#this applies to how we describe our ethnicities too

[storm-of-feathers]

actually we should talk ab the anti immigration sentiment at some point like "americans with a family history of immigration arent REALLY [culture of origin]" like hey now?

[menalez]

It annoys me to the core how western movements took liberty of appropriating the word "caucasian" for their own vocab as if it was lying around before, meaningless and unused. im a caucasian woman a.k.a a woman born in Dagestan, Caucasus region. i grew up in rural area, with my deeply religious, muslim grandparents( &with all the "percs" that come with it), bc my mom was working her ass off as a nurse 24/7 to feed us, and my dad was prosecuted for being a political activist and couldn't find any job. Eventually, we had to flee our home bc the pressure for my family's political position and ethnicity was immense and honestly hard to bare.

Now, the topic of russian colonisation of Caucasus was somewhat clear before, i could talk in length on it, esp since have a major in history. But now that "caucasian" was rebranded as a new name for white people in the US, i found myself striped of a basic language to describe oppression of my people.

At first, i thought it was only a US-ian quirk, but as i studied in Germany, i had to repeatedly defend my stance on using "caucasian" to name my ethnicity bc profs were arguing that the term is too broad and ambiguous and i should choose another word/title etc. I had to argue with my coursemates a lot bc we essentially misunderstand eachother when i say smth like "the oppression of caucasian people". People online call me racist for calling out this practice.

Honestly, sometimes i lose hope. Everyone see the effects of imperialism and colonization when it's time to point at US ro Canada or UK w/e, but not when it's russian empire/ussr/russian federation. What's more, ru's imperialism is overlooked and enabled. It's always "oh, not all russians" but even ru leftists are imperialists, even ru feminists are imperialists. Tell them not to call caucasians racial and ethnic slurs and mention the possibility of your region gaining independence, and they'll have a meltdown.

Anyways, thanks for reading this. i really didn't mean to vent this much, but as an exmuslim lesbian, i found your blog really compelling. l appreciate your active position and calling out racist and lesbophobes.

i would say it’s not western movements necessarily unless u count those western people that invented the terms for different races to be that,, but ive seen many ppl from the caucus region complain about this too. i wouldn’t say its a new thing either, they’ve been using caucasian to mean white people for quite some time as it was a part of race science. at the same time they called black ppl and asians “negroid” & “mongoloid” respectively, which is now deemed racist for obvious reasons. “mongoloid” probably related to mongols specifically too which makes it confusing. whereas “caucasian” was used to mean basically everyone else. interestingly they didn’t invent the term “europoid” for example so they intentionally made it a broad term & named it after the caucus region bc they deemed ppl from there the mist beautiful and thus the same as europeans.

i feel u tho, ignoring that russia also colonised many countries is unfortunately common & it sucks theres no term that clearly refers to ppl from the caucus bc europeans appropriated caucasian to apply to themselves

[memecucker]

Sending this to you because I don't follow any of the other blogs who are talking about it. Clearly there's some shit going on here that I'm not aware of and people are using it in bad faith, but if someone says someone else is "culturally Christian", they're NOT calling them religious. Otherwise we'd just say Christian. I'm an atheist too. I'm not religious, at all. But I'm Jewish. I celebrate Jewish holidays, not Christian holidays. I don't celebrate them because I believe in God. I don't. But those are my traditions. I call myself just Jewish most of the time because judaism is an ethnoreligion, but yeah, if I need to talk about why I celebrate Jewish holidays I call myself culturally Jewish, because that's what I am and that's why, and my cousins who are also ethnically Jewish but know nothing about Jewish holidays are not culturally Jewish. Idk who's been saying that all atheists are culturally Christian, but they're obviously wrong and calling someone culturally Christian is not in itself anti-atheist. That said, the issue of religious abuse survivors being triggered is valid because "Christian" does specifically only mean religious Christian in American English (which is why we use a different term, but it's also a compositional term so I get why people would react like that). I understand that it's real pain speaking there, which I'd like not to cause more of, so idk, it seems pretty hard to think of an alternate term, but I'm willing to say silly things like "Christmas people" in the meantime if that helps. But I would very much like Christmas people to realize that Christmas is your holiday, it's not everybody's holiday. Just because it's not religious to you doesn't mean that anyone in the world should or would adopt it regardless of their religion or lack thereof. If they're religious, it might be against their religion to celebrate holidays of other religions. For the rest of us, it's just not our holiday. The reason I'm bringing it up is that trying to explain that no, Christmas is not for everybody, is just about the only context in which I need to point out that someone shares some cultural elements with Christians because of their family and community history. If you think that Christmas is for everybody, it's because you're ALREADY a Christmas person.

I know that one of the things that causes confusion is that you have “cultural Christianity” in a valid sense like you’re describing of cultural practices which have Christian origins and you can even go a bit further and point to a differences present with western secularized Christmas and Japanese Christmas (which from my understanding is more of a ‘companion holiday’ to New Years which is the biggest holiday) and how traces of Christianity are more apparent in the former than the latter.

The ‘bad faith’ version of “cultural Christianity”narratives I’ve seen has been less about cultural practices and more about epistemology and the idea that atheists are irreversibly marked by Christian backgrounds and nothing atheists say can apply to non-Christian religions which happens to also involve totally ignoring the mere existence of atheists of non-Christian backgrounds. Like a sentiment of “God is a tyrant” or stating the Problem of Evil being met with “Oh atheists that say that are culturally Christian because thats only a problem with Christians” as if no one of any other religious background (or even no religious background) can share the same sentiment or have made the same critiques or that Christian theologians dont have their own responses unlike theologians of other religions. It’s that kind of stuff that’s the term “cultural Christian” has become an object of criticism itself because it’s this both nonsensical and deeply reactionary (and ironically Christian-centric) sentiment that the faith assigned at birth is immutable. Idk if I’ve seen people push back at the more valid conception of “some cultural practices emerge from a Christian context even if they are done by people who are not Christian” but I can understand the confusion since there’s two distinct senses of the term being used in religion discourse.

[researchgate]

Anytime a western woman expresses fear and concern about muslim male immigrants they give her a sermon about how the situation in the global south is the west's doing and she should shut up and take it. as if women in the west should sacrifice their hard earned rights by accepting men who literally need to take why-rape-is-bad classes and refuse to shake a woman's hand bc females are dirty. or they say that white men also rape and abuse women. no shit! does that mean we have to regress further back still? back to when marital rape was legal for example? bc thats what a man who needs to be taught not to sexually assault women believes in. honestly fuck that cuz if a moid from my country who was so grotesquely and loudly misogynistic wanted to move somewhere else I'd be the first to say he has no place endangering women's lives there. any man who needs to be taught rape is bad should stay where he is and be put to jail

while I may sometimes make weird, dark jokes about it, I never blame Germans of today for the holocaust, nor do I do so to Austrians. Yet somehow white women today are to blame for the problems western men caused in the middle east, southeast asia, and the global south, or for slavery, or for whatever. There's just this inability (or lack of willingness) to separate the women and mainly men of the past and women of nowadays. It's clear that they still seek women to blame for their own victimhood. All under the guys of feminism is also anti racism or whatever. Feminism is women's liberation regardless of race and/or ethnicity, yes, but it has nothing to do with men, not even men of color. Feminists know how to criticize Christianity's misogyny very well, and it's time they applied it to Islam and Judaism (which you can do without being antisemitic, it's extremely easy actually), but instead they go for the victim of a different oppression card. It's stupid and goes against feminism, which denounces all forms of female oppression, regardless of the oppressor, even when said oppressor is other women.

While the west is very much to blame for a lot of issues and problems in the places I mentioned above, it's not like there was no oppression of women, rape, and violence against women before the arrival of the White Man. This is genderist rhetoric used to describe how gender was not a thing/was equal/diverse in societies pre western contact. Women were still inferior in these societies based on their sex. They were still raped and discriminated against in religious roles. It's not hard to grasp that misogyny existed and exists in most cultures and societies regardless of contact with the West.

--

The fact that such classes on why rape is bad exist shows a deep rooted problem in the societies of which men need them. The problem is not their race/ethnicity, not even their culture as a whole, but rather certain issues such as the approval and normalization (and even encouragement) of IPV and marital rape. They don't even see this as "marital rape" because a woman who marries gives away her right to consent to anything basically. She now belongs to the husband. And when it comes to women outside of said society/religion, they're by all means inferior and thus their consent is also invalidated and given no mind. It's not even considered.

We do not deserve our rights to be regressed for the sake of pandering to anyone, white or not. If we pander to them, we also pander to incels and white misogynists.

and I agree, although in some countries jails have too good conditions. I think there should be jailing system for misconducts such as drug use or prostitution (which should be decriminalized) and jails for rapists, sex buyers, murderers, etc. which should not have good conditions at all. But that's unrelated and wishful thinking.

[olderthannetfic]

Wait, so people have actual epithets for people they don't know the name of in their head? Weird. For me it's like... the general concept I have of the person. The person with the face and the hair and the vibes, that guy. This can last for months of interaction if I don't hear their name regularly btw. People I'm close to and know the name of I can think of as [name] but everyone else is just 'hey, you' with a amorphous blob of feelings and recognition attached to it.

Related, I think do know the root of the entire "calling a character the elf is racist" thing. There's a problem of people calling non-white characters stuff like "the Latina" as an epithet when it isn't relevant and constantly. Not even "the latina woman" but just "the latina" which is a bit of a problem. Sometimes you get a lot of "the American" or "the Frenchman" too but it was most commonly happening non-white characters and sometimes only non-white characters in a singular work. And I think people took the understandable advice of "don't call characters by their race or ethnicity constantly, it's weird and kind of uncomfortable" and decided to apply it to fantasy races.

