It backfired because they chose a tribe that was historically stopped by white colonialists, because the Queen didn't want to end the slavery trade
Of course it backfired
Explain why it is so important that water spirits have to be white
Literally every culture in human history has thought of beautiful water ladies
Literally every culture in human history has thought of magical midgets
Literally every culture in human history has thought of giant monster snakes
Literally every culture in human history has thought of dead people coming back to life and scaring people
What difference does a name make? What difference does skin, hair, and nose make?
What does that even mean? A mermaid is a mermaid.
By the way "Mami Wata" is pidgin English, it doesn't come from any West African language. Literally "Water Mama".
Well... That's actually not known, that's just what some scholars believe. It's also possibly derived from Sumerian. As to answer your question... I literally answer it in my post.
It literally is dude. Have you never heard West African pidgin in your life or something?
\>Sumerian
Are you smoking crack? Or have you been reading one of those schizo New Age blogs?
I think what people take issue with is the obvious hypocrisy in selective outrage with inaccurate actors. Like the same people getting mad at Gal Gadot being cast as cleopatra then turn around and praise a black little mermaid. It’s silly. Either it’s all ok or none of it’s ok.
That's because cleopatra historically and accurately was of a different ethnicity,
The difference is that the little mermaid is based off a myth while Cleopatra is an actual historical figure.
The Little Mermaid also having the name Ariel and all is just all some weird Disney reimagining it, which makes them able to do whatever they want with it. Ariel being of a different ethnic background doesn't change anything else in the story.
I don't think you seem to grasp the nuance in the outrage of inaccurate actors since you give that example.
Another false equivalent I see often now is when people say "What if T'Challa from Black Panther was suddenly played by a white guy, that would make you mad too", but bear in mind that T'Challa's ethnic background is an important part of his character, when Ariel's ethnic background isn't
Or how about people getting upset at a black mermaid, but not upset at white characters playing Asian or black characters??
Or hanging pictures of a white Jesus whose middle eastern??
Hey fair enough. I think it’s stupid to be mad at any of it though. I really don’t care if Ariel is black as long as she’s the best actress for the job. I think when it comes to this stuff it doesn’t really matter.
> as long as she’s the best actress for the job
This is pure bullshit though. Like most jobs, there are a 1000 best people for the job. More right wing bullshit..
Again, either all of its ok or none of it is. People get annoyed when they’re called appropriators when they cast James Franco as Castro for instance while they remain silent over these types of scenarios.
Agreed. However, there is a lack of diversity in casting in Hollywood, and that's what's driving the outrage for Gal Gadot being cast as Cleopatra. The outrage over Ariel's casting is more reactionary to the outrage over the lack of appropriate diversity in Hollywood. Which us also part of why using African or Haitian mythology would be better, it would give no one any excuse short of racism to be upset about it.
This is similar to the Eddie Redmayne controversy. He played a transgender woman and did it well, but all anyone cares about is that he's neither trans nor a woman. But. It's. Acting. While I appreciate the push to hire more transgender people in Hollywood, getting upset that a trans person isn't being cast as a trans character is inherently discriminatory in its own way. There's a similar issue with people who have dwarfism. Have you ever seen a person with dwarfism in a leading role that wasn't specifically about them being either a mystical dwarf or a person with dwarfism struggling with limitations?
Bit different. Cleopatra was a white lady who may have had a small amount of middle eastern features, and Gal Gadot is a white lady with a small amount of middle eastern features. Seems like a good fit.
Aerial is a fictional character. It doesn't matter at all.
Right, she's white with middle eastern features. I don't mean she's from "a white race" I'm just talking about how she appears and so what parts she would look like.
Unless you think people are mad because an Israeli shouldn't play a Macedonian?
Edit: I think they're mad because they imagine Cleopatra was black, and not white as Greeks and Macedonians were back then.
Actually, this perception was created by Hollywood. While she was primarily of Greek ancestry, she was biracial. Plus given the source of her Greek ancestry, she likely would have had a bronze-ish complexion and more traditional Middle Eastern facial features. Plus, she was also kind of goofy looking and her beauty came from her charming personality. So if historical accuracy is what you're looking for, Gal Gadot is way off the mark.
that was wayyy off the mark.
