#but alas it's not protect him from evil gay people | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

flying-elliska · 3 years

Text

so, I finished the magnus archives ...(spoilers)

unfortunately i'd been spoiled for most of what happened in it but it was still cool to listen to especially since the audio work on it was incredible (those haunted tape noises are the coolest thing i've ever heard on a podcast, it was so slick)

it worked for me on the level of the emotional reaction. it was very sad and poignant. i often find horror stories difficult because either the characters are assholes and then i don't care and the whole thing becomes pointless for me or i get too attached to the characters and then I'm devastated when bad things happen to them and this was definitely the former. I really wish these characters existed in a spooky paranormal fantasy/workplace comedy-drama where they could get the comfort and overwinnings they deserved, but alas. i get they were bound by the genre though and that bad things needed to happen. i think they did a good job of balancing the horror and tragedy and not making it too grim at the same time.

it didn't blow me away either tbh, like for instance the s4 ending did. but i think after all the insane levels of world-building up they did, it was bound to be a bit underwhelming, with some arcs and characters left underused (Agnes!!!!). it misses a bit of a wow factor i had at other times in the series. the thing with horror is that there is only so far you can push character growth before it becomes too optimistic, and so when you go really deep into a character arc that's not strictly a corruption, it can often feel frustrating and unfinished in terms of emotional payoff.

I have mixed feelings about s5 as a whole. It's really cool that they experimented with something new, the concept of the fearscape is fascinating, and some of the statements are among my favorites in the whole show (the Sick Village, Recollections, the Gardener, Wonderland, the Processing Line, Moving on...) and really bring the cosmic horror/metaphor for the horrors of capitalism/ableism/abuse/etc in a way that feels strangely cathartic and understanding and glorious - but a lot of the others, especially in act 2/3, felt very forgettable and repetitive, and less like stories that could stand on their own, which i loved about the more traditional statements. Once it becomes clear that Jon (and Martin as a consequence) can't really be hurt, and the more it all becomes very detached from the real world, the sense of doom and foreboding that they did so well throughout the whole show kind of vanishes. The tension weirdly feels lower because the worst has already happened. I really believe in 'more is less' when it comes to scary things, and in a hell world where everything is horrible everywhere, it has less impact after a while. I did love the relationship between Jon and Martin providing those moments of humanity and warmth in the midst of it all, though, that was sweet.

the end itself...well, I found the dilemma interesting on a character level. of course Jon would sacrifice himself ; he feels so guilty he would doom the entire world to die rather than have to shoulder even more guilt for the fears potentially conquering other dimensions. he's spent so long feeling powerless and out of his depth that he would grasp this chance to finally make a choice and have agency and protect at least some people and keep the fears from extending their reach. but i love that he wasn't able to see it through either. it's so human. him and Martin breaking their promises to each other isn't miscommunication, it's deeply rooted in their respective personalities. of course Martin would do anything not to lose Jon since that love is basically the thing that saved him from the Lonely.

i don't think any of the options they had were the 'right choice' - both were shitty and atrocious, but the one that ended up happening is the one i would have picked, because it leaves some space for hope. If Jon had chosen to end their world to trap the fears, killing billions of people in the process, that would have been certain doom. With the fears sucked into other dimensions - first of all they had no certainty that the fears didn't already exist somewhere else, and any of the other worlds still have a fighting chance. I mean, it still sucks tremendously, it's very scary and ethically questionable and a massive risk, but at least it's open and it leaves it up to the people in the other worlds to make their own choices. And their world has a chance to recover. I find the idea that people remember what happened and the concept of a post-post apocalyptic world fascinating. I also really like that Melanie, Georgie and Basira (and the Admiral) made it out alive, and that we don't really know what happened to Jon and Martin. For a horror podcast that's super dark, violent and depressing, it's kind of awesome how they managed to sidestep 'bury your gays' very elegantly.

I've read this head canon somewhere of Jon and Martin being scattered across dimensions as these not-quite-human anymore entities that work to warn people and counteract the fears, powered by love and the desire to make things better, and I think that's my favorite post-canon option, because while it's still kind of a horrible fate it's also the one that gives them the most agency and it's also kind of romantic (way too much for a horror podcast, I'm aware, but i like that open endings like these allow you to make your own decisions about what happened).

also, the Web won, which is terrifying. the idea that it's using people as neurons ! horrible. amazing.

on a philosophical level I'm not sure i find the whole thing all that interesting, as a thought experiment, because i don't believe the universe is this consistently evil in the real world, so i don't find it super relevant. I'm also not the kind of hardcore fan who remembers a lot of details about previous seasons, so maybe I'm missing something.

But yeah overall I think in terms of storytelling this remains a pretty decent ending with enough layers to make it satisfying. it wasn't transcendent but it didn't ruin the whole thing, at least (*cough cough the Black Tapes*) and I can see myself listening to it again in a few years. and i'm definitely going to need a few fix-it fics now.

#tma #the magnus archives #tma spoilers #jonmartin #tma s5 #tma finale #podcast review #also there is no better way to listen to a spooky podcast than to bike through the woods at sunset #both pleasant and kind of sinister it's great

14 notes · View notes

whipped-stream · 3 years

Text

I watched: The Night Manager

I find spy stuff a bit difficult really. It’s so smug - long, indulgently complicated stories chock-full of smart men in smart suits drinking man-drinks like whisky or martinis, surveilling each other out of the corners of their eyes, skulking around the charming alleyways of some architecturally opulent urban space. No one is ever insecure in a spy story; no one ever has a moment where they’re at a loss for words; no one ever has acne or eats a burger or even drinks a latte, because the only coffee appropriate for a spy story has to be something tight and elegant like an espresso. Oh, and very few people in these stories are ever female, fat (unless they’re evil) or gay (unless they’re evil).

Of course, this is all completely endemic to the genre. Asking for a spy thriller without these qualities would be like asking for a Judd Apatow comedy without a bunch of scruffy beardy blokes. But like - it’s 2021 now, and you’d think we would be gradually nearing the point where we were ready to retire all the tiresome, difficult stuff about the genre and do something new and interesting with it. Alas, The Night Manager has proved to me that we are nowhere near this possible future.

Don’t get me wrong, this is an enjoyable, easy show if you don’t think about it too much. It’s polished, gorgeous to look at and the basic plot revolving around illegal arms trading in the Middle East is absorbing, albeit a little toothless (for all the action and violence in the Middle East scenes we never really engage on any level with the human impact of this nefarious trade, besides one anecdote which never really lands). Tom Hiddleston and Hugh Laurie are both, predictably, also amazing in this show. Tom Hiddleston is perfect as a hotel manager; his earnest, twinkly-eyed politeness fits perfectly in the luxury hotels his character glides through, just as his luxury suits and luxury face suit the luxury décor. Then, as a secret services mole amongst gangsters, he is perfect again, charming everyone into smitten trust with a gleaming smile as they fall into the glacier-blue lagoons of his eyes, barely noticing him surreptitiously gathering all their secrets.

Hugh Laurie is as charismatic and sinister as a cartoon devil and makes for a terrific villain, fiercely dedicated to chewing the scenery at every opportunity. It is unclear to me why they chose to give him a sortof shabby Friar Tuck haircut for the role, but perhaps he is doing a Harrison Ford and just exerting his Great Actor Famepower to refuse to undergo any kind of personal grooming before a scene.

But yeah. Every time I was enjoying it, the dang show did something to ruin it. Firstly it was the ‘Bond women’. Sure, stunningly beautiful and sexually inviting women are a staple of this genre, and this show tries its best to show good faith by making sure that the stunningly beautiful and sexually inviting women in this instance have some kind of personality and plot relevance. It’s a pathetic effort at best. The first gorgeous woman chivvies the plot along for all of two minutes before flinging her fabulous self at Tom Hiddlestone and being a charming bedfellow just long enough for him to be distraught when he discovers her moments later in a pool of her own blood. Ahh, yes, a classic Woman in Refrigerator - gosh, I haven’t seen one of those employed with such efficiency in quite some time. Despite barely knowing her, Tom Hiddlestone is so devastated that he moves into some kind of massive concrete bunker right at the top of a Swiss Alpine mountain (what IS that house, dude!?!? Do you live in a weather monitoring facility?) and eventually agrees to become an agent for the secret services - which of course presents even more opportunities for some top totty.

The other stunningly beautiful woman in this show is in a relationship with the baddie played by Hugh Laurie, even though the two of them don’t so much have an age gap as an age chasm. She is called ‘Jed’, and she truly is only here for the camera to make long, indulgent pans up her svelte legs and delicate back. The show leaps at any opportunity to show a bit of her boob and at one point she fully disrobes and walks slowly and teasingly into the sea, pointing her arse right at Tom Hiddlestone, in order to make a point about living a carefree life. All the personal details about this woman are arbitrary - she has a kid that she never gets to see, I guess, and like she’s kind of suspicious of her boyfriend the arms dealer or whatever, but the show refuses to waste any time giving these story points any more than a cursory glance. Jed is a hollow, objectified character whose clothes fall off at the slightest jostle.

And then there’s the other thing. The torture thing. What is up with these spy shows? And how the only thing they love more than sexy women is the spectacle of sexy women being battered, tortured and lying dead in revealing poses? Just like her predecessor, poor Jed barely gets to do anything interesting or even proactive before she is ‘found out’ and we have to endure a really queasy scene where she’s being beaten up and repeatedly almost-drowned for her treachery. As her sore, blue-purple face is thrust over and over again into the brimming bathtub and she thrashes for air, her naked breast dangles out of her top in a tactless mush of raunchy objectification and vicarious misogyny. It’s one of the most troubling things I have witnessed on telly in a good while.

Okay - there is one other woman in this show. Olivia Coleman plays the head of this secret service operation, and she is written as a fierce, ambitious agent who knows exactly what she’s doing. Oh, and she’s pregnant, so I guess we’re doing Fargo too, a bit? For the entirety of the programme, which seems to span several months, she appears to be at the end of her third trimester. No one ever asks her when she’ll be going on maternity leave and who will take over this spy operation when that happens. As part of the final showdown, she travels to the Middle East, stalks around a hotel filled with murderous gangsters, shoots people in the knee and hides from even more murderous gangsters WHILE SEEMINGLY MOMENTS AWAY FROM HER FIRST CONTRACTION.

