I agree with first!anon here. Most of England's colonies did NOT consent to sleeping with him, and portraying his relationship with them (particularly the African and Asian nations, as she [or he] assumed correctly that he was implying) as a uniformly happy, consensual one would be deeply wrong from a historical canon point of view. It's also true that his treatment of his white colonies was inherently very different than his treatment of his non-white colonies-- it seemed wrong to him to sleep with America, but not with India or China. Finally, as France was hinting at, it is patronizing and ridiculous of him to assume that the nations he conquered hadn't had sexual relationships with each other all along.
England is being really callous about the whole thing, which was actually a conscious choice on my part. The European attitude towards colonialism at that time was a very notch-on-my-bedpost type thing: He doesn't see any moral issues with his treatment of his colonies, because he thinks he's spreading Christianity and civilization, and also probably because he doesn't want to think about it too deeply. Second!anon, I'm glad you didn't get any rape vibes from England-- because he doesn't think that what he was doing was rape. Think The White Man's Burden, here: England probably thought that he was doing his colonies a favor. The fact that their behavior towards him in bed didn't change his mind makes sense to me, because their people's reactions to his troops' presence also wouldn't have indicated that they were particularly welcome.
First!anon, you're right, this is a serious issue that doesn't mesh with the tone of the fic. If you have any suggestions, in general or about how to make it clear that I as an author don't think England's treatment of his colonies was funny, definitely let me know-- I'd really appreciate it.
Thanks for bringing this up-- and for sticking with the fic anyway.
Re: authornon
anonymous
October 10 2010, 04:22:08 UTC
ayrt
You are the Word of God here, so there's nothing I can argue if that's how you feel. Personally, I understood that he didn't touch America and Canada because they were children while nations like China and India are older than England himself.
Tbh, I find this section weird and it kind of puts me off, but I enjoyed the rest of the fic. Now I must admit I am curious about the other colonial nations, like France and Netherlands. Or any other nation that has imposed itself over any territory, like Hungary. But as I said, you are the Word of God here.
Re: authornon
anonymous
October 10 2010, 06:38:13 UTC
Word of God aside, if you're interested in telling me what bothers you / what you'd change, I'd love to hear it (if you have better things to do with your time, I understand that too). Do you have a sense for why that bit feels weird? Because it doesn't fit? Because you don't think England would have slept with his colonies?
America and Canada: it's true that their age was a part of it, I'm sure. But even after they weren't children anymore, I don't think England slept with them. They're his flesh and blood in a very real way, since England and France ultimately wiped out much of the native population rather than trying to rule it, and replaced it with their own citizens. But it's also true that Europeans didn't view people of other races as genetically or intellectually the same as them at that time. England was starting to expand as an empire in the same cultural context in which Bartolome de las Casas was having a hard time convincing Spanish citizens that the indigenous peoples of Latin America had souls. If England treated Canada and America differently, it seems strange to me to think that race wasn't a big part of it.
Re:my headcanon about other imperialist nations: I feel like it depends on the country. Portugal was mostly interested in trade, and was-- compared to her neighbors-- fairly benign to her colonies. Spain, however-- he might be a nice guy now, but he was a piece of work back in the day. It seems to me like rape is a fitting metaphor for the way he treated the Incas and the Aztecs in Latin America, for example. It gets tricky, and potentially very offensive, particularly when you start going places like Germany in South-West Africa... but then, what in this fandom doesn't?
Outright sadism - rape or other kinds - never sits right with me when brough up in Hetalia fic. The standard argument is "but history says so", but history says a lot of things that obviously went differently in Hetalia (Germany during WWII, to point out the obvious one). The nations in Hetalia are all good guys some way or the other - even Russia is a sympathetic character whose intentions are unquestionably Not Cruel. A lot of Hetalia fanwriters play up these ugly parts of history for the purpose of drama, but fic like that is almost always OOC, because they demand that the characters display a kind of cruelty that they lack in canon.
Imperialism wasn't pretty, no. But with the England we have in Hetalia, it seems more likely that he used the colonies as servants (see Chibitalia, Chibiromano, Poland, Hungary, China, the Baltics and anyone else ever shown to be under the rule of others), and maybe tried to teach them to dress properly and speak the Queen's English.
As the anon above me, I find it hard to believe England the character would rape anyone. It feels OOC that he would a) do something like that, b) don't realise he did it and c) boast about it. England, as presented in canon, is a guy who has a terrible temper but mostly harmless. As I said, when I read the fill for the first time, it never crossed my mind that England raped any of his colonies. Now, the whole story feels different. Personally, I don't read anything that has Abusive!England (or Abusive!Austria, or America, or France, etc) because I don't feel it sits well with the character. Especially with my favourite character. Can I see England being ruthless? Yes. Cruel? Yes. A rapist? No. It's a matter of taste.
