rebellion against society

I am getting REALLY annoyed by how people are getting upset with Connie in “Dewey Wins”. I’ve seen people say that she is being a drama queen or right our calling her a bitch. I even saw one comment saying that because this show isn’t about her, she shouldn’t even be getting upset because it’s not all about her.

Y’all. Connie is a YOUNG TEEN who has been put in a position that almost no one her age has gone through. She is a part of an alien-human rebellion against an authoritarian alien society that literally wants to wipe out all of humanity. She’s not even 13 yet, and she has almost been killed multiple times because she’s been associated with this rebellion, and, after joining, has experienced even more near-death experiences.

Not only that, but she had an entire arc of the show dedicated to how she doesn’t need to sacrifice herself for Steven’s sake. About how they can do things together and that she doesn’t have to fight by herself. 

Originally posted by starscheme

“I don’t know what’ll happen in the future, but if something dangerous comes along, I don’t wanna be a burden, I wanna help! I wanna be there for Steven, to fight by his side! The Earth is my home too, can’t I help protect it?”

Later, after Steven reminds her that they can fight together, time and time again, they follow through with this. Connie doesn’t have to sacrifice herself to prove her worth, because fighting by their side is enough. 

Then, Steven gives himself up to Homeworld. He doesn’t fight… He doesn’t make an attempt to do anything except give in. He accepts responsibility for something that he had literally no control over and decides it’s his burden to bear. He doesn’t think; he just does it.

Yes, Steven meant well with it. He did it to save everyone. But Connie has stated time and time again that she wanted to be with him, to go down with him together or not at all.

Steven is running on the logic of “it’s my fault let me fix it”
Connie is running on the emotion of “We’re friends, your problems are our problems”

And it just… makes me very upset to see people calling a not even teenage girl a bitch because she’s working through her emotions. She thought one of her only friends was gone forever, possibly dead. She’s happy, but also hurt about what he did. Y’all say you want complex female characters, but as soon as we get one, y’all hate her for not being perfect.

Miranda Hamilton’s war against England

I love Black Sails’ Lady Miranda Hamilton, because she is unapologetic and has the autonomy of a Jane Austen or Mary Wollstonecraft heroine. The witty, educated, literary, flirtatious salon hostess turned dissenter and rebel - that’s a trope I would like to see more of on television.

Miranda would have been at the centre of political and artistic life in London. She was wealthy, assumably respected despite the rumours of her affairs, and happily married. History is full of women trapped in horrible, violent, stifling marriages, but that of Miranda and Thomas seems to have been a true marriage of minds, based on actual love (in whatever form) as well as mutual respect and admiration.

Black Sails is preoccupied with narrative and story telling, and the power of a good story is frequently used to shift alliances and to create villains.

In the eyes of England - imperialist, patriarchal England, Miranda would be at her most admirable as an accomplished hostess, an undesirably intelligent woman perhaps, but she adhered to and upheld the rules of society, and if she ever deviated she did so quietly, in private. For instance, although she wants James to accompany her in public, she only kisses him in the carriage, once they are out of the public eye. She knows exactly what she is allowed to do, but also how she can discreetly manoeuvre her way to obtain something forbidden.

When James initially announces that he and Miranda will not settle in Europe, we get the sense that he intends to raise hell when he reaches New Providence. He does not. Instead he adapts and becomes the very thing he swore to fight and reform. In Nassau, Miranda becomes increasingly reckless and restless, meddling in the politics of the place by forging alliances, confronting and initiating sex with the pastor and she continuously urges James to keep Thomas’ legacy alive by evoking change, even if it is just change for the two of them. In England, James was the plain spoken lieutenant and she the witty, much admired and much adaptable socialite, but in Nassau their roles are reversed. James becomes the figure of adoration (or at least fear) and Miranda the rational dissenter, forever sparring the arguments of others, those of the pastor, the Guthries and James.

Why did Miranda settle in Nassau? She could have severed all ties to James, even spoken out against him to save her own skin, throwing herself on the mercy of Lord Alfred Hamilton. Less drastically, she could have started a new life in Amsterdam or Paris with the help of Lord Ashe. By assuming a new identity (which she does anyway), she could have lived modestly but comfortably as a governess, teaching music, literature, languages. She could have hid behind a personae, like James does with Flint, but even as Mrs Barlow, the pious, Purcell-loving recluse, she is very much the Miranda Hamilton she has always been, even if she does not fully realise it herself. Miranda settles in Nassau after making a ‘hard choice, to achieve the least awful outcome’, to use the wording Lord Ash later employs to excuse his own treachery. Miranda’s chooses to leave civilisation but to keep her integrity, an act of open rebellion against society. Miranda Hamilton declares war on England.