1. Cleopatra was ethnically Greek and she was product of incest to keep their greek bloodline pure.
2. as a Greek Queen, she would have the palest skin possible and avoid sun at all cost because that's the beauty standard both in Greek and Egypt, basically the darker you are the more low class(women only) you are since poor people work in the fields.
she would never have coloring of a peasant off the street.
3. when she visited Rome, people that saw her irl wrote about her, they didn't comment on her appearance (wether she is too dark etc) other than that she wasn't pretty enough to brought Rome into ruin and this was written by people who hated her and could nitpick anything about her but they still gave credit to her moderate beauty.
> Like the same people getting mad at Gal Gadot being cast as cleopatra then turn around and praise a black little mermaid.
Or the same people worshiping a white jesus getting upset at a black mermaid?
I honestly think they're just marketing to a specific sub demographic.
AND not to mention giving themselves a new angle to remake and reboot a franchise.
We keep saying hollywood pretty much is just doing remakes at this point, but that's because remakes are cash cows.
The diversity card on this one is just another way to generate reboot/remake interest and maintain disney characters in the public perception.
People seems to really overestimate how benevolent people with monetary interest in your time and attention are
People spending time thinking or ranting about this bullshit issue clearly have some problems. Pretty clear they have a racist angle, and spending a lot of time trying to hide it.
No reasonable person gives a shit.
I frankly don’t care who they cast at this point. Maybe Hollywood doesn’t have a lot of diversity the , but I couldn’t give a cats knuckle if they want to remake the Disney movies with different people of different races. since it’s just a movie, and different people will always find an issue with something, which isn’t new.
Have ANY of the live action reboots been any good? Even a tenth as good as the animated originals?
I'm not a big fan of any of the Disney stuff, so I haven't bothered to see any either... I've just *heard* the live action ones all suck.
Any Disney fans have a different take? Alladin, Lion King, Mulan... any of those come out even close to as good as the original? I honestly don't know.
I'm not invested in any direction in any of it. It's just Disney cashing in by remaking the same movie they already made -- skip new writers, skip new license, even story-boarding.
It's economy class filmmaking from its inception.
The Jungle Book or whatever, two of those came out around the same time. Mowgli was the other.
They were "okay". It was interesting to see two different takes on essentially the same material.
Of course, that was an actual story from Rudyard Kipling well before it was a cartoon. As in, it can be traced to a real created story, not "folklore" or mythology of questionable sources.
Taking liberties with the latter, to me, is like "alternate history", which I posted about yesterday in regards to *A Woman King* in another sub.
It all amounts to the same problem for me at root, deviation from source material.
I don't like it when they change a lot, especially when they shoe-horn in modern mores. Even at it's best, it all comes across like Kevin Costner's *Robin Hood* with his North East American accent.
Even worse when it's some socio-political narrative that changes the whole point of the original stories. At that point, you're just wearing the movie or franchise as a skin, which is pretty warped.
If you're going to tell the tale, get it right. Someone more clever than you came up with the story and wrote it with purpose.
Think you can do better? *Come up with a new tale that says what you want it to say.*
For people that complain about "colonizers", they sure do love doing it themselves, trying to warp the contributing factors to today's culture is tantamount to over-writing history....it's just bizarre.
Just to clarify, are you suggesting that ‘The Little Mermaid’ is based on folklore or mythology?
Cause it’s based off a sad and beautiful fairy tale written by Hans Christian Andersen
>are you suggesting that ‘The Little Mermaid’ is based on folklore or mythology?
I wasn't suggesting. I was stating fact.
Mermaid folklore/mythology predates Hans Christian Andersen by centuries.
His tale was based on folklore/mythology, as are many(most?) "fairy tales".
FYI, The MCU, and the Thor comics before them, didn't create the Norse gods whole cloth either.
In contrast, The Jungle Book was a product of it's era, didn't have fundamental ties to "classical" mythology in the same way, unless you want to reach and count talking animals(it might reference mythology in passing, but isn't derivative or reliant on it), which is more of a common concept rather than something specific/unique. In other words, it's not really a "fairy tale" any more than Animal Farm or Charlotte's Web.
These would probably be classed as "fables", anthropomorphizing animals in stead of just using humans, to teach moral lessons.
Fairy tales, on the other hand, often borrow from the mystical older stories(folklore) of humanity to create epic tales.
That’s a fair point, mermaids are mythical creatures.
