siddharthasmama:

gandwarf:

i love grandmas so much

from Teta, Alf Marra directed by Mahmoud Kaabour

bless

(via reverseracism)


kobetyrant:

OPINIONS CAN BE RACIST

OPINIONS CAN BE SEXIST

OPINIONS CAN BE HOMOPHOBIC

stop using “it’s just my opinion” to justify your bigotry.

(via steady-ascension)


pardonmewhileipanic:

hellyesimthatgirl:

fandomsandfeminism:

yoshi-bomb:

#feminist #feminism #women

I’m always amused when women, especially white, cis, straight women, take on this “well, I don’t see how Feminism benefits ME, so fuck it!” mentality. 
Because, like, ok, perhaps you have enough privileges that the impact of systematic gender inequality is pretty mitigated for you. Sure. 
But, like, do you not give a shit about your sisters? About your sisters of color, and LGBTQIAP+ sisters, and disabled sisters? About your sisters who ARE targets of violence, who are suffering? 
Because lists like this only betray 2 things, a) That the person who wrote it does not understand the sociological concepts and theories that lay the foundation for much of feminist theory and b) that they don’t give a shit about anyone less fortunate than themselves in regards to marginalization and oppression. 

OP is on some ignorant shit.

how to completely misunderstand and misrepresent feminism, while showing arrogance, ignorance, and complete disdain for those who are suffering: a photo post by someone with no concept of oppression
Also, if you think the patriarchy doesn’t affect you, and that you aren’t a target for violence, be it general or sexual, you might want to sit down, because I have some seriously bad news for you

pardonmewhileipanic:

hellyesimthatgirl:

fandomsandfeminism:

yoshi-bomb:

#feminist #feminism #women

I’m always amused when women, especially white, cis, straight women, take on this “well, I don’t see how Feminism benefits ME, so fuck it!” mentality. 

Because, like, ok, perhaps you have enough privileges that the impact of systematic gender inequality is pretty mitigated for you. Sure. 

But, like, do you not give a shit about your sisters? About your sisters of color, and LGBTQIAP+ sisters, and disabled sisters? About your sisters who ARE targets of violence, who are suffering? 

Because lists like this only betray 2 things, a) That the person who wrote it does not understand the sociological concepts and theories that lay the foundation for much of feminist theory and b) that they don’t give a shit about anyone less fortunate than themselves in regards to marginalization and oppression. 

OP is on some ignorant shit.

how to completely misunderstand and misrepresent feminism, while showing arrogance, ignorance, and complete disdain for those who are suffering: a photo post by someone with no concept of oppression

Also, if you think the patriarchy doesn’t affect you, and that you aren’t a target for violence, be it general or sexual, you might want to sit down, because I have some seriously bad news for you

(via im-not-digging-it)


kyssthis16:

mrs-saunter:

All parents of color are inferior and backwards

Until its time to look for a nanny right

Then suddenly we are just fine to raise your kids for you

Welp.

(via reverseracism)


heterogeneoushomosexual:

