What Does A Black Girl Look Like, exactly?

themelancholyblackwoman:

I see tweets from white girls and white guys saying, “Light-skinned girls with curly hair are the prettiest! Nothing prettier.” -_- If you are a white person, your opinion on black beauty and colorism is invalid. You started this light vs. dark crap, so I don’t want your backhanded comments about mixed race/light-skinned black girls. Eurocentrism is not the judge or boss of Afrocentric aesthetics. I hear white girls say they want to be “dark-skinned,” and something tells me they mean, “Light-brown skin but not too dark because ew!” The other day a girl said, “I was light-skinned but now I’m dark. I’m glad I’m not any darker.” Then a mixed race girl asked me if I was mixed because I’m “so light-skinned.” First of all, I’m not that light-skinned (she’s much lighter than me), and black people really aren’t a monolith. With that in mind, I also don’t want recessive and Eurocentric-associated traits dominating what’s “beautiful” in the black community either. I’m black, I look nothing other than black and neither does the next visibly black girl. It’s sad how a black girl can be obviously black, but if she has a lighter skin tone or narrower features, she must be “mixed.” If you were to see Lauren London in real life, you would assume she was just a black woman. The same goes for Tia and Tamara. It’s only if a black woman is attractive (through the lenses of Eurocentrism), then she must be mixed because terrible looks is inherited in black womanhood. I’ve heard people ask if Kerry Washington was mixed. People call Lupita “Eurocentric.” There ain’t nothing “Eurocentric” about Lupita’s physical appearance. Her being thin isn’t a “Eurocentric” attribute because there are plethora of skinny Africans and black people all over the world. Not every African/black person is curvy. I know about Africans that deal with the “West African” vs. “East African” features (on top of dark vs light), but when I look at Lupita, “Eurocentrism” isn’t what I see. Again, black women can be beautiful with varied aesthetics and traits.


"That said, stereotypes aren’t so much about people totally projecting things that completely aren’t there but about people having a framework with which they interpret things that actually are there. It’s not that racism causes people to see (for example) belligerent teenage boys where there are none, but that a white belligerent teenage boy is just seen as himself while a black belligerent teenage boy is part of a pattern, a script, and when people blindly follow the scripts in their head that leads to discrimination and prejudice. So yeah, it is a fact, I think, that I was a bit off-putting in my Jeopardy! appearance—hyper-focused on the game, had an intense stare, clicked madly on the buzzer, spat out answers super-fast, wasn’t too charming in the interviews, etc. But this may have taken root in people’s heads because I’m an Asian and the “Asian mastermind” is a meme in people’s heads that it wouldn’t have otherwise.Look, we all know that there’s a trope in the movies where someone of a minority race is flattened out into just being “good at X” and that the white protagonist is the one we root for because unlike the guy who’s just “good at X” the protagonist has human depth, human relationships, a human point of view—and this somehow makes him more worthy of success than the antagonist who seems to exist just to be good at X. So we root for Rocky against black guys who, by all appearances, really are better boxers than he is, because unlike them Rocky isn’t JUST a boxer, he has a girlfriend, he has hopes, he has dreams, etc. This comes up over and over again in movies where the athletic black competitor is set up as the “heel”—look at the black chick in Million Dollar Baby and how much we’re pushed to hate her. Look at all this “Great White Hope” stuff, historically, with Joe Louis. So is it any surprise that this trope comes into play with Asians? That the Asian character in the movie is the robotic, heartless, genius mastermind who is only pure intellect and whom we’re crying out to be defeated by some white guy who may not be as brainy but has more pluck, more heart, more humanity? It’s not just Flash Gordon vs. Ming the Merciless, it’s stuff like how in the pilot episode of Girls Hannah gets fired in favor of an overachieving Asian girl who’s genuinely better at her job than she is (the Asian girl knows Photoshop and she doesn’t) and we’re supposed to sympathize with Hannah. Okay, here’s one more comment from the Internet that kind of encapsulates it. The kind of un-self-awareness of what someone is saying when they say they’d prefer I not win because I try too hard at the game, work too hard at it, care too much about it, and that they’d prefer that a “likable average Joe” win. This is disturbing because it amounts to basically an attack on competence, a desire to bust people who work very hard and have very strong natural gifts down in favor of “likable average Joes”—and it’s disturbing because the subtext is frequently that to be “likable” and “average” you have to have other traits that are comforting and appealing to an “average Joe” audience, like white skin and an American accent."

- Arthur Chu to Ken Jennings (via pushinghoopswithsticks)

My duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude.

(via cordjefferson)

Science, Mr. White

(via nickdouglas)

I’m a HUGE Jeopardy fan (shut up) and I’ve loved watching Arthur Chu kick the game’s ass. He’s absolutely on the mark about all this stuff.