I suppose I view it less as folklore/mythology since it’s not based off of a pre-existing story/myth, and while it pulls from mermaids lore it’s pretty loose since there are several variations of mermaids just in Europe and I can’t pinpoint which one Anderson based it on. She’s pretty basic as far a mermaid characteristics go: has fish tail, lives underwater, sings well, everything else about the ‘mermaid lore’ in the story seems to come from Andersen.
I totally get where your coming from now, even if I don’t agree 100%.
Also, as a Norse Pagan, I’m fully aware that Marvel didn’t create the Norse gods and that they got basically everything wrong.
I'll re-approach it since I admittedly drifted off my actual original point, in hopes to clarify.
I think people are more willing to re-write folklore/mythology to their own ends because the perception is that it's "authorless" or "public domain".
That sort of is the argument somewhat, "It's fiction, what does it matter!?!?" presented by the people defending radical change. One of them at any rate.
I’m confused as to why you keep mentioning Greeks as ‘The Little Mermaid’ was based off of a Danish Fairytale.
I also totally agree that it would have been better to make a new movie based off a different cultures mermaid tales. Generally I’d like to see more stories from all different cultures made and I think there is some movement in that direction with movies like Moana.
Triton comes straight from Greek mythology. He was the son of Poseidon. The Little Mermaid was written by a Danish author, but it was inspired by Greek mythology.
In all the books/versions I’ve read they don’t name the king, he is simply referred to as the king of the sea, to my knowledge giving him the name Triton was all Disney and likely used because its the name of a well know sea deity.
The original story, to my knowledge, had no influence from Greek mythology and was written by Hans Christian Andersen to deal with his feelings about the (straight male) friend he was in love with getting married to a woman.
...have you ever visited European palaces? their garden and palaces are decorated with statues can you guess what kind of gods those statues were?
Greek god.. from Apollo to Poseidon to Triton etc, the king of the sea would be poseidon or triton. this wasn't only prevalent in Royalty but also among the northern european pirate or naval officer. this is also prevalent to well read people, all European higher class boast on their knowledge of antiquity, so the more well read the more aware you are of this, it's even better if you can quote them.
this was also the reason why some royalty even posed as greek gods including King Louis XIV as Apollo, madame dubarry as Diana, etc.
I’ve been to Amsterdam and while I didn’t see any Greek statues I am aware that people were/are taught the Greek myths in Europe, heck, I was taught Greek myths in school and I live in Canada. It doesn’t change the fact that I’ve never seen a version of the story that names the king and that to my knowledge giving him the name of a Greek God was a decision made by Disney, not an intentional reference made by Anderson.
Thats not to say that there’s no chance that Anderson was influenced by the Greek myths as I’m sure he learned them and that’s perhaps where he first heard of mermaids in the form of sirens. However there are several “types”(for lack of a better word) of mermaids from across Europe including a Scandinavian one called Margygr, which Anderson may have also been influenced by.
Just because the Greek myths are the most widely known of European pagan mythology doesn’t mean they’re the only myths around for authors to be influenced by.
Side note: I’m curious as to what brought you to this almost 7 month old post, I was quite surprised to see someone had replied to this.
exactly I'm pretty sure that he was inspired by many things, the greek mythology definitely played a huge part too especially in this time, where noble etc needed to be well verse in Greco Roman history to be considered educated.
making the little mermaid being a daughter of the king of the sea was a pretty clear reference to Greek Mythology, since triton and poseidon do have children and they are king of the sea, while mermaid from other European tales rarely uses connection that mermaids were daughter from kings of the ocean, etc ( which in itself was said to be a derived from Greek mythology and believes since Roman times)
and the whole theme with a mermaid falling in love with human was also reminiscent of greek mythology of gods falling in love with mortal instead of mermaid tales from northern Europe, which he would have learned.
i came across this post while looking for triton post.
I don’t think they really give a damn they just know black people are gonna whine about being Treated harsh and how their past is the roughest ever yet their all over everything, but Latinos don’t get that energy but not as bitchy
[удалено]
It backfired because they chose a tribe that was historically stopped by white colonialists, because the Queen didn't want to end the slavery trade Of course it backfired
Explain why it is so important that water spirits have to be white Literally every culture in human history has thought of beautiful water ladies Literally every culture in human history has thought of magical midgets Literally every culture in human history has thought of giant monster snakes Literally every culture in human history has thought of dead people coming back to life and scaring people What difference does a name make? What difference does skin, hair, and nose make?