Essentially this woman’s pregnancy is a decorative character quirk, like having an eyepatch or an eccentric moustache. The story doesn’t let the character engage with her pregnancy in any human sense: and sure, the logistics of being pregnant is not exactly thrilling espionage content, but then why bother doing it at all? Leave her unpregged, and let her run around with guns to her heart’s content, or do it properly, and engage with interesting ideas of how we see and define modern motherhood; how we see pregnant women as vulnerable and in need of protection rather than being the protectors; how a woman’s career clashes and harmonises with her biological fate to be the child-bearer. Fargo did all that stuff effortlessly. Watch Fargo. The film, not the telly programme.

I also feel that it’s worth pointing out that this character was a man in the book, which makes it pretty clear that she was the hail-mary gesture to preempt any complaints that the only female main characters are bland eye-candy.

I have one last complaint. Remember that thing I said at the beginning about how the only gay characters allowed in this genre have to be evil? Well yeah, stamp that one on your bingo card too. I cannot believe that we are at a point in society where we can generate edible meat in a lab and yet the most frequent gay characters we see in mainstream TV are still either camp BFFs or acid-tongued villains. Tom Hollander is a completely wonderful actor and I urge you to watch basically anything else he has done besides this. There is no need for this character, Hugh Laurie’s snide and suspicious right-hand man, to be a creepy, predatory homosexual man. He is preposterous - constantly leering at Tom Hiddlestone and making blunt innuendos or just full-on grabbing Tom Hiddlestone’s giblets. A clear conflation is being made: this man is a threat, and the threat he poses to Tom Hiddlestone’s mission is mirrored by the threat he poses to Hiddlestone’s hetero-masculinity, his sexual autonomy. It feels like this character is a charicature of how homophobes see all gay men: malevolent and sexually rapacious, on a mission to assault, harass and render uncomfortable all hetero men who are just minding their own business.

I truly don’t understand this show - how they made such an effort to shoehorn so much deeply troubling messaging into a story which needed none of these things. The bare bones of the spy story is solid and it could have been turned out in so many different ways, but this was what they chose. It all feels so retrograde, so unnecessary. This is the kind of thing that Netflix would not have toyed with - whatever you feel about that streaming platform, they create stories with real, three-dimensional women and all kinds of diverse characters from the LGBTQ+ scene and beyond. Amazon Prime still needs to work on getting woke. But I guess we shouldn’t expect too much from the platform that snapped up Jeremy Clarkson.

The Night Manager, available on Amazon Prime

#the night manager #inclusive feminism #rant #review #misogyny #homophobia

2 notes · View notes

blackcatanna · 4 years

Text

First impressions of Hakuoki characters:

Hijikata: Sebastian from Black Butler realness. Is mean but in a reluctant way. Like a Mum who is in charge of discipline because her husband (Kondou) is incapable of laying down the law. I like him but I would like him more if the game wasn't sucking his dick so hard. He has good hair. Please don't kill me, Hijikata!

Okita: He is handsome (duh) but seems a bit too eager to kill his own men... Ugh, now he's making me thank him. His idea of humour is threatening to kill you. He's like an old cackling witch who was shunned by the world and is taking it out on anyone he has power over. I enjoy him but I find it hard to relate to someone who takes pleasure in tormenting the helpless. Big dom energy. Probably enjoyed tying you up a bit too much. I want to fight back but I have a feeling that there is no script for bratty Chizuru. :'(

Saito: The Chosen One. He is dangerous but also adorable. He saved mah life *swoons*. He is HELPFUL. He has beautiful impractical hair. He is CONCISE. He is POLITE. He just seems like a great person to have around... If he's on your side (R.I.P. Itou). Alas, we can never be wed, for he is already married to his sword... Or maybe it's Hijikata... Or Okita... Or tofu. He has a lot of commitments.

Harada: He has red hair. Me like red hair. I feel like all three of them are way too casual about my impending doom. Not getting friendly vibes here. However, it turns out that he's pretty great! A bit too chirpy for my liking, though. Because I'm a miserable bitch (goth), I guess. The baka trio are all more boisterous and outgoing than I would be comfortable being around but I like them on their own. Harada is my favourite, though. Definitely the Mum of the trio. I guess that makes him the cool aunty of the Shinsengumi? He has the best Kazama burns and I will always love him for that.

Heisuke: I wish that the others would stop treating him like a child. Maybe they would if he stopped taking their bait. He's the most openly friendly of the group and that means a lot when you're surrounded by new people (and are being held against your will). He looks like an angry wildcat. I like cats so that's fine, I guess.

Kazama: Ew. Can you tell that I don't like him? Fuck this wannabe nonce. Actually, no! Don't fuck him! That's what he wants! Just stab him real good. He cannot control his temper. I do not respect that. He is racist. He is too scared of rejection to court a girl and get consent. He is really handsome but he has the worst personality so I feel no attraction to him at all. Not even for a hate fuck. No. Go away.

Nagakura: Ah, the classic pervert! We love a slut! I kept forgetting who he was, though. Sorry. Clearly, he has hidden depths but I have yet to find out what those are. Is a little bit too violent. Needs to calm tf down. I don't really have much else to say about first impressions. At first, the baka trio were just loud, wacky background noise.

Sannan: Seems fine, I guess... Fairly reasonable. If he was such a sweet, fluffy bunny before his injury, why was everyone so scared of him? He has a pleasantly calm aura. However, he needs to work on his diplomacy. Demanding blood while brandishing a sword is extremely un-chill of him. I also enjoy wandering around eerily in the middle of the night so we have that in common. Definitely gives off sinister vibes.

Yamazaki: Ninja Nurse Mum! He is clever, selfless, dedicated and reliable! He deserves a better hairstyle XD Sorry Yamazaki! The rat tail is not a strong look but he probably has more important things to worry about like SAVING LIVES and coming up with new moves to shout out in combat. I am excited to do his route because he deserves all the happiness.

Iba: The most beautiful one. He's rich, good looking, friendly and has had a crush on you for years. He also rescues you from the Shinsengumi on numerous occasions to hang out and eat delicious desserts. He's very cute. Definitely too good to be true. Everyone has a dark side and it concerns me when someone locks theirs away so much. Or maybe he really is that 2D. Iba is so perfect that they had to give him the Demon Arm of Horniness because they didn't want to tarnish him with a human flaw. I would probably be obsessed with him if he was real but, as a character, I don't find him that interesting.

Sakamoto: I still have no idea who this man is. He creeps me out, though. I don't remember why, I just remember being creeped out when you first meet him. Maybe he should mind his own business.

Souma: Puppy? Who threw this poor guy to Harada and Nagakura? Wow, I finally have underlings. However, they are probably not here against their will. He looks scared so he must have some brains. I haven't played his route yet so I don't know much about him.

Nomura: Horny Puppy! This isn't really a first impression (except for in the sense that all of my impressions are initial because I haven't played much with him in yet) and is totally spoilery but there's a bit in Edo Blossoms where they're making fun of him for being terrible with women and how it'll take him ten years to figure them out. At the time, I thought, "Bit harsh, guys. He could very easily die tomorrow and then he'll never get any." AND THEN HE DID. Die, that is. Not get laid. R.I.P.

Kondou: Married to Hijikata. They have loads of terrible children. Fun Dad. Thinks that he's a cool Dad but there are no cool Dads. Everyone talks about how nice he is and how everyone loves him but it's hard to appreciate that when he's debating whether or not to feed you to Okita. Turns out, he is kind but very busy. Definitely a secret badass. Very secret. He gives off friendly bear vibes.

Inoue: Friendly Grandad who is way younger than he looks. Not datable so he is mostly in the background, just being kind, helpful and dependable. He is warm but calm and comforting to be around.

Shimada: Gruff undatable anime guy who is not a bishie and so his brave and heroic acts often go unnoticed.

Motoyama: Bless him for trying to be a wingman. Why is he so scared of the Shinsengumi? Scary poor people with swords? He is very good at his job. Needs to calm down with the winks and nudges.

Itou: This Bitch. He could be fabulous but he loses points for mocking the disabled. He's Regina George. Except he actually dies. Is very camp. Would be great to go shopping with him. Not necessarily gay but is the gay best friend you deserve, not the gay best friend you asked for. Is a bitch but also sometimes the only sane person in the room. He's not reading you, he's just being real with you because you're Shinsengumi Sisters.

Miki: Bitch by Association. "Darling." Doesn't seem totally evil, just trying to do his best by his brother. Relies on tough guy image. Doing his job but happens to be on team Bitch. Also, he is a handsome boi.

Takeda: Fabulous Cunt. Should be too beautiful to be such a disaster human and yet here we are. Starts off as a bit of a prick, ends up (spoilers) feasting on the flesh of innocents... Is that a glow up? He's a dirty cop. Nobody likes him X_X :'(

Shiranui: GUNS! SHOOTY SHOOTY! He has a lot of aggression and he channels it through his GUNS. He always looks somewhat maniacal. Needs to take a chill pill.

Amagiri: Infuriatingly calm enemy with infuriating facial hair. He seems pretty chill and not bloodthirsty so... Good? He punched Heisuke, though, so RAAAAAAAWR!!!!

Kodo: Worst Dad. Scalpels > kunai. Took a level in WTF while he was away (hopefully he wasn't always like that).

Kaoru: Why can't I dress like that? :'( Definitely evil.

Sen: Hey, don't tell me off for protecting you! Can we be best friends?! I'M SO STARVED OF FEMALE CONTACT!!! More of this queen, please. She is powerful, kind and she is honest! I wanted to run away with her while Saito and Heisuke were away :') But the game didn't let me :'(

Kimigiku: GOALS. Why can't I be disguised as a geisha (except for that one time) :'( GET THIS QUEEN A ROUTE. She is beauty she is grace. I wish that I looked more like a woman and less like a child. I want her to be my friend too. She can teach me her womanly arts!

Chizuru!: She's fine. Much less annoying than she could easily be. Too pure for this world. A fine example of woman (well, she looks like a child). Her disguise is useless. Pretends not to be thirsty but rushes past Itou to see shirtless men. HMMMMMMM.

#hakuouki #hakuoki #my terrible opinions #otome adventures #first impressions

10 notes · View notes

machihunnicutt · 5 years

Text

What the Downton Movie Owes Me (but will probably not give me): Some Thoughts on Thomas Barrow

yes...I wrote 1k+ words on this. I’m so sorry.

