#auntpol

what line stabilizer program are you using?

They are now competing against YouTube so they "improved" the video feature.

"Racism can be defined as poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race. Prejudice, discrimination, bigotry, those are all just different words that mean the same as racism." (x)

HAHA NO.  Those words are not interchangeable.  Racial prejudice is a component of racism that needs to be put into context in order to be understood properly.

You also say racism is “poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race.”  But which people?  (You neglect to say.  Perhaps you ignorantly believe that all people can be the victims of racism.)  I’ll tell you which people tho: non-white people, especially black people, because racism is a fixed, stable system of oppression that puts white people on the top and black people on the bottom.  A sociologist might define racism as anything that “creates or reproduces structures of domination based on essentialist categories of race.”

Structures of domination, okay? Which is why context is important when you talk about racial prejudice.  Racism is structural, not situational.

If you are a black person and you are prejudiced against white people, are you being racist?  No.  You’re being prejudiced, but not racist.  If you are a white person and you are prejudiced against black people, are you being racist?  Yes, you are both prejudiced and racist, because your status as a white person gives you power, and that power makes your prejudice more harmful and gives your prejudice greater influence over other people’s lives.

How many times do we have to tell you that racism isn’t just the sum of individual acts of cruelty based on race?

Seriously, google it.  You’re an embarrassment to fandom.

But to tie it back into Teen Wolf, since you wanna use werewolves as a metaphor for racial discrimination and won’t be deterred, let me tell you why that’s stupid.

IF you were going to make a racism metaphor out of Teen Wolf, the werewolves would need to stand for people of color, not white folks experiencing some kind of magical reverse-oppression.  (Seriously, it actually inspires less empathy in readers when you do that.)

But wait!  Problem!  Werewolves are canonically described as violent and needing to control themselves and get in touch with their human sides to keep from turning into killers!  So if you make werewolves = non-white people, and werewolves = naturally violent, you’re actually echoing white supremacist rhetoric.  (Don’t do that.  It’s gross.)

But let’s say you dingbats are determined to continue on making this a racism metaphor.  Those poor werewolves.  Murdered and dehumanized by Hunters.  (Hunters = white people, by the way, because let’s pin the blame where it belongs.  The beneficiaries of racism are white people, and if Hunters are the racists in your fucked up little analogy, then Hunters must represent white people as a whole.)

So yeah, those hunters, they got the advantage in any fight, they have the law on their side because the law is designed to stick it to werewolves, hunters have the advantage because for centuries now, werewolves have been corralled into racially segregated neighborhoods and driven into poverty by job discrimination and unfair wages, not to mention they’re unfairly targeted by law enforcement and incarcerated for longer sentences than humans  OH WAIT NO THEY AREN’T.  BECAUSE WEREWOLVES ARE A FUCKING SECRET.

There’s no systematic oppression of werewolves in Teen Wolf canon because werewolves are considered mythical to the general population, and aaaaall the Hunters Vs Werewolves action takes place in secret, away from the public eye.

And without systematic oppression and a dominance hierarchy based on arbitrary racial categories that were MADE UP BY THE OPPRESSORS, you don’t have a racism metaphor.  At most, you have a racial prejudice metaphor.

But even trying to make werewolves = a race?  Dude, you can get bitten and get changed into a werewolf.  I have never heard of a white kid being out on the night of the full moon, getting bit by the Alpha Black, and waking up the next morning with a brand new pigmentation.  Just saying.

Bottom line is, werewolves really don’t make for a valid racism metaphor.  And I am all for talking about werewolves as a disadvantaged group, as underprivileged if you’re working a werewolves-are-known AU, all that jazz.  Talk to me about Werewolf Rights and werewolf rights activists, like Scott Mccall, Community Organizer, and Derek Hale, legal rights advocate for werewolf families. 

But realize that you’re inventing an imaginary axis of oppression, and don’t conflate it with racism.  Because whatever your werewolf characters are going through, that ain’t it.

I like that the one actual, scientific source you’re citing is a book titled: "Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s”  [emphasis mine]

Has it ever, at any point, somewhere in your pretty rant, anywhere at all, occurred to you that Teen Wolf is an international franchise, and that you cannot limit the interpretation of work that is published all over the world by a multinational fandom by applying definitions and theories that only work in a US American context?

