#perpetuates this censorship of black bodies | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

darenycastro · 19 days ago

Text

Blog week 11

1. How does the Internet facilitate different types of mobilization for social or political movements, & what role do online tools play in these efforts?

The internet facilitates mobilization through call to action, & coordinating. According to Sandor Vegh, The Internet can be used to organize offline events like demonstrations through emails or websites that announce the time and place for people to gather. As well as promote actions that are typically offline, but more efficiently done online, such as urging individuals to contact their congressional representatives via email. Online tools like pre-written message templates can speed up the process and increase participation, although it’s debated whether digital messages have the same impact as more personalized communication like hand-written letters.(2003, pg 3).

2. How does the media contribute to the criminalization and victimization of black bodies, and what role does this play in shaping public perceptions of race and social inequality?

The media plays a significant role in the criminalization and victimization of black bodies by perpetuating racial stereotypes and biases that frame black individuals, particularly men and young people, as inherently suspicious or dangerous. This phenomenon is rooted in historical narratives of blackness as inferior, which were constructed during the eras of slavery and Jim Crow and continue to influence contemporary media representations. According to Lee, for one, the murder of Trayvon Martin in 2012 became less about the unjust killing of a young black man and more about his supposed "urban" culture, a coded reference to blackness, which shifted the focus away from the crime itself and towards his race and attire. In this case, the media contributed to the portrayal of Martin as culpable for his own death due to his appearance, perpetuating a narrative that criminalizes black youth based on racial stereotypes (Lee, 2017).

3. How do the concepts of "battleground," "playground," and "homeplace" help us understand the role of digital spaces, like Black Twitter, in challenging racial bias and creating a sense of community for marginalized groups?

The concepts of "battleground," "playground," and "homeplace" offer a framework for understanding how digital spaces, particularly Black Twitter, can both challenge racial bias and provide a sense of community for marginalized groups. These concepts, drawn from the works of Susan Bordo and bell hooks, help explain how online spaces can serve as sites of resistance, redefinition, and solidarity. Lee writes how In Susan Bordo's metaphor, the "battleground" represents a space of constant struggle for control, especially over the body, in a political field marked by power relations. For marginalized groups, the body is a site under attack by societal institutions (e.g., media, law enforcement), and there is a continual fight for self-determination. In the context of Black Twitter, the digital space becomes a "battleground" where individuals challenge and resist racial bias. For example, users may engage in "textual poaching" by taking mainstream media content (often biased or derogatory towards black communities) and reinterpreting or reframing it to expose racial injustice or create new narratives (2017).

4. How does the Cult of the Dead Cow approach hacktivism differently from other politically motivated hackers, and what are the broader implications of their actions?

The Cult of the Dead Cow defines hacktivism as "the use of technology to advance human rights through electronic media," distinguishing their approach from other politically motivated hackers who might engage in activities like defacing websites or disrupting servers. Rather than using cyberattacks as tools of destruction or disruption, the cDc focuses on fighting government censorship and promoting freedom of information. Their activism centers on leveraging technology to circumvent restrictions on access to information, especially in countries where the internet is censored. A prime example of this is their "peekabooty" project, a distributed privacy network that allows users in countries with strict internet censorship to access DNS-filtered content via participating servers. By enabling free access to information, the cDc is essentially challenging governmental control over the internet and advocating for digital human rights.

Latoya A. Lee Department of Sociology, State University of New York at Oswego, 313 Mahar Hall, 7060 Route 104, Oswego, NY 13126, USA; [email protected] Academic Editors: Jenny L. Davis and David A. Banks Received: 1 October 2016; Accepted: 2 March 2017; Published: 5 March 2017

Vegh, S. (2003). Classifying forms of online activism. The Case of Cyberprotests against the World Bank. Cyberactivism Online Activism in Theory and Practice.

3 notes · View notes

kouhaiofcolor · 4 months ago

Text

I genuinely look forward to a present (even if I’m not around to experience it) where we stop being concerned about white people of all varieties being offended by us generally discussing ways in which they have ancestrally, collectively or individualistically done, endorsed or were indifferent to irreversible harm being done to Black People in places they smuggled our ancestors to.

A lil rant. Nbdni.

Like I genuinely hope for a day where we don’t have to censor or pardon how (and whom) we speak about on this very longstanding history and perpetuation of some of humanity’s darkest norms still unanswered for — bc it’s crazy af how we literally have to or can only discuss this in certain contextual “tones”, or with exclusion to speak fluidly on it at all.

I really think it’s just bc everybody wants to be made out to be different or better or brighter on this modernly, as if the trajectory of the world wasn’t and still isn’t sustained on how poorly a lot of non black people and their lineages treated and felt it was ok to treat Black People — for being Black. How is it so easy for them to just…. overlook and abandon that like humanity hasn’t been shaped by it in every sense of it? It’s such a selfish, tone deaf and remorseless quality of delusional to me.

It literally makes no sense how unspoken it is that white people feel they just don’t have to answer or take any accountability for it whatsoever; as a race; as nations; as governing bodies; investors; nothing (*letalone take any real initiative on the reparations we’re still due to this day). All their whining and “triggered behavior” when we bring these things up around them or even amongst ourselves does is condition us to soften the conversations for their comfort and to degrees they prefer to tolerate if at all.

“It’s not all white pe—“

That is historically untrue! Historically. Spanning entire regions of the world. And I’m sorry but where does this stance actually come from? Can you even back it or elaborate on it with historic and measurable evidence if it was an overlooked prevalence? That is an illusion y’all reuse and reuse and reuse that makes you comfortable bc you get to basically control that narrative by insisting on the behalf of those who were frankly rare af (and easily decimal among the majority). There were not more white people, at any point in global history, who were open to coexist & kumbaya w people they hated for xyz — than those who were openly racist and hateful toward them.

I am tickled to burst that bubble bc an increasing number of you seem to need a reality check. History isn’t modified by how you feel or bc you like rap music or bc your kids are half Black or bc you grew up in diverse communities or bc you have Black friends or bc you went to a Black school. Those are very trivial things, in fact, both behind and in the face of the most consistently fucked up white human history. That’s not how it works. That’s not how it works at all and it’s so wild to feel like Black People owe anyone censorship on this, least of all those who whine the loudest and are more comfortable never addressing it in the first place.

#black tumblr #black twitter #double standards #blm #tw: black trauma #tw: slavery mention #protect black culture #protect black women #protect black girls #protect black children #culture vultures #tone policing #censorship #mine.txt #nbdni

2 notes · View notes

arlopez · 2 years ago

Text

Class 4 - #BLACKLIVESMATTER and the space of appearance

WHERE BLACK LIVES MATTER: SPACE OF APPEARANCE by Nicholas Mirzoeff

youtube

Scene from the movie The Hate u Give, which I believe to be of extreme relevance to this reading. Here the main character (black girl) confronts her former best friend after she said that their black friend was rightly shot by the police for holding a hairbrush that was mistaken as a gun

The movement Black Lives Matter (at least partly) has reclaimed the right to look in the United States, disguising the white supremacist visuality through both their physical protests and around the media. The hashtag Black Lives Matter was used as far as in 2012 after the murder of Trayvon Martin and in 2014 after the murder of Michael Brown. Remarkably, in those years Obama was the president, a black president. However, in the American white supremacist tinted viewpoint one could be a president while being Black, but not being Black while being president. In other words the “blackness” of Obama is only accepted as far as he is also a ruling elite and does not question the system.

The movement is led by young diverse Black women and men (even if also white individuals or people from other ethnic backgrounds participated) that use digital space (such as social media) to create spaces of appearance. What Mirzeoff means with the term “spaces of appearance" are cracks in the society of control. We live in a highly supervised and controlled society, rendered by numbers such as academic results, medical parameters, or salaries. We live a standardized life controlled by the capitalistic state. To further explore the concept, Mirzoeff brings in the dangerous method of control perpetuated by debt. Debt creates control in the long-term: it is a future condition decided now. In America, debt if not paid immediately can become harder versions of punishment such as prison or warrants. According to Mirzoeff therefore, space of appearance is gained with the opposite of debt, with moments of rapture where control fails. To employ rupture your body has to be where it is not supposed to be, defiantly displacing the ordered control and its surveillance machine.

The space of appearance is the method through which we manage to look at a future society that has the potential to realize. It is a dialectical exchange, that takes into account the past, the present, and looks to a potential future. It is a way of looking, visualizing, and imagining. It is a dialogue where I see you and you see me, and we acknowledge our right to see and to hope for a life out of the control. It is not only a matter of representation. Spaces of appearance are alive, they perform and cause protesters to act as if freedom was already in their hands.

The space has therefore two forms: a kinetic, where the physical phenomenon is happening and its potential, projected into the future, which lays into the power of its visual documentation in the media, which also constitutes memory.

Digital art by the artist Shubham Kumar inspired by the Black Lives Matter movement

What constitutes the power of the Black Lives Matter movement is the refusal to look where the gaze is being oriented by the police. It is the persistent and continuous looking at what it is prohibited to look (not in the sense of censorship but of visuality). Moreover, in this digital era, the spaces of appearance are further enhanced by digital spaces, which complement the physical ones. For example, when the protests started in Ferguson, digital spaces made it possible for the news, videos, and images to reach Palestine. Palestinians, which faced similar mechanism of repression during protests, sent their advice and support from abroad, enchanting the scope of the movement.

Throughout Black history the act of "daring to look" always had powerful connotations. Mirzoeff starts to analyze it from slavery, when daring to look in the eyes of your master meant punishment or even death. Later, into the Jim Crow period, Black males were lynched and killed for "daring" to look at white women with allegedly "lustful eyes", in what is called "reckless eyeballing". Mirzoeff makes an interesting parallel to our times where the concept of "reckless eyeballing" is still alive inside prisons. To meet the police eyes, to dare to look at the authority from an equal standpoint is referred to as "uppity" in racialized contexts. It is always a matter of defiance and right to look into a context of white supremacy and over-surveillance spaces of non-appearance.

It does not matter the racial background or the gender of the police officer. When you are part of that elite that was structured on white supremacy, your vision is blurred by their visuality, even if you are by skin or birth born into an oppressed minority.

An example of white supremacy in the media is the blackface and the whitewashing of Black characters, in this frame from the 1965 film rendition of Shakespeare's Othello, where Laurence Oliver acts as a black character

One thing that it's particularly important in finding these spaces of appearance it's the relation between the body and the space. The Black bodies, redeem a space that is "inherently" white by defiantly interrupting daily life to create moments of counter-visuality, forcing the bystanders to watch. When in 2016 protesters blocked a bridge in San Francisco a very powerful image was created: the police had to cut the chains of protesters (which recall those of slavery) to remove them from the site and keep the traffic moving.

Mirzoeff analyzes two of the most significant gestures of the movement: "Hands up don't shoot" and the appropriation of the older tactic of the mass die-in.

The “Hands up don’t shoot” phenomenon was inspired by the Brown murder. Witnesses clearly stated Brown was shot while holding his hands up. As Butler analyzed Fanon's work over the male body, Brown was seen as potentially threatful just because of his blackness, prior to any action. The threat was not in his presumptive immediate actions, but in his inherent nature as a Black man. The "Hands up don't shoot" chant and gesture (to raise arms and hands up in the air) became so powerful because it invited people to join. It allowed protesters to show vulnerability while manifesting power, paradoxically. In doing so the action defiantly reclaim a space of appearance. Similarly, the die-in achieves the same objective. In 2014 protests featuring die-ins took place every week in Grand Central Station, New York. The die-ins reclaim spaces of appearance by a very powerful vulnerable pose into a non political , but functional place of society.

