Running this blog is a nearly constant state of "Are there any scenes of this Black character without their nonblack counterparts?"

And a constant state of "Is there any content of this Black character without their nonblack counterparts?"

It is a battle finding Black women focused content here.

Guys I fucking hate my roommates so much I can’t take it anymore

Non-offensive Historical terms for Black people in historical fiction

@pleasespellchimerical asked:

So writing historical fiction, with a white POV character. I'm not sure how to address race in the narration. I do have a Black main character, and I feel like it'd feel out of place to have the narrator refer to her as 'Black', that being a more modern term. Not sure how to do this without dipping into common historical terms that are considered racist today. Thoughts on how to handle this delicately, not pull readers out of the narrative? (fwiw, the POV character has a lot of respect for the Black character. The narration should show this)

There are non-offensive terms you can use, even in historical fiction. We can absolutely refer to Black people without slurs, and if slurs is all one can come up with, it’s time to go back to the drawing board. I cannot say which terms are best for your piece without knowing the time period, but hopefully the list below helps.

Historical terms to use for Black people (non-offensive)

African American documented as early as 1782 (documented in an ad in the Pennsylvania Journal). Note the identity isn’t accurate for non-American Black people.

African could refer to African people or “from 1722 as ‘of or pertaining to black Americans.’”

The place of origin could also be used. For example, “a Nigerian woman”

Africo-American documented as early as 1788.

People of Color documented as early as 1796 (with specific contexts, usually mixed people)

Afro American documented as early as 1817, 1831 (depending on source)

Black American documented as early as 1831 

Black was used in Old English to refer to dark-skinned people. Black was not capitalized until recent years, so “She was a young black woman.” would make sense to say, though “She was a young Black woman.” is the better standard today, although not universally adopted. I personally prefer it capitalized. 

Moor was used as early as the late 1400s for North African people, but had a somewhat flexible use where anyone visibly Black / Of African descent or the Afro Diaspora might be referred to or assumed as a Moor. Note, it has other meanings too, such as referring to Muslim people, but that doesn’t mean the person using it is going by the dictionary definition. Not really the way to go today, but okay in a historical setting (in my opinion).

Biracial (1860s), mixed race (1872), multiracial (1903) and multicultural (1940s) are also terms to refer to people of two or more races.

Occupation + description. Throughout history, many people have been referred to as their occupation. For example, the Carpenter, The Baker, the Blacksmith. Here’s an example of how you might go about using occupation and traits to identify a Black character in history. Here’s an example I came up with on the fly.

“You should go by Jerry’s. He’s the best blacksmith this town’s ever seen. Ya know, the real tall, dark-skinned, curly haired fellow. Family’s come here from Liberia.”

Offensive and less-sensitive terms for Black people 

Blacks was used in plural more, but this is generally offensive today (Even writing it gives me **Thee ick*)

Colored was mostly used post-civil war until the mid 20th century, when it became unacceptable. This is not to be conflated with the South African Coloured ethnic group.

Negro/Negroes were also used as early as the 1550s. Capitalization became common in the early 20th century. I'm sure you know it is offensive today, though, admittedly, was not generally seen as such until around the 1960s, when Black replaced it. It does have its contexts, such as the trope “The Magical Negro” but going around using the term or calling someone that today is a lot different. 

Mulatto referred to mixed people, generally Black and white, and is offensive today. 

The N-word, in all its forms, is explicitly a slur, and there is absolutely no need to use it, especially in a casual manner, in your story. We’ve written about handling the N-word and alluding to it “if need be” but there are other ways to show racism and tension without dropping the word willy-nilly.

Deciding what to use, a modern perspective

I’m in favor of authors relying on the less offensive, more acceptable terms. Particularly, authors outside of the race. Seldom use the offensive terms except from actual direct quotes.

You do not have to use those offensive terms or could at least avoid using them in excess. I know quite famous stories do, but that doesn’t mean we have to so eagerly go that route today. Honestly, from teachers to school, and fellow non-Black students, it’s the modern day glee that people seem to get when they “get a chance to say it” that makes it worse and also makes me not want to give people the chance. 

It goes back to historical accuracy only counting the most for an “authentic experience” when it means being able to use offensive terms or exclude BIPOC from stories. We’ve got to ask ourselves why we want to plaster certain words everywhere for the sake of accuracy when there are other just as accurate, acceptable words to use that hurt less people. 

Disclaimer: Opinions may vary on these matters. But just because someone from the group cosigns something by stating they’re not offended by it, doesn’t mean a whole lot of others are okay with it and their perspectives are now invalid! Also, of course, how one handles the use of these words as a Black person has a different connotation and freedom on how they use them.

~Mod Colette

The colonial context

Since no country was mentioned, I’m going to add a bit about the vocabulary surrounding Black people during slavery, especially in the Caribbean. Although, Colette adds, if your Black characters are slaves, this begs the question why we always gotta be slaves.

At the time, there were words used to describe people based on the percentage of Black blood they had. Those are words you may find during your searches but I advise you not to use them. As you will realize if you dive a bit into this system, it looks like a classifying table. At the time, people were trying to lighten their descent and those words were used for some as a sort of rank. Louisiana being French for a time, those expressions were also seen there until the end of the 19th century.

The fractions I use were the number of Black ancestors someone had to have to be called accordingly.

Short-list here :

½ : mûlatre or mulatto

¼ or ⅛ : quarteron or métis (depending on the island, I’m thinking about Saint-Domingue, Martinique and Guadeloupe)

1/16 : mamelouk

¾ : griffe or capre

⅞ : sacatra

In Saint-Domingue, it could go down to 1/64, where people were considered sang-mêlé (mixed blood for literal translation, but “HP and the Half-Blood Prince” is translated “HP et le Prince de Sang-Mêlé” in French, so I guess this is another translation possibility).

-Lydie

Use the 3rd person narrative to your advantage

If you are intent on illustrating historical changes in terminology consider something as simple as showing the contrast between using “black” for first person character narration, but “Black” for 3rd person narrator omniscient.

