Meowskithecat

Since Iraq was destroyed so much due to the US invasion, during the first few years when he was utterly devastated, he was just... mute. He couldn't speak, and his pupils were white. In more recent times, he's alright. He can speak, the economy is a bit better, and they kicked ISIS out, but the white irises still remain.

One thing I noticed is that the US travel guide still keeps Iraq as Category 4. Someone saw this and went, "bet," and traveled there, and guess what? It was oddly... peaceful. The people were friendly, the food was nice, and it didn't look anything like how people usually imagine Iraq. Of course, US travel guidelines are not always wrong, nor completely wrong. Afghanistan, for example, is indeed dangerous. But Iraq is oddly quiet, even after he regained his ability to speak, since modern Iraq is pretty... okay-ish.

And no, I know I'm making him look like a sad-character trope, so I wrote some things to avoid that.

Iraq thought about his previous actions regarding invading Kuwait. Rationally, he knows it was a bad and horrible thing he did. But emotionally, he doesn't feel any regret or remorse. He doesn't and will not say sorry for it because he simply doesn't feel regret. Most of that responsibility, in his eyes, goes to his tyrannical dictator. If he were thrown into that same timeline, he's pretty sure he wouldn't take a different course.

Iraq still has pride and dignity, though. He knows how the world views him, and he simply doesn't want to deal with constantly trying to improve that image. He doesn't find the need to. He knows what people think, and he leaves it at that.

He also thinks people internally assume he's dumb because of how little he talks. He finds it pathetic when people constantly go out of their way to convince others of their redemption or good intentions.

Sometimes he stares at people because he knows it makes them uncomfortable, and he does it specifically to people he wants to leave. Low-key, he sometimes wants to laugh in their faces and tell them that the image they have of him is ridiculous, but he doesn't. He just represses the chuckle.

Also, if Iraq ever found out about Germany (the way I personally write Germany and most people do), I'm pretty sure Iraq would insult him to his face and call him pathetic.

My Germany actively spends his entire life trying to make up for what TR did. Even though he is not TR, he knows that rationally. Yet, in private, he often spirals into guilt. He tries to make himself as friendly and approachable as possible, and since he's an important member of the EU, he can be a bit of a workaholic.

Since Iraq isn't the kind of person who talks much, I find it funny that he looks at Germany and finds him so cringe that he actually has to say something.

Just one word.

"Pathetic."

With a slight look of amusement.

Another reason for this is that the West at least gave Germany a chance to show himself as separate from TR. Iraq never got that chance. Like, why are you paying for sins that aren't even yours?

I imagine everyone sees Iraq as silent and creepy, while Syria calls him a pain in the ass and says he talks way too much for someone like him.

Also, Syria and Iraq are not allies. Just neutral for the sake of it. This isn't closeness or friendship. Syria can be very reactive, and Iraq enjoys seeing it.

The reason Syria hasn't declared Iraq an enemy is because she already has too many wars to deal with, and Iraq is mostly just a shit-talker.

Once, Iraq was just washing dishes until he saw Syria walking past his house with an annoyed look on her face.

Iraq opens his window and loudly says:

"هل ستزعج جوردان كالعادة؟"

("Going to bother Jordan as usual?")

Syria yells back from the distance:

"استمر في الكلام وسأقطع لسانك أيها الوغد!"

("Keep talking and I'll cut your tongue out, bastard!")

She keeps walking for ten seconds, pauses, turns around, and yells:

"أعلم أنك تبتسم بسخرية، أيها الوغد. يجب أن أقطع لسانك الآخر."

("I know you're smirking, bastard. I should cut off your other tongue too.")

Iraq barely reacts. She's said worse.

I initially tried writing Syria as cold and bitter, but that's already how I write Serbia. So I thought, why not a different outcome? She's still a country after all.

A bit later, Syria walks past Iraq's house earlier than usual.

Iraq opens the door and says:

"You're early."

Syria, much calmer this time, replies:

"لم أذكر كل الصفقات والأشياء التي أردتها لأن جوردان بدا وكأنه سيقفز من مبنى بهذه الوتيرة، لذلك قررت تأجيل الأمر إلى الغد."

Before Iraq can continue the conversation, Syria immediately adds:

"وأنا لست إسرائيل، لذلك ذهبت بعيداً."

("And I'm not Israel, so I left.")

Iraq actually laughs.

"يا للعجب! ظننتُ أنك لن تفعل."

("Wow. I thought you wouldn't.")

"أتمنى لو تعود إلى صمتك."

("I wish you'd go back to being mute.")

"ليس قريبًا، للأسف."

("Not anytime soon, unfortunately.")

"وسأظل أتحدث عن مدى سمنتك وكيف ستمتص دماء الأردن حتى آخر قطرة يومًا ما."

("And I'll keep talking about how greedy you are and how you'll drain Jordan dry one day.")

"اصمت أيها الإرهابي!"

("Shut up, terrorist!")

"يا مثير الشغب، يا مُشعل الحروب!"

("Rioter. War-starter.")