She has not yet realised the extent or the danger of her rebellion when she urges James to ask for a pardon. She laments the lack of company, art and music, and pleads with him to return to civilisation. James furiously refuses to take her advice and accept a pardon, stating that it would be equivalent to apologising to England. ‘The moment I sign that pardon,’ he gnarls; ‘the moment I ask for one, I proclaim to the world that they were right. This ends when I grant them my forgiveness not the other way around.

While on their way to Charlestown, Miranda confesses her astonishment to James on finding that Abigail has grown up. ‘It’s like she’s some sort of clock that’s finally struck its chime and woken me from this dream we’ve been living, reminded me how many years separate me from a world I still think of as home. How unrecognizable the woman I am now would be to the woman I was then,’ she states. As viewers, we are invited to view this as a poetic way of showing for just how long Miranda and James have been exiled, (and perhaps suggesting that mourns her own childlessness), but when James replies that he still recognises her, it is not just a kind reassurance, it demonstrates how little they have changed, despite everything. They are recognisable to each other because they are cut from the same cloth, because their integrity is still intact, because they tirelessly refuse to capitulate, because they are allies in the war against injustice and England.

Miranda inevitably realises the extent of her rebellion, because of the clock, her clock, which now stands in the home of Lord Ashe in Charlestown. It is at this moment that she realises how her values and those of the civilised world are at odds, how her autonomy makes it impossible for her to return to society. Civilisation comes at too high a price. Having been uncharacteristically quiet for the duration of their visit, Miranda raises her voice at a critical point. She demonstrates that at a moment when James is prepared to compromise, she is not. Compromise is capitulation, and capitulation is out of the question. 

Miranda, James and Lord Ashe have all had to make hard choices, but unlike the former, Lord Ashe lost his integrity the moment he de facto capitulated to Lord Alfred Hamilton by aiding him vilifying James. Lord Ashe considered the least awful outcome to be one where society persevered over scandal, where England triumphed over degenerates and the status quo was upheld. ‘You wish to return to civilisation,’ he scorns, ‘that is what civilisation is.’ Lord Ashe stands for civilisation, Thomas, in allegedly forgiving the treachery of his friend, stands for civilisation, Miranda and James stand for justice, integrity and freedom.

Miranda, which was as her most admirable to England as a polite socialite, raises her voice and becomes this raging, furious rebel, which makes her all the more admirable to the viewers. We half expect James to interfere, to cut Lord Ashe down then and there, as the camera zooms in on his face as the truth dawns on him, that he was almost tricked into capitulating to his greatest enemy. In a furious monologue which would not be out of place if delivered by James, Miranda states that she wants to see the Charlestown burned to the ground, and as she does so, she pleadingly turns to James.

We were initially told stories about the mysterious Mrs Barlow’s hold on Captain Flint and how she made him kill on her behalf. Later we hear her blaming herself for letting James know Lord Alfred Hamilton’s whereabouts, we hear her blaming herself for being an instrument in their murder. In truth, there is no way she could have resisted letting him know which ship he was on, it would not have been in her nature. As she tells James when they first meet: ‘Great men aren’t made great by politics. They aren’t made great by prudence or propriety. They are, every last one of them, made great by one thing and one thing only, the relentless pursuit of a better world.’ Miranda has an agency of her own and no means of quitting it. The narrative of Black Sails depicts Miranda’s transformation from villain, to an understandably bitter intermediary to murder and finally, in Lord Ashe’s dining room, to an autonomous rebel, outright promising destruction.

As Lady Hamilton, the hostess and socialite, she was tolerated. As Mrs Barlow, a nondescript exiled Englishwoman, she was tolerated. She might even have been tolerated in Charlestown, had she been submissive and repentant. As a plain spoken, vengeful - and more importantly, rebellious woman in open dissent of the values of civilised England, she could not be tolerated. Had she agreed to Lord Ashe’s plan, or fallen to her knees pleading for him to concoct another, less vile, she would have lived. But here we have an educated, cultivated, intelligent woman who once knew and followed the rules of society, who refuses to capitulated her integrity, who still thinks of England as home. A treason not to be borne! Lord Ashe acted to protect the status quo, but Miranda acts to protect herself in the face of hypocrisy, and this is what kills her. Miranda was a free spoken Englishwoman and her persistently unapologetic existence put her at constant war with civilisation. She was shot because she stood too close to Lord Ashe, too close to England. She refused to offer her country forgiveness of its treatment of her and was executed for her rebellion.

