The “return To Childhood” Consumerist Trend In The West Is Part Of The Settler Move To Innocence

“Real Wild Knits”. Gail O'Neill photographed by Gilles Bensimon for Elle US June 1990

_sr_ch

Cranberry harvest on Terschelling, the Netherlands

One thing that always strikes me as interesting about fandom is how institutionally conservative it is.

That's not to say that it's necessarily ideologically conservative (though I do see more than my fair share of misogyny, racism, ableism, acephobia, transphobia, imperialism apologia, fascism apologia, etc.), bur instead that fandom is broadly a community that privileges tradition and the status quo over change.

There is a veneration of the older Big Name Fans, particularly those involved in the creation of AO3. This often comes with the implication that they were faultless and pure of heart, and if they argue(d) for something, then it must be the right answer.

That ties into the originalist push that is often used to oppose changes to the community or to AO3 specifically--it was perfect in its creation, the original intents were entirely right and implemented correctly, and any change is a violation of that impeccable original design and so is bad. The old laws (Don't Like, Don't Read etc.) are also often still pushed as the law of the land, with limited conversation about new or updated cultural rules or norms.

There is also a strong implicit or explicit in-group mentality that I see, often also used to oppose change. Fandom is by women, for women, and any change must consider women first, last, and always. And if you are doing or asking for something that might impact women (specifically the women who are currently welcome in fandom), it's because of misogyny.

I'm generalizing, of course--fandom, like any other community, has a diversity of ideas and viewpoints. But I do wonder, if I asked people who consider themselves part of Capital-F Fandom whether they would support cultural or structural changes to the community or to AO3, how many would say yes.

Así Fue, Isabel Pantoja.

There is no harmless form of Zionism. It's possible to fantasize about, but it could never exist in reality. There was never going to be a way to establish a Jewish state without destroying Palestinian life.

I see the sentiment that non-Jewish people made Zionism into a bad word, and they really didn't. The Zionist movement did that, Israel did that, all through actions.

There's the quote "the purpose of a systen is what it does." It's been decades, generations of Palestinian suffering and struggle, if this was not the intent we had time to change course. But somehow judging Zionism through the reality it created and continues to maintain is misunderstanding it. Don't look with your eyes, listen to my sweet gentle definition of it.

And even with the gentler definitions, I keep thinking about an ask I saw a Palestinian person getting, probably around a year ago (yes with Gaza being bombed), where the anon said "but you have to understand why Jewish people would want their own place" and it hit me so hard that they're essentially saying "you have to understand why they want a reality where you don't exist and can't be in the way." Those definitions just focus on the desire and not on the actions that are required to achieve it.

Batak architecture of Samosir Island, Indonesia.