The legacy of anti-Black racism is that Black struggle gets deemed the property of all other social justice struggles. The symbols and tactics of Black struggle are deemed the common property of all. Black people are required to show solidarity with other people of color, without other people of color owing solidarity to Black communities. Black oppression is always analogized to other forms of oppression in a manner that disappears Black oppression itself. It is presumed we already know everything about Black oppression, so we can just use it as an empty signifier to explain other oppressions.
Many parallels can be drawn between intimate partner violence in same-gender/gender-variant relationships
and violence in heterosexual relationships. The same, however, cannot be said for services and support.
Disparities are obvious in both service provision and community action (advocacy and activism) for many
reasons. Homophobia, lack of awareness of the need, lack of funding and or simple ignorance of how to
go about providing services has prevented many well-intentioned mainstream domestic violence programs
from developing supportive and effective LGBT services. Homophobia in the culture at large makes it
difficult for LGBT communities to acknowledge domestic violence in their midst, and it has been easier for
LGBT programs to mobilize communities and create programming around issues like hate crimes and
HIV/AIDS. In addition, LGBT programs also have always suffered from lack of funding.
it does make me chuckle when cishet women shit on trans women and then go and apply their make up with a severe highlight and contour JUST like drag queens and transwomen have been doing for years like sis who u think taught u that.
Wooow I never looked at twerking this way. O.O but I’m still an advocate of stopping girls under the age of 18 from twerking. Because honestly watching a 14 year old shake her ass no matter how grown her body looks is disgusting.
Then people shouldn’t sexualize the body of a 14 year old, no matter how grown her body looks
Ballerinas do full body splits showing their inner pelvis and crotches in thin tights and there are girls and boys doing that at a young age but that is not a sexual act and it shouldnt turn anyone on because its dance, its an expression, simple movement of the body to convey an art
the human body, especially that of a child’s isn’t(read as never should be) inherently sexual, he twerking is just a dance and if someone finds sexual peasure in a 14 year old shaking her body, they shouldnt be around children point blank
I have seen 12 year olds twerk something fiercy and it’s not them trying to seduce some older man with their bodies, they are having fun and expressing themselves from what they learned form their culture(it was a a west indie sweet 16)
I’m 16 and I damn sure don’t twerk for no body but myself. If a boy or girl finds it hot or attractive that’s on them. I’m not practicing in the mirror so some fuck boy i dont like from school can get a boner trying to grind on my ass, i do it so i can be a better dancer/for my self
If people have a problem with how I move MY body for MYSELF that’s there problem and taking it out on a little girl won’t solve the problem. We need to teach adults not to lust after little kids because be it shaking their ass, moving their hips or sitting quietly in the cornor, a pedophile is a pedophile
Most girls who twerk are not as enlightened on the cultural and self-expression aspects. (Of course I can onlt speak on the girls ive encountered in my neighborhood & on my newsfeed) Most girls I’ve seen seem to twerk to gain attention on social media, specifically from men. If you dance for culture & yourself, I respect it. I do appreciate all kinds of dance as an art form. But if you dance to sexualize yourself and for attention, I’m disgusted. Those are the girls I’m talking about.
I’m still not seeing the problem because if a girl, even if she is underage, wants to have confidence in her body/love her self/be sexy that’s her it’s her body she can do as she pleases
but for anyone, especially an adult to use that as an excuse to want/try to abuse her it’s wrong
just because she is taking pride in her image and her sex appeal for HERSELF doesn’t mean it’s an open invitation to unwanted and/or adult consumption you dont get to have it just because she flaunts it
and if it’s a damn 12 year old, how can she be sexualizing herself? she is TWELVE! She taking pride in her image but she damn sure isn’t being sexy, even if she is initiating stuff that one would find sexy on an adult (wearing heels doesn’t automaticall make you legal, so why would being “sexy” or twerking do it?)
And if she is legal and doing it for attention, that’s okay too because why the hell not? werk it if u got it and them getting attention makes them happy
it’s a choice
but the bottom line is, no matter the intent and contrary to popular belief, twerking isn’t sexual until YOU make it sexual it isn’t inappropriate until the dancer goes “hey guys, im shakin this ass so a fine ass nigga will see me” and that’s okay
The bodies of black women and girls aren’t automatically up for grabs and twerking doesn’t nullify that point so if she does it for attention or for money or for fun, it doesn’t matter, if she is doing it because she wills it, I have no problem. Let that ass get you a man/girl let that ass pay your college tutition let that ass bounce because the beat dropped and you are with your friends
:D Becca’s on fire tonite!
"Kanye West is [insert negative, rude, opinionated adjective here]"
yeah. that’s why he calmly and respectfully addressed the false Mandela tabloids. Even though it’s been four plus days, people are still talking about and treating him poorly for something he didn’t even do.
but is anyone actively talking about this series of tweets he wrote today? no. because people are ignorant and refuse to see that he isn’t always angry, rude, and disrespectful. kanye west mirrors the behavior that’s directed towards him.
It is impossible to discuss intervention/prevention services for LGBT people without first
acknowledging the increased acceptance of anti-LGBT bias in national discourse and the concurrent
rise in number and viciousness of hate crimes in the United States. Trans people, because they often
more visibly transgress accepted social gender stereotypes, are more frequent victims of the most overt
and brutal hate crimes. The dominant culture is often unwilling to recognize either the existence or
real impact of hate crimes and, consequently, law enforcement, emergency services and other social services
often refuse to respond or do not respond appropriately. People who identify as LGBT frequently
approach shelters, social service agencies, domestic violence service providers, police and the courts with
great caution, fearing re-victimization from institutions that have a history of exclusion, hostility and
violence toward them. For example, “since police officers were perpetrators in almost half (48%) of the
incidents of anti-transgender violence in San Francisco last year , transgender people are not likely to
seek police protection from an abusive partner” (National Coalition of Anti-Violence Projects, 2001).