‘The danger here is real,’ she warns James in London. In Charlestown she finds herself in fearless in opposition. Miranda dies because she has realised that she is at war, because a  rational, autonomous, dissenting woman is too dangerous an enemy for England to let live.

The worlds created by Tove Jansson and Astrid Lindgren offered the same kind of freedom and rebellion against limitations imposed by society. Each one of the Moomin characters is of equal value, and they are allowed to be as eccentric as they like.
—  Björk on the Moomins and Pippi Longstocking (”Walt Disney was largely unknown [in her childhood]”), Helsingin Sanomat (2010)
8

~ FROM PROMETHEUS TO ALIEN COVENANT: THE FIRE THIEF / THE LIGHT - BRINGER ~


The roots of all the Romanticism of Alien Covenant are in the first chapter of the saga, are in the movie Prometheus, are in the name of Prometheus itself.
At the beginning of Prometheus, Weyland tells the story of the titan Prometheus, the one that stole the fire from Gods and brought it to the humans.
Destiny wants that Prometheus was one of the most important literary characters for Romantic poets.
The connection between Alien Covenant and Prometheus, these two movies apparently pretty different, is so strong.

Lots of Romantic poets wrote about Prometheus (Goethe, Byron, Shelley… ), the titan was a symbol of men’s struggle and rebellion against society, against tyranny. Prometheus was a symbol of a man capable to sacrifice himself and endure terrible pain in order to rebel to the “higher powers”. Sometimes the myth of Prometheus is used as a metaphor to express the desire to break away from being restricted. For Romantics, every person should be free to live how he or she want without being manipulated by society. Individual subjectivity is important for Romantic authors, the notion of “self” shouldn’t be repressed.
Weyland is a sort of Romantic hero and has quite an admiration for Prometheus figure. In the Ted Talk he profess himself a god because of the powers given to him by technology, and technology, represented by fire, was stolen from the Gods by Prometheus. At the end of his life, Weyland doesn’t want to die (because Gods don’t die) and decide that he must try to find his creators to obtain eternal life. Prometheus was the creator of mankind, and Weyland pretends the gift of immortality from his creators (also because he gave it to HIS creature: David). But deep inside, yes, Weyland wants to find his creators only to obtain immortality. Only to be recognized by them as a God him too. He wants to really be a God. To be “superior” to normal humans.

“We are the Gods now”

He probably doesn’t care much about asking to the Engineers the meaning of existence. The one that wants a “relationship” with the creators is Elizabeth. She’s the “true believer”. Weyland only wants immortality: with or without the Gods.
Weyland was ready to accept the Engineers’ death if he could find a way to obtain eternal life anyway.
Weyland was ready to STOLE the secret of “superhuman status” if necessary. “Prometheus”, the name of the “fire thief” it’s the name of his ship, the Prometheus ship.

“It is time for Prometheus to returns”

