In response to this post I will now explain the difference between cultural assimilation and cultural appropriation.
Cultural assimilation happens when culture is stripped from a group of people and a new one is forced on them. The enforcers (usually white people) will tell the minority group that their culture is savage, undignified, uncivilized and unnatural. they will be made fun of, abused, and put down for their culture and often times their natural born features. In the end, in order to keep from being persecuted and possibly physically harmed, the minority race will adopt European standards. Some examples:
Nothing is wrong with assimilation (besides the oppressive loss of culture, but that isn’t the fault of the one being oppressed). It is a way of surviving.
Now, appropriation happens when the Majority (usually white people) sees something from another culture that they like. But damn! we already told them that they were uncivilized. well, if we take a part of their culture and pretend its new and trendy and put it on a white person then we can have that without stooping to where they are. They steal our features, the same features that they ridiculed us for, and use them like it has been theirs all long. examples:
In conclusion, cultural assimilation is done in order to survive but cultural appropriation is done in order to make yourself feel cooler by stealing from the very people you pushed into the dirt.
Teddy Ruxpin was a little electronic teddybear with a solid chest that you put tapes into, and his mouth moved to speak the tapes out loud, and tell you stories. You had to pay 160 dollars to own this fuzzy jackass, and it was worth every cent when he terrified your siblings - especially when the batteries ran low and his voice dropped into a DRONING DEMONIC BARITONE…
Sophocles: Oedipus Rex / Oedipus at Colonus / Antigone
Aristophanes: Lysistrata, The Clouds, The Frogs, The Birds
Rome: When the World Was Ruled by Italians
Catallus, Propertius, Tibullus
Virgil: The Eclogues, The Georgics, The Aeneid
Ovid: The Metamorphoses, The Art of Love
Horace: Epodes and Satires, Odes
St. Augustine of Hippo: Confessions
The Middle Ages and Points Between
The Song of Roland
Chrétien de Troyes: Lancelot, le chevalier de la Charrette (Knight of the Cart)
Thomas Mallory: Le Morte d'Arthur
Peter Abélard and Héloïse d’Argenteuil: The History of My Misfortunes, Letters
Romance de la Rose (Romance of the Rose)
Geoffrey Chaucer: Troilus and Criseyde, The Canterbury Tales
Sir Gawain and the Green Knight
Dante Alighieri: La Vita Nuova, Inferno, Purgatorio, Paradiso
The Renaissance: Back to the Future
Francesco Petrarca (Petrarch): Il Canzonierre
Giovanni Boccaccio: The Decameron
Benvenuto Cellini: Autobiography
François Villon: poems
François Rabelais: Gargantua and Pantagruel
Michel de Montaigne: essays
Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra: Don Quixote
Christopher Marlowe: The Jew of Malta, Doctor Faustus, Edward II
Edmund Spenser: The Faerie Queene
William Shakespeare: see below
Ben Jonson: Volpone, The Alchemist
William "Look At Me, I Get My Own Chapter" Shakespeare
The Tragedies: Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, King Lear, Macbeth, Othello, Julius Caesar, Romeo and Juliet, Cymbeline, Coriolanus
The Histories: Richard II, King Henry IV (Part One, Part Two), Henry V, Richard III
The Comedies: A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Much Ado About Nothing, The Taming of the Shew, The Merchant of Venice, The Tempest, The Comedy of Errors, The Merry Wives of Windsor, Love’s Labour’s Lost, Twelfth Night, As You Like It
Here Come the Puritans: Parade, Meet Rain
Cavaliers: Robert Herrick, Richard Lovelace, John Suckling, Thomas Carew
Metaphysics: John Donne, George Herbert, Henry Vaughn, Abraham Cowley, Richard Crawshaw, Andrew Marvell
Okay so I’ve been seeing a whole lot of screaming on my dash about Hamilton and his opinions/thoughts on slavery. In the name of making sure everyone is properly educated in their screaming, I’m going to try and dispel some of the myths surrounding this topic.
First, let’s get one thing straight: Hamilton was NOT an abolitionist. I don’t care how you look at it, he simply was not. He made deals involving slaves, he married one of the largest slave holding families in New York, and he was obsessed with raising his station in society, which meant, you guessed it, owning/renting slaves.
Many biographers, including Chernow, cite Hamilton’s impoverished childhood in the Caribbean as the basis for his supposed abolitionist tendencies. There are a number of problems with this theory. After his mother died, Hamilton and his brother James found themselves the owners of a few household slaves, but due to legal inheritance laws, they could not technically own them. The fact still remains, his family, however poor they were, they still had slaves in the house, showing that even poor whites had social and legal status above slaves. When Hamilton was working in the trading company, while he may have become disillusioned with the idea of slavery, he most likely supported the institution, simply because it was his livelihood. If he spoke out against it in any way, he could have lost his position in the company.
After Hamilton came to America and joined the war effort, he and John Laurens both supported Laurens’ idea for an all black army regiment, which is another point that biographers often use to support “Hamilton was an abolitionist”. This brings up a key point of this argument: whatever Hamilton thought of slavery, his decisions involving such were often politically motivated, not personally. He probably supported the idea of the black regiment because it was the best for America, not because he exactly wanted the slaves free. Another problem is that, according to Henry Laurens, John wouldn’t forcibly make anyone free their slaves because he believed too much in the property rights in the colonies, which also speaks more to political motivations than to personal ones. As Alexander and John were very close, it can be assumed that they shared very similar views.
Hamilton married Eliza Schuyler, a member of one of the most wealthy northern slaveholding families. Their marriage is somewhat romanticized in the musical; Hamilton most likely married Eliza as a way to move up on the social ladder, not for love. If someone was opposed to slavery as much as Hamilton is usually portrayed, he would have had serious qualms about marrying into a slave family. While it is disputed if the Hamiltons ever actually owned slaves, often, he made deals for his in-laws involving slaves, including some for Angelica and her husband, and also made slave purchases for the Continental Army. Another factor in his complacency in a slave economy was most likely his close relationship with George Washington, the owner of one of the largest plantations in the south.
After the war, Hamilton was a member and founder of the Society for the Promotion of the Manumission of Slaves in New York although society records don’t show much direct involvement in proposing anti-slavery legislation, or, indeed, much involvement at all. The society did not interfere with property rights, however, as members could still own slaves. Remember, slaves were considered property in 18th century America. As you’ll recall, Hamilton was a staunch supporter of property rights. Another probable reason for his membership in the society was the fact that it brought him close to the upper echelons of New York society. The Marquis de Lafayette praised Hamilton for his involvement in the society, but Lafayette had his own set of issues involving slavery.
Like James Madison, Hamilton supported the 3/5ths compromise in the Constitution, which allowed the southern states to count a certain fraction of their substantial slave population for their representation in the House. This compromise managed to keep the southern states in power until the Civil War. Hamilton was an elitist, thinking that the more property one owned meant their vote should count more. Because he wanted a strong national economy, Hamilton knew it was a necessary compromise in order to appease the south and get them to participate in the economy.
In the peace treaty at the end of the revolutionary war, Hamilton supported compensating the slave owners whose slaves had run behind British lines, proving, once again, his opinion on property rights outweighed whatever he thought of the institution of slavery as a whole. When the Haitian Revolution broke out in 1791, he supported the French government in lieu of the new one, but as Toussaint L'Ouverture’s government grew in power and control, he supported continued trade, so long as L'Ouverture could guarantee the safety of US property and assets.
Hamilton, as far as I know, never wrote specifically about his ideals on slavery. If he did refer to it, he was usually talking about a transaction that he carried out for someone else. His membership in the manumission society was mostly symbolic. Mostly, he was there to interact with high society. Whatever he truly thought about slavery, we’ll never know. He simply chose the stance that would most benefit him or the country, straddling the line between abolitionists and slaveholders.
Biographers often overstate Hamilton’s membership in the Manumission Society, saying that indicates staunch abolitionist tendencies, which is an exaggeration. It is important to remember when reading any biography, it will be biased in the direction of the subject. Sure, it may list faults, but it usually will not go into too much detail. In order to get a full picture of anything, look at multiple sources from opposing sides, or from sources not focused on one individual. Be educated in any argument you are involved in. It makes for a lot better a conversation.
I’ve seen a lot of posts going around talking about Barkhad Abdi and his revolutionary road to first time actor, first time Oscar nominee, and imma let you finish, but first we need to talk about Haing S. Ngor for a quick minute.
this is Haing S. Ngor
He was a Cambodian physician/gynecologist forced into a concentration camp during the Khmer Rouge “Year Zero” campaign in 1975.
[[The “Year Zero” campaign was a horrifying effort to eradicate certain culture and western influence in Cambodia between 1975 and 1979 that resulted in the death of 3 million people. Many of those who were killed were intellectuals, lawyers, doctors, students, and members of minority groups.]]
While working at the concentration camp, Ngor needed to conceal his education to avoid sudden death. This tactic saved his own life, but rendered him unable to assist his pregnant wife through a complicated childbirth, resulting in her death.
When the Khmer control of Cambodia ceased in 1979, Ngor worked as a physician in Thai refugee camps, and later left for America in 1980. He would be unable to practice medicine in the United States.
In 1984, despite no previous acting experience, Ngor was cast as Dith Pran in the Killing Fields. The Killing Fields was a film account of photojournalist Dith Pran’s experiences under the Khmer Rouge, and his own endurance and escape from the concentration camps.
Ngor was able to channel his own experiences into a remarkable performance that garnered instant praise. Although a non-actor in his first movie, Ngor would win
a Golden Globe
an Academy Award
This win would make him only the fourth Asian to win an Oscar for acting in recorded history. This win, in 1984, was the last acting category win for any Asian actors thus far (read: no Asian has won an Oscar for acting in thirty years)
Sadly, Haing S. Ngor was murdered in 1996 in a supposed (but shady as fuck) robbery. He did not seem to fear death, as he was quoted after the release of the Killing Fields: If I die from now on, OK! This film will go on for a hundred years.
So um yeah.
The point of this post was not to draw attention away from Abdi, but simply to educate those who may not be aware of another POC non-actor who was nominated for (and won) an Oscar in their first film. And, for as horrific as the events of the Year Zero campaign/Khmer Rouge reign were, no one seems to remember and that should not be.
So let’s all give Haing S. Ngor some props already.
How to understand why Louis and Danielle had no idea they were being photographed. These lenses are INSANE and can get distances the human eye can not possibly see. *thanks to @toasttostyles for sending this to @1dedus*
If only white people understood that we fear for our lives....
They are quick to make things about them. How their precious white egos are bruised. How black people victimize them.
WE LIVE IN FEAR.
Not just fear for our lives. We look on TV and fear being like one of the black people the media portrays. Afraid of being labelled ‘ratchet’ or dangerous. Afraid to be one of the negative statistics constantly shoved down our throats. We fear turning on the TV and recognizing the most recent victim. We fear other minorities who have endorsed the white agenda.
Racist white people are only half of the story. Everyone can have their prejudice. The real fear comes from the system. A system that has made it clear that black lives come last. Black portrayal in the media comes last on the list of things to change. A system that tells other people that black people are their own enemies. A system that masks the history and psychology behind our actions.
If only they knew the fear we live in every single day. Smh.
Some day people will realise that the MCU is not the only canon, right? And that it’s not even the most important canon?
In the game of “is Clintasha canon or not?” I see your MCU and raise you Earth’s Mightiest Heroes, Iron Man: Armored Adventures, New Avengers: Breakout prose novel, flirting and hints in various video games (Lego Marvel, Future Fight, Puzzle Quest), A-Babies… oh, and the freaking 616 that is THE Marvel canon.
I’ve seen ALL OVER Tumblr from anti-clexas and blarkes complaining about how the clexa journey in season 3 is WAY TOO RUSHED and it makes Clarke OOC (out of character). My response: How??? Too many people have misunderstood Clarke’s emotions and actions in the recent episodes, so I’m going to try to straighten it out for you, episode by episode.
(WARNING: THIS WILL BE LONG AF SO READ WITH DISCRETION)
(WARNING 2: IF YOU DO NOT HAVE AN OPEN MIND ABOUT CLARKE AND LEXA THEN PLEASE DO NOT READ, I WON’T BE ABLE TO CONVINCE YOU AT ALL NO MATTER HOW HARD I TRY. Only read if you are willing to accept something that you might not be comfortable with accepting!)
(SIDE NOTE: This post is in no way anti-bellarke, I love the ship and I respect it, so please don’t add onto my post saying I’m a stupid clexa stan who can’t respect my boundaries. I’m merely trying to inform people!!!)
ya’ll need to watch this video and stop sending me asks lol. Reverse Racism isn’t a thing. Sexism towards men isn’t a thing. It requires a history of oppression, social power, and the oppression to be systemic.
FEMINISM IS NOTNOTNOT ABOUT HATING MEN. IT IS ABOUT EQUALITY OF THE SEXES, EQUAL RIGHTS FOR EVERYONE.
IF YOU BELIEVE THAT FEMINISM IS ABOUT PUTTING MEN DOWN, THEN YOU ARE BUYING IN TO SOCIETY’S DEMONIZING OF THE MOVEMENT, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY WE NEED IT. THIS VILIFICATION IS A VERY EFFECTIVE WAY TO DISMISS THE REAL ISSUES THAT FEMINISM DEALS WITH