Install Theme

Your web-browser is very outdated, and as such, this website may not display properly. Please consider upgrading to a modern, faster and more secure browser. Click here to do so.

BRAND X

Orphaned transracial international ungrateful insurgent Class Bastard.

Posts tagged blackface

Apr 17 '12

lover-root:

artemariposa:

zipibree:

amantesuntamentes:

bookishboi:

viviandemilo:

ai-yo:

aphoticoccurrences:

humanformat:

brandx:

Via Tobias Hubinette:

Yet another white Swedish antiracist act - the Minister of Culture cuts up an African woman à la Sarah Baartman at the Museum of Modern Art here.

Recommended reading for context: “The Foundations of Whiteness,” which breaks down how Sweden’s (and other European countries’) ostensible Third World solidarity and antiracism actually goes hand in hand with white superiority and white homogeneity[…]

I hate all of their faces.

WHAT THE HOLY FUUUUCK?!!!

white people really are the sickest people on this planet. mind you, France still had Baartman’s genitals and brain on display until 1974, and didn’t return her remains to South Africa for a proper burial until 2002!

wow. barbarism at its finest. and white people wonder why we don’t trust them?? crazy ass sick shit like this!!

10 fucking years ago 10 fucking bloody years ago and they want to call us uncivilized.

I feel sick to my stomach

I hate everything.

look.at.their.faces.

Complete Fuckery.

this is why we’re angry…. it hurts to look at. 

it does hurt. this shit made me sick to my stomach. broke my heart.

and to see other coons (no ya’ll) try to explain this away angers me more than the damn photo.

IDGAF about all the white folks currently making hateful fools of themselves over this, but for any fellow POC who might be misinterpreting my supplying context with Hubinette’s “The Foundations of Whiteness” as “explaining away” this racist, sexist spectacle - um, NO, you don’t even need to follow the link to see me spell it out. AGAIN: Sweden’s (and other European countries’) ostensible Third World solidarity and antiracism actually goes hand in hand with white superiority and white homogeneity. 

This context underscores just how clueless and hypocritical Sweden’s national self-image is as made manifest by this Minister of Culture Liljeroth, a hard-line “antiracist” and feminist - it’s important to understand the intersectionality specific to Scandinavian policies as it decolonizes their ostensibly “progressive” agendas - peep this new commentary from Hubinette:

White psychosis + white melancholia is my psychoanalytical and critical race and whiteness studies analysis of how this can happen in radical and militant antiracist and antifascist Sweden. This means that white Swedes can only speak with themselves, Swedish whiteness is in other words trapped in a monologue, and that white Swedes have to stage events like these as they have to “live out” their sorrow and rage for not being in control anymore (due to the presence of non-white and non-Western minorities) - otherwise the white collective psyche will explode. It is evident that the World Art Day is a defense of not just Western art but of the West itself (“the threat comes from different ethnic, religious and political groups” according to the museum’s statement here)

Apr 17 '12
Via Tobias Hubinette:

Yet another white Swedish antiracist act - the Minister of Culture cuts up an African woman à la Sarah Baartman at the Museum of Modern Art [on Sunday, April 15 2012]: http://www.skrivkonst.net/2012/04/16/den-politiskt-korrekta-rasismen-som-vardegrund/
I don’t sympathize with the linked text at Skrivkonst - it is an extreme right site - I just wanted to link to a homepage with photos of the event. 
[TRIGGER WARNING FOR RACIST, EDIBLE REPRESENTATIONS OF MUTILATED FEMALE GENITALIA]

Recommended reading for context: “The Foundations of Whiteness,” which breaks down how Sweden’s (and other European countries’) Third World solidarity and antiracism actually go hand in hand with white superiority and white homogeneity[…]

Via Tobias Hubinette:

Yet another white Swedish antiracist act - the Minister of Culture cuts up an African woman à la Sarah Baartman at the Museum of Modern Art [on Sunday, April 15 2012]: http://www.skrivkonst.net/2012/04/16/den-politiskt-korrekta-rasismen-som-vardegrund/

I don’t sympathize with the linked text at Skrivkonst - it is an extreme right site - I just wanted to link to a homepage with photos of the event.