Even if what followed was a white supremacist backlash that eventually led to Trump's presidency, these movements were defiantly appropriating of spaces of appearance, with powerful gestures that peacefully shoved into the face of the police their brutality, in places that were of other use.

youtube

Clip from the movie The Hate U Give, where a kid is holding out a gun to the police, trying to protect his dad. His big sister steps in front of him with her hands raised as their mother shouts "Don't Shoot".

Mirzeoff also talked about the euphemism "broken windows" which refers to the police practice of actively controlling the marginalized. It was justified under psychology research that claimed that investing attention into small fractions of the law will prevent bigger ones. However, according to Bratton and Kelling, a third of the arrests have nothing to do with the locality and instead worrying statistics show that there is a big ethnic component.

This is a photo I coincidentally took a couple of days ago. I was taking a picture of the glass wall for the aesthetic and I thought it was interesting that the first thing my friend from the other side of the glass thought to do was to pose with a finger gun.

In the next section, Mirzoeff powerfully experiments with visual documents of police brutality, countering the action of the police to manipulate them or to take frames out of context. In doing so Mirzeoff makes a zone of non-appearance visible, taking out the victim for the footage, leaving only the space that surrounded them. The results were deserted bus stops, shallow country roads, and isolated billboards, featureless sad spaces.

A screenshot I took from the youtube video of Tyre Nichols' killing

When Philando Castile was killed, his girlfriend Diamond Raynold was on Facebook live. Mirzoeff looks back at the defiant character of Antigone, who died because she wanted to go against the rules and give her dead rebellious brother a rightful burial. Unfortunately like Antigone’s, Raynold denouncement did not change the very rotten nature of the system.

No visual evidence is enough to counter the police's expression of fear. For Black lives to matter, white supremacy has to be fought in its very foundation by reclaiming collective spaces of appearance in the world.

youtube

Another significant scene from the movie The Hate U Give, where the main character and his friends get pulled over by the police and her friend eventually gets shot for holding a hairbrush.

#Youtube

0 notes

nightswithkookmin · 3 years ago

Note

chile i'm so glad i came across your blog, the amount of "i'm not going to assume they're dating" or "we can only draw certain conclusions but i can't say for sure" "we don't know their sexuality, BUT" type blogs i follow is getting kinda wack lmao. while i appreciate their perspective and nuanced takes i need to strike a balance. like let's get a lil delulu every once in a while. 💀

lol the im-not-a-shipper-but-call-jikook-boyfriends-every-other-post blogs are the funniest to me. the shipping hierarchy, so to speak is so weird. maybe just because im not a "shipping real people is bad" person i don't see the big deal. gonna get called delulu anyway, might as well go full out. they is gay/queer and they're fucking. i'm so sorry.

*also can we touch on the fact that shipping in this type of fandom (kpop) is kind of inevitable and unavoidable??! these boys are the other people we see them with day in and day out, interacting with each other and no one else. i feel like it's natural to ship when there's no other people around to break up everything, idk maybe someone can articulate this better than me. and people who are made to feel stupid for thinking that 2 members could actually be dating is so dumb. like is it really out of the realm of possibility that two people (jikook, cause all them other ships are....😬) who spent almost every waking minute together for like 8 years could fall in love. really?

/rant

It's the delulu hat for me

Lmho.

I guess for me being queer, I feel it's gaslighting for these people to be saying things like that. As silly as it is, it inadvertently deny and invalidate the existence and queerness of gay individuals and so I struggle with it.

This is the consequences of straight people in gay people business. They like defining gay parameters for us and it's like who asked you?? I feel people who say things like that are just plain ignorant or tone deaf or willfully homophobic.

I don't think everyone in BTS is gay but it makes me feel safe to see half the community assume them to be and celebrate them in that way. They are not cussing at them and threatening to leave the fandom or cancel them for this assumption and that is huge inspiration to me.

Those parts of the fandom are a safe space to be in as a queer army.

When people assume a person's queer sexuality they are simply admitting to themselves at the very least that LGBTQ EXISTS. This is important to me because I grew up in a community where LGBTQ didn't even exist in the collective consciousness of the people and EVERYONE IS AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMED TO BE STRAIGHT AND EXPECTED TO BE.

People read people's sexuality all the time and have done so since time immemorial and a lot of the time when they have had a sexuality read it's in the lines of straight, cis, rich, poor, superior or inferior. And that is a problem for some of us too because that discrepancy in the assumptions is as a result of homophobia and heteronormativity.

That whole don't assume a person's queer sexuality debacle sounds to me like a boujee way of denormalizing and preventing the normalization of queerness disguised under care, disguised under intelligence and disguised under wokeness. Especially when straightness is the default setting in this giant blue bulb.

We need to radicalize that. We need to change the cis straight default setting and if you are perpetuating this narrative you really aren't helping the situation. SIT DOWN.

I'm rarely assumed to be queer in certain circles and while that makes me feel comfortable within those circles it often times make it hard for me to admit my queerness openly in those circles too because I fear I will lose that comfort and respect and love and privileges that comes with being percieved straight in those spaces.

When I started my blog, I noticed some people assumed I was white and would use certain black descriptors as slurs when describing other people to me. I quickly had to switch the formal way in which I wrote to a much casual tone so my blackness would show through. Don't get it twisted. She black. She blackidy black black.

Then on the other hand, I was hesitant to let my queerness be known too because being black, I was marginalized as it is- you is black, or sound black💀 you know how it is- it's that intersectionality of oppression at play. Double double homicide.

When certain people realized I was black POC minority, their attitude towards me changed. I had those who didn't so much understand what black language is or perhaps wasn't used to being in black spaces and were uncomfortable with my blackness- these would take offense at me saying certain things in certain ways. Like chilee relax Karen, all I said was these motherfukkers gay as shit and they gay. Why you acting like I called them twinks or sommin. Right there, I'm cancelled for calling Jikook motherfuckers. They get sirens and everything😭😭😭😭😭😭

Same vein, I struggle destraightening myself or correcting people who assume I'm straight because I fear they will treat me differently if they knew I wasn't.

Straight privilege exists in the same way as white or even pretty privilege may exist and because these exist there's that automatic conception of queer, poc, ugly, fat disemfranschismet to run along side it.

People treat you differently based on how they perceive you. That's a fact. And for queer people, perceiving us as straight is the only way we get to be treated as human by the masses. And a lot of us embrace that- straight until proven gay am I right 🤣🤣🤣🤣

It's the duper's delight for me. Untill you catch me with a 5'8 melanin skinned silk pressed auntie on my left nipple good luck proving I'm gay.

It can be fun, I akekeke when some people around me are totally oblivious to the fact and even sometimes defend my straightness with their dying breath when nasty friends throw them shades or try to out me unprovoked.

A lot of us don't want to admit we are gay because we don't want to be disenfranchised.

I speak for myself when I say this.

But 'Don't assume someone's sexuality' is a double edged censorship used for and against queer people. It seemly offers protection on the surface of it for queer people but underneath it promotes heteronormativity and standardizes straightness and it is also used to promote closet culture, under the disguise of care and concern for the autonomy of queer people but that is a fallacy because our autonomy has never mattered to anyone since the dawn of homophobia.

And I don't know where this interpretation comes from. Why do people not want to assume queer people's sexuality but it's ok to assume straight people's???

It feels like a hijacked movement to me.

THIS IS THE ACCURATE MOVEMENT AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

Don't assume all people are straight. It's ok to assume some people are queer because queer people exists too.

It is wrong however to assume queerness based on how a person talks, walks, dresses or even on their body type. That is stereotyping. And stereotyping is wrong.

When it comes to Jikook, Jimin is often stereotyped as gay more so than Jungkook because they have different body structures. Jungkook is stereotyped too solely because of the way his wrists hang, or based on moments he's femininity shines through.

But I don't think shippers stereotype Jikook in that way at all. I dont think shippers believe Jikook are dating eachother simply because Jungkook applied setting powder to his face that one time. They assume they are gay only because they believe those two to be dating eachother. That is not stereotyping. If those two were heterosexuals I don't think people will accuse their shippers of stereotyping.

It's one thing to assume Kai is gay because he looks skinny and dances well. It's another to assume he is gay because in a relationship with Gdragon. And if people can't tell the difference between the two, they should get some education and stop talking about things they know nothing about or only know because they stumbled across user69 on Twitter. They are not helping.

Untill people get offended when people assume others are straight, that rhetoric doesn't matter in its inequality. If you ask me, everyone is gay until proven straight.

Yet how many people will take offense at that?

Assuming people can be gay is not delulu.

It's ok to assume people can be gay. It's wrong to stereotype them as gay. If you can't assume they are gay, don't assume they are straight and don't assume at all. Run with this sis.

Wait, they don't ship Jikook but they call Jikook boyfriends???????👀👀👀👀👀

The fake woke syndrome will kill people in this fandom with these mentally confused thought crisis bunch💀💀💀💀

Jikook themselves are shippers💀

Smh

GOLDY

58 notes · View notes

all-things-are-nothing-to-me · 4 years ago

Text

Chaos

Chaos never died. Primordial uncarved block, sole worshipful monster, inert & spontaneous, more ultraviolet than any mythology (like the shadows before Babylon), the original undifferentiated oneness-of-being still radiates serene as the black pennants of Assassins, random & perpetually intoxicated.

Chaos comes before all principles of order & entropy, it’s neither a god nor a maggot, its idiotic desires encompass & define every possible choreography, all meaningless aethers & phlogistons: its masks are crystallizations of its own facelessness, like clouds.

Everything in nature is perfectly real including consciousness, there’s absolutely nothing to worry about. Not only have the chains of the Law been broken, they never existed; demons never guarded the stars, the Empire never got started, Eros never grew a beard.

No, listen, what happened was this: they lied to you, sold you ideas of good & evil, gave you distrust of your body & shame for your prophethood of chaos, invented words of disgust for your molecular love, mesmerized you with inattention, bored you with civilization & all its usurious emotions.

There is no becoming, no revolution, no struggle, no path; already you’re the monarch of your own skin — your inviolable freedom waits to be completed only by the love of other monarchs: a politics of dream, urgent as the blueness of sky.

To shed all the illusory rights & hesitations of history demands the economy of some legendary Stone Age — shamans not priests, bards not lords, hunters not police, gatherers of paleolithic laziness, gentle as blood, going naked for a sign or painted as birds, poised on the wave of explicit presence, the clockless nowever.

Agents of chaos cast burning glances at anything or anyone capable of bearing witness to their condition, their fever of lux et voluptas. I am awake only in what I love & desire to the point of terror — everything else is just shrouded furniture, quotidian anaesthesia, shit-for-brains, sub-reptilian ennui of totalitarian regimes, banal censorship & useless pain.

Avatars of chaos act as spies, saboteurs, criminals of amour fou, neither selfless nor selfish, accessible as children, mannered as barbarians, chafed with obsessions, unemployed, sensually deranged, wolfangels, mirrors for contemplation, eyes like flowers, pirates of all signs & meanings.

Here we are crawling the cracks between walls of church state school & factory, all the paranoid monoliths. Cut off from the tribe by feral nostalgia we tunnel after lost words, imaginary bombs.

The last possible deed is that which defines perception itself, an invisible golden cord that connects us: illegal dancing in the courthouse corridors. If I were to kiss you here they’d call it an act of terrorism — so let’s take our pistols to bed & wake up the city at midnight like drunken bandits celebrating with a fusillade, the message of the taste of chaos.