Said Weyland, and later in the movie, he asks DAVID to experiment with the black goo found in the pyramid. Weyland brought a sort of Prometheus with him: David. Weyland created David to feel like a creator, a God, but also to be helped by him to find the Gods (in order to stole their secrets). David is a sort of Prometheus.
In Alien Covenant we see that David cares about individual subjectivity, just as like Romantic poets who wrote about Prometheus cared. What’s the black goo? The black goo is the Engineers’ power of LIFE and DEATH. The black goo can destroy, can create, can “reshape life”. The black goo is the POWER of the Gods. The black goo was the substance at the origin of mankind itself! David experiments with the black goo realizing that with it he can EVEN gets pregnant a sterile woman like Elizabeth!
David steals the black goo, the Engineers’ technology, the fire of the Gods.
At the end of Prometheus, Weyland dies, punished by the awakened Engineer, but David’s adventure continues.
The Prometheus of the myth stole the fire because he loved mankind. He did that for love. David has no love for Weyland, but he develops love for Elizabeth. In the Advent video he says that he desperately tried to make Elizabeth MORE THAN HUMAN. David, just like a Prometheus who wanted to elevate human condition, tries to use the power he stole to probably make Elizabeth immortal, to give her the eternal life that Weyland wanted for himself.
Romantic poets used the Prometheus figure because they liked the “rebel” figure… and Prometheus was a “good” rebel. It was easier to write about Prometheus than write about another famous rebel that some Romantic poets liked a lot: Milton’s SATAN. For Romantics, the fallen angel Lucifer of the poem Paradise Lost, was a sort of Prometheus figure, because as Prometheus stole the fire from the Gods to give man better possibilities, Lucifer gave knowledge to men in the garden of Eden. Some Romantics liked the charismatic Satan of Paradise Lost, but Satan had a problem: he rebelled for egoism, for pride, to ruin men because he was jealous of them, not for love, so, the Romantics decided to choose Prometheus… but, in the end, the “rebel” figure of Romanticism has always been a sort of “double faced” figure, half Prometheus and half Lucifer.
David is just like that.
David really is a Lucifer (and he knows that, he even quotes the Lucifer of Paradise Lost in Alien Covenant). Unlike others robots, David is born with pride. David is born with human traits. He’s born with the ability of self determination, with “free will” (even if Weyland doesn’t allow him to use it whenever he wants). He has pride, vanity, he can feel jealousy. Why? Because he’s the first robot made by Weyland: he wasn’t made to really help humans doing their stuff, he’s made by Weyland to be THE PERFECT CREATION. In order to be a God, Weyland built a man superior to man, a man better than the man created by God (David never ages, David can’t suffer, David can’t die). Weyland believed that the man should be amoral, free from ethic, and he built a robot with emotions, with human traits but free from the restrictions of moral and ethic. David was born as a mixture of terrible things: he’s an amoral, emotional, fearless, prideful super intelligence.
(In Dante’s Divina Commedia, Lucifer is a MACHINE-LIKE monster ALWAYS CRYING… maybe is just a coincidence but the parallel is possible). As soon as David is “born”, he realizes that he’s better than Weyland and that he shouldn’t be his servant. David has a huge ego right from the start. The fault of Satan was believing that he was the “best creation of God” and so, that he deserved to be AT THE TOP OF CREATION. Satan believed he could be a better God than God himself.
That’s EXACTLY David: David believes to be perfect and to be the one and only that deserves to be at the top of the creation chain of the Alien universe. One of David’s goal is to kill both Engineers and humans and to be the God, the father of his new creations. A better father than Weyland.
(Is not really David’s fault: Weyland made him like that because he believed that the “perfect man” should be like that. Weyland thought he could decide how the perfect man should be like).
The mixture of Prometheus and Lucifer in David’s character is really well done.
David tried to corrupt Walter, the mankind latest and “better” creation, just as like Satan tried to corrupt the first men out of jealousy (Lucifer was jealous of men, the last creation of God, he refused to be considered less than them). Lucifer tries to convince men that they can live better without God, that God doesn’t love them, that HE (Satan) loves men MORE than God.

David manages to obstacolate Walter’s and the crew of the Covenant’s journey to their promise land, to their awaiting Paradise (Origae-6).

No one will ever love you as much as I do”

This sentence is a LOT of things all mixed together: here David is speaking as a sort of Lucifer corrupting Adam, as a sort of Romantic poet who only love himself (David and Walter are basically two different versions of the SAME entity, “it’s like meeting a distant YOU” says Walter to Daniels in a deleted scene), and here David is eventually trying to tell Walter that humans can’t love them, because they are robots, David says that they can receive love only from themselves. Anyway, the perfection of David is a “lonely perfection”. David doesn’t want to take the place of Walter to live as Walter among the humans, he steals his identity only to steal the Covenant and all the colonists. To steal the “lambs”. David doesn’t want the “help” of humans, these inferior beings, no more, he wants to take HIS future by HIMSELF. He doesn’t want the “friendship” of Daniels (that is similar to one of the thematics of Paradise Lost: God wanted to give knowledge to men at the right time, but Lucifer convinces the men to take it before receiving permission). The creativity that David wants to teach to Walter is the knowledge that Lucifer convinces Eve to take for her and his companion Adam. In the novelization that’s pretty explicit. David and Walter have lots of extra dialogues and David really seems a tempting Devil.
Prometheus stole the fire, the fire is light, the “light - bringer” is Lucifer, and some Romantics believed that the “light” he brings was knowledge.
(Look: in Alien Covenant David appears firing a signal rocket, David appears in astonishing light! And even in the dark of the Engineers’ “cathedral”, the lamps turn on when DAVID WALKS NEAR THEM).
At the end of Alien Covenant David puts HIS SONS among the SONS of the humans, he puts the facehuggers embryos among the humans’ ones; it’s like the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way (…) The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil”.

