Day 8: Beach - Summer is here
I need to try harder with brighter and clearer colors, it seems.
Damn, they look so attractive.
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me

shark vs the universe
Cosimo Galluzzi
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
YOU ARE THE REASON

Discoholic 🪩
official daine visual archive
Mike Driver
Claire Keane
KIROKAZE
ojovivo
No title available

Kiana Khansmith
Sade Olutola

pixel skylines
One Nice Bug Per Day
TVSTRANGERTHINGS

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
cherry valley forever
The Bowery Presents

seen from Russia
seen from Nigeria

seen from Malaysia

seen from Colombia
seen from Venezuela

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Indonesia
seen from United States

seen from Tunisia
seen from United States
seen from Russia

seen from Brazil
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from Jamaica

seen from Netherlands
seen from France
seen from Tunisia
seen from Venezuela

seen from Bangladesh
@rwbyuser24
Day 8: Beach - Summer is here
I need to try harder with brighter and clearer colors, it seems.
Damn, they look so attractive.
Day 8: Beach - Summer is here
I need to try harder with brighter and clearer colors, it seems.
How could Blake and Yang have had a conversation with Robyn? (RWBY)
I'm referring, obviously, to before they tell Ironwood the truth.
Something I've always maintained is that Robyn should have interacted with Blake and Yang before they told her the truth. While we know Robyn is a good person, it really feels like a very rushed decision to entrust her with something so important.
Besides, we hadn't really seen Robyn helping people until after election night with this whole resource distribution thing. I know she got into politics to help everyone, but we don't even know what her campaign promises are. I could run for office saying I want to help the poor, but that doesn't mean people should support me. What matters are my plans.
One way to solve all this would be some prior interaction.
I read that Blake and Yang couldn't meet Robyn because they were constantly busy…
Clover: You're of course free to enjoy your time off as you see fit. Whatever helps you take the edge off.
Well, Clover mentions that they have a "time off."
I've also read that they supposedly don't interact with Robyn because Ironwood hates her. Which isn't entirely true.
Yang: Better Robyn than Jacques Schnee. Ironwood: Oh, I suppose so. Either way, this election doesn't bode well for our stability. Ruby: It could be a chance to work with Robyn and get Mantle on your side. Ironwood: The likelihood of that working— Nora: She's right, you have to do something about Mantle. If you could get Robyn to trust you… Jaune: I bet if you opened up to her she'd understand that you're being framed. Ironwood: Perhaps… but it will only work if she's open too.
The idea of working with her. She didn't refuse to talk to her. It's just difficult to open up to someone like that when you're so paranoid.
Besides, Nora went to Robyn's party despite everything.
I don't know, I read that supposedly Ruby and her friends don't want to make Ironwood their enemy. But we've seen the kids criticizing Ironwood's plans and Nora yelling in his face.
But okay, so what do I propose?
Imagine this: Blake and Yang were fighting Grimm in Mantle. An attack near the breach in the wall. Yang and Blake make some comments, kind of like they enjoy being together. (We're adding some Bumblebee development). Okay, so when they're about to call for reinforcements because there are too many Grimm, the Happy Huntresses appear. They help finish off the Grimm.
People cheer for the Happy Huntresses and everything. Robyn congratulates Yang and Blake for showing great courage and skill despite being so young. To celebrate, Robyn invites them for drinks.
Blake and Yang accept and go to a bar. There, Robyn is greeted with great enthusiasm.
Blake is somewhat excited. While Yang talks to May and Joanna about various things (we'll get to that in a moment), Blake speaks with Robyn and Fiona.
Blake says it's a pleasure to speak with such an important figure in Mantle, and that she supports her political campaign.
Robyn is surprised, since Blake is a huntress under Ironwood's command.
Blake says that despite not entirely agreeing with his actions, he's someone who can be trusted… which makes her wonder if she herself should trust him.
Fiona says it's good to have more Faunus huntsmen in the kingdom, especially a Belladonna.
Blake is surprised by that, but Fiona tells her that they investigated "these new Huntsmen" from Atlas.
They talk, and Blake basically recounts how she, her father, and some friends stopped the White Fang in Haven.
Robyn says she's sorry to hear that, since she believes Sienna's project shouldn't have ended like that. And she also thinks it's a shame what Adam ended up becoming. Blake sadly confirms. (Although without revealing that she killed him).
Blake says that her father is trying to create a new movement. Robyn toasts to that, saying that she thinks he's a good man, even if she doesn't entirely agree with his pacifism. During the conversation Robyn expresses her plans and projects if she becomes councilwoman, saying that she will continue fighting for Mantle even if she loses.
The drinks arrive, and Blake says for a moment that she's too young to have an alcoholic drink. Until she remembers that she's an adult, so she can drink. Yang encourages her, and she ends up having a piña colada.
If you're wondering, Yang was talking a bit about her experiences as Huntress, saying that she's doing well now thanks to the support of her friends. Yang makes a special mention of Blake, blushing.
To which May and Joanna exchange knowing glances.
In the end, Blake and Yang basically say that they appreciate the drinks, but now they have to go back to the academy to go to bed since it's very late. Robyn says it was a pleasure meeting them. She appreciates them protecting Mantle. And if they need anything, they can always count on her. Blake and Yang then leave.
Okay. The scene lasts at most 5 minutes, and beyond the initial fight scene, it wouldn't require too much money or animation investment. It provides some Bumblebee footage. Gives the characters extra characterization. Robyn reveals her colors in a good way and makes her look likeable. It serves to cultivate an already established relationship between Blake, Yang, and Robyn. The scene of the Happy Huntresses fighting Grimm serves to show them fighting for Mantle. Etc.
Overall, I think it's a good idea.
If you're not convinced, then why don't we see them at Robyn's party?
Basically, Yang and Blake would go to Robyn to show their support and ask her a bit about her political project.
They would also try to convince Robyn to trust Ironwood; I mean, if Robyn wins, they'll have to work together.
I read somewhere that Blake and Yang didn't have any free time and that it was necessary to de-stress.
But I say: Blake cares about the faunus, don't you think it makes more sense for her character if we see her take an interest in talking to Robyn? And Yang would want to support her.
Note aside. Why always that we talk about something of RWBY, we end up talking about fucking ironwood? I'm tired.
"Note aside. Why always that we talk about something of RWBY, we end up talking about fucking ironwood? I'm tired."
All roads lead to Ironwood.
We should have known Adam's age a long time ago
It's that simple. Even today, there are still discussions and disagreements about Adam's age.
Okay, if you don't understand why this is an important topic, it's simple. How much older than Blake was Adam? Sure, the voice actresses for Yang and Blake said he was 23. But that was just a guess. Adam's age has never been confirmed.
Many say that Adam is a groomer. And while it's obvious that he's older than Blake, what do we know so far?
Adam is tall, quite tall. He's 6'4". And he's maintained that physique since his character short. Sure, Ilia has also maintained that same appearance for years (since before Ghira stopped being High Leader, 5 years before the start of the series).
But in her case, she looked like a teenager back then. I mean, she could have been 14 years old there, and at the start of the series, 19. While she would be older than Blake, her crush on her wouldn't be… shady. At least not in that sense.
On the other hand, Adam has looked like an adult for all those years. And well… 5 years have passed since then.
Let's be generous, and say Adam was 15 years old there (I don't know, he went to work at the SDC since he was a child, let's say), at the start of the series he would be 20 years old. So his relationship with Blake (who was 17 at the start of the series) would be… problematic.
But okay. Maybe the animators simply didn't want to create a design from scratch, and just used that one. Besides, some people develop quite young. Perhaps that's what happened to Adam.
Also, Salem refers to Adam as "boy," even though a year has passed since the series began.
"And Hazel, I'm sending you to the leader of the White Fang. Adam Taurus has arranged the meeting. The boy continues to prove loyal. Ensure that Sienna Khan feels the same."