I’m watching Downton Abbey for the 3rd (4th?) time with my sister who hasn’t seen it. I love this glorified soap opera to death, y’all, with the full acknowledgment that this show does a horrible job with a lot of its plot lines designed to tackle complicated issues: disability (the ableism against Bates via the house that he never gets apologies for, Matthew and his spinal injury/wheelchair that is always framed as life-ending and making him nothing but a “burden”), class (the Branson/Sybil marriage is alright, but there are countless missed opportunities to interrogate the relationship between upstairs and downstairs, particularly Carson’s attachment to a family that monopolizes his life and the lives of all its employees), (I’m going to leave race and gender alone because I think it does a pretty decent job when these issues come into play but feel free to lmk if there’s something I missed!), and sexuality, which is what I want to get into.

So granted, I understand that I’m not the target audience for this show. I understand that Downton’s gay characters were not written primarily to be relatable, multifaceted representations of gay people in a period drama. I get that Downton’s target audience is older, straight people for which representation isn’t super important. But, I have watched this show at least 3 times now and I’m still angry about its treatment of Thomas Barrow, so I’m going to break down why:

1) Things We Know About Thomas Barrow

I really like early seasons of Downton because, for all its drawn out drama and plot twists, it cares a lot about character development and consistency. Many characters (dare I say the majority) do mean and bad things and yet, we are still empathetic because we’ve spent time with them, understand why they make the choices they do, and see them learn from their mistakes (early seasons Mary is an excellent example.)

Thomas Barrow is my favorite Downton character because of the great narrative work they do in this regard. In the first episode we learn several character traits of his that continue to be important throughout his arcs:

- He doesn’t trust easily and has few friends in the house. (AKA, boy’s got a bad attitude. It’s better to act like you hate everyone than give them the chance to reject you.) I found this immediately endearing (because of who I am I guess lol), and though I understand why people don’t like his character because of this, I think it’s a good move for a character you intend to have grow over a long period of time. Opening up, accepting help from others, and showing kindness are all parts of Thomas’ future storylines, actions that show his slow growth from this facet of his character. I also think it’s important to note that when Thomas does make friends he is loyal to them (I’m excepting O’Brien from this category given there’s so much backstabbing between them that it’s a stretch to call them friends) and will take risks to protect them (Examples: befriending Lt. Courtenay and later fighting Dr. Clarkson to keep him at the hospital; befriending Lady Sybil and speaking kindly about her when he doesn’t have nice things to say about anyone else upstairs, later earnestly mourning her death in a show of vulnerability he generally masks; befriending Jimmy and looking out for him when he gets drunk at the fair, going as far to get beaten up to save Jimmy; befriending Andy and helping him learn to read; befriending the kids of the house and saving them from that one nasty nanny who was mistreating them.)

- He’s a romantic. The man wants to be loved and jfc I wish the show gave him a good love interest.

- He’s easily manipulated. (More on this later, but for now...) The Duke plays him, and it’s cruel, but it shows how easily Thomas can be tricked when he’s offered affection and the chance to leave Downton for something better. (Also note: from day one, he’s wanted to leave Downton!)

- He’s the evil gay trope. The gay villain trope has a long and complicated history and sure, you can say Thomas’s sexuality and role as an antagonist aren’t connected, but the show doesn’t exist in a vacuum and it feeds into a long history of villainizing LGBT and LGBT coded characters. The thing I hate most is that they get really close to subverting it in Thomas’ best moments (his work in the hospital during the war, his relationship with the kids, his gradual opening up to people in the house) but alas...

2) Why I Hate The Jimmy Kent Arc More Than Anything

Okay, so it makes sense for Thomas to be manipulated by O’Brien. That’s consistent with his character and I don’t fault the show for melodrama because that’s what it does. What I hate, is that the show depicts Thomas’ attraction to Jimmy as predatory and when he is punished for trying to kiss Jimmy while he’s asleep (which is assault) the house (and I’d argue, the show) frames this as bad only because Thomas is gay and Jimmy is not. In the show’s narrative Jimmy is mad because he’s homophobic, not because he’s been violated. And his and Jimmy’s ensuing friendship would be genuinely sweet if it really was just an issue of homophobia and not one of ASSAULT!

I’d argue, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t portray Thomas as predatory and then brush it aside to make a statement about tolerance, because assaulting people is bad regardless of the sexuality of the perpetrator. You either need to punish his actions for what they are or get better at story telling and not rely on the predatory gay stereotype.

But, secondarily, I’m bothered by this arc because it doesn’t seem in character, to me. I know Thomas does a lot of bad, stupid things, but I don’t think it makes sense for him to be predatory. In his best moments he is protective, romantic, and loyal. Yes, we see him as rash and naive, but his actions never felt right for the character, to me. I just think it’s lazy writing to handle his attraction to Jimmy this way, especially given the development of their friendship afterward. It would’ve been so much more satisfying and narratively interesting for Thomas to express his feelings for Jimmy in a respectful way. Jimmy is the only character we see Thomas have genuine feelings for (not motivated by upward mobility as in the case of the Duke or I guess(?) racial stereotyping in the case of Kemal Pamuk...but lbr his pass at him was mostly a plot device) and I think the arc would’ve been so much more fulfilling if we saw it as Thomas’ attempt to love someone fully and honestly, even if it ultimately doesn’t work out the way he wants it to. And I don’t get why they didn’t do this! Because the Jimmy/Thomas friendship ends up being sweet, and useful for each character’s development. They just had to make it gross by beginning with an assault. Just a huge, lazy, waste of a potentially good idea.

3) The Last Season Was Bad For A Lot Of Characters But They Did Thomas Extremely Dirty

I don’t know where to start with the last season because I think they ran into so many problems because they forgot how to use great characters effectively (Mary is a prime example!!) and started just throwing them into dramatic situations for the sake of plot and not keeping actions consistent with established character.

For example, life at Downton is the roughest it has ever been for Thomas in season 6, to the point where he is alienated by most in the house (I’m not going to talk about how badly Carson treats him and how much of a tyrant Carson is in the last season because again, I think it comes down to the writers forgetting how to use their characters effectively) and attempts suicide. All in all, I just don’t like this because it’s predictable and overdone. Gay people in period pieces almost always have overwhelmingly tragic stories and it’s not fun for me to watch anymore. What most disappoints me though, is that when everyone else is getting paired off in the fan-servicey ending, Thomas’ consolation prize is being the butler??? To a house full of people who’ve hated him??? He’s wanted from the beginning to leave Downton and in the end he doesn’t.

Don’t get me wrong, if the show had shown me his change in attitude and relationship to the house, given me this character development in meaningful ways, and not used a suicide attempt as a half-assed catalyst for change, I would be all for Thomas as Downton’s butler. I think that if they’d done the work of making it a believable and constructive next step for his character, that I’d really like it. I think Thomas’ relationship with the kids (particularly George! I’d watch a whole movie about that!) is well done and I think it echos Carson’s relationship with Mary, but better. But you! have! to! do! the! work! to! get! the! audience! there! You can’t give me a whole season of Downton nastiness and Thomas suffering and then expect me to buy that this is his happy ending.

4) What I Want From This Movie

I don’t think I’ll get it (though a love interest for Thomas via the trailer is encouraging), but here’s what I want:

- Show me why Thomas Barrow as Downton butler makes sense. And if you can’t, let him leave and be happy somewhere else because he deserves it.

- Show me how he’s grown. Show me his relationship with the kids and how he’s better than Carson because I need it!!

- Let Thomas be in a relationship that is healthy and not manipulative or coercive or a plot device for drama.

- Let him be in love and don’t make it a sad story. Please.

I find Thomas Barrow such a compelling character because he isn’t perfect. He makes mistakes. He does bad things. He grows. He changes over the course of six seasons. He’s a gay character in a period drama whose story isn’t about being ashamed of who he is. It isn’t about denial or apologies or pretending he’s someone he isn’t. And I think that’s significant. I just wish they’d done a slightly better job. :)

(Thanks for reading. I’m gonna keep being a Thomas Barrow stan even when no one watching with me thinks I’m valid lol.)

#thomas barrow #downton abbey #downton movie #awi makes things #downton abbey rant #jimmy kent #lgbt media #rant

61 notes · View notes

haloud · 5 years

Text

“Not As Lost, Violent Souls:” Alex Manes and T.S. Eliot’s “The Hollow Men” -- part 1

- intro -

Epigraph: Connections

Alex's connection to "The Hollow Men" begins as early as the poem's own epigraph--a pair of referential lines that open the poem. The first, a reference to Conrad's Heart of Darkness, a story about imperialism, racism, and a man growing disgusted with the "civilized" world, which brings to mind Alex's speech about war and atrocity from episode 1x12:

Kyle: What if there's some truth to it? That the aliens are killers [...] What if the good ones are the exception to the rule?

Alex: You just watched your government blow up a building full of elderly people. Your brain is trying to justify the slaughter so that your government can be right. You want to believe that we're safe. That goodness prevails. That's the coldest reality about war. Sometimes you're just doing what you're told. Then, all of a sudden, things are burning, people are screaming...And then you look around, and you realize that the evil is you.

The second epigraph reads "A penny for the Old Guy," a reference to Guy Fawkes and the custom of asking for pennies with which to buy fireworks in the days leading up to Bonfire Night. Drawing this parallel to Alex, I ask: who is he? Who is Guy Fawkes? Depending on who you ask and when, Fawkes could be either a Catholic dissenter who planned to blow up a government building and failed miserably, or he could be a revolutionary anti-government symbol. And who, in turn, is Alex? Is he a soldier following orders and fighting his father's battles despite his own principles and desires? Or is the the "black sheep" of his family, doing what has to be done to survive and shoulder the burden of his legacy, working to make the world a better place? And will he succeed or fail, as Fawkes did?

And that's just two lines, placed before the poem even begins. I did say this was going to get long.

Part I: The self in effigy

Getting into the poem proper, the first stanza reads as follows:

We are the hollow men We are the stuffed men Leaning together Headpiece filled with straw. Alas! Our dried voices, when We whisper together Are quiet and meaningless As wind in dry grass or rats' feet over broken glass In our dry cellar.