burymyart:
Indigenous Feminism Without Apologyby Andrea Smith
We often hear the mantra in indigenous communities that Native women aren’t feminists. Supposedly, feminism is not needed because Native women were treated with respect prior to colonization. Thus, any Native woman who calls herself a feminist is often condemned as being “white.”
However, when I started interviewing Native women organizers as part of a research project, I was surprised by how many community-based activists were describing themselves as “feminists without apology.” They were arguing that feminism is actually an indigenous concept that has been co-opted by white women.
The fact that Native societies were egalitarian 500 years ago is not stopping women from being hit or abused now. For instance, in my years of anti-violence organizing, I would hear, “We can’t worry about domestic violence; we must worry about survival issues first.” But since Native women are the women most likely to be killed by domestic violence, they are clearly not surviving. So when we talk about survival of our nations, who are we including?
These Native feminists are challenging not only patriarchy within Native communities, but also white supremacy and colonialism within mainstream white feminism. That is, they’re challenging why it is that white women get to define what feminism is.
DECENTERING WHITE FEMINISM
The feminist movement is generally periodized into the so-called first, second and third waves of feminism. In the United States, the first wave is characterized by the suffragette movement; the second wave is characterized by the formation of the National Organization for Women, abortion rights politics, and the fight for the Equal Rights Amendments. Suddenly, during the third wave of feminism, women of colour make an appearance to transform feminism into a multicultural movement.
This periodization situates white middle-class women as the central historical agents to which women of colour attach themselves. However, if we were to recognize the agency of indigenous women in an account of feminist history, we might begin with 1492 when Native women collectively resisted colonization. This would allow us to see that there are multiple feminist histories emerging from multiple communities of colour which intersect at points and diverge in others. This would not negate the contributions made by white feminists, but would de-center them from our historicizing and analysis.
Indigenous feminism thus centers anti-colonial practice within its organizing. This is critical today when you have mainstream feminist groups supporting, for example, the US bombing of Afghanistan with the claim that this bombing will free women from the Taliban (apparently bombing women somehow liberates them).
CHALLENGING THE STATE
Indigenous feminists are also challenging how we conceptualize indigenous sovereignty - it is not an add-on to the heteronormative and patriarchal nationstate. Rather it challenges the nationstate system itself. Charles Colson, prominent Christian Right activist and founder of Prison Fellowship, explains quite clearly the relationship between heteronormativity and the nation-state. In his view, samesex marriage leads directly to terrorism; the attack on the “natural moral order” of the heterosexual family “is like handing moral weapons of mass destruction to those who use America’s decadence to recruit more snipers and hijackers and suicide bombers.”
Similarly, the Christian Right World magazine opined that feminism contributed to the Abu Ghraib scandal by promoting women in the military. When women do not know their assigned role in the gender hierarchy, they become disoriented and abuse prisoners.
Implicit in this is analysis the understanding that heteropatriarchy is essential for the building of US empire. Patriarchy is the logic that naturalizes social hierarchy. Just as men are supposed to naturally dominate women on the basis of biology, so too should the social elites of a society naturally rule everyone else through a nation-state form of governance that is constructed through domination, violence, and control.
As Ann Burlein argues in Lift High the Cross, it may be a mistake to argue that the goal of Christian Right politics is to create a theocracy in the US. Rather, Christian Right politics work through the private family (which is coded as white, patriarchal, and middle-class) to create a “Christian America.” She notes that the investment in the private family makes it difficult for people to invest in more public forms of social connection.
For example, more investment in the suburban private family means less funding for urban areas and Native reservations. The resulting social decay is then construed to be caused by deviance from the Christian family ideal rather than political and economic forces. As former head of the Christian Coalition Ralph Reed states: “The only true solution to crime is to restore the family,” and “Family break-up causes poverty.”
