The Imaginary West (i.e. Cultural Appropriation Is Not Just a White People Sin)

I just saw a post on Facebook about a little white girl in a kimono who faced heavy criticism for hosting a Japanese-themed tea party. I don’t know for sure if it’s a global trend because I don’t have clairvoyant vision of every monitor on earth, but Buzzfeed’s #woke posts and Xiaxue’s recent tirade against “libtards” seem to be indications that the topic of cultural appropriation is picking up speed among the internet savvy.

This post is going to be about said cultural appropriation. I know, the horse has already been beaten to death, but today I’m going to bring another horse out of the stable to beat. No one else knew there was another horse in there (and incidentally, no one could have expected such a long-winded and poorly constructed analogy right at the beginning of a blog post either.)

Okay enough with the beatings and the misplaced equestrian references. Here is my point.

Cultural appropriation isn’t a sin exclusive to the hegemonic West because other cultural spheres have appropriated and misrepresented Western imagery in their own capacities, contributing to the growing cloud of an imaginary West. I’m not familiar with the political or social landscape of South America or Africa and so I have to, regrettably, leave them out of the equation for now. But I am very familiar with Asia, being an Asian myself, and I know this hypothesis isn’t entirely bonkers.

Let me break it down for you:

Cultural appropriation tends to happen when a powerful cultural entity dwarves a less powerful entity. What is power? Power can be drawn from various extensions of influence. For example, an entity is more powerful if its language is more pervasive, its philosophies are believed by the majority, it has greater stores of financial and natural resources, etc. As of right now, academia and journalism are still pre-occupied with investigating and revealing the ramifications of Western colonialism (rightfully so, because these things do need to be discussed if we want to move on from such horrors in a civil manner). But this also means that nobody is freed up to write about cultural appropriation from a different point on the globe. Ironically, the conceptualisation of Western cultural appropriation took place on the sacred grounds of Western academic writing. It was almost as if individual white people (shout out to Linda Nochlin) were atoning for years of European pillaging and plundering. Sociological terms were developed and set against the West, and so it continued.

largerJean-Léon Gérôme, The Snake-charmer, (1870). Cropped image of it appeared as the cover for the Edward Said’s seminal piece on Orientalism. Now the incriminating poster for Western pillaging in the Near East.

This drew our attention away from the fact that Asia is amassing power in the present. To begin with, thanks to India and China, there are more Asians on earth than any other race. According to this infographic, the Chinese family of languages (Mandarin, Cantonese, etc) is more widely spoken than any other language. Seven out of ten of the top spots on the Pisa education ranking went to Asian states (Singapore, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, and three Chinese states). China and Japan clinch the second and third spot on the global GDP ranking. Somehow, against the backdrop of WWII and recent political strife, Asia is prospering. There exists a world that’s entirely written in Chinese/Japanese/Vietnamese etc., and in that world, the soil is fertile for cultural appropriation of the West.

I’m not suggesting that things in the East neatly mirror the happenings in the West. This is not an essay about equivalence, nor is it a manifesto to instigate the Asian takeover of the world. Memories of a colonial past/Western superiority still exist in the psyche of Asia. The cultural appropriation of Western imagery in Asia doesn’t ignore or counter those memories. Instead, it processes and transforms conceptions of Western superiority to suit the needs/benefit of Asia, and this process could be damaging to the West.

How does it suit the needs of Asia?

Cultural appropriation goes hand in hand with consumerism, because perceptions of certain cultures spread primarily through consumer products. Consumer products are available even to the lowest common denominators in society. You don’t need an education or a noble upbringing to have access to advertisements and plain ol’ everyday objects. Everyone is a viewer because images are everywhere thanks to consumerism. Asian companies benefit when their branding espouses Western ideals and transforms them to appeal to consumers. This influences Asian perceptions of the West. From here on I’m going to use the specific example of the image of Marie Antoinette and its re-imagination in Japan’s romanticised/glamourised France.

swjKpEFan wallpaper of the 1972–1973 The Rose of Versailles manga series

The Rose of Versailles (or Berusaiyu no Bara) was a popular manga series that started its run in 1972. To the best of my knowledge, the series’ narrative didn’t really rose tint Antoinette’s fate. She ended up guillotined all the same, no head and all. The aesthetic legacy that this manga left behind, however, is arguably more influential towards contemporary perceptions of France.