An LGBT person grows up knowing that society thinks
their love is disgusting, that they are perverted or at the
very least not valued and are, therefore, an acceptable
target of discrimination and violence. Much of this is
internalized, but even if not internalized, others in the
community believe it. Distinguishing factors of
domestic violence in same-gender/gender-variant
relationships are, therefore, the overtly sexist, heterosexist, and profoundly homophobic nature of social
norms combined with an internalization of homophobic, heterosexist and sexist conditioning that
encourages and/or reinforces an abuser’s violence. These oppressions foster an environment that provides
an abuser with unique and potent opportunities for manipulating, threatening, intimidating and terrorizing
an intimate partner. LGBT victim/survivors must overcome obstacles including concerns about community
and systems response; lack of culturally sensitive support and services; and fear of seeking support because
of the disbelief or disapproval of friends, family, colleagues, children, employers and others in their
community and society at large
laralein1507 asked: So, as I actually signed up to tumblr to ask this, I really hope for an answer. First of all, I like your idea to research POC in European Art history. What I would like to know anyhow is if you are actually an art historian? This would be interesting to know, as I am sure I am not the only one to wonder where you study art history (or history of any kind) and never ever learn that there were indeed POC in pre-Enlightenment Europe? Best wishes and thank you for your answer in advance!
I receive a lot of messages that come off as not-so-veiled inquiries into what my “qualifications” are, i.e., whether or not I am “actually an art historian”, as you put it.
I’m a decorated scholar and I work in education, which I’ve talked about here many times before. (I like to use the word “decorated” because I did not previously realize that there are awards that have literal medals attached that one might literally wear around one’s neck, until it actually happened.)
I do not have the power to dictate policy, but I have reason to meticulously review curricula and am extremely familiar with the content chosen by professors for those curricula. Part of my job includes having to read a great deal of the books, articles, handout materials, syllabi, slides, videos, powerpoints, et cetera, that are chosen for all manner of classes.
If you think that total omission of text, images, or other materials dealing with people of color in just about any history class is some sort of exceptional occurrence, you’re flat out mistaken. If these materials are included at all, mockery and misinformation is common from the professors including that material.
I live in a country where, as I’ve said repeatedly, there is a great deal of financial and political pressure to legislate people of color out of history entirely. I’m not inventing some kind of conspiracy, I’m making commentary about laws that are being made as we speak. In 2010, History curricula in the US were drastically revised and legislated; Texas, where the textbooks basically “come from”, put a frighteningly conservative stamp on the educations standards, which will stay in place until 2020.
I see those books every day, and the cropping, the omission, the “sunny side of slavery"…all these things are included. This has happened! According to one of these groups heading the campaigns for revision:
The group called for textbook selection criteria to include: "No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership."
This is literally “We don’t care what actually happened, the important thing is that white leadership is not criticized.” That is literally what this says. That is the state of education right now, as I am speaking to you.
People doing what I’m doing better hope they live in a State where what I’m teaching here is still legal. In answer to your question, “where can you study art and never learn about people of color in Europe?” the answer is : The United States.
I follow this blog that is basically just depictions of people of color (really just black people tbh) in medieval art and it’s probably my fav blog right now
Okay it’s seriously baffling and bizarre to me that people keep saying this, and it’s starting to anger me.
1. A LOT of people keep assuming that if I post an image of a person, I am saying that they are specifically Black and
2. That I only post Black people.
This is just really about Black Hypervisibility, and how a reasonable inclusion of Black people in a blog about people of color somehow translates in some people’s heads to “only Black people”. It’s extremely unsavory and probably needs to be unpacked by someone more qualified than I am, because this kind of dichotomous thought is so alien to me it’s genuinely difficult for me to comprehend.
This really hangs a lampshade on the cultural concept that is, “If something includes Black people, it is ONLY for/including Black people”. As if including depictions of Black people is so novel, so overwhelming, and such an anomaly that it utterly eradicates any other depictions or artists that my blog covers?
I’m genuinely shocked right now. Maybe I shouldn’t be.
But to make this clear: what I am seeing isn’t non-Black people of color being “erased”, what I am seeing is the one-drop rule being applied to a flipping BLOG.
This sheds some light on the misunderstanding of people who though that when I posted this I was trying to say that the “zombies” are Black.
Rarely have I had it quite so shoved in my face that SO many people’s entire concept of race turns on an axis of anti-Blackness, which I suppose goes to show that this post needs to be reread.
Nichelle Nichols talks to a group of students at NASA Mission Control in 1977 and visits the Lewis Research center that same year.
In the mid-1970s, Nichols has given a speech that criticized NASA for not selecting women and people of color as astronaut candidates. The agency’s response was to hire her to find and recruit talented minorities and women, and she did exactly that. In her tenure as a recruiter, she helped the agency bring five women, three African American men and an Asian American male on board.
if you don’t think this lady is the best. You’re lying to yourself and we can’t be friends
I love the way that history works behind the scenes
You got Lucille Ball pushing to make Star Trek happen
You got MLK pleading with Nichelle to stay on the show
And then you get Nichelle helping motherfuckers get jobs at NASA
that is the tightest shit and if you don’t like you can get off my blog
Page 1 of 1363