The first image of the poem, the "stuffed men...headpiece filled with straw" is a scarecrow or effigy, continuing somewhat from the epigraph of Guy Fawkes. This dummy (meaning an inanimate, man-shaped object) is a constructed being in a shape of a man, empty inside, created for a purpose outside its own, created to be used and discarded. The scarecrow's only purpose is to sit alone in a field, subject to the slow decay of the elements; the effigy's purpose is to be burned, often to make a statement against its subject. In a sense, Alex the soldier is a scarecrow set up by his father—set up for a purpose and left alone in the proverbial field to protect the farmer’s interests, aka his father’s legacy. And in another sense, Alex the soldier is an effigy of his younger self, burning to prove a point. Both the scarecrow and the effigy are powerless; as the poem says, “Our dried voices…are quiet and meaningless.” Eliot scholar Grover Smith says of the "figurative straw dummies" that they

[D]esignate not only the ineptness and spiritual flaccidity of the speaker, but…his inability to attain love. If one turns back…to some of the most ancient as well as the most persistent rituals of pagan Europe, it is the straw men who seems to have functioned in certain of the fire festivals as a sacrificial representative of the vegetation spirit or as a scapegoat ridding his folk of accumulated ill-chance. (Smith)[1]

And, then, connecting the straw dummy symbol once more to the epigraph, Smith says “the commemoration of the fifth of November itself reflects the custom of burning in effigy the bearer of local guilt, the accident of the season.” The idea of Alex as a scarecrow, essentially a puppet, calls back to his words in 1x13 that ever since he enlisted he has been fighting his father’s battles and barely recognizes himself anymore. The idea of Alex as an effigy—the “bearer of local guilt”—calls back to the idea that becoming a soldier would constitute a change of state for a young, gay kid into a “real man.” Neither is a charitable or wholly accurate reading of Alex’s enlistment, but nor are they wholly inaccurate. Alex and his father, so closely enmeshed in his identity as an airman, have both at different times seen him as a puppet and as an effigy, as represented in the symbolism of the poem.

The poem continues with a couplet:

Shape without form, shade without color Paralysed force, gesture without motion;

These lines describe the state of the hollow men, only half of what they should be, held back and impotent. I don’t have much regarding Alex to say about these two lines, but they are a useful point of reference for later in the poem when these contradictory dichotomies come up again.

Next, we look at the final stanza of section I:

Those who have crossed With direct eyes, to death's other kingdom Remember us - if at all - not as lost Violent souls, but only As the hollow men The stuffed men.

Much has been made in scholarship of “The Hollow Men” of the image of the eyes and to what Eliot could be referring by “death’s other kingdom.” The eyes are, as stated in Eliot’s own letters, a reference to the eyes of Beatrice that persist throughout Dante’s Divine Comedy—the eyes of the main character’s lover. So here I mention Michael for the first time. If I am assigning Michael to the Beatrice role, here, it seems to set him apart from the hollow men themselves, though much of the imagery—the straw puppets, desert imagery to come later, and the general theme of hollowness in itself—of the hollow men would not be out of place applied to Michael. However, I choose to interpret the role of the eyes in the poem as well as the plea in this stanza as befitting Michael’s place in Alex’s life. Michael has crossed into an “other” kingdom, unattainable, separate. And Alex does not want to be remembered as lost or violent, because neither of those things would be the truth. It is not because he wants to exonerate himself nor because it is any more heroic, but he wants to be remembered as he truly is, as both a puppet manipulated by the force that manipulates them both—his father—and as the effigy made of himself, by himself and others, without his own permission. Both the passive and the active states of being. Again, I’ll call on his speech from 1x13, where he says, “I could tell you that I didn’t want to leave, but I did. After what my father did to you, I wanted to be the kind of person who won battles. It felt good.” There is violence there, inherent in being a soldier. There is also a sense of being lost; he was thrown into the military because he had no escape from it, so he made the choice to embrace it even though he wanted his life to go down a different path. However, in the 1x13 speech—made to Michael, or, in other words, in Michael’s eyes—he states his desire to move on from that place he got stuck ten years ago.

Part II: Make it feel over

The second part of "The Hollow Men" begins:

Eyes I dare not meet in dreams In death's dream kingdom

As always in poetry, and in Eliot specifically, there has been debate for almost a century about some of his wording. In particular, the different "kingdoms" he references throughout this poem are subject to much discussion. For the purposes of this analysis, I subscribe to the interpretation that "death's dream kingdom" just refers to sleep. Taking the “eyes” as Michael’s presence in the poem, these lines read quite simply—Alex can’t bring himself to look at Michael, to look for him, to acknowledge him at all, even in dreams.

This entire section can be read as an entreaty to "the eyes":

There, the eyes are: Sunlight on a broken column There, is a tree swinging And voices are In the wind’s singing More distant and solemn Than a fading star.

The broken column, the swinging tree (implying an untethering from the generally solid nature of trees), the distant voices, the singing wind, the fading star—all these images bring to mind a sort of ruined glory. Something that once was great, grand, whole, or tangibly real is no longer. The feeling of finality conveyed here, both in the talk of death and in the words used themselves, makes this a particularly poignant point of reference for Alex to use when Michael asks him to “really make it feel over.”

The poem continues:

Let me be no nearer In death’s dream kingdom Let me also wear Such deliberate disguises Rat’s coat, crowskin, crossed staves In a field Behaving as the wind behaves No nearer –

The scarecrow/straw dummy imagery returns in this section; this time, however, the dummy has slightly more agency, though it is not using that agency to do anything of significance. It “wears…deliberate” clothing and “behaves” like the wind does. Of this section of the poem, Smith says, “here [the eyes] are the upbraiding eyes of one incarnating his lost redemption: the speaker takes refuge in apathy; he desires to think of himself only as a scarecrow. He shrinks from everything but concealment among the other hollow men.” Alex uses the identity impressed upon him as something of a shield—his own “deliberate disguise”—and, similarly, he uses distance as a shield as well. The wind is changing, forceful, uncatchable, untouchable, invisible—all things Alex might wish to be, all qualities that might protect him.

Finally, this section ends:

Not that final meeting In the twilight kingdom

Fading, death, final twilight—so many words in the second segment of the poem describe something coming to an end, inevitably and inexorably. Even before the final lines of the poem, the reader is being primed to accept that sometimes things end “with a whimper.” They die slowly, like how day fades into night. They simply fade away, with no celebration or fanfare. These lines also include a reference to yet another “kingdom;” in this case, many people consider the twilight kingdom simply to be death itself. The speaker does not want to be closer to the eyes, whether out of fear, despair, or apathy: not now, and not even in death. Again, this section really makes it feel over.

So, just to recap what we’ve established so far: the epigraph and the first two segments of “The Hollow Men” portray the speaker as a man who has lost a sense of identity or purpose, both among the hollow men and wishing to be more like them, haunted by a vision of “eyes” and wishing to live more completely in the meaningless, liminal space inhabited by the hollow men. If Alex is the speaker, trapped in a sense in the world that makes “hollowness” the only state of being achievable, then the desire to inhabit that distant, liminal space is representative of the defense mechanisms he has developed to navigate the world. He takes control, avoiding vulnerability. He runs away, keeping intimate interactions with the person who makes him most vulnerable on his terms. In sections III-V, the imagery of the eyes grows ever stronger, as the world of the speaker grows more dismal and disconnected, concluding with the breakdown of connections inherent in the Shadow falling between such deeply connected things, and the final statement about the end of the world.

[1] Smith, Grover. T.S. Eliot’s Poetry and Plays: A Study in Sources and Meaning. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1956. Print.

#alex manes #rnm meta #roswell new mexico

14 notes · View notes

19possums-blog · 5 years

Text

On tianshan relationship and their fandom, i guess ?

hello there @nightfayre !! Im the 5asks anon lol (the one abt the last chapter of tianshan). I wanted to thank you for your answer and continue to rant in your askbox but i figured it was so long that mb it would crash ur box lmao, so I... kind of created a blog..... hm. well theres no bad reasons to create an account is there lol ?? (also is there no way to send a long ask ?? why is it so limited :(( )

So once again thank you for anwser, and what an answer ! You raised many points i didnt think about and that was very interesting. I knew i would be glad to hear your thoughts ! the rest under a read more coz i think its going to be looong lol

(( To do a sort of disclaimer : I despise fandom discourse and im more of the mentality “let ppl enjoy what they want as long as it dont hurt real life ppl”, and “dont like dont interact”. So everything im going to say is not an attack against anyone, but just a way of prolonging a manhwa that i like. Most of all, i want to emphasize that at the end of the day, its just a manhwa : it doesnt justify being mean or aggressive towards other real life ppl. If you find yourself raging while reading fandom wank, just stop reading, block, and go outside a little. My way of enjoying the manhwa is to be analytical, to criticize (positively and negatively) and to look at the material source as well as the fandom in itself ; if its (understandably lol) not your definition of fun, this post may not be for you !))

Ur totally right in saying that the hardest thing is separate morality, reality and fiction. I hope my asks didn't come across as a 'u shouldnt like tianshan bc its not morally good'. There is a lot of puritan push back on tumblr lately, and im totally against it. Everyone is free to like/ship what they want ; reading only ‘morally good’ literature wont prevent you to become a nasty person - i would argue itd be the exact opposite, as your spirit wont be trained to think critically or to evaluate a situation (and every situations is always grey) by your own means. Also, its important to separate fantasies/what you like to read and who you are/what you do. To be embarrassingly honest, and like many people, one of my sexual fantasy is rape ; but in my real life, im in a queer anarchist collective that actively fights against rape culture and defends rape victims. That is why i dont have a problem with SheLI/Mo shippers (or even HeCheng/SheLi shippers) even if its not my cup of tea, but i would have a problem if in real life (irl) ppl would say to irl Mo that irl SL is good for him (or if they wouldnt find it wrong that a irl 30yo Cheng is involved wt an irl 15yo Li). I digress.

But then again this confusion about fiction/reality/morality is at the core of the tianshan fandom -and many fandoms. I dont know about you, but i grossly see 3 types of ‘trends’ depending on how ppl interact with the source material :

1.The ones who think you cant like something while being critical of it. I love 19 days but I think there are flaws in it, beyond tianshan dynamic (like how OX handles the transition between funny and dramatic moments –I think its badly done). It doesn’t mean I personally hate OX and wish harm to their family oc. Worse than this, the ones who, because they dont like certain things in 19 days, feel free to harass OX on their social media. Here its a confusion between fiction and reality and a lack of critical thinking.