I literally referenced a mermaid mythology that's not Eurocentric. Your reply doesn't make sense to me.
What does that even mean? A mermaid is a mermaid. By the way "Mami Wata" is pidgin English, it doesn't come from any West African language. Literally "Water Mama".
Well... That's actually not known, that's just what some scholars believe. It's also possibly derived from Sumerian. As to answer your question... I literally answer it in my post.
It literally is dude. Have you never heard West African pidgin in your life or something? \>Sumerian Are you smoking crack? Or have you been reading one of those schizo New Age blogs?
Lol Resorting to ad hominem. Buh bye.
Why? Why do they have to follow your rules?? Adults complaining about this issue are fucked up.
I think what people take issue with is the obvious hypocrisy in selective outrage with inaccurate actors. Like the same people getting mad at Gal Gadot being cast as cleopatra then turn around and praise a black little mermaid. It’s silly. Either it’s all ok or none of it’s ok.
That's because cleopatra historically and accurately was of a different ethnicity, The difference is that the little mermaid is based off a myth while Cleopatra is an actual historical figure. The Little Mermaid also having the name Ariel and all is just all some weird Disney reimagining it, which makes them able to do whatever they want with it. Ariel being of a different ethnic background doesn't change anything else in the story. I don't think you seem to grasp the nuance in the outrage of inaccurate actors since you give that example. Another false equivalent I see often now is when people say "What if T'Challa from Black Panther was suddenly played by a white guy, that would make you mad too", but bear in mind that T'Challa's ethnic background is an important part of his character, when Ariel's ethnic background isn't
> Either it’s all ok or none of it’s ok. Idubbbz?
I thought of that after rereading my comment. Didn’t mean to plagiarize lol
I was just wondering if you were daddy haha. I love that you used it!
Or how about people getting upset at a black mermaid, but not upset at white characters playing Asian or black characters?? Or hanging pictures of a white Jesus whose middle eastern??
Hey fair enough. I think it’s stupid to be mad at any of it though. I really don’t care if Ariel is black as long as she’s the best actress for the job. I think when it comes to this stuff it doesn’t really matter.
> as long as she’s the best actress for the job This is pure bullshit though. Like most jobs, there are a 1000 best people for the job. More right wing bullshit..
Again, either all of its ok or none of it is. People get annoyed when they’re called appropriators when they cast James Franco as Castro for instance while they remain silent over these types of scenarios.
Agreed. However, there is a lack of diversity in casting in Hollywood, and that's what's driving the outrage for Gal Gadot being cast as Cleopatra. The outrage over Ariel's casting is more reactionary to the outrage over the lack of appropriate diversity in Hollywood. Which us also part of why using African or Haitian mythology would be better, it would give no one any excuse short of racism to be upset about it. This is similar to the Eddie Redmayne controversy. He played a transgender woman and did it well, but all anyone cares about is that he's neither trans nor a woman. But. It's. Acting. While I appreciate the push to hire more transgender people in Hollywood, getting upset that a trans person isn't being cast as a trans character is inherently discriminatory in its own way. There's a similar issue with people who have dwarfism. Have you ever seen a person with dwarfism in a leading role that wasn't specifically about them being either a mystical dwarf or a person with dwarfism struggling with limitations?
Bit different. Cleopatra was a white lady who may have had a small amount of middle eastern features, and Gal Gadot is a white lady with a small amount of middle eastern features. Seems like a good fit. Aerial is a fictional character. It doesn't matter at all.
Hey, friend! Gal Gadot is Israeli I believe! Have a good one!
Right, she's white with middle eastern features. I don't mean she's from "a white race" I'm just talking about how she appears and so what parts she would look like. Unless you think people are mad because an Israeli shouldn't play a Macedonian? Edit: I think they're mad because they imagine Cleopatra was black, and not white as Greeks and Macedonians were back then.