To the uninitiated, Marie Antoinette was an icon of French excess in the years leading up to the French Revolution. She married into the French monarchy when she was 15, was portrayed in elaborate Rococo paintings in flowing satin and lace, and is most remembered for telling commoners to “eat cake” when the economy was crashing and the commoners were starving. For the record, I don’t think she actually said the cake line, but it is a useful distillation of what she represented to the French public. Wealth, a detachment from the common folk, ignorance, idleness. It’s an ugly facet of French history, and a story that inspires present-day French nationalism.

Today, her portraits are historical documentations of the monarchy’s lavish spending. Rococo paintings are seen as kitschy ghosts of the pre-Revolution past and seem only to be celebrated in cutesy “French-themed” cafes.

vlbmarose3Élisabeth Louise Vigée Le Brun, Marie Antoinette with a Rose, (1783). She won’t be smiling like this any longer. A bit hard to smile without a head.

In The Rose of Versailles, Antoinette’s bouffant hair and equally bouffant bows were resurrected to convey glamour. The new manga Antoinette is adorable, pretty, unabashedly elaborate, romantic and pink. She now sports curly blonde hair instead of the historically accurate powdered white wig. This image of a romantic and rose-scented France pervades East Asian advertising, especially for products marketed toward women.

The manga image of Antoinette lives on in the branding of Isehan’s Heroine Make line of cosmetics. Antoinette’s historical significance is left completely out the picture and she appears as a dismembered aesthetic, a figure that only serves superficial decorative purpose. She has the same 1700s court attire on, but decked out in pink, and it looks like she has gotten a white kitty cat with luscious eyelashes. Note that there is no mention of where this image came from. If we take The Rose of Versailles‘ portrayal to be an intermediary, then the Heroine Make advertisement is the finished product.

10294968_510138862465204_2952821205769443809_oAn advertisement for an Isehan Heroine Make gift set of eye makeup. I don’t know what year this is from but I bought mascara from this brand a few days ago and the packaging looks pretty similar.
laduree-makeup-lm-harajuku-store-blushA delectable assortment of makeup products from Les Merveilleuses de Ladurée. Took this pic from Universal Doll.

Such a transmutation of pre-Revolution French imagery isn’t isolated to manga and Heroine Make cosmetics. It persists insidiously in other companies as well. It’s a pretty widespread phenomenon all over East and Southeast Asia. The above image shows a collection of cosmetics from the brand Les Merveilleuses de Ladurée. Ladurée is itself a macaron brand that originates in France, but these Merveilleuses are a sister brand that only markets itself in Japan, Hong Kong and Taiwan. It profits from the appeal of the fictional romantic France.

The Antoinette Café in Singapore adopts the same imagery for its branding. According to its website:

Antoinette invites you to share our joie de vivre in our beautiful surroundings reminiscent of an elegant boudoir with an excess of meticulously crafted cakes, pastries and fine food as the Queen descends on Singapore’s shores. Marie-Antoinette, the last Queen of France who was so often revered for her extravagance and fine taste opens her humble abode and presents a tantalizing treat for the senses both savoury and sweet.

This quintessential Parisian pâtisserie and salon de thé will set the benchmark for the pastry and dessert scene not only in Singapore, but also in the region with her takes on time-honoured French classic desserts. While our restaurant promises a savoury celebration of Chef Pang’s culinary prowess with an excellent selection of classical regional French fare.

Incontestably, L’élégance â la Française at it’s best!

Doesn’t this sound like cultural appropriation to you? It sells the Antoinette lifestyle to an Asian audience. Pink, powdered, perfect.

How on earth could this be detrimental to the West? Doesn’t this reinforce Wester superiority?

Well, a fantasy is a fantasy. It does encourage tourism from East and Southeast Asia. I don’t think Paris would be as popular a tourist destination if we didn’t believe in its supposed inherent romance (their public transport is really shitty and there’s dog poo everywhere). But at the same time, it erases actual struggles in France from the East and Southeast Asian consciousness. When we think France is beautiful and scattered with rose petals, we don’t hear about the centuries old racism against Romani people, we don’t hear that France also has a large black and Arab population, we don’t hear that the current unemployment rate rests at 9.5%, and we don’t care about the Syrian refugee crisis hitting Europe. An airbrushed, culturally appropriative image of Antoinette might indirectly benefit the upper echelons of French society (especially if they are young blonde women with a penchant for pink bows), but it directs our attention away from the real problems. What happens when an excitable Chinese tourist goes to Paris and sees a homeless family? Are they stains on her perfect holiday? France is a complex country. A homeless beggar in Paris is as French as the quaint little cafe next door.