Which misses the point of course. Calling a character "the elf" is like calling a character "the woman" or "the child" and is mostly annoying if you keep doing it without it being relevant (like why are you drawing attention to them being an elf? are they being particularly elflike? is our POV the type to specifically notice that? are we being fantasy racist? Like if your POV is Gimli or limited by his perspective, describing Legolas as "the elf" prior to their friendship makes sense as a way to signify the way their respective species' histories divide them which is also reflected in their dialogue, but afterwards Gimli would think of Legolas as Legolas because they're good friends who no longer think of each other solely as the elf or the dwarf and only refer to each other as such playfully, the use of names and epithets means things and can be a good way to communicate subtle information about characters, their relationships and their viewpoints. A child will likely not think of one of their peers as "the child" but an adult might, especially if the context is one in which they would be focused on how young they are. Whether or not certain prefixes such as Dr. or Mr. are used, or if the first or last name or full name is used, or any sort of descriptor, can all change depending on what you're trying to draw attention to and what your POV is focused on, which reveals info about said POV. Your narrator has a voice and POV and it is not necessarily the writer's and people keep forgetting that)

Ahem. Sorry, pet peeve. But there's not much baggage there beyond it being bad writing when it's just constant "the elf" or "the man." And while calling a non-white character using an epithet related to their race or ethnicity isn't inherently bad, it's far less neutral when there's no clear purpose to it, especially when you're not calling the white characters "the white boy" or "the Swedish" or "the American" constantly either. Like... is our POV supposed to be hyperfocused on race? And usually no, it's just bad writing where the author forgot the narrative has a POV, but it's also sort of revealing that that's what they focus on. It might also be because epithets are often things consider notable and white is "default" or unmarked, like how someone being American might not be epithet worthy but being Canadian might (which I have also seen multiple times as well, where in a story "the Canadian" was a common term but no one in the cast of Americans were never referred to as "the American"), but y'know, that's still bad considering it's non-white people getting singled out the most here. You wouldn't refer to the people around you entirely by their race or ethnicity, even in your head, because that's weird and racist and you'd sound it too if you referred to your co-worker solely as "the African-American" like that's his name. It's one thing to go "yeah, Harold is the black guy with glasses in accounting" when asked to give a description or make note of physical features or ethnicity or race when relevant, but your narrator/POV (and by proxy, the author when its clear said author has forgotten the narrator is not the same as them) almost entirely referring to certain characters by their race rather than their name or literally anything else comes across as the exact sort of POV a racist would have instead of just awkward and clunky writing.

--

[shammah8]

"Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness."

James 3:18

PEACEMAKING IS VERY PRACTICAL

Jesus' instruction to His followers to be peacemakers is not as easily practiced in some areas of the world as we in the West might think. Tribal differences can cause deep divides.

In April 2011, Open Doors sponsored a Christian youth camp in the southern Philippines bringing together 115 youths, mostly believers from Muslim background (MBB’s) from four different Muslim tribal groups. The goal of this camp was to show the youths that Jesus is the ultimate source of peace. When we have Him in our hearts, then, we can have peace within ourselves, with others and with our environment.

Every activity of the camp was also designed to foster awareness and appreciation of each other’s tribal identity. Short drama presentations every night gave the youths a chance to tell their story. Bringing these ethnic groups to a point of understanding and acceptance was the crucial part of the camp. During Bible sessions, facilitators combined their lectures with tasks that encouraged campers to express their thoughts and feelings. They described their idea of peace, distinguished between peaceful and conflicting situations, and discovered their biblical responsibility as peacemakers taking after Christ’s example.

While peace making starts with one’s self, it does not end there. It must affect other people’s lives. And so, the campers did community service in three neighbouring areas during the camp. But the true litmus test for a peacemaker is when a conflict breaks out. The camp was on its homestretch when two campers from different tribes got tangled in a fight during the morning assembly. It was about to turn violent, until other youths stepped in. The two youths were brought to the camp director. Everyone was clearly upset as they streamed into the classrooms for the day’s round of Bible sessions.

They were in for a surprise. An Open Doors co-worker shared, “The fight was staged. We wanted the campers to have an opportunity to apply what they had been learning so far. During the Bible session, we processed what happened. They realised that it brought out their biases and impatience; that some of their responses were condemning. They wanted to be a peacemaker, but they had yet to learn how to sow peace in times of conflict. It is a lifestyle.”

It was an important lesson for the youths to learn, especially for those who lived in conflict areas. After the session, many campers approached the two volunteer actors and asked their forgiveness for judging and condemning them.

Then, the youths were given some time to write down their commitments to becoming a peacemaker. One fifteen-year-old said, “It’ll be hard becoming a peacemaker, but I will try my best…The pastor taught us that becoming a peacemaker like Jesus comes with suffering. I must be prepared for that too.”

Response

Today I will take practical steps in being a peacemaker for Jesus wherever I am.

Prayer

Pray for young tribal Christians who struggle with Christ-like actions and responses in conflict situations.

© 2013 Open Doors

[aerialsolve]

How to Write a Clear and Concise Job Description for hiring quality employees

Writing a clear and concise job description is essential for hiring quality employees. It helps you attract qualified candidates, screen out unqualified applicants, and set expectations for the role.

However, writing the ideal job description can be challenging, especially if you're not sure where to start. This blog post will provide you with a step-by-step guide on how to write a clear and concise job description, including tips on things to pay close attention to and some brief examples. 

Step 1: Identify the essential duties and responsibilities of the role.

What are the key tasks that the employee will need to perform? What skills and knowledge are essential for the role?

To identify the essential duties and responsibilities of the role, you can start by thinking about the following questions:

What is the purpose of the role?

What are the day-to-day tasks that the employee will need to perform?

What are the key deliverables for the role?

What skills and knowledge are essential for the role?

Once you have identified the essential duties and responsibilities of the role, you can start to flesh out your job description.

Step 2: Write descriptive yet easy-to-understand job statements.

Each job statement should describe a specific duty or responsibility, and it should be written in a way that is easily understood, while being descriptive. Avoid using jargon or technical language that candidates may not understand.

Here is an example of a descriptive job statement:

Essential duty: Develop and implement marketing campaigns to generate leads and sales.

Job statement: Develop and implement marketing campaigns using a variety of channels, such as social media, email marketing, and search engine optimization (SEO), to generate leads and sales.

Step 3: Use professional brevity.

Professional brevity is the ability to communicate complex information in a concise and easy-to-understand way. When writing your job description, use this technique by:

Using strong action verbs

Avoiding unnecessary words and phrases

Using clear and concise language

Here is an example of how to use professional brevity in a job statement:

Before: The ideal candidate will be responsible for developing and implementing marketing campaigns to generate leads and sales.

After: Develop and implement marketing campaigns to generate leads and sales.

Step 4: Use a friendly tone.

Your job description should be written in a friendly and inviting tone. This will help to attract qualified candidates and create a positive impression of your company.

Here is an example of how to use a friendly tone in a job statement:

Before: We are looking for a highly motivated and self-driven individual to join our team.

After: We are looking for a team player who is excited to join our team and help us grow our business.

Step 5: Review and revise your job description.

Once you have finished writing your job description, be sure to review and revise it carefully. Ask a colleague or friend to review it as well.

Pay attention to the following:

Are the job statements clear and concise?

Is the tone friendly and inviting?

Are there any unnecessary words or phrases that can be removed?

Are there any typos or grammatical errors?

Here are some additional tips for writing a winning job description:

Be specific. Don't just say that you're looking for a "hard worker" or someone who is "self-motivated." Instead, list specific duties and responsibilities that you're looking for.

Be realistic. Don't list too many requirements or unrealistic expectations. This will only discourage qualified candidates from applying.

Be inclusive. Use language that is inclusive of all candidates, regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.

By following these tips, you can write a job description that will help you attract and hire quality employees.

Writing a clear and concise job description is an essential part of the hiring process. By following the tips above, you can create a job description that is informative, engaging, and inclusive.

I hope this short guide is helpful. 

[yanni-thinks]

Module 3: CULTURE, ETHNICITY AND PERSONALITY

[3/13/23]

PINOY PRIDE!! WOOO WOOO *AGILA NOISES*. Just kidding. Only did that in instinct due to this module’s topic. Our self can also be defined by our culture and the traditions of the society that we are born into. No man is an island and that statement is mainly applied in this topic as we explored how society can be a big factor in your journey to finding the self. I agree with that too, as who am I if not for the Batchoy that runs in my veins.

All this culture and identity talk made me suddenly think of this meme. This meme is funny because being Filipino feels like living life in hard mode sometimes. I mean, the recent elections were already tough as it is, there comes natural calamities soon after. I know that “resiliency” has been an overused description to describe us to the point of exploitation, but as I continue to go through this university, it’s a trait I’m willing to identify myself with. 

Well up until I graduate I guess, but that’s a thought for another time aha.

Also, sir made us talk about our cultural symbols and of course i had to sneak in my boy, Batchoy in that activity. It was love at first bite. God, I love being an Ilonggo for this 1 single reason. 

Me and my first time tasting batchoy, probably. Circa, 2004

[booklindworm]

A rant against Karen Traviss' understanding of history and her FAQ answers

Did you base the Mandalorians on the Spartans?

<cite> No. I didn't. </cite> Fair enough.

