“I think its important to not ban words from other races vernacular but change the use of the word.”
this sounds a lot like “i’m white and i want to say the n-word without being called racist even though i know it’s racist”
We do not need to be reminded that
- not all cis people are bad
- not all hetero people are bad
- not all men are misogynists
- not all white people are racist
We do need to be reminded that
- trans people need to be protected at all costs
- LGBTQIAP+ people are killed and raped for their sexuality so no, heteros do not need to be in queer only spaces
- Women are not equal to men in society and that’s what intersectional feminism is trying to change
- Whitewashing is a huge problem in both education and the media and supporting/ignoring/excusing that fact is supporting racism
We can’t keep raising generations of kids of color on the notion that there’s only room for them to be bad guys or doomed sidekicks or another generation of white kids thinking they’re closer to God because of how they look. We can’t keep promoting hetero/cis-normative sexist and racist ideas in our literature. That is the default setting. If you aren’t consciously working against it, you are working for it. Neutrality is not an option, and the luxury of thinking it is has to go."
- Daniel José Older, “12 Fundamentals Of Writing ‘The Other’ (And The Self)” (via larmoyante)
Lupita Nyong’o spoke about the intersection of race and beauty at Essence’s Black Women in Hollywood Luncheon [x]
"Tiana’s concept art is so gorgeous. It’s funny that Disney didn’t put more effort into her hair when they were so proud of their work on Rapunzel and Merida’s hair…I’d wonder why but it’s probably the same reason that the one black princess is the princess that’s a frog for 85% of the movie"
So, you think that Disney is racist, and are so racist that they think that black people can’t have loose hair? Uh, no. Rapunzel’s hair is a HUGE part of her story and character development, of course they’d work hard on that. Merida’s hair was a huge factor of her in the advertisements, and is kind of a metaphor for her wild personality. As for Tiana, I doubt, I so highly doubt that her hair is up for most of the movie because Disney is racist. Tiana keeping her hair up shows her personality too, her hard-working personality, as it shows that she doesn’t want loose hair in her eyes or hair falling in her food when she cooks. And also, Merida and Rapunzel are CGI, and CGI hair usually has way more detail than 2D hair.
Finally, I still get annoyed when people hate on how Tiana is a frog for most of the movie. I honestly don’t see the racism in that, and I think it’s as good a story for their first black heroine as any.
Black hair (particularly black women’s hair) is stigmatized in Western society as dirty, or unkempt. Most ethnic styles of hair are frowned upon, such as Afros, twists, braids, puffs, and dreadlocks. This is subliminally carried into Princess and the Frog with the artists choosing (operative term) to keep Tiana’s hair back or up during her few minutes as a human on screen. There’s honestly no reason she could not have had her hair down, especially near the end.
And while computer animation can give you more details (one of the major pros of the medium), that doesn’t magic away the fact that the animators didn’t want to animate Tiana’s hair beyond a few bobs of her ponytail. Detail is not the issue here. Past Disney women whose hair also did not factor into the plots of their stories had very competently animated hair. And those were all hand-drawn.
So the medium has nothing to do with competent animation.
And I guess it’s good enough that the first black heroine (and only one as far as Disney is concerned) is not even human for nearly 85% of the her movie? Yeah, because that’s a respectful portrayal of a black woman: to have her be a frog for the majority of her film. And that’s especially memorable compared to her white counterparts whose screen time is never compromised and are able to keep their humanity throughout them.
INVISIBLE DIVERSITY IS NOT REAL DIVERSITY.
Tiana has the most lazily animated hair of any disney princess. It’s in a bun, it stays in the bun. No movement, no body whatsoever. Any disney heroine, period. And to suggest that that doesn’t have anything to do behind the stigma surrounding black hair then you aren’t paying attention.
Arizona’s law banning Mexican-American studies is constitutional, judge rules
February 25, 2014
A court upheld most provisions of an Arizona state law used to prohibit a controversial Mexican-American Studies curriculum in Tucson on Friday.
The ruling dealt a blow to supporters of the suspended classes, who had hoped the courts would overturn a 2010 law championed by Arizona conservatives determined to shut down the unconventional courses.