#chaos theory #anarchism #ontology #Peter Lamborn Wilson #poetic terrorism #TAZ #hakim bey

64 notes · View notes

skyguyed · 5 years ago

Text

the normalization of abusive behavior in reylo

for those wondering why some people are calling reylo an abusive ship, below the divide are examples and explanations from The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi where Kylo Ren displays abusive behavior towards Rey.

This is important because abusive/toxic actions in fiction are often normalized to the point where viewers may not notice abusive behaviors as red flags, or may grow to see abusive behavior as normal, even romantic (or valid precursors to romance).

This post will also discuss the role of fictional portrayals in shaping reality, and why I believe supporting reylo means normalizing abuse.

Thank you in advance for your time and energy to read this.

The purpose of this post

This post (essay, really, it’s gotten pretty long) will examine every interaction between Rey and Kylo Ren, and will point out where and how abuse occurs in this relationship. I will also discuss why this matters.

This post is not meant to police anyone or insult, nor is it meant to incite disrespectful arguments. It is not a call for censorship. The purpose of this post is to help unaware reylo shippers understand where and why reylo is abusive, to help fans recognize abusive behavior, to assess the relationship between fiction and reality, and to discuss why I believe supporting reylo means normalizing abuse.

Trigger warnings for mentions, descriptions, and discussions of violence, domestic violence, abuse, and rape.

Legal definition of abuse:

According to the judicial branch of California,

The domestic violence laws say “abuse” is:

Physically hurting or trying to hurt someone intentionally or recklessly;

Sexual assault;

Making someone reasonably afraid that he or she or someone else is about to be seriously hurt (like threats or promises to harm someone); OR

Behavior like harassing, stalking, threatening, or hitting someone, disturbing someone’s peace, or destroying someone’s personal property).

Read more about Domestic Violence.

What abusive behavior does reylo display?

Kylo Ren exhibits these types of abusive behaviors towards Rey (timestamps indicated when appropriate):

Immobilizing her

Using the Force in the forest on Takodana (TFA, 1:17:32)

With physical restraints in First Order custody (TFA, 1:25:40)

Threatening her with a weapon

With light saber, while she’s immobilized by him (TFA, 1:18:00)

Stalking her

“You still want to kill me.” “That happens why you’re being hunted by a creature in a mask.” (TFA, 1:26:08)

Putting down her friends

“Where are the others?” “You mean the murderers, traitors, and thieves you call friends?” (TFA, 1:25:57)

Kylo Ren called Rey’s parents “filthy junk traders” (TLJ 1:48)

Hurting her friends: Finn, mortally (TFA, 1:54:42)

Not to mention killing his father Han in front of her, who had become someone she trusted.

Entering her (mind) without permission (confirmed by JJ Abrams as an intentional rape parallel in a Facebook post to Daniel Fleetwood, since deleted/made private - see summary here)

This happened twice- once on Takodana when he had her immobilized (TFA, 1:18:12), and then again in First Order custody: “You know I can take whatever I want.” (TFA, 1:27:00) despite her tears, fear, and obvious discomfort and protests

Threatening to expose her secrets (where is BB-8 and the map to Luke Skywalker)

Attacking her with a weapon

Also using the force to attack her (multiple times)

Rendering her unconscious (real world equivalent: drugging or physical violence)

First on Takodana with the Force, (TFA 1:13:32), then on Starkiller Base, by launching her into a tree (TFA 1:51:24)

Trying to manipulate her (into joining the Dark Side)

Snoke may have initiated their force bond, but as soon as Kylo realized what it was, he started using it to make Rey sympathize with him

Kylo Ren feeds Rey only part of his side of the story, painting himself as a victim (leaving out how he slaughtered/turned the other students, and what he did to concern Luke in the first place [re: the “darkness rising in him,” TLJ 1:00:33])

Gaslighting and verbal abuse: “You have no place in this story. You come from nothing. You’re nothing... but not to me.”

“Your parents threw you away like garbage. You can’t stop needing them.” (TLJ 1:12:02) He hangs this over her head, again at TLJ 1:31. And “the truth” at 1:48.

Kylo also literally abducts Rey after knocking her out, although that isn’t on the cited list. And he frames her for murdering Snoke after she wouldn’t join him, which puts a huge target on her back. And um, tries to actually kill her (“BLOW THE PIECE OF JUNK -- OUT OF THE SKY!”)

Kylo’s own manipulation, abuse, and gaslighting by Snoke do not excuse his treatment of Rey. (Finn was abused and brainwashed, too. And he chose to turn better.)

Here are resources for abuse victims.

Why the interrogation scene has clear rape parallels

This is not meant to cheapen or lessen the trauma faced by physical rape/assault victims. I understand that this comparison is upsetting to some people because, since it is presented on-screen as a parallel, it could be argued as much less severe or even be seen as trivializing the plight of real-life victims. I’m not trying to speak for all abuse victims when I say this, but as a person who has experienced sexual violation, I can’t help but see a clear parallel here.

The interaction is highly invasive. Rey is terrified and protests when she is able to. Kylo Ren tells her shit like not to be afraid, etc. (which sounds like stuff abusers say). She tells him to stop (1:27:39) “Get out of my head” and still he proceeds, ignoring verbal and physical protests. This is not a healthy dynamic, and shouldn’t be portrayed as romantic, or as a prucursor to romance. It’s clearly violating, and it’s triggering to a lot of fans.

When we do not acknowledge this scene as a nonconsensual psychological invasion of a person, I believe we are glossing over an extremely vital dynamic in this relationship. The fact that Kylo says to Rey, “I can take whatever I want,” shows an entitlement to her mind and body that he doesn’t deserve, an attitude shared by many abusers. It creates a power difference that forces Rey to fight back to regain control from him. I’ve seen people argue that he was “gentle” but gentle violation is still violation.

But they’re at war.

This really doesn’t excuse Kylo’s actions towards Rey, sorry. And even if they are at war, this kind of behavior he’s exibited towards her thus far does not make a good foundation for a healthy relationship. That trauma, those offenses will still be there.

Also, if they’re at war, Rey has every reason to fight back, so saying that “Rey abused Kylo Ren back” when he’s the perpetrator is a flimsy argument. Her ability to “kick his ass” does not make her immune to abuse. It also shifts the blame for Kylo’s mistreatment from him, to her, which is vastly unfair, echoing the victim-blaming sentiment that’s pervasive in our own reality, that real victims face.

Why do we care if Reylo is abusive? It’s just fiction.

We should care that Reylo is abusive because fiction reflects and influences reality. This TED Talk discusses how fiction changes people by increasing empathy, and changes a person’s point of view. Fiction is powerful in shaping a person’s actions. Reading fiction helps readers navigate a real social world. Additionally, fiction can spark public dialogue and raise attention to real-world issues. Reading fiction has been associated with an increase in charitable giving and voting (x).

Here are some examples of fiction influencing reality:

Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852) was the first major US novel with a Black main character, and it “ opened reader’s eyes to the realities of slavery and the humanity of enslaved people.” “Stowe’s candor on the controversial subject of slavery encouraged others to speak out, further eroding the already precarious relations between northern and southern states and advancing the nation’s march toward Civil War.” (x) Conversely, in modern times, it has helped popularize harmful antiquated stereotypes of Black people (x).

Joe Biden attributed historic changes in American views of homosexuality to Will and Grace (1998), which influenced American views on LGBT rights and helped open the door to more programs with LGBT leads.

Fifty Shades of Grey (2011) popularized BDSM and caused a spike in reported sex-related injuries, and has been accused of perpetuating dangerous abuse standards. A 2014 study showed correlation between the novel’s readers and eating disorders, abusive relationships, and binge drinking.

Star Trek has been vastly influential. Astronaut Mae Jemison (the first Black woman in space) was inspired by Lt. Uhura. The show featured American TV’s first interracial on-screen kiss. Steve Wozniak cited Star Trek as an influence for co-founding Apple (x). Star Trek has encouraged many people to pursue a career in science (x).

Jaws (1974) caused beach attendance to fall the following summer, sparked an increase in shark trophy hunting, and demonized sharks in the public eye. (However, shark research received more funding.)

Six in ten Americans get their HIV/AIDS information from the media (x). Musicals like Rent (1993) helped humanize people living with HIV/AIDS, as well as LGBT people. Rent has also been cited as helping encourage LGBT people to come out.

The Turner Diaries (1978) is a novel cited by white supremacists.

Lolita’s (1955) sexualization of a 12-year-old girl has impact on modern celebrities wardrobe choices and image.

Black Beauty (1877) caused the bearing rein to be banned in Victorian England and inspired animal welfare activists.

Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle (1906) portrayed harsh working conditions for immigrants in industrial areas, and raised awareness and produced public outcry which directly led to the passing of the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act, both in 1906.

After the release of 13 Reasons Why (2017), schools saw an increase in student self harm and suicides, and related internet searches.

Psychologist Raymond Mar writes, “Researchers have repeatedly found that reader attitudes shift to become more congruent with the ideas expressed in a [fiction] narrative.” “For example,if we watch a TV program showing a sexual encounter gone wrong, our own sexual ethics will change... If, however, the show displays a positive sexual encounter, our own sexual attitudes will move towards the permissive end of the spectrum.” (x pg 150)

In one study, 19% of respondents said that after finishing a work, a character’s voice stayed with them, influencing the tone of their thoughts (x).

More resources:

100 stories that changed the world

The power of fake gay (and black) friends: We form judgements about characters the same way we form judgements about people.

Readers may change their beliefs and thoughts to match a fictional character’s

The importance of framing in relationship portrayal, an essay by an abuse victim. This essay is very long but it is a must-read. It also touches on the fact that the power of fiction is more than just having fun and our experiences shape how we interpret media.

Abduction as Romance - a harmful trope where the abductor is framed as “a decent guy” at the end. (20-min video, well worth the watch.) Danger is portrayed as a sexy trait, while the disempowerment of women is fetishized. The video also comments on how often white guys get away with it, while men of color don’t. Also, see commentary at the end of the video about what real redemption means.

Yeah, but how does supporting reylo influence reality?

Supporting Reylo means that we’re giving credibility and validity to violence at the beginning of a romance. It’s like saying to a child who got pushed by another on the playground, “oh, they’re bullying you because they have a crush on you.” It’s promoting a fundamental entitlement and disrespect.

Impressionable young people seeing this abuse treated as a desirable dynamic, as conditions that could lead to romance, are being primed to accept this or even emulate this in their own relationships. When we see this treated as acceptable in fiction, we are primed to see this as acceptable in reality.

Why not promote healthier dynamics? Why not rehearse the rejection of abusive behavior?

A look at canon

So, let’s not forget, that in canon, Rey and Kylo Ren are not in a relationship. So, some say, that means it’s impossible for this to be abuse. However, by suggesting that these characters should be in a relationship is harmful because it romanticizes rocky starts to relationships, and physically violent starts to relationships.

More reasons why Kylo Ren is dangerous

While Kylo Ren has been shown in canon to be able to freeze or immobilize people, instead he mortally wounds Finn, who is clearly Rey’s friend and defender, in order to intimidate her and overpower her.

Not to mention that throughout the film, he displays characteristics of an abuser, such as violence towards others, (uh, murder), destruction of property, and other characteristics. It may be argued that these outbursts are symptoms of mental illness. It may also be argued that Kylo Ren is a victim of abuse himself, by Snoke. However, none of this excuses his shitty behavior. Being mentally ill or also an abuse victim does not grant one a free pass to act abusive towards others.

Kylo Ren also tortures and invades and abuses Poe Dameron. Thank god I haven’t seen anyone shipping them. Kylo Ren is an abuser, y’all.