I guess not.

I especially like the advice to “google it”.

How many times do we have to tell you that racism isn’t just the sum of individual acts of cruelty based on race?

Seriously, google it.  You’re an embarrassment to fandom.

Because google is the ultimate answer, right? It’s not like google’s first entry links to Wikipedia, where racism is defined as:

Racism consists of both prejudice and discrimination based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. It often takes the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently. (x)

The second entry - for me, because I’m googling from Germany, it might be completely different for anyone else around the world - is a couple of pictures against racism. The third leads to the ADL, where racism is, in the very first praragraph, defined as,

Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person’s social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics. Racial separatism is the belief, most of the time based on racism, that different races should remain segregated and apart from one another. (x)

The fourth entry is to my preferred dictionary, where I don’t find a definition, only a translation, but that’s fine. Actually, it’s pretty insightful. Because it offers me racism to translate it with Rassismus, and then it offers me two word combinations suchs as

anti-racism

blatant racism

institutional racism

latent racism  

and so on.(x)

Now, according to my dictionary, obviously there is racism and there is institutional racism, and those two are not the same. It rather looks like institutional racism is one sub-category of racism.

However, the German Wikipedia entry is very interesting too. The third paragraph says:

Unabhängig von seiner Herkunft kann Rassismus jeden Menschen betreffen. Die Konvention der Vereinten Nationen unterscheidet nicht zwischen rassischer und ethnischer Diskriminierung.[1] Ein erweiterter Rassismusbegriff kann auch eine Vielzahl anderer Kategorien miteinbeziehen. Menschen mit rassistischen Vorurteilen diskriminieren andere aufgrund solcher Zugehörigkeit, institutioneller Rassismus verweigert bestimmten Gruppen Vorteile und Leistungen oder privilegiert andere. Rassistische Theorien und Argumentationsmuster dienen der Rechtfertigung von Herrschaftsverhältnissen und der Mobilisierung von Menschen für politische Ziele.[2] Die Folgen von Rassismus reichen von Vorurteilen und Diskriminierung über Rassentrennung, Sklaverei und Pogrome bis zu sogenannten „ethnischen Säuberungen“ und Völkermord. (x)

Let me translate it to you:

Racism can affect every human being regardless of origin. The Convention of the United Nations does not discern between racial and ethnical discrimination. An extended definition of racism can include a variety of other categories. People with racist prejudice discriminate against others because of such an affiliation, institutional racism denies certain groups advantages and benefits, or does privilege others. […] The consequences of racism range from prejdudice and discrimination to segregation, slavery and pogroms to “ethnical cleansings” and genocide.

Insightful, as I said.

Let’s move on: the fifth entry leads to another dictionary, where racism is defined as:

noun

1.

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

2.

a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3.

hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. (x)

The sixth entry leads to globalissues.org, where racism  is defined as:

Racism is the belief that characteristics and abilities can be attributed to people simply on the basis of their race and that some racial groups are superior to others. Racism and discrimination have been used as powerful weapons encouraging fear or hatred of others in times of conflict and war, and even during economic downturns. (x)

The seventh entry leads to an Australian site against racism. The url of the site is http://itstopswithme.humanrights.gov.au/it-stops-with-me/what-you-say-matters/why-racism, which should give you a major clue, because it very much adresses the individual and their choices:

Racism is never okay. But it still happens in Australia. Every day.

Racism happens in lots of different ways. You hear it when people:

make “jokes” or negative comments about a particular ethnic group

call others racist names or verbally abuse them

bully, hassle or intimidate others because of their race.

You see it when people:

write racist graffiti in public places

make offensive comments online

are excluded from groups because they’re “different” or “don’t belong”

are physically abused because of their race.

Then comes the Oxford dictionary definition:

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races (x)

The ninth link is an Australian site, again, where a definition says that:

Racism is an ideology that gives expression to myths about other racial and ethnic groups, that devalues and renders inferior those groups, that reflects and is perpetuated by deeply rooted historical, social, cultural and power inequalities in society. (x)

Actually, I’d like to quote a bit more from this site, because the explanation given is very nuanced:

Racism is the result of a complex interplay of individual attitudes, social values and institutional practices. It is expressed in the actions of individuals and institutions and is promoted in the ideology of popular culture. It changes its form in response to social change.

