symbolism is capital

Listen to autistic people.

Don’t support Autism Speaks. Don’t ‘Light it Up Blue’ this April. Go red instead and support autistic people and our voices.

[ Image Description: A picture with a red background and a rainbow coloured neurodiversity ‘infinity’ symbol in the middle. In front of the neurodiversity symbol is a drawing of an autistic person stimming. 

They are wearing red headphones, a red pendant chew necklace, and a grey hoodie. A red tangle is poking out of the hoodie pocket. They are smiling with their eyes closed and stimming by flapping their hands. 

On the top of the picture, above the symbol, it says in capital letters “Listen to autistic people”. Below the symbol, at the bottom of the picture, it says “#REDinstead for Autism Acceptance”.

This is version 2. Version 1 of this picture with just the symbol and no person can be found here: version 1 link

I wanted to make a picture for Autism Acceptance and anti “autism awareness” this April so here it is.

anonymous asked:

so i dont know if this opinion is valid or w/e but like, i feel like tumblr really dismisses the fact that anne boleyn ordered for mary to be abused. she was only seventeen when anne became queen, and was beaten and sworn at by the others at hatfield on orders from anne. i just think anne isn't as lovely as people make her out to be, and although i find her v interesting, i just think she is romanticized and made out to be some sort of angel? it seems as though the abuse mary got affected her.

i agree and acknowledge that the abuse mary endured at hatfield affected her; but i’m not certain it was at anne boleyn’s behest. i haven’t been able to find any primary sources that attest to that. from what i’ve read, what seems more likely is that it was at the behest of henry viii.

understandably, at first glance it seems logical that lady shelton, given that she was anne boleyn’s paternal aunt, may have been acting at her command. however, i find this less likely given that the two didn’t seem to like each other very much. if anne truly did encourage madge shelton (the lady anne boleyn-shelton’s daughter) to be the mistress of henry viii, as is speculated, her mother may not have taken too kindly to that! later, shelton is one of the ladies that attends on anne in the tower of london, and it was reported that anne said it was “a great unkindness in the king to set such about me as i have never loved” (the cited source for this is cavendish, and other than wikipedia i’ve been unable to find a more direct quote)

when henry visited the household of hatfield in january 1534, mary was ordered to stay in her chamber. thomas cromwell and the captain of the guard instead went to mary to urge her to renounce her title; which she refused. she asked to see him again; and was denied. instead she went out to the terrace at the top of the house as he prepared to leave. he bowed and touched his cap in response. however, he didn’t see her again for over two and a half years and it’s important to remember that he is the one that made that decision; not anne.

it was henry that ordered mary to serve elizabeth at hatfield as a punishment for refusing to publicly accept the acts of appeal and succession. it was henry who deprived mary of her personal staff, henry who denied mary permission to attend the funeral of katherine of aragon and refused to let her have a few objects of value from her mother.

lady shelton was, in fact, ordered to deliver this message to mary by henry viii, according to chapuys:

“The King, for his pains, told him he was not loyal to him, and that all he said was in behalf of the Princess’s desire to go to her mother; but he would take good care not to send her thither, for, the Queen being so haughty in spirit, she might, by favor of the Princess, raise a number of men, and make war, as boldly as did queen Elizabeth (Isabella) her mother. There was no thought of the King seeing the said Princess or sending her a word of consolation. On the contrary, word was sent by her gouvernante that he had no worse enemy in the world than her, and that she was the cause of mischief to the greater number of Christian princes, and the King declared publicly that her conduct was calculated to encourage conspiracy against him.

according to chapuys, anne even wrote to lady shelton herself asking to cease any ill treatment that might have occurred (or basically, at least not to push her further) and relates a copy of anne boleyn’s words:

Mrs. Shelton, my pleasure is that you do not further move the lady Mary to be towards the King’s Grace otherwise than it pleases herself. What I have done has been more for charity than for anything the King or I care what road she takes, or whether she will change her purpose, for if I have a son, as I hope shortly, I know what will happen to her; and therefore, considering the Word of God, to do good to one’s enemy, I wished to warn her before hand, because I have daily experience that the King’s wisdom is such as not to esteem her repentance of her rudeness and unnatural obstinacy when she has no choice. 

