The nameâs Jeremiah, trans guy, and I am what my name says. A LOUD. ANNOYING. BLERD, BABY!
Iâm a Black nerd who loves anime, manga, video games, and movies with a slight particular for horror movies~
Iâm gonna use this sideblog as a place specifically for making long essays about (usually darker) racialized characters and how theyâre used within media, as well as talking about how the FANDOM treats them (Iâve been in MANY fandoms, let me say). I also plan on talk about how queerness is handled as well and women/girls, as well as just shit that I wanna talk about. Things that interest me.
If you wanna debate, Iâll take you up to bat~ But, you wonât be driving me away. Iâm louder and annoyinger than youâll ever be.
Under the cut are some things Iâm into (non-exhaustive list)
When it comes to âraceâ in America, most people want to brush off the topic of racism by saying race doesnât exist. However, throughout movies, series, and books, we clearly see the opposite, race is something that, while created, has been important to American culture for the division of rights and liberties. Race has become something thatâs deeply ingrained within American society, and historically, movies reflect this. Movies like Birth of a Nation, Guess Whoâs Coming to Dinner, and Do The Right Thing all are case studies in learning the course in racism and racial ideas in America.
In Birth of a Nation, D. W. Griffith clearly defines the races. The white race is the âgoodâ race and the Black race is placed into the âbadâ, âlazyâ, âviolentâ race. This is one of the first outlines of racial relations in preserved media. While there were minstrel shows at the time, they were not saved digitally. D. W. Griffithâs movie not only shows blackface, but it also shows what he and others thought about Black people being freed and what will happen as a result. Of course, what history has shown us has been the opposite, but it still showed a certain sort of sentiment. D. W. Griffith was a man with a camera, but his camera created movies that many enjoyed and that others did agree with. At the time, Birth of a Nation wasnât seen as a disgrace, people did agree with him, people did think Black people would be lazy and violent and that our rightful place was back in those fields, on those plantations to give us a purposeful life. The concept of race was already a thing, and the division of races was also very much a thing at the time, but a movie like Birth of a Nation contextualizes the time: Black people were now people. We were no longer âslavesâ and in the eyes of many white people, that was inherently wrong. We were not meant to be people, we were not people. We were meant to be slaves, and now as people, we would not know how to act in polite society. Which then moves into the want to move away from that and onto the model minority in Black people.
Guess Whoâs Coming to Dinner was a rather fundamental shift in how Black people were shown in the media. Leading up to that, Black people were allowed to have value, but only through physical talent, whether that be singing or sports. But we werenât allowed to be educated in movies, not allowed to be seen as smart, not allowed to be professors. And then John Prentice and his parents are shown onscreen. All three of them are well-educated, well-read, smart, theyâre nice, they speak politely, they dress nice. This is now a huge jump in how Black people were allowed to be shown onscreen. We were finally given some autonomy and ability to hold more than just physical prowess. But, itâs clear how this portrayal is an easy backfire, because now thereâs a kind of Black person who can elevate to the status of âthe good onesâ. The ones who can talk right, who can dress right, who are smart and good and can get themselves a smart and good white wife. It creates a value that Black people must reach to now really be âpeopleâ, but even then, suits and nice words donât save the Black person. But now faced with some of our own, now in the eyes of racists, thereâs no excuse for us to not dress properly, be educated, or anything like that. The mentality of âthey did it, why canât youâ is now given a racial lens. While Guess Whoâs Coming to Dinner is important for showing an interracial relationship between a Black and white person, and showing that Black people are not inherently bad, violent, or lazy, it creates a new hole that leaves the door open for more stringent racial relations. Which leads into the discussion of how directors talked about race relations later in history. Well, for Spike Lee, it was important to confront it from the perspective of Black people.
Do The Right Thing is a Spike Lee joint and a very important one. In history, the goal of white supremacists to erase Blackness and eradicate all who want us to be free and have rights. In history, the goal of liberal racists is to have Black people be as respectful and respectable as white people, but without being recognized as white people. Leeâs movie, Do The Right Thing, tells us that while violence is not something that should happen for change and progression, there is always a boiling point for race relations. The movie doesnât present us with either of the stereotypes from Birth of a Nation or Guess Whoâs Coming to Dinner. Mookie, nor any of his co-workers, his employer, neighbors, or friends are terribly educated, they get heated, but are usually nonviolent, and theyâre all varied. Lee presents us with a version of Black people that are not seen in either of the two movies, theyâre people. Theyâre complex, nuanced, have relationships, feelings, emotions, wants. There are none who are morally superior for having something that the others donât. And, it gives perspective on how Black people are viewed by other, non-Black people and by ourselves. The line of non-white has constantly shifted from settlers who originated from Britain and France, to them later include the Germans, to then eventually include the Irish and Italians. In the movie, it shows the disparity of how Italian-Americans, Black-Americans, and Asian-Americans have to view each other with the bias of white people and the basis of whiteness in America. And in the end, the tenseness is kind of just shown to the viewer, meant for them to take it in and finally understand it.
