Goodbye Omelas

The revolution will be adorable.

Posts tagged Racism

1,978 notes

a-spoon-is-born:

bisexualfandom:

it was really disappointing when i found out helen keller was a eugenicist, because, as a disabled woman, there was so much that i looked up to her for, one of them being her brilliant eloquence when discussing such vitally important issues such as women’s rights and laborer’s rights, as well as her part in helping found the ACLU, and her advocacy for socialism. 

but, it doesn’t change the fact that she was a eugenicist, and the fact that she publicly supported the euthanasia of a disabled child.

while her writings on the abolishment of horrific institutions like capitalism and poverty do seem invaluable, i think people need to take into consideration, before they post quotes of hers, or pictures of her [and so on], that there’s nothing more capitalistic and corrupt than systematically wiping out ”defectives” such as the poor, disabled people, people of color, sex workers, lgbtq people, &etc. by sterilizing them, forcibly institutionalizing them, and murdering them, because they did not ”contribute” to the maintaining of the ”right” kind of society. 

image

(via knitmeapony)

Filed under aw shit I didn't know that Helen Keller History Racism

1,837 notes

More on the origin of Misogynoir

moyazb:

Back in spring 2008, (I love the Gmail archive) I was talking to one of my best friends, Mia Mingus, about the ways that Black women are depicted in the media. She, a self described “queer physically disabled Korean woman transracial and transnational adoptee,” suggested that there could be a term to describe just that, because she too noticed that the way Black women were treated was different from other women of color. I played around with words and ultimately settled on misogynoir (sistagyny was one I thankfully discarded). I had other Black women, Whitney Peoples, Alexis Pauline Gumbs, among others, vet the term and we talked about its potential utility, its pros and cons. I started to use it on the Crunk Feminist Collective and members of the CFC started to use it too (I put it in my dissertation and journal articles no one will read :)). It took on a life of its own on tumblr and it is amazing that so many folks I don’t know have taken it up and use it far more frequently than I have. Major thanks to Trudz a.k.a Gradient Lair.

I say all this to say that it is important to me and to at least one other non Black person of color that the term is used to describe the unique ways in which Black women are pathologized in popular culture. What happens to Black women in public space isn’t about them being any woman of color. It is particular and has to do with the ways that anti-Blackness and misogyny combine to malign Black women in our world.

I see some folks are trying out misogynchrom for a term that applies to women of color generally. For me, POC and WOC as terms don’t really get to the heart of  what is happening in our connections as non white folks. These are useful terms for building solidarity in some ways but have significant limits. See Janani’s post on BGD for more on the limits. I don’t know that lumping all other WOC into one category is useful, especially when the differences between us could help us root out our own internalized oppression.

I was looking for precise language to describe why Renisha McBride would be shot in the face, or why the Onion would think it’s okay to talk about Quvenzhané the way they did, or the hypervisibilty of Black women on reality TV, the arrest of Shanesha Taylor, the incarceration of CeCe, Laverne and Lupita being left off the TIME list, the continued legal actions against Marissa Alexander, the twitter dragging of black women with hateful hashtags and supposedly funny instagram images as well as how Black women are talked about in music. All these things bring to mind misogynoir and not general misogyny directed at women of color more broadly. 

Find the language that works for you but please don’t redefine the terms we create for ourselves.

(via blooming-white-tea)

Filed under Language Racism Sexism misogynoir

51,702 notes

If you are a white woman and you want to call yourself a feminist, you must acknowledge that your whiteness affords you a privilege that shields you from a lot. You must also acknowledge that you are afforded privileges that some men in this country do not have. Racism and sexism are tightly intertwined. You cannot fight one while ignoring the other.
(via thecouscousqueen)

(Source: mamaatheist, via karlspooxxxy)

Filed under Feminism Racism quotes

260 notes

niwandajones:

alienswithankhs:


This production marks the first time in 36 years that the play has been produced for Broadway. This version of the classic tale, according to press notes, “will retain Shakespeare’s original language but have a modern setting in which members of the Montague family will be white, and the Capulet family will be black.”
According to producers, “In this new production, the members of the Montague household will be white, and the blood relatives of the Capulet family will be black. While race defines the family lineages, the original cause of the ‘ancient quarrel’, passed down by successive generations to their young, has been lost to time. Shakespeare’s dramatization of the original poem sets the two young lovers in a context of prejudice, authoritarian parents, and a never ending cycle of ‘revenge.’ Against this background, the strength of their love changes the world.”

