Before John Green, his general category of realistic (non-fantasy) YA was rife with teen angst and “issues” fiction that you might have associated with the legendary Judy Blume, or with newer writers like Sarah Dessen or Laurie Halse Anderson. Anderson’s classic 1999 novel Speak, about a high schooler struggling to deal with the aftermath of sexual assault, was so influential that three years later Penguin launched an entire imprint named after it. One of the books launched under the behest of Speak was Green’s Looking for Alaska. But it’s Green whose name you’re more likely to know today, not Anderson’s, although Anderson has won more awards and written more books.
On Twitter, Green has 2 million followers. Compared to the rest of the leaders in Young Adult fiction, that number is staggering. To approach even half the Twitter influence of John Green all by himself, you need an entire army of YA women. Anderson, Blume, Dessen, Veronica Roth, Cassandra Clare, Richelle Mead, Margaret Stohl, Kami Garcia, Rainbow Rowell, Maureen Johnson, Malinda Lo, Holly Black, LJ Smith, Ellen Hopkins, Shannon Hale, Lauren Myracle, Libba Bray, Melissa Marr, and Leigh Bardugo: As a group these women only have about 1.2 million followers on Twitter.
That’s the voice of one man outweighing several decades of women who have had major successes, critical acclaim, and cultural influence.
When a man succeeds in a devalued (because of its association with women) field, he legitimizes it in popular opinion.
"If you have to have someone who looks like you in the media in order for you to relate then maybe you’re the one who’s racist"
"children don’t see/care about race"
"Color doesn’t matter! It’s about the actor/story!"
"there are bigger issues to talk about than representation"
"they whitewashed because they need to make a profit and attract their target audience"
"It’s a European fairytale/story so of course the characters will be white!"
"whitewashing isn’t real"
"they considered and picked the best actor for the job"
(The best actor? More like the best we can do at this time.)
(It’s not the best actor when you exclude a racially ambiguous role to one race.)
"why do we need minorities in European stories!? they wouldn’t do a story about Africa with white actors!”
Adding this one on
do people really think radfems wish for violence against trans people
why would we want more oppression and violence, that makes no sense
nobody deserves any form of violence just because of their gender expression
And yet you call trans women male and men which is an act of violence according the WHO,moth APA org, pediatric orgs, and other experts org on the subject.
You can say anything you want. I know people who will swear up and down that they are not mowing their lawns even while behind the mower.
What you do counts. They are mowing their lawns. You are being violent.
Let’s not minimize how active radfems have been in revoking medical care for transgender people, or their attempts to legislate away all protections for us. The physical violence they inflict is wrought through intermediaries, but it’s still there and it still kills.
If you put a gun in someone else’s hands, tell them where to shoot us and then whip them up into a rage so they pull the trigger, your hands are red lol sorry not sorry
Why does anybody want more oppression and violence, OP? Bigotry is not rational. It’s not logical. It does not flow from reason and it cannot be dissolved with reason.
The fact that radical feminist hatred of trans women is irrational and in fact causes radical feminists to collude with patriarchy and enact policies and philosophies that harm cis women as well in order to punish trans women is completely irrational, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
The radical feminist position on trans people is that we SHOULD NOT BE. That’s the foundation. With this as a foundational premise, how can there not be violence and oppression around the corner and lurking beneath the surface?
You can consciously try to be respectful of someone, you can consciously try to make friends of them or tell yourself that you’re treating them well, but if your foundational premise is that they should not exist… well, how can that not shine through?
When radical feminists are saying they respect our rights and existence, there’s always that BUT linking around the corner: “I respect your right to expression, BUT YOU SHOULD NOT BE.”
When radical feminists say they would love to stand with us in solidarity if only we would “leave them alone” or “let there be [cis] women’s spaces], these things are always defined by moving goal posts that inexorably lead back to that foundation: we should not be. We should not exist. Nobody should have to see us, hear from us, think about us, or deal with us.
"I don’t wish violence on you, but YOU SHOULD NOT BE." is something that people can say even while they’re committing direct lethal violence. "I don’t wish violence on you" isn’t a stance, it’s an apologetic. "You should not be" is the stance.
i like that we say “oh, man” to express disappointment
because men are disappointing
not to mention predictable
It got better
I get why you asked this question, and I get why you framed it the way you have. But I want to take this moment to break down what you’re really asking, here. Let’s take your question on a world tour.
Education in the U.S. (and some other places, too), is incredibly Eurocentric, and most people don’t even know the histories of places other than Europe pre-1500s, and America post-1500s.
This leads to the following assumptions that 1. all history occurred in Europe; 2. Europe was always dominant as a “continent” over all other continents; 3. That people we consider white are a world majority.
Here’s a breakdown of the would population by continent. We know that they are far from racially homogenous, but a re-framing is definitely in order.
Just about 75% of the world’s population lives in Africa and Asia. Notice that’s 60.3% in Asia alone.