Anyway, the issue is that we don't know Adam's age. So, you feel that if he really is much older than Blake, the series should have addressed that. Sure, it touches on the topic of abuse in a relationship, but not exactly… the idea that your partner is a groomer.
And if Adam is only two years older than Blake… Well, why leave us wondering?
Something to mention is that I personally don't like the community's reaction. I mean, the FNDM says that the RWDE people are justifying Adam being a groomer. When in reality, most people simply think Adam isn't that much older than Blake. And they also don't like that Adam is a toxic ex-boyfriend.
Well, I needed to get that off my chest.
How old was Adam (Beginning of the series)
19 years old or younger
20-21 years
22-24 years
Older
What if Ironwood used Atlas as a mobile military base?
Another post from James Ironwood… Yeah, I'm not thrilled either. But it's not my fault; I can't think of many other topics to talk about.
Well, I have some ideas, but they're too long, and I don't have much time to talk about them right now.
Oh well, I guess.
While it's debatable whether Ironwood planned to be up there forever, we know for now that he planned to raise Atlas and be there for a good while.
He didn't plan to move Atlas like a mobile military base. We don't even know if that would be possible.
But okay, let's suppose he uses the Relic of Creation to create a portal below the city that transports Atlas City to other places. I don't know, Argus or Vacuo.
What do you think about that? Personally, I feel like it could be… interesting.
Imagine that Ironwood manages to evacuate Atlas City to Argus, and that using the SDC and Amity Tower airships, Ruby's group manages to evacuate the civilians of Mantle to Vacuo.
There it is, I don't know, do you think it would have been interesting? After all, Ironwood could have continued as a morally ambiguous villain, taking control of Argus and deciding to prepare for war with Salem on his own, or at least continue running away from it.
Another thing. I think Ironwood deciding to fight Salem makes more sense for the character than simply having him want to run away. I mean, James is someone who trusts in military force. And the option of running away is simply unsustainable in the long run.
But what do you think? From a writing perspective, do you think it makes sense for Ironwood to use Atlas as a mobile military base? Would you have preferred that conclusion in volume 8? Let's say the development of Team RWBY and Jaune took place on Vacuo, for example.
I'm planning about making a small what if telling what would happen if this happened in canon.
Does what I'm proposing make sense with the character and is good writing?
It makes sense with the character and is good writing
Doesn't make sense with the character and is bad writing
Makes sense with the character but is bad writing
The canon option was the best in both areas
Both the canon option and what I propose are bad writing and are OOC
Should Adam Taurus have died?
Okay, new poll. This is a classic.
Personally, I think Adam deserved to die and that it was the right thing to do. After all the people he killed.
And if there are those who say that Adam was forced by Cinder to participate in Beacon, it doesn't matter. If you watch his scenes, Adam is quite willing to participate in the battle. He seems to believe it's the right thing to do, or at least, the best thing for him. His dialogues indicate that.
Added to that, his character card in RWBY: Combat Ready literally says that he wants to destroy the pillars of society (which includes the academies) and thus enslave humanity.
Think of it this way: the White Fang normally steal Dust. But under Roman, they stole even more Dust.
Just because they were forced to cooperate with Cinder doesn't mean Adam didn't want to participate. What bothered him was having to serve under a human.
And Adam didn't care about his soldiers either, since he was willing to let them all die in the bombs at Haven. If you're wondering why he seemed concerned for them, we can say that he simply can't admit that he doesn't care about their lives.
Yes, this has some headcanons involved. But it's a coherent explanation with everything we've seen.
Anyway, Adam destroyed Yang and Blake's auras, and he was about to grab Blake's weapon. It was either act fast or die.
But that's just my opinion. What do you think?
Should have Adam died?
He deserved to die and was right to kill him
He didn't deserve to die but was right to kill him
He deserve to die but wasn't right to kill him
He didn't deserve to die and wasn't right to kill him
There shouldn't be any problems making your alternate versions of the characters (RWBY)
Something that's happened to me is that sometimes my What Ifs ideas get judged.
I can admit that my ideas are crazy, strange, and sometimes the characters feel out of place.
Yes, I'm bad at storytelling. But I think the idea of letting your imagination run wild shouldn't be judged. I mean, it's just fanfiction.
I'm not saying my ideas are superior to CRWBY's. I'm just trying to express my fictional ideas here.
And that happens sometimes. Evermorrow has been criticized for the way they write Adam, not portraying him as a toxic ex.
But it's an AU; Kaleidoarms is free to represent the characters however they choose. They're alternate versions.
Now, if a fanfic author were to say, "Hey, this part of the series was wrong. I'm going to change it," well, what's the problem? They're trying to innovate and improve things. If you think certain things are wrong with the series, why not try to improve them?
Well, I just wanted to point that out. Thank you.
One problem I have with Ironwood's writing is that he has no ideology
That's it. The writers wrote him so that he would eventually become a dictator. But dictators usually have an ideology. Or at least they try to appear to have one to justify their repressive measures.
What is Ironwood?
1.-Ultra-nationalist?
He doesn't seem like it. I mean, his original plan was to unify the world and defeat Salem together. Besides, he was willing to sacrifice Mantle to achieve his goals. Some might say that nationalists neglect certain parts of the country, but Ironwood really has no prejudice against the people of Mantle.
He has nothing against them; in fact, he has never indicated that he considers them inferior. He has even collaborated with Mantleans when the situation required it and was willing to evacuate them when the situation required it.
2.-Is he a human supremacist? He doesn't seem like it. I mean, he has Marrow in the ace ops. He trusts Blake. He lets Neon Katt represent Atlas in the tournament. Even Forest admits the Happy Huntresses (which includes Fiona) could have joined the special operatives. So there doesn't seem to be any bias there.
3.-Is he a plutocrat? He collaborates with Jacques, and the Atlas military and the SDC develop technology together. But that's about it. I mean, Jacques himself fell out with Ironwood and pointed out how the embargo was costing him money.
You could say it's to control the Dust, but it's not like that was James's motivation; he simply wanted to prevent Salem from infiltrating.
"Your Dust embargo has already cost me millions! I can promise you, I have not forgotten!"
"I needed to ensure Salem couldn't infiltrate Atlas. And I wanted my military here, protecting my people."
4.-Is he a conservative? Maybe. But there are some strange things going on there.
"They were all top Atlas Academy graduates, who could've enlisted in the military, but Robyn and the Huntresses chose to stay in Mantle. She's gunning for a seat on the Kingdom's council, and when she gets it, she's going to put an end to Ironwood's tyranny!"
Apparently, he would have allowed May, a trans woman, to join the army. He also implemented laws limiting gun ownership, as Clover mentioned.
In addition, the embargo is an obvious affront to free trade.
5.-Is he someone who believes in law and order? Despite his gun being named "Due Process," Ironwood actually has a more pragmatic approach to things.
When Ruby's group robbed the Manta, James simply chuckled.
In fact, he was able to cooperate with Robyn the night the heating went out.
And, if it weren't for the fight on the Manta, the army wouldn't have arrested Robyn.
"Only Qrow is under arrest. After everything we've been through tonight, please don't make me arrest you too."
So this one isn't either.
6.-Is he an authoritarian?
Yes. But authoritarianism, more than an ideology in itself, is a way of proceeding. One can take authoritarian measures regardless of their ideology.
7.-Militarism? That seems to be the right one. He trusts his army. But at the same time, he ended up working alongside the council for a long time, even if he didn't like the idea.
"I swear if I have to sit through one more council meeting like that…"
"Actually, I've already informed them. As this is now the site of a classified military operation, it didn't even require a vote."
Besides, Ironwood went to his respective trial, something many militarists wouldn't do.
James himself ended up not declaring martial law in the "Worst Case Scenario" episode. It was a golden opportunity to seize government power and eliminate the opposition, but he didn't.
I remind you that many dictators before their respective coups didn't even have political power beforehand, and yet they still went ahead with the coup. That's unlike Ironwood, who did have the political and military power to declare martial law, and yet he decided not to do so until Gravity.