Oh and one more thing? Kylo Ren never uses Rey’s name in the TFA; he doesn’t see her as a person, just an object to overpower, an obstacle to beat down. He doesn’t use her name until The Last Jedi, when he begins to try to manipulate her, rather than indimidate her with force alone. Then she becomes a tool to him. Clearly he still doesn’t value her as a whole person. Again, not romantic. Dangerous and toxic.

Why I’m still against Reylo even if Kylo is redeemed

It’s not a woman’s responsibility to “fix a damaged man.” (It’s not anyone’s responsibility to use romance to “fix” anyone, actually. Romance is not a cure for abuse.) The burden of redemption should be on the villain alone. Kylo had plenty of opportunities to accept help. Additionally, we shouldn’t support abusive behavior as a start or precursor to romance, because that’s a really harmful message to send. And, previous acts of violence are the biggest predictors of future violence, so I’m wary of them entering a relationship without significant amounts of therapy and reform on Kylo’s part.

What do we do from here?

Don’t support Reylo. That’s it. No conditionals. No “well if they change” no “well they’re fictional so they can be written differently” no AUs, no. Please don’t promote a relationship that is based in abuse.

I’m not saying we need to sanitize our fiction of abuse or of abusive relationships. That’s not going to make them go away in real life. I’m not trying to censor or silence anything. I’m trying to make sure that abusive relationships are CLEARLY FRAMED as abusive, and not promoted, normalized, or glorified in any way. (See my previous post discussing this.)

Have fun, but understand that fiction is powerful and influential, and it’s our responsibility to engage with it in a way that supports healthy relationships.

#anti reylo #star wars #anti kylo ren #arop #ok to reblog

150 notes · View notes

realtalk-princeton · 5 years ago

Note

why are people in our generation so sensitive

Response from Opal:

I am not 100% sure as to what you mean by “sensitive,” but generally, when people ascribe that word to a demographic as sweeping as “our generation,” they are alluding to a perceived trend of overzealous “political correctness” or something adjacent to that. Therefore, I will assume that you are doing the same. Why is our generation so sensitive? I will be upfront with you and say that I have personally had my fill of people telling me, on the Internet or at lecture events or across the dinner table, that something is wrong with the youth of America today who are so keen to fuss, agitate, and voice their discontent about the state of the world. “Sensitive” is actually a pretty spot-on descriptor for us, but it does not mean, as those same people often imply, that we get upset all the time over nothing of actual import and cannot tolerate being exposed to different ideas. Rather, it means that we are more attuned to what is unjust and what helps perpetuate that injustice, and that we are actually in a position to speak up and do something about it sometimes. We have always lived in a society bounded by structural oppression, and we have always had people who recognized this, fighting to liberate their minds and their bodies from the systems that give certain individuals indisputable and unethical power over others. There is nothing unique about the malcontent of our generation in that sense; we are simply able to build upon the work done in the past to expand our current understandings of what is wrong and what we must change. Just because some of those things are personally not relatable to people from older generations or in power does not mean that they are not real, creating real repercussions on the real lives of real human beings. Those who get the short end of the stick in an unjust society are the ones who are most knowledgeable about the various ways in which it manifests injustice in the first place, and we are doing nothing more than continuing to unlearn harmful internalizations and protect each other by listening to what those important, historically marginalized voices have to say. I am afraid that this whole spiel may be getting a little convoluted, so I apologize and will just leave you with this: Systemic oppression is powerful and pervasive enough to permeate all aspects of our lives, our social institutions, and our interactions with each other, and it is so multitudinous that we are a long ways away from knowing all there is to know about identifying, resisting, and undoing it. Progress, by definition, is made whenever we take another step away from a status quo that does not allow all of us to live freely, but these acts of disobedience will always appear obnoxious, irritating, and uncalled-for, because society as a whole is so conditioned to buy into the narratives of power, and because wherever there is inequality, those who benefit from it will feel threatened by calls for change. I hope our generation stays sensitive. I hope we keep getting better at uplifting each other by refusing to accept subjugation and all its tools - large and small, institutional and interpersonal, conscious and unconscious, obvious and subtle.

Response by Alito:

re: Opal. 71% of Americans believe “political correctness is a problem in America today.” Things have definitely gone overboard from the eyes of an average American (maybe not a Princeton student considering demographics).

Americans ideals have drastically shifted as a result of generational change. In my theory, Millennials and subsequently our generation wants to “minimize hurt feelings.” While Gen X prides itself in resilience and grit, Millennials and proceeding generations took “tolerance and inclusiveness” and ran w/ it (cough participation trophies cough), making it a “centerpiece” of their “progressive” ideology. Whether that’s now too extreme or not is for you do decide.

This from my viewpoint has led to extremely “progressive” views being pushed while other narratives that don’t conform 100% to the PC progressive narrative be demonized and deemed “hateful,” when they could potentially be valid. It’s led to a closed-minded/“you versus me” mentality where when one’s view is challenged, he or she personally takes offense (and assumes the incorrectness of the opposing party) rather than trying to debate why one believes his or her view is valid. It’s led to the rise of dangerous authoritarian ideals, like censoring speech. To be specific, censoring any speech not conforming to the “progressive” political viewpoint. It has led to the loss of respect for the rule of law in the name of “feelings” and “progressivism.” Personally, the avoidance (voluntary or forced) of challenging ideas for the sake of “feelings” is indefensible. The Vatican has the Devil’s Advocate for a reason.

When I first arrived at Princeton, I was quite shocked to see Princeton students call for the death of free speech and anything that is mildly against the Progressive narrative. I have heard students advocating for the hijacking/weaponization an entire academic department for pushing their own political views. This is horrific considering the purpose of academia is original research to discover new things, not confirm preexisting biases. The disinvitation of Amy Wax from a Whig-Clio event on the freedom of speech, followed by the hosting of comedian Chelsea Handler to discuss “wokeness and white privilege” (along with a slew of other spotlighted events covering everything from Marxism to reparations for the black community), is just one of the examples I’ve encountered regarding this phenomenon here.

Sorry, I’m v tired rn and my words might not make much sense. I’ll follow up later and maybe extend this response, but this is what I have for now.

Response from Opal:

re: Alito. There is a lot going on here! I will not respond to all of it, because I have no desire to turn this particular post into a massive debate, but I do think it is important to note that criticizing, protesting, and reacting negatively to certain individuals or viewpoints, both on this campus and anywhere else, does not constitute censorship. We are all entitled to say what we want, but we are not entitled to other people accepting, engaging with, or even listening to us, and that is not to be confused with “the death of free speech.” The disinvitation of a speaker for a campus event, while perhaps a breach of decorum, does not inhibit that speaker’s actual ability to maintain and express their beliefs - especially not Amy Wax, who has multiple publications and a professorship to her name. The Constitutional right to freedom of speech is not a right to an audience, and it is therefore a non sequitur to label all ideological backlash and avoidance as morally wrong because they are violations of free speech.

It is more pertinent to examine the kinds of ideas that you observe to be either drawing fire or largely ignored. To this, I will say that the sensitivity of our generation is much less about “minimizing hurt feelings” than it is about resisting ideas, narratives, and beliefs that threaten the humanity or existence of entire demographics of people. As a queer woman of color, I believe that my right to move freely through the world, fully as myself, supersedes the rights of others to tell me that my identities make me inferior, subordinate, undeserving, or wrong WHILE expecting that I will not raise a stink about it. Such words are inextricably linked to literal violence and oppression, and listening to them creates pain and fear that go far beyond “hurt feelings.” Say that my poetry is bad, my nose is too wide, or my love for ABBA is embarrassing if you want to hurt my feelings. Say that I am less of a human being than you are, and the Vatican will not even need to supply an advocate for the devil because he just spoke to me directly. Screw “tolerance and inclusivity” - I demand respect and reciprocity. We all do. And I am tired of rhetoric that delegitimizes my demands.

Response from Alito:

re: Opal.

“I have no desire to turn this particular post into a massive debate”

Likewise

“criticizing, protesting, and reacting negatively to certain individuals or viewpoints, both on this campus and anywhere else, does not constitute censorship.”

Of course! However, I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the issue at hand. The problem with the Whig-Clio incident is that individuals with a degree of authority disinviting speakers cannot be simply accepted as a “protest or criticism,” it’s the literal depravation of a forum for public debate and criticism. We never knew what Amy Wax would have said about free speech. Whig-Clio’s actions were even denounced by Eisgruber I believe. We are depriving her of her voice and her ability to express her opinions as a result of her previous statements. This has nothing to do with audiences, and that is a grave misrepresentation/straw man.

Also, for speech to be speech, wouldn’t we need an audience? If we don’t have one, it would literally be talking to ourselves… I think that’s what the Founding Fathers meant as speech.

Let me just say I find students here particularly hypocritical how and to the extent they decide free speech is applied depending on political ideology and opinions taken (the specific issue I would mention is like a nuclear bomb rn, so I won’t). Let me just say a lot of conservative/libertarian ideals and censored and shunned when they could merit DEBATE and value

I won’t respond to your proceeding argument because I don’t wish to start a flamewar, but we shouldn’t ignore 71% of Americans and how they think.

2 notes · View notes

potteresque-ire · 4 years ago

Photo

I was In Hong Kong when Tiananamen Square Massacre happened. Hong Kong was still a British colony then and had full freedom of press, and its reporters were there recording live footage while trying to stay as long as possible when tanks rolled in and shots were fired, when students lay in blood and their fellow students piled the injured bodies on those wooden plank carts to get them to the hospitals, while asking the Hong Kongers who were there to support the movement to please remember that night and spread the story of the massacre far and wide, because they already knew they would be silenced, if not imprisoned or murdered.

That night, and in the upcoming months, Hong Kong was in perpetual tears, and in literal shock.

Hong Kongers were mostly Chinese, just south of the border with people traveling back and forth. It also shared a language, and so HKers could follow the whole movement and hear news that western media had little access to without the distorting effect of translations. And they followed very closely, because by then, Hong Kong was already scheduled to be returned to China in 8 years time. How the Chinese government dealt with the movement would be a sign of how it’d treat dissent, how it’d treat people who’re used to the idea and practice of freedom.

What they saw was deadly. Ugly. It broke the hearts of millions of Hong Kongers who trusted that The Chinese Government had left its Great Leap Forward, its Cultural Revolution days behind. Those who could leave, left. Everyday the airport was filled with families about to be torn apart, who decided to trade the life they had in one of the richest, most vibrant and freest city at the time with the unknown, just so their own children would have the freedom to speak their minds, to have a higher education and not to be seen as the enemy of the state because higher education always led to independent thinking, to questioning, to asking for a better government as those university students in Beijing in the spring and summer of 1989 did.

The heartbreak and fear was almost palpable in its intensity. Most HKers were refugees from China or 1st generation of them. Unlike the HK youths now protesting who are more generations removed, they felt much more connected to the people in China. They still saw themselves as Chinese, like those students in Beijing. They mourned. They cried and cried and cried. They wore black or white everyday like it was the death of their closest relatives. TV stations played these Tiananmen Square clips all day. I can still play many of them out of my memory, can still recite what the students and government officials said (for example, they didn’t use tear gas because they only had three), the songs played — I know every word of China’s national anthem for that reason; the students were singing it. They were patriotic. They demanded reforms because they wanted their country to do better. 8964 was and still is, etched in my psyche. It is just one of the long list of atrocities this government has done against its people, but this one, I was close enough to feel it.

China censored the June 4th Massacre quickly and thoroughly — if you believe China has censored queer material, for example, I’d say this — the extent of that censorship is not even close to what a true China censorship does. A true Chinese censorship is you can’t find the info, or a hint of that info anywhere. You can’t talk about it in a roundabout away. You can’t change some elements of time/place/person and pretend it’s fictional. It would literally ban the numbers 8,9,6,4 from search results, even though the searcher may really be just be interested in the numbers themselves. Whoever speaks of it may be sent to the police station for a “discussion”; their family would be sent, if the speaker is outside China; the speaker may be arrested, and may never be seen again.