So? Now what?

I’m not proposing that we persecute everyone equally and that we impose some sort of tariff on cultural exchange. It’s inevitable that ideas mix and meld together to produce a new melange of values. That’s how cultures evolve in the first place, and that’s how populations communicate across borders.

What I do propose, however, is that we read a little more, ask a few more questions, and try our best to glean a more accurate picture of any culture we are considering. Humanity is complex and nothing is as simple as an image.

Advertisements

Me Before You: The Value of a Disabled Person

Me Before You was released in theatres about a month ago (June 2, 2016) and the film featuring a mellowed-out Mother of Dragons and Finnick Odair has been showing for enough time to draw rightly-deserved flak from the disabled community for its storyline.

SPOILER: Emilia Clarke’s character falls in love with Sam Claflin’s quadriplegic character à la a Nicholas Sparks novel sans notebook plus wheelchair, and in the end of the movie Sam goes ahead with his plan to end his life through an assisted suicide programme. Sam also happens to be deliciously wealthy, so he leaves Emilia a handsome amount of money. This was how the central conflict in the movie was resolved—it’s okay if he’s disabled because he’s super hot and rich, and you’re going to be happy in your life anyway, because he will conveniently dispose of himself before he becomes a burden.

mebeforeyou

I actually kinda like romantic movies (I teared up recently when Saoirse Ronan came back from Ireland to be with the Joey Tribbiani lookalike in Brooklyn, which I 100% recommend by the way), but there is a problem when the movie paints the suicide of a disabled person as a happy ending. In this “ideal” world, disabled people are supposed to bear the responsibility of sacrificing themselves for the greater good of less burdensome humans. It’s a movie that clearly serves the interests of the able-bodied majority. Studio executives could, theoretically, come up with something that depicts the realities of head-to-toe paralysis but carrying Sam Claflin into the toilet wouldn’t do much for the chiseled aloof character they’re gunning for. His muscles also, miraculously, did not atrophy from lack of use. Oh well movies have to make millions and essentially that’s what the condensed goal of humanity is, right? Who cares about responsible media representation.

I’m pretty much optimistic about the millennial generation and the changes we are making for our collective future, but at the moment Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand still hovers above our lives and economic rules work backwards to determine the intangible values in life. Women are less valuable than men because we menstruate and get pregnant and this shaves off productivity in the workforce, elderly men are a burden to society because they can’t work as much as young men, young men who don’t want to be drafted into wars are a burden too because they’re not protecting our national interests and assets, and finally, people with disabilities are walking sob stories because they can’t do the same things able-bodied people can, and by things I mean work. Me Before You presents the only escape for disabled people—they redeem themselves if they are born rich and then leave money behind, which makes up for the otherwise lost economic value.

That’s the trap we are so caught up in. Everything is about money, moving faster, building taller, eating more, and this mentality has creeped into even the most intimate and personal nooks of our lives. There are a lot of CSR campaigns pushing for the inclusion of disabled people in the workforce, and these campaigns make tear-jerking claims that everyone is equally abled and we all have a right to a job in this day and age. I think, though well-intentioned, this is a misguided way to create a more inclusive society, because we are measuring everyone with the same cold-blooded yardstick. You can’t judge a fish by making it climb a tree. Similarly, you can’t judge disabled people based on how well they can work at jobs which were originally conceived with abled people in mind. What happens if they fall short of expectations? Do we cast them aside yet again?

What I’m trying to say is, very often, a disabled person will not be able to do the things that an able-bodied person can. A person in a wheelchair requires the bus uncle to get off the bus, set up the ramp, and wheel them in.  A blind person needs someone or somedog by their side in a world made for the visual. Yes, they require more care, they incur “lost dollars”. But that should not be how we measure the worth of a person. If a person with autism says she is as smart as the average person and she can confidently work the cash register, then I say great, but even if you can’t, you’re not a burden to society, you’re a valuable person, and I’m sorry we live in world where you have to contort yourself to constantly prove your worth. Also, you don’t have to be super hot or rich, or kill yourself, and I’m sorry this Me Before You movie is doing well at the box office.

Educated, so what?

Brexit just happened a few days ago on 23 June, and Donald Trump is still going strong in the race to become the USA President. Some people, depending on their background and the kind of friends they keep on social media, have posts all over their Facebook accounts that put down Brexit and Donald Trump supporters. They say that Britain’s decision to leave the European Union and Trump’s popularity signal the end of the world. People say that it is a bad year for politics. Although there are a lot of people who agree with these views, these people are not everyone.