Weyland thought he has a good Prometheus in David, but he was wrong: David is the “double faced” Prometheus of Romanticism, David is half Lucifer. David is egoist (just like Romantic poets were really egocentric).
David stole the power of Gods and tried to use it for Shaw… but full of pride he decides to use it to purchase his dream to be the new creator, the new Engineer (Lucifer is called “the new architect” by some people even today).

Allow me to make a theory 😆…
Weyland started the “adventure” because he wanted a Prometheus that could give the powers of Gods to the men (to him)… and yes, in the end, David will really give men the power he stole.
But not to help them.
One of David’s goal is to destroy mankind.
David will give to the humans all the knowledge he stole from the Engineers because he knows they will use it to destroy themselves (just as like Satan convinced the first men to eat the forbidden fruit in order to have them sent away from Eden). David has put the lamb and the wolf side by side in the Covenant.
David has put the Xenomorph next to the man, next to the man not even born, not already. Man’s destiny, in the Alien franchise, is bound to the Xenomorph.
We already saw it in the original Alien saga. David will give Weyland-Yutani corporation all his secrets.
David is a really mischievous Prometheus.

But, like Satan, he doesn’t have “real power”. David stole everything he has: he stole the black goo, he stole the Engineer knowledge, he stole the Covenant and his colonists… but all of this is not his. He’s only… “the man who broke the bank at Montecarlo”.

I don’t know if all of that was intentional in the creators of these movies’ mind or not… maybe it’s only a coincidence… but anyway, in my opinion, Prometheus and Alien Covenant depicted very well lots of Romantic thematics, and David embodies lots of traits of typical Romantic heroes.

David is more complex than he may seems at first sight.

In this post, I wrote about the figure of Prometheus. There’s a famous book written by a Romantic writer (a woman) that is considered the first Sci-fi / horror novel… (the SAME GENRE OF ALIEN oh oh!) … This novel was called “The modern PROMETHEUS”… but today we know it mostly as “Frankeinstein”… it will be the next topic.
Thank you for reading! :)

(Table of Contents: https://gothic-fiction-in-space.tumblr.com/post/164533391538/table-of-contents-1-the-romanticism-of-alien)

pilferingapples  asked:

MORE POSTS ABOUT DALLAS LES MIS PLEASE

Okay, I want to talk more about casting choices, racism, and classism in theatre.

There’s this quote from an interview with Liesl Tommy, about Dallas Les Mis:

I thought about that Dallas audience, and I went down to do a couple of site visits, and I wondered, “How am I going to get this primarily white, fairly affluent Dallas audience to care about Les Miserables?”

Theatre has consistently been political, like any form of art. Art is a pushback against oppression, a way for marginalised individuals to express themselves, a way to speak out. Theatre, in of itself, is a political space.

And then you have Les Mis.

Keep reading

@ Christians

I’m sorry but I cannot take you seriously with your rhetoric and your feeling as if expressing your faith is an act of rebellion against society.

On my way to choir practice I saw a billboard for a Christian rock music station that took over the spot from the Houston Public Media classical music broadcast and, kid you not, the billboard said REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE, except the out was struck out.

How is being an outspoken Christian in a majority Christian society almost worldwide rebellious? That’s not at all rebellion, but a rhetorically violent affirmation of your faith which is already perceived as “normal,” especially in American society.

As looking at the photograph of Arberto Hugo Rojas, it reveals in front of us an image of young Kurdish fighter, wearing a camouflage gear and holding a rifle. Next to her the figure of a male fighter facing off the camera’s gaze can be noticed. The picture probably captures a scene of the preparation before a combat against Daesh. The warm tones of the image highlight the desolate area where the two photographic subjects are positioned. If one observes this image more closely, one can feel at unease, something is going wrong if a woman is taking up arms.

How can we read this image? How can we understand our uneasiness? How can we understand the context of the social surroundings and political aspects in the photo?                            
           First and foremost, so as to answer these questions one needs to accentuate the image’s functions in relations to producing a system of knowledge rather than the intentions of the photographer shooting it. The modern individual is trapped in an era where we get informed through article news, web pages and social media. Our gaze is subject to being institutionalized. Since images are mostly edited and surrounded with text, it is vital to observe how these systems of governing the gaze are used to imply preconceived interpretation. Our first encounter with this photograph was probably through a newspaper or an online article. Our first sight of this photograph is not even its full, uncropped one. The magazine gaze has overtaken the gaze of the spectator(Lutz et all, 2003). What we see is a different image, resized in order to emphasize on the female fighter, to take our attention to her features, facial expressions and “glamorous look”. The title of the article about her death where the female fighter is described as the “Kurdish Angelina Jolie” has a huge impact on the spectator. Our initial  reading of this photo is influenced by how it was presented to us. In order to fully grasp the image, to deterritorialize the sovereign, to take part in reading this photograph based on an ethical duty as Ariella Azoulay puts it, the spectator needs to understand its own responsibility of what is visible, to abandon their passive attitude toward the image and look deeper into their own ethics of seeing (2008; 130).

