[ SECRET POST #3828 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3828 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 31 secrets from Secret Submission Post #548.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not saying that it's irrelevant I'm saying that you're interpreting it wrong. Because the phrase "your negro" and the concept of "being someone's negro" has a specific meaning related to the idea of ownership and the long history. 'Bae' doesn't, I agree with that, but being "your negro" absolutely ABSOLUTELY is an enormously freighted phrase.

So I agree that we should take the use of the phrase seriously. But I don't think that, in saying that the characters are "not your negroes", the author is saying that white people can't be fans of those characters. The author is saying that white people don't own those characters, and can't own those characters, and oughtn't to think of those characters in dehumanizing and possessive ways.

I am very confident that you are misreading that specific phrase. Is what I'm trying to say here.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

They're correct. They also don't own these characters. Marvel does.

They also, as hard as they try, cannot own other people's experiences of these characters and story. It's being shared and all of these things are going to be demonstrably outside of their control. They could make this suck less for everyone by stop trying to fight that aspect of it.

It's another thing like saying 'this is our music.' or 'these are our words.' You can't take it back once it's out there, you can only choose not to share it in the first place. I think the reason why segregation even came into is because there's been a trend of these type of screeds on Twitter and Tumblr recently. Similar stuff was posted about Lemonade when that dropped.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT:

I am very confident that you are misreading that specific phrase. Is what I'm trying to say here.

I'm sorry, but you haven’t convinced me that I misread that specific phrase.

...that white people don't own those characters, and can't own those characters, and oughtn't to think of those characters in dehumanizing and possessive ways.

See, this I can get behind.

But the specific language the OP criticizes isn't intended, by the users, as dehumanising. It isn't read, by their audience, as dehumanising. It's affectionate, informal (bordering on ridiculous), has no racial component, and comes from a very different place than the language of oppressing a disadvantaged social class.

If their letter said, 'Don't treat these characters like porn stereotypes,' I could get behind it. If it said, 'Don't fetishise their otherness,' likewise.

But it's not. It's saying, 'How dare you treat these characters as other popular characters are treated.'

And I cannot support it.