There are still a lot of Trump supporters and Brexit leavers who are not heard online. I think this is because people only add other people who think like them on social media, because that’s how people make friends right? But in the end, that means that when it comes to politics, we are only surrounded by like-minded friends. For highly educated people, we are mostly very angry at the Brexit result and at Trump’s ideas and speeches. We share these posts and we make fun of people who disagree. We don’t hear the other side of the story, and I think this is very dangerous for everyone. This is why I am writing today, even though Britain and USA are so far away. I am writing because I think society is becoming more and more divided. We are dividing into two groups – the educated and the uneducated. I can see that this is happening in developed countries, like USA and Singapore, because developed countries are where some people have the chance to be educated. It is important for us to understand that there is this problem, and it can be harmful to Singapore if we continue to be divided.

I understand the point of view of the educated because I am one of them. I am fortunate enough to be a university student. On one hand I really did work very hard to get into university, but on the other hand, so many things in life are not in our control. For example, I was born into a family that gave me a nice table and the time to study. Some people are not so lucky, and sometimes they don’t make it so far in school because of that. When we are educated in university (unless you do only science classes), we learn about politics, the economy, and society. I know that personal experience is a good teacher, but a lot of the books we read are based on many people’s personal experiences, so we tend to know more. We know more, so we think we must be right. We graduate, get our certificates and become experts. We are very sure that in order to succeed as a country, we must be harmonious with other races and nationalities (including PRCs and maids and construction workers). We are very sure that we must welcome foreigners into Singapore because they spend money here and it helps the economy. This way, Singapore is an international city, and we think that is a good thing. This is the same for Britain and USA. Most educated people think it is a good thing for them to welcome foreigners.

But we don’t see what uneducated people see. First of all, people who don’t get very far in school already feel left behind by society. I don’t believe that we live in a perfect world where everyone gets the life they deserve. I’ve seen it with my own eyes, that some people who work very hard in school just can’t make it. (Of course there are some people who don’t work hard and they end up not doing well, but I am just saying that things are not so simple all the time. Life is not black and white.) We see in movies that only the educated and the rich have fun and are respected. We end up living lives that don’t seem as important as the ones the higher-class people have. But nobody likes to feel unimportant and left behind. Nowadays there’s a lot of movements to help women, or minority races, or the very poor. But it seems like the government, or whoever that’s in charge, is not doing anything for the lower-middle class and the uneducated. You don’t seem to hear any news about that. When you look at the government, it is full of educated people. They know more things, but it doesn’t feel like they really understand how it feels to be you. How can they, if their own background is so different from yours?

So what happens is that uneducated people are more drawn to things that give them hope and meaning. I think this is why Donald Trump is so popular. He doesn’t use big words in his speeches, he sounds just like an ordinary guy who is confident and has dreams of making America great again. If a guy like him, who doesn’t know all the facts and the numbers, can make it so far in his life, then his life story is a hopeful story, and people want to support that. He is a rich man, but he sounds just like other uneducated people, so he must be on your side. It feels like he won’t let the rich elite people bully the lower-classes anymore. He says he wants to build a wall to keep out illegal immigrants, and he also wants to stop Muslims from coming into America. I can see why this sounds like a good idea, because illegal immigrants are bad and terrorists are evil and are killing everyone. When foreigners come into a country, and you are already having a difficult time as a member of lower-middle class society, it feels like they are a threat. The country doesn’t have enough space. So it makes sense to chase away the people who come later, and protect the people who were here first. It is the same thing for Britain. A lot of British people feel that there are too many foreigners. Foreigners don’t act the same way as locals, and it feels like they are invading.

It is not fair for educated people to simply laugh at uneducated people, and say they are not right without explaining or reaching out to them. If both sides don’t talk, then we will never know how other people in the same society feel. 

In Singapore, I often hear people complain: “Educated, so what? Being educated doesn’t mean being smarter than everyone else.” A lot of uneducated people think that educated people only know how to read but are still very stupid, so we cannot believe educated people’s opinions. I remember that in a recent debate competition between prisoners and Harvard students, the prisoners won, and uneducated people on Facebook were saying that it proves that education is useless, and real smarts is the most important.

I have things to say to educated people and uneducated people, and I think it will help society and help us work towards a better future.

