>>718006510
You miss my point Anon, I'm taking issue with it on the basis of what it is symbolically. I never insinuated that. I know that what I am looking at is in all ways not Scottish but it's put before me as such. What do I mean by "Scottish"? Well I beleive a nation is defined by what ultimately is centered around a shared decent, in fact the definition of a nation, with it's etymology taken into account reffers to a people of shared decent. The shared decent is the very birth of all things that flourish into being an eventual "nation", and all things which sprout to define that nation are centered around the ethnos from which it came. It's a definitional thing that really can't be gotten around. Because of this, I reject that THAT is Scottish, it's not Scottish. We live in an age where we are told that white Europeans don't deserve homelands and that their erasure would be no big deal, that any person can come into a nation and be of that nation, that a Somali can come into a Britain and become British, yet having no roots in that nation, haveing no shared history.
I don't want to get sidetracked here, but that character, which has a number of peculiar charictaristics that are HARD NOT TO SEE, is put before me as "Scottish", I'm supposed to just see this thing, which is in no way Scottish, put before me, and put before everyone, and not scoff at it? This character also is not in isolation, there are a great many examples of these "outliers" being put at the forefront as a number of Anon's ITT have pointed out. The dynamics are also not disimilar from lesser magick, not saying this is "magick", there's an as above so below thing that goes on with what's put before peoples eyes and what they will accept, I reject it.
You could also point out the degree to which that character is an outlier. Shaved head, black, a brute, yet is a female, doesn't look beautiful, almost looks visually insulting, and one of many examples of this kind of thing.