<cite> I really wish history was taught properly - okay, taught at all - in schools these days, because history is the big storehouse that I plunder for fiction. It breaks my heart to hear from young readers who have no concept even of recent history - the last fifty years - and so can't see the parallels in my books. You don't have to be a historian to read my novels, but you'll get a lot more out of them if you explore history just a little more. Watch a history channel. Read a few books. Visit some museums. Because history is not "then" - it's "now." Everything we experience today is the product of what's happened before. </cite> Yeah, I do to. Please, Ms Traviss, go on, read some books. Might do you some good. And don't just trust the history channels. Their ideas about fact-checking differ wildly.

<cite> But back to Mandos. Not every military society is based on Sparta, strange as that may seem. In fact, the Mandos don't have much in common with the real Spartans at all. </cite> You mean apart from the absolute obsession with the military ["Agoge" by Stephen Hodkinson], fearsome reputation ["A Historical Commentary on Thucydides" by David Cartwright], their general-king ["Sparta" by Marcus Niebuhr Tod], the fact that they practically acted as mercenaries (like Clearch/Κλέαρχος), or the hyper-confidence ("the city is well-fortified that has a wall of men instead of brick" [Plutarch, Life of Lycurgus])...

<cite> A slightly anarchic, non-centralized, fightin' people? Sounded pretty Celtic to me. Since I went down that path, I've learned more about the Celts (especially the Picts), and the more I learn, the more I realise what a dead ringer for Mandos they are. But more of how that happened later... </cite>

The Celtic people are more than one people, more than one culture. Celtic is a language-family! In the last millennium BC nearly every European ethnic group was in some ways Celtic, and they were not one. Later, after the Germanic tribes (also not one people, or a singular group) moved westwards, the Celtic cultures were still counted in the hundreds. Not only Scotland was Celtic! Nearly all of Western Europe was (apart from the Greek and Phoenician settlers on the Mediterranean coasts). The word “Celts” was written down for the first time by Greek authors who later also used the word “Galatians”. The Romans called these people “Gauls”, and this word was used to describe a specific area, bordered by the Atlantic Ocean, the Cévennes and the Rhine: “Gaul”. So the Celts, the Galatians and the Gauls were all part of the same Celtic civilisation. "Celts, a name applied by ancient writers to a population group occupying lands mainly north of the Mediterranean region from Galicia in the west to Galatia in the east [] Their unity is recognizable by common speech and common artistic traditions" [Waldman & Mason 2006] Mirobrigenses qui Celtici cognominantur. Pliny the Elder, The Natural History; example: C(AIUS) PORCIUS SEVERUS MIROBRIGEN(SIS) CELT(ICUS) -> not just one culture "Their tribes and groups eventually ranged from the British Isles and northern Spain to as far east as Transylvania, the Black Sea coasts, and Galatia in Anatolia and were in part absorbed into the Roman Empire as Britons, Gauls, Boii, Galatians, and Celtiberians. Linguistically they survive in the modern Celtic speakers of Ireland, Highland Scotland, the Isle of Man, Wales, and Brittany." [Celtic Culture: a historical encyclopedia. by John Koch] "[] the individual CELTIC COUNTRIES and their languages, []" James, Simon (1999). The Atlantic Celts – Ancient People Or Modern Invention. University of Wisconsin Press. "All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae live, another in which the Aquitani live, and the third are those who in their own tongue are called Celtae, in our language Galli." [Julius Caesar, De Bello Gallico] <= I had to translate that in school. It's tedious political propaganda. Read also the Comentarii and maybe the paper "Caesar's perception of Gallic social structures" that can be found in "Celtic Chiefdom, Celtic State," Cambridge University Press. The Celtic tribes and nations were diverse. They were pretty organized, with an academic system, roads, trade, and laws. They were not anarchic in any way. They were not warriors - they were mostly farmers. The Celts were first and foremost farmers and livestock breeders

The basic economy of the Celts was mixed farming, and, except in times of unrest, single farmsteads were usual. Owing to the wide variations in terrain and climate, cattle raising was more important than cereal cultivation in some regions.

Suetonius addressing his legionaries said "They are not soldiers—they're not even properly equipped. We've beaten them before." [not entirely sure, but I think that was in Tacitus' Annals]

Regarding the Picts, in particular, which part of their history is "anarchic"? Dál Riata? the Kingdom of Alba? Or are you referring to the warriors that inspired the Hadrian's Wall? Because no one really knows in our days who the fuck they were. The Picts’ name first appears in 297 AD. That is later. <cite> Celts are a good fit with the kind of indomitable, you-can't-kill-'em-off vibe of the Mandos. Reviled by Rome as ignorant savages with no culture or science, and only fit for slaughter or conquest, the Celts were in fact much more civilized than Rome even by modern standards. </cite> That's how the Romans looked at pretty much every culture that wasn't Greek, Roman, Phoenician, Egyptian, or from Mesopotamia (read, if you want, anything Roman or Greek about the Skyths, the Huns, Vandals, Garamantes...).

<cite> They also kicked Roman arse on the battlefield, and were very hard to keep in line, so Rome did what all lying, greedy superpowers do when challenged: they demonized and dehumanized the enemy. (They still used them in their army, of course, but that's only to be expected.) </cite> They were hard to keep in line, but they most definitely did not kick Roman arse on the battlefield. Roman arse was kicked along the borders of the Roman Empire, such as the Rhine, the Danube, the Atlas mountains, etc. And mostly by actually badly organized, slightly anarchic groups, such as the Goths or the Huns (BTW the Huns were not a Germanic people, even though early 20th century British propaganda likes to say so). Though they were also decisively stopped by the Parthians. Who were very organized. Ah well. <cite> While Rome was still leaving its unwanted babies to die on rubbish dumps - a perfectly acceptable form of family planning to this "civilisation" - and keeping women as chattels devoid of rights, the barbarian Celts had a long-standing legal system that not only gave women what we would think of as equal rights, but also protected the rights of the elderly, children, and the disabled. They had a road network across Europe and worldwide trade long before the Romans ever got their act together. And their science - well, their astronomical calculations were so sophisticated that it takes computers to do the same stuff today. </cite> See? You even say yourself that they weren't actually anarchic. Also you're not completely right: 1. women (of most Celtic cultures, with one notable exception being the Irish) were not allowed to become druids, e.g. scientists, physicians, priests, or any other kind of academics, so they did not have equal rights. Also, as in other Indo-European systems, the family was patriarchal. 2. the roads they had were more like paths, and did not span the entirety of Europe; the old roads that are still in use are nearly all of them Roman. Had the Celtic inhabitants of Gallia or Britannia built comparable roads, why would the Romans have invested in building a new system on top? 3. world-wide? Yeah, right. They traded with those who traded with others and so were able to trade with most of southern Eurasia and northern Africa, as well as few northern parts (Balticum, Rus), but that's (surprise) not the whole world. 4. most people use computers for those calculations you mention because its easier. It's not necessary. I can do those calculations - give me some time to study astronomy (I'm a math major, not physics) and some pencils and paper. 5. and - I nearly forgot - the kids didn't die. That was a polite fiction. The harsh truth is that most Roman slaves were Romans... <cite> So - not barbarians. Just a threat to the empire, a culture that wouldn't let the Pax Romana roll over it without a fight. (Except the French tribes, who did roll over, and were regarded by the Germanic Celts [...]) </cite> WTF Germanic Celts? What are you smoking, woman? Isn't it enough that you put every culture speaking a language from the Celtic family in one pot and act as if they were one people, now you have to mix in a different language-family as well? Shall we continue that trend? What about the Mongolian Celts, are they, too, proof that the Celts were badass warriors? I think at this point I just lost all leftover trust in your so-called knowledge. <cite> [...] as being as bad as the Romans. Suck on that, Asterix... </cite> Asterix was definitely a Celt, and unlike the British Celts, he was not a citizen of the Roman Empire.

<cite> Broad brush-stroke time; Celts were not a centralized society but more a network of townships and tribes, a loose alliance of clans who had their own internal spats, but when faced with some uppity outsider would come together to drive off the common threat. </cite> They might have tried, but they didn't. The first and only time a Celtic people really managed to drive off some uppity outsider would be 1922 following the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921*. The fact that France, Spain, Portugal speak Romance languages and the British (or Irish) Isles nearly uniformly speak English should be proof enough.