-Marika

Add a disclaimer

I liked how this was addressed in the new American Girl books it’s set in Harlem in the 1920’s and there’s a paragraph at the beginning that says “this book uses the common language of the time period and it’s not appropriate to use now”

-SK

More reading:

NYT: Use of ‘African-American’ Dates to Nation’s Early Days

The Etymology dictionary - great resource for historical fiction

Wikipedia: Person of Color

did some casual google research into the "traditional chinese medicine is fueling poaching" thing because something seemed...fishy about it. this may not be my place to say so correct me if i'm wrong but something seems kinda racist about the way people in rich, mostly white countries talk about poaching elsewhere in the world

So, tiger poaching: the line usually trotted out is that the tiger's main threat is poaching because its body parts are in demand in China and elsewhere as part of traditional Chinese medicine, but there are some problems with this characterization: in 2022 I think there were like 150 tigers poached, which is really bad, but China is a nation of well over a billion people, and a not-insignificant amount of tiger parts are being trafficked elsewhere (including the USA).

And a lot of these tiger parts are being bought as symbols of wealth and status, not for "medicinal" purposes. iirc one of the main categories of product that's been seized is tiger hides

It seems like a mischaracterization to say there's a "demand" in China for tiger parts when it's like, a couple hundred rich assholes.

In general people are so stupid and hostile about the issue of poaching to the point where they celebrate when poachers are killed by animals which is like. You know the rich assholes aren't killing the animals themselves right? They're hiring some poor desperate rural person who is trying to put food in their mouth

And with stuff like bushmeat, that's significantly made up of just people who are hunting wild animals for food. When folks talk about "cracking down on" poaching are they actually punishing rich assholes who kill for fun or are they throwing some poor person in prison for being poor. The answer has to include uplifting the people who turn to these activities because they have to support themselves and their families

so sorry you've been getting these anons ana :( i thought as a native i could give my two cents on the fire lady katara trope? ill admit im more of a casual zutara shipper, so i havent seen a good chunk of the fandom, but ill give it my thoughts. for me personally, i am not a fan of fire lady katara- it's not particularly to do with the trope itself, but the execution often done by the fandom. ive discussed this with other natives before, but sometimes in the fire lady trope, it is often that katara moves to the fire nation, that she wears fire nation clothes and is surrounded by fire nation culture. obviously, that isn't wrong! the sharing of culture is a beautiful thing, but there is a good majority of fics where it feels like her water tribe culture is forgotten, that she is made to move permanently to the fire nation in favour of zuko. specifically in a post war climate, where a good majority of the people in the fire nation would still hold onto imperialist and racist beliefs, the idea of katara living there permanently is uncomfortable. i moved out of my mostly native village into a nearly fully white uni, and it's scary, and so when i apply those thoughts to katara living in the fire nation, its uncomfortable. and as for the rest, it's mainly just how sometimes it feels like the fandom doesn't value her culture as much as zukos, even unconsciously- it often feels like the fandom values the perceived glamour and power of the fire nation royalty, and finds fire nation culture more understandable than anything water tribe, and so prefer to have katara in a setting that is more 'easy' for them. in hand with this, is often the fandom perception that the water tribe is less progressive than the fire nation, that they are sexist and that zuko is giving katara a better life (i will say that this is not something i have not seen often, especially recently, but it is something i have discussed w people so i thought id mention it, especially since its usually not intentional). sorry this got so long, i went on a bit of a ramble but obviously this isn't the be all end all. like you said, there are lots of people who are fine, or enjoy fire lady katara because they perceive or write it differently, and that is fine! everyone perceives media differently, just like some people will be uncomfortable with zutara, some might not be. i just thought id send this as a reason why some of us do dislike the trope, and things to keep in mind when ppl are writing it

hi anon, thank you so much for sharing this with me! i really appreciate you taking the time to write out your thoughts and offer your perspective on this.

i definitely agree that the fire lady katara trope can be executed in some exceedingly problematic ways. there are many zutara fics that i've clicked out of for the reasons that you've mentioned, especially older ones that were written around when the show aired or shortly after. i won't deny at all that there are ways people write the zutara relationship that make me profoundly uncomfortable. my problem arises when someone assumes that the trope itself is inherently racist or wrong, instead of understanding that it can be written in a variety of ways by a variety of people, who bring their own perspectives - and prejudices - to their individual portrayals.

what you said about moving from your mostly native village to a fully white university really struck a chord with me because (although it's not the same, and can never be) i can really sympathize with those feelings of alienation and sudden lack of belonging. i'm part of the desi diaspora myself, and i've grown up in a country where i've always been the minority, and had to deal with racism and ignorance, so your experience really spoke to me. i hope that doesn't come across like i'm trying to co-opt your struggle or anything like that, because that was not my intention at all. i just wanted to let you know that i can understand what a scary feeling it is, even if not exactly in the same way.

that being said, personally if i could choose between spending my life in india or growing up overseas, i would still choose to do the latter even if it meant living through the bigotry and ostracization i've experienced again. i love the life i've built here, though it's a more difficult one than what i could've led back home.

in the context of atla, i agree that katara would most likely face racism and discrimination in the fire nation, at least in the immediate years following the war. but personally i also find a very empowering narrative in seeing her confront and dismantle the prejudices within the fire nation system, just as she did with the sexism of the northern water tribe. katara wouldn't abide bigotry in any form, and i think fighting inequality is a battle that she would want to take on, and would willingly choose to take on whether she ended up with zuko or not. that's why i take issue with the insistence that her becoming queen of the fire nation inherently equates to her victimization, because it can also very much be a power fantasy, and i know many woc who do see it as such.

(of course, that is just my own perspective, and i completely understand why others see it differently and might not be comfortable with it. their feelings are just as valid and legitimate.)

ultimately, i think correctly executing the fire lady katara trope isn't just about katara herself valuing her culture, but zuko doing it as well. i love seeing explorations of the trope (and the zutara relationship in general) where zuko takes an active interest in katara's heritage, incorporates her traditions and practices into his own life and home, and involves himself in her culture just as much as she involves herself in his. zutara is a ship that has always been about equality to me, and that's something that can and should carry over to how they blend their cultures together. like you said, there is nothing wrong in katara wearing fire nation clothes, or being surrounded by fire nation culture - so long as she isn't the only one in the relationship taking an interest in her partner's heritage. thankfully, in most zutara content i've seen, she isn't.

in my own personal view of katara becoming fire lady, it happens only years after the war ends. she spends her time postwar travelling the world and kicking ass, empowering women in the north to learn waterbending, rebuilding the southern water tribe, meeting and learning from everyone she can. when she becomes fire lady, she continues to travel often - home, of course, but also to the other nations when necessary, using her skill of inspiring and motivating others, and her desire to help the less fortunate, in matters of international diplomacy. when she returns, her husband is in blue, and her children wear whalebone beads in their hair, and there are fire flakes next to stewed sea prunes on her dining table. there are hard times, but there is also love and respect, and so she changes the world as she damn well deserved to in canon.