“I was really surprised at the decision,” Jose Gonzalez, a former teacher of Tucson’s suspended Mexican-American Studies classes, told The Huffington Post. “But as a student and teacher of history, I know in civil rights cases like this there’s always setbacks.”
The experimental Tucson curriculum was offered to students in different forms in some of the local elementary, middle and high schools. It emphasized critical thinking and focused on Mexican-American literature and perspectives. Supporters lauded the program, pointing to increased graduation rates, high student achievement and a state-commissioned independent audit that recommended expanding the classes.
But conservative opponents accused the teachers of encouraging students to adopt left-wing ideas and resent white people, a charge the teachers deny. Aiming squarely at Tucson’s Mexican-American Studies program, the Arizona legislature passed HB 2281 — a law banning courses that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, foster racial resentment, are designed for students of a particular ethnic group or that advocate ethnic solidarity.
Federal Judge Wallace Tashima said the plaintiffs failed to show the law was too vague, broad or discriminatory, or that it violated students’ first amendment rights.
The news wasn’t all bad for supporters of the suspended classes. Tashima ruled that the section of the law prohibiting courses tailored to serve students of a particular ethnicity was unconstitutional.
Originally filed in October of 2010 on behalf of the program’s former teachers, who lost standing because they are public employees, the case is currently brought by former Mexican-American Studies student Nicholas Dominguez and his mother Margarita Dominguez. They will likely appeal the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals within the next 30 days, their lawyer Richard Martinez told The Huffington Post.
“This case is not over,” Martinez said. “It’s not only important to Arizona, but to the country as a whole that this statute be addressed.”
Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne began a campaign to eliminate the Mexican-American Studies program from Tucson Unified School District in 2006, when he was serving as the state’s Superintendent of Public Education.
Angered that Mexican-American civil rights leader Dolores Huerta had said that “Republicans hate Latinos” in a speech to Tucson students, Horne sent Deputy Superintendent Margaret Dugan, a Latina Republican, to give an alternate view. But the intellectual exercise turned confrontational when students, who said they were not allowed to ask Dugan questions, sealed their mouths with tape and walked out of the assembly room.
“As superintendent of schools, I have visited over 1,000 schools and I’ve never seen students be disrespectful to a teacher in that way,” Horne said in an interview last year.
The final product of his efforts was House Bill 2281, which then-State Sen. John Huppenthal (R) helped pilot through the Arizona legislature. Huppenthal, who succeeded Horne as state superintendent of schools, then found Tucson out of compliance with the new law and ordered the district to shut Mexican-American Studies down or lose 10 percent of its annual funding — some $14 million over the fiscal year. In January of 2012, the school board complied, voting 4 to 1 to discontinue the classes.
The decision drew national attention as administrators plucked Latino literature that once belonged to the curriculum from classrooms, explicitly banning seven titles from instruction.
This is what I’m often referring to when I talk about backlash and suppression of education in the United States. There is literally legislation that bans teaching the history of colonization and civil rights movements in various states-states like Arizona, in which 43% of the population are “minorities”…30% of Arizona is Hispanic/Latin@.
That’s not actually a coincidence. :|
This is systematic, institutional disenfranchisement in action.
In highschool, I would’ve gotten up at ass’o’clock in the morning for a zero hour class just to take a course on the history of my people. The Latino people of Arizona have been robbed.
And what’s worse is that Arizona is so rich with Native and Mexican culture, it’s so disheartening to see the government fight it so aggressively from their racist soap boxes. It makes me sick.
There is no defense for white-washing.
"Historical accuracy" certainly isn’t one.
If you’d actually read any real history you’d know PoC have been everywhere since the dawn of time.
All those precious “European” (because when racists say “European” they mean “white people’s shit”) fairy tales are part of oral traditions which came from gosh non-white cultures. There is no “original” white source for most of the stories people cite as being a cornerstone of “European” folklore, because they are adapted from earlier stores that come from other countries and cultures. Each story-teller embellishes, edits and censored their own version through the centuries, but that does mean they own them, they are inherited.
