black-australia:

abo-futurist:

The Secret Country: The First Australians Fight Back - 1986

(Warning for Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders: contains footage,images and voices of those now deceased) 

In 2014 this history still stays secret, educate yourselves.  

So important. 

(via thisiseverydayracism)

"If you blame Native American communities for their poverty, remember that the entire continent was stolen from them.

If you blame Black American communities for their relative poverty, remember that Black Americans were stolen from a continent, trafficked, and enslaved for nearly 300 years.

Tell me again about how your family ‘started from nothing’ when they immigrated. Didn’t they start from whiteness? Seems like a pretty good start.

The American Dream required dual genocides, but tell me again about fairness and equal opportunity. Tell me about democracy, modeled after the Iroquois Confederacy. Tell me your proud heritage, and I will show you the violence that made it so."

Kim Katrin Crosby, Keynote Speaker for LGBTQ History Month at Dartmouth (30 September 2013)

(Source: biggreenmicroaggressions, via orchidassassin)

sweatandhappiness:

lifehackable:

Stretches that improve different aspects of your body.

These just saved my fucking life you have no idea

(via boygeorgemichaelbluth)

kahliaisamess:

marixchelalva:

lalobalocaart:

NOT YOUR MAMA’S SEX ED

Awesome short <3 on gender, sexuality, queerness/transness and SHODHINI INSTITUTE in the house!

This is amazing! I wish we could do something like this in PP

this has been beautifully made esp the stop motion parts

(via feministlikeme)

"I tell my students, ‘When you get these jobs that you have been so brilliantly trained for, just remember that your real job is that if you are free, you need to free somebody else. If you have some power, then your job is to empower somebody else. This is not just a grab-bag candy game."

Toni Morrison (via jaegerjaques)

I’ve already blogged this before but it basically sums up my entire philosophy much better than I ever could so here we are.

(via kellyzen)

(via youarenotyou)

"I will have an undergraduate class, let’s say a young white male student, politically-correct, who will say: “I am only a bourgeois white male, I can’t speak.” … I say to them: “Why not develop a certain degree of rage against the history that has written such an abject script for you that you are silenced?” Then you begin to investigate what it is that silences you, rather than take this very determinist position-since my skin colour is this, since my sex is this, I cannot speak… From this position, then, I say you will of course not speak in the same way about the Third World material, but if you make it your task not only to learn what is going on there through language, through specific programmes of study, but also at the same time through a historical critique of your position as the investigating person, then you will have earned the right to criticize, you be heard. When you take the position of not doing your homework- “I will not criticize because of my accident of birth, the historical accident” - that is the much more pernicious position."

Gayatri Spivak 

HOLY SHIT YES YES YES

(via adornoble)

it’s also SUCH a reverse victimization thing like

when ~antiracist allies~ say this shit it always includes this sort of faux-self-deprecating element

and intentionally or not, there’s the implication that we white people in general are being ~silenced~ by the ~cruel~ person of color, and that ~oh no we’ve been taught to hate ourselves for our whiteness and believe all these self-deprecating things~ which of course is EXACTLY the white guilt script that more blatantly racist whites looking at this will want to see as more ‘justification’ to dismiss analysis of racism.

and it’s inevitably framing people of color as mean or angry or ~reverse racist~ and ourselves as beleaguered; it’s inevitably fishing for compliments, for coddling, for having the conversation recentered around us and derailing the actual conversation taking place.

(via impromptuonedykedanceparty)

(Source: fearandwar, via youarenotyou)

nedahoyin:

fyahblaze:

blackfeminism:

ourtimeorg:

If you don’t know who Johnnie Tillmon was, look her up.