*Unless you count Asterix. <cite> You couldn't defeat them by cutting off the head. There was no head to cut off. </cite> You mean unlike Boudica and Vercingetorix. Oh wait. Tacitus, in his Annals, said that Boudica's last fight cost 80,000 Britons and 400 Romans their lives. He was probably exaggerating. But it definitely stopped much of the British resistance in its tracks. <cite> To the centralized, formal, rather bureaucratic Romans, for whom the city of Rome was the focus of the whole empire, this was a big does-not-compute. The Celts were everything they didn't understand. And we fear what we don't understand, and we kill what we fear. </cite> While that is totally true, it's also completely off the mark. The Romans demonized the druids, not every Celt, and they were afraid of what was basically an academic network. That had nothing to do with war. <cite> Anyway, Mandos....once I took a single concept - in this case, the idea of clans that operated on a loose alliance system, like the Celts - the rest grew organically. I didn't plan it out in detail from the start. </cite> That's really obvious. Maybe looking at some numbers and remembering that you weren't planning a small, local, rural, medieval community would have helped, too. I mean lets have a look at, say, Scotland (since you specifically mentioned the Picts): they still have less than 6 mio. people all together, and that's today. Mandalore is a sector. A sector of Outer Space with at least 2000 inhabited planets. How do you think that translates? It doesn't. <cite> I just asked myself what a culture of nomadic warriors would value, how they would need to operate to survive, and it all grew inexorably by logical steps. The fact that Mandos ended up as very much like the Celts is proof that the technique of evolving a character or species - find the niche, then work out what fits it - works every time. It creates something very realistic, because that's how real people and real societies develop. </cite> Celtic people were usually not nomadic! And, once again, non of them were predominantly warriors! It's really hard to be a nomadic farmer. I believe the biggest mistake you made, Ms Traviss, is mixing up the Iron Age (and earlier) tribes that did indeed sack Rome and parts of Greece, and that one day would become the people the Romans conquered. And apart from the Picts they really were conquered. <cite> So all I can say about Mandos and Spartans is that the average Mando would probably tell a Spartan to go and put some clothes on, and stop looking like such a big jessie. </cite>

I'd really like to see a Mando – or anyone – wearing full plate without modern or Star Wars technology in Greece. Happy heatstroke. There is a reason they didn't wear a lot (look up the Battle of Hattîn, where crusaders who didn't wear full helmets and wore chainmail* still suffered badly from heat exhaustion). [Nicolle, David (1993), Hattin 1187: Saladin's Greatest Victory] *chainmail apparently can work like a heatsink CONCLUSION You're wrong. And I felt offended by your FAQ answers. QUESTION You're English. You're from England. A group - a nation - that was historically so warlike and so successful that by now we all speak English. A nation that definitely kicked arse against any Celtic nation trying to go against them (until 1921, and they really tried anyway). A nation that had arguably the largest Empire in history. A nation that still is barbaric and warlike enough that a lost football game has people honestly fearing for their lives.

Also, a Germanic group, since you seem to have trouble keeping language-families and cultures apart. If we were to talk about the family, we could add on the current most aggressively attacking nation (USA) plus the former most aggressively attacking nations (the second and third German Reich), also the people who killed off the Roman Empire for good (the Goths and Visigoth), the original berserkers (the Vikings) and claim at the very least the start of BOTH WORLD WARS. Why did you look further?

Some other sources:

Histoire de la vie privée by Georges Duby and Philippe Ariès, the first book  (about the antiquity) I read it translated, my French is ... bad to non-existent

The Day of the Barbarians: The Battle That Led to the Fall of the Roman Empire  (about the Huns) by Alessandro Barbero

If you speak Dutch or German, you might try

Helmut Birkhan: Kelten. Versuch einer Gesamtdarstellung ihrer Kultur, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien

Janssens, Ugo, De Oude Belgen. Geschiedenis, leefgewoontes, mythe en werkelijkheid van de Keltische stammen. Uitgeverij The House of Books

DISCLAIMER

I’m angry and I wrote this down in one session and thus probably made some mistakes. I’m sorry. Or maybe I’m not sorry. I’m still angry. She can’t know who reads her FAQ and at least two of her answers (on her professional website) were offensive to the reader.

[yaqarah]

Before You Write a Jewish Character

Jewish people already lack rep in many pieces of media, including writing. A lot of people seem to think that mentioning a character who celebrates Hanukkah is peak representation. Which just isn’t true. So I figured if I want to see more good rep and most people are too lazy to just use Google to inform themselves, I decided to make this post. 

1. Names

Most Jewish people actually have two names. They’ll have their first name, and possibly middle name, that can be either a Jewish name or a name coming from the country or language they grew up speaking. It doesn’t have to be a Jewish name or it can be a name that comes from another culture, so long as it not associated with another religion (i.e. Evangeline, John, Mohammed, Soraya, etc). Jewish people also do not name their kids after any living relatives, so children will not have the names of their parents or grandparents or aunts. 

Secondly, they have their Hebrew name, which may or may not be different from the one they normally use. There’s normally a whole ceremony for this naming, but that is another thing. These names are normally of Hebrew and/or Jewish origin. And they are written on the naming certificate in the Hebrew alphabet rather than any other one. Since the Hebrew alphabet is quite different from a lot of other ones, please be mindful of transliterations when picking these names, as Hebrew has a few sounds and letters that other languages may not have. 

WHEN YOU SEE CH IN A TRANSLITERATION IT IS NOT PRONOUNCED WITH A SH OR WITH A K. LEARN HOW TO PROPERLY PRONOUNCE THE SOUND.

As for last names, Jewish people do have their own last names, though if people are descended from immigrants to certain places, those last names may or may not be changed. However, even with that, Jewish people still have last names that are different from the other people in the country their family is from.  A lot of Ashkenazi Jewish last names tend to have the suffixes -stein, -man/men, -berg/burg, -in, -witz, -ski/sky, and/or the prefixes green-, gold-, silver-. Other common Jewish last names are Cohen, Kanter/Cantor, Glaser, Glass. Here is more comprehensive list of Jewish surnames from around the world

2. Ethnicity

While people do say that they are Jewish when asked their ethnicity (it is an ethnicity btw, not just a religion), keep in mind that Jewish culture will vary depending on where their family was in the diaspora. The most well-known ethnicities within Judaism are Ashkenazi (Eastern Europe), Sephardi (Iberia, North Africa), and Mizrahi (Middle East). Keep in mind, however, that there are plenty of Jewish people that come from different places, like Kavkazi Jews (Caucasus Region), Bukharan Jews (Central Asia), Cochin Jews (Kerala), and Beta Israel (Ethiopia). So please be sure to pick a specific area where the family of your Jewish character will be some, as this greatly affects foods, traditions, names, etc., as well as their appearance. Keep in mind that where someone’s family is from or where they live has had great influence on the Jewish culture there.

3. Appearance

There is such a thing as “looking Jewish”, but that doesn’t mean that every Jewish person looks the same, especially if their families come from different areas of the world. A Jewish person can look any way, and still they are Jewish. Whether or not your character looks a certain way does not affect how Jewish they are. That being said, it is okay to write a Jewish character with traditionally Jewish features, as long as you are careful of how you describe it. Don’t say they have a green tinge to their skin: say their skin is olive or tan; don’t compare them to goblins and please don’t say their eyes or half-lidded. Don’t make it part of their personality that they want to change the parts of their appearance that are traditionally Jewish (i.e. wanting a nose job, straightening their hair). Our features are demonised enough as is, and we don’t want hating them to be seen as more common than it already is. 

Also, if we look traditionally Jewish, we do sometimes get confused with people of other ethnicities. So if you’re looking for a fc for your Jewish character and can’t find a Jewish model you like, at least be somewhat respectful and find someone who’s Italian. 

4. Traditions and Daily Life

This one is so so important. You can’t just say they celebrate Hanukkah and call it a day. Hanukkah isn’t even the most important Jewish holiday (though you can and should include it because its fun). Include traditional aspects of growing up Jewish. Have them talk about going to Jewish overnight camp. Have them know the Hebrew alphabet and reading a little bit of Hebrew they know from going to Hebrew school. Put an evil eye in your character’s room. Have them keep kosher. Put a mezuzah on their bedroom door. Give them Star of David and Hamsa necklaces. Put a red ribbon around the gearshift of their car. Don’t give them tattoos, especially not on their arm. Have them cook Jewish food and own Jewish cookbooks. If they’re Ashki, have them casually throw Yiddish words into the middle of sentences. Have them miss school and work for high holidays services and eat apples and honey for Rosh Hashanah. Have them fast for Yom Kippur and eat matzah on Passover. Have them dress up for Purim and make Hamantaschen. Make sure they aren’t Jewish in name only!!

5. Stereotypes (and how not to use them)

Don’t have your character talk about lizard people. Don’t make both of their parents and their whole family bankers, doctors, and lawyer. Don’t make them money-hungry. Don’t make them snobby. And please please do not make them part of a secret society, especially if the society has a lot of power. 

This also applies to villains. If your villain is like this, scrap them and come up with something original. You copying every Disney villain ever is both antisemitic and uncreative. 

6. Antisemitism (and how to include it)

Unless you are Jewish and specifically writing something about antisemitism, it is not your place to determine what antisemitism is and isn’t (before you ask me any stupid questions, antizionism is not antisemitism). It is still very prevalent today and a lot of Jewish people deal with jokes, micro aggressions, and sometimes worse in everyday life. We get asked unsettling questions about where we are from, what “race” we are, and messy international politics we don’t have a say in all the time, and normally we don’t know how to respond. Have your character deal with these things, but do not make it their whole life. And if you plan to have anything worse happen, please do not do it just for the plot or the shock factor: get the message across that antisemitism still very much exists, and that it is scary and unacceptable.  

Lastly, unless it is very very very important, please, for the love of god, do not bring up the Holocaust. 

Additional Resources: 

- Jewish Foods (Ashki,Sephardi)

- Jewish Holidays + Calendar

- Bar and Bat Mitzvahs

- Overnight Camp 

- Symbols and Objects (Mezuzah,Hamsa,Evil Eye) (latter two also important through the Middle East and South Asia, as well as Southeastern Europe and North Africa)

Inbox is open for relevant questions. if its dumb use the internet

[envythepalmtree]

fic recs: Identity

Happy 450 followers to me! Since I didn't do anything for 400, have my favorite fics that deal with identity in some way.

Most are about race and culture, and all are ownvoices in some way. (Ownvoices = stories written by someone from an underrepresented group about being in that group, rather than being written from someone outside that group) I'm using the term loosely, since countries like Ishval and Xerxes don't have strict real-world counterparts. But things like being in a diaspora and missing culture and assimilation still apply.

no matter the hearts you burn, in mine you shall always remain by @firewoodfigs

Words: 9839

Chapters: 2/3

I ADORED this fic!! Xingese Roy by a chinese diaspora author my beloved. It starts out with his mother, Yao Xuan (whose name is a pun!! I love chinese name puns!!) and her life as a concubine, having an affair, running away. She and Roy's father don't survive and Roy grows up in Amestris. Then it skips to when they're older in Ishval, then to post Promised Day visiting Xing with Riza.