The western worlds pretended to be enraged about the massacre for a while and soon forgot about it, kept its diplomatic relations with China and did business with its government as usual. UK returned Hong Kong to China as scheduled, on July 1st, 1997. The city has been the only place that insisted on the mourning the victims and had done so insistently, consistently for 30 years, holding a yearly candlelight vigil in Victoria Park until this year, when because of the protests, the Chinese government decided to not even pretend to honour the international treaty they signed that promised HK its freedom until 2047 anymore. They shut the vigil down in the name of the pandemic (there were <10 cases/day then). Still, some people risked being arrested to go to Victoria park and lit their candles.

The Chinese government fears HKers for this reason. They are outside their iron curtain / firewall but have always been close enough geographically, culturally and ethnically to know and more so, to care. And there’s nothing more a government like China’s fear than people who insist on remembering the truth. With the National Security Law in place in Hong Kong now, probably the yearly vigils can’t continue. To understand how insane that law is, by writing this reblog, by saying things that make you dislike the Chinese government, I’m already in violation of its Article 38. It doesn’t matter I’m writing it in a foreign country. It doesn’t matter I’m a foreign citizen. That law includes everyone on Earth.

Yes, that includes you. And you. And you. And you. They can arrest you for trying to overthrow the Chinese government if you pass the borders of Hong Kong.

Please help remember 8964 Tiananmen Square Massacre. That summer day, Beijing citizens asked Hong Kongers to please remember this event for them because they knew they wouldn’t be able to afford to remember it themselves. Now that Hong Kongers can’t afford to remember it anymore, I’m hoping that everyone who reads this to please remember it, for the students who perished only because they wanted their government to be better, for the Tank Man who, on his way home with his groceries, decided to stand in front of a tank all by himself because it was the right thing to do.

25 years ago an unknown Chinese protester stood in front of a tank in defiance of the government. No one knows the identity of the man but he was given the nick name “Tank Man”. This is one of the most iconic photographs of the century.

104K notes · View notes

seyesnyl · 4 years ago

Text

Deceptively Unethical Art

I found it difficult to decide whether to write this blog post, in part because it involves much subjectivity, and my search for academic sources that discuss the artist's work in focus with the depth I wanted was unsuccessful. During my research on art about minority groups, I came across the work of Anton Kannemeyer, a white South African artist. What struck out to me about his work was his use of extreme caricatures of black people made popular in the Jim Crow era, but finding out most of his work was published in the last two decades was what floored me.

This style of art has been referred to as golliwog and coon imagery. I will not be including pictures of his work here or other art in this style in this blog, but I welcome you to search online if you are unfamiliar. I continued studying up Kannemeyer and his work to come to terms with using colonial imagery in the 21st century. Past the surface of racist imagery, I got to understand that his art and comics are supposed to be satirical critiques on racism. They often highlight discrimination, stereotypes black people face, white supremacy, and even white guilt. Notwithstanding, I was still unconvinced this was enough justification for using this imagery

At this point was where I began searching for academic studies on his work. I did not have much luck in finding a critical look at it until I found an essay in the aptly titled book ‘More Critical Approaches to Comics’ (Smith and Duncan, 2020). I purchased this book but discovered that even though his use of golliwog iconography was discussed, the ethics of it were not considered and the focus was mainly on Kannemeyer’s intentions. Researching further, I found an interview online from a South African news website article where he had been asked some pertinent questions I also had.(Nkosi and Hlalethwa, 2020).

“His repeated use of racist tropes; black people depicted as golliwogs; the threat of the black man’s penis; black professionalism are not only offensive, but they also lack the nuance and intellectual rigor that satire demands” (Nkosi and Hlalethwa, 2020)

In this interview, a quote from an older discussion with Griot Magazine was cited where he claimed if he did not use golliwog imagery to depict black people, the message could confuse viewers, and they could mistake the uncaricatured black person for “Hispanic or something else”. Aside from the fact that being Hispanic only has to do with nationality and nothing to do with skin color or race, I find it extremely difficult to believe that satirizing a black person’s body is the only way to communicate that race is the topic of discussion in an art piece. Responding to this quote, he now disagrees that race can only be discussed with racist imagery and that he used the style to parody Herge’s ‘Tintin in the Congo’ for his book ‘Pappa in Afrika’(2010). Even if that were the case, there are other works after his book was published that still make use of the golliwog style.

I believe there are many ways to discuss race without having to use racist imagery. Here are three pieces of art by black artists that are very much discussing race without golliwog iconography or even needing to focus on faces or their bodies

Eliana Rodgers (unknown)- https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/lifestyle/black-artists-america-racial-inequality/

Njideka Akunyili Crosby, I Refuse to Be Invisible (2013). https://news.artnet.com/market/black-artists-to-watch-2016-420296

Hank Willis Thomas, Raise Up (2014). https://news.artnet.com/market/black-artists-to-watch-2016-420296

He has also argued he uses a caricature of white people in his art. These may be ‘caricatures’ but hardly hold weight compared to the historically racist and offensive caricatures he has perpetuated for black people. His depictions of white people are still colored with flesh tones and do not particularly parody Caucasian features. Black people are painted with a stark black color with huge wide mouths, their skin blending into their hair and are usually naked and in sexually explicit forms which all have offensive connotations.

Another anecdote I noted from this interview was when he says with art he attempts “to find a fresh perspective, one that people will find jarring and controversial… and the purpose of my art, when I’m successful, is when artwork has stimulated debate.” He says this, but for me as a viewer, it has been so difficult to look past the imagery to understand what I assume are his well-intentions. I am writing an entire blog due to it after all!

There is a constant argument for free speech and expression and the fear of being censored that Kannemeyer also echoes in this interview. He fears the end of satire. While that may be a topic for debate in other areas, I do not imagine any negative reaction to his work is uncalled-for especially being the product of a white man. Like the authors of the article that interviewed him wrote, I also think his preferred style and approach towards satirizing race issues lack the nuance and intellectual rigor that satire demands.

References

Nkosi, L. and Hlalethwa, Z., 2021. Anton Kannemeyer Says Cancel Culture Is The New Censorship | Arts. [online] Arts. Available at: <https://www.news24.com/arts/culture/anton-kannemeyer-says-cancel-culture-is-the-new-censorship-20200717> [Accessed 17 January 2021].

Smith, M.J., Brown, M. & Duncan, R. 2020;2019;, More Critical Approaches to Comics: Theories and Methods, 1st edn, Routledge, Milton.

0 notes

lacedlips · 7 years ago

Text

“We exist to push censorship” Fecal Matter

The multidisciplinary brand provokes society with brutal honesty in their new collection Race War

text Kara Kia // 11 December 2017

photo Nick Knight // ShowStudio

Fecal Matter is an anti-fashion and music brand based in Montréal, Canada, created by partners Hannah Rose and Steven Raj in 2015. After declaring their mutual hate in their final year of design school they decided to team up to make fashion interesting again. They believe that fashion lacks true individuality. Human clones share a giant closet of brown trench coats, white wedding dresses and collard button up shirts. Fecal matter, much like their name, wants to provoke society’s codes of normality and inspire people to think critically without being ashamed or afraid. Inspired by provocative image makers Leigh Bowery, Michele Lamy, Rei Kawakubo and Alexander McQueen, Steven and Hannah want Fecal Matter to express brutal honesty in fashion.

“The way the system and the industry is orchestrated, is against honesty. In an ad campaign, you’re presenting the model in the clothing, in a nice setting but that is not how the pieces are made, that’s not how the model is treated during the shoot, most of the time. Nobody is going to wear it in that setting. What we hope is just to show how far a person can go, to a point where it’s so brutal and honest and so literal that we don’t have to tip toe around things anymore.”

For Fecal Matter, fashion is as much of a political statement as it is an expression of personal style. Hannah grew up confused as to why people spent money to maintain the enslavement of underpaid labor. She refused to wear clothing lacking ethical integrity and taught herself to how sew, drape and make patterns in high school. While Steven distilled the tragedy of an abusive household into the dark fantasy that is Fecal Matter. Their brand is the grotesque truth in response to the beautiful lie that is the fashion system.

“We exist to push censorship. Even us who are fighting against this idea of censorship and being silent, not being able to talk about certain things because it’s a hush hush thing, nobody wants to write anything about it. It’s even challenging for us to talk about certain subjects because it’s almost like they are polarizing. it’s important to continue to push those boundaries and to not really give a fuck because as soon as you start giving a fuck then everything starts to crumble.”

Fecal Matter debuts collections as individual digestible pieces on Depop, offering a continuous stream of new clothing unrestricted by time and season. Their most recent SS18 collection Race War was presented on ShowStudio. They modified coded pieces like brown trench coats, white wedding dresses, black pumps, jeans and plaid button ups with pointed hoods in reference to the Klu Klux Klan. The presentation was a statement to classic wardrobe pieces being politicized tools to erase our individuality, enforce the status quo and perpetuate white supremacy.

“The goal with the Race War collection was to think critically about what the other person is going through. To think critically about what we’re going through and to think critically about our decisions. I think this whole divide between Race is just pushing people into not thinking critically anymore. We don’t even want to think about their feelings, when someone says white people have problems you don’t even want to think about that because you’re like oh, that doesn’t exist, their lives are perfect but that’s not true, everybody has problems and everybody’s problems are in a different degree. We all react to our problems the same, we all get distraught, get hurt and it’s painful so I think that’s really the morality behind that collection. I really do believe that we can all live in a cohesive way or at least try to understand each other. That’s the first step to healing. I think that we all have to heal, everyone at this point. The worst thing we would want for the human race is to continue the cycle of resentment, the cycle of hate, the cycle of basically holding onto the idea that we’re different.”

The anti-fashion movement has created new ways for artists to subvert the fashion establishment. But Fecal Matter believes there is still much left to be done to challenge normality and revive critical thought in fashion. Steven and Hannah want to push the boundaries further, beyond Kawakubo’s distorted female body, Bowery’s gender fluidity and McQueen’s depictions of the grotesque. Fecal Matter wants to create clothing that represent ideas of resistance and respond to structural issues in society. The morale behind their brand bridges the gap between fashion, fearlessness and social change.

“We want people to acknowledge that there are so many different options of what you can do as a creator, what you can do in fashion and aesthetics… but how is it that there is so few options of what you can actually say? and how you can say it? Censorship is in a conversation you had with your mom at 12, a conversation you had with your friends at 6, we were all censored from a young age where you’re afraid to say what’s on your mind because there’s a lot of shame in human thought. We want to enable people to think without being afraid. To embrace their individuality despite the pressure to fit in, despite the fear of being targeted for hate or what your family or friends might think. ”

2 notes · View notes

mozgoderina · 7 years ago

Text

Sources, influences, racial politics (ArtsATL) / Glenn Ligon

Since the 1980s, conceptual artist Glenn Ligon has incorporated practices of literature, Abstract Expressionism, photo-based media and appropriation to critically explore issues of identity, politics, sexuality and personal desire, to dazzling effect.

The materials Ligon employs to create his large-scale, often monochromatic works are as varied and textured as the subjects he explores. He moves seamlessly across screen printing, oil paint, white neon painted black and even coal dust, and uses quotations from Gertrude Stein, James Baldwin and comedian Richard Pryor in many of his most widely recognized works.