By the law of God and of the King, she ought clearly to acknowledge her error and evil conscience if her blind affection had not so blinded her eyes that she will see nothing but what pleases herself. Mrs. Shelton, I beg you not to think to do me any pleasure by turning her from any of her wilful courses, because she could not do me [good] or evil; and do your duty about her according to the King’s command, as I am assured you do.

the only source i’ve been able to find that’s said mary’s placement in hatfield at all was anne’s choice is alison weir’s the lady in the tower, saying anne ‘vindictively insisted she wait on her’…unfortunately, like a lot of weir’s nonfiction work, it provides no citation or source for this passage.

what makes me think that the mistreatment stemmed from henry is that it didn’t lessen after the execution of anne boleyn, but in fact worsened

“On 15th June 1536, King Henry VIII sent members of his council, led by Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk, to visit Mary at Hunsdon. The aim of the visit was to persuade Mary into accepting her father as supreme head of the Church in England, and acknowledging that she was not the legitimate heir to the throne. However, their idea of persuasion amounted to bullying. Eustace Chapuys, the imperial ambassador, recorded the visit of the council members in a letter to Emperor Charles V:

‘To induce her to obey his commands and accede to his wishes, the King sent to her a deputation composed of the duke of Norfolk, the earl of Sussex (Robert Radcliffe), the bishop of Chester (Roland Lee), and several others, whom she literally confounded by her very wise and prudent answers to their intimation. Upon which, finding that they could not persuade her, one of them said that since she was such an unnatural daughter as to disobey completely the King’s injunctions, he could hardly believe (said the interlocutor) that she was the King’s own bastard daughter. Were she his or any other man’s daughter, he would beat her to death, or strike her head against the wall until he made it as soft as a boiled apple; in short that she was a traitress, and would be punished as such. Many other threats of the same sort did the said deputies utter on the occasion, assisted in their task by the Princess’ governess, who happens to be the same as before, having then and there received orders not to allow the Princess to speak a word to any one, and to watch over her so that she should never be left alone by night or day.’”

tl;dr

the opinion is certainly valid, mine can mainly be summed up here. 

it’s rumored that instructions were given to lady shelton to ‘box mary’s ears’ if she refused to obey, and chapuys accredited the words to anne. but otherwise; i’ve read nothing to confirm it. 

because i’m aware of ives’ potential for bias (he greatly admires anne boleyn), i even looked for opinions from historians that seem to dislike her. g.w. bernard, who theorizes that anne was actually guilty of adultery, still says:

“all these accounts of humiliations and pressures that Mary was subjected to are readily believable, but whether Anne’s part in the them was quite as independent and as decisive as Chapuys suggested is open to some doubt: Henry may have been as responsible as Anne, perhaps more so.

i certainly don’t think anne is a saint; i know she had a lot of flaws. and it’s okay to find find her interesting but not necessarily like her– there are plenty of figures i, personally find interesting without necessarily liking…

anyways! i am curious about the sources from which you read mary ‘was beaten and sworn at by the others at hatfield on orders from anne’. if you’d like to come off anon, i swear i don’t bite– and i’d be interested to read them if you’re interested in sharing!  ❤️

Listen to autistic people. 

Don’t support Autism Speaks. Don’t ‘Light it Up Blue’ this April. Go red instead and support autistic people and our voices. 


[ Image Description: A picture with a red background and a rainbow coloured neurodiversity ‘infinity’ symbol in the middle. On the top of the picture, above the symbol, it says in capital letters “Listen to autistic people”. Below the symbol, at the bottom of the picture, it says “#REDinstead for Autism Acceptance”.]