Yao Xuan's backstory was so sad and beautifully done. I love Chinese royal court stuff, it's so messed up and interesting. I love Eri's writing style, it's incredibly poetic. And she intersperses an actual poem, too! Go read it, it's amazing.

ticket stubs and your diaries by @nerdywriiterchild

Words: 397

Chapters: 1/1

This fic gave me chills. It's Al-centric and has him grieving for Xerxes, and how he'll never know his culture. Family he'll never know, experiences he'll never have. Gone. There's a line about missing something he'll never know that just,,, *cries*

I think it's something that a lot of diaspora kids deal with, although not on the same scale. The loss and grieve of being disconnected from your culture. I resonated with that.

we can only do our best to recreate by @nerdywriiterchild

Words: 803

Chapters: 1/1

The happy sequel to ticket stubs!! It's about ed and al and winry and mei raising their kids to be connected to their cultures. Xerxesian, Drachman, Xingese. About Ed struggling a little with Xerxes because of the father who connects him to it.

When Ed says "we're not Xerxesian, not like he was,,,," GOD I felt that. Not feeling [ethnicity] enough. Don't we all?

Also, "general bendan" made me giggle.

Ta'burni by @ta1k-less

Words: 25785

Chapters: 4/4

I was skeptical about Ishval AUs at first, but this fic was amazingly done and changed my mind. Meg fleshed out Ishvalan culture beautifully and I know a lot of it draws on her own.

I loved the storytelling. The way the voice clearly sounded like a child, but handled nuanced and heavy things. Read the trigger warnings - parts of the genocide are described in detail but she writes in the author's notes where to skip them if you need to.

You're Not Alone (In Fact There Are Many Like You) by @elricsyao

Words: 5125

Chapters: 2/?

Aromatic Edward! I love Sarah's aroace Ed posts and this fic was beautifully done. It starts when Ed is very young, before Trisha dies. There's a scene with Trisha that shows how even loving parents can teach their kids the wrong things. Then after the transmutation, Winry kisses him and he wonders why he didn't feel anything. Then to when he's a soldier, working under Mustang.

The storytelling and tone is very emotional and I think her tag "I take Ed's angst and multiply it by 1000" sums that up, haha!

I really hope you guys check out these fics!! They're all amazing and it's always great to show a little love to ownvoices writers. And feel free to send me your own recs or your own work, I love identity stuff.

[hundtoth]

while this should not have to be said aloud - heathenry is not a racist faith! unfortunately, such a statement is necessary to voice... unless you’re a chauvinistic and/or a xenophobic heathen, that’s what this post pertains to: sure, it’s not untold that in the modern world heathenry has been pockmarked by the allotment of symbols seized by hate groups alongside the adulteration of our religious ‘brethren’, with hateful individuals that warp our teachings to portray their hateful demands. our much beloved germanic neopaganism has become a justification for racist behaviour, from the propaganda of the nazi party which applied many of our symbols (such as the fylfot), to the germanic people pointing with pride as the pinnacle of the aryan race. a big problem that faces the heathen practice, while it is innocuous at heart, are the attempts to bear on labels to various heathen sub-groups as ‘racist’ and ‘not racist’. it has become favoured by heathens to cleave up heathenry into splinter groups; universalism, tribalism, and folkism (as the dominant ones), which are often viewed as ‘not racist’, ‘racist?’ and ‘racist!’ respectively. let me be the one to unburden that and say that these terms are not key definitions to those three groups, and that this is the root of the problem. the issue is that these terms are neither here nor there and cannot be applied in whole to the groups that they are supposed to attain to. this is because there exists no foundation within the religion for racist beliefs, which means that those who venture into the ancient praxis could fall under the folkish bracket and may not be and are often not racist. albeit, it’s commonplace for people to label themselves such things to be closer to those who share their views on racism, but that causes some to abandon a title tailored to their practice in favor of one that doesn’t, simply to avoid the bleak implications of said title. in my mind, i believe that we should not be giving monikers to those within the faith with racist tendencies as they simply are not deserving of them. they do not deserve to ornament themselves with the title of a specific group as this just causes a continuation upon the idea that their beliefs around that area of the faith are valid, altering its meaning entirely. to clarify the true to life meanings behind these groups, as they are applied to the preferences of method of practice by each heathen, we have;

universalism - a belief that anyone, irregardless of race, gender or sexual orientation, may practice under the heathen umbrella. the universalism belief structure has been criticized often for failing to motivate its followers to the same depth as others, and allowing the prevalence of contrary philosophies to those present within heathenry. universalists reproduce declaration 127, also known as havamal-stanza 127, which can be cherished by anyone for its simple utterance of: recognize evil, speak out against it, and give no truces to your enemies. however, declaration 127 is denounced commonly due to its poor efforts (similar to the criticism of social media campaigns for ‘likes’ with no physical backing) and it’s false sense of security within heathenry.

tribalism - considered to be ‘in the middle’ by many heathens. tribalists try to vindicate the old and new methods through moderate reconstructionalism, and have a tendency to conceptualise ethnic heritage without maintaining boundaries within practice. the purest way to describe a tribalist is a practicing heathen that integrates the ‘old ways’ into their lifestyle, and they often assert that one must earn the title of heathen - that it doesn’t matter who you are, you must put in the effort and study, which may span years.

folkism - folkist beliefs carry the most stigma, in which racist beliefs are widespread, claiming that germanic paganism is an ethnic right. while this is not always the case, it gives the impression that germanic paganism is only open to those with a connection to the germanic peoples, in a ‘heretic’ kind of way. within folkism, there exists a cross-section as to how this should be enforced, though it is unclouded that it has become a seedbed for racism within the overarching faith that is often under-fire for being contradictory to itself with no substantive evidence that the nordic peoples were racist.

what these terms have set out to do is prognosticate the beliefs of heathens away from how they comfortably choose to practice their faith. the three groups aforementioned fell into those titles not solely due to racism but to essentially describe a heathens practice through daily life. these terms inflict uncertainty to several thought processes within heathenry where race is not a factor, thus cold-shouldering heathens who heed to such traditions when they are presumed to be mirroring the racist views held by their counterparts under the tribalist or folkish stamps which have precured their titles because of racist prospects, not because of how they adopt practice, which is the true basis of these terms. in retrospect, trying to rank the groups within heathenry with the aim of plucking out a method of practice under ‘racism’ only adds more conflict to our community as a whole. i suggest that, especially to new heathens, you should explore these groups further to better your understanding of the people that you may be dealing with and what their ideas are but, be mindful of the fact that you are not required to declare yourself as anything, as these terms tend to only exist as a guide into finding like-minded people. additionally, it would be baseless to create suppositions about anyone within heathenry for the titles that they have chosen to align under as each group is diverse, not only in its members but in its beliefs. another important concept to mention when discussing racism in heathenry are the origins of germanic paganism. germanic ancestors adored the idea of ancestry through honour and worship, and as they would of been white, such ancestors must of been white, too. this would give the impression that when one turns their hand to ancestral veneration within heathenry, while not being white, by very definition they would be inclined to practice their own ancestral faith, which would not be heathenry - because they are not white. to connect to one’s ancestors, many heathens find it essential to practice their ancestral ways through faith and culture, but when someone has no nordic ancestry, heathens may imply that other heathens should be following their own ancestry instead, which is quite paradoxical and backs many people into a corner. an argument often occurs within heathenry regarding spirituality and how it is ‘passed through the ages’, validated by claims that we assume elements of our fate and soul from our lineage and how our ancestors could be reincarnated as a factor of that. as such, it is only those with nordic ancestry who may hear the call of the old gods. they attempt to rationalize this by claiming that white people cannot feel the call of other ancestral ways and other religions, and thus is all fair and equal. however, when we are called back to the ‘old ways’, the old ways are our own individual pasts, as something ingrained into our spiritual histories. for those who are non-whites, this path would not be heathenry, at least according to those who convey this claim. withal, symbols, in my own opinion, have greater intrigue for racists undertaking heathenry above all, with many already falling victim to the racist facets of such symbols whilst being used erroneously by hate groups for many years. additionally, new symbols are often purloined and misappropriated, rather than observed as segments of a faithful movement, instead they are seen as the ideograms of ancient whites; mjolnir, runic othala, valknut and ravens, amongst many more. as mentioned in an earlier paragraph, many symbols now associated with the nazi regime (the SS and swastika) are, or were, once deep-heathen symbolism. ofcourse, the swastika is immediate throughout history but if we were to be straight-thinking, we can surmise that the nazis used it for its association to heathenry, not its association to buddhism, etc. even if these people understood the symbols that they clutched on to and their authentic meanings in a religious sense, they are still related to the previously mentioned concepts within the origins that they have already manipulated to suit themselves, for example, the othala rune, which at a very basic level relates to heritage and ancestry. with a racists obsession with white ancestry, its very easy to see why an ancestral symbol from a white culture would be appealing. within this post, i have tried to emphasise that there is no basis for racism within heathenry if one was to, with all intents and purposes, understand heathen-history and its logic. here are a select few reasons as to why i personally think that any racist who applies heathenry to validate their intolerant opinions are both wrong and uneducated:

assuming that one’s spiritual inclination was genetic, which a vast majority of pagans today discredit, it simply wouldn’t matter. conducting a shallow study on genetics would reveal that it would be almost impossible in the ever-present to have a direct gene from any ancestor who would have been pagan in the viking era. some of the most controversially racist heathens today haven’t had a directly european ancestor in the last 200 years, oops! to paraphrase wayland skallagrimsson, there have been roughly 50 generations between the end of ancient heathenry and today, which means that for most people, contributions to DNA from any heathen ancestor amount to ‘less than 1 ten-trillionth of one percent’. contributions from christian ancestors would be 25-50% of one's genes. let us entertain the concept that one had inherited the genes of their heathen ancestors, scientists largely agree that thoughts and beliefs are culturally influenced anyway. while it is understood that mental illnesses can be inherited, they hold basis not in memory but in brain development, hormonal signals and genetically encoded processes within the body. perhaps it is true, after all, there is the disorder of victim mentality where one believes themselves to be under constant attack, so perhaps racists are just merely ill? poor souls.