Unfortunately, as Navajo feminist scholar Jennifer Denetdale points out, the Native response to a heteronormative white, Christian America has often been an equally heteronormative Native nationalism. In her critique of the Navajo tribal council’s passage of a ban on same-sex marriage, Denetdale argues that Native nations are furthering a Christian Right agenda in the name of “Indian tradition.”
This trend is equally apparent within racial justice struggles in other communities of colour. As Cathy Cohen contends, heteronormative sovereignty or racial justice struggles will effectively maintain rather than challenge colonialism and white supremacy because they are premised on a politics of secondary marginalization. The most elite class will further their aspirations on the backs of those most marginalized within the community.
Through this process of secondary marginalization, the national or racial justice struggle either implicitly or explicitly takes on a nation-state model as the end point of its struggle - a model in which the elites govern the rest through violence and domination, and exclude those who are not members of “the nation.”
NATIONAL LIBERATION
Grassroots Native women, along with Native scholars such as Taiaiake Alfred and Craig Womack, are developing other models of nationhood. These articulations counter the frequent accusations that nation-building projects necessarily lead to a narrow identity politics based on ethnic cleansing and intolerance. This requires that a clear distinction be drawn between the project of national liberation, and that of nation-state building.
Progressive activists and scholars, while prepared to make critiques of the US and Canadian governments, are often not prepared to question their legitimacy. A case in point is the strategy of many racial justice organizations in the US or Canada, who have rallied against the increase in hate crimes since 9/11 under the banner, “We’re American [or Canadian] too.”
This allegiance to “America” or “Canada” legitimizes the genocide and colonization of Native peoples upon which these nation-states are founded. By making anti-colonial struggle central to feminist politics, Native women place in question the appropriate form of governance for the world in general. In questioning the nation-state, we can begin to imagine a world that we would actually want to live in. Such a political project is particularly important for colonized peoples seeking national liberation outside the nation-state.
Whereas nation-states are governed through domination and coercion, indigenous sovereignty and nationhood is predicated on interrelatedness and responsibility.
As Sharon Venne explains, “Our spirituality and our responsibilities define our duties. We understand the concept of sovereignty as woven through a fabric that encompasses our spirituality and responsibility. This is a cyclical view of sovereignty, incorporating it into our traditional philosophy and view of our responsibilities. It differs greatly from the concept of Western sovereignty which is based upon absolute power. For us absolute power is in the Creator and the natural order of all living things; not only in human beings… Our sovereignty is related to our connections to the earth and is inherent.”
REVOLUTION
A Native feminist politics seeks to do more than simply elevate Native women’s status - it seeks to transform the world through indigenous forms of governance that can be beneficial to everyone.
At the 2005 World Liberation Theology Forum held in Porto Alegre, Brazil, indigenous peoples from Bolivia stated that they know another world is possible because they see that world whenever they do their ceremonies. Native ceremonies can be a place where the present, past and future become copresent. This is what Native Hawaiian scholar Manu Meyer calls a racial remembering of the future.
Prior to colonization, Native communities were not structured on the basis of hierarchy, oppression or patriarchy. We will not recreate these communities as they existed prior to colonization. Our understanding that a society without structures of oppression was possible in the past tells us that our current political and economic system is anything but natural and inevitable. If we lived differently before, we can live differently in the future.
Native feminism is not simply an insular or exclusivist “identity politics” as it is often accused of being. Rather, it is framework that understands indigenous women’s struggle as part of a global movement for liberation. As one activist stated: “You can’t win a revolution on your own. And we are about nothing short of a revolution. Anything else is simply not worth our time.”
Andrea Smith is Cherokee and a professor of Native American Studies at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and co-founder of Incite! Women of Color Against Violence and the Boarding School Healing Project.
_____________________________
R.I.S.E.:RadicalIndigenousSurvivance &Empowermenthttps://www.facebook.com/RISEIndigenous___________________________________________.