In 2011, Ligon’s first major mid-career retrospective, “Glenn Ligon: America,” was exhibited at the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York. Although drawing comparisons to artists such as Jenny Holzer or even David Hammons is tempting though tenuous, a more precise parallel is to Abstract Expressionists such as Jasper Johns or Robert Rauschenberg, whom Ligon frequently cites as early influences.

The High Museum of Art’s inclusion of Ligon’s 1988 work “There is a consciousness we all have …” in its current exhibition “Fast Forward: Modern Moments” is felicitous. The piece — a relatively small rust-colored work of oil on paper — uses the text from commentary by former High Museum Director Ned Rifkin (then chief curator of the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden) in a New York Times write-up on the celebrated sculptor Martin Puryear. The quotation reads, in its entirety: “There is a consciousness we all have that he is a black American artist (by madison ), but I think his work is really superior and stands on its own.” The quote suggests a cultural blindness to which the art world was recently exposed again by way of a series of controversial reviews by Ken Johnson in The New York Times, more than 20 years after Ligon produced the piece.

ArtsATL spoke with Ligon in advance of his artist lecture at the High Museum this Thursday, January 10, at 7 p.m. Following is an edited excerpt of our conversation.

ArtsATL: In the summer of 2011, I went to your retrospective at the Whitney Museum of American Art. It was really interesting to see the progression from some of the earliest works to the current neon “America” works, so I wanted to start off by just talking about that progression a little bit. One of the things I noticed was this shift from the use of color to a lot of black-and-white monochromatic works and then back to color in the mid-to-late 2000s. I’m thinking of those very early more personal works. What caused that shift from more colorful personal works to using other text or to reappropriating text in your work?

Glenn Ligon: With the works that have color in them — the Richard Pryor joke paintings and the coloring book paintings — I think the shift there was in some ways trying to think about color again, because I started out as an abstract painter. So before the text work I was doing abstractions, but they were just abstractions and very involved in color and composition. I decided that that wasn’t the direction in which my work was going.

The Pryor paintings were a way back to color [while] still using text; it allowed me to think about color more but also think about it in relationship to someone like Andy Warhol and his self-portraits from the 1960s. And also it’s just a very simple idea that Richard Pryor needed to be in color.

ArtsATL: The Richard Pryor works are interesting. They are so bright that they’re almost kind of difficult to look at, because if you stare at them too long, they start to kind of vibrate.

Glenn Ligon: Yes, I think, partially, if you look at the Warhol portraits, he’s a master colorist. A lot of combinations have that kind of electrical charge, and their juxtapositions become difficult to look at or obscure the image — that’s what I was interested in. Also because I think Richard Pryor’s a comedian but he’s not funny, so I was really interested in work that made the viewer work to see [it] but was difficult to look at.

ArtsATL: With a lot of your work, you really make the audience work for it. When you [read it] deeply, all of these complications arise. I’m thinking of the text work created with oil stick on just a white background, where the text starts out as this clean line and gradually crescendos into this mass at the bottom of the canvas you can barely read. When I look at this work, it reminds me of music in the sense that you are using a pre-existing phrase, but you are making it your own or replaying it much like a score in your own way. Obviously literature is a big influence in your work, but I wonder if music is anything that you think about as well.

Glenn Ligon: I was just recently at a concert by Steve Reich, and he was talking about some pieces from the ’60s — “Come Out” and “It’s Gonna Rain” — and the use of repeating, out-of-sync human voices. I’d been listening to Reich for years, and I’d never thought about it in terms of my work. Then suddenly I thought, “That’s ridiculous! Why have I never thought about it?” It makes perfect sense. It’s my work, basically.

So it was interesting to think about how music has been important, though it’s not been in the forefront. I did a piece for the pianist Jason Moran for a concert based on Thelonius Monk called “In My Mind.” What he asked me for, or what I thought he asked me for, was something for an album cover or poster, so I took that phrase “In My Mind” and repeated that and made a drawing out of it. When I went to the concert, there was a whole section where that drawing was being projected on the screen behind the musicians and they were playing, as Jason said, to the spaces in the drawing, and using the spaces as pauses.

I thought that was amazing, this relationship to music in the work, although not something I had thought about consciously but something Jason understood. So yes, I think music has been a kind of touchstone, particularly Monk, who I think was influential when I was thinking about making the Richard Pryor paintings, because the playing is so idiosyncratic and so much his own, but absolutely masterful and virtuosic.

I was thinking about that in terms of thinking about Pryor, who can seemingly get up and tell a story, but then realized that Paul Mooney was his writing partner [and] if you listen to different albums they are pursing their material. They changed the jokes to make them more effective. It’s very interesting when you realize he’s not just up there telling stories. There’s a kind of deep back and forth.

ArtsATL: What is it about text that you find so intriguing? I’ve listened to interviews where you’ve talked about your upbringing and how your mother would buy you and your brother books.

Glenn Ligon: Well, I think for a black working-class family, education is the cliché, education was the key, so there’s a lot of emphasis placed on reading and literacy as a sort of way to achieve. Also when I was younger I was interested in writing too, so I think I was more interested in writing than in art.

ArtsATL: Did you ever want to be a writer when you were growing up?

Glenn Ligon: I did, but at some point I realized that writing is as hard as making art, you know? It got to the point where I could make art as a profession; I just thought, “Well, I know lots of artists write,” but I find it as hard. I’ve written a fair amount for magazines, but it’s maybe once a year. We just published a book of writings right around the time of the Whitney show.

I think literature was around in my childhood, and it’s also a place where you’re legitimately allowed to be alone. I grew up in the South Bronx; it was kind of a turbulent neighborhood. I couldn’t justify staying inside all the time unless I was doing something that required being inside. So I think literature became important to me early on.

But I also grew up around appropriation and text. Why write your own when there are texts in the world? Appropriating text is a way of getting certain ideas into the work directly. In a way it’s very straightforward — like, “Oh, I want these ideas in my work; well, just use them.”

ArtsATL: I think a lot about advertising and the work of artists like Hank Willis Thomas, Barbara Kruger or Martha Rossler and this sort of engagement with the idea of being perpetually surrounded by language. It’s how we navigate the world, so I want to ask you about this interaction with public space and your surroundings and how that comes into the work. You’re operating from this very interesting perspective, which is basically you’re in this body, as am I, as an artist, where you are endlessly navigating this idea of being a black artist or being a gay artist or being an American artist, and there are all these things that play into the work in interesting ways.

Could you explain the process of creating “Notes on the Margins of the Black Book,” in which you juxtaposed images of mostly black nude men taken from Robert Mapplethorpe’s “Black Book” with comments about the images collected from people at a bar that Mapplethorpe frequented?

Glenn Ligon: You’re asking a hard question. Specifically with that piece, I just thought that Mapplethorpe was an interesting figure because he was the subject of a big retrospective, also at the Whitney, very celebrated and because he had this body of work that dealt with representations of black men. Because my work wasn’t figurative, I thought it was an interesting project — to use Mapplethorpe’s images as a sort of ready-made material on which to operate.

But instead of defacing it or whatever the impulse would be would seem very simplistic to me, I thought let’s create this context for it. Put the work in the context of all these debates around black male representation, gay sexuality, censorship, AIDS, personal desire. Put all of that next to the work and let the viewers sort it out. And they can choose. They can not read the text and look at the photos or read the text and sort through those issues in the same kind of process that I went through when thinking about that work. It’s just a way to open up that work to a sort of larger context.

Sometimes I think I am interested in that, and sometimes it’s more hermetic. I think I make abstract paintings. They’re text-based but they’re essentially abstract paintings, so in some ways they’re sort of rooted in the specificity of the text I’m using, but in other ways they feel very far from it and it’s the trace of that language [that] is more interesting to me than the specifics of what that language is.

ArtsATL: You’ve mentioned that some of your influences were people like Robert Rauschenberg and Jasper Johns, who are both Southern artists. Could you talk about that?

Glenn Ligon: It’s probably less about them being from the South, though I think there’s some interesting work on Rauschenberg’s paintings from the ’50s which I love: “The Black Paintings” and “The White Paintings.” There’s a historian, Mignon Nixon; I think she is actually from the South and she’s at the Courtauld [Institute of Art] now. She did some work on Rauschenberg’s “Black Paintings” and was asking, “Well, if you look at what was on the covers of those papers at that time, it was all about civil rights groups.”

I don’t know what he made of that or what importance that takes, but I think it is interesting to think about how work that is seemingly not about something can be about something. But I think I was interested in Johns and Rauschenberg — I think more in Johns because of the use of language, but now increasingly in Rauschenberg — because I’m very fascinated with how he made images work and with decontextualizing very familiar images. Johns, too, you know [American flags] and all of that, but also because they were painters, and I gravitated more towards them than I did towards Barbara Kruger or Joseph Kosuth. I wanted to remain a painter, and they provided certain kinds of models. Someone like Kosuth or Kruger provided certain kinds of relationships to theory and appropriation and critique of consumer culture, so I was trying to walk the line between those.

ArtsATL: Because your work is so closely connected to language and is also often connected to American history, I want to ask about context. I’m thinking about James Baldwin’s Stranger in the Village, which you’ve also referenced in your work. How do you feel that your work changes in different environments? What are the responses to your work outside the United States?

Glenn Ligon: Well, I had a funny sort of encounter. I had a year-long fellowship in Berlin in 2000, and I was making work for Documenta that Okwui Enwesor curated, a body of paintings based on Stranger in the Village. I had an interview with [American critic] Blake Gopnik, who was doing an article about American artists living overseas. He came and picked my brain and then when I got the article it said, “Glenn Ligon’s issues don’t translate in European context.” And I thought, “Well, James Baldwin? Stranger in the Village … what doesn’t translate?” I thought that was fascinating, this kind of blindness or the inability to extend the reading of a text from a different era to a present situation.

I have a show coming up in Japan in March, and one of the neon works I was thinking about using is one that says “negro sunshine,” which is from Gertrude Stein. I asked the curator if she could find the Stein book that it’s from and tell me what the translation is into Japanese. And she said, “Well, it’s not so good. It’s ‘the sunshine of black people,’ ” and I thought that was great. It’s fascinating, but it loses the specificity of the word “negro,” a word in American context that evokes a particular time period.

That kind of slippage is really interesting. It’s not something I’ve worked with extensively — most of the work I’ve done has been in English — but it is an area that I’m thinking more about exploring. But it’s tricky, because one has to sort of dive into a language that’s not your own or trust people’s interpretations.

ArtsATL: Right. It is really tricky. It’s also interesting, this sort of discomfort you feel with not being entirely fluent in a language and having to trust somebody to translate for you.

Glenn Ligon: I guess also it’s trying to understand what kind of cultural presuppositions come out of thinking about translation. That word “negro” is not really translatable into Japanese, and so it’s “black people.” Why didn’t they just leave it? If you can’t translate it, just leave it. So I found that all kind of fascinating; whether I can work with that as material, I don’t know. It’s increasingly interesting to me as I start to show in places outside the United States.

ArtsATL: I want to talk about the very beginning of your career. I just turned 29, which is right around the age you were when you received your New York Foundation for the Arts grant. Could you talk a little bit about that transition? I know you were working; you had a “day job” and then you got this grant and it freed up time that allowed you to become a full-time artist.

Glenn Ligon: My mother joked that the day I knew I was an artist was when the government said I was an artist. The NYFA doesn’t trust artists with individual grants any more — they now have to be administered through a handler — so this was back when the government would actually send you a check. I just decided it was a moment where I could try to be a full-time artist for a while.