Okay I just had an idea and I *had* to share it. I don't even ship Valgrace but this was too good not to think about. A Leo Valdez/Jason Grace 'Red, White & Royal Blue' AU.

Note: English isn't my first language, so please keep that in mind

Leo Valdez, who is half-Mexican, the son of the first American Latina female President, the one and only goddess amongst women, Esperanza Valdez. Leo, who always wanted to fix things and decided to follow his mother's footsteps in politics as a way to solve the issues he sees in his country. Leo, whom the public loves because of his sense of humour, quick wit and charm, who becomes America's sweetheart almost immediately when the elections first started.

And then you have Jason Grace, who has been born into the Royal Family and has had those duties and expectations on his shoulders from such a young age. Jason, who knows he will become a leader at some point, because his older sister, Thalia, is a rebel who refuses to conform to his family's expectations and ran away and abdicated the second she could. Jason, who is loved by his people, who is the white boy of the month every other month.

Zeus is the king, because of course he is. His Majesty, who doesn't really approve of the USA's election of Esperanza, because he sees her as lesser.

Leo and Jason who start off at the wrong foot because of something Jason unintentionally said, something that was his father's opinion and, of course, it was offensive to Leo, who immediately figured that Jason was a racist, privileged white guy who couldn't see past the tip of his nose.

Jason who's the one wearing glasses when he's at Kingston Palace and Leo who's caught off-guard by how casual he looks with them, how relaxed, not like the heir to an entire empire with a history of blood and slavery.

Leo, whose best friend is Piper McLean, the daughter of Tristan McLean, whose gaydar is immaculate and she's the one to open Leo's eyes that maybe Jason is gay, but isn't allowed to show it.

Jason, whose best friends are Percy Jackson and Nico di Angelo, who also happen to be his cousins on his dad's side (yes, it's pathetic that his best friends are his cousins but he didn't really get many chances to be social growing up, okay?!), who are both incredibly chaotic in their own ways. Percy, who immediately gets along with Leo and the two exchange sassy comments and send each other memes constantly. Nico, who knew Leo was bi before Leo himself knew, and fed into Jason's delusions until he had the balls to kiss Leo on his famed New Year's Party.

Thalia, who would be in the picture occasionally, but is mostly busy touring the US with her rock/metal band called 'The Hunters', whose first album was inspired by Greek Mythology and specifically the myths surrounding Artemis, which is so what they titled their debut album.

Annabeth, who is Piper and Leo's genius best friend and the only keeper of the singular braincell in their trio, who has been wanting to become the youngest woman to ever hold a Senate seat ever. Percy, who is completely enamoured by her the second he sees her and the two start their own romance on the side.

I'm obsessed with this idea, I think it has so much potential.

I wrote that very quickly and I've barely proof-read it, but I just felt like the idea had to get out of my head because it deserves to be shared with the fandom. If someone wants to continue developing this, I would love to read more. If someone has alr written something like this and I'm not the first genius to think of it, please let me know!

- mia

"Zionists are rascists" literally excluding North America most Jews are brown. Get a grip

Usually I ignore this but it’s too funny for me to pass.

First thing first Zionists being racist has absolutely nothing to do with Jewish people being brown or not. Zionism and Judaism are two different things. Unless you mean Jews are mostly brown therefore Zionism is not racism because it supports brown people’s rights? And in that case you’re stupid as fuck (to be fair you’re stupid whatever you meant) cause non Jewish Zionists are the same people who tell Black and Brown people to “go back to their countries”. For everyday people Zionism is just a politically correct way to tell Jewish folks that they don’t belong and have to go back to their country which is actually not their country because it is and will forever be Palestine.

Now people like you are too stupid they can’t use their brains even to save their lives so I’m pretty sure you didn’t mean that and instead you meant Zionist = Jews Jews = Brown Zionist = Brown so Zionists cannot be racist! And that’s the hilarious part.

I’m not going to talk about Zionism here but make a general statement.

Guess what? Brown people and even Black people can be the foot soldiers of white supremacy and reproduce the racism they internalized against other people of color. I know it’s hard to understand for people like you but we’re humans. It means pieces of shit who are willing to throw everyone under the bus for their own interests exist in our communities too. What’s funny is that when they get too ambitious their white supremacists friends always remind them that they are not white and never will be.

Lastly y’all cannot casually exclude North America when they represent about 50% of the world Jewish population and they are mostly white by a huge margin. That’s like saying “Excluding women the majority of the population is born with a penis” it’s true but in order to say that you have to exclude half the population first. If you have to exclude half the people concerned for your statement to be true then it doesn’t hold in the first place.

Zionism is and will forever be racism AND white supremacy to be precise.

P.S: When I say that Black and Brown people can be racist I’m NOT talking about anti white racism because it does NOT exist.

CW: anti-japanese and antiblack racial slurs

(I tried to censor out as many instances of both j-words that i could easily find, but I've probably missed a couple :/)

I've already made at least one post mentioning EXACTLY the kind of things going on in this tabloid article from September 1987, from the very start of Michael's first solo tour, which he started in Japan. This is the kind of treatment he was already getting post-Thriller: more overt racist name-calling, with Japanese people getting caught in the racist crossfire just by way of being Japanese. The continued lie that he "completely changed his face" because he hadn't come forward about his vitiligo and lupus yet. The continued push that he was either gay or a virgin just because he didn't frequently publicly date, while they claimed to talk to his "closest aides" about it....but then generating their own rumour that he wanted to become a mormon so that he could have multiple wives?? At this point he was still loosely JW, and didn't leave them for good until 1990. His chimp being with him is true but trying to assert that he would have refused to do the concerts if the chimp wasn't there is completely ridiculous.

