ashkenazim, Romaniotes, Karaites and Georgian Jews (now Sephardim constitute 95%). In 1992 the community celebrated the 500th anniversary of its official existence in Turkey since the Spring of 1492, when a big wave of expelled Spanish Jews came to Istanbul under the reign of the sultan Beyazid II.

But Turkish Jewish history is actually much older than that. Early (Romaniote) Jewish settlements in Anatolia are mentioned by the historian Josephus Flavius (37-100) when he relates that Aristotle “met Jewish people with whom he had an exchange of views during his trip across Asia Minor.” Ancient synagogue ruins have been found in Sardis, near Izmir, dating from 220 B.C.E. The Rabbi Yitzchok Zarfati wrote in the Middle Ages a famous letter to his fellow Jews, saying, “I assure you, Turkey is a country of abundance where, if you wish, you will find rest.” Thus, a wave of Jews from Hungary came in 1360 and from France in 1394, as well as Jews from Bavaria, Georgia, Portugal, Sicily, Crimea and Salonika. In 1477, Jewish households in Istanbul numbered 1,647, or 11% of the total. Half a century later, that number had quadrupled. Most of the Sultan’s court physicians were Jews, including Hakim Yakoub, Joseph and Moshe Hamon, Daniel Fonseca, and Gabriel Buenauentura.

The Great Ashkenazi Synagogue is one Istanbul’s most famous Jewish landmarks. This synagogue which was built with the support of financial contributions made by Austro-Hungarian Jews was opened in a grand ceremony in the year 1900. The opening ceremony was marked by the attendance and  remarks of the ambassador of Austria-Hungary to the Ottoman Empire, representing the importance and significance of this synagogue for the upper echelons of Ashkenazi society in Istanbul at the time. Today, it remains resolute, standing proudly on Yüksekkaldırım street, seen and pictured on a daily basis by locals and tourists alike.

During World War II, Turkey under Ataturk was a safe passage for many Jews fleeing the Nazis. Several Turkish diplomats persevered in their efforts to save the Turkish Jews from the Holocaust and succeeded.

The present size of the Jewish community is estimated at 14,500. Since the 1980s and especially under Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkish Jews have been the victims of violent antisemitism on multiple occasions. Turkey, a country that once welcomed Jews worldwide, is losing its Jews to emigration and assimilation. In an ironic twist, there are many Turkish Jews that emigrate to the relative safety of Spain and Portugal, reversing the historical path taken centuries earlier.

And here are some pictures from the book you mentioned:

They are so incredibly beautiful, I will make a separate post about them (Tumblr only lets me add 10 pictures to a post ;()

[meditating-dog-lover]

Racism amongst pro-Israel supporters

I found these vile borderline Nazi-esque comments under an Israeli SNL skits mocking pro-Palestine supporter by portraying them as a bunch of pink haired college leftist SJWs who know nothing about the world and support terrorists. But of course that couldn't be further from the truth with it comes to representing our movement. The skit wasn't funny because it was racist and very reminiscent to Achmed the Dead Terrorist type of "humor". I don't mind dark humor, at least be clever about it and not racist and hateful. Noa Tishby the racist zionist journalist shared this video on her insta thinking it was a funny joke. These racists are all sick. I was never raised to say racist and hateful things against Jews and Israelis. So it's absolutely not excusable for pro-Israel supporters to say racist things against Palestinians and Arabs alike. Calling Palestinians rats and Arabs subhuman and liking those comments? I was never taught to be this racist and hateful. I honestly don't know what happens in these people's upbringing that make them become this vile and hateful. I'm just thankful it never happened to me. And I've seen and heard the occasional antisemitic joke or comment made by a fellow Arab or a pro-Palestine supporter and I would never support it and called them out.

Now these comments were extremely common 10+ years ago. I've even heard them directed towards me when I supported Palestine in school as a teen. It was so disturbing to see this much hate, especially after hearing the horror stories coming from my grandmother and relatives about how the state of Israel treats them. And no they're not "savages and rats", they're human beings I really sympathized with them. Despite the personal issues I had with my grandmother, I will always put our difference aside and speak out for Palestine. Seeing videos out of Gaza of kids covered in blood with their legs blown off and a child in the West Bank dropping dead because an IDF soldier shot them really broke my heart, only for most people to say that they're filthy Arabs who deserve it and that they support terrorists in Hamas so they were asking for it (even though kids are too young to understand politics/Hamas).

Thankfully with the world more aware of what Palestinians are going through, comments like these are very rare. So I'm happy I rarely see them anymore, but extremely hurt when I do. I'm happy most people are standing up for Palestine. With that being said we can let these zionist fanatics like Noa Tishby, Amy Schumer, and our own American politicians like Nikki Haley and Lindsey Graham live in their own little racist echo chamber. I mean we have neo Nazis still around with swastika tattoos shouting 1488. Racists will never go, but they will become a minority as more and more people wake up to the atrocities victims of hateful racism are experiencing.

[saucerfulofsins]

The OP of the post never said anything about the Houthi or anything about the ship other than it was owned by an Israeli billionaire, which is true. But now there are Zionists harassing anyone who reblogs the post, harassing a Muslim lady directly affected by the genocide, and claiming all the kids and civilians on the boat are somehow terrorists too? Typical bigotry. Thank you for standing firm against Zionist harassment campaigns, so many are falling for it and joining in what is actually some pretty extreme behaviour.

Exactly! I didn't know about the Houthi, and I drew my own conclusion from the way the initial post was worded, which... I shouldn't have done, clearly, but also I really don't mind it when someone says "hey actually!" In this case though? Hell fucking no. Never mind the adage "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", which people tend to miss since usually the line's a little more clear cut.

Regarding Israel/zionism, I know where I stand on this and I will stand by it. I had a very good high school history teacher who worked at the Dutch institute for war, holocaust and genocide studies (NIOD) for many years, he did a lot of work on locating which Dutch Jews were sent to which camps/where they were killed/etc. That high school wasn't a ~traditional school so I had a lot of time to talk to him one on one about history in general, and the "invention" of Israel (as well as the Dutch position on it. They were hesitant to support the independence initially because Indonesia was fighting for its independence from the Dutch, and then the Netherlands took a very pro-Israel stance from the point it became clear just how big the government's role was in the persecution of the Jewish people living in the Netherlands at the time so it's literally out of guilt; this affected not just Dutch Jews but also German refugees like Anne Frank's family. They willingly gave out addresses etc. which lead to the decimation of over 80% of the Jewish population here - this is among the highest of Europe).

I also know how terrible the holocaust was because I've met two Jewish people over here. That's fucking it. One of them was a zionist, though, and I'm just not here for it and I never have been. Genocide aside, the displacement of the Palestinians is not okay and never has been okay. The invention of Israel was essentially a final act of European colonialism, at a time many colonies had either recently gained their independence or were on the brink of achieving it. I'm not blaming the Jewish people for wanting/desiring/needing a safe space; I do blame whoever believed/decided and whoever continues to believe/decide that means a place without the locals that lived there for centuries. If you cannot live in peace with your fellow people, even if they have a different religion, you do not deserve the position you've been put in. It's simple as that.

And like I said, I know it's more complex than simply saying "Israel" because actually it's also "all of Europe and all of Europe's mistreatment of the Jews in WWII and before and its consequent shame and guilt" - but does that mean we must let the same thing happen again, place the blame on a different dehumanized ~Other, and act like they are so different and thus less worthy of a life in peace? No. No amount of past genocides, no amount of past victims, no amount of generational trauma warrants what is currently happening. I don't even believe in "an eye for an eye", never mind this.

Of course the supporters of Israel as it currently stands equate anti-zionism to antisemitism. That's the point. An attempt at silencing the increasingly loud opposition by doing so, because what other ground do they have to stand on? Only the ground they forcefully took from others.

[troybeecham]

Today, the Church remembers St. Maximilian Kolbe, priest and martyr.