If invasion equals rape, then all of them are rapists and I don't see how that would work on a human level. Did France rape England in Hastings? Canon seems to imply that no, he didn't. So, I don't see why the British Empire should be treated differently. I know there's a historiographic trend to present the English as almost monsters, but each colony was unique and they did not charged massacring people left and right. At least not in all of them. You mention Portugal: the British approach is similar to the Portuguese one, at least that's what I've been thought/read in college. They came, they settled, the exploited the wealth and, if possible, tried to "civilise" the natives. Even then, Portugal was the first slave trader and they weren't precisely nice about kidnapping people in Africa and selling them.
Regarding America and Canada: the English Crown did not massacre the natives. England (and France) signed treaties with them (unfair ones, most probably), and basically stayed in their settlements. I'm not sure about Canada, but the great attack against the natives in America was led by the United States and not by the United Kingdom. The States pushed them in their expansion to the West and killed them when they resisted. That wasn't England's work.
I don't think race had anything to do with England's treatment of America and Canada. Race began to be an important argument in favour of conquest in the second half of 19th century. Even Spain's actions during the Conquest were not about race, per se. They were about religion. When the Spanish sources talk about "pureza de sangre" (blood purity) they are referring to the Christian status. Considering Spain conquered America immediately after recovering Granada and ending 800 years of war against the mores, the emphasis on religion is not strange. But I'm not defending Spain's actions.
My point is that "race" is anachronistic if we are talking about Colonial America. Until Gobineau's book, there was no real systematic thought on "race". And even after it was published, it had a short (though awful, of course) life between the English. I'm thinking of Rhodes and the human zoo in London, both of them in the last quarter of the 19th century. By the time of WWI, it was over, at least in England. The English were the imperialistic force after Charles V, I'm not denying it. But their actions and justifications are not as simple as "these guys are inferior, let's conquer the crap out of them". In many cases, British influenced meant an improvement for certain social groups (women in India, for example) and in others they acted like pigs (Apartheid).
I'm sorry for the long rant. European history (and English in particular) is my area of study so I tend to fal into long winded arguments about it. As I said, this is your fill and it's really great. But Rapist!England or Evil!Imperialistic!England ante pet peeves of mine because they are usually based on anachronistic views. Or headcanon that I don't share and hinder my enjoyment of a story.
I hope I've made myself clearer. I'm glad to have such a nice conversation with you.
Thanks for such a thoughtful answer. I started to respond, and-- got a little carried away. So instead of spamming the meme, I put it up on my journal for you to read-- or not read as you see fit. If you want to stay anonymous, that's totally fine. And, as always, if you have better things to do with your time, I won't be offended not to receive a reply.
Late reply from First!Anon. I disagree with you. To argue that Hetalia!England wouldn't rape anyone is a perfectly legitimate argument- many Hetalia dark!fics present nations doing things that they never would in Hetalia, especially Germany.
But frankly, to argue that that real!England didn't do things to African and Asian nations that would equate to/be a analogy to rape is very, very inaccurate. I'm not going to go into a list, but I think author!anon did a wonderful job of keeping Hetalia!England in character while acknowledging the crappy things that the British Empire did. Here, England honestly seems to believe that he did nothing wrong, and that he was doing the colonies a favor. White Man's Burden indeed.
England is being really callous about the whole thing, which was actually a conscious choice on my part. The European attitude towards colonialism at that time was a very notch-on-my-bedpost type thing: He doesn't see any moral issues with his treatment of his colonies, because he thinks he's spreading Christianity and civilization, and also probably because he doesn't want to think about it too deeply. Second!anon, I'm glad you didn't get any rape vibes from England-- because he doesn't think that what he was doing was rape. Think The White Man's Burden, here: England probably thought that he was doing his colonies a favor. The fact that their behavior towards him in bed didn't change his mind makes sense to me, because their people's reactions to his troops' presence also wouldn't have indicated that they were particularly welcome.
First!anon, you're right, this is a serious issue that doesn't mesh with the tone of the fic. If you have any suggestions, in general or about how to make it clear that I as an author don't think England's treatment of his colonies was funny, definitely let me know-- I'd really appreciate it.
Thanks for bringing this up-- and for sticking with the fic anyway.
--authornon
Reply
You are the Word of God here, so there's nothing I can argue if that's how you feel. Personally, I understood that he didn't touch America and Canada because they were children while nations like China and India are older than England himself.