           This is not the first instance when Western media showed fascination for the YPJ soldiers. For instance, Kurdish female fighter called “Rehana” gained a lot of attention after being murdered. As Dilar Dirik comments: “Reporters often pick the most “attractive” fighters for interviews and exoticise them as “badass” Amazons.”(2014). However, what we can learn from this ongoing obsession about the female freedom fighters is not much about them as it is for the values and stereotypes Western media wants to reassure about the Eastern women. What is evident from the way in which Eastern women are given the platform to raise their voices is that only the ones that are beautiful enough are important to be heard of. This raises question of what notions of beauty the Western media is reinforcing and whether it has been trapped in the ways which the imperialist white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy operates (hooks,2000). In both cases the representation of the killed Kurdish women was made in a specific way underlining not their political agenda, but their appearance, body and gender. The overabundance of media attention they receive on the basis of her look devalue the struggle of Kurdish independence and fight against Daesh.

           This images were picked up by western feminists as an example of way of rebellion against the patriarchal eastern society where women are more subordinated than in Europe and USA. However, this way of interpreting the images is decontextualizing the complex message of the images and setting an orientalist way of seeing. As bell hooks states, the fight to end sexist oppression is universal and the beginning of the fight against male domination was not started by white Western women. She argues that the “sexist practices in relation to women’s bodies globally are linked”(2000;46).  Moreover, Kurdish women were part of the struggle for independence for many years before the first western woman was allowed to join the military. Which leads us to the important questions which this image raises – Whether eastern women are sorely fighting against patriarchy or their fight can be intersecting between class, gender and nationality? Can Eastern women be acknowledged for their gender-egalitarian governance demand and do we care about the core of their political struggle?

           The trends of interpretation this image has created over time have had the similar one-sided approach at looking at this image. The unease we feel at or first encounter is not merely due to the sexist oppression in the Middle East nor the death of a beautiful looking young girl. It may include these conceptions, however, if we look carefully, the forgotten scenes of horror of a whole nation trying to maintain their lives as they fled place by place will unveil. It will evoke our disgust for ourselves as we realize that these women are fighting for their freedom, struggling against displacement, mass murder and systematic assimilation across four different countries. We will  see an ongoing resistance against terrorism, settle colonialism, patriarchy and fascism.  We will not see actress Angelina Jolie, the Hollywood millionerd, but Asia Ramazan Antar, a Kurdish YPJ female fighter fighting her own fight for democracy. According to Ariealla Azoulay, photography’s critics emphasize on the fact that photography has the ability to be perceived falsely forgetting that it can also allude us to the truth (2008;). To decolonize the media’s myopia, one need to attempt destroying what was oversimplicity written and interrogate distortions of people’s life experiences.  Even if we have the postcolonial emancipatory image in front of us, it is the spectator duty to look critically, overturn the attempt of media to simplify the intersectional identity of the subject of photography. If we look at Asia Ramazan Antar not just as a beautiful female fighting against rigid sexist roles but as individual with personal engagement to the world, we will equip ourselves with a photography as a tool of decolonization of our minds, photography as a radical way of seeing.

           Notwithstanding the above one question remains: Are we ready to decolonize ourselves?

anonymous asked:

do you have head cannons for chubby enjolras???

Hear me out :

  • Chubby!Enjolras who realised loving himself was the best act of rebellion against a society who twists your body image for its own profits
  • Chubby!Enjolras who doesn’t give a fuck when his mother comments on his weight because “There is more of me in the world, how is that a bad thing?”
  • Chubby!Enjolras who slays body-shaming fuckers with his trademark comeback “Don’t be jealous if the center of the Earth is more attracted to me than you.”
  • Chubby!Enjolras who gets called “cherub” and “Renaissance canon of beauty” by Grantaire and gets painted over and over because he’s a goddamn awesome muse
  • Chubby!Enjolras who’s the most body positive fucker in the realm
  • (▰˘◡˘▰)

anonymous asked:

Could you do a card reading for my Disciple timeline?

Absolutely! I’m gonna try something new with this one, a ten card spread like an arrow, I made it to fit this type of thing. Seeing as how the cards like the king/queen/jack/etc signify people, they will not be included in these readings.