To uneducated people,

I agree that being highly educated does not mean being smart. I have seen a lot of people in university who don’t seem to have common sense. However, the kind of smarts that people learn through books and school cannot be learnt anywhere else, because the information we get in school is through years of collecting from thousands of people. Society is unfair because not everyone gets to go to school, but that doesn’t mean school is not important. School is very important. The prisoners won against Harvard students because they were part of a prison school programme, and they wouldn’t have won without the programme. I hope that you give educated people a bit more trust, and that you start to read and learn more about the decisions you are making so you are more informed. When you are more informed, people like Donald Trump cannot trick you and make use of you. (Donald Trump was born into an extremely rich family, and he was always part of the elite social class. He pretends to understand what you are going through, but he has never lived a day like yours. When he becomes elected, the American lower classes are going to suffer more because he will only support rich people like himself.)

 

To educated people,

I hope this sheds some light on an oft-neglected perspective. It’s blatantly obvious to us that we shouldn’t cave in to anti-foreigner sentiment, and many of us are afraid to see right-wing nationalism transform into belligerent fascism. But what isn’t blatantly obvious to us is why the other camp garners so much support. Society is polarising because anti-intellectualism is on the rise, and it’s an indication that we are not doing enough to educate the masses. The UK’s membership in the European Union was largely beneficial for every level of British society because its grants the UK greater trade access etc., but uneducated people don’t know that. And people cannot make decisions based on what they don’t know. Information that’s been gilded in jargon won’t reach all audiences. We shouldn’t dismiss Trump supporters and sit merrily ensconced in our Ivy League/Oxbridge/Liberal Arts bubble. No individual wants to destroy their own country – the dreaded Trump supporters are doing what they genuinely think is best. We should, instead, make a concerted effort to communicate across different demographics. I don’t propose that this is a panacea for the political chaos we are in but I do think it’s a necessary step towards nipping the problem.

 

Capitalism is the Killjoy of the Internet Age

Hey, hope everyone is recovering from yesterday’s Pink Dot festivities. It’s not easy to avoid stepping on so many expat picnic mats/immaculately bedazzled Pomeranians for 8 hours, albeit for a good cause. Ok I kid, but only in tone, because objectively there really were too many people on the ground in Hong Lim Park, which is a happy problem I guess.

So I’m writing today because, being an undergrad, I often feel like I’m locked in a slowly flooding room, and recently the waterline has gone up to my neck. What am I going to do after I graduate? Will I even be employable? What if I become one of those Instagram people who are perpetual “aspiring artists”? I’ve always cached these problems at the back of my mind for Future Me to handle, but right now I am Future Me. I can’t avoid thinking about these things, and I literally cannot afford to think about these things on abstract grounds. The real numbers have to be churned and crunched, I have to start doing tangible research on actual opportunities and costs. Eventually everything boils down to whether or not I can put food on the table. At this point in our rapid economic development, it doesn’t matter if someone has talent or compassion if they don’t meet the principle criterion. The universal bottomline in this capitalist hellhole is – does it make money?

I think we live in such an exciting age. Our generation has created more products and accumulated more information in the past decade than the history of humankind combined. I don’t think Aristotle and his musty ass would have even dared to dream about the number of books we have (then again he was wrong about a LOT of things, and the first thing that would shock him is probably that women are not by default slaves to men). You know the queasy movies from the 80s about time travel and everyone has their own messaging device and we’re all in silver jumpsuits? We’ve arrived at that stage, we are past what people imagined to be the Great Technological Revolution, but without the jumpsuits. The most amazing thing to come around is the internet, the omnipresent omnipotent entity in the sky (cloud). It moves and it operates through each of us, and truly, it works in mysterious ways.

I read this somewhere and I forgot the source, but you know George Orwell’s 1984? He predicted correctly that we will live in a future under 24/7 surveillance by a hovering entity, but he didn’t predict that we will WANT to be watched. We want our posts to be liked and shared, we want our internet browsers to remember our passwords, we want Google maps to detect our location, we want people to know where we work. We willingly put our personal information up on the internet, and we’ve entered a self-recording future. Is this threatening? Yes, but at the same time so immensely powerful, when the uploaded data is used for the right reasons by the right people. That’s how everything gets done so quickly – everything we need to know is online and readily accessible. But then with this accessibility comes a whole host of problems.