So James is a militarist, but with nuances.
My point is, James doesn't follow a clear ideology. We could argue that he's a pragmatist, but that's more of an aptitude than an ideology.
And that's my problem. They simply make James look like a fool, and consequently, his followers like fools. Are Marrow and Winter fools? Obviously not, but they seem like it.
Besides, again, dictators usually have ideologies.
In developing his character, the writers should have given him a clear ideology to make him seem more realistic and make sense. In this way, his actions would also be more consistent.
If they want him to be an ultra-nationalist, then show him ignoring his country's problems, believing that everything is perfect.
"No. No, you're right. Things in Mantle have been… hard to manage lately. I'm not blind to its issues. In fact, that's what I want to talk to you about."
On the contrary, Ironwood in the canon is shown as someone who recognizes internal problems.
Show him as someone who distrusts foreigners. That he doesn't trust Ruby, for example. Like, that he asks Penny to report any "strange behavior" from her friends. Or that he favors Weiss over everyone else.
If you want to show him as a human supremacist, then show him segregating Faunus within the armed forces, and mention that he doesn't trust Blake that much. Don't just show Cordovin as a racist; show that this mentality is shared among the other officers.
If you want him to be a plutocrat, then show him forming alliances not only with Jacques, but also with other businessmen (who aren't Jacques' rivals). Show him favoring them and things like that. Instead of just going to their parties out of obligation.
"She's the only one making sense around here. Thanks for the party, Jacques."
Something that could have been useful is, for example, having him meet with the other Atlas businessmen immediately after declaring martial law to ask for their support.
Offer Jacques conditional release if he gets the SDC ships to evacuate all the Dust and resources from Mantle.
And promise the other businessmen control over the resources if they use their private armies to maintain order once Atlas flies into the atmosphere.
Heck, even show Jacques raising Dust prices, and Ironwood accepting it.
If you want him to be a conservative, then show him convincing the council to implement conservative measures.
"I suppose the council trusts him, for better or worse."
"Well, the council's so scared, they'll agree to whatever he wants. Though, some representatives from Mantle… Wait, you're… You're Weiss Schnee!"
I mean, the council trusts his judgment to a certain extent.
If you want him to be militaristic, then show him implementing curfews much earlier, with assembly restrictions. Even imposing martial law much earlier in the series.
Show how his officers, like Winter, manage areas of government beyond their jurisdictions.
In short, sometimes Ironwood has conservative aspects, sometimes liberal ones (American definition). Sometimes he acts like a patriot, and sometimes he simply acts according to what suits the situation.
Ironwood doesn't have a "way of acting," he simply acts according to what the plot requires. I mean, we can say that he trusts in military force to solve his problems, but we've seen him try to escape with Atlas, believing he couldn't defeat Salem. Plus, he even tried to unite the world.
He follows strategies, but they don't revolve around an ideology.
That's my criticism.
EDIT:
Something I forgot to mention is that dictators usually want their ideologies to spread, not only through conquest but also by supporting governmental attempts by people of the same ideology in other countries.
Okay, obviously Ironwood isn't going to invade other kingdoms to spread his ideologies, but he might say in some scenes that he'll try to get other kingdoms to change their policies.
You know, not through intimidation, but through trade alliances and such.
Like, "In exchange for reducing my tariffs and ending the embargo, you could adopt certain political measures."
In that way those other kingdoms could be more "efficient" in their war against Salem.
I know that many dictators don't even have an ideology and only serve themselves. But Miles Luna himself pointed out that Ironwood believed what he was doing was right. So James does have ideals, just not ideologies.
Another thing, while Ironwood's embargo and border closures can be compared to real-life measures in the United States,
I think it's different. He's not closing borders out of xenophobia. He does it to prevent Salem and her minions from entering Atlas. The embargo isn't a sanction against a government unfavorable to his, nor is it a way to force its collapse. He does it, again, to prevent Salem from entering Atlas.
That's all. I needed to clarify that.
That's it. The writers wrote him so that he would eventually become a dictator. But dictators usually have an ideology. Or at least they try to appear to have one to justify their repressive measures.
Yeah...and most dictators don't fall into being dictators because of existential dread at trying to fight an immortal.
James didn't become a dictator as some commentary on a greater school of thought: he became a dictator because he lost faith in others and refused to see himself in the wrong. So he charges ahead. He's not meant to stand in for an ideology or person who follows an ideology: He's moreso a personal journey of a man with all the qualities of a hero falling to his own internal issues.
My point is, James doesn't follow a clear ideology. We could argue that he's a pragmatist, but that's more of an aptitude than an ideology. And that's my problem. They simply make James look like a fool, and consequently, his followers like fools. Are Marrow and Winter fools? Obviously not, but they seem like it.
How is he a fool? He's not trying to be a leader of the country and rule it: Acting as a dictator is a means to an end- 'Saving Atlas.' He fundamentally isn't a dictator like Stalin or Hitler. He has no plans to be a ruler nor an innate desire to rule. You're complaining that the facet isn't turning the microwave on when you plug it in: that's not the function here. And frankly, calling the people who follow him 'fools' because of it is frankly ridiculous and kind of petulant. How hard is it to see that they follow James because they don't want the world to end and they believe the charismatic and outwardly strong and independent general with a plan is in the right?
Besides, again, dictators usually have ideologies.
...And most dictators contradict their ideologies for the sake of personal enrichment immediately. It's common for political leaders to act like they have this grand belief when in reality, all they care about is themselves and thus lack any kind of coherent ideology.
In developing his character, the writers should have given him a clear ideology to make him seem more realistic and make sense. In this way, his actions would also be more consistent.
... How is he not consistent?
He wants to defeat Salem and believes that his methods are always correct. He flaunts his power to earn people's affirmation. He stabs Oz in the back because he and Oz don't align. And...hey, wait a minute!
My point is, James doesn't follow a clear ideology. We could argue that he's a pragmatist, but that's more of an aptitude than an ideology.
Yeah, that's not an ideology. But it is a form of philosophy, one that often rejects any and all forms of ideology. Yeah, many pragmatists have ideals...but they're the exact kind of person to devalue, deemphasize and disregard said ideals. Pragmatists are always ones who compromise their ideals for the sake of achieving their goals, with their ideals basically forming what the goals even are. But said goals do not need an ideology to exist. If your goal is 'to benefit myself' then an ideology is unnecessary. You just act out of self interest. And if your goal is, say, 'protect my nation' then you need no ideology: you simply do whatever it takes to save your nation.
The answer is staring you right in the face: James' so-called 'contradictions' are actually all about saving the people, so he'll do whatever it takes to save them. His pragmatism is his philosophy and his goals are personal.
How is this such a problem?
"But he's a dictator!"
And? I brought up that dictators betray their supposed ideologies for good reason here: For every dictator that killed a bunch of people for the sake of their utopia, every other dictator was some jackass spouting off lines of ideology like a parrot so they can hoard wealth. Not only is James a personal character, not an ideological one- He's not anything new or unrealistic.
And that's another key: James isn't an ideology or a person. He's a character trying to tell a specific story. And the story isn't about ideology: it's more about the themes in the story than a belief system. He's not a criticism of dictators- he's a man failing to live up to his heroic elements first and a vague criticism about how militaries crush individualism as a distant second.
In short, sometimes Ironwood has conservative aspects, sometimes liberal ones (American definition). Sometimes he acts like a patriot, and sometimes he simply acts according to what suits the situation.
Okay. Sounds like a lot of real life people. Probably because James is someone acting out of a personal goal, like most people.
Ironwood doesn't have a "way of acting," he simply acts according to what the plot requires.
You know, saying this after refusing to acknowledge the existence of personal goals, goals that are primarily formed from one's own specific desires with ideology being a vague after thought- does not make you look good.
He follows strategies, but they don't revolve around an ideology. That's my criticism.