Tbh, I find this section weird and it kind of puts me off, but I enjoyed the rest of the fic. Now I must admit I am curious about the other colonial nations, like France and Netherlands. Or any other nation that has imposed itself over any territory, like Hungary. But as I said, you are the Word of God here.
Reply
America and Canada: it's true that their age was a part of it, I'm sure. But even after they weren't children anymore, I don't think England slept with them. They're his flesh and blood in a very real way, since England and France ultimately wiped out much of the native population rather than trying to rule it, and replaced it with their own citizens. But it's also true that Europeans didn't view people of other races as genetically or intellectually the same as them at that time. England was starting to expand as an empire in the same cultural context in which Bartolome de las Casas was having a hard time convincing Spanish citizens that the indigenous peoples of Latin America had souls. If England treated Canada and America differently, it seems strange to me to think that race wasn't a big part of it.
Re:my headcanon about other imperialist nations: I feel like it depends on the country. Portugal was mostly interested in trade, and was-- compared to her neighbors-- fairly benign to her colonies. Spain, however-- he might be a nice guy now, but he was a piece of work back in the day. It seems to me like rape is a fitting metaphor for the way he treated the Incas and the Aztecs in Latin America, for example. It gets tricky, and potentially very offensive, particularly when you start going places like Germany in South-West Africa... but then, what in this fandom doesn't?
Reply
Imperialism wasn't pretty, no. But with the England we have in Hetalia, it seems more likely that he used the colonies as servants (see Chibitalia, Chibiromano, Poland, Hungary, China, the Baltics and anyone else ever shown to be under the rule of others), and maybe tried to teach them to dress properly and speak the Queen's English.
Reply
If invasion equals rape, then all of them are rapists and I don't see how that would work on a human level. Did France rape England in Hastings? Canon seems to imply that no, he didn't. So, I don't see why the British Empire should be treated differently. I know there's a historiographic trend to present the English as almost monsters, but each colony was unique and they did not charged massacring people left and right. At least not in all of them. You mention Portugal: the British approach is similar to the Portuguese one, at least that's what I've been thought/read in college. They came, they settled, the exploited the wealth and, if possible, tried to "civilise" the natives. Even then, Portugal was the first slave trader and they weren't precisely nice about kidnapping people in Africa and selling them.
Regarding America and Canada: the English Crown did not massacre the natives. England (and France) signed treaties with them (unfair ones, most probably), and basically stayed in their settlements. I'm not sure about Canada, but the great attack against the natives in America was led by the United States and not by the United Kingdom. The States pushed them in their expansion to the West and killed them when they resisted. That wasn't England's work.
I don't think race had anything to do with England's treatment of America and Canada. Race began to be an important argument in favour of conquest in the second half of 19th century. Even Spain's actions during the Conquest were not about race, per se. They were about religion. When the Spanish sources talk about "pureza de sangre" (blood purity) they are referring to the Christian status. Considering Spain conquered America immediately after recovering Granada and ending 800 years of war against the mores, the emphasis on religion is not strange. But I'm not defending Spain's actions.
My point is that "race" is anachronistic if we are talking about Colonial America. Until Gobineau's book, there was no real systematic thought on "race". And even after it was published, it had a short (though awful, of course) life between the English. I'm thinking of Rhodes and the human zoo in London, both of them in the last quarter of the 19th century. By the time of WWI, it was over, at least in England. The English were the imperialistic force after Charles V, I'm not denying it. But their actions and justifications are not as simple as "these guys are inferior, let's conquer the crap out of them". In many cases, British influenced meant an improvement for certain social groups (women in India, for example) and in others they acted like pigs (Apartheid).
I'm sorry for the long rant. European history (and English in particular) is my area of study so I tend to fal into long winded arguments about it. As I said, this is your fill and it's really great. But Rapist!England or Evil!Imperialistic!England ante pet peeves of mine because they are usually based on anachronistic views. Or headcanon that I don't share and hinder my enjoyment of a story.
I hope I've made myself clearer. I'm glad to have such a nice conversation with you.
Reply
deanon woo, http://ellamequiere.livejournal.com/8869.html
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
But frankly, to argue that that real!England didn't do things to African and Asian nations that would equate to/be a analogy to rape is very, very inaccurate. I'm not going to go into a list, but I think author!anon did a wonderful job of keeping Hetalia!England in character while acknowledging the crappy things that the British Empire did. Here, England honestly seems to believe that he did nothing wrong, and that he was doing the colonies a favor. White Man's Burden indeed.
Reply
Leave a comment