1. I didn’t know Phlicia Rashad had a daughter
2. making romeo and juliet and interracial couple is like the most boring fucking way to spice up romeo and juliet. 

I get really frustrated when people decide to make R&J “relevant” by casting the two families as members of modern ethnic that are experiencing conflict. Not just because it’s boring and overdone and never as insightful as the directors and producers think it is.
It’s because the feud between the Montagues and the Capulets is explicitly a stupid bullshit pissing match between two powerful families that no one else takes seriously (and that even some members of the family think is silly).
So anytime someone decides to make R&J “relevant” by making those families black/white or Israeli/Palestinian or something along those lines, they a) undermine the seriousness of those conflicts by implying that a little kumbaya can prevent the deaths of young people, and b) erase the fact that, unlike the Montagues and Capulets, one of those real world groups is invariably guilty of violence and oppression against the other. 

niwandajones:

alienswithankhs:

This production marks the first time in 36 years that the play has been produced for Broadway. This version of the classic tale, according to press notes, “will retain Shakespeare’s original language but have a modern setting in which members of the Montague family will be white, and the Capulet family will be black.”

According to producers, “In this new production, the members of the Montague household will be white, and the blood relatives of the Capulet family will be black. While race defines the family lineages, the original cause of the ‘ancient quarrel’, passed down by successive generations to their young, has been lost to time. Shakespeare’s dramatization of the original poem sets the two young lovers in a context of prejudice, authoritarian parents, and a never ending cycle of ‘revenge.’ Against this background, the strength of their love changes the world.”

1. I didn’t know Phlicia Rashad had a daughter

2. making romeo and juliet and interracial couple is like the most boring fucking way to spice up romeo and juliet. 

I get really frustrated when people decide to make R&J “relevant” by casting the two families as members of modern ethnic that are experiencing conflict. Not just because it’s boring and overdone and never as insightful as the directors and producers think it is.

It’s because the feud between the Montagues and the Capulets is explicitly a stupid bullshit pissing match between two powerful families that no one else takes seriously (and that even some members of the family think is silly).

So anytime someone decides to make R&J “relevant” by making those families black/white or Israeli/Palestinian or something along those lines, they a) undermine the seriousness of those conflicts by implying that a little kumbaya can prevent the deaths of young people, and b) erase the fact that, unlike the Montagues and Capulets, one of those real world groups is invariably guilty of violence and oppression against the other. 

(Source: shmurdapunk, via racialicious)

Filed under tres good point Shakespeare Romeo and Juliet Racism

95 notes

projectqueer:

Gaycism: Naming and shaming the usual suspects: New blog, Hell No Gaycism, is here to call out all the Tyler Oakleys of the world

projectqueer:

hellnogaycism:

Ever been browsing Grindr and seen “No Blacks, no Asians”? Ever heard a white gay man talk about being a “sassy Black woman”? Ever seen a Shirley Q. Liquor video? There is an undeniable problem with racism in the gay community, but far too many white queer folks don’t want to talk about it.

The purpose of this blog is to hold white queer folks accountable for their appropriation of Black culture, their insistence that being oppressed on other axes keeps a person from being capable of oppression, and the white supremacy that permeates mainstream white queer culture. 

This blog is intended to be a safe space for folks who want to rant about gaycism however they want. We’re not here to tone police, because anger is always a valid response to racism and white supremacy. Anyone who disagrees with that can fuck right off. 

We welcome your submissions, whether they’re all-caps rants or doctoral dissertations. Links, personal stories, anything. Together we can say “Hell No Gaycism!”