there exists no single indication within the eddas and sagas of racial exclusion. our ancient germanic ancestors were well travelled and would have had a large sense of worldliness, caring little about those of other ethnicity, otherwise we would have a myth expanding upon that. in point of fact, odin seeks knowledge from the jötuns who, from a mythological standpoint, represent the ‘outsiders’. despite being the adversaries to the gods on almost all occasions, they often married into the aesir and were included amongst the figureheads (see loki and skadi), and had children together that were pivtotal to the tale of the world, such as magni and modi, children to thor and the jötun named jarnsaxa, whom of which are not only divine, but so pure that they take up the role of thor, and his hammer, after ragnarok to be the defenders of all. the mixing of the ‘outsiders’ to the central gods conveys a pespective from the ancients that position of birth has no bearing on one’s own ability to be pure and welcome.

similarly, there exists no historical evidence to say that ancient germanics were inherently racist. ibn fadhlan, an arabian traveller with produced written works on the germanic people of his age, was entitled to observe and learn of the ‘northern way’, involving himself in rites, alongside slaves who were integrated into the culture and religion historically - which is how we now have accounts of such things. not only do we have have the assimilation of others into the norse culture, we also have norsemen’s graves decorated with arabic emblems, proposing that they themselves diverged from their own ‘righteous path’, to be open and embracing of other cultures and faiths. in fact, germanics have been depicted on many occasions to have participated in the religious celebrations of the cultures to which they travelled, most notably the baptism of king radbod, in honor of a christian friend. additonally, archaeologists have deliberated in many different practices that the norse learnt skills and adopted traits from other cultures, such as the filling of teeth, prior to the occurrence of those practices in nordic culture, telling us that they took back cultural idiosyncrasies of other cultures to their own homelands - our faith would not have kept body and soul together without the aid of many ancient scholars belonging to other creeds and races, and it is a disgrace to disregard them today.

my final disproof is purely opinionated, which is that racism as a whole goes against the very tenants of heathenry. to strive to bar another person from coming into your ‘territory’ shows an acknowledgement of threat from that person. a threat, of course, can only be a threat if you acknowledge that they could overtake you, should you be weak. so, in being racist and fearing the prevalence of other races, racist whites are putting themselves into a position of weakness and equality with those other races. after all, if they weren’t equal certainly it wouldn’t take any effort at all on the part of the white peoples to be dominant, right? no! racism is cowardly and shows an easily wounded ego on the part of the racist; some of the greatest insults in the old norse language are to be weak and cowardly, and thus it is impossible for any racist to truly uphold the values of heathenry.

[nanowrimo]

The Do’s of Writing People of Color:  Start on Easy Mode

Diversity makes stories better, plain and simple. This year, we’ve partnered with the good folks at Writing With Color to get some advice on how to write stories populated with people of all racial and ethnic backgrounds. In this post, founder Colette Aburime gives advice on how to begin incorporating diversity into your writing:

When you write with racial and ethnic diversity, you hear a lot about what to avoid. Now, it’s not without good reason. The road to good representation is paved with harmful stereotypes and worn-out depictions of People of Color. Advice-givers, like me and the rest of the folks at WritingwithColor, put up caution signs and leave the rest of the journey up to you.

Still, there are some do’s that make for both good writing and good representation.

Writers tend to think big. Our craft demands that we keep our brains fired up with ideas. 

I’m asking you to think small.

You wouldn’t set out to climb Mount Everest your first day as a climber. No way - you’d train first! It’d take loads of exercise, you might scale some indoor climbing walls, and perhaps stock up on wisdom to apply to your own form.

When approaching topics you have little experience with, no need to go the biggest you can go from the start. Train before tackling the full-length novel or dealing heavily in tough topics like racism. Start with a hill, not the mountain.

Benefits of starting small:

Smoother writing process. The writing process can be a bit stop-and-go if you’re, say, constantly checking that your Black character descriptions are on the right track. You’ll feel more focused if you’ve described Black characters countless times before. Get the stumbling out on the training grounds.

More confidence as a writer. The stakes of writing a group outside of your own can feel like mountains looming overhead. The more practice you have, even from writing snippets and scenes, the more confident you’ll become.

Better representation. With all that practice prose in, combined with research and feedback, your diverse writing will only get better. You’ll learn what works, doesn’t work, and tackle stereotypes and blunders early on.

Ways to start small:

Character profiles 

Character descriptions (physical and personality)

Dialogue

Third person POV

First person POV

Write a secondary Character of Color

Write a Protagonist of Color

Scene with CoC during an ordinary moment 

Scene of CoC during an emotional moment 

Scene of CoC facing a micro-aggression

Scene of CoC facing blatant racism or discrimination 

Scene that casually shows culture (e.g. dinner, clothing, family interaction)

Scene that prominently shows culture (e.g. holiday, cultural event)

Fan Fiction (Good source of feedback if published!)

Flash fiction

Short story

This list progresses from easier stuff to more complex means of practice. Try a variety of methods and practice as much as it takes to feel comfortable on a certain task. Exercise those diverse-writing muscles!

I’ve practiced a lot. Now what?

Research what you’re writing. If you didn’t do it before or during writing, now's the time to research. Check out those writing guides on describing skin tone and physical features, dialect and speech, handling stereotypes, and so on. Writingwithcolor is a good starting place! Check out the WWC FAQ and explore from there.

Get feedback. Preferably from the groups you’re writing on. Again, Writingwithcolor is a resource for feedback but so are beta-readers, writing groups online and in-person, etc.

Improve your practice pieces. Don't lament too much on perfecting it but do apply research and feedback to polish them up. Remember the relevant advice for future reference.

It’s great that you’re writing with diversity! Now that you’ve got the small stuff out of the way, pull out those big plans you kept tucked in your back pocket. You’ll stumble a lot less with all the practice you’ve already clocked in.

Colette Aburime is the founder of WritingWithColor, a writing advice blog focused on diversity. She studied creative and professional writing in college, and writes (or rather, dreams of writing) in her free time. Colette is a big fan of romance and fantasy and lives out her fairytale in a humble cottage in Minnesota’s Twin Cities. She spends happily ever after with her prince, plants, and a feisty cat. Check out WritingWithColor on Tumblr and Twitter.

[inhibited-irregularity]

EUROVISION 2021, personal favorites:

- Russia 🇷🇺

Manizha, Russian Woman: Absolute favorite. The sheer originality of the song! Her energy and the level of absolute badassery! She can sing, she can rap,and she's a bomb of energy. The way reggae and brass and hiphop and Slavic melodies overlap and it somehow works, the transitions between fun and "I'm bitter about the sexism and I'm mocking it unapologetically and making a stand" and the anthemic, emphatic and powerful message to Russian women; I was swelling with emotion while watching her. While to an American or a Westerner it may seem like performative feminism, I'm gonna remind you that in Russia and other Slavic countries that's very much not a thing and actually a very unpopular stand to make, and in Russia, The Balkans, and Eastern Europe in general, hundreds of women face domestic and sexual abuse on the daily, and those who do come forward rarely get support and are mostly dismissed. Let's not forget that Manizha got a huge backlash from the Russian government officials, and a big part of it was for her Tajik roots. The honesty of her message is real, and she's speaking from personal experience and the experience of women around her - nothing performative about her song, and you can tell from her delivery that the fire within her is true and she leaves her heart on the stage and pours it into the song. The staging and costumes are great as well, and symbolically well thougt-through. I would really like her to win, or at least get to the top 5. Most of all, I hope her message is heard and felt. 10000/10

- Italy 🇮🇹

Måneskin, Zitti e Buoni: definitely the closest thing to my actual music taste this year, so liking them off the bat wasn't a surprise. However, they're not just your regular Franz-Ferdinand-ish young alt rock band that wants to do rock "properly" - they have IT. The X factor, the Je ne sais quoi. I've been exposed to that particular genre, and I can confidently say that the song still manages to be refreshing and original (that bridge, those riffs!) The band has a great energy and no matter how much Damiano steals the show, they are still a unit and nobody is left in the shadows. They have the spirit of great rock bands of the previous century, and yet they don't try to copy anyone (khm,Greta Van Fleet, khm). Damiano's vocals are both powerful, seductive and provoking, and I'm still admiring the sheer amount of emotion he can pack into a single line and the nuance and yet rawness behind it. I'm not gonna state the obvious lol (the obvious being yes, I'm thirsty as well, he becomes yet another unattainable rockstar for me too,and yes they all look great) Anyway, great song, and maybe the clearest and most serious candidate for the number one spot, taking both the jury and the public into consideration. 10/10