I actually have two versions of this picture. This one and one with an autistic person stimming in front of the neurodiversity symbol. Im gonna post that version as well. 

I wanted to make a picture for Autism Acceptance and anti “autism awareness” this April so here it is. 

Key to the various ways Lang presented his designs was an evident distraction from commercial elements, which led to an accumulation of symbolic capital to his label. This makes Lang part of a long line of fashion designers who were – and are – involved in sponsorship of the arts and engage with art through their marketing and retail channels … Lang kept the art world close by with various creative collaborations with stylists, photographers, architects, and contemporary artists, such as Louise Bourgeois and Jenny Holzer. The label’s New York flagship store functioned as the built embodiment of this minimalist aesthetic, lined with LED installations by Holzer and sculpture by Bourgeois, forming a crucial part of the architecture … As a branding strategy, this enables a luxury brand to construct an artistic identity that contributes to an obfuscation of commercial operations. Although the stories about his New York shop have taken on mythical proportions, when it is placed into context it was not in fact a rarity as the minimalist spaces of contemporary art galleries had a major influence on store design during that period. Rem Koolhaas argued that minimalism even became ‘the “single signifier” of luxury, aimed at minimising “the shame of consumption”’.

“Helmut Lang: From Fashion to Art and Back Again” by Elisa De Wyngaert

“Teocalli Mexicana.”

   
This is an image inspired by the Teocalli, the throne of Moctecuzoma, carved in stone and today housed in the Anthropologymuseum of Mexico City. At the center appears an eagle seated upon a cactus, the sacred symbol of Tenochtitlan, capital of the Mexica empire. The cactus emerges from the heart of Copil, an ancient magician, which itself is within the body of the earth. This is an image of modern Mexico; as such, this is an image of the modern state, for the eagle on the cactus is today depicted on the flag of Mexico. Thus, below appear the members of the modern state; men and women who are Native American, white, and black, all of whom bend over and sustain the state upon their backs. 

nsda quotes

“this is my sad attempt at drawing a panther”
“that looks like a whale”

“there’s a china shaped hole in my heart that only a nuke can satisfy”

“i say i love you with food”


“why do they have a single eagle in a cage?” “the cage is symbolic of capitalism. the eagle is there because we truly could be free but we are held back by capitalism.”

“i forgot obama was black”

“oh tony got mea blanke- OH ITS AMERICA!”

“my parents might be white but at least they season their chicken”

“im always amazed at how fast the cows can grow their hair”

“trump will no longer think this ideology because he will be dead. negraboru 17”

“id like to beat the dead horses”

“so how are you going to collect these carbon emissions? like, are you going to tie plastic bags to the ends of trucks?”

“i can feel the judges judging me”

“im being sexually assaulted by a chicken utensil!”

“it adds to the effect if you call them mama first.”
“thank you mama tony”

“do you have some porn?”

“if i find a trump on me you will see me doing a dance”

“sorry i threw a spoon at you”

“he actually is a dad and he has a dad our age”

“you are a great point”

“by all memes necessary”

“i mean, even if our plan doesnt work, at least we can pass it and say we tried!”

“i could not care less janice you cretin”

10

Choquequirao is a 15th and 16th century settlement associated with the Incan Empire, or more correctly Tawantinsuyu. The site had two major growth stages. This could be explained if Pachacuti founded Choquequirao and his son, Tupaq Inka Yupanki, remodeled and extended it after becoming the Sapa Inka. Choquequirao is located in the area considered to be Pachacuti’s estate; which includes the areas around the rivers Amaybamba, Urabamba, Vilcabamba, Victos and Apurímac. Other sites in this area are Saywite, Machu Picchu, Chachapampa (Chachabamba), Chuqisuyuy(Choquesuysuy) and Wamanmarka (Guamanmarca); all of which share similar architectural styles with Choquequirao. The architectural style of several important features appears to be of Chachapoya design, suggesting that Chachapoya workers were probably involved in the construction. This suggests that Tupaq Inka probably ordered the construction. Colonial documents also suggest that Tupaq Inka ruled Choquequirao since his great grandson, Tupa Sayri, claimed ownership of the site and neighboring lands during Spanish colonization.