Ora pro nobis.

Maximilian Kolbe (8 January 1894 -

14 August 1941) was a Franciscan friar imprisoned by the National Socialist Gestapo at Auschwitz in 1941 because of his work as a Catholic publisher. He founded and and supervised the monastery of Niepokalanów near Warsaw, operating an amateur-radio station (SP3RN), and founding or running several other organizations and publications.

Because he was a priest, he was treated with particular savagery by the prison guards and given the dirtiest, heaviest work. He ministered to his fellow prisoners, encouraging them to forgive their persecutors and to overcome evil with good. He constantly sacrificed himself for others to the point where a doctor later testified, "In Auschwitz, I knew of no other similar case of such heroic love of neighbor."

After the outbreak of World War II, which started with the invasion of Poland by the National Socialist regime of Germany, Kolbe was one of the few brothers who chose to remain in the monastery, where he organized a temporary hospital. After the town was captured by the National Socialists, he was briefly arrested by them on 19 September 1939 but released on 8 December. He refused to sign the Deutsche Volksliste, which would have given him rights similar to those of German citizens in exchange for recognizing his German ancestry. Upon his release he continued work at his friary, where he and other friars provided shelter to refugees from Greater Poland, including 2,000 Jews whom he hid from German persecution in their friary in Niepokalanów. Kolbe also received permission to continue publishing religious works, though significantly reduced in scope. The monastery thus continued to act as a publishing house, issuing a number of anti-National Socialist publications.

On 17 February 1941, the monastery was shut down by the National Socialist authorities. That day Kolbe and four others were arrested by the Gestapo and imprisoned in the Pawiak prison. On 28 May, he was transferred to Auschwitz as prisoner 16670.

Continuing to act as a priest, Kolbe was subjected to violent harassment, including beatings and lashings. Once, he was smuggled to a prison hospital by friendly inmates. Several months after his imprisonment, a prisoner escaped, and the guards gathered ten innocent prisoners to die in reprisal. When one of the selected men, Franciszek Gajowniczek, cried out, "My wife! My children!", Kolbe volunteered to take his place, and the guards accepted his offer. With the nine other condemned men he was stripped of all his clothing and placed in a starvation bunker. According to an eyewitness, who was an assistant janitor at that time, in his prison cell Kolbe led the prisoners in prayer. Each time the guards checked on him, he was standing or kneeling in the middle of the cell and looking calmly at those who entered. At the end of two weeks, he was one of four men still alive. Because they needed the bunker for more victims, these men were injected with a lethal dose of carbolic acid. Kolbe is said to have raised his left arm and calmly waited for the deadly injection. Their bodies were cremated the following day, August 15, the feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin.

In this icon, Maximilian wears the black Franciscan habit of the Conventual branch of the Order of Friars Minor. Over his arm he carries the jacket of his uniform in Auschwitz. The number on the jacket was the one assigned to him when he arrived, and the red triangle identifies him as a political prisoner. Franciszek Gajowniczek, the man whose place he took, survived the concentration camp and eventually returned to his family.

“No one in the world can change Truth. What we can do and should do is to seek truth and to serve it when we have found it. The real conflict is the inner conflict. Beyond armies of occupation and the hecatombs of extermination camps, there are two irreconcilable enemies in the depth of every soul: good and evil, sin and love. And what use are the victories on the battlefield if we ourselves are defeated in our innermost personal selves?”

Almighty God, by whose grace and power your holy martyr Maximillian triumphed over suffering and was faithful even to death: Grant us, who now remember him in thanksgiving, to be so faithful in our witness to you in this world, that we may receive with him the crown of life; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

Amen.

[nerdygaymormon]

Luke 10:25-37 - The Good Samaritan

A lawyer states that the law says he is to love God and to love his neighbor as himself. Then he asks Jesus, “Who is my neighbor.” Jesus responded by telling a story which illustrates the answer.

A traveler (who is understood to be Jewish) is stripped of his clothes, beaten, and left half-dead alongside the road. A Jewish priest comes by, and then a Levite, an even higher ranking religious official, comes along, but both avoid the man. Then a Samaritan happens along. Although Samaritans and Jews despised each other, the Samaritan helps the injured man. The conclusion is the person who showed mercy to his fellow man is the one who acted as his neighbor.

————————————————————

Samaritans were considered unclean and apostate, and they were marginalized and despised as a result. Yet Jesus made the Samaritan the hero of the story. 

It seems clear to me that the Samaritan is the hero because Jesus wanted to leave us with no excuse for limiting which neighbors are worthy of our love. Jesus taught that who is our neighbor isn't about geography or who is in our tribe, it's a moral concept. We have a responsibility to preserve people's dignity and integrity. We aren't to walk on by while our neighbor bleeds. The priest and the Levite get no credit for their religious piety if they ignore someone in need.

The parable of the Good Samaritan makes it clear that loving your neighbor is more important than other religious responsibilities. If the good religious people aren’t going to work for mercy and justice, God will find others who will. 

————————————————————

It seems like this isn’t the first time the Samaritan has helped an injured person he finds laying on the edge of the road.

The Samaritan had cloth to bind up the wounds, he was carrying oil and wine to cleanse the wound. The Samaritan knows an inn that will accept the injured person and nurse him to health. Because he’s brought injured people to the inn before, the inn keeper is willing to heal the man, knowing he’ll get paid, because he’s been paid in the past.  

————————————————————

Too often we tell this story as if it’s about the Jews. Let’s update it to our times and religion. If the parable was given today what groups would stand in for the Samaritan and how should we treat them? 

There was a young Black Mormon college student in Salt Lake City out for the night. Despite it being a rougher part of town, he decided to walk a couple blocks from the train rather than take a Lyft or Uber. He was jumped and they took his Nike Air Jordans & bomber jacket. They left him on the side of the road, injured.

Luckily a Bishop came by, but he was late for a youth temple trip. He shook his head and said to himself with a little disgust, “Look at that, would you. If he’d been making good choices this wouldn’t have happened,” and he hurried on.

Next came a Stake President driving past in his SUV with a MAGA sticker on the back. He saw the man in the gutter and thought to himself, “This guy is probably sleeping it off, besides this is a bad part of town, anything could happen here. If I stop to pick up this one, what about the next one on the next corner? Where does it end?” 

Next comes a creaky van with bumper stickers about abortion rights, legalize weed, and ‘Love is Love’ on a rainbow flag. It’s driven by a middle-aged guy with a ponytail and ear gauges. The deep lines on his face indicate he’s had a rough life. 

When he sees the man in the gutter, he pulls over and gets out. After trying to revive the unconscious victim, he lifts him into the van. He drives several miles to an emergency treatment center. The person at the desk asks if he’s related to the injured man. “No.” She asks if he knows the man’s insurance information? “I don’t know. I found him in the street.” “We need insurance in order to treat him.”

The man loses his patience and yells at the person behind the desk. He keeps up his yelling and the doctor comes out to see what’s going on. They call an administrator on the phone and the man grabs it and starts yelling at the person on the other end. They agree to do what they can if he’ll quiet down and go away. 

The guitarist goes out to his van, comes back with his electric guitar and a pack of smokes. He needs to get to his gig, but he takes the watch off his tattooed wrist and sets it on the counter next to his van keys as collateral, and promises he’ll come back Sunday night when his gig is finished and he’ll pay what he can. Then he walks off down the street, smoking a cigarette with his guitar on his shoulder. 

Which of these three was a neighbor to the man who’d been jumped?

————————————————————  

Here’s another take on the story of the Good Samaritan. The victim are LGBTQ+ members of this church.

As much as members want to think of themselves as the Good Samaritan, these fellow congregants likely contributed to the violence done to the victim by voting for Republican candidates who refused to support civil rights for LGBT individuals, speaking at school board meetings against letting a trans student compete in athletics, in Sunday School teaching that queer people can’t make it to the highest levels of heaven and that being gay is a sin, and referring to religious freedom as the right to discriminate against queer people. 