Welfare is a Women’s Issue (1972) by Johnnie Tillmon
I’m a woman. I’m a black woman. I’m a poor woman. I’m a fat woman. I’m a middle-aged woman. And I’m on welfare.
In this country, if you’re any one of those things you count less as a human being. If you’re all those things, you don’t count at all. Except as a statistic.
I am 45 years old. I have raised six children. There are millions of statistics like me. Some on welfare. Some not. And some, really poor, who don’t even know they’re entitled to welfare. Not all of them are black. Not at all. In fact, the majority-about two-thirds-of all the poor families in the country are white.
Welfare’s like a traffic accident. It can happen to anybody, but especially it happens to women.
And that’s why welfare is a women’s issue. For a lot of middle-class women in this country, Women’s Liberation is a matter of concern. For women on welfare it’s a matter of survival.
Survival. That’s why we had to go on welfare. And that’s why we can’t get off welfare now. Not us women. Not until we do something about liberating poor women in this country.
Because up until now we’ve been raised to expect to work, all our lives, for nothing. Because we are the worst educated, the least-skilled, and the lowest-paid people there are. Because we have to be almost totally responsible for our children. Because we are regarded by everybody as dependents. That’s why we are on welfare. And that’s why we stay on it.
Welfare is the most prejudiced institution in this country, even more than marriage, which it tries to imitate. Let me explain that a little.
Ninety-nine percent of welfare families are headed by women. There is no man around. In half the states there can’t be men around because A.F.D.C. (Aid to Families With Dependent Children) says if there is an “able-bodied” man around, then you can’t be on welfare. If the kids are going to eat, and the man can’t get a job, then he’s got to go.
Welfare is like a super-sexist marriage. You trade in a man for the man. But you can’t divorce him if he treats you bad. He can divorce you, of course, cut you off anytime he wants. But in that case, he keeps the kids, not you.The man runs everything. In ordinary marriage, sex is supposed to be for your husband. On A.F.D.C., you’re not supposed to have any sex at all. You give up control of your own body. It’s a condition of aid. You may even have to agree to get your tubes tied so you can never have more children just to avoid being cut off welfare.
The man, the welfare system, controls your money. He tells you what to buy, what not to buy, where to buy it, and how much things cost. If things-rent, for instance-really cost more than he says they do, it’s just too bad for you. He’s always right.
That’s why Governor [Ronald] Reagan can get away with slandering welfare recipients, calling them “lazy parasites,” “pigs at the trough,” and such. We’ve been trained to believe that the only reason people are on welfare is because there’s something wrong with their character. If people have “motivation,” if people only want to work, they can, and they will be able to support themselves and their kids in decency.
The truth is a job doesn’t necessarily mean an adequate income. There are some ten million jobs that now pay less than the minimum wage, and if you’re a woman, you’ve got the best chance of getting one. Why would a 45-year-old woman work all day in a laundry ironing shirts at 90-some cents an hour? Because she knows there’s some place lower she could be. She could be on welfare. Society needs women on welfare as “examples” to let every woman, factory workers and housewife workers alike, know what will happen if she lets up, if she’s laid off, if she tries to go it alone without a man. So these ladies stay on their feet or on their knees all their lives instead of asking why they’re only getting 90-some cents an hour, instead of daring to fight and complain.
Maybe we poor welfare women will really liberate women in this country. We’ve already started on our own welfare plan. Along with other welfare recipients, we have organized so we can have some voice. Our group is called the National Welfare Rights Organization (N.W.R.O.). We put together our own welfare plan, called Guaranteed Adequate Income (G.A.I.), which would eliminate sexism from welfare. There would be no “categories”-men, women, children, single, married, kids, no kids-just poor people who need aid. You’d get paid according to need and family size only and that would be upped as the cost of living goes up.
As far as I’m concerned, the ladies of N.W.R.O. are the front-line troops of women’s freedom. Both because we have so few illusions and because our issues are so important to all women-the right to a living wage for women’s work, the right to life itself.

still relevant today


Forever reblog..

nedahoyin:

fyahblaze:

blackfeminism:

ourtimeorg:

If you don’t know who Johnnie Tillmon was, look her up.

Welfare is a Women’s Issue (1972) by Johnnie Tillmon

I’m a woman. I’m a black woman. I’m a poor woman. I’m a fat woman. I’m a middle-aged woman. And I’m on welfare.