I don’t remember the amount of the grant, but it was enough to take some significant amount of time off from work, and I thought, “Well, what does it mean if I start working full time or try to have a proper studio?,” because I was working out of a basement in my house. So that was a huge, huge shift — I guess that was in ‘89 — and I had just started to show, a few works were selling. It just became this sort of launch pad for this thing called “being an artist” which I was already doing, which I was just sort of doing part time and kind of decided to do it full time then.

ArtsATL: It’s really interesting, because very rarely do I get the opportunity to hear artists talk about that progression or that jump between working in your basement, or your mother’s basement, and then suddenly becoming a full-time successful artist.

Glenn Ligon: Well, also I didn’t go to graduate school, so it took me a long time to get a working practice. . . . I never had two years where all you had to do was be in your studio.

ArtsATL: I read somewhere recently that you’re working on a piece based on Walt Whitman’s work.

Glenn Ligon: Yeah, it’s a big neon piece for the New School. It’s going to be in the student center in the new building they’re making.

ArtsATL: What made you choose Whitman for this project?

Glenn Ligon: Well, I think because the New School has such a history of social engagement. It was started by refugees from Europe during the ’30s, and not started by but stocked with refugees from Europe. There are some very famous Orozco murals there that were illustrating the history of Communism basically, that are kind of fantastic, and they also collect widely and exhibit work in their various buildings. So I just thought that the history of the New School was about a certain kind of populism, and it would be interesting to think about some author who embodied that. The piece concentrates on Leaves of Grass, more specifically on the city as subject matter and thinking about bodies and how one encounters bodies in the city and desiring those bodies. So essentially it’s a big piece about cruising in the student cafeteria. I don’t think they know that.

Source: ArtsATL. Link: Sources, influences, racial politics Illustration: Glenn Ligon [USA] (b 1960). 'Warm Broad Glow (reversed)', 2007. Photogravure and aquatint on Somerset paper (62 x 90 cm). Moderator: ART HuNTER.

#art #contemporary art #glenn ligon #conceptual art #article #interview #brainslide bedrock great art talk #artsatl

7 notes · View notes

e-vo-lu-ti-on · 5 years ago

Photo

ellen galagher Dont axe me Article :https://hazlitt.net/feature/search-black-atlantis In September 2015, Kyle Lydell Canty of Rochester, New York, travelled to British Columbia. He hadn’t planned to stay for long, but after two days in Canada, Canty decided to apply for refugee status. He appeared before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada in October of that year with the argument that Black Americans were “being exterminated at an alarming rate.” As proof, Canty alleged that he had been harassed by the police in six states in which he held offenses, such as jaywalking and disorderly conduct, that he claimed he never committed. Although the Board ultimately rejected his candidacy on the grounds that Canty would not be subjected to “cruel and unusual punishment” upon his return, Ron Yamauchi, an IRB member, did find that the actions of the American police “raise a question about [Canty’s] subjective fear,” a fear that, according to the United Nations, is rooted in historical and racially terroristic acts, such as police killings and “state violence.”

In 1838, after a failed attempt that led to his incarceration, twenty-year-old Frederick Bailey used his nautical knowledge while working at a waterfront to disguise himself as a free Black sailor and boarded a train from Baltimore to New York where he then changed his last name to Douglass to avoid suspicion.

James Baldwin could not reconcile himself with America. He travelled and lived in places such as Istanbul and Paris in the 1960s, where, according to a 2009 essay in The New Yorker by Claudia Roth Pierpont, he would not be shamed for the color of his skin or his sexuality. Nina Simone revealed in her autobiography I’ll Put A Spell On You why she left America for Liberia in the 1970s: “I had arrived in Liberia with no idea of how long I intended to stay; after a few hours I knew it was going to be for a long, long time—forever.” When she returned to the States for financial reasons, “I flinched at every noise, expecting terrible events that always hit me when I arrived in the country that disowned me … I … longed for Liberia …”

The desire to escape endures within many Black Americans. It manifests in literal attempts at relocation, as in Canty’s case, but also through our art. “I think to be born Black in America,” said the video and performance artist Lex Brown, “is to be fully in touch with, one, the universal existential crisis of being human, two, the crisis of carrying on the body of an un-chosen evidence of the fundamental hypocrisy of America (i.e. home of the free, land of the slaves) and three, the impossibility of escaping or delaying crisis number one because of number two.” Our perpetual lack of belonging fuels our desire to flee, but where do you turn when there seems to be nowhere to seek refuge?

Sarah Yerima, a Rhodes Scholar studying sociology at the University of Oxford, has been moving between countries for five or six years, from the United States to Brazil to the United Kingdom. “I’ve been trying to find some peace and it’s all terrible. No matter where I am, the anti-Blackness is pervasive. However, the arts give a kind of comfort.” In 1977, The Isley Brothers released “Voyage to Atlantis,” in which lead singer Ron Isley croons to an unnamed woman about sailing to a “paradise out beyond the sea.” That same year, DC Comics released issue #452 of the Adventure Comics series, in which Black Manta, a Baltimore native turned supervillain whose nautical and birth origins are reminiscent of those of Frederick Douglass, seeks to take Atlantis from Aquaman, a blonde-haired, white superhero, by killing his son. In a standoff, Black Manta says to Aquaman, “This city … shall … be a new empire over which I alone shall rule! … I had recruited enough of my own people to serve that purpose …”

“Your people?” Aquaman responds. “You mean … surface dwellers?”

“No,” Black Manta says, “I mean exactly what I said, ‘My people.’ Or have you never wondered why I’m called Black Manta?” Black Manta wanted to create an underwater colony in which African-Americans could rid themselves of a white-dominated surface world.

In the packaging for Outkast’s 1996 sophomore album ATLiens, the artwork features Big Boi and Andre 3000 as freedom fighters against censorship and population control; Atlanta is re-pictured as the lost city of Atlantis. These artistic renderings of a Black utopia present a hopeful future—places where we can live in all of our complexity and without oppression.

“If you think about how American planning has worked, it has always pushed towards a utopia. New York, Chicago—all major American cities—as violent as they were, were utopic visions,” says Jess M., a student and researcher of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Department of Urban Studies and Planning. In designing cities deliberately to oppress people of colour, she says, “planners believed that if Black and brown people didn’t exist, then these utopias would.”

This racism has led many Black artists to reimagine fictitious nations, such as Atlantis, or develop new mythologies altogether through Afrofuturism, a literary and cultural aesthetic that blends historical components, along with science fiction and fantasy, in order to center Black people.

The musician, philosopher, and filmmaker Sun Ra was one of its pioneers, creating what Ytasha Womack, author of Afrofuturism: The World of Black Sci-Fi and Fantasy Culture calls, “sonar sounds for the space age in the ’50s.” In the 1970s, the Afrofuturistic sound began to expand. Combined with sci-fi elements in works such as “Spaceship Lullaby” and “Africa,” in his 1974 film Space is the Place, Sun Ra, playing the protagonist, seeks to transport African-Americans to occupy a new planet in outer space he discovers with his crew, The Arkestra.

Sun Ra’s influence continues to be felt. George Clinton and the Funkadelics incorporated Afrofuturism into their works through electronic instruments, space costumes, new mythology, and mind-boggling wordplay. Janelle Monae’s android aesthetic is a direct descendent of Sun Ra’s innovation. Contemporary artists Amaryllis DeJesus Moleski and Sheena Rose depict black women as goddesses, mythical creatures, and arbiters of their universe. As Stephanie George, former curatorial fellow of New York’s Museum of Contemporary African Diasporan Arts, puts it: “You have to disrupt temporality.” In order to find purpose and affirmation, a Black artist must undermine time and space as we know it to find a place for his or herself.

Since the 1800s, refuge and relief from racist violence and oppression has meant any number of things: escaping to the North, fleeing to a different country altogether, or staying put physically while moving forward in one’s imagination to create a world where Black people are uplifted and able to live as multidimensional human beings. Many of the greatest African-American works of art have been the products of times of oppression. Our art is a form of resistance.

So now, days away from the inauguration of a president whose platform was praised by the Ku Klux Klan, what happens to that art? Will there be a new renaissance or simply a continuation of established genres? Geraldine Inoa, a playwright at New York’s Public Theater, says that disturbing events like the Trump inauguration often inspire people to “retreat” to other artistic movements. “But because this art exists in this reality under this president, it will be different. Trump is rather unique in that he has risen during new a technological world that has changed the way art is created and shared. We will see a new renaissance based on the current reality that combines the modern tools artists have their disposal.”

Or, as the queer femme writer and editor Myles Johnson puts it, “there’s going to be a renaissance and we can’t help it. Black people have never not been creative.”

#Mood

1 note · View note

vox · 7 years ago

Photo

Why Bill Maher’s use of the n-word finally crossed the line

It was a seemingly innocuous conversation about Nebraska. Suddenly, it took an uncomfortable turn.

Real Time host Bill Maher and Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) were at first talking about Maher visiting the senator’s home state. Sasse quipped, “We’d love to have you work in the fields with us.” Maher then made his move, saying, “Work in the fields? Senator, I’m a house n*****.”

Maher immediately clarified that this was “a joke,” but the moment exploded on social media nonetheless. Black Lives Matter activist DeRay Mckesson said Maher “has got to go.” Sasse later acknowledged that he should have confronted Maher for his use of the n-word. HBO called what Maher did “completely inexcusable,” although it stopped short of firing him. And Maher himself later said, “The word was offensive and I regret saying it and am very sorry.”

This isn’t the first controversy Maher has been embroiled in. But Maher has generally gotten a pass for intolerant statements — perhaps because he’s on the left, because his shtick is in part about making offensive remarks, or because his remarks are often more subtle and come from the kinds of prejudice that many Americans are seemingly okay with. This time, it’s different.

What Maher actually said, and why it blew up in his face

youtube

Here is the full exchange between Maher and Sasse:

MAHER: Your book is so right about how we have actually kind of lost the thread of what adults are anymore in this country. Adults: They wear shorts everywhere, they have cereal for dinner, and they treat comic books like they’re literature. What is your prescription for this problem?

SASSE: More cereal for dinner. First of all, let’s not disagree about everything. So this is a constructive project, right? I’m not trying to beat up on millennials. But there’s something weird in human history if you can’t tell 10- and 15- and 20- and 25-year-olds apart, ’cause that’s new. Adolescence is a gift—

MAHER: Halloween used to be a kid thing.

SASSE: It’s not anymore?

MAHER: Not out here. No. Adults dress up for Halloween. They don’t do that in Nebraska?

SASSE: It’s frowned upon. Yeah. We don’t do that quite as much.

MAHER: I gotta get to Nebraska more.

SASSE: You’re welcome. We’d love to have you work in the fields with us.

MAHER: Work in the fields? Senator, I’m a house n*****.

Maher immediately clarified that this was supposed to be a joke — to laughs, cheers, and applause from the crowd.

That Maher immediately had to explain this was a joke shows that he, at that moment, must have known he crossed a line: After centuries of slavery, Jim Crow, and all sorts of racism in the US, white people in particular are simply not supposed to use the n-word.

As Wesley Morris wrote in the New York Times, “He didn’t commit a hate crime. He overstepped his privilege as a famous comedian. That’s all. But if he crossed a line, it’s one that, for white people, has never moved.”

Morris explained: “For a long time, black people have deployed slavery-derived hierarchies as a social and psycho-political sorting mechanism. A house assignment might have won a slave less arduous work but more suspicion and contempt from her counterparts in the fields. No one self-identifies as a house Negro — unless that person is making a joke. And even then that person probably shouldn’t be Bill Maher.”

The problem is further punctuated by Maher’s history, Morris wrote: “His track record inspires too much doubt to give any benefit.”