LGBTQ+ members receive many negative messages of shame and exclusion in our theology. It’s damaging. Bigots feel free to speak up about “Evil being taught as good,” and “love the sinner, hate the sin.” 

Who is tending to the injured queer member? Who is extending mercy to them, trying to get them to safety? Who is willing to advocate on behalf of LGBT members even if it costs them social standing and callings? The greatest commandments are to love God, and to love God’s children (our neighbor and ourselves). 

————————————————————

25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. 28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. 29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? 30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, 34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. 36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? 37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

[shirkers2018dirsanditan]

So, I'm about halfway through A Girl Stands at the Door and I'm having to pause so often because it keeps having this mind-blowing ways of describing things. And I'm wondering what were some of the parts that you found especially mind-blowing or interesting or made you think in a new way?

omg right! it is such a revelatory and transformative work. so often while reading it was just blown away by these historical figures who couldn’t bested by the greatest of fictional heroines. but one thing that time and time again stood out to be is how many of the girls and young women were described by their peers as being a “tomboy” or otherwise nonconforming to the standards for women at the time. it came up with i think like three or four girls? it was so fascinating. and although rachel devlin didn’t necessarily expand on why that might be she did deliberately highlight it over and over, and as a result, now i’m like well that makes sense! but i never would have made that assumption or connection on my own. what i also found fascinating was how many of the girls had parents who were white passing and how that seemed to directly inspire them to cross these racial lines. and i appreciate that rachel devlin does address this directly and for some time because it is related to the level of sexual violence that black women and girls were subjected to at the time, the fact that most mixed race black people were the children of black women, and the kind of symbolism that would have had at a time were anti-miscegenation propaganda was quite common. and reading it i got to thinking about the connection between that and some of the hostility that these girls (in general, not just the children of the white passing black people) faced from other black adults and their fellow students when they sought to integrate because i think it speaks to the palpable fear of retaliation that everyone in the community would have (which devlin also talks about extensively and i knew they faced quite a bit but i was not prepared for the details of how severe it was, even for esther brown who was a white woman). but i also think that hostility, when combined with the sort of specific ostracism these girls who were the children of mixed race and specifically white passing black people, often their mothers as well, faced (pauli murray was called a “half-white bastard” and a “dirty jew-faced baby” for example, which is horrible), it does seem to me to also be a reflection of the kind of hostility and stigma that black women who had been sexually victimized by white men faced even in our community. even as it was recognized as racial violence on the same level of lynching. several of the young women also talked about the specific way they were told to carry themselves around white men and boys and how they took that with them into the schools they were desegregating. and because this was something that kept coming up, it really jumped out to me as a new way of thinking about these intra-community issues and the way in which they are related to the sexual politics of the time and to sexism. the entire book is about the intersections of sexism and racism, but that was a framework i NEVER would have considered. and it really has shifted my entire perspective on so many of the social dynamics and norms surrounding interracial interactions. i think the entire chapter on esther brown explores that, in the inverse, the complicated relationships between white women and black men. especially because the entire chapter i was SO irritated with the black male leadership and the way they responded to esther brown, but at the end devlin kind of pulled us back to be like, well you also have to understand their perspective. which is true. and it is so deeply complex. and this intricate web of interactions and these various norms that all parties were navigating do kind of make it miraculous the things they were able to accomplish.

overall, this book is probably one of the biggest repudiations of the narrative that white and black women never cooperate and were at odds because that is clearly not the case! and there is such incredible interracial cooperation between women that it does make me feel as though the desegregation movement should be considered a form of a women’s movement because of the specific sex roles of women that were at the center of it and the fact that it was women who are the reason desegregation happened at all. i mean elementary school aged girls were volunteering to desegregate schools!!! they were speaking authoritatively to white male journalists and lawyers and judges!! they were asserting the kind of dignity and self-determination that would later define black power and that is so often coded as male. and so many of them were supported specifically by their fathers who were pillars of their communities, across class lines. and many even had mothers who were the pillars! it’s just so transformative is really all i can say. i dogeared just about every damn page!!

[sweetsassymusic]

The Long Kaz Rant I Told Myself I Wouldn’t Write, But Here We Are

This is probably an unpopular opinion. And I hope it doesn't come across as confrontational or anything because I don't mean it that way. But I've always been super confused by the way Kaz is accepted, basically across the entire fandom, as either morally gray or straight up villainous? He doesn’t really seem like either of those things to me. On a surface level, obviously there are things he’s done that are normally considered evil. He’s stolen, he’s killed, he threatened a child, he gouged out someone’s eye. And that’s all pretty bad, right? But it completely ignores the context given in the books. (More after the cut because this got too long...)

There’s a difference between doing something evil and doing something that’s shocking, “dark,” or difficult to watch.

Before I read the books, I heard fans discuss all the horrible things Kaz does. And the way people talk about him, I was expecting him to be… Feral Kaz – someone who delights in doing horrible things because he’s just so twisted and angry. The author herself even referred to him on her blog as being utterly despicable. Wow! This guy must really go out of his way to hurt innocent people, huh? So when I sat down to actually read it, I was so surprised. Most (if not all?) the killings were done on some level of self-defense. His “murder victims” were actual evil people trying to kill him or someone he loved. And the reason he threatened a child was because the only alternative was killing her – something he would never want to do. You know, because he’s not evil.

I don’t know if I just have very different definitions of these terms than most people? But to me, the idea of Kaz being “utterly despicable” should not even be on the table to begin with (Leigh Bardugo, you good?) and even the idea of him being “morally gray” is questionable.

When I think of a morally good character, I don’t think of someone who never does anything questionable or always perfectly makes the correct choices. I think of someone who is on a mission–either to protect the world, a loved one, or simply pursuing a personal goal–who at least tries to conduct his mission in a way that either does no harm to others, or (when that’s not possible) does as little harm as necessary to get the job done. 

Whereas, when I think of a villainous character, I think of someone who has no regard for others at all. Someone who either relishes in harming the innocent, or pays zero consideration to whether he harms innocents while pursuing his goals (which are usually, in themselves, harmful to innocent people). 

And finally, when I think of a morally gray character, I think of someone directly between these two. Someone who is a little bit evil, a little bit sadistic, but not entirely evil. He’s got a few good points too. Maybe he’s someone who keeps switching sides, unsure if he wants to be a hero or villain. Maybe he has hurt a lot of innocent people unnecessarily, but he joins in with the good guys for personal gain, and people don’t mind him there simply because he doesn’t interfere with the protagonist’s goals. Or maybe he’s the “Bad Cop” to someone else’s Good Cop: someone who uses more violence than is necessary, just for fun, but still helps the good side in some capacity, so everyone chooses to look past it.

Under these definitions, Kaz (to me) seems more like a good character. While pursuing his personal goals, he protects people he loves, and yes, he does do “dark” things. But he doesn’t relish in doing them (despite his reputation in-universe of being a chaotic sadist. His reputation is not accurate; he invented it for his own protection). He does them because he has to. If he can get the job done right without hurting anyone, that’s the route he’ll take. But that option isn’t always available. And he’s not the type to lie down and die just to avoid getting his hands dirty (nor should he, imo). 

Again, maybe I just have a different idea of what constitutes being morally gray. But I always thought it was meant to be a judgment on the choices you make when you actually HAVE a choice? A morally gray character has the choice to be good or evil, and they choose to do both (which one depending on how they feel that day). 

Whereas, if you do something “bad” because circumstances force you to do it–because you or someone you love will die otherwise–that’s pretty much the same as having a gun to your head. You’re not morally gray. You’re doing it under duress. It’s survival, not a reflection of where you stand on moral topics. Like, if you trap a vegan in a room with only a piece of meat, and you leave them there for days, weeks, that person doesn’t suddenly become a “fake vegan” if they eat that meat to avoid literally starving to death. You forced them to do it. When it comes to their moral beliefs, they would still be a vegan if they had the freedom to make that choice. You just put them in a situation where those choices aren’t available to them. Your lack of freedom in a situation shouldn’t define you.