In this country, if you’re any one of those things you count less as a human being. If you’re all those things, you don’t count at all. Except as a statistic.

I am 45 years old. I have raised six children. There are millions of statistics like me. Some on welfare. Some not. And some, really poor, who don’t even know they’re entitled to welfare. Not all of them are black. Not at all. In fact, the majority-about two-thirds-of all the poor families in the country are white.

Welfare’s like a traffic accident. It can happen to anybody, but especially it happens to women.

And that’s why welfare is a women’s issue. For a lot of middle-class women in this country, Women’s Liberation is a matter of concern. For women on welfare it’s a matter of survival.

Survival. That’s why we had to go on welfare. And that’s why we can’t get off welfare now. Not us women. Not until we do something about liberating poor women in this country.

Because up until now we’ve been raised to expect to work, all our lives, for nothing. Because we are the worst educated, the least-skilled, and the lowest-paid people there are. Because we have to be almost totally responsible for our children. Because we are regarded by everybody as dependents. That’s why we are on welfare. And that’s why we stay on it.

Welfare is the most prejudiced institution in this country, even more than marriage, which it tries to imitate. Let me explain that a little.

Ninety-nine percent of welfare families are headed by women. There is no man around. In half the states there can’t be men around because A.F.D.C. (Aid to Families With Dependent Children) says if there is an “able-bodied” man around, then you can’t be on welfare. If the kids are going to eat, and the man can’t get a job, then he’s got to go.

Welfare is like a super-sexist marriage. You trade in a man for the man. But you can’t divorce him if he treats you bad. He can divorce you, of course, cut you off anytime he wants. But in that case, he keeps the kids, not you.The man runs everything. In ordinary marriage, sex is supposed to be for your husband. On A.F.D.C., you’re not supposed to have any sex at all. You give up control of your own body. It’s a condition of aid. You may even have to agree to get your tubes tied so you can never have more children just to avoid being cut off welfare.

The man, the welfare system, controls your money. He tells you what to buy, what not to buy, where to buy it, and how much things cost. If things-rent, for instance-really cost more than he says they do, it’s just too bad for you. He’s always right.

That’s why Governor [Ronald] Reagan can get away with slandering welfare recipients, calling them “lazy parasites,” “pigs at the trough,” and such. We’ve been trained to believe that the only reason people are on welfare is because there’s something wrong with their character. If people have “motivation,” if people only want to work, they can, and they will be able to support themselves and their kids in decency.

The truth is a job doesn’t necessarily mean an adequate income. There are some ten million jobs that now pay less than the minimum wage, and if you’re a woman, you’ve got the best chance of getting one. Why would a 45-year-old woman work all day in a laundry ironing shirts at 90-some cents an hour? Because she knows there’s some place lower she could be. She could be on welfare. Society needs women on welfare as “examples” to let every woman, factory workers and housewife workers alike, know what will happen if she lets up, if she’s laid off, if she tries to go it alone without a man. So these ladies stay on their feet or on their knees all their lives instead of asking why they’re only getting 90-some cents an hour, instead of daring to fight and complain.

Maybe we poor welfare women will really liberate women in this country. We’ve already started on our own welfare plan. Along with other welfare recipients, we have organized so we can have some voice. Our group is called the National Welfare Rights Organization (N.W.R.O.). We put together our own welfare plan, called Guaranteed Adequate Income (G.A.I.), which would eliminate sexism from welfare. There would be no “categories”-men, women, children, single, married, kids, no kids-just poor people who need aid. You’d get paid according to need and family size only and that would be upped as the cost of living goes up.

As far as I’m concerned, the ladies of N.W.R.O. are the front-line troops of women’s freedom. Both because we have so few illusions and because our issues are so important to all women-the right to a living wage for women’s work, the right to life itself.

still relevant today

Forever reblog..