I can cite you “Cinderella” stories from Ancient Egypt, India and China. The themes that would eventually become the written French version of Beauty and the Beast come from many folk-tales, including Ancient Greek mythology. There is no original source for “tales as old as time”, so stop pretending erasure, censure, sanitisation and blatant disregard for the historical multicultural background of the source material is “historical accuracy” because it aint.
JJ ABRAMS TAKE NOTE. /forever bitter over this
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” —George Santayana
ok, i am fully sick of this shit, dictionaries are not sparkly magical oases of unbiased truth, utterly untouched by racism or political agenda
whose political agenda exactly? here, lemme show you. i took five minutes to search for the creators and current owners of merriam-webster and the oxford dictionary and this is what i got
noah webster, wrote the first webster’s. did you also know he was a hardxcore american nationalist and christian who thought the written word was explicitly a tool that needed to be used to control public dissent and individualism which he considered to be badwrong? LOOK IT UP, SHITDICK
oh but who owns it now? well websters became merriam-websters which is a subsidiary of encyclopaedia britannica inc. currently, but here are just some of the white dudes who owned the rights to webster’s shit along the way
hello richard warren sears, yes THAT sears, you are looking particular white and rich
senator william benton, yale graduate, founder of benton & bowles advertising company! rockin that rich whiteness
jacqui safra! member of the famous safra banking family, current owner of encyclopaedia britannica, and merriam-webster and spring mountain vineyard, friend of woody allen and financer of EIGHT of his films. how deliciously white and rich you smell.
here is a small sample of the white dudes that collabed on oxford dictionary originally, archbishop trench, herbert coleridge, frederick james furnivall and sir james murray by this point i was 500% done with reading biographies on boring white dudes doing boring white dude things so instead let’s just all bask in how boring and white they are
for added fun the wiki article on the oxford dictionary has a whole section on criticisms that basically outlines exactly the fucking problem here
Despite its claim of authority on the English language, the Oxford English Dictionary has been criticised from various angles. It has become a target precisely because of its massiveness, its claims to authority, and above all its influence. In his review of the 1982 supplement, University of Oxford linguist Roy Harris writes that criticizing the OED is extremely difficult because “one is dealing not just with a dictionary but with a national institution”, one that “has become, like the English monarchy, virtually immune from criticism in principle”.:935 Harris also criticises what he sees as the “black-and-white lexicography” of the Dictionary, by which he means its reliance upon printed language over spoken—and then only privileged forms of printing. He further notes that, while neologisms from respected “literary” authors such as Samuel Beckett and Virginia Woolf are included, usage of words in newspapers or other, less “respectable”, sources hold less sway, although they may be commonly used.:935 He writes that the OED’s “[b]lack-and-white lexicography is also black-and-white in that it takes upon itself to pronounce authoritatively on the rights and wrongs of usage”,:935 faulting the Dictionary’s prescriptive, rather than descriptive, usage. To Harris, this prescriptive classification of certain usages as “erroneous” and the complete omission of various forms and usages cumulatively represent the “social bias[es]” of the (presumably well-educated and wealthy) compilers.:936
so basically, fuck you, you fucking fuck, if you trot out a dictionary definition as proof of racism against white people cuz THE DICTIONARY SAYS that racism is defined only as “racial prejudice or discrimination” (merriam-webster) or “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race” (oxford).
well guess the fuck what.
RICH WHITE PEOPLE WRITE AND CONTROL ENGLISH DICTIONARIES.
RICH WHITE PEOPLE ARE THE ONES DEFINING THE WORDS THAT MAKE IT INTO ENGLISH DICTIONARIES.
AND IF YOU THINK FOR A SECOND THAT RICH WHITE PEOPLE ARE WITHOUT MAJOR FUCKING BIAS YOU’VE GOT ANOTHER FUCKING THING COMING, MAINLY A WHOLE WORLD OF UNCHALLENGED IGNORANCE
all of this.
what i like to bring up as an example is the tomato. you know how everybody argues about whether or not it’s a fruit or a vegetable? so get this: legally, the tomato is a vegetable. the SCOTUS ruled in 1893 that the tomato is a vegetable because they wanted it to get taxed (at that time there was no tax on fruits and U.S. markets were being flooded by foreign fruits).
you guys, the definition of a tomato had a political agenda.
a fucking tomato.
what on earth does quoting the dictionary on oppression (which is vastly more complex than a tomato, mind you) make you think that you’re somehow unbiased or neutral
For anyone who wants to harass me about the “white dictionary” thing ever again
Since I know a lot of people aren’t going to read my post on The Disney Debate regarding race and representation for many different (and frequently understandable) reasons, if there’s anything you take away from it, let it be this:
You can SAY you don’t want “emotional blindness on either side”, but all this does is reinforce the notion that anger at being subjected to racism and emotional investment in white supremacy are morally equivalent, and they are NOT.