(via thebicker)


karenhealey:

peaceloveandafropuffs:

The movies I made, I wasn’t even trying to make them diverse. It’s just when you’re a filmmaker of any ethnicity, you’re going to write from your own experience. So all my scripts started with “Hispanic character…” then I’d be like, “Oh, gosh, now I have to find an actor to play this,” and then I’d find there were no actors in Hollywood. It was puzzling.

When I was doing “Spy Kids,” the Weinsteins asked me — not that they were being jerks at all, they were just wondering — "Why are you making the characters Hispanic? It doesn’t make any sense, isn’t this supposed to be for everybody?" “Well, it’s based on my family.”

They’d just never seen it. Hollywood is very much… no one wants to do it first, because what if they screw up? If someone else does it first and it’s successful, then that’s something we can imitate. It just makes business sense for people not to constantly be putting themselves out there.

[Weinstein] said that, and it really put me on the spot to come up with a reason. “Why not just give them American names? It’s America, it will confuse people.” I said “They are American — they’re based on my family, so they’re Hispanic, but they’re going to be speaking in English. It’s going to be for everybody.” But no one had done it before, so there was nothing to point to.

"But why?” They couldn’t understand why I was doing it that way, and I couldn’t come up with a good answer. And I realized, wow, if I wasn’t Hispanic, I would have folded, I would have changed the name. That’s why there weren’t more scripts like that. Somebody would have asked them at some point “Why are you doing it that way?”

Finally, I came up with the right answer. I said “You don’t have to be British to watch James Bond. Making him British actually makes him more universal because it makes him very specific.” And they were like, okay, that makes sense. And we did it, and “Spy Kids” was a big hit. And those who were Hispanic, it really meant a lot to them. People have come up to me for a lot of years since and said “You changed my kids’ whole life. They see little kids who are Hispanic that are spies and they saw your name as the writer and director and you changed their idea of what their future could be.” The ripple effects of that one movie were enormous.


"this is supposed to be for everybody"


brooklynwaste:

setfabulazerstomaximumcaptain:

pine-cypress:

gynocraticgrrl:

"I think what we need is a colorblind society." Now folks, when you hear somebody say that you know you’re listening to a racist…

- Jane Elliot and Oprah Winfrey discussing racism in 1992 on the Oprah Winfrey Show.

THIS WAS IN

1992

NINETEEN FUCKING NINETY-TWO

Jane Elliot is the fucking truth

she goes “i know this maybe hard for you because white males are accustomed to telling people things not listening to people so let me break it down for you”

i have died and she has resurrected me


oscurovolpe:

Being an asian fetishizer does not make you a nerd, it makes you racist.


medievalpoc:

mikahsoulhandler:

medievalpoc:

heartsalchemy:

medievalpoc:

Peter Lely

Portrait of Elizabeth Murray

England (c. 1650)

Oil on canvas, 124 x 119 cm

[x] [x] [x] [x]

I think I have seen pictures of this before, in high school maybe, but I don’t remember there being a second person before. I seem to remember this image being cropped differently too, which is very disturbing because now that I see the entire painting, the way I remember it being cropped was very clearly and deliberately intended to remove the person holding the tray of flowers.

Since we’re throwing haymakers at the kyriarchy today, I think this is something that we should really be talking about too, because it happens

ALL. THE. TIME.

Level 1: People of Color from Medieval, Renaissance, and other Early Modern European works were often literally painted over in later decades or centuries.

For example: In this painting, Giulia de’Medici (the child) was painted over in the 19th century:

image

Level 2: It was very fashionable in a lot of 17th and 18th century paintings to have a Black servant featured in portraits of very important historical figures from European History.

Honestly? They’re practically ubiquitous. A lot of the very famous paintings you’ve seen of European and American historical figures have a Black servant in them that have been cropped out or painted over.

Those silly stock photos from your American History Professor’s Powerpoint?

Your Professor’s PowerPoint for “George Washington”:

image

image

The actual painting:

image

image

Your professor’s Powerpoint on Jean Chardin:

image

The actual painting:

image

PowerPoint on Maria Henriette Stuart (with some commentary about the Habsburg jaw):

image

Actual Painting:

image

But, because of whitewashed history curricula, teachers and professors continue to use the cropped images because they don’t want their lecture to get “derailed” by a discussion about race.

These images are also more commonly seen on stock photo sites, including ones for academic use.

I honestly can’t find anyone really writing about this, or even any analysis on how often the cropped photos are used.

The reason they are so easy to crop out is because of the the artistic conventions which reflect the power hierarchy:

Oil paintings of aristocratic families from this period make the point clearly. Artists routinely positioned black people on the edges or at the rear of their canvasses, from where they gaze wonderingly at their masters and mistresses. In order to reveal a ‘hierarchy of power relationships’, they were often placed next to dogs and other domestic animals, with whom they shared, according to the art critic and novelist David Dabydeen, ‘more or less the same status’. Their humanity effaced, they exist in these pictures as solitary mutes, aesthetic foils to their owners’ economic fortunes.

This is drastically oversimplified, but at least it addresses it directly.