"How very interesting, sir. This, however, is a gym, not a debate room. You are in the wrong area. Please either pick up a weight, run on the threadmill or leave."
Seriously. There's no way to engage with this. You are trying to apply a criticism to writing that is only tangentially related to the criticism. This doesn't work.
Talking about philosophies in RWBY is fun and all but that's putting words to general feelings and impulses that drove the writers. They weren't researching the ethics of fighting a futile fight: they just expressed themselves. And criticizing them for not implementing an ideology into the story of a character motivated for personal reasons and general heroic impulses is the kind of stuff that gets you dogpiled by Twitter.
This whole post should have been scrapped and redone with something like 'a case for why James should have been given an ideology' and even then it runs head first into 'the writers are not obligated to change fundamentals about the story to suit you.' This criticism is all just pointing at empty air.
Ouch… That hurt.
But it's okay. I can see my mistakes.
Anyway. Yeah, I think that more than having a problem with Ironwood's lack of ideology, I'm just frustrated.
I mean, things are usually said about James in the fandom, and I would have liked Ironwood to have a clear ideology to resolve things.
I'd say it's two things. First, I'd like to know more about Ironwood because he's an extremely interesting character. And second, I want the fandom and RWDE to receive a clear answer to their questions.
There are people who say a lot of things: "Ironwood protects Jacques and blocks proposals that seek equality between faunus and humans" or "Ironwood is an egalitarian who guaranteed the well-being of faunus in the army."
The truth is, we just have headcanons.
A third point is that it's good for fanfiction. Let's say I have an AU in the works about Ironwood as a dictator (before Ruby's group arrives at Atlas), and I want to know how he would act if he had absolute power.
Although an ideology would have been useful. I mean, I'm also planning a post about his plans.
And since we don't know if he plans to stay up there with Atlas forever (something that's my personal headcanon) or if he plans to eventually come down to fight with the rest of Remnant once he's ready.
So it would have been useful to know, how did he plan to manage Atlas up there? I mean, did he plan to maintain a market economy? Perhaps have the military control everything, including the economy? That kind of thing (Plans) makes the characters more believable.
Besides, Ironwood has held political power for a while. How much political power does he have? 2/5, right? Okay, but then, can he make decisions on economic or social matters? Of course, his way of acting varies depending on the circumstances, but what is it like? For example, James acts according to what he believes is best for Atlas.
Okay, but what does he think is the best way to proceed?
Let's say there's a famine in a country; a libertarian would propose reducing taxes to increase consumption, encouraging more businesses, and increasing investment.
In Ironwood's case, he has to deal with many problems in the kingdom. Okay, how does he plan to do it? What does Ironwood consider to be the best way to deal with the threats to Atlas and Remnant?
Personally, I think Ironwood would be somewhat like Bismarck. Not because he's an imperialist or anything like that, but because Bismarck is someone who changes his approach depending on the situation. Bismarck was anti-socialist, but he implemented social measures to appease the labor movement. He clashed with the Catholic Church, but he also saw them as an ally against socialism.
Ironwood has conflicting ideas. But he's a pragmatic man.
But what do you think?
I'm not going to delete the post because It took me time. But I guess I would have to make a new one in the future.
One problem I have with Ironwood's writing is that he has no ideology
That's it. The writers wrote him so that he would eventually become a dictator. But dictators usually have an ideology. Or at least they try to appear to have one to justify their repressive measures.
What is Ironwood?
1.-Ultra-nationalist?
He doesn't seem like it. I mean, his original plan was to unify the world and defeat Salem together. Besides, he was willing to sacrifice Mantle to achieve his goals. Some might say that nationalists neglect certain parts of the country, but Ironwood really has no prejudice against the people of Mantle.
He has nothing against them; in fact, he has never indicated that he considers them inferior. He has even collaborated with Mantleans when the situation required it and was willing to evacuate them when the situation required it.
2.-Is he a human supremacist? He doesn't seem like it. I mean, he has Marrow in the ace ops. He trusts Blake. He lets Neon Katt represent Atlas in the tournament. Even Forest admits the Happy Huntresses (which includes Fiona) could have joined the special operatives. So there doesn't seem to be any bias there.
3.-Is he a plutocrat? He collaborates with Jacques, and the Atlas military and the SDC develop technology together. But that's about it. I mean, Jacques himself fell out with Ironwood and pointed out how the embargo was costing him money.
You could say it's to control the Dust, but it's not like that was James's motivation; he simply wanted to prevent Salem from infiltrating.
"Your Dust embargo has already cost me millions! I can promise you, I have not forgotten!"
"I needed to ensure Salem couldn't infiltrate Atlas. And I wanted my military here, protecting my people."
4.-Is he a conservative? Maybe. But there are some strange things going on there.
"They were all top Atlas Academy graduates, who could've enlisted in the military, but Robyn and the Huntresses chose to stay in Mantle. She's gunning for a seat on the Kingdom's council, and when she gets it, she's going to put an end to Ironwood's tyranny!"
Apparently, he would have allowed May, a trans woman, to join the army. He also implemented laws limiting gun ownership, as Clover mentioned.
In addition, the embargo is an obvious affront to free trade.
5.-Is he someone who believes in law and order? Despite his gun being named "Due Process," Ironwood actually has a more pragmatic approach to things.
When Ruby's group robbed the Manta, James simply chuckled.
In fact, he was able to cooperate with Robyn the night the heating went out.
And, if it weren't for the fight on the Manta, the army wouldn't have arrested Robyn.
"Only Qrow is under arrest. After everything we've been through tonight, please don't make me arrest you too."
So this one isn't either.
6.-Is he an authoritarian?
Yes. But authoritarianism, more than an ideology in itself, is a way of proceeding. One can take authoritarian measures regardless of their ideology.
7.-Militarism? That seems to be the right one. He trusts his army. But at the same time, he ended up working alongside the council for a long time, even if he didn't like the idea.
"I swear if I have to sit through one more council meeting like that…"
"Actually, I've already informed them. As this is now the site of a classified military operation, it didn't even require a vote."
Besides, Ironwood went to his respective trial, something many militarists wouldn't do.
James himself ended up not declaring martial law in the "Worst Case Scenario" episode. It was a golden opportunity to seize government power and eliminate the opposition, but he didn't.
I remind you that many dictators before their respective coups didn't even have political power beforehand, and yet they still went ahead with the coup. That's unlike Ironwood, who did have the political and military power to declare martial law, and yet he decided not to do so until Gravity.
So James is a militarist, but with nuances.
My point is, James doesn't follow a clear ideology. We could argue that he's a pragmatist, but that's more of an aptitude than an ideology.
And that's my problem. They simply make James look like a fool, and consequently, his followers like fools. Are Marrow and Winter fools? Obviously not, but they seem like it.
Besides, again, dictators usually have ideologies.
In developing his character, the writers should have given him a clear ideology to make him seem more realistic and make sense. In this way, his actions would also be more consistent.
If they want him to be an ultra-nationalist, then show him ignoring his country's problems, believing that everything is perfect.
"No. No, you're right. Things in Mantle have been… hard to manage lately. I'm not blind to its issues. In fact, that's what I want to talk to you about."
On the contrary, Ironwood in the canon is shown as someone who recognizes internal problems.
Show him as someone who distrusts foreigners. That he doesn't trust Ruby, for example. Like, that he asks Penny to report any "strange behavior" from her friends. Or that he favors Weiss over everyone else.
If you want to show him as a human supremacist, then show him segregating Faunus within the armed forces, and mention that he doesn't trust Blake that much. Don't just show Cordovin as a racist; show that this mentality is shared among the other officers.
If you want him to be a plutocrat, then show him forming alliances not only with Jacques, but also with other businessmen (who aren't Jacques' rivals). Show him favoring them and things like that. Instead of just going to their parties out of obligation.
"She's the only one making sense around here. Thanks for the party, Jacques."
Something that could have been useful is, for example, having him meet with the other Atlas businessmen immediately after declaring martial law to ask for their support.
