February 2011
ANOTHER QUESTION I GOTS FOR YA'LLS
This one is about cultural appropriation.
We all know it’s shittastic. And 96% of us participate in it in some way, shape, or form on a daily business. Hell, even eating tacos, doing yoga, going to taco bell, eating chinese food are ALL examples of cultural appropration, though less obvious and serious ones, the super serious ones being shit like wearing warbonnets or kimonos and stuff
I’ve got a question. Do ya’ll think it’s possible to appropriate things from cultures that are no longer in existence?
For example, would it be possible to culturally appropriate Ancient Egypt?
If one started worshipping the gods, wearing nemes’s, postiches, pschents, writing in Heiroglyhics, all while not understanding the meaning or context, would this be culturally appropriative? Or would it not be because it would be impossible for their to be a power dynamic between an existing culture and one that no longer exists, so it’s therefore not oppressive?
I should probably say that I’m not sure if the culture from my example really doesn’t exist or if there are sects or such in Egypt that exist now-a-days that participate in this culture.Anyways, what are your thoughts?
It seems from my (basic) understanding of cultural appropriation that the real problem is when it oppresses people that still exists and trivialises their culture.
In this example, it might be appropriative of Western people to steal from Ancient Egypt just because that culture belongs to the people of modern Egypt? Is there such thing as historical appropriation?
I don’t know the answer, it’s just an interesting idea.
Play
David Cameron is uniting Britain. Against him. →
guardian.co.uk
Despite failing to win a majority when up against a desperately unpopular prime minister, in only 10 months, the coalition government has achieved what seemed impossible, amid the isolated melancholia of a late capitalist downturn, and brought Britain close to a point of genuine national unity. Against them.
As their arbitrary, scatter-gun assault on the commonweal continues, they will push more and more groups into solidarity against them – for it is the transgressive word “solidarity” that has been 2011’s rallying cry, from Wisconsin to Tahrir Square to Westminster Bridge. Already, David Cameron’s government has managed to make us believe that it hates trees, children playing, children reading, poor children, vulnerable children, poor students, the poor in general, women, higher education, culture, young people, old people, poor people having somewhere to live, rich people having to pay fair taxes, the free assembly of peaceful protesters, the north, the environment, charities, disabled people, people having jobs, civic engagement, public safety, libraries, the National Health Service, public transport and all public services.
(via thedaysarenotfullenough)
That’s a comprehensive list you’ve got there. FYGUARDIAN.
Well put. I hope it's clear that I was the one countering that disgusting saying about atheists in foxholes, not the one declaring it.
Oh yeah deffo, I hope I made it clear by my phrasing that you were countering that too.
Thanks, love your work :D
There are no atheists in a foxhole.
uh oh, better not say that to these guys:
Or Pat Tillman or any of the thousands of other U.S. military personal who put their lives on the line for you and for this country and never felt the need to believe in an imaginary friend.
As if the argument goodreasonnews reblogged even works, “there are no atheists in a foxhole.” What this argument is basically saying is that when facing almost certain death, people grasp at whatever they can to feel better, to feel like they will live on, that they will be reunited with their families.
Dude, that’s not a good argument for the existence of God hahah
Play
Play
“If a woman should be forced to see a sonogram of her unborn fetus before an abortion, shouldn’t military decision-makers be forced to visit the civilians they bomb?”
—
(via happinessnotstrength)
true story.
(via mismo-camino)
FUCK YEAH THIS.
Although, they’re probably so deluded with ‘omg we’re the good guise’ rhetoric that they’d think it was for the greater good :(
to bookmark: a wikipedia page of libyan protest chants →
en.wikipedia.org
totheexperts: It might also be worth saving a few of these, though they’re taken from places like feb17.info. Wikipedia is clearly discussing deleting the article, and it would be a shame if any of these were lost!
The Zeitgeist Movement: Far-right could rise in Britain →
zeitgeistmovement.tumblr.com
Recent research revealed that there is a potentially large support for far-right policies in Britain if they find a less violent, fascistic political articulation (read: less ranty way of ranting).
Click through or here to read the rest.
Support for the far-right in this country is far from surprising.
GOD SAVE US ALL.
If you think there's something wrong with making sure the language you use doesn't contribute to the oppression of anybody, you are almost certainly a douchebag.
…I don’t consider myself a douchebag for thinking “Baa Baa Black Sheep” shouldn’t have been altered for “political correctness”.
I’m sorry, I don’t see the term “political correctness” in the OP.
Is being a decent human being really that hard?
Apparently it’s fatal, if you listen to some people.
LOL @ the person who mentioned baa baa black sheep and political correctness, which is completely untrue. Any usage of the term ‘political correctness’ is likely to attempt justifying oppressive language and/or drum up urban myths about the PC patrol.
If it was true, and the lyrics were altered because it actually was oppressive, having a problem with that would still make you a douchebag.
Because rubberbandmusic apparently doesn't realise what he's done to make people ~omg so mean~ to him
Hey, rubberbandmusic, this is why you’re an asshole, ok?