Race is a socially constructed thing that ultimately means nothing, at least to the racist. However, while race is socially constructed, it always means something and it will always mean something as long as we live in a structurally racist society that refuses to grow and refuses to give Black people our stories and the ability to be people.
I really hate that fandom racism is something we as Black people are told we just have to accept as endemic to fandom rather than something people should be actively working to eradicate from fandom spaces.
"I understand that you face harassment and virulently racist threats in the space where you draw pictures and write stories for fun and community but have you considered that that's just the way things are?"
Some of you should get your asses beat the fuck up I'm so serious.
Letâs have our first official post be a manga Iâm currently reading and read recentlyâŠ
Tougen Anki: A Poorly Executed âWarâ and The Question of "Should One Kill Their Killer?"
So, to give a small preface, since this is a fairly unknown series that recently got an anime. Tougen Anki is a manga and anime about the âwarâ between two different races, Oni and Momotarou, this being derived from the story of Momotarou, the boy born from a peach who slayed an oni.
The story takes place modern day and presents us with Shiki, a boy whoâs learned heâs an oni and is instantly thrown into this war. Standard shonen story, battles and friendship, girls with big boobs, snap the bad guyâs neck and save the day.
âŠBut, thereâs a small problem.
The problem being so: this story does not depict a war.
The point of a war, as shown in a better series like Spy x Family, is that there is needless continuation on both sides. Franky puts it best
Not to derail too much from the main point of talking about Tougen Anki, but I love this part especially in Loidâs past because of how well it can define war. A lot of people from the past called most wars ârich manâs battle, poor manâs fightâ and while Iâm not the biggest fan of the military or anyone who joins itâs ranks, I believe at a certain point, that was true.
Franky lays it out clearly and Loid backs it up with what he does next:
His anger toward the other side and toward Franky specifically basically proves his point: this anger and hostility is manufactured. Itâs put together, itâs fake.
Now, how does Tougen Anki present a âwarâ? Simple, a war fought from every side is meant for some⊠gain. Itâs meant for some form of conquest, some advantage, what have you. However, what started between the Oni and Momotarou may have been a warâŠ
...It gets to a point.
It gets to a certain point where something can no longer be considered a war. It's a full-on genocide, 100% and only. It cannot be called a war at the point it's at within its timeline to be considered such.
How can it be considered such? Ostania and Westalis are at war, they allegedly attack on each other, which sparks such before falling into their cold war.
This is what leads to my main thesis: Should one kill their killer? Is it right, as a person, to determine that someone deserves to die? At what arbitrary point does someone deserve to die? Why should someone deserve to die, and what does this mean?
All of these and more are very good questions, but I feel like some of them don't necessarily capture the heart of the issue. Certain people who read Tougen Anki get all hand-wringy and all "Ohhh, both sides are being used by the higher ups and this war is continuing for no reason" and "both sides" this and "both sides" that, which once again, does not capture the heart of the issue.
The heart of the issue is so: the Momotarou are never presented in a light that ever really evokes the correct kind of sympathy.
For instance, Ukyo. My least favorite Momotarou, next to Shinya. He's got a sick daughter who he's getting money in order to save her with some expensive treatment. And so, natually, Ukyo kills Oni in order to earn money. Because that's something enough to make me feel bad and wonder "man, maybe it's not something so bad. it's bad that circumstance causes this."
Except... it can't. Ukyo's presented as a money-obsessed Momotarou who's after nothing else but more money. Not to mention, this is one of the first panels we see him in:
It's just... disengenious. It makes it harder to want to feel anything but major anger and frustration.
Which answers my thesis. This is not a matter of something so "surface level" as the Momotarou being the Onis "oppressors" or the "privilaged class" (I'm only putting quotes as a way to compare it to the real world--). The Momotarou are genociders and deserve little to no sympathy by the Onis.
I've said intentional inflamatory things such as "I hope all the Momotarou die" and other things similar, but in all honestly, I don't really care if they were to. I enjoy Mikado, he's one of my favorite characters in all of the entire series.
However, for the most part, this series has presented very little Momotarou who would ever be considered "good people", and as such... why do I want them to live? They keep killing and torturing and experimenting on the Oni, and it's like... why? Why do I want these guys half the time while I'm watching them kill children and civilians and drive people away.
And am I supposed to think that it's not good when they kill them when they present characters like this are on the Oni's side:
It's just hard to make such an arguement of "the Oni shouldn't kill the Momotarou because it continues the war", when if they didn't, they would all just die. Every single one of them. The Momotarou don't care about peace. They couldn't possibly want peace, as opposed to killing out of safety for your life.
some fandom disagreements are like "I see your point but I think this other aspect of the narrative is more significant," and some are like "I don't think you can read."