Offer Jacques conditional release if he gets the SDC ships to evacuate all the Dust and resources from Mantle.
And promise the other businessmen control over the resources if they use their private armies to maintain order once Atlas flies into the atmosphere.
Heck, even show Jacques raising Dust prices, and Ironwood accepting it.
If you want him to be a conservative, then show him convincing the council to implement conservative measures.
"I suppose the council trusts him, for better or worse."
"Well, the council's so scared, they'll agree to whatever he wants. Though, some representatives from Mantle… Wait, you're… You're Weiss Schnee!"
I mean, the council trusts his judgment to a certain extent.
If you want him to be militaristic, then show him implementing curfews much earlier, with assembly restrictions. Even imposing martial law much earlier in the series.
Show how his officers, like Winter, manage areas of government beyond their jurisdictions.
In short, sometimes Ironwood has conservative aspects, sometimes liberal ones (American definition). Sometimes he acts like a patriot, and sometimes he simply acts according to what suits the situation.
Ironwood doesn't have a "way of acting," he simply acts according to what the plot requires. I mean, we can say that he trusts in military force to solve his problems, but we've seen him try to escape with Atlas, believing he couldn't defeat Salem. Plus, he even tried to unite the world.
He follows strategies, but they don't revolve around an ideology.
That's my criticism.
EDIT:
Something I forgot to mention is that dictators usually want their ideologies to spread, not only through conquest but also by supporting governmental attempts by people of the same ideology in other countries.
Okay, obviously Ironwood isn't going to invade other kingdoms to spread his ideologies, but he might say in some scenes that he'll try to get other kingdoms to change their policies.
You know, not through intimidation, but through trade alliances and such.
Like, "In exchange for reducing my tariffs and ending the embargo, you could adopt certain political measures."
In that way those other kingdoms could be more "efficient" in their war against Salem.
I know that many dictators don't even have an ideology and only serve themselves. But Miles Luna himself pointed out that Ironwood believed what he was doing was right. So James does have ideals, just not ideologies.
Another thing, while Ironwood's embargo and border closures can be compared to real-life measures in the United States,
I think it's different. He's not closing borders out of xenophobia. He does it to prevent Salem and her minions from entering Atlas. The embargo isn't a sanction against a government unfavorable to his, nor is it a way to force its collapse. He does it, again, to prevent Salem from entering Atlas.
That's all. I needed to clarify that.
That's it. The writers wrote him so that he would eventually become a dictator. But dictators usually have an ideology. Or at least they try to appear to have one to justify their repressive measures.
Yeah...and most dictators don't fall into being dictators because of existential dread at trying to fight an immortal.
James didn't become a dictator as some commentary on a greater school of thought: he became a dictator because he lost faith in others and refused to see himself in the wrong. So he charges ahead. He's not meant to stand in for an ideology or person who follows an ideology: He's moreso a personal journey of a man with all the qualities of a hero falling to his own internal issues.
My point is, James doesn't follow a clear ideology. We could argue that he's a pragmatist, but that's more of an aptitude than an ideology. And that's my problem. They simply make James look like a fool, and consequently, his followers like fools. Are Marrow and Winter fools? Obviously not, but they seem like it.
How is he a fool? He's not trying to be a leader of the country and rule it: Acting as a dictator is a means to an end- 'Saving Atlas.' He fundamentally isn't a dictator like Stalin or Hitler. He has no plans to be a ruler nor an innate desire to rule. You're complaining that the facet isn't turning the microwave on when you plug it in: that's not the function here. And frankly, calling the people who follow him 'fools' because of it is frankly ridiculous and kind of petulant. How hard is it to see that they follow James because they don't want the world to end and they believe the charismatic and outwardly strong and independent general with a plan is in the right?
Besides, again, dictators usually have ideologies.
...And most dictators contradict their ideologies for the sake of personal enrichment immediately. It's common for political leaders to act like they have this grand belief when in reality, all they care about is themselves and thus lack any kind of coherent ideology.
In developing his character, the writers should have given him a clear ideology to make him seem more realistic and make sense. In this way, his actions would also be more consistent.
... How is he not consistent?
He wants to defeat Salem and believes that his methods are always correct. He flaunts his power to earn people's affirmation. He stabs Oz in the back because he and Oz don't align. And...hey, wait a minute!
My point is, James doesn't follow a clear ideology. We could argue that he's a pragmatist, but that's more of an aptitude than an ideology.
Yeah, that's not an ideology. But it is a form of philosophy, one that often rejects any and all forms of ideology. Yeah, many pragmatists have ideals...but they're the exact kind of person to devalue, deemphasize and disregard said ideals. Pragmatists are always ones who compromise their ideals for the sake of achieving their goals, with their ideals basically forming what the goals even are. But said goals do not need an ideology to exist. If your goal is 'to benefit myself' then an ideology is unnecessary. You just act out of self interest. And if your goal is, say, 'protect my nation' then you need no ideology: you simply do whatever it takes to save your nation.
The answer is staring you right in the face: James' so-called 'contradictions' are actually all about saving the people, so he'll do whatever it takes to save them. His pragmatism is his philosophy and his goals are personal.
How is this such a problem?
"But he's a dictator!"
And? I brought up that dictators betray their supposed ideologies for good reason here: For every dictator that killed a bunch of people for the sake of their utopia, every other dictator was some jackass spouting off lines of ideology like a parrot so they can hoard wealth. Not only is James a personal character, not an ideological one- He's not anything new or unrealistic.
And that's another key: James isn't an ideology or a person. He's a character trying to tell a specific story. And the story isn't about ideology: it's more about the themes in the story than a belief system. He's not a criticism of dictators- he's a man failing to live up to his heroic elements first and a vague criticism about how militaries crush individualism as a distant second.
In short, sometimes Ironwood has conservative aspects, sometimes liberal ones (American definition). Sometimes he acts like a patriot, and sometimes he simply acts according to what suits the situation.
Okay. Sounds like a lot of real life people. Probably because James is someone acting out of a personal goal, like most people.
Ironwood doesn't have a "way of acting," he simply acts according to what the plot requires.
You know, saying this after refusing to acknowledge the existence of personal goals, goals that are primarily formed from one's own specific desires with ideology being a vague after thought- does not make you look good.
He follows strategies, but they don't revolve around an ideology. That's my criticism.
"How very interesting, sir. This, however, is a gym, not a debate room. You are in the wrong area. Please either pick up a weight, run on the threadmill or leave."
Seriously. There's no way to engage with this. You are trying to apply a criticism to writing that is only tangentially related to the criticism. This doesn't work.
Talking about philosophies in RWBY is fun and all but that's putting words to general feelings and impulses that drove the writers. They weren't researching the ethics of fighting a futile fight: they just expressed themselves. And criticizing them for not implementing an ideology into the story of a character motivated for personal reasons and general heroic impulses is the kind of stuff that gets you dogpiled by Twitter.
This whole post should have been scrapped and redone with something like 'a case for why James should have been given an ideology' and even then it runs head first into 'the writers are not obligated to change fundamentals about the story to suit you.' This criticism is all just pointing at empty air.
OP, bro. We have a fucking song called Hero that spell James entire thematic point on the story, his "ideology" is the fallen hero that did more harm than good with his well intentioned but wrong decisions. We can definetly argued how well that was executed, but the bare bones is very basic and obvious.
That just says Ironwood had good intentions. Many people in real life have good intentions and still hold different ideologies. Ironwood is utilitarian, obviously. But that doesn't define him as a whole.
I mean, conservative, libertarian, liberal, progressive? What is he? Egalitarian? Inclusive?
Left-wing? Right-wing? Centrist, perhaps?
The theme of Ironwood's character is the "fallen hero," but a theme is different from a political or economic ideology. I mean, a fallen hero could belong to any ideology.
So I don't know. If you know his political ideology, I'd appreciate it if you told me.
WTF? Why is Robyn Hill associated with Right-wing figures?
