fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #5911 ]

⌈ Secret Post #5911 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

[Miraculous Ladybug]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Clockwise from top left: Ducktales, Until Dawn, Arknights]

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 42 secrets from Secret Submission Post #846.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I think it's fine to respect a groups beliefs/requests, but tbh the hypocrisy of 'don't write about Wendigos because Natives have said no, but all other religious creatures are find because not-indigenous' rubs me the wrong way. There's either respect for beliefs or not.

Yeah, this is my opinion on it. Either its okay to write about all religions and beliefs or it isn't, you can't say "it's fine to write about this one but not this one" because then you're saying that one belief is more valid than the other and imo that's wrong.

That's a simplistic way of looking at a complicated subject, and it doesn't correspond to what most people do with most religions/beliefs. Most religions have parts that are open to the public and parts that are closed and most people are pretty good about not hijacking closed practices from religions that are considered more 'mainstream.' You don't have to carefully explain to most people that communion wafers don't go in the meatloaf, or that you shouldn't wear sidecurls or Mormon temple garments to a club. Meanwhile, no one cares if you want to collect icons, or make your own hamantaschen or illustrate a copy of The Pearl of Great Price. The fact that people have such a hard time seeing these nuances in indigenous religions is tied into exoticism and seeing these specific beliefs as decorative accents.

You don't have to carefully explain to most people that communion wafers don't go in the meatloaf, or that you shouldn't wear sidecurls or Mormon temple garments to a club.

People wear priest's and nun's outfits to clubs all the time. Do you think that's objectionable?

NAYRT but I think anyone would see why that /would/ be distasteful to people, and not something you do when you're trying to be respectful. You don't have to agree, but you can't exactly be shocked if someone takes offense, you know? Sexy Priest Outfits are made to be shocking.

SA also do you not see the difference between making jokes about majority vs minority culture?

cultures = / = religions

The w*indigo thing is very much cultural.

I'm not sure if you're deliberately ignoring the point about closed and open spiritual traditions, or if you just have some wild misconceptions about Catholicism. Either way, a habit or a cassock are just clothing. As long as you're not delivering sacraments under false pretenses, you're not violating any religious doctrine by wearing one.

Otherwise, Catholics would be banned from watching The Sound of Music since none of those actresses were actually nuns.

I think the general measure should be that if a majority of religious or cultural leaders are consistently and repeatedly asking people not to use it, that's when we should listen. If priests and nuns all over suddenly started pushing for no more sexy nun costumes or loose depictions where Christian imagery is used as a lazy shorthand for a vaguely Christian thing, we should listen. But they aren't, so it's fine.

This was a great response, thanks.

It's not about validity, it's about not stomping on a culture that's been purposefully erased for centuries.

I don't think Wendigos are the only things people shouldn't write. but I do think there is a vast difference between white people taking the religion and beliefs from people they have historically oppressed and writing versions of them that have no relation to the actual beliefs and people writing about religions that haven't historically been marginalized.

And I say this as someone who identifies as a Christian. But I see no issue with people taking Christian beliefs and myths and using them for their stories. But I do see a problem with specifically white people taking the stories from marginalized groups and using them. I wouldn't limit that to just Native beliefs, though.

And I say this as someone who identifies as a Christian. But I see no issue with people taking Christian beliefs and myths and using them for their stories.

You might not see an issue with that, but there are many Christians who do object to it.

But I do see a problem with specifically white people taking the stories from marginalized groups and using them. I wouldn't limit that to just Native beliefs, though.

I think this is a slightly different argument, right? The argument about wendigos is specifically connected to them being part of a religious and spiritual practice. It's not just a general argument about cultures and stories regardless of their religious import. And that in turn makes a big difference in terms of how the argument is going to be justified.

The "spiritual" part of the w*ndigo is directly tied to the cultural part. This isn't just a "religious differences" argument, it involves how we even /view/ the cultural beliefs of an oppressed people. The w*ndigo isn't taboo because it's analagous to Satan, for example. Philstar has it right.

You might not see an issue with that, but there are many Christians who do object to it.

And if they did, are we obligated to listen to that? can we not write religious satire anymore? Some Christian sects did object to Good Omens, which is a Christian comedy co-written by a Jew and an atheist, thought it was blasphemous or whatever. Do we just...give in to them? Do we agree that Salman Rushdie shouldn't have written The Satanic Verses?

I think religion is generally fair game as a subject, and I don't think it always has to be respectful, and especially powerful, culturally dominant religions should be able to take a fucking joke.

It's different for closed practices of a group that is marginalized and has had their religion disrespected CONSTANTLY. It was literally illegal for Native Americans to practice their religions until the late 1970s! So I give them a lot more respect when the use of their cultural beliefs just looks a lot like more of the same old abuse and disregard they've endured at the hands of the dominant culture for centuries

This is where I again bring up that the writers of Arknights aren’t “white people.”

Incredibly hopeful of you to think that Chinese people aren't capable of not respecting minorities either.

Different issue. If anything, AYRT was reminding them that you can't just call something "by white people" going from the fact that it's disrespectful of a marginalized race. If the phrase had been "Non-Indigenous people" that would be accurate. "White people" is not, in this case.

If they're not Algonquin, I fail to see how this is any kind of argument.

Because the comment ayrt replied to explicitely mentioned white people.

[ SECRET POST #5911 ]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP