anonymous asked:

You're right about biracial being mixed. But I meant the stereotypical biracial. Slightly lighter skin and sort of looser/softer curls. People making post about mixed being beautiful and only having pictures of that type of mixed.

Okay, I can get why that would be frustrating but that doesn’t make people who look “stereotypically mixed” (which is to say they look like the exotified ideal of a White/Black mix) any less mixed. Biracial people are still mixed, even the ones who are touted as the ideal. That ties back to colourism, who is viewed as “an acceptable minority” and how narrowly a person deviates from popular Eurocentric beauty standards. 

I don’t happen to follow any blogs that put that kinda stuff up on my dash, but should I see posts with photosets about “beautiful mixed people” and they’re supporting and adhering to those standards, I’d post some pictures of mixed people who don’t follow those tropes which are exotifying and encourage internalized racism and gassing up the privilege of mixed people who do look like that (especially if like me, they’re light skinned with light eyes)–personally, I’ve only had cause to do that a few times since usually when I see stuff like that on my dash, someone’s already done that and I just reblog it. It might be something you can do if you’ve got the mind frame for it rather than scrolling past

I don’t think you’re wrong in being bothered/annoyed/angry that very particular features/standards are pressed upon even what mixed people should look like–it supports a lot of harmful ideals that get internalized both by people who don’t look like that and can turn into internalized racism very quickly and by people who do look like that where it can turn into an internalization of unfair privilege and contribute to factors stemming from exotification that are harmful. And maybe it was just a poor turn of phrase but “Am I right to be annoyed that a lot of people in the mixed race tag are actually biracial?” is outright saying you don’t consider biracial people mixed

Even “stereotypically looking“ biracial people are still mixed whether or not anyone likes it
–Coyote

i’ve been reading a lot about this sort of thing and i’ve been thinking that the way we tend to talk about “empire” is really ineffective like it’s a very eurocentric approach, and by that i mean anglo-british-french-centered approach. we talk about empire only in terms of “imperialism” ie a system of economic subordination and exploitation featuring a metropole and colonies, and i think a similar distinction that can be made between colonialism and colonization can maybe be made when we talk about empire, like there’s imperialism as a system but there are also Empires that may not match this definitional behavioural pattern but still very much act like empires, in that they suppress and administrate and relocate and forcibly assimilate a broad variety of groups, and when we centre all our “empire” analysis on western empires and imperialism, we don’t do an effective job of understanding or addressing issues in other imperial contexts eg across the eurasian continent like idk i’m just spitballing i wanna read more about this

really, Hun, if you’re so “ body positive ” , then why don’t you constantly praise oppressive eurocentric standards of beauty? Hmm? (:

spanishlips asked:

Not a question but: So yesterday Bare Minerals posted a pic of 4 white models on their Instagram and I stated "needs more diversity" then a few women also agreed w me and commented, well today I check and they deleted the post. I comment again and no response. I am hoping they answer and communicate or make it right but I feel ignored. I don't want woc to support a brand that can ignore them. Hopefully they make it right.

Ugh, that’s awful!! But unfortunately not unheard of, racism is rampant in the beauty industry and eurocentric standards of beauty are often held as the only kind of beauty. Thank you so much for sharing this and speaking out, it’s important to hold people accountable for behavior like this.

- Ariana

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]

sometimes i feel there’s a tendency to forget that Christianity is a religion that was born in the Middle East…not a religion founded by Europe. Many people in the MENA were Christian when Europe was still worshipping its pagan gods and polytheistic pantheons. yes, it is important to wrestle with how Europeans, after they converted to Christianity due to Roman imperialism, used it themselves as a tool for their own imperialism. but conflating the history of Christianity with whiteness comes off to me as actually a reproduction of white supremacy itself. like we’re attributing things to Europeans/whiteness again, and forgetting its Middle-Eastern roots. Eurocentric history, no?

this is actively harmful when it leads to the notion that Christians everywhere = privileged. they are not- MENA Christians are facing genocidal violence at the hands of ISIS right now, for instance. these people are not white or Westerners who can escape from this via Western privilege. If we go further back in time, the Ottoman Empire’s genocide was targeted at Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks, who were Christian minorities in what’s now modern Turkey. 

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.

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.

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.