Suddenly every competing company is catapulted into an international arena. There are so many overseas companies that have a lower cost of production, and they can ship those products out to you for a lower price. Things get cheaper and cheaper until companies can no longer break even, and the only survivors are the large corporations with economies of scale and atrocious sweatshops (hello H&M). This isn’t so bad for products which must exist in a physical form, like clothes or furniture, but this is catastrophic for ideas and digital media i.e. intellectual property. Any industry that deals with intellectual property is in a crisis now because there are talented, entertaining, generous and interesting people online who are more than willing to upload free content. Right now, you can get free coding lessons, makeup tutorials, listen to free lectures, and illegally stream Game of Thrones without paying a single cent. The content online is also very often superior to what you can get on a DVD. Why on earth would anyone pay for the substitute products then? Why buy cartoons for your kid when you can show them free animated shorts on Youtube?

This is actually a fantastic place to be. Knowledge is power, and content is key. I think it’s brilliant that we can listen to music from indie musicians from South Africa, and I think it’s revolutionary that people from lower-income groups can access tutorials online to get an education. Education and the internet could be the great equalizers. So many doors are opening for people with smartphones. (Fun fact: more people have access to smartphones than to working toilets, which implies that even people in abject poverty have access to the wealth of information on the World Wide Web.) I also think it’s miraculous that people are volunteering to put up free, quality content. This would be an Information Utopia, if not for the primary assumption of a Capitalist society.

Every reasonable economic player is profit-seeking.

One line to destroy everything.

Right now the game has evolved so that companies which would otherwise be 100% awesome have to re-organise their activities to milk money from customers. Some examples of companies/industries which have found their way back into the game include Spotify and Netflix, and some companies have created entirely new markets, like Google and Facebook (the market for a database of our personal preferences and whereabouts). But what about the other creative companies which are left behind? What if they don’t want to be a company and they were just trying to make something really cool and useful for everyone to use for free?

So many useful apps are free for use and the fact that they are free is indispensable to the app’s function, because a free product attracts a high number of people, including people from lower-income groups. High number of people = more data collected on people and a bigger pool of users = incentive for using the app in the first place, like Tinder.

160605diagram.png

(Copyright me because I’m so clever and this is a diagram based on meticulous research.)

Developers scramble to find ways to get a slice of that revenue pie (through ads or other means), and they don’t just do it because they’re money-grubbers, but because money is needed to keep the app running, and they can’t possibly devote their lives to making no money at all. People have to eat. It’s such a shame that we live in a world where we have all the resources available but we still have trouble making ends meet. It’s kinda like how the Chinese government is pumping money into condominium projects to stimulate employment and economic growth, but the houses remain empty. We have so many vacant houses but the homeless remain homeless because they didn’t “earn” the right to live in a house (as if the rich have earned the right to be born rich). Figures.

If you feel like I’m just raking up problems and I have absolutely no solutions to offer, you’re right. But how could I? Capitalism is a self-validating system, meaning that it makes itself thrive. If we take away capitalism, then the first question on everyone’s mind would be then how are we going to earn money, what about economic expansion? Well, we’re asking capitalist questions about capitalism. I don’t think our current diet of condominium investments and sweatshop labour is sustainable. A capitalist indicator of a healthy economy is economic growth (GDP), but limitless growth? Eternal expansion until we run the rivers on our earth dry? When do we stop? How do we expand while being socially responsible? As it is we’re doing a dismal job right now.

So while we’re stewing in our own mess, here are some great links to free online resources to better yourself, and non-profit projects which have taken off because kind and creative internet users have come together.

Project For Awesome

Every December, thousands of internet users post videos on Youtube to advocate for their favourite charities. The Project For Awesome is parked under the Foundation to Decrease World Suck, Inc, and last year they’ve raised $1,546,384. I think it’s great that they celebrate the agency of each individual internet user by using personal opinion to sieve out the best charities to support. They raise money through digital downloads and artwork from users etc.

Coursera

Free, quality online courses in a wide range of fields, including arts and humanities, business etc. The courses are offered by established institutions from all over the world like the University of Pennsylvania, Princeton University, Yonsei University, and even that Emma Watson school.

Codecademy

I think my coding friends might not find this very impressive but I’ve been using it so far and it helped me to get through my Python classes. They walk you through free lessons on different programming languages, and you complete them at your own pace.

Crash Course

This series helped me to more than scrape by for my A levels. Over the years the show has grown to cover subjects like economics, physics, politics and governance, history, literature etc. They are incredibly entertaining, feature updated information on global affairs, and the show acknowledges and embraces an international audience i.e. they’re not America-centric, and that’s rare in a Youtube channel.

The School of Life

They also offer free, quality educational videos on Youtube but they zoom in more to individual theories, as opposed to looking at the world’s trajectory of history and proceeding chronologically.