Two posts in such a short time. It seems like I have a lot of free time when in reality I don't.
Whatever.
I want to make this post because I feel that some people misunderstand Robyn Hill's character. Which wouldn't be so bad, if it weren't for the type of misinterpretation being made.
Okay, Robyn (and the HH) are being compared to those right-wing politicians and activists who reject health and quarantine rules.
Well, Ironwood's security measures are usually compared to the health measures during the pandemic. I think it's somewhat different, but oh well. Anyway.
I disagree with this. Robyn never encouraged her fans to defy James's security rules. You might point out that she herself violated the security rules, and that's correct. What's going on here?
Well, it's a particular situation.
Robyn was already committing an illegal act. Why even obey Ironwood's orders?
Now, regarding her illegal actions, Robyn has been compared to the far-right protesters who stormed the Capitol when it became clear Trump had lost the election.
Is it the same thing? There's a difference: Robyn isn't rebelling because she lost the election. She's committing illegal acts because she believes Ironwood tried to assassinate her and her followers.
For the HH point of view, Ironwood had just become an authoritarian dictator. How legitimate is Ironwood's rule?
Now, what did Robyn want?
"It seems Robyn has emboldened our suppliers in Mantle. They're refusing to sell us provisions until the city is adequately repaired. With Robyn redistributing the goods her team has stolen, the Amity Project is completely stalled."
It's not stated that Robyn wanted to overthrow James. The word is that she wanted to force him to repair the city and finish the wall. She also wanted to redistribute the resources she stole.
Robyn isn't acting illegally because she doesn't like the elected government. She's acting illegally because she believes the government is a tyranny. (I mean, there's evidence that Penny killed her followers. There's security footage that shows that.)
Are Robyn's actions right? I don't know. But I wouldn't compare her to those who attacked the Capitol. They're different kinds of illegality.
Are the people who support Robyn in the FNDM authoritarian? I don't think so.
What about before the massacre at the election? Well, she tried to steal a supply truck. She made it clear that she was going to get those supplies even if it meant stealing them.
"I think you've misjudged the situation. One way or another, these supplies are going to get where they're supposed to go," Mantle said.
Okay. More than authoritarian, I'd say Robyn was desperate. After all, the wall hadn't been repaired.
Sure, there's military support there in Mantle, but we've still seen Grimm lurking inside the city. So yes, those resources are necessary. It's a plot hole that Ironwood isn't repairing the wall. But considering the world Robyn lives in, she obviously believes Mantle needs the resources.
Regarding wanting to know the truth about Amity Tower. Well, that's so Mantle knows the truth. It's not just her desires; it's so people know why they're suffering.
"The rest of the world? It's hurting us. The people of Atlas are suffering, and they want to know why."
Regarding starting the fight at the Manta. Well, that's more reckless than a political action. In fact, arresting Qrow wasn't even the right thing to do; he hadn't done anything so far. (I remind you that Ironwood wasn't arresting them for breaking laws or keeping secrets, but for opposing his plan.)
I know she called Marrow "Wags." Well, that's more of an unfortunate comment than a political one.
And while she did separate the Faunus from Atlas and Mantle in her words, I think that has more to do with her being aware of the discrimination they suffer (which excludes them) than with her wanting to exclude them herself.
Regarding her fans, we've seen them cause riots (something she herself condemned). We've seen them destroy Atlesian robots. This happened because they believed Atlas had cut off the heating, and obviously they were going to want to take it out on Atlas military robots.
I know these people were approaching Nora in a threatening manner.
But, well, one thing is harming a military robot and another is harming another person. I don't think they wanted to hurt Nora. They simply desperately wanted help.
Now, what else? I think that's all. I can understand that you don't like Robyn's character.
But associating her with political ideas you don't like? I think that's where you're projecting your own biases.
Most people in the RWDE are left-leaning and progressive. So if they don't like a character, to villainize them they try to associate them with the ideologies they dislike.
The same thing happens with the FNDM. They associate the characters they don't like with the right wing.
I can understand the attitude. But at the same time, we have to be aware that people with whom you might agree ideologically can also do bad things.
Robyn was committing illegal acts to get supplies to mantle that mantle desperately needed, it wasn’t about the election it was about the material goods she was taking.
And mantle refusing to give ironwood supplies without assurances that those supplies will be used for their assigned purpose, we know that ironwood was lying to the council about these supplies as well, in essence he was embezzling funds.
Not sure to say that he was lying about them. Robyn says that those resources had to go to Mantle but I think it's a matter of "They are needed to Mantle".
If Ironwood was lying to the council, wouldn't that have been mentioned by the council in James' trial. I mean, Robyn would have probably told them.
And, as a matter of fact they are aware of the secret Amity Project. They just don't know the details about like what it is.
So, they probably know that resources are being used in Amity.
"I'm afraid of the ever-growing list of classified information you seem to be keeping. I asked our fellow councilmen here to shed some light on your Amity Colosseum project and, as it turns out, they know about as much as I do."
"The Amity Project will help with all of the issues you've presented, but you have to understand that discretion is a top priority at this time."
The way I see it, James (As general and councilman) has control over the military resources. Considering how the resources for the wall are somewhat related to Mantle's defenses. Then I think that simply Ironwood decided to deviate them to something else (Amity Tower project).
It's like if the one in charge of the military spending instead of buying tanks uses the money to buy planes.
But well, the series was vague about it.
WTF? Why is Robyn Hill associated with Right-wing figures?
Two posts in such a short time. It seems like I have a lot of free time when in reality I don't.
Whatever.
I want to make this post because I feel that some people misunderstand Robyn Hill's character. Which wouldn't be so bad, if it weren't for the type of misinterpretation being made.
Okay, Robyn (and the HH) are being compared to those right-wing politicians and activists who reject health and quarantine rules.
Well, Ironwood's security measures are usually compared to the health measures during the pandemic. I think it's somewhat different, but oh well. Anyway.
I disagree with this. Robyn never encouraged her fans to defy James's security rules. You might point out that she herself violated the security rules, and that's correct. What's going on here?
Well, it's a particular situation.
Robyn was already committing an illegal act. Why even obey Ironwood's orders?
Now, regarding her illegal actions, Robyn has been compared to the far-right protesters who stormed the Capitol when it became clear Trump had lost the election.
Is it the same thing? There's a difference: Robyn isn't rebelling because she lost the election. She's committing illegal acts because she believes Ironwood tried to assassinate her and her followers.
For the HH point of view, Ironwood had just become an authoritarian dictator. How legitimate is Ironwood's rule?
Now, what did Robyn want?
"It seems Robyn has emboldened our suppliers in Mantle. They're refusing to sell us provisions until the city is adequately repaired. With Robyn redistributing the goods her team has stolen, the Amity Project is completely stalled."
It's not stated that Robyn wanted to overthrow James. The word is that she wanted to force him to repair the city and finish the wall. She also wanted to redistribute the resources she stole.
Robyn isn't acting illegally because she doesn't like the elected government. She's acting illegally because she believes the government is a tyranny. (I mean, there's evidence that Penny killed her followers. There's security footage that shows that.)
Are Robyn's actions right? I don't know. But I wouldn't compare her to those who attacked the Capitol. They're different kinds of illegality.
Are the people who support Robyn in the FNDM authoritarian? I don't think so.
What about before the massacre at the election? Well, she tried to steal a supply truck. She made it clear that she was going to get those supplies even if it meant stealing them.
"I think you've misjudged the situation. One way or another, these supplies are going to get where they're supposed to go," Mantle said.
Okay. More than authoritarian, I'd say Robyn was desperate. After all, the wall hadn't been repaired.
Sure, there's military support there in Mantle, but we've still seen Grimm lurking inside the city. So yes, those resources are necessary. It's a plot hole that Ironwood isn't repairing the wall. But considering the world Robyn lives in, she obviously believes Mantle needs the resources.