But let's get to the main point of what this haphazard "article" is trying to get at, which is that Michael's new look was "too sexy", and "shocking and angered Japanese mothers who brought their children to the concerts". I have watched and read multiple first-hand accounts of people who attended some of these concerts, including as children, and they only had good things to say even from casual fans. This includes some Japanese news reports covering the first 8 dates in Osaka, Nishinomiya, and Tokyo, nothing about them saying his performances or the clothes he's wearing being shocking or perverse from what I've seen. The dance moves that the article claims "would make Mick Jagger in his heyday blush" were mostly the same body rolls and pelvic thrusts that he had literally already been known for his entire life up to that point. The crotch grabbing was the only thing new. If this was the 60s I would maybe believe these things to be shocking, but it was the 80s and his moves were already known as playfully provocative at most.

And as for the clothes....yes, the pants and belts were leather-ish and taken from BDSM gear. Aheem. The shirt was actually a black breathable bodysuit that came in different colors with the collar pattern stitched on. But as I said in previous posts, it's literally not anything more shocking or visibly sexual than what manyyyy other male acts were doing in the 80s. White America was once again just angry that this Black American star had international hyperstardom, and could reinvent his sound and aesthetics at will while still being extremely commercially successfully and loved and setting himself as the standard. In articles like these the racism and jealousy is very, very, obvious.

And to cap off this already long post here's some of the only surviving footage of the black shirt from that first concert in Tokyo which the tabloid claims was soo shocking and raunchy. Come to your own conclusion. You're welcome.

AND FINALLY, the second+final batch of V3 redesigns. see the first batch here!

this really took me a lot longer than the first half, since the first was more spontaneous! but i had a lot of fun with these!

design details/thoughts below the cut

rantaro: - amami was actually a little hard for me-- it was difficult to find a balance of his casual but mysterious nature while also hinting to his true talent as the ult adventurer. - i gave him a ponytail, because i think it looks cute, and makes him look more active! as well as the heavy-duty boots that are good for walking long distances and rough terrain - his blue shirt is now a tank top, but i put a summer-uniform button up on top to show that he’s still a high school student.

gonta: - i gave him a ponytail, because why not! i put little stray leaves in his hair, to show that he’s a very active boy who isn’t afraid to get a little dirty in mud and twigs and leaves. the braid and ponytail he has in his hair is held together by a little vine acting as a hairband. - i took away his blazer and gave him a vest, rolled up the sleeves to his elbows, because once again hes not afraid to get his hands dirtied, but he’s still a gentleman, and gentleman keep their clothes clean. which ties into... - the shorts! i mostly gave gonta shorts because i think he’d prefer them over slacks, puts more versatility and activity into his design

angie: - ANGIE. to understand her redesign, you have to understand that i’ve completely thrown away her racist backstory of “quirky island girl is part of a cult and is a scary manipulative religious cult leader” LMAO. thats all gone, and has been replaced with... well, im not gonna give too much away, but she’s now officially a Christian of very strong faith, but her entire personality isnt “CRAZY AND EVIL RELIGIOUS GIRL” - i decided to give her the appearance of a gentle, good-natured girl. the white pearls she wears around her neck and ankle signifies her innocent side, side by side with the more handmade jewelry of the shell necklace and bracelet. she’s also wearing a promise ring, to show she’s made an oath to show commitment to her faith in God - i added more blue and LESS yellow to her design. her canon yellow coat isnt bad design really, but i kinda find it ugly anyway. now its replaced with a loose and flowy yellow blouse. i shortened her pigtails because ... i dont know, it feels like too many girls in V3 have long pigtails (maki, tenko, angie) so i gave her cute little ones

tenko: - i kept the general SHAPE of her shirt, i removed the seifuku elements entirely to make it appear like it’s an overlaying uniform-shirt that she can quickly get on and off. dont worry though, she’s wearing a sports tank top underneath. and of course, i gave her pants practical for martial arts but kept the frilly element from her skirt - rolled up her sleeves because she deserves to show off her toned arms to the ladies as well as just flex (literally and figuratively) on anyone who looks at her - once again, i was bored of all the pigtails in V3, so tenko gets a loopy ponytail now - as cute as i think tenko’s pinwheel is, it’s also just kind of stupid looking and i dont get how it works, so it’s more of a patterned green ribbon/cloth thats holding up her ponytail

hoshi: - i took one look at hoshi and thought “hooooooow am i gonna start with you” but i think he came out pretty good. i basically made him MORE of a catboy than he is in canon, which i think he’d like - his hair is visible, and they purposefully resemble the face tufts of a fluffy cat. meow! - got rid of the fullbody blue/black prison onesie in favor of giving him some baggy pants and a vest with the little puff balls! i really increased his catboy factor in almost every aspect - changed his face because i dont really enjoy his dead fish eyes. instead i gave him dead cat eyes. youre welcome

kiibo: - kiibo was the last one i designed because he was a huge challenge for me-- i dont really have experience in drawing robotic characters with lots of detail, genuinely i hate his canon design he literally looks like a lego guy, his torso is a stack of nonsensical geometric shapes. theres no rhyme or reason, hes not FUN to draw. so i made him fun to draw - i started by giving him lighter colors so his entire body didnt blend in with each other because its 100% black. he has bluer, metallic accents and generally more variation in the metal on his body. - his bottom half isn’t fully-complete, as in its not like he has actual legs-- the metal on his legs is just armor, and underneath is a black exoskeleton. this is why hes so weak and unable to carry heavy objects or people. his foundation isnt solidified. 

tsumugi: - tsumugi, tsumugi, tsumugi... yeah, i like her canon design. but wow, danganronpa character designers are obsessed with generic high shool uniforms. i wanted to make tsumugis outfit feel like she grabbed it out of her closet. it showcases just how “plain” she thinks she is - added more orange into her palette, just a splash here and there to give her more variety, since shes mainly just blue and white in canon - ONCE WE GET TO HER HANDS, however, is where her personality and passions shine through. she wears a bracelet pin cushion because she’s always prepared, and on her other hand she has an artist glove, because she obviously draws too, and likely designs her cosplans on paper before getting into it. i also gave her colorful finger reminders (based off jade harley) because she always has so much going on in her mind, so much she wants to talk about, she puts little reminders for herself to bring them up later. - she wants to be sayaka 2.0 so bad it makes her look stupid

kirumi: - yeah, she stumped me for a while. to be honest, i dont like maid outfits that much, so it took me a long time to even *want* to think of a redesign for her... - and then i remembered, she can easily just wear a butler uniform. i think it suits her VERY well, she’s quite handsome! and i think tsumugi would make endless kuroshitsuji references bc of her - the spider pattern on the inside of her coat is there in place of the web that was just kind of... slapped onto her dress twice without much fanfare - its a small change, but i also made her hair look less.. uneven, and more well-kept. her bangs being longer than the back of her hair always bothered me - she had the same issue as kiibo IMO where she looked too plain and too black and white, it made her blend into the background for me. its not like oumas black-and-white where it serves a thematic+narrative purpose.

