With animated movies not being cultural documentaries I always thought it perfectly reasonable that the setting had to be simplified in some way as not to distract from the story. Also there is just so much animation can do. They tend to choose aspects of representation that are familiar/recognizable to the audience and need no further explanation even if people are not familiar with the culture (be it Scotland or China or idk). Where to draw the line between simplification and ignorance?
Insensitivity. Blatantly not doing research, relying on trite stereotype. Laziness. Not trying. Not putting forth the minimum effort required to provide respectful, positive representation.
No one is asking for people to move mountains. I don’t need the hieroglyphics of every tomb in Egypt to be 100% accurate to real life… but they damn sure better be based on actual hieroglyphics. How about this, more importantly: how about actual BROWN AND BLACK PEOPLE inhabiting Egypt. Not olive-skinned. Not fair. Black and brown.
There are ways to create easily recognizable yet reproducible facsimiles of real life people, places, and things.
Can you tell me who the above character is supposed to be? How can you tell? Could you also make a guess at her racial background?
How about this one?
Do you see what I’m getting at?
The task is no harder than the person undertaking it makes it. If Disney can produce all these films of default, vaguely European Princesses (which, nothing says PoC can’t live in those worlds but bigots), making visual shorthand of art movements and real life locations, why can’t they put a little effort forward towards doing similar things with PoC in settings which are at least respectful homages to their original cultures?
hi, I'm sorry if this question is ill-informed or anything like that as i don't know much about the topic but i was reading that multiplicity is like DID, but you guys can interact with the alters. would that not actually be considered a tulpa, instead of a form of DID? i've read a few of your posts and thats what this sounds like to me.
folks with DID can interact with their alters. that’s not the distinction. it’s… a bit more complicated than that.
"multiplicity" is an umbrella term that refers to any situation where multiple people exist in a single body. DID is a particular disorder that includes a number of symptoms alongside multiplicity — inter-alter amnesia, everyday dissociation outside of multiplicity, and typically co-occurs with a range of other mental illnesses. there are also folks with OSDD-1 — DID-like other specified dissociative disorder — who don’t have all the symptoms of DID but enough to count; usually this means systems who don’t experience any kind of amnesia.
now, that’s just the medical model of multiplicity. there are folks who choose alternative models for a variety of reasons. not fitting the traumagenic model of dissociation or just being politically opposed to the medicalization of multiplicity are the two main reasons i see. one such alternative model is tulpamancy, which also comes with its own claims and assumptions — that anyone can induce multiplicity through sheer willpower, the act of projecting (seeing one’s tulpas external to the body), etc. there are other models, too. i usually point to soulbonding, which typically comes in the form of one host + multiple fictional characters and which often carries the assumption that these characters are coming from alternate universes. and then, of course, there’s this model that our system goes by, which sorta doesn’t have a name beyond “nonDID/OSDD multiplicity”. this model often claims more similarity to DID and OSDD than other models seem to, including using similar words like “multiple system”, “fronting”, “headspace” etc.
i’ll point out that lots of folks in multiplicity communities outside of tulpamancy often don’t exactly look too highly on tulpamancers. i’m not too convinced by the claim that anyone can create a tulpa — i think there are people on the edge of multiplicity who can tip themselves over, but that’s hardly a universal thing. plus, i’ve seen some shitty things come out of tulpamancy communities — alongside the simple cultural appropriation of the term “tulpa” itself, there’s been plenty of cases of tulpamancers acting as though their multiplicity is “better” or “more real” than that of folks with DID and OSDD, or of folks seeming to take the idea of “yes this is literally another sentient being who you will now share your entire life with” waaay too lightly. so that’s a few reasons why we don’t identify with that model, plus the whole fact that we discovered nonDID/OSDD multiplicity first and it seems to explain things pretty fine.
hopefully that all made sense? i have a lot of feeeeelings about the different models available for multiplicity (or any one experience, actually. it’s practically what i study.)