It was one of the last bastions of resistance and refuge of the Son of the Sun (the “Inca”), Manco Inca Yupanqui, who fled Cusco after his siege of the city failed in 1535.

According to the Peruvian Tourism Office, “Choquequirao was probably one of the entrance check points to the Vilcabamba, and also an administrative hub serving political, social and economic functions. Its urban design has followed the symbolic patterns of the imperial capital, with ritual places dedicated to Inti (the Incan sun god) and the ancestors, to the earth, water and other divinities, with mansions for administrators and houses for artisans, warehouses, large dormitories or kallankas and farming terraces belonging to the Inca or the local people. Spreading over 700 meters, the ceremonial area drops as much as 65 meters from the elevated areas to the main square." The city also played an important role as a link between theAmazon Jungle and the city of Cusco.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choquequirao

How Liberalism Infects Movement Building

It never fails. Every time there is critical resistance, an uprising and continued unrest people get dragged back to compliance (with permits) under the rhetoric of being peaceful or nonviolent. The movement gets dragged out of the street to sit attentively at the feet of the oppressors with speakers that tell us change will come if we are calm (and peaceful).  Nevermind the normalized police escort, or the “security team”. We are just following the rules, nothing to see here.

Rhetoric about resistance and direct action becomes meaningless, lost in the symbolism of marching for civic change, not structure change. Movement managers try to make the movement mainstream-popular, inviting celebrities and business leaders to come forward, while at the same time pushing out radical elements that released pressure valves to begin with. If not directly, through terrible tactical choices that alienate people (like working with the police who are critically engaged in counter insurgency and developing profiles on agitators to undermine the movement).

Never mind, that working with the city and police legitimizes those avenues, while making it easier for the police to knowingly divide and attack groups that take nonpermitted action or respond to their conditions without the permission of the state. Is this what solidarity looks like?

Instead of hearing about what groups are doing to sustain themselves during these uprisings, we hear more and more about demands. Police reforms that usually come with dangerous baggage, more technology and funding for the police. But the movement is so pressured by popular media and civic leaders to clarify its goals, policy change becomes a priority before much needed discussions can happen. Before policy change can be challenged not as a goal, but maybe a tactic to gain concessions in a larger fight to abolish the infrastructure that makes racial oppression profitable. 

But once the movement is focused on policy change, containment is practically complete.  And the agitators who were able to explore what it means to act autonomously for liberation, who were harassed and attacked by the police, are cast aside as unreasonable. Ungovernable.

Unity becomes language to gather behind and solidarity is reserved for those who will declare their nonviolence or tolerance for police collaboration. Never mind that nonviolence never actually was not violent- it just tolerates violence in the hopes of receiving change. It accepts violence as a means of determining justice- because if someone is constantly violated don’t they deserve to be saved? 

The cops are killing people, but pacifism will kill the movement every time. We say “first do no harm” but liberalism does harm to the movement every time. People pull permits in the name of pacifism, but invite the police. How does this make sense?

What is liberalism? There are many ways people might define or apply it. But for now i’ll start with, peace for the sake of appearing peaceful regardless of whether the conditions are peaceful or not. Appealing to and supporting state violence (the government) to restore “peace” whether the conditions are peaceful or not. Working with the enemy to minimize the affects of oppression, while never supporting those looking to prevent or abolish it.

Redirecting the outrage and energy of people away from their own communities and into organizations that work with and support the state (and it’s violence). Taking real anger and pain, and neutralizing it so that it does not actually threaten the economic and social conditions that produced it. Believing that the state is the only way we will be free. Controlling how other actors behave so that the state will make you free. And finally, using peace as a reason to dismiss and silence people seeking critical movement building dialogue to prevent the co-optation of the movement. Demanding peace without first acknowledging the conflict is dismissive and heartbreaking. Same with #notallcops rhetoric.