As for relative SIZE of continents, a lot of people have really confused ideas about relative sized of continents in relation to each other. A graphic designed by Kai Krause went viral in some parts of the internet a while back, but in case you missed it, here it is:
Here’s the whole thing, which has the original data input the graphic was made from, as well as this image of Europe superimposed on Africa, true to proportion:
The Peters World Map, introduced in the 70s, generated a lot of controversy because it shows the continents in true area and proportion. It can look oddly “squished” to many people used to a different map:
Okay, we’ve discussed the size and proportion of land masses that humans occupy, and relative populousness of those land masses. But what about race? Well, in a lot of ways, the way we construct race is by skin color; dark or light. Here’s a (admittedly super generalizing) map of the world’s human population by approximate skin color. But it helps some people to see it [via Encyclopedia Brittanica]:
Now, the “lightest skin” areas don’t necessarily reflect “white people” as we would think of it. Many East Asians and Indigenous people in the north (Inuit, Saami), have light skin.
There is no way to make an accurate estimate of what percentage of the world’s population now are what race because many, many nations do not take a census that records race. Trying to determine racial demographics from past eras, especially in Medieval or Ancient times when concepts like “white people” did. not. exist. is basically impossible, for all intents and purposes. Some people say that a third of the entire world’s population lived in Europe during say, the Middle Ages…as we can see that doesn’t necessarily mean “white people”. Moreover, what are we basing that on? Do they take Chinese documents into account? What about the documents from the library of Timbuktu, which as far as I know are still being explored, cataloged, and translated?
Let’s revisit the question. "Are there poc from history that weren’t slaves or serv[a]nts?"
Now, let’s flip the question: For the entirety of human history, was the majority of the world’s population subject to a minority of the world’s population?
The answer is, of course, no. The expectation that there would be a finite list of exceptions to enslavement and servitude on the part of ALL people of color for the ENTIRETY of human history is based on our current views of the world, based on what we have been taught, and HOW we have been taught it.
These expectations are shaped by the media we consume and create.
These expectations are created by an education curricula for history that begins in Europe, a Europe that is supposedly isolated geographically and culturally, despite the fact that it isn’t even separated by water from Asia.
American history begins with “first contact” or “discovery”, with almost no mention of the political or social history of the continent before being “discovered”. The terminology used in most books and documentaries is definitively Eurocentric: “We” discovered “The Other”. We divide time and space into “The Old World” and “The New World.” WHO, exactly, was this “world” NEW to?
What I would *love* to see is an analysis of how many classes that use books that DO cover non-European history, SKIP those histories because “there’s no time”. I am in a rather unique position to witness this, and have come to believe that this is a very common practice in American/U.S. classrooms. Because learning the same five things about the Revolutionary War and World War 2 for six years in a row takes precedence over learning even the most basic facts about anything regarding World History. WHY do we learn the same things over and over? WHY do we know what we know? WHO wrote it down and said this is not just truth, but The Truth?
I’m not asking these questions because I know the answers…I don’t, really. I’m asking them because I want this questioning habit to spread as far as it can. This blog covers only the teeniest, tiniest portion of human history! The focus is incredibly narrow, because I am only one person. But look how much can be amassed in terms of knowledge, in terms of forming new questions, just by ONE person! A whole generation of people are becoming adults right now, and they should be full of questions. Who is going to write the history for the generation after this one? Can you do better?
Can we do better?
I believe with all my heart that we can.
raphael: *looks directly into the camera like he’s on the office*
oh my lord
what if “lucy” was about lucy liu casually beating up pervy white dudes instead
and the story was about an asian woman who gets justice from the white men who used and abducted her
and it was an effective commentary on white imperialism, the violent commodification of asian people and asian culture by western society, the demonization of asian people, and the continuing history of violence on unwilling asian bodies especially those of asian women by white people
and what if when a pervy white dude asks the asian woman “do you speak english” while he’s in fucking taiwan, she shoots him in the head instead
what if this movie wasn’t going to be a bunch of white imperialist nonsense masquerading as something “progressive” at the expense of faceless nameless asian bodies
list of people harry could have reasonably named his second kid after
- ted tonks
- r e m u s f u c k i n g l u p i n
- the giant squid
- dean?? seamus?? roN??
list of dead people harry named his second kid after
- the guy who lied to him his entire life (dumbledore)
- the guy who abused him and his friends his entire life (snape)
Not to mention the shooter was heard yelling “heil Hitler” and CNN had the nerve to claim the shooter’s motive was “unclear”
i cant wait for people to classify it as a mental issue and not blatant nazism ahaaaa
I keep thinking oh man, I’m so immature. How am I allowed to be an adult.
Then I spend time with teenagers.
And it’s like, wow, okay, yeah. I am an adult. I am so adult. Look at me adulting all over the place.
we’re halfway thru april, u know what tht means?
HOW DOES THIS MAKE ME LAUGH EVERY FUCKING YEAR!?
Fkdkskgoskhlskosofksbshajakak holy shit