The real problem with criticizing the minor details of SMC’s plot is I’m technically springboarding off of PGSM so I’m not sure if something is being overly faithful or specifically being set up to clown me later

Especially since these early episodes have no problem entirely aping certain scenes, so the fact there have been deviations from it for seemingly no reason feel on purpose.

otoh I think on some level these early episodes are… indulgent? Sorta like how other adaptations found their mood eventually, but on some level i think this is the makers trying to sell an aesthetic to an audience right before it pulls something on em

Billericay man Alan Dinsdale slipped and fell to his death on guillotine, inquest hears | Brentwood Gazette

Billericay man Alan Dinsdale slipped and fell to his death on guillotine, inquest hears | Brentwood Gazette

A business owner bled to death after slipping on oil and toppling onto a guillotine blade at his printing workshop in Wickford, an inquest has heard.

Alan Dinsdale, 56, from Billericay was changing a newly sharpened blade at ATS print services at Fanton Hall Farm when the fatal incident happened on January 21 this year.

Jurors at Essex Coroner’s Court in Chelmsford yesterday (August 21) heard how…

View On WordPress

We only become what we are by the radical and deep-seated refusal of that which others have made of us.” ~ Jean-Paul Sartre 

I find this quote (found in his preface to Frantz Fanton’s The Wretched of the Earth) a bit too essentialist for my liking, especially in the context of Fanton’s text. Sartre is arguing that European colonisalisation resulted in the dehumanisation of “native” peoples, the denial of non-whites’ humanity vis-a-vis assaults on non-white bodies and cultures. The only way for “native” humanity to be realised, then, is through decolonisation, the reaffirming of “native” identities through violent struggle (conceptualise ‘violent’ however you please). While decolonising, “natives” are still non-human, the images of Self or lack thereof that have been created for them by colonialists still intact, dominant (though fragile). But why must “natives” be denied their humanity in decolonising? Why treat Euro-colonialists’ view of them as non-human as tangible instead of just a construction that denied (and still denies) the humanity of “natives” in order to justify the latter’s mistreatment? Colonised peoples never stopped being human under colonial rule despite their dehumanisation. The “radical and deep-seated refusal of what others [had and] have made of [them]” is unnecessary for them and others to be justified in granting them their humanity. I don’t need to be voicing my opposition and standing up to patriarchy in order for the fact that as a woman my life is just as valuable as a man’s to be true. I don’t need to be voicing my opposition to Eurocentric beauty standards in order for the fact that I am beautiful to be true. I don’t need to be voicing my opposition to Western imperialism in order for the fact that non-white non-Western lives matter to be true. I can remain silent and these things would still be true. Black bodies/identities can be dehumanised and still be human! Decolonisation is not a necessary condition for humanness. It is necessary insofar as it is needed to have privileged groups acknowledge marginalised peoples’ humanity (as well as to have the latter acknowledge their own humanity). It is necessary in the reclaiming and reconstruction of marginalised identities, but even if the latter do not reach a stage where they can be said to be postcolonial, they are not less for it, though the very nature of oppression makes it seem as though they are. So yeah, I don’t like Sartre’s essentialism in this way. People don’t need to refuse oppressive constructs in order to have their humanity affirmed. People can accept (due to internalisation) oppressive constructs that say non-white people are inferior to white people, non-human or subhuman, and still be human, their humanity affirmed. They might be colluding in their own dehumanisation, but it does not make their lives or existence less valuable than that of those they place above them. I would be a lot more comfortable with the quote if it read, “We only become [who we want to be through] the radical and deep-seated refusal of that which others have made of us.” In this form, the quote doesn’t deny people (aspects of) their identity, but instead speaks to the truth that through decolonisation, who we want to be, our own images of Self, can become more and more actualised. Having said all of this, if you think I have misread Sartre, do let me know…