The same can be said for placing a starving, homeless orphan boy alone in the dog-eat-dog world of Ketterdam. The option of being a sweet little law-abiding citizen is not available to him. So is it really fair to define him by something in which he had no choice?

I’ve come across so many GrishaVerse fans who, while sipping on their Starbucks in the comfort of their own home, go “Ugh, Kaz. He’s so DARK, so EVIL!” (Fun fact: while my mom was watching the show, she said Kaz is evil because “he seems to always have a plan.” Oh no! Not PLANS!)  “He must be some kind of monster to be able to do the things he does and still live with himself! I could NEVER do those things!” Well…you’ve never actually had to do those things? Your life has never depended on it? Idk, to me, it’s just a very privileged take. And I’m not trying to make this into a big social issue. It’s not like criticism against a fictional character is anywhere near the same level of importance as the issues marginalized people are facing in real life. I’m just saying, it’s very easy to condemn activity you’ve never been forced to engage in for your own survival.

One of the biggest reasons people have given me for why they think Kaz is evil is that he is “for himself.” Even the author said she thinks Kaz is worse than the Darkling (who, I’ve gotten the impression, she believes to be irredeemable) because the Darkling has communal goals (he wants to bring positive change for other people/the world at large) while Kaz’s goals are just personal (he wants to bring positive change for himself and only himself). And for one? It just isn’t true: many (if not most) of the things Kaz does is either for his Crows or for his late brother; he just disguises it with supposed self-interest for the sake of his reputation. And second? It’s…not actually wrong to have personal goals or to act in self-interest. Bettering your own life is a valid desire. It’s not the same as being selfish. Not everything you do has to be for other people.

(And, tbh, this is something Leigh Bardugo seems to have a problem with in general, not just in this scenario. I could write a whole separate rant about other characters that were demonized in-narrative for engaging in “too much” self-care, and how her unforgivingly black and white morality ruined the Shadow and Bone trilogy for me. Worst of all, she even seemed to imply recently that the only reason real-life antisemitism is wrong is because “the Jews didn’t fight back”? [Like, if they had met her criteria of “fighting back”, would that make antisemitism somewhat justified to her? What? Idek, but she should really clarify.] Basically, she seems to take “non-selfishness” to an extreme. I don’t know her personally, I don’t want to make assumptions, I don’t have anything personal against her, and I’m not trying to get her cancelled or anything, I promise. But please, when you read her books, please don’t accept all her ideas at face value, because there’s some Weird Shit™ in there sometimes.)

Anyway, another reason people say Kaz is bad or morally gray is that he wants revenge. “Revenge is a bad coping mechanism! You should want JUSTICE! Not REVENGE!” And again, this argument is wild to me. I mean, yes, there are situations–especially in real life, modern, western contexts–where revenge is a bad coping mechanism someone has developed, and transforming their anger into a desire for justice is a way for them to overcome that and express their anger in a healthier way. But that’s a very specific scenario. When we’re talking generally, the line between revenge and justice is a lot thinner than people think (and in some scenarios, there is no line at all). 

For example, real life victims and their families often say they can’t wait to see the perpetrator rot in prison, even wishing (sometimes even fantasizing) that the guy gets abused in prison by fellow inmates. For them, justice and revenge are wrapped up together in one big court-issued sentence. And while some people find that disturbing or take issue with it, it’s…generally considered valid outrage? This guy is evil and hurt them, so it’s okay for these people to want him to suffer. And most importantly, these people called the cops instead of taking matters into their own hands, therefore they’re Good, right? They’re good citizens who obey and rely on the established authority, therefore they are handling their anger in an Acceptable™ way?

But in the world of Ketterdam, if someone has victimized you, or is trying to kill you or someone you love, you can’t just call the fucking cops (and let’s be honest, looking at irl cops, it’s a questionable idea here too sometimes). If we’re analyzing Kaz’s outrage and how he handles it, we have to analyze it in the context of where he lives, not where we live. We have options in our lives that Kaz doesn’t have. So we have to ask, what are the most productive steps he could realistically take in his world?

I see activists and bloggers on websites like this, publicly fantasizing about gouging the eyes out of certain politicians and right-wing figureheads. And they would probably do it for real if they could. On Tumblr and Twitter, this is generally considered righteous anger. The politicians are evil, so it’s okay to hurt them, right? That’s how the logic goes, anyway (I know some will disagree, but it’s a common take here). Well, imagine if, instead of just being a bigot, one of these evil people personally stabbed–possibly killed–your girlfriend. And there were no cops to call, no news stations or social media to turn to, to show people what this guy did. No authority or community on your side. No way to ensure this guy faced consequences for his actions. There’s just you, your dying girlfriend, your helplessness, your anger. What would be the appropriate way to handle this situation, so you were acting out of justice instead of revenge? What does “justice” even mean in a world like that? It’s a world where either you hurt others or you lie down and just let others keep hurting those you love (which, in itself, would be evil). I can’t think of any “appropriate” response Kaz could take. Which, for better or worse, is probably why he just went for the eye. You probably would too in that context. Are you morally gray? I doubt it.

It’s really weird to me how people seem to hold Kaz to this high standard of absolute Moral Purity, but they don’t hold other characters to it. Like, was the dad on Taken being “feral” or “morally gray” when he told his daughter’s kidnapper that “I will find you and I will kill you” and then pursued him with fury? His motivations were personal and not communal. He was coming from a place of revenge, just as much as justice. But most people consider him a hero. He’s not controversial or “dark.” There are plenty of other heroes who do terrible things (sometimes to innocent people! Even when it’s not even necessary!) for the “greater good” or just because it’s convenient. People call them a “badass” and then turn around and say Kaz is just “bad.” Idk, it just seems really arbitrary the way people draw these lines.

If we’re expanding the definition of “morally gray” to include anyone who’s ever done anything questionable, made a mistake, been forced to do something they wouldn’t normally do, done something for personal reasons instead of for the world at large, or wanted revenge for something, then there literally are no heroes in fiction (except maybe a few cardboard cutouts) or in real life.

(Ironically, the most morally gray thing Kaz does, imo, is something most people don’t even have a problem with: the fact he runs a gambling house to “take money from pigeons.” And even that is really mild [no one is forcing the “pigeons” to gamble their money away]. But yeah, that’s one of the few instances I could think of where he actually hurt innocent people unnecessarily. That and the time, as a kid, where he stole candy from that other kid...and even that might be mostly-but-not-entirely excused by the fact he was starving to death. But yeah.)

[mrmrswales]

The story behind Kate’s survivor portraits – and what they mean for remembrance

The Duchess of Cambridge’s poignant photographs of Holocaust survivors and their families will help bring this crucial initiative to the attention of millions worldwide – puncturing holes in the narrative of denial that still finds a place in dark corners of the internet.

But it requires further context to fully understand the significance of the future Queen’s involvement, alongside more than 10 professional photographers.

Of course Kensington Palace don’t routinely provide behind-the scenes detail on the machinations that go into such projects but to me, as the grandson of a refugee from the Nazis, it’s important people know this was far from a ‘point and click’ job. I hope that I won’t be sent to the Tower but this time I’ll take the risk.

Having approached the Palace six months ago with the seeds of an idea for a photography project involving the Duchess to mark 75 years since the liberation of Auschwitz, I was delighted (not to mention surprised given the weight of requests the Royals receive) to receive a call asking for more details. Further calls followed and it wasn’t long before Palace aides suggested bringing in the Royal Photographic Society, where she is a patron, to help make my vision of 75 images a reality, and involving the families of survivors to highlight their fortitude in building full lives after the horrors.