I hate so many things about this douche’s views and responses. He’s such a troll as well that it isn’t worth bothering, he uses derailing for dummies like a checklist
Libyans begin to run Libya →
democracynow.org
In the liberated city of Benghazi, where pro-Gaddafi forces have been ousted, Libyan people are now organizing a self-government structure to manage the city. One group calling itself the Coalition of the February 17 Revolution—which is made up of doctors, lawyers, teachers, professors, workers, students—just established a city council to manage the day-to-day activities of the city.
HANAA AL-GALLAL: We cannot talk too much into the future. We are just living it minute by minute. And this is overwhelming, even to the people of the international media and international community. This is something never happened in history. And we are doing—and we are surprised ourselves, and we are proud, because in Benghazi there’s no looting, there is no chaos. Everything is—every person in this country and this city has been participating in protecting private and public property. Everybody is opening his home for the expatriates. We are doing everything. There might be minor mistakes, but this is normal. We are in emergency, but we are doing great.
SALWA BUGAIGHIS: And I want to say something else, that everybody from outside, they are asking us, “What you want to do? What you want?” Please, be patient. Please. You know, there’s a lot of stress on us, OK, because we are—we didn’t plan it in Egypt, when they say that they prepared since 1995—2005, for five years. We didn’t do nothing, OK? This comes [snaps] like this.
My favorite part of American History was always the idea of the greatest and most engaged minds in a society coming together to create the most egalitarian government they can. Now that more than 90% of Libya is out of Qaddafi’s hands, we’ll get to see the people who toppled a dictator with peaceful perseverance will do. It appears to be a far cry from the theocratic, dystopian nightmare that Glenn Beck and others at Fox would have us believe.
The idea of ‘society’s finest minds’ taking control reminds me of the pigs in Animal Farm. After all, who is better equipped to run the farm than the pigs! They are intelligent and can work out all the work for everyone else to do!
Before you know it you’re creating a hierarchy all over again. The people of Benghazi need to be careful not to mirror our bullshit system of government/democratic representation from the ashes, or to repeat other mistakes of the past.
This is, however, still good news so far.
Gadaffi bribes Libyans with phone credits →
feeds.boingboing.net
Gadaffi has sent out a mass text to Libyans offering a 100 dinar discount on their phone bill if they encourage friends not to protest.
Can you tell he’s grasping at straws?
Play
Play
Real Talk
If some anti-choice person throws water or something on my awesome GIGANTIC poster that I made for tomorrow, shit is going to go down.
Yeezy taught me.
Personally I wouldn’t make a misogynistic anti-choicer the face of a pro-choice campaign. Unless this is a stab at Kanye, in which case go ahead!
Women are going to have abortions whether they're legal or not.
Seriously. Making abortion illegal, or expensive, or hard to get won’t stop women (and other uterus-bearers) from having them. Abortion will never stop happening. It can be prevented with education and birth control, but there will never be a 0.0% abortion rate. Sorry, but that’s the truth. Unintended pregnancies happen. We need to keep abortion safe, legal and available to everyone so they won’t have to fucking die to have bodily autonomy.
If you’re for small government, and you’re still anti-choice, you’re a fucking joke. What’s more personal than my uterus?
Fun Facts!
Some pro-lifers (“life”) are coming out of the woodwork. Hi haters! Have some real talk.
So basically, if you make abortion legal, you don’t save any babies. You just force women to have unsafe abortions. Are you hearing me? Making abortion illegal does not stop abortions from happening. Anywhere.
No one cares that you think a fetus is an OMG BABIEEE. 70,000 women every year die from unsafe, illegal abortions. They especially don’t care what you think. They were going to abort the pregnancy whether it was legal to do so or not. By making abortion illegal, you are condemning them to death. Oh, and none of those *precious babiez* survive when the woman carrying them dies.
So. In sum. Making abortion illegal saves zero babies and kills roughly 70,000 women. Tell me again how that’s pro-life?
YOU AREN’T SAVING ANY BABIES. ANY. WOMEN DO NOT STOP HAVING ABORTIONS JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE ILLEGAL. YOU ARE KILLING WOMEN.
Wait, what?
Woman- an adult female person (as opposed to a man).
Adult- a fully developed person from maturity onward.
Female- being the sex (of plant or animal) that produces fertilizable gametes (ova) from which offspring develop.
You don’t have much say in the matter short of surgery.
Actually, fuckface, there are mythical creatures called ‘trans men’ and ‘genderqueers’. They actually exist. Need proof? I’m genderqueer.
Dictating other people’s genders to them makes you look like an transphobic piece-of-shit asshole.
My body does not encapsulate who I am.
Reproductive organs ≠ sex ≠ gender
“You don’t have much say in the matter short of surgery.”
YOU DON’T GET TO TELL PEOPLE THEIR GENDER. STOP TRYING TO DO IT, ASSBUTT.
^