Filed under LGBTQ Racism

333 notes

This is how you handle it

racialicious:

secretarysbreakroom:

goodbyecruelestyouth:

Living in this society, yes, there will be books, music, movies, etc. that have problematic themes in them.  Also, there will be actors, singers, performers, etc. that have done and said problematic and hurtful things to marginalized groups.  Some can apologize and change.  But a lot will not (because their aim is only to market themselves to the majority, and they don’t really give a shit about you if you’re marginalized).

Then for some of us, we probably won’t notice the problematic material until later in our lives when we’re more self-aware, then we learn that a lot of crap we like was actually bad for us.

It’s disappointing to find out that a media that you liked or a celebrity that you liked has actually said and/or done hurtful, bigoted things.  It feels like betrayal if you’re a part of that group yourself.  And if you’re not, you just feel dirty continuing to like the problematic media or person.

Lots and lots of feelings surrounding it, I know.  But here are some tips on how to deal:

  • Just calm the fuck down jfc
  • Just listen to what people are saying about the person, and don’t leap out to defend them and interrupt people.  If you do, then you really have to pull back and evaluate how you can be so fucking petty and childish.  Also, expect people to tell you to STFU and call you out for derailing.
  • If you don’t know the context, be brave enough to look it up yourself instead of interrupting conversations and going, “I am a HUGE fan and have been for many years!  I DEMAND PROOF!  STOP YOUR GROWN-UP DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW AND SPOON FEED ME!”
  • If the celebrity/book/movie/etc. hurts a marginalized group you’re a part of, and you want the marginalized group calling the problematic shit out to stop and validate you and your feelings so that you will feel less like a privileged asshole, then guess what?  YOU’RE A PRIVILEGED ASSHOLE!  One of the worst types, actually — a gross, emotionally manipulative one.  You SHOULD feel like one, feel bad about it, and then stop being one if it makes you feel so bad.  Seriously, don’t talk about how mad it makes you and whine about how much you like a certain movie or so-and-so celebrity.  Also, if you are trying to be more aware of your privilege, yet you act like this, you’re failing extremely hard no matter how bad you feel about Dan Savage being an abusive shithead, Lady Gaga being transphobic and racist, Gwen Stephani being a typical racist white lady, etc.
  • If the celebrity/book/movie/etc. hurts a group you are a part of, but you still like the celebrity/book/movie/etc., that’s great!  Now, please just let people talk and share their opinions and don’t try to shut down others or think your voice is more important than anybody else’s.  And if the problematic shit is indeed there, without a doubt, while you can have your own feelings about it, you don’t have a right to tell other people how they should feel.  And if you’re just in denial about it all, then unfortunately, your own internalized stuff is yours for you to deal with.  Go deal with it and let people talk, or better yet, just listen to what people say and think about the media you consume.  You don’t have to make judgments on anything immediately — just think for yourself.
  • It’s not the end of the world, you’re not “evil” for liking the person/media in the first place, up is still up, down is still down, etc.  Seriously, it’s ridic how defensive people can get about these things.  I can understand why — some books, movies, and celebrities have changed my life, too.  There’s no undoing that. But there’s also no undoing the fact that we live in an oppressive society where bigotry is still very much alive and perpetuated through the media and the news.  This is how stereotypes are kept alive, this is why characters are often whitewashed, this is how rape culture hasn’t died yet.  It’s horrible.  You might feel horrible that such a horrible piece of our culture has helped you at one point.  But maybe you should learn not to worship people or put them on pedestals and realize that people, yes, even people you like (!), can do bad things, say bad things, write bad things, direct bad things, etc. that really, really hurt people.  That’s on them.  But it should be on you to see the problematic behavior, deconstruct it, and see it for what it is instead of losing your shit over it.  You can take parts of the good yet acknowledge and condemn the bad.  You can still like an idea behind a movie yet hate a bigoted actor who’s in it.  You can still like music from a certain performer yet realize they’re -ist assholes.  That’s totally possible to do.  Not everything is all-or-nothing or “black-and-white.”  Everybody has the ability to be perceptive, so ffs, work on your own perception.  But if you shut down marginalized people calling shit out, then you ARE a bad person.
  • And really, if finding out that something you like is -ist, oppressive, or bigoted completely destroys your foundation, then the person who called it out to begin with should pat themselves on the back for a job well done.  And you should try to have a stronger foundation for your principals and morality instead of building it around a celebrity.  For example, if Lady Gaga is the sole reason why you’re supportive of the LGBTQ community (and yes, lol I’ve heard this), then you find out she’s problematic, and that just changes EVERYTHING for you, then actually, you don’t give a shit at all.  If that hurts your feelings and you want to scream at me, do two things.  Go back and read the first point then the rest of this post, then go look up Lady Gaga and her transphobia and racism.  Also realize LGBTQ should (doesn’t, but should) include trans* people and PoC.