2. the ones that loves Tianshan because they think it fits the trope “Dark, handsome, tortured violent boy who is violent towards fragile, sweet, pure cute boy because he loves him” and the typically associated trope “the pure boy will change the violent boy by the pureness of his heart”. Aka the most common yaoi trope. Again, if it pleases people to see Tianshan like this, good for them and i hope they have a nice time reading 19 days. Lets face it, I love really bad yaoi and books. Its just not how i see tianshan at all, but to each their own. I just have a problem when these ppl insist that its an ok behavior to have in real life and say things like “possessiveness is a proof of love” uncritically (hint : it isnt). For me, its the difference between enjoying fast food (thats okay), and wanting to force everyone to eat fast food and to find it pleasurable (not okay).

3. the ones that think what you like in literature defines who you are, and so in order to be a “good person” you have to only like “morally good litterature” -there are the ones I personally find the more interesting bc they can ask good questions. But alas, in most cases its just puritanism badly disguised and currently they are in all fandoms. Lets not delve into the issue of this statement : what is ‘morally good’ ? who are in the authority to proclaim what is good ? how can you recognize what is ‘morally good’ if you dont see what is ‘morally not good’ ? is it literature’s responsibility to educate its audience ? do literature have to point out “watch out audience what just happened is not okay” as if we were brainless children ? whats more important : what you like reading or what you do irl ? .... Okay i totally delve into this lmao. Here its a confusion between fiction and morality and a rejection of critical thinking : we could say its like when the Catholics prohibited women from reading bc it would pervert them and think of the children).

Returning to the specifics of what we've been talking about : so in this last case, you (generic ‘you’) think that you are a good person ; so you have to read morally good literature. So in this case, fandom isnt just a harmless hobby, but a proof of how you are morally good, imagine the stakes ! But alas, you happen to like 19 days and most specifically tianshan. You said (@nightfayre ) that you judge Tianshan unhealthy as they are now, and i wholeheartedly agree with you, so im not going to discuss why since you already explained it so well. So, what happens when you like a morally not good ship, but you think liking morally dubious things makes you a bad person ? You bent over backwards to explain that, in fact, this ship is morally good, to protect your integrity. And thats why, in 19days fandom since the last chapter (and its the same thing with every chapter where flaws of HT are revealed!), there are many posts going around “hm, in fact, what He Tian did is good ! i know it can seems like hes a violent asshole who dont respect MGS because he punches him, threatens him, and dont listen to him, but hm.... in fact its because he’s nice...” and then they do mental gymnastics to justify what is, obviously, not morally justifiable. And i find its a pity because, my guy, my buddy, nobody is going to throw you tomatoes if you like a morally dubious character, and also bc nothin is morally good ! everybody does what they think is the best in ‘problematic situations’ ! and thats what make life interesting ! and so, 19 days interesting ! The flaws of HT (and MGS) are what drawn ppl to his character, bc it makes him real, its makes him contradictory, we can project ourselves in him, and we can see a complicated character with awesome latent potential. And yes, treating someone like a territory bc you care about them is a flaw lol. (on this subject : i saw ppl saying that its protectiveness and not possession : if you protect someone like you would protect a territory, then its not a healthy protection. you deal with a human whose agency you must respect, contrary to a territory).

MGS and HT are the product of what happen to them in their early childhood and then their adolescence. Like you said, they grow up in a violent, twisted world, where being emotionally distant is the norm. I would even say that they are expected to conform to the standards of (toxic) masculinity : channel all your emotions into anger, caring is being weak and feminine, prove your worth by your physical strength, be in control in all ur relationship, etc. I would say thats why Mo is so hostile towards HT : HT challenges his masculinity, by seducing him (everyone know that the biggest fear of macho men like HT and Mo is being considered gay -_-) and being stronger than him. Lets face it, Mo has kind of a homophobic issue, like all the boys. Between JY who tells HT its disgusting being told hes handsome by a man (at the beginning of the manhwa, i hope by now he had grown out of it), or Mo who tells HT he isnt happy that a guy is on his bed or who desperately wants to prove his heterosexuality by saying he likes all cute girls to his baldy friend... HT is more nuanced, but at the end, when he ‘seduces’ Mo, its always predatory. He doesnt let himself being vulnerable and he aggressively touches Mo even without his consent. For me, its a way of proving his domination, not his interest (and when i say that, i dont mean that HT is not genuinely interested in Mo -just that his actions dont translate this). ZZX is the only one who seems to have a healthy relationship with his masculinity lol, but then hes the healthy one in all aspects (thats why i dont like his character and am not invested in zhanyi, even if irl i would love to be his friend).

With all that being said, oc HT wont know how to adequately express genuine concern and interest in Mo ! This sort of social interactions is not something you just know, its smth you learn. And in HT and Mo’s cases, nobody was there to teach them -we could even say that ppl in their life made them unlearn caring behaviors. So HT does what he does best : he fights and forces, and is surprised when Mo thinks (obviously) HT is evil. And also, like you said, Mo will never be (at least how he is now) a driving force in their relationships bc he will always run away from bonding with ppl. So here we are, HT being the only driving force in their relationship, the same HT who only knows violence. No wonder that their relationship is like this...

As it is, i feel like tianshan is kind of in an impasse right now. One or the other is going to have to evolve if we want to see their relationships changing. Either HT learns how to care without being violent (seems complicated if Mo doesnt challenges him, bc HT isnt going to realize this without feedback since its how he has always functioned), or, more likely, Mo is going to be honest with him and tell him that his behavior is hurting him. Though more probable, I dont see it happening anytime soon : for one, Mo isnt capable of seeing when he is hurting emotionally and what is hurting him ; and also, bc Mo doesnt know any other language than violence, not unlike HT. I think its smth most of the fandom ignore, how violence is smth that HT and MGS both have in common, and how if HT wasnt violent, MGS certainly wouldnt consider him at all.

Anw im excited to see where OX is going with all this ! Like you said, the forced kiss was pivotal to their relationship, so im kind of hoping it would be the same here ! I just hope they wont... do like usual and just put a funny chapter and ignore this latest development.....

OMG i wrote soo much and there is so much i still want to say.... i think im going to do a second post... sorry about the spam lmao

( @nightfayre : i dont know how this site works yet, is @ you alright ? will it show you my post in your notif or should i send an ask ? bc i want you to see my answer, but i dont want you to feel pressurized to respond or interact or anything !! above all dont feel pressurized, i was sad last night when you wrote ‘im sorry to not answer more quicly’ bc you should answer at your own rhythm or not answer ! your blog is a hobby, not an obligation, so dont feel bad to not do more when yo already do much !! )

#19days #19 days #tianshan

3 notes · View notes

bee-zs · 7 years

Text

some voltron future season predictions for literally no other reason than potential gloating rights a year and a half from now:

each of the voltron lions were forged on different planets and made from unique materials.

ala black lion = guardian of the sky; came from a meteor that crashed on the Galra home planet

one of the lions will be badly damaged and they have to take it back to it’s home planet for repairs

haggar has a strong personal grudge against allura (or alfor) and thats why she turned against altea

possibly also an evil aunt, just saying

keith’s dad is not only still alive but hiding out somewhere in space, I would put money on him showing up in person in future seasons.

this would also go along with the ‘keith’s dad left him’ theory since he might have literally just been carried off into space.

he’s probably still kinda an asshole tho

i don’t trust him

another one of the original voltron paladins is alive, possibly a recluse in some far corner of the galaxy

possibly one of those crazy wise old people that teach life changing lessons to those they encounter.

i hope it’s the blue paladin and lance

alfor survived the attack on altea. we didn’t see him die so in my book, he ain’t dead. at the very least the time between when alfor put allura in the pod and when altea was destroyed is important and what happened there will be revealed to us before the end of the show.

he even says ‘if all goes well i will see you again soon’ to allura right before he knocks her out !!! that man had a plan !!!!!!!!!!!

coran was probably in on whatever alfor did bc he was put into the cyropod after allura, likely on alfor’s request to watch after her.

Hunk is going to go through some kind of heartbreaking tragedy that becomes his will to fight

I say this because Hunk is the only one of the paladins who doesn’t have a Reason for doing what he is doing yet. (Shiro = revenge on zarkon, keeping his team safe, + just being the kind of good person who literally wouldn’t rest until he knew the galaxy was safe. Lance = his desire to protect earth and to return home to his family. Keith = his quest for knowledge about himself and his past, Pidge = her need to rescue her missing family members, ect.) so maybe his Reason™ is actually going to happen real-time, all the more heartbreaking.

Lance and Keith will get stuck alone together somewhere and have to work as a team to make their way back to the ship.

it will be gay.

they will bond and lance will actually remember it this time

Lance will attempt to sacrifice himself for one of his team members

A paladin (probably Keith) will run away and then proceed be tracked down mercilessly by the rest of the team and there is a heartfelt reunion scene where at least 2 people cry (not including me)

somebody important to Keith dies. likely his mom or dad. because he’s tragic like that.

listen the fuck up it better not be shiro because i will FIGHT

Pidge will find Matt but not her dad. they have to team up to save him.

alternatively: they find Matt but he doesn’t remember anything about Pidge or himself (just like how Shiro still hasn’t regained all his memories but Worse)

Lance accidentally commits some kind of grave alien cultural offense and gets thrown in space jail, the team has to spend the rest episode working to save him before he’s executed.

Lance befriends his cellmate who turns out to be the Important Person the team came to find in the first place.

Keith gets attached to a cute, tiny alien pet and immediately risks his life for it

Kaltenecker returns, she lives in the castle in her own grazing pasture. Lance takes care of her and has full on conversations with her daily. like a living cow diary.

that's all tune in next season to see if i bathe in the fountains of glory or return a Fool to my people

#if i think of more ill reblog this again #voltron #keith #lance #shiro #pidge #hunk #allura #voltron spoilers #voltron predictions #ria rambles #i cant wait to make a fool of myself come s3 #long post

5K notes · View notes

shingekicornwrites · 7 years

Note

I know this is alot so you don't have to do it if it seems too much, but every question for Magical boy Marco!!!

