Anonymous asked:
Do you have any advanced images? Those beginner images were weak baby shit
charl0ttan answered:
hmm
The conversation surrounding cultural appropriation has been so severely mutilated by white “allies” that the original intention behind that conversation has become almost unrecognizable in most social contexts.
To explain what I mean, the conversation around cultural appropriation was started by black and native people to discuss the frustrations we feel at being punished socially and financially for partaking in our cultural heritage while white people could take, I.e. appropriate, aspects of our culture that we are actively shamed for and be heralded as innovators. It was about the frustrations we feel when the same white people who shamed us would take our culture and wear it as if they were the ones who created it while still actively shaming us for doing the same.
The original push behind naming cultural appropriation and having these conversations were so that we as a society could evaluate why we were punished for our heritage while white People were not. It was supposed to be about seeking solutions. The idea was to create a society where we could celebrate our cultures with impunity. It was never about telling white people that they “weren’t allowed” to do certain things. We did ask that white People stop doing certain things because they weren’t doing them respectfully and were not invited to do them, but the primary reason we asked them to desist was to reclaim the things they had stolen and to reassign them culturally back where they belonged.
White “allies” saw these conversations happening and instead of trying to aplify our own voices or even try to learn about the complexities behind why we were saying what we were saying, they instead began screaming over us and creating a narrative that was hardly even the bones of what we originally set out to say. It was like they took the conversation we were trying to have, completely decontextualized it, and stripped it of all it’s nuance in order to gain social currency by seeming progressive.
So the conversation around cultural appropriation went from “This aspect of our heritage belongs to us and we find it egregious that we are shamed for it. What steps can we take to address the racism that’s creating this situation as well as rehome the things that have been stolen” to “you’re not allowed to do that because if you do that you’re racist, we don’t really understand why that’s racist but you’re not allowed to do that and if you do that you’re a klansman no exceptions. So you’re not allowed because because”
At the end of the day, did I like the fact that sally was wearing dreads? No. But my primary concern was not that sally was wearing dreads but rather that sally could wear dreads and I couldn’t. THAT was the intended focus of those conversations. It was about addressing the inequality. It was about us. Now the conversation is just about sally and were completely forgotten.
White People are always asking me what they can do to help. You want to know? Stop talking. Aplify our voices and shut the fuck up because you all have pretty much derailed this conversation and many more like it to the point that we no longer are trying to make steps to understand and dismantle the racism around cultural appropriation and instead are just using it as social shaming tactics.
TL;DR: read my post. Most things worth learning about can’t be summarized in the bullet points of a buzfeed article. Don’t come into academic circles and complain because everything hasn’t been conviently summarized for you. Stop pretending that things aren’t accessible to you because you refuse to do the intellectual labor that is learning.
you gotta be so fucking careful looking at porn when you have adhd. Your mind wanders for two seconds and suddenly you realize you're crankin' hog to john goodman's wikipedia page.
I've seen a lot of people reblogging this as a shitpost but it actually is ~technically~ true, if you're willing to give the literal text "lentils.com" a bit of leeway. The modern DNS or "Domain Name System" wasn't established until 1985, and was created to establish human-readable addresses for IP addresses, so you didn't have to know the actual IP address of the website you wanted to visit. In other words, you don't need to call up the world carrot museum and ask for their IP address in order to visit their website, you can just go to worldcarrotmuseum.co.uk.
HOWEVER, the DNS system wasn't created whole-cloth, it was based on a library topic-categorization system that predated the dewey decimal system and was widely used across private and government libraries in england and, later, the united states. The system was called the Index Dominiorum, or "Register of Domains," and was pioneered by the Library of Oxford in 1731. It's first ever use was for the tracking and maintenance of agricultural records for major staple crops, with the list distinguishing between commercial and independently-grown crops, as subsistence farming was still how a lot of people got their food in england at the time. In this register of crop reports, one of the first (not the actual first first) records added to the list was a report on the production of commercial lentils, labeled "lentils, com." Because that same core registration system was used as the basis for the DNS nearly 3 centuries later, it can be argued that "lentils.com" was one of the first domains ever registered, along with similar commercial crop names like "barley.com", "rye.com", and "bulgur-wheat.com". Unfortunately, none of this is true, and i did just make it all up.
My child, who spends their entire life being transfered from home to car to school and back, and is not allowed to leave the house or talk to anyone and can only in their wildest dreams imagine a life free from constant surveillance, is very sad. Obviously they're dumb and lazy, like all kids these days.
Oh shit. Sally Field kinda went off here. “The garment you knit for yourself as a child.” Might have to read her memoir now.