Racism has its roots in the belief that some people are superior because they belong to a particular race, ethnic or national group. The concept of race is a social construct, not a scientific one. (For a discussion of the meaning of the word ‘race’, refer to the glossary).

Racist attitudes and beliefs are misconceptions about people based on perceived racial lines and are often founded on the fear of difference, including differences in customs, values, religion, physical appearance and ways of living and viewing the world. This includes negative attitudes towards the use of different languages, ‘foreign’ accents or the use of non-standard variations of a dominant community language. [1]

Racist attitudes may be manifested in a number of ways including common expressions of racial prejudice towards and stereotyped assumptions about other cultures as well as more extreme forms of prejudice such as xenophobia. These beliefs are reinforced by prevailing social attitudes towards people who are seen as different and are often a reflection of the values which underpin social relations and institutional practices.

These attitudes and beliefs find expression in racist behaviours, both in the actions of individuals and in the policies and entrenched practices of institutions. Where these behaviours involve unequal power relationships between individuals or groups from different cultural backgrounds, racist actions on the part of members of the dominant culture have the effect of marginalising those from minority groups.

The tenth and eleventh link lead me to anti-racist music festivals in Germany.

The second site gives me the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. Then the Encyclopedia Britannica. I’ll spare us both some time and refrain from citing their definitions, because they are more of the same.

So ultimately, what you mean when you say “google it”, isn’t actually, “google it”, but “browse the world wide web unitl you find sources that confirm my words and be ready to accept my US-centric definition.”

I have western bias, so don’t hesitate to correct me when I’ve written or reblogged something ignorant. (x)

Well, in this case, unless you want to state that "western" = "US", your bias is actually a US American one. Consider this the correction you're asking for on your primary blog. Because you're displaying a considerable amount of arrogance and cultural imperialism here by insisting on a specific definition of a term that is quite obviously not shared by an international community.

See, translation is a thing. You might want to give up your claim on a prerogative of interpreation when it comes to the English language, and accept that racism in a global context translates to what parts of US America see as racial prejudice. And that your racism would translate back into global English as systemic or institutionalized racism within the USA - which then possibly allows for specific stipulations, such as PoC cannot be racist, or there is no such thing as racism against white people (though I'm actually pretty sure that not even all US Americans do share these views on the topic of racism.)

So when you hear the fans of a multinational fandom talk about Teen Wolf as a metaphor for racism, maybe use your brainpower to take into consideration that they're talking about racism from a more global, less US-centric perspective.

Does it work for the tumblr app?

Picture this: a woman with a past history of being used and abused horribly both physically and mentally, she’s been...

My point is not that the leer isn't skeevy. Of course it's skeevy, and potentially very upsetting to Derek, and certainly alienating as hell, but my reading of the scene is that it's supposed to be skeevy. I'm not commenting on the scene as a potentially shippy moment, but as a characterization moment.

The leer struck me as very deliberate - like Braeden is using the leer and her insistence that she's only rescuing them as a mercenary act to some end we don't yet know. There are a ton of ways a rescuer might act, from horrified and nuturing through cool detachment - but the latter is much less likely to create a bond between the rescued and the rescuer. Braeden seems to be saying "don't trust me" very loudly (presumably someone who is paid to save you could also be paid to hurt you). I'm just wondering why. Maybe she is that callous, and sees no reason to hide it. Maybe she's in some sort of danger herself, and can't afford to show sympathy for Derek. Maybe she doesn't trust Peter, and figures this is the best way to get out of dodge before he fucks things up. Maybe she knows that she's a soft touch, and is doing her best to keep her distance from Derek. Maybe this is all part of that whole "balance" thing that Morrell keeps talking about. 

All we know is that Braeden doesn't appear to be using her rescue of Derek to gain his confidence - and is thus behaving in a way totally opposite from Kate and Jennifer, who both presented themselves in a manner calculated to win Derek's confidence, but turned out to be cold blooded murderers. She's also made it obvious from the start that she's aware of the supernatural - as opposed to Kate (we assume, although we didn't see her original seduction) and Jennifer who presented themselves as mundane humans.