Maher has a long history of offensive comments

Muslim and Arab people in particular have long been the target of Maher’s ire, as shown by a video that made the rounds after former CNN host Larry King declared that “there’s not a racist bone in [Maher’s] body.”

Here is just a sampling of some of the comments Maher has made:

“Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas.”

“Just tell me two things, [former One Direction member] Zayn [Malik]. Which one in the band were you? And where were you during the Boston Marathon?”

“The most popular name in the United Kingdom, Great Britain — this was in the news this week — for babies this year was Muhammad. Am I racist to feel I’m alarmed by that? Because I am.”

“Talk to women who’ve ever dated an Arab man. The reviews are not good.”

“Most Muslim people in the world do condone violence.”

“[Islam is] the only religion that acts like the mafia.”

Earlier this year, Maher also invited former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos, who has repeatedly made Islamophobic and transphobic comments, to his show. The invitation drew criticism, since it gave Yiannopoulos a megaphone to spout his bigoted views. But Maher argued that the move was necessary to air out and challenge Yiannopoulos’s views in the free market of ideas. (Later, video surfaced of Yiannopoulos seemingly endorsing pedophilia, leading the ultra-conservative Breitbart to fire him.)

In that episode, when Yiannopoulos referred to the myth that trans women pose a danger to other women in the bathroom, Maher suggested, “That’s not unreasonable.” When he moved to another guest on the panel, Maher referred to trans people as “weirdos,” saying, “Where do you stand on weirdos peeing?” (Maher said he did it “just to fuck with him,” referring to the other guest, Republican Jack Kingston.)

The bathroom myth has been repeatedly used against trans people to push back against their civil rights. The argument, in short, is that if trans people are allowed to use the bathroom for their gender identity, either trans women or men who pose as trans women will sexually assault or harass women in bathrooms. There is literally zero evidence for this, as I have repeatedly explained. But the myth has been used to bar trans people from using the bathroom for their gender identity, with several states passing laws or considering bills to that effect.

Gavin Grimm, a trans teenager who’s sued his school for access to the right bathroom, best captured why these anti-trans policies are a big problem: “This wasn’t just about bathrooms. It was about the right to exist in public spaces for trans people,” he told me, quoting trans actress Laverne Cox. “Without the access to appropriate bathrooms, there’s so much that you’re limited in doing. If you try to imagine what your day would be like if you had absolutely no restrooms to use other than the home, it would take planning. You would probably find yourself avoiding liquids, probably avoiding eating, maybe [avoiding] going out in public for too long at a time.”

But in calling Yiannopoulos’s view reasonable and calling trans people “weirdos,” Maher perpetuated the myth, suggesting it’s okay to keep trans people out of bathrooms for their gender identity.

This is just one incident involving trans people. Maher, who identifies as a supporter of LGBTQ rights, mocked Caitlyn Jenner shortly after she came out as trans in 2015. In one segment, he called Jenner “a white man” and suggested she should go on a date with Rachel Dolezal, the former NAACP official who was accused of posing as black. The “jokes” denied Jenner’s identity and suggested her identity as a woman is on equal grounds with Dolezal’s claim to blackness.

It’s not just Islamophobia and transphobia. When Hillary Clinton ran for president in 2008, Maher said, while playing clips of Clinton on the campaign trail:

I’m not trying to be sexist here, but I’m just saying that women try a lot of different tacks when they’re in arguments … I’m not being sexist, I’m just saying that men, when we argue, we’re kind of a one-trick pony — we try our thing, and then we sulk when we don’t get our way. … But look at Hillary Clinton … Because the first thing a woman does, of course, is cry … and then they go to sweet talking … and then they throw an anger fit totally unrelated to anything. … And when it doesn’t work, they bring out the sarcasm.

As a general rule of thumb, starting any statement with “I’m not trying to be sexist here, but…” is probably a sign you shouldn’t complete that sentence.

Maher’s comments exemplify why: He said he wasn’t trying to be sexist, but then he went on to make a bunch of sweeping comments about men and women by using the experiences and actions of a single woman. This is simply sexism by definition.

Some kinds of bigotry are often overlooked in the US

Maher’s shtick has long been controversy — in what he often characterizes as a battle against political correctness.

Maher, after all, lost his show on ABC, Politically Incorrect, when he characterized the US military as “cowards” and the terrorists who hijacked planes on 9/11 as brave. “We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away,” Maher said. “That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly.”

Maher went to HBO in part so he could get away with comments like this. It’s part of his brand to make over-the-top remarks for laughs, even if they contribute little to the ongoing conversation or are offensive. In his view, it’s part of an important battle against censorship.

He elaborated on his philosophy in his interview with Milo Yiannopoulos. “I think you’re colossally wrong on a number of things. But if I banned everyone from my show who I thought was colossally wrong, I would be talking to myself,” Maher told Yiannopoulos. He later added, “You are so, let’s say, helped by the fact that liberals just always take the bait.”

It took Maher literally using the n-word to finally get some media outlets to hold him accountable. Perhaps that’s because Maher is a liberal, putting him on the side of most of the people who would be quick to condemn his bigotry, particularly against Muslim, Arab, and transgender Americans.

But part of the issue here is what counts as actual bigotry in America, and whether Islamophobia, transphobia, and certain kinds of sexism and misogyny really do cross the line for a large chunk of the population.

A Pew Research Center survey measured Americans’ “warmth” toward different religious groups, with Christians and Jews ranking the highest and atheists and Muslims ranking the lowest. And in studies conducted by Northwestern University psychologist Nour Kteily, researchers had participants rank different groups based on how evolved they are; among the set of groups provided, Muslims ranked the lowest.

Similarly, many Americans don’t quite understand why trans people should be allowed to use the bathroom for their gender identity. Many Americans really do hold sexist or misogynistic views about how women debate, argue, or otherwise assert themselves.

But many Americans are told that the n-word is inexcusable; it’s the one word almost anyone who’s even a little bit woke to racism knows is not allowed.

That helps explain why Maher’s past offenses didn’t cross the line for a lot of people, while his use of the n-word got HBO and him to apologize.

#race #racism #sexism #sexist #Bill Maher #television #news #media #culture

50 notes · View notes

zachwhitworth · 7 years ago

Text

Controversial art is edgy

Painter Dana Schutz has made news again after a collective of artists demanded the cancellation of her show now at the Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston. She caused an uproar during the Whitney Biennial earlier this year, which featured her painting of the dead body of Emmett Till, a young black boy who was lynched in 1955. Many claimed the painting was racially insensitive and perpetuated the fetishization of brutality against black people. Schutz’s show at ICA was recently backed by a letter from 78 members of the National Academy––famous artists like Marina Abramovic, Cindy Sherman, Catherine Opie, and Kara Walker––who stated they “wholeheartedly support cultural institutions like the ICA-Boston who refuse to bow to forces in favor of censorship or quelling dialogue.”

I was following the initial story and backlash online when the Biennial opened, and none of it surprised me. Many people in the lower art world and outside protested the inclusion of Schutz’s painting in the show, while the folks involved in the high art world defended it, (and of course the curators issued a statement of their own to justify themselves.) It didn’t surprise me, because I had already come to expect this type of conflict over “political correctness”, of supposed censorship.

I remember hearing a conversation back at my previous university between one of the head art professors and a high-profile older student; they both asserted that political correctness was ruining art and the art world. I did come to notice that the instructors originally from the east coast were somewhat likelier to be inclined toward this mindset along with the more notorious students in the art department, but it remained a dominant belief overall. These folks painted political correctness as an enemy of the arts, as an annoyance, as something standing in their way. In fact, the most controversial and distasteful material produced by students gained the highest praise by instructors––a testament to the Conceptualism touted by art institutions these days.

It does make sense that art instructors would be pushing such a neoliberal-conservative mode of thinking á la The Atlantic, since the high art world today relies on “incorrectness”. The contemporary art world is one where figures like Damien Hirst reign supreme, held up by immensely expensive projects made purely for shock value and sensationalism, often by means of appropriation, (like a sculpture from this year’s Venice Biennale which took on the image of ancient Nigerian metalwork.) Big-name artists and art executives thrive on controversy, laughing in the faces of their challengers while swimming in millions of dollars in art sales from wealthy patrons. In the Whitney Museum’s case, they appeared to live by “any publicity is good publicity”.

Art institutions continue to push the value of separating oneself from one’s artwork too––in line with how the most famous artists function. Artists can simply claim their harmful work to be “open to interpretation” or “creating conversation” as a way to shield themselves against criticism, and institutions pat them on the back for their edginess.

This dismaying reality only encourages privileged artists to appropriate or demean the experiences of disenfranchised peoples. Controversy brings fame and wealth, and “otherness” is trendy.

It is easy to assume artists are inherently good people, but an artist is just another human, and the high art world is centered solely on making money rather than for the greater good or the benefit of society. The high art world is too often a cesspool of elitism where the wealthiest rule and artists reach the top by crushing their peers who stand in their way.

We forget that artists can be misguided or downright horrible people, even those who claim to be on the side of righteous causes. The high art world enables these types of artists––artists who play the victim and hide behind their institutions or positions of power, redirecting blame toward their critics. Even if she were merely misguided in her painting of Emmett Till, Dana Schutz has still been shielded by the high art world, with other artists and the Whitney Biennial curators claiming her work is a dialogue-starter.

In fact, one of her latest defenders from the National Academy happens to be Kara Walker, a widely-celebrated black artist. Walker’s support has served as further justification for the defense of Schutz; if a black artist is saying it’s okay, then it must be okay, right? It’s no different than saying the Republican party in the United States isn’t racially discriminatory, because Ben Carson is a Republican.

I would like to propose a question then: If Schutz appropriating black experiences and their bloody history is okay, why not display her work in the Museum of African American Art in Los Angeles? If this white woman’s depiction of Emmett Till’s dead body is “dialogue”, then there shouldn’t be a problem with presenting it in a place like the MAAA––a place for exploring the experiences of the African diaspora. Of course I’m only assuming, but that certainly doesn’t seem right to me.

Artists appropriating experiences that are not their own in major institutions is part of why more specific spaces are created––they’ve become necessary. If I want to hear voices of real lived experiences and histories of my own heritage, (as an example,) I have to rely on something like the Contemporary Jewish Museum in San Francisco to give me something accurate. If a non-Jewish person is making work about their perception of the Jewish experience and putting it in a major museum, it skews the audience’s understanding of what those experiences actually are. It’s telling somebody else’s story––my story included.

We don’t put white artists in the MAAA or non-Jewish artists in the CJM, because we understand those places are not for those artists, and that understanding should extend to an artist’s subject matter.

The high art world says there should be no restriction on artists, and I don’t believe there needs to be formal restriction––museums, galleries, and their curators don’t need to incorporate such work into their shows, and artists individually need to know better by now anyway. A rule like that should not be necessary in a civilized society, but as civilization has its informal guidelines, so too should we follow informal guidelines in the art world. It is not censorship; rather, it is decency and respect for the experiences of others.

As for Schutz, I don’t have a good answer for how to deal with that situation, and I’m not in a position to do anything about it directly. It is much more the place of the black art community to propose the proper action in this case, as the issue relates to their experience. However, I don’t believe the high art world will budge at all with this––they will continue to act harmfully and selfishly, as they have.

What we in the lower art world and outside can do is hold one another accountable. Talk to your peers, teach one another, and urge educational institutions to do better. There are substantial possibilities in art creation that don’t involve the infringement of others’ experiences––why not share your own? Artists and art audiences must push to be better and demand better for ourselves and one another. Keep learning, keep growing, and just be a good person.

#art #whitney biennial #dana schutz #art criticism

1 note · View note