Hi Hilary! I'm really enjoying and appreciating your US election coverage and I'm probably being an idiot foreigner here who is missing something (I've been following casually but it's not my system), but you and other Democrats seem pretty positive and I don't quite get it. On the BBC News checker the Democrats and Republicans are exactly neck and neck for the Senate and the Republicans seem way ahead (203-187) for the House. Believe me, I'd love to feel positive about something political (I'm English so...lol) but I feel like I'm missing something in the data. Totally understand if you'd rather not answer this but thought I'd ask as you seem to understand it and are good at explaining it!!

Listen, you have to understand that the narrative for MONTHS was that Republicans were going to absolutely crush us. The House was supposed to be gone by 9pm ET on election night and the Senate possibly soon after. The media water-carried for the GOP as hard as it possibly could, midterm elections for a first-term incumbent president are always bruising (Obama lost 63 seats in 2010 and we didn't get the House back until 2018), and we are dealing with high inflation, economic pain, Biden's low approval numbers, literal fascists, and so much more. This was a setup for the Republicans to roll right in and pick up where they left off in 2020. They nominated tons of crazy, dangerous, fascist election deniers openly promising to permanently fix elections in their state if they won. It was BAD.

Against that, the fact that is a razor-thin, largely uncalled race in terms of major factors, ie Congressional control, is nothing short of astonishing. The House is looking iffy, but if it slips Republican by a tiny majority, there's no claiming a triumphant red wave, and while it will absolutely waste everyone's time in performative nonsense and doing nothing and passing garbage resolutions, it won't be able to make much of that actually stick. If Democrats keep the Senate (which they are... probably likely to do, especially as Fetterman's win in Pennsylvania looms large), they can at least continue to confirm judges and shut down the rabid GOP-y House from doing too much. They need to win 2 of 3 in Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia to do this. Nevada depends on mail-in ballots. The Democrat Mark Kelly seems likely to hang on in Arizona (knock on wood). Democrat Raphael Warnock is in the lead in Georgia, but will need to win his narrow election all over again because of a horrible racist Georgia law saying that a candidate can only win outright if they get 50% in the first round, and he is just under that.

So yes: it is narrow, contingent, and scary, but the fact that we are in this position is genuinely astonishing, considering that everyone figured the Democrats were historic amounts of toast. Election deniers for governor/SOS have almost all lost (still waiting on Nevada and Arizona) and thus far, MAGA candidates have conceded. This is a good thing for democracy, as it ups the chances that control of elections will be maintained, Democrats will hold key swing state legislatures, and more. They also did especially well in several states (Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania) and made major flips of governor's mansions. Literally none of this would have happened in a red wave.

Anyway, yes. I wanted things to go better and for us to win some races we didn't win, and otherwise optimistically hope that half the country wouldn't vote for fascist forced-birtherism because wah wah gas prices. Unfortunately, they still did (mostly white people, because you know). But considering the absolute worst case scenario, where we were basically looking at the effective end of democracy in America and election denialists holding key posts in advance of the 2024 elections, yeah, a lot of people are very relieved right now.

Racist Experiences in the Marauders Fandom

These anonymous submissions come from a survey I published several weeks ago where I asked for fans in the Marauders fandom to share their experiences with me. I was overwhelmed with the results, and this is, in their own words, some of the submissions I was sent.

There has been lost of push back against fans using POC fan casts for various characters

weird reactions to desi james or east asian sirius!!

I have seen people get upset when characters are fancast as non-white actors (like dev Patel for James)

Clash of opinions about fanon Hermione being black

I have seen lots of racism towards people's newer fancasts, as all the OGs (ben barnes, andrew garfield, aaron taylor-johnson, etc.) are white and some people are trying to change that!

I saw a fanart one time, where james had a darker skin (he was latino) and someone commented that it doesn't suit him

I draw Sirius black as Asian and I’ve gotten quite a few racist comments about this and I’ve seen a lot of racism about desi James. Also when BIPOC people cosplay characters that people think are “white”

People tend to cast characters as white, and sometimes I see people getting mad someone is fancasting a non-canonically black character as black or as a person of colour (I've seen some good black Remus, non-white Lily, non-white Peter fancasts, and yet, there is still peope being sooo mad about it like??). Sadly, I think a lot of people can tell about the fact that fancasts are often discussed and hated for no reason when they're not white or whatever, when it's basically just a fancast, that goes against the "canon" a bigot (JKR) made up.

the first that’s coming to mind is people fighting against the interpretation/portrayal of characters as poc (most often james bs i think he’s most popularly hced as desi but also others) either that or just straight up gatekeeping

Only the general feeling that the white characters are more interesting and loved than any of the characters of color. Racebending seems token, like nobody wants to be exclusionary but also don't have the comfort or confidence to make that diversity ring true in terms of cultural resonance. By cultural resonance I don't only mean make them ethnic but to portray and discuss or casually mention the postcolonial personhood or third culture kid experience as applies.

A comment on my fic about making it a “racial jungle”, saying that it wasn’t accurate for the time period even though representation of races otherwise had no significance in the fic

theres is a lot people that will fight tooth and nail for exclusively white maruaders (in terms of fancasts) and they slander other people in the fandom for using more diverse fancasts such as desi james or black evan

I've seen it in passing, especially towards POC writers/people who HC characters who were not diverse in canon.