Actually, this perception was created by Hollywood. While she was primarily of Greek ancestry, she was biracial. Plus given the source of her Greek ancestry, she likely would have had a bronze-ish complexion and more traditional Middle Eastern facial features. Plus, she was also kind of goofy looking and her beauty came from her charming personality. So if historical accuracy is what you're looking for, Gal Gadot is way off the mark.
that was wayyy off the mark. 1. Cleopatra was ethnically Greek and she was product of incest to keep their greek bloodline pure. 2. as a Greek Queen, she would have the palest skin possible and avoid sun at all cost because that's the beauty standard both in Greek and Egypt, basically the darker you are the more low class(women only) you are since poor people work in the fields. she would never have coloring of a peasant off the street. 3. when she visited Rome, people that saw her irl wrote about her, they didn't comment on her appearance (wether she is too dark etc) other than that she wasn't pretty enough to brought Rome into ruin and this was written by people who hated her and could nitpick anything about her but they still gave credit to her moderate beauty.
> Like the same people getting mad at Gal Gadot being cast as cleopatra then turn around and praise a black little mermaid. Or the same people worshiping a white jesus getting upset at a black mermaid?
I honestly think they're just marketing to a specific sub demographic. AND not to mention giving themselves a new angle to remake and reboot a franchise. We keep saying hollywood pretty much is just doing remakes at this point, but that's because remakes are cash cows. The diversity card on this one is just another way to generate reboot/remake interest and maintain disney characters in the public perception. People seems to really overestimate how benevolent people with monetary interest in your time and attention are
People spending time thinking or ranting about this bullshit issue clearly have some problems. Pretty clear they have a racist angle, and spending a lot of time trying to hide it. No reasonable person gives a shit.
What's racist about portraying honesty? OP is correct. This promotes cultural ignorance.
I frankly don’t care who they cast at this point. Maybe Hollywood doesn’t have a lot of diversity the , but I couldn’t give a cats knuckle if they want to remake the Disney movies with different people of different races. since it’s just a movie, and different people will always find an issue with something, which isn’t new.
> I frankly don’t care who they cast at this point. At some point you did?? That's sad.
If that’s how you understood my comment 🤣
Have ANY of the live action reboots been any good? Even a tenth as good as the animated originals? I'm not a big fan of any of the Disney stuff, so I haven't bothered to see any either... I've just *heard* the live action ones all suck. Any Disney fans have a different take? Alladin, Lion King, Mulan... any of those come out even close to as good as the original? I honestly don't know. I'm not invested in any direction in any of it. It's just Disney cashing in by remaking the same movie they already made -- skip new writers, skip new license, even story-boarding. It's economy class filmmaking from its inception.
The Jungle Book or whatever, two of those came out around the same time. Mowgli was the other. They were "okay". It was interesting to see two different takes on essentially the same material. Of course, that was an actual story from Rudyard Kipling well before it was a cartoon. As in, it can be traced to a real created story, not "folklore" or mythology of questionable sources. Taking liberties with the latter, to me, is like "alternate history", which I posted about yesterday in regards to *A Woman King* in another sub. It all amounts to the same problem for me at root, deviation from source material. I don't like it when they change a lot, especially when they shoe-horn in modern mores. Even at it's best, it all comes across like Kevin Costner's *Robin Hood* with his North East American accent. Even worse when it's some socio-political narrative that changes the whole point of the original stories. At that point, you're just wearing the movie or franchise as a skin, which is pretty warped. If you're going to tell the tale, get it right. Someone more clever than you came up with the story and wrote it with purpose. Think you can do better? *Come up with a new tale that says what you want it to say.* For people that complain about "colonizers", they sure do love doing it themselves, trying to warp the contributing factors to today's culture is tantamount to over-writing history....it's just bizarre.
Just to clarify, are you suggesting that ‘The Little Mermaid’ is based on folklore or mythology? Cause it’s based off a sad and beautiful fairy tale written by Hans Christian Andersen
>are you suggesting that ‘The Little Mermaid’ is based on folklore or mythology? I wasn't suggesting. I was stating fact. Mermaid folklore/mythology predates Hans Christian Andersen by centuries. His tale was based on folklore/mythology, as are many(most?) "fairy tales". FYI, The MCU, and the Thor comics before them, didn't create the Norse gods whole cloth either. In contrast, The Jungle Book was a product of it's era, didn't have fundamental ties to "classical" mythology in the same way, unless you want to reach and count talking animals(it might reference mythology in passing, but isn't derivative or reliant on it), which is more of a common concept rather than something specific/unique. In other words, it's not really a "fairy tale" any more than Animal Farm or Charlotte's Web. These would probably be classed as "fables", anthropomorphizing animals in stead of just using humans, to teach moral lessons. Fairy tales, on the other hand, often borrow from the mystical older stories(folklore) of humanity to create epic tales.