[TRIGGER WARNING FOR RACIST, EDIBLE REPRESENTATIONS OF MUTILATED FEMALE GENITALIA]

Recommended reading for context: “The Foundations of Whiteness,” which breaks down how Sweden’s (and other European countries’) Third World solidarity and antiracism actually go hand in hand with white superiority and white homogeneity[…]

Feb 27 '12
ladyatheist:

portableairport:

racebending:

ladyatheist:

Yes. That really happened. Thank you Billy Crystal for reinforcing the fact that Black people are costumes.

Since this happened, there’s been a lot of grumbling about how it’s “just a joke” and Billy Crystal has been doing this forever, so “it’s not a big deal.”  
This is followed by a lot of anxiety and hand-wringing about being “too sensitive” on the part of people of color, and a whole lotta labeling from the other end.
The implication is that if you are “too sensitive” then your feelings are invalid because they are extreme and those with feelings deemed extreme have no right to complain.  ”Too sensitive” compared to whom, exactly?  
The term frames people who accept depictions of racism in media as normative, while we who are “too sensitive” are the ones not getting with the program (or getting the “joke.”  Even if the “joke” is awful.)
The culture that we live in is designed to label folks who “construe something as racist”—regardless of historical context or modern exclusion— as people who are “too sensitive.”

In our society, to be “too sensitive” is a bigger sin than “doing something that has a racist impact.”
Why? Because being sensitive is what people who are at an disadvantage do. (Hence sensitivity being a negative trait attributed to women and minorities who just want respect.  Note that being a “pussy” is an insult to men and “having balls” is a compliment.)
In contrast, cultural bullying is something that people with privilege do.  People with agent status make are lauded for making “gutsy” jokes and expressing their free speech without caring about responsibility or impact (that would involve being too sensitive.)  The entitlement is such that the sensitive fee-fees of the people they are disrespecting shouldn’t matter.  
Meanwhile, people with targeted status are expected to “take it,” as in, docilely receive and accept it.
White male privilege has made it worse for those impacted by a racist act to be called pussies than for the perpetrator to be called out for doing something racist. The majority of people with privilege are doing the former, making it impossible to win by doing the latter.  
Sometimes people who do not have privilege buy in, too, to gain what little modicum of power might available from being associated with “having balls” rather than “being a pussy.”  (Shush, you’re being too sensitive.)  And, people who would otherwise be allies in situations like this (cis-men, people who are white, etc.) are also afraid to speak out because to be reduced to this label is a loss of esteem.  (“I don’t want to be viewed as being ‘too sensitive.’”  Why not?)
In order for privilege to keep its power, things have to be this way. Minorities have to be worried about being labeled as “too sensitive”—as if it were some sort of blight, having sensitivity, omg worst thing ever—if we dare speak out.
Here’s the deal:  For decades, the practice of blackface was used to dehumanize, denigrate, and exclude people of color from society and Hollywood.  The people complaining that we’re “too sensitive” are drawing comparisons to “White Girls” and Dave Chapelle’s white face without taking into account that whiteface was never used by historic Hollywood to as a tool perpetuate negative stereotypes that got people discriminated against, beaten, or killed.
Whiteface was never used by Hollywood on a sweeping basis to prevent an entire population of white people from having the ability to represent themselves on screen.
Whiteface has not contributed to a systemic national climate against white people.
Whiteface has not aided and abetted pattern of lynchings of white people across the country.
Can’t say the same for blackface.
Given that Hollywood continues to have diversity problem to this day, of course the scene touched a nerve. It is easier to label the outcry as “too sensitive” than to examine the historical context behind why people might be upset or disturbed.

If you disagree with this please unfollow me plz. I don’t have the patience for any apologist bullshit today thx

Extra emphasis is mine. The commentary on this is golden.

Intersectionality ahoy! There’s an ableist dimension as well - people who are “too sensitive” are “irrational,” “hysterical,” “crazy,” “unstable” ad nauseum. Which is why it’s so fucking rich whenever some snotty privileged person goes around language policing people they actively oppress and then derails with the “too sensitive” bullshit that’s a hell of a lot more racist, sexist, and ableist in practice.

ladyatheist:

portableairport:

racebending:

ladyatheist:

Yes. That really happened. Thank you Billy Crystal for reinforcing the fact that Black people are costumes.