If anyone knows more on any studies or statistical evidence on this tendency, feel free to add it.

As a literary and history student i saw some of these cropped versions in my study books before, and was legitimately oblivious to this,

i am glad to have this information now…

I process a LOT of textbooks during the course of my “day job” (so to speak), and I know I’ve seen a few really unfortunate cropped images.

This post is more specifically addressing educators who either willingly OR unwittingly use modified images in class materials like handouts, PowerPoints, transparencies (YES, they still use them in some places!!!!) and photocopies.

But yes, many textbooks, especially non-ART textbooks, tend to use cropped or edited images without mention that they ARE cropped or edited. That is how we end up so familiar with the faces of white historical figures in “old timey” looking paintings, but seeing a person of color in the same artistic style that is immediately recognizable to a student will strike them as odd or anachronistic.

Even historical figures of color are presented in the same way, and the same context, over and over.

For example, You’ve probably ALL seen this image of Phillis Wheatley by Scipio Moorhead:

image

But have you seen THIS one?

image


  • White person: but I don't see color. Were all apart of one race. the human race.
  • White person: idk I'm just not attracted to black people..just a preference though

"

First they’ll criticize our slang. Make us seem uneducated for using it, when the reality is they’re mad we can code switch. Then they’ll use our slang mockingly. Like they really don’t want to use it, but it’s so absurd they can’t help themselves. Then they’ll make money off our slang, t-shirts, cups, bracelets, etc. Then they’ll convince us it was never really ours. It’s been public domain forever.

Feel free to replace the word “Slang” with neighborhoods, and music too.

"

(via jawnsbejawnin)

Done.

Relevant.

Always.

(via cocoavalentines)


afternoonsnoozebutton:

image

(TW: racism, sexual violence, rape)

tl;dr - Asian women are fetishized and sexualized to their detriment in our society. When Katy Perry puts on Asian culture to give her boring song performance an “exotic” flavor for a few minutes, she doesn’t have to deal with the the stigma of being an Asian woman for the rest of her life. She can take the metaphorical chopsticks out of her hair and resume life as a white woman immediately after the song ends. In those five minutes where she “played Asian”, however, she reified and normalized the white fetishization of Asian women and Asian culture. This fetishization harms the Asian women that are dehumanized as submissive sexualized objects, and has been proven to lead to violence against Asian-American women.

In this essay, I plan on making five key points: 

1. Katy Perry’s “geisha” performance tonight was culturally appropriative.

2. There is a long history of mistreatment and ill-will towards Asian immigrants and Asian-Americans.

3. Western culture “otherizes” Asians by assigning all Asians certain characteristics.

4. Asian women in particular are fetishized. This sexualization of Asian women causes increased sexual violence against Asian-American women. 

5. Racism against Asians is often swept under the rug because of the model minority myth, and that won’t change until we start to address racist acts head-on. 

1. What happened tonight?

image

Katy Perry performed at the AMA’s tonight with a “geisha”-themed display that included a sexualized “geisha” costume (which people have pointed out also resembles a cheongsam), stunted pseudo-Asian dance/walking, cartoon Kabuki makeup on her backup dancers, lots of fans, people in “Oriental” costumes beating drums, rice paper screens, and lots of paper umbrellas. Here’s video of her performance and more pictures. Perhaps the most perplexing part about the performance was the fact that the song she performed, “Unconditional”, has no ties to Asian culture or aesthetics. Ms. Perry, however, does seem to have a fascination with Japanese culture. In a recent interview with Jimmy Kimmel, she said “I’m obsessed with Japanese people though”, and, speaking about a Japanese person (in the same interview), “I’m so obsessed, I want to skin you and wear you like Versace.”

Read More


"Fetishes, on their own, aren’t harmful, wrong, or shameful things. Whatever floats your boat is fine—as long as it harms no one. The important element to fetishes that don’t harm people, though, is that they all involve a degree of performance and the ability to move in and out of fetish space. If you have a thing for people wearing ostrich-feather tails, your partner is free to prance around the house in hot pants and a tail as often as she likes; and when she’s not into it, she can put the tail away.

Racial fetishes, however, are based on objectifying someone because of her race, which isn’t something she can control. An Asian woman can’t choose to take her Asianness off for the day, a Black woman can’t decide to not be Black while she walks down the street. These are lived, inhabited identities that cannot be turned on and off; there is no safeword for race. You live these identities throughout your life, experiencing the good and bad things associated with them, interacting with your community through and around this identity.

Someone who says he (and it is usually a he) ‘prefers’ women of a specific race isn’t exercising a preference based on orientation or experience. He’s viewing certain kinds of women as dateable material on the basis of racial discrimination; and it’s telling that most men with racial ‘preferences’—which are really racial fetishes—use very racist, stereotypical descriptions when talking about why they ‘prefer’ women of specific races. Asian women are meek, say, or Latinas are fiery, or Black women are exotic and know how to deliver in bed."