For the balcony.

You’re welcome.

Filed under Racism Sexism Cissexism

39 notes

One of the things that we love most about Once Upon a Time is that, while Mary Margaret may be the soggiest lettuce in town, Snow White is a highwaywoman, a fighter, and a swashbuckler—every bit Prince James’s equal. Snow White is no longer a prize to be claimed, no longer an object to be won, and no longer a passive element in what is supposed to be her own story. And if she needs rescuing, she is quite capable of rescuing herself, thank you very much.

This is both so very needed and very empowering. It’s powerful to not only create new stories that empower marginalised bodies, but re-examine these old tropes and challenge them in a way that not only sets a new paradigm but highlights how wrong the old paradigm was.

The problem, of course, is that strong woman still means straight, able bodied, cisgender, and white. Snow White may not necessarily be waiting in her coffin for true love’s first kiss, but we do know that there will be a love interest and it will most certainly involve a man.

We always expect fairy tales to be 100% straight simply because they are seen as children’s stories (and pervasive bigotry holds that any GBL&T inclusion is both sexual and obscene) and because they are often seen as historical (and, for some bemusing reason, there’s a stubborn idea that all GBL&T people arrived from space in the 70s or 80s) so any GBL&T inclusion in this genre is always an uphill struggle. But nearly all fairy tales—and certainly most of the ones popularised by Disney—revolve around a romance. The Princess will meet her Prince, and then there will be Happily Ever After.

Unlike the Disney version where Black is seen as negative through the clothing choices of the evil queen, modern incarnations of Snow White do have characters of colour. These characters are always secondary and work to serve either the protagonist or the antagonist. Their characters normally can be erased from the film or television show in question without being missed, making it appear as though the choice to include a person of colour was based in a hope to forestall critique based in a lack of racial inclusion.

The perfect example of this is the magic mirror in Once Upon A Time,who lives to follow the orders of Regina, The Evil Queen. The actress who plays Regina is Latina, but nothing about the character of Regina reads anything other than white. Even taking her as Latina, when we then consider that Snow White is meant to represent the epitome of white female beauty and that she is battling a woman of colour to see who is the fairest in the land…definitely there is a problem. It suggests that no matter how conniving a woman of colour is that she will always and forever be second because she can never attain the true beauty of a white woman.

It is no accident that, as the population demographics change, there has been a return to Snow White. No matter the text, there are constant references to her pale skin and dark flowing hair. Snow White is exclusionary from start to finish—no matter how many side characters of colour are included—simply because the role could never ever be played by a woman of colour. If the desire behind it were to actually revisit folklore, there are plenty from cultures of colour that would make fascinating stories. The fact that these stories have been ignored to once again focus on a narrative that is exclusionary tells me that this is about upholding whiteness as a standard for what is good and pure in this world.

Kudos to Paul and Renee from Fangs for the Fantasy for their comprehensive post on what’s right and what still needs to be improved upon with updating fairy tales the R today.  (via racialicious)

Filed under Fairy Tales Racism Heterosexism