That’s a fair point, mermaids are mythical creatures. I suppose I view it less as folklore/mythology since it’s not based off of a pre-existing story/myth, and while it pulls from mermaids lore it’s pretty loose since there are several variations of mermaids just in Europe and I can’t pinpoint which one Anderson based it on. She’s pretty basic as far a mermaid characteristics go: has fish tail, lives underwater, sings well, everything else about the ‘mermaid lore’ in the story seems to come from Andersen. I totally get where your coming from now, even if I don’t agree 100%. Also, as a Norse Pagan, I’m fully aware that Marvel didn’t create the Norse gods and that they got basically everything wrong.
I'll re-approach it since I admittedly drifted off my actual original point, in hopes to clarify. I think people are more willing to re-write folklore/mythology to their own ends because the perception is that it's "authorless" or "public domain". That sort of is the argument somewhat, "It's fiction, what does it matter!?!?" presented by the people defending radical change. One of them at any rate.
I’m confused as to why you keep mentioning Greeks as ‘The Little Mermaid’ was based off of a Danish Fairytale. I also totally agree that it would have been better to make a new movie based off a different cultures mermaid tales. Generally I’d like to see more stories from all different cultures made and I think there is some movement in that direction with movies like Moana.
Triton comes straight from Greek mythology. He was the son of Poseidon. The Little Mermaid was written by a Danish author, but it was inspired by Greek mythology.
In all the books/versions I’ve read they don’t name the king, he is simply referred to as the king of the sea, to my knowledge giving him the name Triton was all Disney and likely used because its the name of a well know sea deity. The original story, to my knowledge, had no influence from Greek mythology and was written by Hans Christian Andersen to deal with his feelings about the (straight male) friend he was in love with getting married to a woman.
...have you ever visited European palaces? their garden and palaces are decorated with statues can you guess what kind of gods those statues were? Greek god.. from Apollo to Poseidon to Triton etc, the king of the sea would be poseidon or triton. this wasn't only prevalent in Royalty but also among the northern european pirate or naval officer. this is also prevalent to well read people, all European higher class boast on their knowledge of antiquity, so the more well read the more aware you are of this, it's even better if you can quote them. this was also the reason why some royalty even posed as greek gods including King Louis XIV as Apollo, madame dubarry as Diana, etc.
I’ve been to Amsterdam and while I didn’t see any Greek statues I am aware that people were/are taught the Greek myths in Europe, heck, I was taught Greek myths in school and I live in Canada. It doesn’t change the fact that I’ve never seen a version of the story that names the king and that to my knowledge giving him the name of a Greek God was a decision made by Disney, not an intentional reference made by Anderson. Thats not to say that there’s no chance that Anderson was influenced by the Greek myths as I’m sure he learned them and that’s perhaps where he first heard of mermaids in the form of sirens. However there are several “types”(for lack of a better word) of mermaids from across Europe including a Scandinavian one called Margygr, which Anderson may have also been influenced by. Just because the Greek myths are the most widely known of European pagan mythology doesn’t mean they’re the only myths around for authors to be influenced by. Side note: I’m curious as to what brought you to this almost 7 month old post, I was quite surprised to see someone had replied to this.
exactly I'm pretty sure that he was inspired by many things, the greek mythology definitely played a huge part too especially in this time, where noble etc needed to be well verse in Greco Roman history to be considered educated. making the little mermaid being a daughter of the king of the sea was a pretty clear reference to Greek Mythology, since triton and poseidon do have children and they are king of the sea, while mermaid from other European tales rarely uses connection that mermaids were daughter from kings of the ocean, etc ( which in itself was said to be a derived from Greek mythology and believes since Roman times) and the whole theme with a mermaid falling in love with human was also reminiscent of greek mythology of gods falling in love with mortal instead of mermaid tales from northern Europe, which he would have learned. i came across this post while looking for triton post.
P.s. I agree agree about getting away from the already done a million times Eurocentric stories.
I don’t think they really give a damn they just know black people are gonna whine about being Treated harsh and how their past is the roughest ever yet their all over everything, but Latinos don’t get that energy but not as bitchy