Regarding wanting to know the truth about Amity Tower. Well, that's so Mantle knows the truth. It's not just her desires; it's so people know why they're suffering.
"The rest of the world? It's hurting us. The people of Atlas are suffering, and they want to know why."
Regarding starting the fight at the Manta. Well, that's more reckless than a political action. In fact, arresting Qrow wasn't even the right thing to do; he hadn't done anything so far. (I remind you that Ironwood wasn't arresting them for breaking laws or keeping secrets, but for opposing his plan.)
I know she called Marrow "Wags." Well, that's more of an unfortunate comment than a political one.
And while she did separate the Faunus from Atlas and Mantle in her words, I think that has more to do with her being aware of the discrimination they suffer (which excludes them) than with her wanting to exclude them herself.
Regarding her fans, we've seen them cause riots (something she herself condemned). We've seen them destroy Atlesian robots. This happened because they believed Atlas had cut off the heating, and obviously they were going to want to take it out on Atlas military robots.
I know these people were approaching Nora in a threatening manner.
But, well, one thing is harming a military robot and another is harming another person. I don't think they wanted to hurt Nora. They simply desperately wanted help.
Now, what else? I think that's all. I can understand that you don't like Robyn's character.
But associating her with political ideas you don't like? I think that's where you're projecting your own biases.
Most people in the RWDE are left-leaning and progressive. So if they don't like a character, to villainize them they try to associate them with the ideologies they dislike.
The same thing happens with the FNDM. They associate the characters they don't like with the right wing.
I can understand the attitude. But at the same time, we have to be aware that people with whom you might agree ideologically can also do bad things.
I absolutely refuse to take anyone who says that the citizens of Vacuo throwing rocks at the orphans from Mantle was "cartoonishly evil" or "bad writing" seriously. Locals harassing refugees is nothing new, and it's more than a little naive for people to say that it could never happen. In fact, one of my senior English classmates from highschool enlisted in the U.S. army during our first semester, and one of the two Afghanistan deployments had him serving guard duty at a refugee camp that mostly houses Syrian refugees (our senior year was late-2013 to mid-2014, back at the height of the U.S. Afghanistan occupation and the Syrian civil war). The Afghan villagers who lived in a small village near the camp were so entitled that they thought the food, water, and medical care that the aid workers were giving to the refugees should've gone to them instead. In fact, they were so angry at the Syrian refugees for "eating our food, drinking our water, and making us sick" (their words, not mine) that they took their anger out on the refugees by pelting them with rotten fruits and vegetables while calling them racial slurs. Stone-throwing sounds much less evil by comparison.
Oh, what happened? Did someone say something? Did I say something? I don't remember. Maybe someone said something about it.
Sorry, I tend not to check my notifications very often.
And yes, it's something that happens. If bigotry already exists, imagine it towards people whose ancestors used to colonize your land. What the heck, we've seen SDC (which was founded after the great war) installations in Vacuo.
Obviously, there's going to be resentment.
There are people who just don't mature. There are people who hate because of past and even current feuds whole populations. Obviously, it's something that happens.
Besides, this isn't even a typical refugee crisis. Here, literally an entire nation fled to another country. There's going to be a shortage of resources.
So, xenophobia exists. There's already a problem from the past and present between Vacuans and Atlesians. It's a massive refugee crisis.
I'm not saying it's justifiable, but I think it makes sense that it happened.
Now, I don't know when the citizens of Vacuo attacked the Mantle orphans. I mean, I don't remember that happening in the epilogue.
Thank you for not being afraid to share your thoughts on RWDE being naive sometimes. I agree wholeheartedly with you on that, and I'd also like to add in that sometimes RWDE can display a lack of empathy. Namely, if the show has characters in certain situations that they don't like, some of them immediately decide that it's "bad writing", rather than taking into account the possibility of any fans if the series that are in similar situations. For instance, several members of the main and critics subs argue that it's bad writing for Summer and Ruby to have the surname Rose instead of Taiyang's surname of Xiao-Long. That's actually very insulting to my family because my paternal uncle (my dad's fraternal twin brother) was so devastated by his first wife cheating on him, bossing around my grandmother, and cheating him out of child visits with their daughter (my cousin) by working weekend overtime whenever she could that when he married his second wife (my aunt) he asked her to keep her maiden name to help him distance himself from it. Because of that, the two daughters they had together (my two younger half-cousins) have her maiden name instead of my uncle's surname.
Oh… I'm sorry, this is the first time I've read this. I think I should have replied sooner.
Well. I can understand some of their ideals to a certain extent.
Even if I don't share them, I can understand why they think that way.
But still, it's incredibly messed up. I mean, in the region where I live, there have been subversive groups that have caused a lot of harm to the civilian population.
That's why I don't have much of a problem with the White Fang being villains. Because people like that exist in real life.
Certainly, the problem in writing was a lack of nuance and complexity in the way the issues were handled.
But the basis of a subversive group that proclaims itself a defender of the oppressed, has revolutionary ideas, and then attacks innocent people.
… I've seen that before.
That's also why I don't really like it when they justify the White Fang. I mean, I can understand Sienna. But I've seen people try to minimize Adam's actions. I don't know, to me that sounds like an apologist of terrorism.
Imagine if I said in the United States that it's okay for the Black Panther Party to destroy a military or police academy. People would treat me like I was crazy.
And well, yes, I feel that sometimes there's a general lack of empathy. I was discussing it with a friend (Marleynnation62 is his name on Reddit) and something he told me is that there's an empathy problem with the RWDE.
They have a lot of empathy for Adam and the White Fang, but they have little empathy for the victims of Adam and the White Fang.
One problem I have with Ironwood's writing is that he has no ideology
That's it. The writers wrote him so that he would eventually become a dictator. But dictators usually have an ideology. Or at least they try to appear to have one to justify their repressive measures.
What is Ironwood?
1.-Ultra-nationalist?
He doesn't seem like it. I mean, his original plan was to unify the world and defeat Salem together. Besides, he was willing to sacrifice Mantle to achieve his goals. Some might say that nationalists neglect certain parts of the country, but Ironwood really has no prejudice against the people of Mantle.
He has nothing against them; in fact, he has never indicated that he considers them inferior. He has even collaborated with Mantleans when the situation required it and was willing to evacuate them when the situation required it.
2.-Is he a human supremacist? He doesn't seem like it. I mean, he has Marrow in the ace ops. He trusts Blake. He lets Neon Katt represent Atlas in the tournament. Even Forest admits the Happy Huntresses (which includes Fiona) could have joined the special operatives. So there doesn't seem to be any bias there.
3.-Is he a plutocrat? He collaborates with Jacques, and the Atlas military and the SDC develop technology together. But that's about it. I mean, Jacques himself fell out with Ironwood and pointed out how the embargo was costing him money.
You could say it's to control the Dust, but it's not like that was James's motivation; he simply wanted to prevent Salem from infiltrating.
"Your Dust embargo has already cost me millions! I can promise you, I have not forgotten!"
"I needed to ensure Salem couldn't infiltrate Atlas. And I wanted my military here, protecting my people."
4.-Is he a conservative? Maybe. But there are some strange things going on there.
"They were all top Atlas Academy graduates, who could've enlisted in the military, but Robyn and the Huntresses chose to stay in Mantle. She's gunning for a seat on the Kingdom's council, and when she gets it, she's going to put an end to Ironwood's tyranny!"
Apparently, he would have allowed May, a trans woman, to join the army. He also implemented laws limiting gun ownership, as Clover mentioned.
In addition, the embargo is an obvious affront to free trade.
5.-Is he someone who believes in law and order? Despite his gun being named "Due Process," Ironwood actually has a more pragmatic approach to things.
When Ruby's group robbed the Manta, James simply chuckled.
In fact, he was able to cooperate with Robyn the night the heating went out.
And, if it weren't for the fight on the Manta, the army wouldn't have arrested Robyn.
"Only Qrow is under arrest. After everything we've been through tonight, please don't make me arrest you too."
So this one isn't either.