But I didn’t dare believe this project would happen until I learnt how much time and thought the Duchess was personally putting into it. The fine art graduate spent several days researching what she could bring to the table in order to best capture these individuals for the future. She was at pains to ensure the survivors were comfortable with the vision and that the spotlight was on the heroes to be pictured and not the Duchess herself. The idea of an exhibition bringing together all 75 images – most of which will be taken over the coming months by fellows of the RPS – followed .

Last month, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust came on board to support the initiative and spoke in strict confidence to survivors to be photographed both by The Duchess and by RPS. We are also honoured to reveal the first cohort of these images today. Before meeting Steven Frank and Yvonne Bernstein, The Duchess spent significant time preparing for the photography session, and once they had arrived she spent nearly two and a half hours with them, getting to know them and their stories, and taking their photographs.  Why give you all this background? It’s crucial because it shows that our Royal Family are determined to follow up oft-repeated words of remembrance with practical steps as, day by day, we bid farewell to more survivors. It shows they are personally ready to take on the message of the survivor generation to challenge all forms of hatred wherever it rears its ugly head. As the Duchess and Prince William wrote in the visitors book at Stutthof concentration camp two years ago: “All of us have an overwhelming responsibility to make sure that we learn the lessons and that the horror of what happened is never forgotten and never repeated.” In other words, the message is about the here and now at least as much as about the past.

It’s a lead the young Royals have no doubt taken from Prince Charles who has gone above and beyond to honour survivors and remember victims; he’s long been a regular at milestone events, has attended several fundraising dinners and, perhaps most notably, came up with the idea for a community centre in Krakow after witnessing first hand the need of survivors for a meeting place. Eleven years on, he still asks for progress reports on the centre’s growth.

I remember several years ago discussing with my grandma, who came to Britain on the Kindertransport in 1939, an upcoming gathering of her fellow former refugees and being struck by her almost casual approach on the question of whether she would receive that golden ticket to meet Charles.

It was a reaction that I assure you had nothing to do with the heir to the throne’s small talk and everything to do with his stand-out commitment on this issue. This had afforded her the honour of previously attending at least two events with HRH – and she understood that it might be someone else’s turn.

This week, it was wholly fitting that Yad Vashem was the centrepiece of HRH’s first official visit to Israel this week. You didn’t need to be a world leader in Jerusalem to see this visit was deeply personal for him and not just because his great-grandmother is honoured at the museum for saving Jews during the Holocaust.

Just as he’s always worn his appreciation for the survivors and their contribution on his sleeve, so too I was always aware how much his support was appreciated by my grandma and her fellow survivors. She often spoke about how important it was to her that her grandchildren knew what happened in order to relay the memory – and the media spotlight that follows the Royals means they can amplify the survivors’ stories to the world like few others.

When she passed away four years ago, we discovered a copy of a special issue of the Jewish News marking the 70th anniversary among the few papers she had kept. It was guest edited by four survivors – only two of whom are still with us. As we bid farewell to the last survivors at a time of rising antisemitism, Islamophobia and other hate crime, the importance of four of the most senior Royals all using their platforms this week to shine a light on what man is capable of can’t be overestimated.

[cree-future-rabbi]

I've written to two parties in Ontario about antisemitism and antisemitic comments and garments.

I am told to be safe, to disregard my culture, my religion, my identity, so people who are prohamas don't kill me.

I spend my days in fear, in "one of most culturally diverse countries".

I wrote two parties (NDP and Conservatives) about their stance on letting a poltical statement be worn in a government hall. This garment I have never seen anyone wear before the terrorists attacked Israel so brutally.

The government doesn't understand that they can not do this, they can not let keffiyeh be worn in government institutions, like I can't wear anything that says "bring them home." That's so fucked up. It is a garment worn to incite fears into Jews and to cover your face. You're stand so proudly, yet cover your face. Cowards.

So if they allow this, I will be asking to speak in the House of Commons, wearing a shirt that says "let my people go!"

If this was really about palestine, the hostages would be back, war would be over.

You dont care about life, you just care about having an excuse to kill, assault, harass,bully, and worse to Jews.

Apparently we don't matter.

I sent video and picture evidence to support my case.

[moonsugar-and-spice]

Who are some of your other villain faves? Was there a moment where you realized you had gone from hating an antagonist to feeling something a little more complicated?

Oh, this is a fun question! This might be more answer than you were expecting, anon, but I really love villains. 😅

Outside of Avatar the Last Airbender, here are some of my favorite baddies and why they make the grade for me.

Hannibal Lecter

“Discourtesy is unspeakably ugly to me.”

Maybe it’s because the heroic and villainous co-exist within him. Sherlock Holmes and Moriarty merged into one. Maybe it’s because he has all the best lines and could pass a polygraph test while tearing out your tongue and eating it. Either way, there’s nothing pedestrian about Hannibal. His intelligence is shown in not only the clever ways he negotiates for himself, how he escapes imprisonment, his ability to track down the killer eluding the FBI, but also in his insane rationalization for his bizarre behaviors. 

The people he kills are not usually random victims, but targeted for committing insufferable crimes or those who insult his cultural sensibilities. He hates rudeness and discourtesy, and people who show these traits are put on his chopping board. He may be gruesome as a serial killer and a cannibal, but he has a certain code of conduct that he lives by, and that complexity is what makes him a great villain, in my opinion.

Victor Vale and Eli (Eliot) Cardale in V.E. Schwab’s Villains duology

“All Eli had to do was smile. All Victor had to do was lie. Both proved frighteningly effective.”

There’s a reason this series is titled “Villains.” Victor and Eli both see themselves as the hero of their own story, and the other, the villain, but in truth, they’re both reprehensible people who believe the ends will justify their cruel means. Of course neither of them are evil to the core, because few (good) villains are and Schwab is the high queen of character development. They’re complicated men. Toxic, petty, angry, but also thoughtful and aware. Neither were driven to their paths by fate, but instead, they set their own courses because they wanted to, because they could. Because they liked it. And while, over the series, Victor may lean more toward what could generously be considered a semblance of redemption, he’s far from a good person and acts mostly out of selfishness. 

While we all like to root for the hero, sometimes I want to see characters who get to be their raw, unrepentant selves and wreak havoc, as long as they have the complexities and ideals to back it up.

Magneto (Max Eisenhardt/Erik Lehnsherr)

“My name is Max Eisenhardt. I’ve been a Sonderkommando at Auschwitz for almost two years. I watched thousands of men, women, and children walk to their deaths. I pulled their bodies from the gas chambers. I dug out their teeth so the Germans could take their gold. And I carried them to the ovens, where I learned how to combine a child’s body with an old man’s to make them burn better. I saw my fellow workers buried alive under an avalanche of rotting corpses. I saw thousands of murdered people burning in giant outdoor pits. I have seen at least a quarter million dead human beings with my own eyes…and I couldn’t save a single one.”

Give me a villain with a tragic backstory that garners my sympathy and I am putty in your hand, every time. A German Jew, he was confined as a young boy to Auschwitz when his mutant powers manifested, only too late to save his family. Though the mutant supremacist views he came to adopt were extreme, it’s hard to argue with his logic when we see where he came from. His story is heart-wrenching. He is a man who watched helplessly as those he loved were slaughtered, watched as his people were led to the gas chambers. And he is unwilling to stand by again when he has the power to do something this time, for fear that another Hitler will rise – treading a path that risks turning himself into just that.

Honestly, I think THIS is where it all started for me (to answer your second question). I grew up on Marvel and particularly loved the X-Men comics and cartoons, and later the movies (and Hugh Jackman as Wolverine – you can’t top his portrayal). I also grew up in a very religious, overprotective household, and specifically remember being surprised as a kid, and feeling like a little hooligan, at the complicated feelings I was having for a *gasp* villain. (But they’re bAd GuYs, doing bad things, that indoctrinated little voice whispered. You’re not supposed to feel that way about them.) 