The popular media finds it much easier to latch onto movement building for reform because the hierarchical political structure wants people to resign power over to representatives and allow those representatives to determine clear goals. And just like that the movement becomes less about supporting action and solidarity and more about appealing to the dominant white (and liberal) gaze for approval

But what if the goals aren’t clear? What if supporting black rage and insurrection means that all of it will have to fall? Especially the privileges and comforts gained by whites and non-black POC under the capitalist system built on genocide and slavery. The economy of wagery and servitude that makes (black) people poor and deprives them of resources. The system of governance and gender violence that pits (black) community against each other based on sexuality, gender and patriarchy power. The lack of empowerment and shared decision making.  The lack of access to resources for those who are disabled by society. The political system itself, who carries on war after war here and abroad without the consent of the governed. The way problems are handled, policed and result in mass imprisonment and violence for poor, brown and black communities of color. Yes, all of it must fall.

It’s not simple. But to build this movement we cannot oversimplify it. We cannot ignore that non-black and white people benefit from seeing this movement silenced or neutralized. And we can’t pretend that it doesn’t make whites uncomfortable to think about a black revolution. This might be a large reason why people in the movement fall back on learned liberalism. Because people, particularly people of color, have been taught that to assimilate in Amerikan culture means to behave, which has become synonymous with being “reasonable” or deferring to white models of power. But this is not reasonable, co-optation will fail and white models of power must fall.

MBTI as Art Majors

ESFJ- Art Education. “Alright, everyone grab some paper and a cupcake! Don’t cry over the broken crayon love, I know you need peach, but you’ll just have to share. Say hi to the school board rep! Wait- TIMMY- PUT THAT PAINT BACK WHERE IT CAME FROM OR SO HELP ME-”
ISTJ- Art History. “If only we could go back to the masters of the Baroque. Do you remember Rembrandt? I do. The Hierarchy of Genres should really be reinstated. Art had standards before Duchamp. It used to make sense.”
ENTJ- Cinema. “Okay, someone hand me the megaphone and clapperboard. We’re going to finish this movie before the deadline and under budget and still win the Oscar for best picture AND give Macaulay Culkin a comeback.”
INFJ- Communication Arts (Illustration). “We’re too commercial for the fine artists, not commercial enough for the designers… *existential crisis* Help. pls.”
ISTP- Craft and Material. “Yeah, I just finished a pretty sweet card table in the shop. It has mahogany stain, an automated snack dispenser, six hidden compartments, and integrated cupholders. Can’t get anything like this at Ikea.”
ISFP- Dance and Choreography. “LET ME EXPRESS MY FEELINGS IN THIS MOMENT WITH MOVEMENT IN HARMONY WITH MY ENVIRONMENT.”
ENFJ- Fashion Design. “Now don’t take this wrong hon, but an Empire waist would flatter you more. But you’re always stunning, even as a hot mess, doll.”
ESTJ- Fashion Merchandising. “wHAT DO YOU MEAN THE PAISLEY DIDN’T SHIP TODAY. dO I HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING MYSELF.”
INTJ- Graphic Design. “I wanted to art, but more than that I wanted an income. Wtf! A client requested Comic Sans? Why don’t they ever listen in consulting…”
ISFJ- Interior Design. “Is this space well-suited to the daily needs of my client’s lifestyle? Is it comfortable? How much kitsch can I get away with in this decor?”
ESTP- Kinetic Imaging (Animation). “Dude, I could totally GoPro this action sequence and rotoscope it! Hah! I made the hotdog wink at the little boy.”
INTP- Music. “The perfect synthesis of art and mathematics, beauty and rationale, and harmony and discord. *listens to Mahler 6 on repeat* Genius.”
INFP- Painting and Printmaking. “And this singular green stroke of oil isolated on canvas is symbolic of capitalism and the tragedy of the commons. *begins moaning in contemplative sadness as performance art component*”
ENFP- Photography and Film. “I really tried to capture the personal identities of the subjects in this portrait series. I took like 500 of each, I just couldn’t decide on exposure. Ha, how do you manipulate a photo? Pretend it’s your friend.”
ENTP- Sculpture and Extended Media. “So I’m just going to wing this next piece. Maybe some plaster casts and wire and pipes and lights and mirrors, throw in a readymade. Professor will love it, then I’ll be entitled to debating the shit out of the merits of the other pieces, for fun. Can’t wait for crit tomorrow.”
ESFP- Theatre Performance. “Jeeze, I completely BSed that whole scene, I wasn’t even off book. I was so good when I starred in West Side Story. Looking forward to the afterparty for tonight’s performance- I heard there’ll be karaoke! So hype to kill it with my Hamilton.”

