2

So anyways this ^ happened. Most names unblocked, because I don’t protect ig’nance. And I’m the one who liked her last comment. lmao.

Why do people love, love coming for how Black people, especially Black women, wear our damn hair? Let Beyonce be blonde, let Nicki be blonde, hell, let us all be blonde if we damn want to. It’s our head, why is everyone so obsessed with our bodies.

More proof that you gotta be careful with who you call “ally” since this girl is Latina and likes to act like she’s such a good supportive activist but as you can see if you don’t conform to her ideal of what is presentable to the cause this is the kind of judgement you’ll get.

an old but great pic of me when I first wore makeup in public! lmao it was only lipstick but i still loved the way i felt that night even if i ended up taking it off early

growing up i was really confused about my ethnicity, my dad is half white half latinx and has very eurocentric features, and my mom is fully white, making me only ¼ latina. However, I’ve learned to accept myself as a latinx person and all it has to offer. I love being latina!!

Happy Cinco de Mayo!

P'urépechan / Mexican / German, they/them pronouns please

anonymous asked:

Speaking as an Irish man, we as a culture did adapt to what was going on around us. We took on the Eurocentric behavior of being "white"

.

my goal in how i present myself is to uplift and be representation for lil dark skinned girls who don’t think they're beautiful, or think they can only achieve beauty w long flowing hair and more petite features etc.

i feel like when they see me, how i carry myself, how my beauty is not hinged upon some eurocentric feature and how i still get positive attention/affirmation from others it may help negate the messages they’re sent daily

The cultures of people of color are either packaged for consumption or called upon to fill cultural and spiritual voids of Eurocentrism.
— 

Michael Vavrus

That shit blew my mind and made understanding cultural appropriation way clearer for me. 

“The first immigrants to Europe arrived thousands of years ago from central Asia. Most pre-contact Europeans lived together in small villages. Because the continent was very crowded, their lives were ruled by strict hierarchies within the family and outside it to control resources. Europe was highly multi-ethnic, and most tribes were ruled by hereditary leaders who commanded the majority “commoners.” These groups were engaged in near constant warfare.

"Pre-contact Europeans wore clothing made of natural materials such as animal skin and plant and animal-based textiles. Women wore long dresses and covered their hair, and men wore tunics and leggings. Both men and women liked to wear jewelry made from precious stones and metals as a sign of status. Before contact, Europeans had very poor diets. Most people were farmers and grew wheat and vegetables and raised cows and sheep to eat. They rarely washed themselves, and had many diseases because they often let their animals live with them.

"Religion infused every part of Europeans’ lives. Europeans believed in one supreme deity, a father figure, who they believed was made of three parts, and they particularly worshiped the deity’s son. They claimed that their god had given humans domination over the earth. They built elaborate temples to him and performed ceremonies in which they ate crackers and drank wine and believed it was the body and blood of their god, who would provide them with entrance into a wondrous afterlife called heaven when they died. Many wars were fought over disagreements about the details of this religion, each group believing their interpretation was the right one that should be spread across the land.”

Now imagine that is part of a textbook that has entire chapters on the Mississippian polities of the 1200s and a detailed account of the diplomatic situation of the southeastern provinces in the 1400s and 1500s, an enormous section that goes through the history of the rise of the Triple Alliance in Mexico and goes through the rule of each tlatoani and their policies, the heritage of Teotihuacan and its legacy in later Mesoamerican politics, elaborate descriptions of the trade routes that connected and drove various nations in North America. Long explanations of the rise of various religious movements such as the calumet ceremony and Midewiwin, and how they affected political agendas and artistic trends. Pages and pages and pages going through the past thousand years of American history century by century.

And these three paragraphs are the only mention of European history before the year 1500.

If your textbook of North American history goes into the details of the Middle Ages, the Reformation and Renaissance, the Silk Road, and European monarchies, and you don’t include equal description of the Mississippian coalescence and dispersal, Haudenosaunee-Algonquian relations, the Woodlands, trans-plains, and southwestern trade systems, the Mexica conquests and the Fifth Sun ideology with explicit naming of various places and leaders, then your textbook is inadequate.

Why do you include those “pre-contact” European things? Because they explain the motivations and reasons for what Europeans did. But people largely imagine North America as this timeless place and don’t recognize that pre-contact American history had just as much of an effect on post-contact history because it provides explanations of the motivations and reasonings behind indigenous peoples’ actions.

But of course, that would require people to recognize that indigenous people had their own histories and agendas and agency that affected the course of history rather than making them a passive recipient of European historical force.

vanadiumn asked:

Its not white power its MAJORITY power, POC are not 'persecuted' in coountries where theyre the majority.

When a white person migrates to Africa, he is going from a position of power, to power. An African coming to Europe lands from power into powerlessness. We Africans cannot do much with our diplomas here. Once I had learned Dutch and went to the job centre, they offered me a position as a cleaning lady. And in the shop it happens regularly that someone follows me around to check that I am not stealing anything. In expensive boutiques I might not even get served. The sales personnel assume I cannot afford to buy anything anyway. Whereas a white person in Nigeria, even if he has no skills whatsoever, always gets opportunities. No Nigerian would dream of offering you a job as a cleaning lady.

-“Strangers in Each Other’s Countries: A Discussion with Chika Unigwe”

(Femke van Zeijl)

and

…Yet magically they think they are in the position to determine where racism is or is not. 2) Varying population densities where Whites are a numerical minority erases racism and White supremacy. This is also false. Whites do not have to have a numerical majority for White supremacy to exist. Because Whiteness impacts the entire globe—you know the globe where over 80% of it has been impacted by colonialism and White supremacy—yet of course actual White people are a numerical minority globally, clearly it can be seen that this is not a numbers issue. Power, platform, and money lie in the hands of small groups that are often White (and usually cis hetero male) lead. Governments, global corporations, and more are concentrated in power and regardless of the race of the person “in charge” reflect the whims of imperialist White supremacist capitalist cisheteropatriarchy. 

-White Supremacy is GLOBAL: Racism Isn’t Only American. White Supremacy Isn’t Only Western

(Gradient lair)

and

“The media in black countries is white wtf are white people talking about. White supremacy rules the world. All these books and movies we have in gambia are from america and all of the characters are white why do you think so many black women in african countries bleach themselves to death. In asia tanned and dark skin is looked down upon and are treated as inferior and whites are treated like these pure trophies like white ppl stfu.”

-Anonymous via We Love Black Girls

and

  • Jazmine DuBois:Huey, what does Eurocentrism mean?
  • Huey Freeman:Eurocentrism, it's when you eliminate the african perspective and marginalize or omit people of color, their contributions, their experiences, etc... Understand?
  • Jazmine DuBois:Not really...
  • Huey Freeman:Do you watch "Friends"?
  • Jazmine DuBois:Yes
  • Huey Freeman:Then you understand.
Adoptive parents have the right to choose between age, country, race, handicap, et cetera. The fact that certain countries remain strong favorites for adoptive parents speaks volumes of how racialized thinking continues to live on under anti-racist surface narratives.

Korea, Ethiopia, and Colombia are countries whose children fit Eurocentric standards of beauty more than others in the same regions; compare children from Korea to children from Malaysia, children from Ethiopia to children from Kenya, and children from Colombia to children from Bolivia. Furthermore, [Western] adoptive parents display a clear preference for girls and ‘racially pure’ children.
—  Tobias Hubinette, A Critique of International Adoption [translated from Swedish]

Why don’t they teach us more about Latin America in school? I spent so much time learning about European history, but didn’t learn much about the rich history that was happening in the Americas.

Adoption is a White privilege.

In 1904, a group of forty New York orphans were sent to live with Catholic families in Arizona. However, the Catholics turned out to be Mexicans and the local Anglos were so outraged at this race boundary transgression that they instigated a mass abduction of the children.

Through this direct action, trans-racial adoption as a white privilege was resolutely reinforced.This privilege continues in the contemporary era. One can only imagine the reactions if white European children were to be sent to Latin American or African countries for international adoption.

In the pre-Civil Rights United States, a handful of states even went so far as to legislate against interracial adoption or even fostering of white children by non-whites, and in the late 1990s a widely publicized controversy erupted, when a black woman in Detroit wanted to adopt a white girl.

- Tobias Hübinette, Between European Colonial Trafficking, American Empire-Building and Nordic Social Engineering: Rethinking International Adoption From a Postcolonial and Feminist Perspective

[Translated from Swedish]


Bolded mine.

Whenever somebody unearths an ancient knife or comb or what-have-you, the articles about it invariably talk about the complex geometric symbolism of the decorative patterns and how the animal motifs have deep spiritual significance with respect to the object’s function and so forth. Does anybody else always wonder whether it’s complete nonsense? Like, are we expected to believe that pre-modern humans had no concept of decoration as decoration? That aesthetics are a modern invention? Maybe the reason that thousand-year-old hair-brush has a cat’s face carved into the handle isn’t because its originating culture regarded cats as the tutelary spirits of tidy hair. Maybe it’s just because they thought kitties are pretty.

Given my own experience in educational and professional spaces, I try to be more sensitive to what it feels like being “the only [insert your category here]” in class and to be more mindful of how the particular composition of the classroom can inflect a discussion. In one of my classes, we were discussing the Travels of John Mandeville and its description of “Ethiopians” and discourses of blackness and beauty. There happened be only one black student in class that day, and as we approached this topic many of the classmates’ glances began to drift, as if on cue, toward this person…perhaps in anticipation that this student would soon speak up, or otherwise just to gauge her reaction; in any case, it was an unconscious and unspoken shift in the class dynamic that “singled out” the student in a way that obviously made her uncomfortable.

This student avoided eye contact with me as this was happening (clearly she did not want to be called upon) and, picking up on this weird classroom dynamic, I redirected the conversation by inserting myself in the moment. I said something to the effect that “as a nonwhite person I find these Eurocentric racial discourses cause me great discomfort. We obviously have both white and nonwhite people in this room, so what are some ways we can all approach reading this passage today?” I found that at this point all the students felt they had more of a “way into” the discussion and there was no longer this perception that only one “type” of person bore the burden of responding to this passage. It was one way to give us all permission to openly acknowledge the many different bodies in class and to engage in a shared discussion.

Although I touched base with this particular student later about things in office hours and we had a productive conversation about this and made sure she hadn’t felt alienated, I don’t doubt that I could have done better—but I at least tried to “call out” a (subtle) shift in class behavior as it was happening and do something productive with it.

Anon asks:

Keep me anon! Eurocentric beauty standards are very alive and a big deal, all around the world. People risk their health buying skin bleaching creams. And it’s not just with skin color. “Good hair” basically means “white hair”. Some schools and jobs even ban dreadlocks, Afros, and other POC hairstyles. Makeup artists are trained to make Asians’ eyes wider and black girls’ noses thinner. Every part of our beauty standards is centered around white women, and it’s huge a feminist issue.