I LOVED it. Not because I wanted to be like them, but because it gave me a lens through which to see others and the world outside my sheltered bubble. I ate it up like I was starving. And maybe I was, at the time, in a way. I think that’s why I first fell in love with the idea of damaged, imperfect characters so much – burned out from the religious pressures to be perfect and good all the time. This idea that a villain could make me feel something other than loathing, that there could be so much to them beneath the surface, that he is the hero in his own story stuck with me, and the rest is history.

[oh-theres-a-woman]

Edelweiss in a Front Pocket

A/N: This story is inspired off a role-play that I’m doing with @opheliaesmeelancaster​ with our pairing. I’ve taken the opening scene and wrote it into a story format. It might be a continuous piece with serval parts depending on the thoughts of readers and the requests for more. 

Taglist: @zodiyack​ , @shelbys-we-get-the-job-done​ , @itsfrancisneptun​, @amy-booxx​ & @fandom-fucking-shit​

Pairing: Alfie Solomons X Bettina Rosamond [OC]

Word Count: 835

▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫▫

Night crept over the streets of Camden Town, London. Murky fumes filling the air spiked with thick humidity. Not many cared to venture out of the streets alone past nightfall. Bettina Rosamond, a leader to one of the most wealthy and powerful gangs that ruled London’s Underground. It didn’t bother her because she was a feared woman, adding to the mere insult of her threatening presence was that Bettina happened to be a Hun by blood and birth. So, people still sore from the war with the very nation she was from stayed away from her and normal people just kept a respectful distance. 

A former war spy and owner to various establishments throughout London, she had a foot in all the right areas to know regarding gang warfare. 

The woman radiated an air of confidence strolling along the street in a perfectly tailored dress of black. A violet scarf wrapped around her beautiful toned neck. Hair dark chocolate brown locks were styled in a fashion of high society and makeup painted her the perfect shade and contour. A blood-red scarlet offering her a more menacing and infamous appearance. Causing her stunning blue eyes to almost pop in colour. Yet, it didn’t seem to deter the man who had been following her for quite some time. 

Betti had known of the man for some time and who sent him. She’d seen his face in a puddle on the streets, connecting it to one of the faces of one of Sabini’s men. No doubt to tail her and kill her limiting the parties in this war of London gangs to the Italians and Jews. Slipping down a side street, Bettina began on her way closer to Solomons turf. Knowing it’d be her best chance. 

Stepping through puddles of god knows what, Bettina only thought of one thing. Her children. Nearing the distillery that Alfie owned the woman turned around a corner and pulled her gun from her garter. Her direction clear for the stalker’s temple. 

Alfie Solomons heard the shot from his bakery, warily grabbing his own pistol. The man left his bakery, a rare fact that he was still there this late into the night. Then again, he’d taken on a bunch of fucking useless bakers. Bloody lot of them were incompetent sops that only meant more work to do. So, he didn’t have much of a chance to leave earlier, didn’t he? Grabbing his coat and hat, pistol ready in hand. 

He didn’t know who he was expecting when he left his humble bakery, but he instantly knew the woman standing with her pistol. Who didn’t know the woman? If there was someone new in London surely they had been warned of the character standing before him. Just as everyone knew who he was. It was a mutual respect of some sort, wasn’t it? Even when it concerned as far as Sabini. 

“Well, sweetheart, I fuckin’ ‘ope ya plannin’ on cleanin’ this fuckin’ mess up, eh? Ain’t a fuckin’ fan of coppers sniffin’ round my bakery, you see. Shootin’ a man in the fuckin’ head right outside of my humble bakery- ya just made a fuckin’ problem for me too, didn’t ya? Eh, love?” The Jew spoke simply, in a usual rambling and slightly unhinged sense to his words. Shifting the body with his foot, not shy of the blood. 

The woman didn’t respond for the first few moments at Alfie’s presence is made known through his rambling lecture. Eyes looking cold over her victim’s body. “Of course, I had the mind to clean up this mess I’ve made, Mister Solomons. Can’t leave a job half-done, can we?” Her voice was cool—almost sultry in the description. Wander over the body, openly looting the disgraceful figure. Careful of her work. Masterfully aware that she worked while her hands were gloved—so the transference of blood couldn’t be seen on her black gloves. 

Watching the streets for people, she tucked a few pieces into her purse. Then removed her glove and whistled further down the street. Frowning slightly at the bodyguard that came running, finally. One of her husband’s loyal dogs. He’d be the perfect person to get rid of the body. 

“The gentleman is inclined for a bath—do help him with that.” She motioned to the dead body with her head. Speaking the first half of her sentence in English then switching to a note of fluent High German. Watching the bodyguard begrudgingly drag the body away, she straightened posture walking over to the fire hydrant they had built onto the street due to the high fire risk the bakery was. Turning the wheel with her now bare hands. Bettina smirked, watering the spurting water and washing the crimson pool over cobblestone into drains. Quite pleased with her clean up, she turned the water off. Glancing to the believed mad man and fellow gangster. “Sufficient enough for you, Mister Solomons?” She asked looking over the dimly lit streets, brow swiftly cocked. Taking in the man’s silence. 

[xhxhxhx]

The more we restore detail to the German reparations project the less applicable it becomes to the American debate. The Luxembourg Agreement of 1952 – reached between Adenauer’s government and the state of Israel, along with representatives of the Jewish Claims Conference – and the legislation that followed it, the Additional Federal Compensation Act of 1953, didn’t apply to Jews in general, or to their descendants, or to the tens of millions of other victims of the Nazi regime. Under the agreement Germany paid Israel compensation for resettling half a million Jewish refugees. The use of the money was severely restricted: most of it could be used only to purchase goods produced in Germany – telephone systems, electrical generators, railway sleepers, chemicals. There is no question that this was good for the new Jewish state as well as for German business, and it improved the standing of the Bundesrepublik with its Allied occupiers. But it has little relevance for those in the US who want to think about how reparations for slavery could be arranged.

A revised Federal Compensation Act in 1956 also offered reparations to a narrowly delineated subset of German Jews who had suffered specific sorts of ill-treatment and to their surviving dependants. Claims had to be filed by the end of 1969. Over the next fifty years other groups became eligible for reparations, each with a different compensation schedule. The last large-scale payments were agreed late in 1999 after a series of lawsuits were brought in the US on behalf of people who had worked as forced and slave labourers during the war, as well as claimants against various German insurance companies and banks. Hundreds of lawyers and functionaries representing clients with divergent interests came up with a schedule of payments with which no one was happy. By the time the fund was established in 2000, 10 per cent of those who might have benefited were dead.

The Foundation for Remembrance, Responsibility and the Future paid out €4.45 billion, and was jointly financed by the German government and 6500 Germany companies. Smaller amounts are still being distributed: in 2018 the Claims Conference and the German government announced that there would be a one-off payment of €2500 to each of the few remaining survivors of the Kindertransport. But many of those who had suffered most were beyond reparations, including the rabbis who were murdered with their congregations in the forests of Ukraine or the death camps of Poland. The German rabbis who managed to escape to safety were given back pay or pensions as the civil servants they had been, or reparations for lost personal property if they could document chair by chair and fork by fork what had been taken from them. The chasm between suffering and recompense was vast.

I need to declare an interest here: a coming to terms with my own past. As a child of the German Jewish diaspora I lived in some intimacy with the Wiedergutmachung, the German reparations. There was a lot of talk in my family and among our friends about finding documents that would establish eligibility and prove damages; there was a lot of talk about who got how much and what for. There was general agreement that the single biggest determinant of success in obtaining reparations was the effectiveness of your lawyer. I don’t remember there being any of the moral fervour that informs the debate about reparations to African Americans for slavery. But an elegiac sadness was attached to the country they had lost: every household in my parents’ circles in the US and England and Israel had copies of Goethe and Schiller. For them, an inner Germany remained: ‘Die Schweine’ – the swine – had captured their Germany, the real Germany, but it remained the home of the soul even if return was impossible, just as the South has remained home to some of the African Americans who left it.