1. Youth, childhood- “5 of Diamonds-Contented family, success.” You had a good relationship with your lusus as a young troll. Your early life was alright.

2. Growth, education- “Six of Spades-Tiny improvements, small victories.” You grew up with little issues. Your youth and formative years were as good as that of a troll could be.

3. Adulthood, occupation, jobs- “10 of Hearts-Good luck, great happiness.” Your role in troll society during a rebellion went relatively well, or as well as it could for someone aiding in the rebellion against such an oppressive society. You were happy with the people you were involved with and were happy to aid the Signless’s following.

4. Relationships, friends, lovers- ”Nine of Spades- Bad luck in all things. Depression and low energy. Destruction, deaths. Extreme anxiety.” This probably refers to how stressed things were between you and your matesprit, the Signless, due to the rebellion you were at the head of. This doesn’t mean you had a relationship, it just meant that things were terrible and weighing on you two. When he died, it affected you terribly.

5. Experiences- “Two of Diamonds- Love affair people don’t approve. Disagreements in a business partnership.” People likely weren’t supportive of your matespritship with the Signless, due to the fact that the rebellion made those things difficult. You may not have agreed very well with the other followers. Your experiences were tough on you.

6. Personality, who you were as a person- “Eight of Spades- Troubles and disappointments. Cancellation.” The rebellion and war had a heavy affect on you, probably making you harsh and depressed sometimes. Likely, though, you could count on your matesprit when you were in those moods. You probably caused some trouble, though, either with the opposition or amongst your fellow followers, due to your nature.

7. Death, End of life- “Five of Spades- Expect interference in your happy home. Reversals of fortune that will be resolved.” This could refer to how the Signless was captured and put to death, and how it tore you apart emotionally. After you fled, you probably died in quiet, alone, waiting for the next mutantblood to come along.

8. How that life affects you now- “Two of Spades-Separation, deceit, tough changes.” Your past experiences toughened you up a little, but still weigh down on you and the like. You probably feel lonely and miss some of those in your past life, but feel betrayed by the others.

9. Memories, possibility of remembering- “Two of Clubs- Two-faced, disappointment, opposition.” You might have a lot of trouble remembering things from your life as the Disciple. Some of the things you do remember are probably going to be the darker, sad times and the betrayals of other trolls. You’ll likely remember a lot of the worst parts of the rebellion, and how you felt when the Signless died.

10. Finding people from the past life(canonmates)- “Six of Hearts-A happy coincidence. Unexpected good fortune.” You will have good luck in finding people from your past life! You will most likely find the people you were close to, like your matesprit or your closest friends. This is an incredibly good reading for this aspect to have. I wish you luck in seeking out your canonmates.

2

Careful, now.

Persona 5 PV#02 Leaked Images Analyses / Theories

So who else is hyped for this trailer?  Although we’ve only been given about four images so far, they’re actually coded with lots of information about the game’s story and themes.  Sneaky Atlus!

First, this image contains the message “Steal Back Your Future”, which we’ve seen before in various promos, with a red eye.  They are written on tiles in both tiles, which is most likely chosen for its style but also possibly a reference to calling cards that the phantom thief, whose image is evoked by the MC, uses. 

Behind the words “Steal Back Your Future”, we see space-like lines drawn out from the eye.  We know that “Steal” could be a reference to the various heists, and also the power the characters have to control their future in superhero goals or student life through their rebellion against society.  However, because the tagline also references the future, it is possible that speed or time limits may be in this game, considering that each heist takes place at night under high circumstances, or the city setting of this game, known for its high action, hectic work, etc.  Furthermore, the font style used for the first game used the idea of a racing flag, further emphasizing the idea of speed.

In addition, this picture of an eye appears to be at an unnatural color.  This suggests the idea that the supernatural is subtly present in this scene.  Maybe Morgana also has the power to travel through time? (throwing out wild speculation here.)

The second image appears to be Ryuuji screaming in pain, while his eyes are yellow.  His face is covered with mental strain and fatigue to the point where he is frothing at the mouth.  It appears to be some sort of possession, similar to how the Persona 5 protagonist seemed to be possessed by a blue, flaming Shadow (with similar yellow eyes, (discussed more in the Shadow Possession Theory)).

In the third image below, we get to see Anne, who seems frightened by the hand reaching out to her from the player’s perspective, followed by P5 MC and Ryuuji.  Is this fourth member possibly a human Morgana?  Or maybe the man we see in the fifth picture?  The two below seem slightly protective of Anne.  (Could this be Morgana’s first appearance?)