Since this happened, there’s been a lot of grumbling about how it’s “just a joke” and Billy Crystal has been doing this forever, so “it’s not a big deal.”  

This is followed by a lot of anxiety and hand-wringing about being “too sensitive” on the part of people of color, and a whole lotta labeling from the other end.

The implication is that if you are “too sensitive” then your feelings are invalid because they are extreme and those with feelings deemed extreme have no right to complain.  ”Too sensitive” compared to whom, exactly?  

The term frames people who accept depictions of racism in media as normative, while we who are “too sensitive” are the ones not getting with the program (or getting the “joke.”  Even if the “joke” is awful.)

The culture that we live in is designed to label folks who “construe something as racist”—regardless of historical context or modern exclusion— as people who are “too sensitive.”

In our society, to be “too sensitive” is a bigger sin than “doing something that has a racist impact.”

Why? Because being sensitive is what people who are at an disadvantage do. (Hence sensitivity being a negative trait attributed to women and minorities who just want respect.  Note that being a “pussy” is an insult to men and “having balls” is a compliment.)

In contrast, cultural bullying is something that people with privilege do.  People with agent status make are lauded for making “gutsy” jokes and expressing their free speech without caring about responsibility or impact (that would involve being too sensitive.)  The entitlement is such that the sensitive fee-fees of the people they are disrespecting shouldn’t matter.  

Meanwhile, people with targeted status are expected to “take it,” as in, docilely receive and accept it.

White male privilege has made it worse for those impacted by a racist act to be called pussies than for the perpetrator to be called out for doing something racist. The majority of people with privilege are doing the former, making it impossible to win by doing the latter.  

Sometimes people who do not have privilege buy in, too, to gain what little modicum of power might available from being associated with “having balls” rather than “being a pussy.”  (Shush, you’re being too sensitive.)  And, people who would otherwise be allies in situations like this (cis-men, people who are white, etc.) are also afraid to speak out because to be reduced to this label is a loss of esteem.  (“I don’t want to be viewed as being ‘too sensitive.’”  Why not?)

In order for privilege to keep its power, things have to be this way. Minorities have to be worried about being labeled as “too sensitive”—as if it were some sort of blight, having sensitivity, omg worst thing ever—if we dare speak out.

Here’s the deal:  For decades, the practice of blackface was used to dehumanize, denigrate, and exclude people of color from society and Hollywood.  The people complaining that we’re “too sensitive” are drawing comparisons to “White Girls” and Dave Chapelle’s white face without taking into account that whiteface was never used by historic Hollywood to as a tool perpetuate negative stereotypes that got people discriminated against, beaten, or killed.

Whiteface was never used by Hollywood on a sweeping basis to prevent an entire population of white people from having the ability to represent themselves on screen.

Whiteface has not contributed to a systemic national climate against white people.

Whiteface has not aided and abetted pattern of lynchings of white people across the country.

Can’t say the same for blackface.

Given that Hollywood continues to have diversity problem to this day, of course the scene touched a nerve. It is easier to label the outcry as “too sensitive” than to examine the historical context behind why people might be upset or disturbed.

If you disagree with this please unfollow me plz. I don’t have the patience for any apologist bullshit today thx

Extra emphasis is mine. The commentary on this is golden.

Intersectionality ahoy! There’s an ableist dimension as well - people who are “too sensitive” are “irrational,” “hysterical,” “crazy,” “unstable” ad nauseum. Which is why it’s so fucking rich whenever some snotty privileged person goes around language policing people they actively oppress and then derails with the “too sensitive” bullshit that’s a hell of a lot more racist, sexist, and ableist in practice.

(Source: womanistgamergirl)

Feb 27 '12
Oct 21 '11

glockgal:

Students Teaching About Racism in Society is a Student Org at Ohio University.

seashell-eyes:

I like this.

(Source: itsdefinitelynothim)