My cousin Gunther emigrated to Holland with his mother, my father’s oldest sister, after Hitler came to power. In the summer of 1943, when he was 22 and she was 44, they were caught up in one of a series of raids on Amsterdam’s Jewish areas. Gunther, wearing a leather bomber jacket of the sort the SS favoured, started shouting abuse at his fellow Jews, was presumably mistaken for a German, and allowed to walk away. At least, that’s how he tells the story. He never saw his mother again. He lived underground for nearly two years until Amsterdam was liberated in early May 1945. His mother was murdered at Sobibor on 9 July 1943. Gunther fell between the stools of eligibility for reparations: too young for a profession, he couldn’t get reparations for his career being interrupted; being between high school and university when the war began, he couldn’t argue that his studies had been interrupted.

My grandmother never quite believed that her daughter had been murdered: she was somewhere in ‘the East’, she claimed. I’m not sure she was ever told what had become of her own older sister: the Yad Vashem database says only that she was ‘murdered in the Shoah’; according to Red Cross records, she received a care package in Terezín. Maybe she died there. My grandmother escaped to Turkey in December 1939 with all her possessions in a couple of suitcases. She had no documentation for her Bechstein grand piano, which had kept her in Germany until it was almost too late, or for the other possessions she’d left behind, and so had no chance of proving a claim for material losses. The law held that German citizens whose relatives could be shown to ‘have been killed or driven to death within eight months of persecution’ were eligible to apply for reparations, but only if the person killed had been the family’s primary breadwinner. My grandmother got a share of the pension due to her husband as director of the health insurance system in Hamburg.

On the scale of Holocaust suffering my family’s was modest. But those who had suffered far more got proportionally much less. My colleague Paula Fass, the child of camp survivors, has written about discovering her ghost family, the families her mother and father lost before they met in a displaced persons’ camp in Germany and started anew. These were the families of which they would not speak. Her mother sent off her nine-year-old son with a bit of bread in a sack she had sewn when he was taken from the children’s ghetto in Lodz to be murdered on 4 September 1942; her then husband was murdered later. Paula’s father, his first wife and four children – aged between ten and fifteen – were transported to Auschwitz when the Lodz ghetto was liquidated in August 1944. Only he survived, and there is no record of when the rest of his family was killed: ‘presumed murdered’ is all the Yad Vashem database says. By that point, in 1944, the Germans were murdering and burning Jews at the rate of ten thousand a day and their record-keeping had slipped. I asked Paula whether her parents received any reparations. They had: for impairment to their health. He was judged 40 per cent disabled; she 30 per cent, the lowest level for which compensation was available. Their eligibility had to be recertified every year by a German doctor.

[notlikelyneurotypical-blog]

I am so upset over the Gaud "discourse" (bullying) I can't sleep, so here is me running through the "reciepts" because every time Gaud talks someone jumps on and attacks..

A little perspective, I had never heard of @biggest-gaudiest-patronuses until last month. So I'm not an avid follower, I didnt participate in Gaudapocolpyse, or watch any of the livestreams- I just hate bullying and railroading. I am a female Autistic Jew who has survived childhood sexual abuse (and I'm adding that because of some of the stuff people are accusing Gaud of).

I went through the "reciepts" you can find on biggest-gaudiest-callout the updated version as of January 27, 2019 and I made notes. So buckle up cause this is going to be a long post. Bear with me I am on a cell phone so there will probably be a plethora of grammar and spelling errors. Here goes:

-the callout starts by stating that Guad is 27 and has a mostly minor fanbase this statement is made on the assumption that tumblr is 13+ and Guad makes "teenage humor" whatever that means, I'm a legal adult and I like the jokes, and one anon stating that they and their friends are 13/14. So it is just flat out assuming and you know what they say about assuming.

-next it states that Gaudpocalypse was a protest for the NSFW ban, which isn't true. It actually started because a person commented about an actual holiday (I believe in Catholasism) that had to do with pink that fell on the day. It was in the works before tumblr announced the change, so this was flat out bad fact checking.

-Gaud also commented that the "sexy" fan art they were expecting was Patrick Star in fishnets type stuff. They used NSFW, because as a fellow autistic they were taking it literally to mean Not Safe For Work, so not something you'd want to explain to a boss or co-worker- not porn.

-They have already addressed the Tuba fanfic, which is also not porn.

-Taking "age is just a number. a number estimating your proximity to death." to be pedophile related are purposely ignoring Guad's morbid death humor that they are known for.

-If we are vilifying people for reading yaoi, add me to the list. I went through a hard SasuNaru phase and not even 5% of it was G rated. (and you know what, I was a minor when I got into it and now that I've aged out of minorhood doesnt mean that I instantly stop liking what I liked).

-Shota: I went through a phase where I read rape, pedophilia, and even incest fanfics. And you know what, it was actually encouraged by my therapist. Sometimes people look at dark things because they are trying to work through their trauma. Now I don't know Guad's past, I don't know if there was abuse or anything, but either way: reading a manga, a fanfic, or even watching anime does not make you an abuser or pedophile. Sometimes it is a person the pedophile left behind trying to take control or figure things out. (The comparison is like saying that people that read James Patterson are serial killers or that only perverts watch Law and Order SVU).

-P.S. stop calling manga child porn. It cheapens what child porn actually is and the victims of it.

-"Recommending" Big Mouth on Netflix, personally I haven't watched a single episode, but it seems about the same level as South Park. It isnt meant for kids. And it obviously got approved by Netflix, so take it up with them if you don't like it.

-Okay hot take, apparently saying you don't want MAPs interacting with you coupled with wanting to know if someone is over 18 before you find them attractive makes you a pedophile- makes sense /sarcasm

-As a Jew, the whole sumptuary laws post was witty word play not antisemitism that Gaud wasnt even the OP for. (although the laws themselves are hella antisemitic, or at least were used for that purpose.) ((still doesnt make the two equal)).

-Wearing a kimono is not racist- I think you need a dictionary and a lesson on racism.

-Autism and Asexuality; Guad's post was about figuring yourself out and said "people on the autism spectrum are significantly more likely than general populace to identify as asexual or aromantic" - this is statistically accurate, there is no ableist statement here. They did not say all Autistics are asexual or that Autistics can't have romantic or sexual relationships, Gaud simply stated a fact and it was said in a post about themselves ans trying to figure out what they are.

-Reblogging a 12 year olds address for furbies, yeah not a good or smart decision and Gaud deleted the post. Nothing else can be done about it now and this happened over a year ago and as far as I've seen Gaud learned for the mistake ans hasn't done anything like that again.

-The Discord Server. Gaud asked for the server to be taken down. People are blaming Guad because they created the server and when they left things went south. The users were breaking Discord ToS and doing horrible things. However l, blaming Guad because they created the server is like blaming Ford for drunk drivers because they made the car.

-Canabalism- this is laughable. 98% of the time Gaud is posting as an incorpreal eldritch being...just really look at the blog as a whole and ask yourself if you're making smart conclusions.

-The "crayon fiasco": Guad raised money to eat a crayon on livestream. People have taken issue with this for a variety of reasons. 1) "Gaud said the money was for rent and bought champagne" no, no they didnt, that was a joke. The money was indeed for rent, the cheap champagne was bought with a gift card. 2) "The money could have gone to medical expenses or someone in need." People are allowed to give and not give however they see fit. This arguement is about as strong as standing in front of a movie theater and shouting that the patrons should donate their money to food banks instead of watching a show and when they still go watch the movie calling the movie evil forexisting. 3) "Gaud is manipulating minors into giving them money" first of all most minors don't have that much money and I see it no more manipulative (actually I see it way less manipulative) than my sister asking my mom for money for Club Penguin. It is paying for entertainment which we do all the time and I still have yet to see the stats that it is "mostly minors".