I’m gonna go ahead and remove the ones that I’ve already answered for Marco

What does their bedroom look like?

Marco’s bedroom is very tidy, with a few posters on the wall and a shelf filled with books. He has a few plants in the window and more than a few books on his shelf are about gardening. A soccer ball and cleats are always at the foot of the bed. It’s all soft colors and there are photos all over of him and his sister and friends as they’ve grown.

Do they have any daily rituals?

Every day Marco sets aside time to cook dinner for himself and his sister, as well as making their lunches for the next day. The rest of his day is usually dedicated to magical boy business, and in the fall, soccer practice. Also a few times a week he slips away to work on the small garden he has on the roof.

Do they exercise, and if so, what do they do? How often?

Marco jogs wherever he goes and regularly takes his soccer ball out for practice. Now that he’s got the bracelet he’s looking to set aside time to learn to fight.

What would they do if they needed to make dinner but the kitchen was busy?

Wait patiently until he can have access to the kitchen.

Cleanliness habits (personal, workspace, etc.)

Marco is a very clean person who tidies things up once he’s done using them. Everything, really.

Eating habits and sample daily menu

Marco can cook simple dishes and his best work is pasta. During soccer season he relies more and more on energy bars and gatorade but his typical meals involve lots of sandwiches and soups.

Favorite way to waste time and feelings surrounding wasting time

Marco likes to garden. It’s very soothing, a nice calming activity to balance out the hectic stuff like his magical boy duties and schoolwork.

Favorite indulgence and feelings surrounding indulging

Jean’s food. Good lord, Jean’s food. He at least deserves that much after running around every day fighting evil.

Makeup?

Not usually but Light Warrior Spinel apparently has winged eyeliner and wow, he looks good

Neuroses? Do they recognize them as such?

Marco has a hero complex a mile wide and he knows it

Intellectual pursuits?

Marco’s a very smart young man but his pursuits in education always seem to have plants involved.

Favorite book genre?

Fairy tales and fantasy. He’s a sap for happy endings.

Sexual Orientation? And, regardless of own orientation, thoughts on sexual orientation in general?

Marco is a big fat gay and he just wants everyone to get along and love each other

Physical abnormalities? (Both visible and not, including injuries/disabilities, long-term illnesses, food-intolerances, etc.)

Nothing outstanding

Favorite beverage?

Fruit punch or chocolate milk

What do they think about before falling asleep at night?

“I’m so tired everything hurts but oh man Jean’s gonna make food tomorrow it’s gonna be so delicious”

Childhood illnesses? Any interesting stories behind them?

Nothing of note

Turn-ons? Turn-offs?

He’s 15 u heathen

Given a blank piece of paper, a pencil, and nothing to do, what would happen?

A doodle of a flower, followed by a grocery list so he doesn’t forget later

How organized are they? How does this organization/disorganization manifest in their everyday life?

Marco is very organized. He keeps everything neat, in order, and in the proper way for efficiency. Though as a magical boy he’s still trying to get that way, he’s very...loose and clumsy, when he first starts out.

Is there one subject of study that they excel at? Or do they even care about intellectual pursuits at all?

Marco’s a good student all around and usually comes behind Armin when scores come in. Though Marco’s interests aren’t really inclined toward academics.

How do they see themselves 5 years from today?

He isn’t very sure. He’d like to have a bigger garden, and hopefully be in a decent college. He isn’t even sure if he wants to still have the bracelet by that point.

Do they have any plans for the future? Any contingency plans if things don’t workout?

He honestly hasn’t thought that far ahead. He prefers not to think about it.

What is their biggest regret?

That he didn’t find out what was going on with his sister before she got hurt.

Who do they see as their best friend? Their worst enemy?

His best friend? Easy, Jean. His worst enemy...

The Jewelmaker is already gone, so there isn’t a big enemy to fight anymore. He only fights villains who are born from corrupted trinkets.

Reaction to sudden extrapersonal disaster (eg The house is on fire! What do they do?)

HELP EVERYONE IMMEDIATELY GO GO GO NO TIME TO WASTE LEAP INTO ACTION

Reaction to sudden intrapersonal disaster (eg close family member suddenly dies)

Take care of his sister first, then see how his parents are doing. Cook the food and take care of the chores so no one else has to.

Most prized possession?

The bracelet. It’s powerful and shouldn’t fall into the wrong hands, and his sister gave it to him out of trust.

Thoughts on material possessions in general?

He’d probably be the type to say “it’s the memories that matter more” but let’s be real if you destroyed his things he’d be devastated

Concept of home and family?

His home and his family, and the people he welcomes into his family, are the most important people of all. He’d do anything to protect them.

Thoughts on privacy? (Are they a private person, or are they prone to ‘TMI’?)

Marco’s simultaneously a private and open person. He’ll be open about anything that isn’t, say, his own deeper emotions.

What activities do they enjoy, but consider to be a waste of time?

Marco isn’t one to call the things he enjoys a waste. If he enjoys it, then it’s got to have some purpose, right?

What makes them feel guilty?

Not helping when someone needs help. He can’t turn others away even if he wants to.

Are they more analytical or more emotional in their decision-making?

Marco’s an analytical person, but overall he’s the type to choose with his heart instead of his mind.

Would they consider themselves a Type A or Type B personality?

Type A

What recharges them when they’re feeling drained?

Working in his garden and talking to his flowers.

Would you say that they have a superiority-complex? Inferiority-complex? Neither?

Neither

How misanthropic are they?

Not at all. Marco’s an all loving hero, unlike his sister.

Hobbies?

Marco likes to garden, and he plays soccer at school. He enjoys reading but prefers to do it at home, and since he makes his and his sisters lunches he enjoys home ec class.

How far did they get in formal education? What are their views on formal education vs self-education?

Marco is a sophomore and currently enrolled in school, and enjoys learning no matter how it comes about. He’s taught himself how to care for plants after all.

Superstitions or views on the occult?

Marco was the kid that wanted to believe in fairy tales and otherworldly things but had to admit it was a pipe dream. He’s scared and overjoyed that it turns out that sort of thing is real.

Do they express their thoughts through words or deeds?

What words cannot say, actions can. He’s found his actions as Spinel help him express the kind of complicated feelings his regular self can’t approach.

If they were to fall in love, who (or what) is their ideal?

He fell for Jean, for reasons unknown to anyone else. Perhaps it was because of Jean’s blunt honesty. Or how Jean seems to always know what he wants. Or maybe even how despite not being the best, Jean still goes forward.

But, alas, only Marco would know why. Everyone else can only guess.

How do they express love?

Marco’s a person who tenderly cares. His love is shown through things like “Are you doing okay” and “What can I do to help?” His love is shown through staying by someone’s side and being a pillar of support.

If this person were to get into a fist fight, what is their fighting style like?

Lots of kicks. Marco is still learning how to use his hands, his legs have all his strength and coordination.

Is this person afraid of dying? Why or why not?

He’s scared like any person would be. Dying isn’t something he’d be okay with at all.

#Anonymous #MSBC

2 notes · View notes

trendingnewsb · 6 years

Text

Trump Condemned Racism As ‘Evil.’ Here Are 19 Times He Embraced It.

It’s been over a year since Donald Trump was elected president of the United States, and he’s spent much of that time reaffirming the legacy of racism upon which he built both his campaign and his real estate business.

From taco bowls and travel bans to “birtherism” and scorn about Black Lives Matter, HuffPost has kept running lists during and after the election detailing examples of Trump’s racism dating as far back as the 1970s. We’ll continue to document those incidents here as they happen.

JIM WATSON via Getty Images

Trump speaks to the press about protests in Charlottesville at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey, Aug. 12, 2017.

He said immigrants from Africa and Haiti come from “shithole countries”

In a meeting with lawmakers in the Oval Office in January 2018, Trump argued against restoring protections for immigrants from Haiti and African nations, describing them as “shithole countries,” sources told The Washington Post and NBC News.

“Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” the president reportedly said. “We should have more people from places like Norway.”

“Certain Washington politicians choose to fight for foreign countries, but President Trump will always fight for the American people,” White House principal deputy press secretary Raj Shah told CBS News in a statement later that day.

He took more than 48 hours to denounce the white supremacist violence in Charlottesville, Virginia

Trump came under fire in August for his response to a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, that left one counter-protester dead.

The day of the rally, Trump said he condemned the “egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides,” without specifically mentioning the white supremacists who organized the rally and the one who ran over a woman with his car.

“The president’s remarks were morally frustrating and disappointing,” former NAACP president Cornell Brooks said at the time. “While it is good that he says he wants to be a president for all the people and he wants to make America great for all of the people, let us know this: Throughout his remarks he refused to” call out white supremacists by name.

Then, more than 48 hours after the rally, after dozens of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and even the maker of the torches used at the rally firmly denounced the white supremacists by name, Trump finally issued a firmer condemnation.

“Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, Neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans,” he said following the immense public pressure.

Some of his top advisers and Cabinet picks have histories of prejudice

Since winning the election, Trump has picked top advisers and cabinet officials whose careers are checkered by accusations of racially biased behavior.

Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist and senior counselor, was executive chairman of Breitbart, a news site that Bannon dubbed the “home of the alt-right” ― a euphemism that describes a loose coalition of white supremacists and aligned groups. Under Bannon’s leadership, Breitbart increased its accommodation of openly racist and anti-Semitic writing, capitalizing on the rise of white nationalism prompted by Trump’s campaign.

Retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn ― who worked as Trump’s national security adviser until resigning in February amid revelations that he discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador ― has drawn scrutiny for anti-Muslim comments he has made over the years. In February, Flynn tweeted that “fear of Muslims is rational.” Over the summer, he said that there is a “diseased component inside the Islamic world” that is like a “cancer.” Flynn has defended Trump’s past proposal of banning Muslim immigration and suggested he would be open to reviving torture techniques like waterboarding.

In addition, Trump has nominated Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to be attorney general of the United States. The Senate refused to confirm Sessions as a federal judge in 1986 amid accusations that he’d made racially insensitive comments, including that the only reason he hadn’t joined the Ku Klux Klan was because members of the extremist group smoked marijuana. Civil rights groups condemned Trump’s nomination of Sessions, while leading white nationalists celebrated it.