- Iceland 🇮🇸

Daði Freyr and Gagnamagnið, 10 years:

What can I say about this masterpiece that hasn't already been said? A clear fan-favorite (hi, Valentina), but with the guns to back it up. The song is contagious, fun and campy, and unlike some other songs with said qualities, actually good from a musical perspective. Daði is incredibly charismatic and his sense of humor shines through, and even though he's the star of the show, the same can be said about the other band members. The synergy Måneskin has can be applied to Gagnamagnið as well, even though the energy is entirely different. They're serving us fun, sunshine, kitties rainbows sugar spice and everything nice, and manage to do it with zero cringe factor (plus those funky keytars). I'm one of those Eurovision fans that lament the golden age's (2004-2009) campiness (We'll never forget you, Verka), and Daði managed to bring it back, but modernised, polished and still sincere. I personally preferred the epic dad joke that slightly more commercial Think About Thing was (but that's one tough act to follow), but I'm always down for a husband adoring his wife and singing praises to their relationship. Since we're on tumblr, I feel obliged to use the term "cinnamon rolls" in describing Daði and the band. 9.5/10

- France 🇫🇷

Barbara Pravi, Voilà: She brought the theatrics, she brought the drama, and she brought the 101 in "that's how you perform". Her personality leaps through, and her voice is both beautiful and full of emotion and power. I'd hire her to star in a serious and artistic movie. Despite the fact that Voilà is from its melody to the singing style to the video to the vibe and the aesthetic hands down the most French thing I've seen since Amélie (do not come for that movie), it miraculously doesn't come across as a cliché, but rather an homage, and an individualistic one at that. It's not entirely my cup of tea, since I'm usually biased to songs that may come off as snobbish (I mean, the jury is going to lap it up), and are all about being proper and technical and oh how ~artistic~, but Barbara puts the soul into the immaculate. I'm not giving her the highest mark because I'm yet to see the performance, but I'm rooting for her. If she delivers the performance, we might have a clear winner. 9/10

- Ukraine 🇺🇦

Go_A, Shum: I'm a sucker for all things ethnic and mytological, so this was a no-brainer. I want that song played at every party. I want to go to the forest in the video and chant and summon the spring with flute and hard-bass. Kateryna Pavlenko has some unexplainable power over me, and her eyes are simply hypnotizing. The vocals are great, proper Slavic ethno right there (seriously, check out Slavic folklore and traditional music), and she has a subtle punk quality too(?). Ukraine came to save the spring and make us forget about the pandemic, and minus the Maruv fiasco (justice for her!), they always deliver and I expected nothing less. On the other hand, I loved the original version much more and couldn't help but be a bit disappointed with the revamp (yes, I know they had to), and while I personally love Shum, I think some other acts are more deserving of the higher placement. Go_A are not my winner, but definitely soon to be in my playlist. 8/10

- San Marino 🇸🇲

Adrenalina, Senhit ft. Flo Rida: You know that golden age of Eurovision I mentioned? THIS. I'm Serbian, so I can't resist a banger reminiscent of our horrible turbo-folk elements (and I say that endearingly,takes me back to 18th birthday parties (boy I'm glad that's over)). Let's just crown Senhit this year's Queen of Camp. The wild factor of Flo Rida...just?? Amazing. Can't wait to see how the performance goes (EDIT- it went great, I had a grin on my face the entire time and couldn't help but dance along). A certain refreshment after Serhat and Valentina Monetta endless loop. They didn't dial down the weird, but made it catchy af, and the vocal can rival any Balkan folk diva. While I think it's definitely the most entertaining entry this year, it's far from being the most original, and it's not really my genre of preference. Will vote for Senhit and root for her to qualify. 7.5/ 10

- Sweden 🇸🇪

Tusse, A million voices: As I mentioned before, I'm the first person that starts complaining about Sweden Superiority as soon as Eurovision season begins, and I'm with you all with being tired of Sweden qualifying just because they're Sweden and usually just bringing the same brand of MTV/Calvin Harris/American pop, or a successful and not-so-subtle imitation of the performances that did well the previous year,but listen: A million voices is a solid pop song and I'm going to die on that hill. It actually embodies the essence of pop - a catchy, pleasant melody sung by a good vocalist, with a short,sweet and uplifting message. It's not the same as previous years, it's not commercial, just good pop - good pop being something you immediately like and vibe to no matter how many common elements of the genre it checks. It relies on RnB rather than electronic sounds, auto tune or various DJ effects. Tusse is charming and charismatic af, and he's a 19yo kid doing an amazing job on a global stage. You don't have to like it, but there's no need to hate on it (ask Jendrik). Imo, Tusse deserved to qualify. Not winner material yet, but I wish him a fun time and a successful career. 7 5/10

- Switzerland 🇨🇭

G'jons Tears, Tout L'Univers: I saw the video first, and I HATED IT. It came across as a Duncan Lawrence-high-art wannabe, something technically perfect, but empty of soul or meaning, another soft boy with a sad falsetto, another jury-points bait. BUT. I changed my mind entirely after seeing him perform. Hands down, it was touching and epic. Reminding me of Hamlet aside, he DELIVERED, and made me love him, and actually enjoy the song. I still think the song is less original than Tusse's voices, but I enjoy the troubadour vibes of the pre-chours. G'jon is absolutely adorable, and I'm not gonna be mad if he wins. 8/10

shout-outs&honorable mentions:

- Serbia 🇷🇸 Yes, some national bias, but I'm proud of our girls. Ever Since we placed 2nd with Željko's Lane, we had that goddamn flute e v e r y year, and the same outdated scenography with a side of extra pathos (I'm sure that ruined Sanja's chances and her otherwise great performance back in 2016.) Finally something fun and actually representative of the music popular here. They looked flawless and the energy was off the charts. Go, Hurricane!

-Finland 🇫🇮 Yes, cheesy and corny and I cut my finger accidentally from watching the video on all the edge, but I'm biased because they're bringing emo and nu-metal back, and that's the music of my early adolescence (hello, Kaulitz brothers and Andy Biersack,hello Gerard Way and Linkin Park) Call me grandma lol

- Malta 🇲🇹 DESTINY CAN SIIIIIIIIING! I wasn't impressed with the song initially, but the performance blew my mind.

- Ireland 🇮🇪 A for effort, and so nice of her to try and give us something unique! While it wasn't good enough to qualify, it was super fun and she seems so nice. Also, we all know that she was out of breath an can sing much better than that. Still wasn't bad.

- Romania 🇷🇴, for being so young and brave enough to put on a show. The nerves got the better of her, but the song itself is good and no doubt she'll do well in the future

- Lithuania 🇱🇹, thanks for the memeries

- Croatia 🇭🇷, Not my cup of tea, but Albina gave a great performance

-Norway 🇳🇴, for embodying the spirit of Eurovision

- North Macedonia 🇲🇰, for the disco chest

- The UK 🇬🇧, for putting some effort

(Might edit later)

[funkymbtifiction]

Si-Te or maybe just Si-dom in general

Well… Since there is one for Ti-Se, I think sharing how Si-Te works might be a nice idea. Disclaimer, it’s not pretty. It’s not wonderful. Si-Te can be a pain but it also is an asset. I want to share it to you guys the reality of being an ISTJ. I’m not here to debunk any myth. I’m only saying it as it is to me… So, let’s go, shall we?

First, what is Si-Te. If I would describe it, it is a slow-starting stallion. In my experience (it might vary between every ISTJ out there), before I can ever do anything well, I need shitload of trials and errors. I cannot really innovate or running on the flow. I need to learn thing from the very smallest piece and slowly piecing it all together into a full picture. It’s incremental, it takes time and it’s seriously slow.

The process of learning through slowly adjusting and experimenting every route possible – especially if there is no one to guide you at all – leads to internalization exactly what I perceive of that knowledge. It imprints clearly in your mind that you can pick it up as it is years later. It becomes a picture in your mind of what is the ‘truth’. The accumulated experience that rinsed up into a pack of worldview of how the world works. Every Si-users are different and each of us perceives and rinse different information into their own unique brand of world view. But it shares the same theme ‘experience from repeated trials and errors that can be pulled out in times of need’. It is what you might called ‘wisdom’ or ‘lore’. Think about some specialists who know everything about the woodland and all stories and beliefs related to each component. That’s high Si. 

When it comes to Si it must be followed by Te. Te is not just about fact and organization. It is about seeing ‘tangible’ and ‘measurable’ potential in given information and how to apply it. It is when you see some gall bringing in gold dust from a stream behind your house and immediately realize you can make a gold rush out of that stream. For me, Te is a useful tool to accomplish things in the real world. It’s a tool to apply your experience in a real problem solving and both Si and Te are working together though Si sorts of controlling Te thus, Te is limited by Si-internalized knowledge. So, the way Si and Te working together in very simplified term is ‘organizing the real world based on my knowledge of how the world works’.

Other theme I can think of that is actually Si but is typically mistook for Ni is mythology making. You see, for Si users, everything has a story attached to it. Every knowledge, everything has its own mythology and story embedded within. This will be a bit odd. I have some knowledge on traditional massage and medicine. Even if I don’t remember them word by word. In the end, I find myself having story of reference to every component of my knowledge. Like, I know how to massage. My friend asked me how do I know that I need to start from shoulder to hand and pull fingers. My first instinct is, because body is a stream. In my head, human body is like a stream that fall from top to bottom. Each nerve is a path way that is connected so when one massaged it is precisely tampering with the pathway itself. The pain or ache are a result of stagnant in pathway so one need to clear it downstream and open some ‘tunnel’ like one near the base of the hand to open the blood flow. See? It’s not verbatim fact. It is the experience accumulated into a picture, a story. I can’t even remember where I learn it tbh. It comes from so many sources. (Oh, and I told my friend, ‘body is like a waterfall, it starts from the top’). But I know it’s a fact because I can do it. See?