I'm just over everyone railroading and bullying Gaud. When Guad does apologize for something people start screaming that the apology is manipulation. You have made a situation where there is no winning. Gaud ignores the callouts and you don't like. Gaud asks for information on some of the accusations and they get called names. Gaud apologizes ans gets accused of manipulating. What do you honestly want? You have built an argument on stunted facts, and just scream loud enough and long enough trying to get Guad to break. People have already started blocking Guad based on the telephone game of rumors and "reciepts" that I just went through. Enough is enough. If you don't want to follow Gaud or read their posts that is up to you, but just be quiet already. In the words of Frozen "Let It Go".

@biggest-gaudiest-patronuses if you want me to take this down I will, it is your business after all. I just couldn't stand idly by and watch what these people are doing.

[heavilycyborgego]

“I am a criminal. But an extremely sophisticated one. I don’t have any blood on my hands. That would be too vulgar. No justice system in the world would drag me to court. I outsource my crime. Between my crime and I, there’s the bomb. I own nuclear fire. My bomb threatens all métèques and protects my interests. Between my crime and I, first there is geographic distance and then geopolitical distance. But there are also great international bodies: the UN, the IMF, NATO, multinationals, the banking system. Between my crime and I, there are national bodies: democracy, the rule of law, the Republic, the elections. Between  my crime and I, there are beautiful  ideas: human rights, universalism, freedom, humanism, secularism, the memory of the Shoah, feminism, Marxism, Third Worldism. And even suitcase carriers. They stand at the pinnacle of white heroism. I respect them though. I wish I could respect them more, but  they  are  already hostages of good conscience. The foils of the white Left. Between my crime and I, there is the renewal and metamorphosis of great ideas, should  the “beautiful soul” come to expire: fair trade, ecology, organic commerce. Between me and my crime, there is my father’s sweat and salary, social welfare, paid leave, labor law, school holidays, summer camp, hot water, heat, public transportation, my  passport....I  am detached from my victim—and from my crime—by an insurmountable   distance. This distance stretches. European check points have moved south. Fifty years after the independence movements, North Africa is the one subduing its own citizens and black Africans. I was going to say “my African brothers.”  But I no longer dare to, now that I have admitted my crime. Farewell Bandung. Sometimes the distance between my crime and I shrinks. Bombs explode in the subway. Towers are struck by airplanes and collapse like a house of cards. The journalists of a famous magazine are decimated. But immediately, good conscience does its work. “We are all American!” “We are all Charlie.” This is the  democrats’  rallying  cry. The sacred  union. They are all American. They are all Charlie. They are all white. If I were  judged for my crime, I wouldn’t claim my innocence. But I would plead extenuating circumstances. I am not exactly white. I am whitened. I am here because I was thrown up by History. I am here because white people were in my country, because they are still there. What am I? An Indigenous of the Republic. Above all, I am a victim. I have lost my humanity. In 1492 and again, in 1830. And my whole life is spent recovering it. Not all time periods are equally cruel to me, but my suffering is infinite. Ever since I have seen white ferociousness beat down upon me, I have known that I would never find myself again. My integrity is lost to me and to humanity forever. I am a bastard child. I only have one conscience, which awakens my memories of 1492. A memory transmitted from generation to generation that resists the industry of lies. Thanks to this memory, I know with the assurance of my faith and with intense joy that the “Native Americans” were “the good guys.” It’s true; my bomb protects my indigenous aristocratic interests, but in fact, I only benefit from them accidentally. I am not their primary recipient, far from it, and my immigrant parents even less. I am in the lowest strata of the profiteers. Above me are the white profiteers. The white population that owns France: the proletarians, the civil servants, the middle classes. My oppressors. They are the small shareholders of the vast enterprise of the world’s dispossession. Above them is the class of great possessors, of capitalists, of great financers. In exchange for the complicity of the white subaltern classes, this class knew how to negotiate a greater distribution of the riches from the gigantic hold up, as well as a—very monitored—participation in the process of political decision-making that we proudly call “democracy.” My white fellow citizens believe in democracy. It’s in their best interest to believe in it. This is why they worship it. But their conscience is crumpled. It seeks more comfort. To sleep in peace is essential. And to wake up, proud of one’s own genius, is even better. Hell is other people. Humanism needed to be invented and so it was.

Whites, Jews, and Us: Toward a Politics of Revolutionary Love, Houria Bouteldja 

[ghostfriendly5]

“But when the face of Sextus was seen among the foes,

A yell that rent the firmament, from all the town arose,

On the house-tops was no woman, but spat at him and hissed,

No child but screamed out curses, and shook its little fist.”

-Horatius at the Bridge

Looking on Goblin Slayer, my heart feels something very like the Eternal City abhorring the arch-rapist Sextus Tarquinius and all his works. When an entire world is cack-handedly contrived to generate the cheap, casualised, gratutious rape of ridiculously unadvised rookies and endless, voiceless villagers, so that a man with a big sword can slaughter the rapists and be called a hero, it’s astonishing that he isn’t generally recognised as the focal point of all evil. The one who truly gained from What Happened To Fighter, was not the goblins but the ‘hero’ whose whole career is based on the exploitation of rape victims. Avenging rape is a righteous act, but killing rapists while silencing (hence shaming) victims served up for his glory by a rape machine disguised as a fantasy world, is exploitation. Realism is not inventing a pack of rapists and a pack of idiots. As a hero, Goblin Slayer is nothing but male wish fulfilment, and any male wish fulfilment which involves rape will almost certainly be as misogynist and disgusting as this.        

The message of Goblinslayer is not that dragons can be slain but that there will always be goblins, and always be rapes. Rape isn’t an outrage that must be purged from society, but the commonplace fate of any strong, boundary transgressing woman who does not conform to the caster-healer-archer stereotype, or does not attach herself to the harem of a big strong man. This is not the message that a world of sexual harassment and rape victim blaming needs. Rather than condemning rape or giving any tribute to survivors, this story would rather glorify something as meaningless and manly as Goblin Slayer’s competence at his job. Like a hillbilly showing off his well-used collection of guns, car parts or fishing rods when A WOMAN HAS BEEN RAPED AND DENIED RECOVERY and if we would prefer to hear how many goblins this fellow has killed, and what a big firebomb he has, something has gone badly wrong somewhere. Competence is not even intelligence but brainless, small-minded application to a set problem of slaying goblins without effectively training adventurers or defending villages, or considering the hopeless stupidity of the whole world, situation and context. The only thing that annoys me more than claims of Goblin Slayer being a thoughtful and intelligent work, is the abhorrent lie that writing about the trauma of male witnesses to rape is worth completely silencing and sidelining the victims themselves, as if their ordeal, My Gosh!, had somehow destroyed their value as women. Curse, abhor, spit on and banish this false Sextus.

The pseudo-racism of Goblin Slayer subconsciously appeals, I suspect, to a similar class of people as its misogyny and fetishisation of competence (Repeat, this is not most GS fans, just a subset). Order of The Stick, Shadowrun, mainstream D & D and other worlds represent a general movement away from Always-Evil races, as the racist origins and stupidity of that idea became happily apparent. Giving us goblin rapists to hate panders to the same ignoble humans failings as giving us Mexican rapists to hate. In the real world, humans like Goblin Slayer who believe that all Mexicans/Blacks/Jews/Muslims/Infidels/WOMEN are irredeemably evil are not the heroes, but the villains. A recovered Fighter is the hero our world needs, and here I stand. Not a racist, rape-exploiting, harem-mongering, Doom-ripped-off, thud-and-blunder, shamelessly unironic he-man.

If this offends anyone, please think about the difference between a criticism of an anime you like, and an insult to all rape survivors in the world, that was the most popular anime of 2018 worldwide. This is a situation, along with the election of Trump, and Brexit, which is causing me quite enough grief already before anyone tries to explain that some positive aspect of Goblin Slayer outweighs victim shaming, or repeats some in-universe justification for a show that, from the real world, can be seen as a poisonous midden.