And Steve Mnuchin, who Trump tapped to serve as Treasury secretary, faces allegations of profiting from racial discrimination. As a hedge fund manager, Mnuchin purchased a troubled mortgage bank, sped up its foreclosure rate and sold it for a killing several years later. Along the way, Mnuchin’s bank came under fire from housing rights groups for racist practices like lending to very few people of color and maintaining foreclosed-upon properties in neighborhoods that were predominantly black and brown less than in white neighborhoods.

He denied responsibility for the racist incidents that followed his election

While the hate speech and racist violence emboldened by his campaign only escalated after his win, Trump downplayed the incidents and half-heartedly denounced them.

There were nearly 900 hate incidents across the U.S. in the 10 days following the election, a report released last month by the Southern Poverty Law Center found. Those attacks include vandals drawing swastikas on a synagogue, schools, cars and driveways; an assailant beating a gay man while saying the “president says we can kill all you faggots now”; and children telling their black classmates to sit in the back of the school bus.

In nearly 40 percent of those incidents, the SPLC found, people explicitly invoked the president-elect’s name or his campaign slogans.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Anti-Defamation League have also tracked significant growth in racist and bigoted attacks.

“We’ve seen a great deal of really troubling stuff in the last week, a spike in harassment, a spike in vandalism, physical assaults. Something is happening that was not happening before,” ADL national director Jonathan Greenblatt told The New Yorker.

Despite those findings, Trump insisted on CBS’ “60 Minutes” the Sunday after his election that there had only been “a very small amount” of racist incidents.

“I am so saddened to hear that,” Trump said when asked about the racist incidents. “And I say, ‘Stop it.’ If it helps, I will say this, and I will say right to the camera: ‘Stop it.’”

He also accused the media of overstating the attacks.

“I think it’s built up by the press because, frankly, they’ll take every single little incident that they can find in this country, which could’ve been there before ― if I weren’t even around doing this ― and they’ll make it into an event, because that’s the way the press is,” he said.

Trump’s denouncement of hate-fueled violence was relatively mild, especially compared to the zeal with which he routinely attacks other targets ― like, say, “Saturday Night Live,” or the cast of “Hamilton,” who addressed Vice President-elect Mike Pence at a recent performance in New York that Pence attended.

“[Trump] hits the news media when he thinks there’s a story that’s unfair, he tweets when he is outraged about something in the media,” CNN host Wolf Blitzer said in November 2016, after Trump criticized the cast of “Hamilton” for singling out Pence, whom the audience also booed. “But he doesn’t seem to go out of the way to express his outrage over people hailing him with Nazi salutes.”

He launched a travel ban targeting Muslims

In an executive order since blocked by the courts, Trump restricted Syrian refugees and travel by immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries.

While White House press secretary Sean Spicer later insisted that it was “not a Muslim ban,” Trump said the day he signed it that he would prioritize helping Syrian Christians and made an exception for admitting refugees who are religious minorities in those countries.

Trump has characterized people from that region of the world as being “terror-prone,” despite there having been zero fatal terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 1975 by immigrants from the seven targeted countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

A blanket ban on travel from those countries and anti-Muslim bigotry in general is “essentially an extension of the fear and vilification of not only Muslims but everyone perceived to be Muslim that’s been taking place for centuries,” Khaled Beydoun, a law professor at the University of Detroit who also works with the Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project at the University of California, Berkeley, explained to Vox.

He attacked Muslim Gold Star parents

Trump’s retaliation against the parents of a Muslim U.S. Army officer who died while serving in the Iraq War was a low point in a campaign full of hateful rhetoric.

Khizr Khan, the father of the late Army Captain Humayun Khan, spoke out against Trump’s bigoted rhetoric and disregard for civil liberties at the Democratic National Convention on July 28. It became the most memorable moment of the convention.

SAUL LOEB via Getty Images

Khizr Khan, a Goldstar father, speaks on Feb. 2 about Trump issuing an executive order to ban travelers from seven countries.

“Let me ask you, have you even read the U.S. Constitution?” Khan asked Trump before pulling a copy of the document from his jacket pocket and holding it up. “I will gladly lend you my copy.”

Khan’s wife, Ghazala, who wears a head scarf, stood at his side during the speech but did not speak.

In response to the devastating speech, Trump seized on Ghazala Khan’s silence to imply that she was forbidden from speaking due to the couple’s Islamic faith.

“If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say. You tell me,” Trump said in an interview with ABC News that first appeared on July 30.

Ghazala Khan explained in an op-ed in The Washington Post the following day that she could not speak because of her grief.

“Walking onto the convention stage, with a huge picture of my son behind me, I could hardly control myself. What mother could?” she wrote. “Donald Trump has children whom he loves. Does he really need to wonder why I did not speak?”

He claimed a judge was biased because “he’s a Mexican”

In May 2016, Trump implied that Gonzalo Curiel, the federal judge presiding over a class action suit against the for-profit Trump University, could not fairly hear the case because of his Mexican heritage.

“He’s a Mexican,” Trump told CNN. “We’re building a wall between here and Mexico. The answer is, he is giving us very unfair rulings — rulings that people can’t even believe.”

Curiel, it should be noted, is an American citizen who was born in Indiana. As a prosecutor in the late 1990s, he went after Mexican drug cartels, making him a target for assassination by a Tijuana drug lord.

Even members of Trump’s own party slammed the racist remarks.

Bloomberg via Getty Images

Trump delivers a statement in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 14, 2017.

“Claiming a person can’t do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment,” House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said, though he clarified that he still endorsed Trump

The comments against Curiel didn’t sit well with the American public either. According to a YouGov poll released in June 2016, 51 percent of those surveyed agreed that Trump’s comments were not only wrong, but also racist. Fifty-seven percent of Americans said Trump was wrong to complain against the judge, while just 20 percent said he was right to do so.

When asked whether he would trust a Muslim judge in light of his proposed restrictions on Muslim immigration, Trump suggested that such a judge might not be fair to him either.

The Justice Department sued his company ― twice ― for not renting to black people

When Trump was serving as the president of his family’s real estate company, the Trump Management Corporation, in 1973, the Justice Department sued the company for alleged racial discrimination against black people looking to rent apartments in the Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island boroughs of New York City.

The lawsuit charged that the company quoted different rental terms and conditions to black rental candidates than it did to white candidates, and that the company lied to black applicants about apartments not being available. Trump called those accusations “absolutely ridiculous” and sued the Justice Department for $100 million in damages for defamation.

Without admitting wrongdoing, the Trump Management Corporation settled the original lawsuit two years later and promised not to discriminate against black people, Puerto Ricans or other minorities. Trump also agreed to send weekly vacancy lists for his 15,000 apartments to the New York Urban League, a civil rights group, and to allow the NYUL to present qualified applicants for vacancies in certain Trump properties.

Just three years after that, the Justice Department sued the Trump Management Corporation again for allegedly discriminating against black applicants by telling them apartments weren’t available.

The Washington Post via Getty Images

Black Lives Matter protestors stand in a fog of tear gas during clashes at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Aug. 12, 2017.

In fact, discrimination against black people has been a pattern throughout Trump’s career

Workers at Trump’s casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, have accused him of racism over the years. The New Jersey Casino Control Commission fined the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino $200,000 in 1992 because managers would remove African-American card dealers at the request of a certain big-spending gambler. A state appeals court upheld the fine.

The first-person account of at least one black Trump casino employee in Atlantic City suggests the racist practices were consistent with Trump’s personal behavior toward black workers.

“When Donald and Ivana came to the casino, the bosses would order all the black people off the floor,” Kip Brown, a former employee at Trump’s Castle, told The New Yorker for a 2015 article. “It was the eighties, I was a teen-ager, but I remember it: they put us all in the back.”

Trump allegedly disparaged his black casino employees as “lazy” in vividly bigoted terms, according to a 1991 book by John O’Donnell, a former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino.

“And isn’t it funny. I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it,” O’Donnell recalled Trump saying. “The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.”

“I think the guy is lazy,” Trump said of a black employee, according to O’Donnell. “And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.”

Trump told an interviewer in 1997 that “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true,” but in 1999 accused O’Donnell of having fabricated the quotes.

Trump has also faced charges of reneging on commitments to hire black people. In 1996, 20 African-Americans in Indiana sued Trump for failing to honor a promise to hire mostly minority workers for a riverboat casino on Lake Michigan.

He refused to immediately condemn the white supremacists who advocated for him

Trump’s response to the Charlottesville chaos wasn’t the first time he appeared hesitant to condemn white supremacists.

Three times in a row on Feb. 28, 2016, Trump sidestepped opportunities to renounce white nationalist and former KKK leader David Duke, who’d recently told his radio audience that voting for any candidate other than Trump would be “treason to your heritage.”

When asked by CNN’s Jake Tapper if he would condemn Duke and say he didn’t want a vote from him or any other white supremacists, Trump claimed that he didn’t know anything about white supremacists or about Duke himself. When Tapper pressed him twice more, Trump said he couldn’t condemn a group he hadn’t yet researched.

By Feb. 29, Trump was saying that in fact he did disavow Duke, and that the only reason he didn’t do so on CNN was because of a “lousy earpiece.” Video of the exchange, however, shows Trump responding quickly to Tapper’s questions with no apparent difficulty in hearing.

youtube

It’s preposterous to think that Trump didn’t know about white supremacist groups or their sometimes violent support of him. Reports of neo-Nazi groups rallying around Trump go back as far as August 2015.

His white supremacist fan club includes The Daily Stormer, a leading neo-Nazi news site; Richard Spencer, director of the National Policy Institute, which aims to promote the “heritage, identity, and future of European people”; Jared Taylor, editor of American Renaissance, a Virginia-based white nationalist magazine; Michael Hill, head of the League of the South, an Alabama-based white supremacist secessionist group; and Brad Griffin, a member of Hill’s League of the South and author of the popular white supremacist blog Hunter Wallace.

A leader of the Virginia KKK who backed Trump told a local TV reporter in May, “The reason a lot of Klan members like Donald Trump is because a lot of what he believes, we believe in.”

Later that month, the Trump campaign announced that one of its California primary delegates was William Johnson, chair of the white nationalist American Freedom Party. The Trump campaign subsequently said his inclusion was a mistake, and Johnson withdrew his name at their request.