Framing justified anger at being subjected to racism as “irrational” is a form of racism.
This blog is not objective, and neither are you, and neither is your professor. Waving your hands around and yelling “History!!!” is not objective; it’s invoking cultural beliefs and assumptions that often have nothing to do with facts that can be proved or disproved. Most positions can be argued for and supported in academic disciplines that have anything to do with the study of humanity.
Why we choose to believe some ideas and reject others has less to do with facts than it does our own emotional investment in ourselves and our relationship to/in our society.
Why do we know what we know? Where do these ideas come from? That is the heart of knowledge. Because if you want to get close to the truth, you have to give a crap in the first place.
Excellent response to the “coke controversy”.
These laws are an embarrassment to our country. The evidence is overwhelming that Stand Your Ground laws lead to more murders and worsen systemic racial discrimination.
I bet they didn’t say that when we had to write papers on Christopher Columbus. Or when they’re studying European world history. Did you skip over colonization and everyone involved? Or just Malcolm X who was a reactionary to that colonization? How about Hitler? Oh ok. You’ll silenced the oppressed but freely speak of the oppressors.
the american school system is a fucking joke
absolute props to the amazing parents who took a stand for their history and for their children’s education
And this is why we have to take it upon ourselves to teach our children…
“TANGLED IS SET IN EUROPEAN/GERMAN FAIRYTALE TIMES THAT’S WHY THERE’S ONLY WHITE PEOPLE!1” - A Photoset
did you make this? haha. I like it better than the princess one I did. SO MUCH TRUTH ANYWAY
That’s just fucking great. You have to turn everything into a fucking racism debate, don’t you? Disney can’t make one fucking movie because if there isn’t 18 bamillion black people, Asian people or Hispanic people, you got to flip your shit and say Disney’s racist.
The point of movies is not to see how many minorities we can represent. Its to make good entertainment. Creators at Disney are not focused on representing minorities unless its central to the story. Get over it!
Easy question: Why can’t we have entertaining movies with more than white people represented, if it’s so easy? Why can’t movies be entertaining AND have a racially-inclusive cast?
Answer: Because you’re an asshole <3
newsflash: if you can’t make a movie in 2010 set in a fantasy land that includes more than white people- who are already overrepresented in film, society, government, et cetera- then hey, actually, that is a real racial problem and you don’t get to dictate how people enjoy their own entertainment. Not everyone is white so not everyone is going to be able to shrug their shoulders and go, “An all white person children’s movie? Cool!”
“The point of movies is not to see how many minorities we can represent. Its to make good entertainment.” Well conversly, the point of movies is also not to exclude entire groups of people when inclusivity is easy as well as a good idea if you’re expecting to make money off these groups once they see your film.
“Creators at Disney are not focused on representing minorities unless its central to the story”
How nice of you to blatantly acknowledge your bias. “Your stories aren’t worth telling and your race isn’t worth representing unless it’s part of the plot. You’re not good enough to stand on your own as simply a person in a movie.” Maybe their focus- and yours- needs to be adjusted
all the awards!
SIGNAL BOOST: apparently there’s now a trend of labeling blogs “gypsy” themed
this is really gross considering Romani have been persecuted, enslaved, abused, murdered, and ripped from their own culture throughout history, yet their culture continues to be widely appropriated. the word “gyp/gypped”, meaning to “steal or swindle” and which is a bastardization of the word “gypsy”, is still used to this day. media portrayals of Romani people and Irish travelers still portray the same stereotypes over and over.
do not use a marginalized group to create a (usually wildly inaccurate) theme for your blog. it is cultural appropriation and it is wrong.