(via orchidassassin)

bag-of-dirt:

Captain Nieves Fernandez, the only known Filipino female guerilla leader and formerly a school teacher, shows U.S. Army Pvt. Andrew Lupiba how she used her long knife to silently kill Japanese soldiers during the Japanese occupation of Leyte Island. Pvt. Lupiba was a bellhop at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, California before entering service. Mabuhay Las Piñas, Leyte Island, Philippines. 7 November 1944. Image taken by Stanley Troutman.

bag-of-dirt:

Captain Nieves Fernandez, the only known Filipino female guerilla leader and formerly a school teacher, shows U.S. Army Pvt. Andrew Lupiba how she used her long knife to silently kill Japanese soldiers during the Japanese occupation of Leyte Island. Pvt. Lupiba was a bellhop at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, California before entering service. Mabuhay Las Piñas, Leyte Island, Philippines. 7 November 1944. Image taken by Stanley Troutman.

(via badasswomen)

diasporadash:

Black and Green: Afro-Colombians, Development, and Nature in the Pacific Lowlands 
by Kiran Asher
In Black and Green, Kiran Asher provides a powerful framework for reconceptualizing the relationship between neoliberal development and social movements. Moving beyond the notion that development is a hegemonic, homogenizing force that victimizes local communities, Asher argues that development processes and social movements shape each other in uneven and paradoxical ways. She bases her argument on ethnographic analysis of the black social movements that emerged from and interacted with political and economic changes in Colombia’s Pacific lowlands, or Chocó region, in the 1990s.

The Pacific region had yet to be overrun by drug traffickers, guerrillas, and paramilitary forces in the early 1990s. It was better known as the largest area of black culture in the country (90 percent of the region’s population is Afro-Colombian) and as a supplier of natural resources, including timber, gold, platinum, and silver. Colombia’s Law 70, passed in 1993, promised ethnic and cultural rights, collective land ownership, and socioeconomic development to Afro-Colombian communities. At the same time that various constituencies sought to interpret and implement Law 70, the state was moving ahead with large-scale development initiatives intended to modernize the economically backward coastal lowlands. Meanwhile national and international conservation organizations were attempting to protect the region’s rich biodiversity. Asher explores this juxtaposition of black rights, economic development, and conservation—and the tensions it catalyzed. She analyzes the meanings attached to “culture,” “nature,” and “development” by the Colombian state and Afro-Colombian social movements, including women’s groups. In so doing, she shows that the appropriation of development and conservation discourses by the social movements had a paradoxical effect. It legitimized the presence of state, development, and conservation agencies in the Pacific region even as it influenced those agencies’ visions and plans.

diasporadash:

Black and Green: Afro-Colombians, Development, and Nature in the Pacific Lowlands 

by Kiran Asher

In Black and Green, Kiran Asher provides a powerful framework for reconceptualizing the relationship between neoliberal development and social movements. Moving beyond the notion that development is a hegemonic, homogenizing force that victimizes local communities, Asher argues that development processes and social movements shape each other in uneven and paradoxical ways. She bases her argument on ethnographic analysis of the black social movements that emerged from and interacted with political and economic changes in Colombia’s Pacific lowlands, or Chocó region, in the 1990s.

The Pacific region had yet to be overrun by drug traffickers, guerrillas, and paramilitary forces in the early 1990s. It was better known as the largest area of black culture in the country (90 percent of the region’s population is Afro-Colombian) and as a supplier of natural resources, including timber, gold, platinum, and silver. Colombia’s Law 70, passed in 1993, promised ethnic and cultural rights, collective land ownership, and socioeconomic development to Afro-Colombian communities. At the same time that various constituencies sought to interpret and implement Law 70, the state was moving ahead with large-scale development initiatives intended to modernize the economically backward coastal lowlands. Meanwhile national and international conservation organizations were attempting to protect the region’s rich biodiversity. Asher explores this juxtaposition of black rights, economic development, and conservation—and the tensions it catalyzed. She analyzes the meanings attached to “culture,” “nature,” and “development” by the Colombian state and Afro-Colombian social movements, including women’s groups. In so doing, she shows that the appropriation of development and conservation discourses by the social movements had a paradoxical effect. It legitimized the presence of state, development, and conservation agencies in the Pacific region even as it influenced those agencies’ visions and plans.