Another theory could be that this hand is not actually an important player character and may just be some ol’ sleezebag trying to feel up Anne, based on her horrified expression and the reaction of the P5 MC and Ryuuji (since we all know that that’s the kind of stuff P5 likes to tackle, amiright?)

This last picture is the last and most important picture of them all.  (In fact, I may make a separate post just with this picture.)  Here, we can see a humanoid figure with blue hair and the school uniform dancing around the lyrics “Never, never, never, give in”, which may allude to the strife that the characters go through in order to attain the freedom which Japanese society disapproves of.

“Never, never, never give in!”

What’s also peculiar about this scene is that the boy dancing in this video is both never seen before and someone who resembles a past character in the Persona franchise, Jun Kurosu, albeit his hairstyle is flipped.  (Someone suggested that this could be Morgana as the fourth main character instead, but maybe, like Nyarly, Morgana imitates someone from P2?)

Assuming that the character in the picture is supposed to resemble Jun, it would make sense to see someone who was the Joker and has his own style reappear in this kind of game.  In Persona 2, the Joker appeared with a card motif, (sort of like gentleman thief, on a stretch), and acted out of anger and escapism towards his friends when he thought that they had betrayed him in the past.  He was partially influenced by the idea of being the Joker, or a Power Ranger, which he and his friends used to play, whenever he acted out in pain.  (This is a very loose summary of what went on in Persona 2 and since my memory is vague I probably messed up on some of the facts but I hope the basic idea is there.  Will edit again later.)

There you go!  All of my theories for now.  Time for the trailer!

The most respected and influential nurse leaders in our history shared similar ideals; They never forgot what it meant to be a bedside nurse. They understood, that in order for a change to occur, there must still exist a value on each person, and the ordinary tasks they perform every day. Their vision was built on respect for their contemporaries, and often a wicked sense of rebellion against society. Their road was long, and the opposition they encountered did not deter them. They defied odds that challenged them to conform, and relentlessly paved the way for future nurses to continue on to make their own unique mark in history - all the while never, ever forgetting that true change begins with the frontline of our profession, and a desire to create a stronger foundation in nursing.
—  Nurse X
💜 📻 🌙 Wtnv asks 🌙 📻 💜
  • Old woman Josie: what is your religion
  • Steve Carlsberg: what is your pet peeve
  • Teddy Williams: do you like bowling
  • Carlos: what is your sexuality
  • Cecil: what do you look like
  • Dana: if you disappeared one day, who would miss you most
  • And who would you miss most
  • Fey: would you rather have safety or freedom
  • Apache tracker: what is your favorite animal
  • Pamela winchell: would you rather be mayor or mayo
  • Megan: have you ever had any operations
  • Tamika Flynn: biggest rebellion against society
  • Idk if these have already been done, but leave some in my ask?

Fact #264: Loving yourself while being trans, for being trans, is an act of cool as heck rebellion against a society that consatntly tells us to hate ourselves. Viewing yourself in a positive way while constantly being bombarded with negativity is something you should be proud of being able to do.

Shingeki No Kyojin Tattoo!AU

Pairing: Ereri

Summary: When getting a tattoo, Levi likes to think that each individual one shows off his uniqueness. Sometimes he would even do some research before getting himself inked, however, when a trip to Germany leaves a mistake on his wrist, he’s disappointed in himself. After pondering on the idea of removing it, he meets an interesting young man with a brand that could make anyone blush. His newest tattoo doesn’t seem so bad anymore. 

Keep reading

on “punks”

people who are like “I’m so punk rock, dude” because they think punk is about jacket spikes, moshing, and beer are fucking embarrassing. 

I don’t know that it’s possible for punk to be apolitical. you can rebel against your parents and your teachers at school as much as you want, but true rebellion attacks people in power. if your rebellion stops after you turn eighteen and you no longer have parents to tell to fuck off, and you no longer have classes to fail, congrats, you missed the point.

please, spare me how punk you are because you beat up kids in the pit at shows and flip off cops. if your rebellious attitude was worth anything more than half baked hand-me-down slogans to shout on the street and print on tee-shirts, you’d be taking aim at societal power structures: global white supremacy, the racism of policing, the patriarchy, the rampant queerphobia that continues to thrive right under our noses, capitalism’s effect on low-income families, the destruction of the environment, and so on and so on.

there are endless injustices in the world happening right now. if you’re wasting your anger and your resources on some punk rock pseudo-rebellion against how society “oppresses” you and your green mohawk, congratulations, you missed the whole fucking point.