After the election, Spencer’s National Policy Institute held a celebratory gathering in Washington, D.C. A video shows many of the white nationalists assembled there doing the Nazi salute after Spencer declared, “Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!”

He questioned whether President Barack Obama was born in the United States

Long before calling Mexican immigrants “criminals” and “rapists,” Trump was a leading proponent of “birtherism,” the racist conspiracy theory that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States and is thus an illegitimate president. Trump claimed in 2011 to have sent people to Hawaii to investigate whether Obama was really born there. He insisted at the time that the researchers “cannot believe what they are finding.”

Obama ultimately got the better of Trump, releasing his long-form birth certificate and relentlessly mocking the real estate mogul about it at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner that year.

But Trump continued to insinuate that the president was not born in the country.

“I don’t know where he was born,” Trump said in a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February 2015. (Again, for the record: Obama was born in Hawaii.)

In September, under pressure to clarify his position, Trump finally acknowledged that Obama was indeed born in the United States. But he falsely tried to blame Hillary Clinton for starting the rumors ― and tried to take credit for settling them himself with his racist pressure campaign.

“Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy,” Trump said. “I finished it.”

He treats racial groups as monoliths

Like many racial instigators, Trump often answers accusations of bigotry by loudly protesting that he actually loves the group in question. But that’s just as uncomfortable to hear, because he’s still treating all the members of the group ― all the individual human beings ― as essentially the same and interchangeable. Language is telling, here: Virtually every time Trump mentions a minority group, he uses the definite article the, as in “the Hispanics,” “the Muslims” and “the blacks.”

The Hispanics are going to get those jobs, and they’re going to love Trump. Donald Trump, July 2015

In that sense, Trump’s defensive explanations are of a piece with his slander of minorities. Both rely on essentializing racial and ethnic groups, blurring them into simple, monolithic entities, instead of acknowledging that there’s as much variety among Muslims and Latinos and black people as there is among white people.

How did Trump respond to the outrage last year that followed his characterization of Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists?

“I’ll take jobs back from China, I’ll take jobs back from Japan,” Trump said during his visit to the U.S.-Mexico border in July 2015. “The Hispanics are going to get those jobs, and they’re going to love Trump.”

How did Trump respond to critics of his proposal to ban Muslims from entering the U.S.?

“I’m doing good for the Muslims,” Trump told CNN last December. “Many Muslim friends of mine are in agreement with me. They say, ‘Donald, you brought something up to the fore that is so brilliant and so fantastic.’”

Not long before he called for a blanket ban on Muslims entering the country, Trump was proclaiming his affection for “the Muslims,” disagreeing with rival candidate Ben Carson’s claim in September 2015 that being a Muslim should disqualify someone from running for president.

“I love the Muslims. I think they’re great people,” Trump said then, insisting that he would be willing to name a Muslim to his presidential cabinet.

How did Trump respond to the people who called him out for funding an investigation into whether Obama was born in the United States?

“I have a great relationship with the blacks,” Trump said in April 2011. “I’ve always had a great relationship with the blacks.”

Even when Trump has dropped the definite article “the,” his attempts at praising minority groups he has previously slandered have been offensive.

Look no further than the infamous Cinco de Mayo taco bowl tweet:

Former Republican presidential candidate and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) offered a good summary of everything that was wrong with Trump’s comment.

“It’s like eating a watermelon and saying ‘I love African-Americans,’” Bush quipped.

In an apparent attempt to win favor with black and Latino voters in the final months of the campaign, Trump fell back on his penchant for stereotyping. At the first presidential debate in September, Trump claimed African-Americans and Latinos in cities were “living in hell” due to the violence and poverty in their neighborhoods. The previous month, speaking to an audience of white people, Trump asked “what the hell do [black voters] have to lose” by voting for him.

Trump’s treatment of longtime White House correspondent April Ryan during a February press conference left many wondering if Trump assumes all black people are friends with one another.

When Ryan, a black reporter for the American Urban Radio Networks, asked Trump if he would hold meetings with members of the Congressional Black Caucus to help craft his urban development policy, he asked her to handle the introduction.

“Well, I would. I’ll tell you what, do you want to set up the meeting?” Trump asked. “Do you want to set up the meeting? Are they friends of yours?”

“No, I’m just a reporter,” Ryan replied.

He trashed Native Americans, too

In 1993, Trump wanted to open a casino in Bridgeport, Connecticut, that would compete with one owned by the Mashantucket Pequot Nation, a local Native American tribe. He told the House subcommittee on Native American Affairs that the Pequots “don’t look like Indians to me… They don’t look like Indians to Indians.”

Joe McNally/Getty Images

In the 1980s, Donald Trump was much younger, but just as racist as he is now.

Trump then elaborated on those remarks, which were unearthed last year in the Hartford Courant, by claiming ― with no evidence ― that the mafia had infiltrated Native American casinos.

He also had no problem using a Native American slur to attack his political rivals.

Just days after proclaiming November as Native American Heritage Month, Trump went after Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has identified as part Native American, with a nickname he’s used against her before: “Pocahontas.”

Invoking Pocahontas, an Algonquin woman associated with an English colony in Virginia, to lodge an attack is unacceptable, Indian Country columnist Ruth Hopkins tweeted.

“Pocahontas was prepubescent girl held hostage & raped by European invaders,” she tweeted after Trump’s remarks earlier this month. “Stop mocking her & Native women.”

Later in November, Trump came under fire for using the slur at an event honoring Native Americans.

“You were here long before any of us were here,” Trump told the honored Native American code talkers who served during World War II. “Although we have a representative in Congress who they say was here a long time ago. They call her Pocahontas.”

Several Democrat lawmakers denounced Trump’s language, and Jefferson Keel, president of The National Congress of American Indians, said Trump’s use of the name as an insult was a distraction from the honorees.

“We regret that the President’s use of the name Pocahontas as a slur to insult a political adversary is overshadowing the true purpose of today’s White House ceremony,” he said in a statement that day.

He encouraged the mob anger that resulted in the wrongful imprisonment of the Central Park Five

In 1989, Trump took out full-page ads in four New York City-area newspapers calling for the return of the death penalty in New York and the expansion of police authority in response to the infamous case of a woman who was beaten and raped while jogging in Manhattan’s Central Park.

“They should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes,” Trump wrote, referring to the Central Park attackers and other violent criminals. “I want to hate these murderers and I always will.”

The public outrage over the Central Park jogger rape, at a time when the city was struggling with high crime, led to the wrongful conviction of five teenagers of color known as the Central Park Five.

The men’s convictions were overturned in 2002, after they’d already spent years in prison, when DNA evidence showed they did not commit the crime. Today, their case is considered a cautionary tale about a politicized criminal justice process.

Trump, however, still thinks the men are guilty.

He condoned the beating of a Black Lives Matter protester

At a November 2015 campaign rally in Alabama, Trump supporters physically attacked an African-American protester after the man began chanting “Black lives matter.” Video of the incident shows the assailants kicking the man after he has already fallen to the ground.

The following day, Trump implied that the attackers were justified.

“Maybe [the protester] should have been roughed up,” he mused. “It was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.”

Trump’s dismissive attitude toward the protester is part of a larger, troubling pattern of instigating violence toward protesters at campaign events, where people of color have attracted especially vicious hostility.

Trump has also indicated he believes the entire Black Lives Matter movement lacks legitimate policy grievances. He alluded to these views in an interview with The New York Times Magazine where he described Ferguson, Missouri, as one of the most dangerous places in America. The small St. Louis suburb is not even in the top 20 highest-crime municipalities in the country.

He called supporters who beat up a homeless Latino man “passionate”

Trump’s racial incitement has already inspired hate crimes. Two brothers arrested in Boston in August 2015 for beating up a homeless Latino man cited Trump’s anti-immigrant message when explaining why they did it.

“Donald Trump was right ― all these illegals need to be deported,” one of the men reportedly told police officers.

Trump did not even bother to distance himself from them. Instead, he suggested that the men were well-intentioned and had simply gotten carried away.

“I will say that people who are following me are very passionate,” Trump said. “They love this country and they want this country to be great again. They are passionate.”

He stereotyped Jews and shared an anti-Semitic image created by white supremacists

When Trump addressed the Republican Jewish Coalition last December, he tried to relate to the crowd by invoking the stereotype of Jews as talented and cunning businesspeople.

“I’m a negotiator, like you folks,” Trump told the crowd, touting his 1987 book Trump: The Art of the Deal.

“Is there anyone who doesn’t renegotiate deals in this room?” Trump said. “Perhaps more than any room I’ve spoken to.”

Nor was that the most offensive thing Trump told his Jewish audience. He implied that he had little chance of earning the Jewish Republican group’s support, because his fealty could not be bought with campaign donations.

“You’re not going to support me, because I don’t want your money,” he said. “You want to control your own politician.”

Ironically, Trump has many close Jewish family members. His elder daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism in 2009 before marrying the real estate mogul Jared Kushner. Trump and Kushner raise their three children in an observant Jewish home.

In July 2016, Trump tweeted an anti-Semitic image that featured a photo of Hillary Clinton over a backdrop of $100 bills with a six-pointed star next to her face and the label “Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!”

“Crooked Hillary – – Makes History!” Trump wrote in the tweet.

HUFFPOST

The religious symbol was co-opted by the Nazis during World War II when they forced Jews to sew it onto their clothing. Using the symbol over a pile of money is blatantly anti-Semitic and re-enforces hateful stereotypes of Jewish greed.

But Trump insisted the image was harmless.

“The sheriff’s badge ― which is available under Microsoft’s ‘shapes’ ― fit with the theme of corrupt Hillary and that is why I selected it,” he said in a statement.

Mic, however, discovered that the image was actually created by white supremacists and had appeared on a neo-Nazi forum more than a week before Trump shared it. Additionally, a watermark on the image led to a Twitter account that regularly tweeted racist and sexist political memes.

He treats African-American supporters as tokens to dispel the idea he is racist

At a campaign appearance in California in June 2016, Trump boasted that he had a black supporter in the crowd, saying, “Look at my African-American over here.”

“Look at him,” Trump continued. “Are you the greatest?”

http://ift.tt/2w8hkug from Viral News HQ http://ift.tt/2D900dj via Viral News HQ

#IFTTT #Viral News HQ

0 notes