[ SECRET POST #4440 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4440 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 45 secrets from Secret Submission Post #636.
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

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

There were not brazen white supremacists in power when Steven Universe was planned, to put rather too fine a point on it.

nayrt: White supremacists have been in power for over 400 years now. The idea that Sugar, who came of age under a white supremacist president when it was common to talk about bombing Iraq and Afghanistan "down to glass" was naively ignorant of age-old debates about nonviolent vs. violent change when creating SU is a deeply stupid take.

Never mind that SU isn't a political manifesto about regime change. It's politics serve as a metaphor for queer family dysfunction.

Re: OP

[11thmirror]

^This
It seems quite condescending to assert that obviously Sugar would have done it differently today, because any right thinking person will agree with Vrai! Right? Because, like, the debate between the "let's destroy our oppressors by blood and fire" and the "let's explain to our oppressors, in words of one syllable, why being dicks is bad" schools of thought - that's totally new! That definitely came into being within the last few years!
Also, Martin Luthor King and Malcolm X totally didn't spend years talking shit about one another. Definitely not.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think that Tasker is saying that the distinction is new, or that Sugar would have done it differently if the show was being made today. At least, that's not what Tasker says in the piece OP quoted. All they're saying is that the themes of a show are less germane and less appropriate to the specific moment than when the show first came out.

You don't have to agree with them about their political views and the utility of violent revolution but like... the piece just doesn't assert that "obviously Sugar would have done it differently today". If it does, I definitely am missing it.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

The idea that Sugar, who came of age under a white supremacist president when it was common to talk about bombing Iraq and Afghanistan "down to glass" was naively ignorant of age-old debates about nonviolent vs. violent change when creating SU is a deeply stupid take.

I don't think that the writer is suggesting that? Rather, they're suggesting that the circumstances in which the show was created are germane to its thematic content. And I don't think they're wrong - Steven Universe would be a different show if it came out for the first time today. Even if the show was exactly the same, it would still be different, because it would exist in a different historical context.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

And yet, I'm pretty sure that the message that even if you were raised to have shitty and harmful beliefs, you can still be a decent person if you're willing to make the effort is still relevant to kids today.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

Sure! That's valid. I can understand why someone might feel that way, and I can understand why someone might disagree with that and think it's an incorrect political stance for the times. I think they're both valid things to want. You don't have to agree with Kaiser's argument on the merits.

But like... the argument that's being made is not that "Sugar, who came of age under a white supremacist president when it was common to talk about bombing Iraq and Afghanistan 'down to glass' was naively ignorant of age-old debates about nonviolent vs. violent change when creating SU". Or that "obviously Sugar would have done it differently today." Or that "any creator who puts in any real effort to include positive representation in their work must therefore be all things to all people, or else they're some sort of turncoat." And it's strange to me that people keep interpreting it that way.