One example I want to share is when I reference my knowledge on field-working. I study Anthropology and field-working is a frequent event. Typically, my chosen field is ethnic groups thus I will often find myself in the village of some ethnic community. Like … my latest field is last week’s Urak Lawoi’ village in the south. The place is a community of Urak Lawoi’ people and in general they are quite distinct in belief systems to Thai people. They believe in spirits but much more internal than Thai people so … yeah, you get the picture.

When I got there, I first self-referenced back to my survey trip. I referenced back to the people I knew from the last trip and contacted them. Then I proceeded to talk to them (actually I organize the trip for my project, so there’s total 27 people there but I’ll focus more on my fieldwork rather than the organization itself). I recounted the information I learned last time, I referenced stories I heard last time. Things went on. Then, I brought my teammates to the dam uphill. It’s around 1 km. from the village up in the mountain. I can remember the way to the smallest details. I recounted my experience last time (like almost getting lost up the mountain before coming down to the correct turn) and tell them the story of what this place was used. It was a place used to prepare woods for boat-making ritual, there’s even some wood bark left. And I guided them to the stream behind the wood. Last time I went here I can remember it was very refreshing. Then I guided them up hill. Last time I struggled a lot, but this time I just knew where to step and how to speed up. I learned from the last time I came here. Soon, after we walked up and down a hill, we arrived at the dam. I could recall the refreshing wind and so on.

Then, a day later, I went to the ‘pléw’ or the graveyard. I needed to see the place because my project was about who this people are and because I needed to know more about their belief system. So, I went. But before I went, I told my team “Only 2 or 3 people please. And if we get there, be respectful toward the dead, don’t shout, don’t joke around, ok?” for me, it has been internalized that the place was for the dead. I must be respectful and quiet around the place. Because the dead are resting. It’s been like a ‘teaching’ in my head “Be respectful in that place”. Then I went there with some of my teammates. Before I get down to the graveyard, I stopped and asked for the dead’s permission first. It was just something I knew I needed to do. Then I went down. After that, when I climbed up, I crossed the line in my mind and walked over it. I remembered that to Urak Lawoi’s before one stepped up from the ‘other world’ like in Pracak ceremony where they sent their ancestors on a boat down the sea. They will draw line on the sand and walk over it to cross back to living world. I did precisely that, only in my mind. I learned from my Grandmother (she studied these things) that ‘you don’t need to actually do it, but do it in your mind intently enough you can feel it. The dead can sense it, too’. And I did just that. Because it was what should be done. Other thing was language, I soaked it up like sponge. Just two or three days I can understand what they are talking though I still cannot speak competently (I referenced it back to Bahasa Indonesia, it is closely related language) And list went on…

Good things aside, I want to mention how I fail gigantically to organize the project. I don’t know how to fix many unexpected problems because frankly I didn’t know what to do. Now I’m making up for my mistakes. It was a biggest downside of being Si-dom for me. This is my mistake, individually and I will not blame my type. I don’t know how to fix something I’ve never encountered before. But I needed to learn and I’m learning from my mistake and don’t repeat the same mistake again. The mistake here piled up so high that now I lost my friends and many people. It pained me so much just why cannot I be smarter, quicker to catch on things or react faster and sharper to the problems. But it was all because of my arrogance that I failed. I was too secretive and too in my head. Instead of consulting people, instead of letting people have freedom. I over controlled and pulled everything to myself. I chilled me to my bone, thinking back. Right now, I tried to open myself up more and giving people freedom to create. It is incredibly hard but I am trying my best to do it, to fix it and be a better person.

So, here I am. That’s something I want to share. Being Si-dom is not fun. I’m slow, I need a lot of time to learn something but I don’t really feel bad about it. Even if I make a lot of mistakes, I don’t think it’s really typed related. It’s only because I fail and I will need to learn to be better for it. Just some message to other ISJs who struggle out there. Just don’t give up. We are slow, but we can reach the same level of proficiency as anybody out there. 😊 We just need to walk at our own pace, that’s all.

Some random ISTJ guy …

Btw, do you have any leadership advice for ISTJs in general? And is it normal for 1w2 to avoid facing their mistakes (or imperfection) and needs a lot of things to ever push them to realize and finally actively fix it?

Mod: 1s hate to think they did anything wrong, so they generally don’t take it well when others correct them, infer they made a mistake, etc. They can become ‘reactive’ and defensive when they feel ‘accused.’ It’s important for them to realize this defense mechanism is just their instant insecurity about having been ‘bad’ -- it’s an irrational response, because ‘a mistake’ does not equal ‘bad.’ A flaw is not the end of the world. They should learn to combat their anger with humor and chuckle about their need to be seen as ‘good’ all the time. (This moves them closer up their line 7 to where they can have fun and have a sense of humor about themselves.) Leadership in general... uh... be considerate of all the needs present and realize that not everyone will live up to your high standards of performance; cut them some slack where it’s needed, and make sure to tell people they did a good job when they did one. Others need more affirmation than most 1w2 STJs.

[thenonbinarydetective]

Talking about the Old Books

Let’s talk about the old books for a second. I know everyone’s tired of me talking about them, but this is important. It’s about the racism that’s there.

Yes these were edited for racism back around the Civil Rights Movement. Basically to show there support, from what I’ve read most of it seemed to be more Mildred Wirt Benson’s and Leslie McFarlane’s doing and I’m guessing any of the younger people who worked there. I only say that because a lot of Harriet’s behavior (as she was the one who was possibly doing the worst with this) was described kinda like Grandma racism, if you know what I mean? When you’re grandma says something racist that probably wasn’t considered racist when she was younger. That sort of thing. Although her thing was calling (even innocent characters), such things as “Nefarious coloreds” or Nancy rejecting someone who was going to interview to temporarily replace Hannah because she was black. (Also two others for being Irish and Scottish respectively). Forgive me for saying that, but those were actually published.

Considering the timing was late 50s early 60s, they were edited to suit that eras meaning of being not racist. So wording or the scene that I mentioned above and similar like it are left in the 30s version. Most notably what was gone was the racial profiling and stereotyping of darker skin people (mostly black) as criminals or connection to crime in some way (criminal past, criminal present, possible criminal future). This also applied to other nationalities too, I guess they just wanted to cover all of the bases even if it wasn’t POC. Also that if a POC (or nonAmerican) was a criminal in a mystery, that the Hardy Boys or Nancy had to meet someone who was the same ethnicity as the criminals so they weren’t say all of those people were bad.

Personally, and you’re free to disagree, knowing both a bit about the 30s and 50s/60s versions I feel that the dialogue between describing the criminals became a bit more ambiguous in the edited so that it doesn’t look like they’re only describing POC. Cause I’ve heard people (who know more about the 30s version) say that with most of the descriptions, you’d probably only imagine a POC. Although, idk if this was just me, I don’t really do that with the 50s/60s versions because plenty do have descriptions that can fit white people as well as POC. This isn’t defending it, just my observation.

It makes sense that there are things that either didn’t age well, tone-deaf, or racist to some degree. It’s an old series, this is bound to happen. It’s important to acknowledge both the time this came out, without ignoring the racism that’s there. I’m not excusing the older parts of either property at all by saying this. I also don’t know why they weren’t further edited in later prints, probably money. It’s also acknowledging what is considered racist now is different than what was considered racist back then. Times change and ideas change. Sometimes those ideas are bad and offensive. Such as the multiple accounts of blackface, brownface, yellowface, and redface that do exist in the books still. Again IDK why those are still there.

There’s more things than expected when criticizing the ugly parts of the past. Later books are free from this, except that book where they kinda defended the Confederates. That wasn’t a good choice. Anyway, most of this comes down to age. Both series are older than all of my grandparents, one of them only being a few months but that counts. There’s going to be some problematic elements that slip through the cracks.

Not to sidetrack at the last minute, but criticizing this is slightly different to something newer that has stereotyped or villainized POC. The older books are not excused in their actions, and if it were possible to edit them again I would endorse that but that would probably be difficult. The concept of race and racism have changed over time, so the things we know are wrong now are different than how they were in the past. We know that the stereotyping and criminalization of POC(specifically black and darker-skin people of color) is wrong, POC being in positions of servitude with low-pay is bad even when a bad person is doing it, we know that having a cult that visually resembles the KKK is bad (i think the only reason it stayed is because it’s technically not the KKK, it’s not that effective), and whatever else is there. Age plays a factor into this, because modern media is usually criticized for doing any of the things I mentioned above. Last time, age doesn’t pardon the actions, it creates a reason to why they may be there.

Also this is more general and not specifically about Nancy Drew or the Hardy Boys, but you can like things that have problematic elements to them. You just shouldn’t ignore other people’s reasons for disliking something because of those problematic elements because you like it and that because you like it those things don’t become nonexistent. Take it into consideration when you examine the media you take in and any possible biases you may have.

Regarding all that I’ve said, this topic should be discussed more within the fandom, especially since not all of us are white and if we want to be the open fandom we are then we shouldn’t ignore it or brush it aside because we think we can’t talk about it. It’s a sensitive subject, which makes it more important to do research on it and talk about it. Just cause we like to think the racism in Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys is in the past, doesn’t mean that it actually is. We should always keep learning so we don’t hurt others with our ignorance.