6.-Is he an authoritarian?
Yes. But authoritarianism, more than an ideology in itself, is a way of proceeding. One can take authoritarian measures regardless of their ideology.
7.-Militarism? That seems to be the right one. He trusts his army. But at the same time, he ended up working alongside the council for a long time, even if he didn't like the idea.
"I swear if I have to sit through one more council meeting like that…"
"Actually, I've already informed them. As this is now the site of a classified military operation, it didn't even require a vote."
Besides, Ironwood went to his respective trial, something many militarists wouldn't do.
James himself ended up not declaring martial law in the "Worst Case Scenario" episode. It was a golden opportunity to seize government power and eliminate the opposition, but he didn't.
I remind you that many dictators before their respective coups didn't even have political power beforehand, and yet they still went ahead with the coup. That's unlike Ironwood, who did have the political and military power to declare martial law, and yet he decided not to do so until Gravity.
So James is a militarist, but with nuances.
My point is, James doesn't follow a clear ideology. We could argue that he's a pragmatist, but that's more of an aptitude than an ideology.
And that's my problem. They simply make James look like a fool, and consequently, his followers like fools. Are Marrow and Winter fools? Obviously not, but they seem like it.
Besides, again, dictators usually have ideologies.
In developing his character, the writers should have given him a clear ideology to make him seem more realistic and make sense. In this way, his actions would also be more consistent.
If they want him to be an ultra-nationalist, then show him ignoring his country's problems, believing that everything is perfect.
"No. No, you're right. Things in Mantle have been… hard to manage lately. I'm not blind to its issues. In fact, that's what I want to talk to you about."
On the contrary, Ironwood in the canon is shown as someone who recognizes internal problems.
Show him as someone who distrusts foreigners. That he doesn't trust Ruby, for example. Like, that he asks Penny to report any "strange behavior" from her friends. Or that he favors Weiss over everyone else.
If you want to show him as a human supremacist, then show him segregating Faunus within the armed forces, and mention that he doesn't trust Blake that much. Don't just show Cordovin as a racist; show that this mentality is shared among the other officers.
If you want him to be a plutocrat, then show him forming alliances not only with Jacques, but also with other businessmen (who aren't Jacques' rivals). Show him favoring them and things like that. Instead of just going to their parties out of obligation.
"She's the only one making sense around here. Thanks for the party, Jacques."
Something that could have been useful is, for example, having him meet with the other Atlas businessmen immediately after declaring martial law to ask for their support.
Offer Jacques conditional release if he gets the SDC ships to evacuate all the Dust and resources from Mantle.
And promise the other businessmen control over the resources if they use their private armies to maintain order once Atlas flies into the atmosphere.
Heck, even show Jacques raising Dust prices, and Ironwood accepting it.
If you want him to be a conservative, then show him convincing the council to implement conservative measures.
"I suppose the council trusts him, for better or worse."
"Well, the council's so scared, they'll agree to whatever he wants. Though, some representatives from Mantle… Wait, you're… You're Weiss Schnee!"
I mean, the council trusts his judgment to a certain extent.
If you want him to be militaristic, then show him implementing curfews much earlier, with assembly restrictions. Even imposing martial law much earlier in the series.
Show how his officers, like Winter, manage areas of government beyond their jurisdictions.
In short, sometimes Ironwood has conservative aspects, sometimes liberal ones (American definition). Sometimes he acts like a patriot, and sometimes he simply acts according to what suits the situation.
Ironwood doesn't have a "way of acting," he simply acts according to what the plot requires. I mean, we can say that he trusts in military force to solve his problems, but we've seen him try to escape with Atlas, believing he couldn't defeat Salem. Plus, he even tried to unite the world.
He follows strategies, but they don't revolve around an ideology.
That's my criticism.
EDIT:
Something I forgot to mention is that dictators usually want their ideologies to spread, not only through conquest but also by supporting governmental attempts by people of the same ideology in other countries.
Okay, obviously Ironwood isn't going to invade other kingdoms to spread his ideologies, but he might say in some scenes that he'll try to get other kingdoms to change their policies.
You know, not through intimidation, but through trade alliances and such.
Like, "In exchange for reducing my tariffs and ending the embargo, you could adopt certain political measures."
In that way those other kingdoms could be more "efficient" in their war against Salem.
I know that many dictators don't even have an ideology and only serve themselves. But Miles Luna himself pointed out that Ironwood believed what he was doing was right. So James does have ideals, just not ideologies.
Another thing, while Ironwood's embargo and border closures can be compared to real-life measures in the United States,
I think it's different. He's not closing borders out of xenophobia. He does it to prevent Salem and her minions from entering Atlas. The embargo isn't a sanction against a government unfavorable to his, nor is it a way to force its collapse. He does it, again, to prevent Salem from entering Atlas.
That's all. I needed to clarify that.
Is the White Fang left-wing or right-wing?
I made a post about this a while ago, but now I want to include polls. Also, my political thinking has evolved.
My idea was the following: There are left-wing nationalists like Nasser or Tito.
Okay. Nationalism isn't inherently right-wing then.
There are left-wing nationalists who lead national liberation movements. That is, they try to make their country free either from the authoritarian governments that dominate it or from colonialist/imperialist forces.
National liberation movements. Sienna Khan doesn't lead a national liberation movement. She doesn't want to liberate Menagerie from external forces or authoritarian governments.
But she does lead a liberation movement. That is, a Faunus liberation movement. Could we consider it a left-wing movement?
Following that logic, Adam Taurus, being a White Fang extremist, someone who took White Fang ideology to the next level… Could he be considered far-left?
Of course. Because it's a supremacist organization, Adam's White Fang could be considered far-right.
Is the political right NECESSARILY supremacist? Or rather, racially supremacist? Well, there are those who support right-wing libertarian or conservative movements and are racial minorities.
Now, you might say that these people don't know what they're doing and that they're wrong. They don't know what's best for them. But the point is that being right-wing doesn't necessarily make you believe in a superior race. Again, I don't want to argue about whether it's beneficial for minorities or not.
So, I'll leave it at that. As always, I'd like you to debate this and tell me what you think. EDIT: I accidentally wrote "White supremacist" instead of simply "supremacist". I already corrected it. I curse you google translator!
Where is Adam Taurus (And his White fang faction) in the political spectrum?
Left wing
Right wing
Who was more justified? White Fang (under Sienna's command) or the Happy Huntresses?
A question that will surprise many. But the FNDM supports the HH, while the RWDE supports the Sienna's White fang.
So I wanted to know, who has more support? Sienna allowed Adam Taurus to rise, unlike Robyn.
But Robyn didn't have as great a contribution as Sienna. (She was overshadowed by Ruby's group and others).
I could write a long post comparing them. But both are very ambiguous characters. We've hardly seen anything of Robyn. While with Sienna, we can only assume what her tactics were beyond what has been mentioned.
So I'll leave it up to you. Discuss. Remember, we are not counting Adam's faction except if Sienna allowed that behavior (So the attack on Beacon doesn't count).
Which one was more justified
Sienna's White fang
The Happy Huntresses
In RWBY (Atlas more specifically), would it be necessary to allow free use of weapons?
A somewhat random question, I know. But I was looking into the criticism Ironwood is getting for arresting Ruby's group.
And one of the reasons for their arrest was "unauthorized use of weapons."
That sparked controversy because, well: Should the open carrying of weapons be prohibited in Atlas Kingdom?
Considering their problem with the Grimm, wouldn't that get them into trouble?
Some say it was necessary considering the risk of Salem's Inner Circle infiltrating Atlas.
But you could also argue that having weapons is necessary for self-defense against members of Salem's Inner Circle.
Personally, I come from a country where you need a license to own weapons, so I don't really think there's much of a problem.
I'm feeling a bit lazy, I want you all to debate this.
Was Ironwood's measure about the use of weapons justified?
Yes, safety was necessary in the kingdom
No, the citizens deserve to defend themselves