fuckyeahlgbtqartists:

Meg Allen - Butch

BUTCH is a documentary portrait project and exploration of the butch aesthetic, identity and presentation of female masculinity as it stands in 2013-14. It is a celebration of those who choose to exist and identify outside of the binary; who still get he’d and she’d differently throughout the day; who get called-out in bathrooms and eyed suspiciously at the airport; who have invented names for themselves as parents because “Mom” nor “Dad” feels quite right; and who will generally expect that stare from the gender police trying to figure out if they are “a boy or a girl”. It is an homage to the bull-daggers and female husbands before me, and to the young studs, gender queers, and bois who continue to bloom into the present. (source)

Confession: there a me that looks like this. I wish I can let her out sometimes.

(via angrylatinxsunited)

operarox:

suitupweird:

Inspiration | Women In Menswear | Wear It Weird

It took a while, but this finally (and rightfully) made it onto my blog.

My life’s goal

(via shannibal-cannibal)

medievalpoc:

sinbadism:

blue-author:

sinbadism:

blue-author:

medievalpoc:

superwholockianandproud:

medievalpoc:

fuckyeahalejandra replied to your post: Ancient Art Week! Various Roman Sculpt…

Are these sculptures of roman citizens or slaves?

The association of Black people with enslavement is an entirely modern invention, as in, chattel slavery in the Americas and the routine enslavement of…

Could you explain how Roman slavery was not Chattel slavery? I mean it certainly had nothing to do with race short of we beat you in a war now you’re slaves, but I’m pretty sure that chattel slavery just means that slaves are the property of their masters which was true for the Roman. However an excellent post and it’s saddening to think that the problem exists in the US where people are assumed to be slaves if they have a certain skin colour before the 1860s.

I’m more referring to how Roman slaves could have upward social mobility, could own property, often had valuable skills (like physicians) or high degrees of education, gained various legal protections over the years, could become citizens with voting rights after manumission, and that “Roman slavery was a nonracist and fluid system” (Stefan Goodwin, Africa in Europe: Antiquity into the Age of Global Expansion (Lexington Books, 2009), vol. 1, p. 41).  It had nothing to do with race.

The term “American chattel slavery” is often used to make the differentiation but I understand why it would be confusing here. But it was a very notably different system in many ways; although they’re both definitely forms of slavery, they’re not the same thing.

It’s an ugly distinction to make so baldly, but it might be easier to understand the difference if we consider the modern English word descended from chattel: cattle. The U.S. system of chattel slavery literally treated a people as if they were livestock, a facet of slavery that never happened on such a wide scale of time and space in earlier practices.

UPWARD MOBILITY AMONG ROMAN SLAVES WAS STILL VERY LIMITED. the roman caste system WAS horrible.

and the slaves were largely not from italy. many of them were black. black people in Rome WERE treated with racism. 

No one’s making the claim that Rome was a glorious land of equal opportunity where everyone could pull themselves up by their bootstraps and rise to a lofty position.

As distinctions go, “not as hideous and dehumanizing as the U.S. chattel slavery system” isn’t high praise, or even a spirited defense. It’s just a necessary distinction to make when putting the more modern practice of industrial grade slavery in perspective.

that’s not the claim i’m even saying is wrong. i think it’s GROSS to try and say that race and class were not related in rome, and that black people weren’t more likely to be slaves in ancient rome than white-skinned romans. like, it really angers me when white people try to come in WITHOUT EVIDENCE trying to act like rome did not have institutionalized racism. maybe not as explicitly as America, but it was definitely there

Do you want to explain more or give some references on that then? It’s obviously much, much more complicated than I’ve explained it here, but you also have to consider that the starting point was someone immediately associating Black people with slavery.

If you posit that Black Romans were more likely to be enslaved than any other people in Rome, or more than Romans we would consider “white”, like, go for it. We can take the discussion from there. All I’m really trying to explain is that they were very different systems.