People not wanting desi Potters in art or otherwise

One Harry Potter fan got mad at me for drawing James (and Harry) dark skinned

GOD THE FRIKIN FANCASTS. They really don't matter that much and everyone makes it such a big deal. To me at least- representation only really matters if its real. If there's fat Peter, darkskin Dorcas, desi James, or Japanese Sirius/Regulus in a fanfic, that is the representation of that. It doesn't need to be reflected in a fancast used in an edit. Personal opinion but annoying as fuck I just wish everyone would enjoy the fact that someone spent time pouring over numerous tiny clips from many different TV shows and movies just for fun, and other people getting mad that they didn't use a person that literally doesn't exist angers me to no end.

mostly just a complete ignorance of POC identities. sometimes poc characters are ignored in favour of white characters. but also, even when POC are centered, i often see like a lot of fetishization and stereotyping and it's just... not good...

there’s a lot of jewish people in the fandom that have pointed out antisemitism within the fandom a few times. i am not jewish, and i cannot speak on the issue, but that’s something i’ve heard a lot. i’ve also seen the whitewashing of fancasts for characters like mary and dorcas who are widely accepted to be women of color, so that feels weird to me, but i think? that’s everything i’ve noticed or heard.

i've seen racism thrown to black creators, poc fancasts, and at myself for being arab and head-cannoning the black brother as arab.

There was a black dude cosplaying remus and their were people saying remus wasnt a N-word but it was a white person saying it

I have seen some fans respond in a racist way to Black fans who have called out the racism in the way in which Black characters are written and portrayed in the fandom.

im p confused rn lol, feel free to ignore this ofc but questions are meant genuinely.

is it the domination that you have a problem with? the lack of fight at front?

or is it more simply you want seb to keep his record(s)?

or just with verstappen winning?

i understand the first 2 and hear the 3rd a lot but just ur prev posts came a lil outta left field for me lol. i'd like to hear your thoughts, with peace and love on planet earth <3

pourquoi pas les trois... actually i think it might boil down to two main things: my frustration at the continued erasure and diminishing of seb's achievements, and my pet peeve of Total Fucking Bullshit.

it's no secret that this sport has a problem with dominating teams. and yes, you could argue that's the point--hello, it's a constructor's championship, the point is to have the best car. and red bull have built beasts the last couple of years! seriously, all my respect to the team as a whole for pulling everything together. i was and remain a red bull fan at heart despite it all, and it makes me happy from an objective standpoint to see so many elements of a team come together in harmony. red bull is a well-oiled machine at work.

but i genuinely don't think there's been this level of domination by a singular driver in a singular team since like, 2013. think: if lewis' era of domination was so much "worse" than this as the dudebros like to say, why hasn't lewis come close to beating 9 wins in a row? the main phenomenon at play is the sport's short term memory--but really, the way fans like to completely forget 2015-2018 and arguably 2019 too really frustrates me. it wasn't like 2014 hit and suddenly lewis was winning everything. nico won the 2016 wdc. seb posed a real fucking threat in 2015, and in 2017-18 the messaging from the sport was that the battle between him and lewis was, quote unquote, titanic. a battle between, quote unquote, titans of the sport. fast forward to 2020/21 and the narrative is that nothing has stood in lewis' way for the last 6 or 7 years, and that his era of domination needs to be ended for ~the good of the sport.~

so seb makes a couple mistakes, fine, but mostly gets visibly cucked by his team for years, and suddenly he's nothing. his four championships mean nothing, his 3rd most wins in the history of f1 mean nothing, he's just ferrari's next failure.

but then the narrative around max. max, who's introduced in 2021 like he's an up and coming driver intent on toppling lewis' throne. it's a great narrative, right? mercedes took red bull's ball. red bull want it back. casually ignoring how max has been in the sport since 2016, max is red bull's new young golden boy, the one who's going to lead them to victory as the youngest driver like seb already did before and wow, wait, sorry for mentioning seb in relation to success there, let's keep on reinforcing that he's an old man who needs to retire. anyway, max is someone who doesn't give a flying fuck about anyone or anything except racing! max is a beast on track! max is [checks notes] our great white hope!

let's put the racism discussion on hold, because i think people try really hard to pin him down as this like, absolutely sociopathic bigot who is the most racist person in the world, and while he's not NOT racist, i don't think the extreme conclusion ppl are reaching is true. plus this rhetoric is mostly smoke and mirrors to try and find a leftist/social justice reason to hate on him anyway. so let's get fucking real: i dislike max for the same reasons i dislike taylor sw*ft. i hate that there's this blatant marketing campaign that fans buy into and perpetuate, that these people are the greatest of their generation, that they're masters of their craft. like, what? max's racecraft is just threatening to crash people out or push them off the track, something multiple drivers have been quoted saying. that's not ruthless, that's just bad fucking driving. that's an asshole on the dvp suddenly merging into your lane without using their blinkers or checking their blindspots and forcing you to pull out your defensive driving skills from that one class in drivers ed just to avoid a massive pileup on the highway. and i'm expected to suck this guy's dick?

max wins a fraudulent championship in 2021 and proceeds, for the next two years, to basically cruise at the front. it's like the second half of 2013, except it's lasting for a YEAR AND A HALF. only this time, instead of the sport trying to diminish this stint by saying it's just the car or that the golden boy has put himself above the team, people are......... celebrating? listen, i enjoy a singapore 2013 moment as much as the next seb fan but come on. get real. if every race was singapore 2013 that would be boring. and that's what we're seeing, but that's not what fom wants us to think we're seeing. it's complete bullshit.

which leads me to my posts. oh my god, i hated the comparisons between max and seb's first championships. the circumstances could not be more different--it was fucking insulting. seb won his championship fair and square, no rulebook bending required. seb's most violent moment on track that year was in turkey with mark--but he didn't park his car on top of mark's head and walk out saying that's what you get. how could people say that seb was anything like max.

seb's 9 wins at the end of 2013 were the culmination of five years spent fighting tooth and nail for his success. even for how dominant he was in 2011, there were still other teams up there! he had to fight his own teammate for so many years! and even with displays like singapore 2013, there were races where he was fighting in the second half of the season! and now we see this current streak of wins from the last two years where everyone else has tumbled behind and perez is contractually obligated to be a doormat. (not to say that teams haven't tried--i had so much hope at the start of 2022 when ferrari showed up with that pussy monster.) so look me in the eyes and say that max has fought with everything in him just to get that #1 spot. the two of them are leagues apart, but people--the same ones who have said seb is washed--are inevitably going to say that max has beaten seb, that max is on par with the third most successful driver in the sport. it's like a slap to the face.

and so we end back with the constant retconning of seb's position in f1 history. it drives me insane. he's nothing when it comes to propping max up, and then he's the benchmark to prop max up. he's a titan of the sport, and then he's just a failure. come on. come on. i'm just tired of my favourite driver never being given the credit he deserves, and i'm tired of having this fictional story shoved down my throat that max is anything like the goats in the sport. tl;dr. get real.

wrestling with the moral OCD lately

ok so, we generally agree that working for a defense contractor or being a cop is bad

but what about working at a bank, with all their bullshit fees and sometimes predatory loans? What about working for a payment processor that casually grinds sex workers underfoot as "too risky" and "too much hassle"?