~Nike

anonymous asked:

The Shroud of Turin was debunked once or twice in the past by a Catholic university no less, they even found some African red pigment on it. Afterwards, if I remember correctly, the ex-Pope accepted it as a forgery but kept it in a museum because it represents Jesus' supposed suffering.

It’s been a while since I’ve read up on it, but that sounds about right.

“Hey we discovered this is super fake…..buuuuut we’re going to claim it’s a religious symbol anyway because we can capitalize on it.”

How did this happen why did this happen I finally get in on the Wendy’s fun and suddenly there’s discourse and she’s a symbol of corrupt capitalism and the nazis have stolen her and I just wanted to laugh at the cute pigtailed girl making funny faces why.

anonymous asked:

Are you trying make yourself a skeleton to better understand the victims of Communism?

i know to alt right bros, i’m seen as some kind of crude caricature of communism because i am mentally ill.

this isn’t a fresh take at all (neither were the 10 other anonymous asks you sent me).

but by your logic, the alt right’s collective sense of humor is pretty damn perfectly symbolic of late-capitalism’s tendency to devolve comedy into little more than tasteless, regressive bullying of those who are suffering.

3

September 16th 1920: Wall Street bombing

On this day in 1920, a terrorist attack killed 39 people on Wall Street, New York City. At noon, a horse-drawn buggy loaded with 100 pounds of dynamite and 500 pounds of iron slugs exploded across the street from the J.P. Morgan building. The powerful blast shattered windows all along the iconic street, and completely destroyed the interior of the Morgan headquarters; the damage inflicted totaled millions of dollars. In addition to the 39 fatalities, 300 people were injured by shrapnel and glass raining down during the lunch-time rush on Wall Street. The victims were mostly clerks, messengers, and secretaries who worked for Wall Street financial companies. The bombing brought chaos to New York, as authorities rejected the possibility of accidental cause, and struggled to find those responsible. One of the chiefs of J.P. Morgan accused Bolshevik communists of the bombing, and the public called on Congress and the White House for security measures against communist terrorism. To this day, the perpetrators of the bombing are unclear, though a warning note indicates that the act was planned by a group of anarchists. If this is the case, the bombers may have committed the attack on a symbol of American capitalism as revenge for the recent murder indictment of two prominent anarchists. Today, 95 years on, the stone of 23 Wall Street still bears shrapnel scars from one of the first terrorist attacks on New York City.

“Remember. We will not tolerate any longer. Free the political prisoners or it will be death for all of you. American Anarchist Fighters!“
- warning flyers found after the attack

As the first broadcasting architecture, Rockefeller Center serves as a symbol of modernity and capitalism. Radio and television transmissions reach all corners of the globe, bringing about The Grand Illusion. Rockefeller Center disseminates prescribed expectancies to the world, embodying a dreamscape where tangibility and reality become lost at the scale of the individual.