I think that people actually coming to the defense of Roman slavery like it was good or something is definitely A Thing that is weird and I’ve seen before, I don’t get it and I think it’s pretty suspicious. I really hope I didn’t come off that way, and I sincerely apologize if I did.

There’s a good bit of scholarship on the ancient world and Greek and Roman writing specifically regarding Black people, othering, perceptions of people’s relative appearances and personalities (they were super into that), and whether or not we can create an analog to modern racism, and/or trace the roots of racism to the ancient cultures idealized in the European Renaissance.

What I haven’t seen is a definitive connection between race and class in Roman culture. It’s entirely possible that I just haven’t seen it, in which case, I welcome the education. I don’t think it’s out of line to try and undermine the automatic assumption that race-based chattel slavery in the ancient world was a given, or point out that it has much more to do with recent history than ancient history.

Someone was just telling me they picked up The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity (52 pages available here):

and I’m super jealous because like TBH I can’t afford half the books I WANT to own, and between work and this blog and “other stuff” I just don’t always have the time to read them, either.

I’m especially captivated by this passage on “objectivity” in historical scholarship:

In fact, it does not exist in practice. What exists, however, is a pretense at objectivity by students who often ignore the fact that their views are wholly determined and thus distorted by current consensus. Such were my considerations when I published a book about Roman frontier policy and imperialism in the East in 1990. It seemed to me only fair to say something about my personal perspective in thinking about the problems at hand. I thought a candid admission that I was intellectually and emotionally involved in the subject of my studies would show that I was aware of my limitations and tried to use my personal experience to advantage in my ruminations.

I must admit that I found it surprising when a few critics, encouraged by this admission, used it against me and accused me of openly acknowledged bias in my views. It seemed to me then, and seems to me true today, that authors who are aware of their perspective have a better chance of delivering lucid analysis, than those who pretend that their experience in life plays no role in their work.

The thing is, everything I personally have read on this topic concerns “the existence of skin-color based prejudice”, which is definitely important to explore but is a far cry from “systematic racism pervasive in society”, which is what our current views on the topic are affected by. Because that’s what we live in now.

Like, it is SO incredibly complex and I get that oversimplification is a problem, but at the same time, I need to be concise and pretty direct sometimes to try and build a bridge between knee-jerk assumptions or associations, and getting to a more accurate yet infinitely more challenging understanding of the past and how it affects our lives.

quietbang asked: Hey, I know this is outside of your scope so I'm just hoping you can point me in the right direction- I'm looking for images of physically disabled people, literally anywhere, prior to the 19th century. Because I'm kinda sick of being told that I didn't exist, and I can't seem to find anything myself.

medievalpoc:

I’m a disability activist and it’s part of my day job, too so I actually have a fair bit, I think.

Here’s a link to a post i made on this a while back, including this book:

image

For some pretty interesting but mostly text-based scholarship on disabled people in history, Disability Studies Quarterly offers full text online (EE!), and I *think* they have PDFs that include images and/or artworks.

This issue in particular has some great articles on Disabled Shakespearean characters and themes.

Here is a post about a deaf man who greatly confused some Americans in the late 1800s. Here is a painting of the Virgin and Child appearing to a “lame” noblewoman from the 1750s. I have some paintings of Billy Waters and some disabled Black sailors in the British Navy from the 1800s here:

image

Here is a PDF excerpt from Stumbling Blocks Before the Blind: Medieval Constructions of Disability that includes at least one image from an illuminated manuscript.

Greg Carrier, a graduate student in Medieval Studies at the intersection of disability wrote a series of guest posts for the Medieval Middle, has a blog here that you can look through to find images and writing about the depiction of disabled people in Medieval Art as well as evidence from writing and I *think* surviving objects as well. For example:

image

Here’s a pretty cool resource on a disability/representation exhibit that has a lot of images, including The Beggars by Pieter Brueghel:

image

More on that work here.

There’s a LOT out there, and anyone who tells you otherwise is full of it.