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.
So while it seems important that the kids have their own stories, these stories had to begin with the stories of their birth mothers.
Next time you wonder why many adoptees search for their birth families and wish to to learn information about these families, remember that you are who you are because you have your own story. They are only searching for part of their story, a story that is important to their very identity.
Even though the author isn’t an adoptee, that’s a great way to put it
It’s good that whatshirface didn’t cop the typical bio spawn routes of “omg family is family not defined by blood!!!1 you’re just emotional” OR the equally oppressive and ableist bullshit that adoptees who don’t find our birth family are doomed to be “primally wounded” and more inclined to “craziness” and mass murder
The search is about reclaiming identity of which we were systemically robbed and decolonizing our selves. Simple and endlessly complex as that.
17 notes (via thechinaadoptee & kathrynjin)
Blood is thicker than water but maple syrup is thicker than blood so technically pancakes are more important than family.
205,298 notes (via fairyonacidbanging & zubat)
the reason why i liked unbearable lightness of being
is because i related to a scene where the girl is looking at herself
in the mirror not out of vanity, but with a desperate effort
to see beyond genetics, heritage. to see her trueself beyond
her mothers face. desperate attempt to see her soul.
blood is thicker than water.”
—DAUL KIM, journal entry, 2009.
52 notes (via tobia)
During the time I’ve written for this blog, I have made many posts that I later wished I’d worded differently. There are situations I wish I’d handled differently and there are topics I wish I’d learned a bit more about before speaking on them. With all that said, there is only one post that I’ve ever written that I am truly ashamed of. Not it’s message but it’s delivery. It is the only post that I wish I could make disappear so that I could rewrite it properly. The post on the cultural appropriation of dreadlocks. The point and purpose of the post was correct. However, the delivery, history and general forming of reference, not so much. I won’t be linking to the original post but it is still available on this blog if you are so inclined to find it. In the meantime, it’s time to correct that mistake of a post.
THE HISTORY OF DREADLOCKS
The very name, “Dreadlock” is attached to a vile and storied history. The name is traced back to days when slaves were being carted across the ocean. When they arrived, their hair was matted with blood, feces, urine, sweat, tears, dirt and time. When the captors watched them walk, crawl or be carried off the ships, they referred to the hair of slaves as “Dreadful.” This was a common word used to describe the locks that had formed during the many trips. The term dreadlock became prevalent to describing the hair formation.
The term was later reclaimed with the uprising of Rastafarian culture. Dreadlocks were a source of pride in one’s history, a symbol of laying down material and capitalist pursuits and a way to thumb disdain at white culture. The very name or rather it’s shortened version, locks, is a source of great pride for a history that may never be truthfully told.
CULTURAL APPROPRIATION OF DREADLOCKS
The most common comment of those who want to appropriate locks is, “Every culture had dreadlocks.” This is false. Any reference made to other cultures is about matting of hair. Sometimes in a lock formation, sometimes not. However, there are no other cultures that had “Dreadlocks.”
With minor research, one can find that the matting of hair in other cultures has never been, “Dreadlocks.” For example, the Irish had several names for their matted hair. Glibs, Glibbes and Gleebs were among the most common. In India, matter tufts of hair were labeled, Jata. Making the statement that “Every culture had dreadlocks” isn’t just factually incorrect, it’s disrespectful to the very history that bound each slave’s lock in blood. The history of the “Dread” in dreadlock, is so vastly different than just the simple matting of hair.
1,946 notes (via lostintrafficlights & racismschool)
No makeup makes you look nearly as gorgeous as the blood of your enemies smeared across your face.
25,317 notes (via analogbrain & jewfastjewfurious)
Page 1 of 2