Working entry level in the call center might be one thing, but what about getting promoted and working hard and moving up, until you're a loan underwriter? someone who's making the impactful decisions and enforcing the policies and putting the good of the company over the wellbeing of the customer base and the public?

How evil is it to be working for a company whose major customers are in the oil industry, with all we know about how environmentally catastrophic oil drilling is, not to mention the absolutely horrible ways Native water protectors are treated?

Obviously none of these things are on "killing babies with drones" level.

But.

There are so many things to care about. How do you decide what matters?

A lot of people say landlords are evil. Do they mean just corporations buying up homes as investment vehicles? What about a person who rents out a spare room? What about a small-scale landlord who owns a couple houses, is quick and responsive on repairs, doesn't nickel and dime their tenants, and is pleasant to work with?

We agree that it's impossible to become a billionaires without exploiting other humans.

But the whole goddamn stock market is built on the prioritization of profit over all. Even if I just contribute to my 401k, that's being invested in stock market funds. I'm indirectly profiting off companies using prison slave labor, or companies bottling and selling fresh water that should be a public resource.

We point out that the way white people talk and think about poorer neighborhoods is pretty racist. But is it racist for me to think maybe I'd like to live somewhere that doesn't smell so strongly of urine? that maybe I'm willing to spend more to live somewhere with fewer gunshots and less screaming?

Where do you draw the line? How do you construct a coherent system of personal ethics without going mad?

I mean, I grew up in a cult where morality was rigidly black and white. I grew up on "give all you have to the poor and follow Jesus" and "tithe a minimum of 10% of your gross income to god/the church/the poor/holy causes" and st francis of assisi and "cast your bread upon the water."

for a long time I believed that if I had enough to survive on it was my duty to give away the rest

and I spent years barely surviving because of that, because I prioritized supporting others who mostly just took me for granted instead of saving for emergencies

because I was more comfortable working shitty minimum wage jobs than ever being so crass as to pursue money

Also like, I don't believe in god or jesus anymore so I'm pretty sure I don't have to follow a bunch of rules that maybe were just hammered into me by pastors who wanted me to fund their new church buildings?

I am so over the mother teresa bullshit that suffering is inherently virtuous

Fuck that.

I'm tired of precarity.

It feels goddamn good to know I can afford emergency car repairs and regular maintenance. To buy myself little treats and clothes that actually fit. To watch my savings go up each month.

I want to stack up a big fat wad of cash and never be broke again. I want to know I can take care of myself and the people I love. I want to build a life with time for leisure and relationships and parenting and all the things that matter.

I think I could probably make a lot more money if I could swallow my crippling sense of moral injustice and just chase the almighty profits.

But I'm terrified it will make me evil

aita for making a dnd character with dark skin?

a few months ago, I (18M) took part in my first ever dnd campaign. it was pretty short and with some peers from my high school, run by a teacher. overall it was extremely casual. when I created my character, I decided to give him dark skin because it fit his dnd race (wood elf) and I just thought he would look cool with darker skin

(a bit more optional context about the character: he has bronze skin and straight, shoulder length black hair and green eyes. he's 4'11 and 100lbs since he's a young elf. he's a rogue who mostly stole to survive because his troupe of thieves abandoned him. I played him as introverted and paranoid but also very intelligent. he's very chaotic neutral)

now we get to the actual question. a few days ago, I saw a tiktok saying that white people making dnd characters with dark skin is weird and often racist. I'm not sure if this is just the opinion of one guy on tiktok, or if it's a widespread view that I wasn't aware of. I'm worried that I could have accidentally been racist by creating this character even though I didn't have ill intentions. so, aita?

What are these acronyms?

may be an unpopular opinion for someone who’s always shit talking ginny’s white friends. i really don’t think they’re evil girls, they (mostly max in this scenario) have blinders on and live in a bubble and haven’t had to put themselves in ginny’s shoes (racially) and that’s why the girls come off as “racist” and as a black girl who grew up close with a lot of white girls in her formative years you rlly learn the difference between racism and a good person who’s ignorant because they don’t know any better.

i mean i can say as a black woman i didn’t regularly walk around wondering “are these doors wheelchair accessible” i never wondered that casually because i didn’t have to. it wasn’t until i made a close friend who is usually in one to think about that on my own unprompted. that’s how i feel about max. she isn’t racist. she doesn’t not believe ginny when she complains abt being treated differently bc of her race, she just literally has no idea, she’s never thought about until it slaps her in the face. and i don’t think that’s malicious, and it’s rlly not all her fault as a (15?) year old. the reason i can never hate maxine is bc no matter how self involved and ignorant she is, when ginny makes a genuine complaint on being treated poorly (or marcus on her behalf bc he’s far more self aware than his twin) she makes a genuine effort to fix herself. she’ll hear or make a comment and you can see the wheels turning and i think that’s worth celebrating for a privileged 15 year old who’s never known anything less.

hey fellas this is the cringe website, so I'm gonna go on record real quick okay? I just watched all the willy wonka movies (1971, 2005, 2023) and I NEED to rant about it. Also, I don't really know if we need a warning for this, but I go on a rant about the 2005 one being kinda racist/weird/groomer-ish so there's like a warning i guess.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (Novel, 1964): Never read it

Have not read the book. Coming out and saying that now, just to be like, transparent or whatevr.

Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971): Banger, 10/10

My dad put this on one night (after he had watched both the 1971 movie and the 2005 one) and made me watch it. I had never seen it before and was waiting for some cringey dated 70's humor, maybe even a slur or something, but uh, nope. Gene Wilder was delivering every line with right amount of crazy person energy, without feeling creepy (at least to me). The bits were funny, and (again from my casual viewing) inoffensive. Some of the songs were boring, but when the obvious bangers played, I was hooked. The Oompa-Loompas were pretty funny, and never overstayed their welcome. The focus of this movie is mostly Charlie and Wonka, which is fair considering that's what the book is about (I think like I said I actually never read the book) Far as I am remembering, it was good, clean, killing(?) kids with candy fun.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory(2005): Dogshit film, 3/10

Fucking HATED this shit! The like, Native people direction they took with the Oompa-Loompas??? Omg, every scene felt like a FUCKING hate crime! And their songs were mid, I especially cringed during the first one and the last one. And Johnny Depp does that fucking horrible like.... battle cry thingy to call them as opposed to using the gay-ass little flute Gene Wilder Wonka did???? And the Oompa-Loompas keep doing this like, hands crossed over the chest salute thing? And they row a big boat, with a big drum keeping the rythm? Like WHY are they like this in the movie? And they aren't orange and green and silly anymore, they're just like dark skinned guys? With black hair? Which Idk, would've been an alright change i guess, if they didn't also do a whole scene where William Wanking is running thorugh the jungle in his teddy roselvelte ass outfit, and the oompa-loompas like don't speak english, do "silly" tribal dances to summon cocoa beans or something? and eat bugs???? like that's..... certainly a choice for the film.... And it's even grosser cause in both films mr. wilfred wonder or whatever refers to loompa land as like a horrid place to live or whatever, but when Gene Wilder said it, it kinda felt more like "yeah these little orange dudes get eaten by monsters and shit" and when Johnny Depp says it, it's like "yeah, they lived in a STINKY GROSS PLACE IN TREE HUTS AND THEY WERE POOR!!!! AND GRODY!!!!! Ewww, but after I stripped them of that culture and made them live in my factory, their lives are better now" idk super super weird to me. He also does a scene where the joke is he's just using like AAVE i think? He's like "ARe you hip to it? Are you jive? Slide me some skin, soul-brother!" and like, fucking stop, stop talking like that even if it isn't offensive, it's sure as hell cringey to hear a white, bill cipher human design looking mother fucker to start saying some bull shit like that. And the scene of uh, Violet or whatever getting turned into a blueberry???????? Straight up felt like inflation porn on DeviantArt! She gets big like ass first, and even looks at her ass like "oh dam I'm getting caked up" LIKE SIR THIS IS A CHILD! Same with the scene of Veruca Salt getting attacked by squirrels it felt so fetishy and weird idk. and also this version of WOnka is giving soma MAJOR OVERT Groomer/PEdo vibes like it's SOOOO Fucking gross I hated this movie. And all the Willy Wanker flashbacks are so boring and unessecary. Like shut up. There's just a bunch of scenes like that where I'm like "was this in the book or something?" Like the scene where he builds chocolate palace for a guy in India (complete with the typical 2005 depiction of an Indian man and woman i.e. the head turban things and a very pronounced accent, also the palace was just like chocolate Taj Mahal I'm pretty sure but whatever) but the chocolate melts (and drops on his forhead, between his eye brows. Y'lnow? Get it? Cause the... they have the dot.... thing... like SHUT UP IT'S NOT FUNNY) There was some funny lines, and I thought it was funny that Charlie was played by the dude who plays the Good Doctor (my dad was like "I couldn't watch it without thinking about he was going to say he was a surgeon), but every other scene felt almost illegal to watch. ALSO they drop the R-slur in this movie, which doesn't surprise me considering it was 2205, but if the film from the 70's sexulized the children less, had no slurs in it??? like ok, why are we adding offensive stuff to the equation of this children's movie?

Wonka (2023): Went in as a hater, came out as a fan 8/10

I was like "Who asked for this movie? Do we need another willy wonka movie??" But, I was pleasantly surprised. It had a lot of heart, the effect were pretty nice, I liked the characters. I guess they were given permission or something by Roald Dahl's family or something (i watched a behind the scenes thing, but i don't remember much about it) to do some new stuff with the Wonka character. So a lot of the characters are new, or heavily expanded on. I thought the humor really matched the 1971 film, a lot of funny bits. Timothee Chalamet, who isn't my favorite guy, was surprisingly charming as Wonka, I was ready to be rolling my eyes every time he said something. But, again, he was actually pretty silly, with the sort of seeds planted for him to turn into the Gene Wilder version of Wonka. The kid, Noodle, was also pretty silly. I liked the dynamic between her and William Wonkilla, it felt significantly more wholesome and WAYYY less creepy than anything in the Johnny Depp version. There's also a dead mom backstory for Wanker, and I'm a sucker for that sort of over done cringe, so yeah, I might've gotten like... a little emotional. They made the Oompa-Loompa(s) orange again, and they do the old oompa-loompa song! Pretty pleased with that as well, especially after the painful experience that was the 2005 version of Wonking. Me, my sister, and my dad were all surprised by how much we like this new one, even though I still don't think it was necessary? But again, welcome surprise. Omfg, also, in the BTS thing we watched, there was this sort of unspoken shade being thrown at the 2005 one like there was one guy who was like "Y'know, it's sort of a daunting task because so many great actors have played this character. Y'know, you got Gene Wilder. And now we have Timothee Chalamet- LIKE WOW OKAY DAMN NOT EVEN GONNA SAY HIS NAME!!!! And then also one of the guys, the director or something was like "You can't have a willy wonka movie without Oompa-Loompas, and when I think of oompa-loompas I think orange skin, green hair, you know, funny dances moves" Like, we know what an Oompa-Loompa is.... Why're you mentioning this? Unless, of course, there was a film that went a really weird and uncomfortable route with portraying the Oompa-Loompas?????? OH, like the 2005 one!

The only thing I will say I didn't love with my whole heart was there are a lot of fat jokes. like, there's a cop who puts on a lot of weight throughout the film and it's a little juvenile and sorta dumb and overdone, but I guess I understand the sort of thing they're trying to say? Like, he's getting fat because he's eating chocolate that he's being bribed with, so it's like, he's corrupted or whatever, but idk, i don't love the fat jokes. Still, the character is pretty funny.

So yeah, that's my analysis or whatever. I had a lot of fun watching the movies. The release order is how you should watch them lol. The 1971 movie is a classic, you'll watch it a realize you know more about the movie than you thought, just due to pop culture. The 2005 one, you'll probably recognize some sound bits and some of the soundtrack (if you were on tiktok) but most likely, you'll be annoyed and baffled by the changes they made. And THEN you watch the new one, ready for some cringe, and they hit you with a surprisingly cute and wholesome story that sort of destroys all the cringe the 2005 movie gave you.