"أرجوك، هل ستصمت يومًا ما؟"

("Please, will you ever shut up?")

"ما رأيك ببعض القهوة؟"

("How about some coffee?")

"لا، ستسممني!"

("No, you'll poison me!")

"ولماذا أفعل ذلك؟ لا أريد أرضك المدمرة ولا أي شيء آخر."

("Why would I do that? I don't want your ruined land or anything else.")

"لا، أنا مشغول، لذا لن أتمكن من شرب قهوتك البشعة."

("No. I'm busy, so I can't drink your terrible coffee.")

"إذن، المزيد من القهوة لي."

("Then more coffee for me.")

"أتمنى أن تختنق بها."

("Hope you choke on it.")

"شكرًا جزيلًا لك، وأنت أيضًا."

("Thank you very much. You too.")

Syria adjusts her hijab with fake offense and walks off. Iraq just shakes his head like, "This woman..." and closes the door.

Then imagine it's evening.

Syria returns and asks if he still has coffee left.

Iraq replies:

"لا يكفي لإطعام اللاجئين، ولكنه يكفينا للشرب."

("Not enough to feed the refugees, but enough for us to drink.")

Syria smells the bakhoor in his house and notices the prayer mat.

Iraq casually mentions he was praying and goes to get the coffee.

Syria realizes she never prayed today because she got caught up dealing with the refugee situation. She goes to the mat, kneels, and quietly recites a few verses.

Iraq returns with the coffee, sees Syria praying on his mat, says nothing, and simply waits at the table.

After she's done, Iraq lifts his coffee.

"Bismillah."

He takes a sip.

Syria sits down.

"Alhamdulillah."

They've just known each other for so long that it's basically become wallpaper at this point.

Syria eventually says:

"I still can't believe people can be afraid of..."

She vaguely gestures toward Iraq.

"You."

Iraq replies:

4. Rebellion and Reform

If people get tired of the government and overthrow it, the country does not collapse with the government.

The country changes when the government falls.

Rebellion triggers transformation, not destruction.

If I had written a country as mostly pro-government, and that government was overthrown, the event would feel like part of the CH dying. But after things calm down, the CH would reflect and reform its personality.

The CountryHuman is not blind.

They may believe they are right. But they can be forced into self-reflection.

5. When people affect CountryHumans

Although I prioritize government influence, there are situations where the people’s condition bleeds heavily into the CH instead.

For example, if something deeply affects the population — such as extreme drops in happiness index, high suicide rates, long-term economic suffering, or widespread social unrest — that collective atmosphere can shape the CH’s emotional state.

If the government is not highly authoritarian, then cultural identity, social values, and the beauty of the people can mix into the CH more easily.

In these cases, the influence shifts.

Government may direct policy, but public mood, suffering, or pride can alter the CH’s personality and behavior.

The ratio is dynamic.

6. "Countries don't have to agree with their government"

I understand the argument that countries do not have to agree with their governments. However, in my interpretation, since the government is the institutional core directing policy, I cannot fully separate them.

For example, when people describe Russia as a homophobic country, they are usually referencing laws that have been enforced. That legal structure becomes part of how the country is perceived outwardly.

In my writing, I did make Russia homophobic in alignment with that legal structure. However, it is not a defining personality trait that overshadows everything.

It is integrated into the character, not screamed as a singular label.

Russia does not walk around as “HOMOPHOBIA” personified.

But if LGBTQ topics are brought up in a situation where those laws are relevant, Russia may show discomfort or internal tension.

It is not written as “enforce law = moral correctness.” It is written as structural alignment with current governance, unless challenged by context.

Government traits are integrated, not exaggerated into caricature unless the regime itself is overwhelmingly dominant.

7. Few cases

Some regimes, like the Third Reich, are treated almost entirely as regime embodiment.

If a government is extremely dominating and ideologically rigid, it overrides nearly every people aspect of it. That does not mean every individual person was evil. It means the regime’s ideological core defined the state.

In such cases, nuance does not mean redemption. It means recognizing that the CH represents the regime structure of that time.

Applying a similar structural logic to other countries is not meant to flatten them. It is meant to maintain consistency in how power dominance is represented.

8. Why Do I even focus government first?

It is impossible to fully represent “the people” because there is no singular “the people.” Every individual in a country is different. Different ideologies, classes, values, and experiences.

Since full representation of millions of individuals as one entity is impossible, I choose to prioritize the structural power that directs the country’s outward behavior.

This does not erase people. It acknowledges that government holds institutional control, even if it can be pressured or overthrown.

9. Personal view

I am not a patriot. I have never strongly felt pride toward my own country. I feel culturally attached, but politically detached. That may influence how I write.

Because of that detachment, I find it easier to merge government and country in my interpretation without feeling like I am betraying something sacred.

However, this is just my interpretation of Countryhumans.

It is not the only way to write them.

My CountryHumans are structure-dominant embodiments with a human undercurrent.

Government first. People second. Not people zero.

The ratio shifts with time, ideology, regime dominance, and collective public condition.

When government collapses, the country transforms. When public suffering intensifies, it can bleed into the CH as well.