heterogeneoushomosexual:

burymyart:

Indigenous Feminism Without Apology
by Andrea Smith

We often hear the mantra in indigenous communities that Native women aren’t feminists. Supposedly, feminism is not needed because Native women were treated with respect prior to colonization. Thus, any Native woman who calls herself a feminist is often condemned as being “white.”

However, when I started interviewing Native women organizers as part of a research project, I was surprised by how many community-based activists were describing themselves as “feminists without apology.” They were arguing that feminism is actually an indigenous concept that has been co-opted by white women.

The fact that Native societies were egalitarian 500 years ago is not stopping women from being hit or abused now. For instance, in my years of anti-violence organizing, I would hear, “We can’t worry about domestic violence; we must worry about survival issues first.” But since Native women are the women most likely to be killed by domestic violence, they are clearly not surviving. So when we talk about survival of our nations, who are we including?

These Native feminists are challenging not only patriarchy within Native communities, but also white supremacy and colonialism within mainstream white feminism. That is, they’re challenging why it is that white women get to define what feminism is.

DECENTERING WHITE FEMINISM

The feminist movement is generally periodized into the so-called first, second and third waves of feminism. In the United States, the first wave is characterized by the suffragette movement; the second wave is characterized by the formation of the National Organization for Women, abortion rights politics, and the fight for the Equal Rights Amendments. Suddenly, during the third wave of feminism, women of colour make an appearance to transform feminism into a multicultural movement.

This periodization situates white middle-class women as the central historical agents to which women of colour attach themselves. However, if we were to recognize the agency of indigenous women in an account of feminist history, we might begin with 1492 when Native women collectively resisted colonization. This would allow us to see that there are multiple feminist histories emerging from multiple communities of colour which intersect at points and diverge in others. This would not negate the contributions made by white feminists, but would de-center them from our historicizing and analysis.

Indigenous feminism thus centers anti-colonial practice within its organizing. This is critical today when you have mainstream feminist groups supporting, for example, the US bombing of Afghanistan with the claim that this bombing will free women from the Taliban (apparently bombing women somehow liberates them).

CHALLENGING THE STATE

Indigenous feminists are also challenging how we conceptualize indigenous sovereignty - it is not an add-on to the heteronormative and patriarchal nationstate. Rather it challenges the nationstate system itself. Charles Colson, prominent Christian Right activist and founder of Prison Fellowship, explains quite clearly the relationship between heteronormativity and the nation-state. In his view, samesex marriage leads directly to terrorism; the attack on the “natural moral order” of the heterosexual family “is like handing moral weapons of mass destruction to those who use America’s decadence to recruit more snipers and hijackers and suicide bombers.”

Similarly, the Christian Right World magazine opined that feminism contributed to the Abu Ghraib scandal by promoting women in the military. When women do not know their assigned role in the gender hierarchy, they become disoriented and abuse prisoners.

Implicit in this is analysis the understanding that heteropatriarchy is essential for the building of US empire. Patriarchy is the logic that naturalizes social hierarchy. Just as men are supposed to naturally dominate women on the basis of biology, so too should the social elites of a society naturally rule everyone else through a nation-state form of governance that is constructed through domination, violence, and control.

As Ann Burlein argues in Lift High the Cross, it may be a mistake to argue that the goal of Christian Right politics is to create a theocracy in the US. Rather, Christian Right politics work through the private family (which is coded as white, patriarchal, and middle-class) to create a “Christian America.” She notes that the investment in the private family makes it difficult for people to invest in more public forms of social connection.

For example, more investment in the suburban private family means less funding for urban areas and Native reservations. The resulting social decay is then construed to be caused by deviance from the Christian family ideal rather than political and economic forces. As former head of the Christian Coalition Ralph Reed states: “The only true solution to crime is to restore the family,” and “Family break-up causes poverty.”

Unfortunately, as Navajo feminist scholar Jennifer Denetdale points out, the Native response to a heteronormative white, Christian America has often been an equally heteronormative Native nationalism. In her critique of the Navajo tribal council’s passage of a ban on same-sex marriage, Denetdale argues that Native nations are furthering a Christian Right agenda in the name of “Indian tradition.”

This trend is equally apparent within racial justice struggles in other communities of colour. As Cathy Cohen contends, heteronormative sovereignty or racial justice struggles will effectively maintain rather than challenge colonialism and white supremacy because they are premised on a politics of secondary marginalization. The most elite class will further their aspirations on the backs of those most marginalized within the community.

Through this process of secondary marginalization, the national or racial justice struggle either implicitly or explicitly takes on a nation-state model as the end point of its struggle - a model in which the elites govern the rest through violence and domination, and exclude those who are not members of “the nation.”

NATIONAL LIBERATION

Grassroots Native women, along with Native scholars such as Taiaiake Alfred and Craig Womack, are developing other models of nationhood. These articulations counter the frequent accusations that nation-building projects necessarily lead to a narrow identity politics based on ethnic cleansing and intolerance. This requires that a clear distinction be drawn between the project of national liberation, and that of nation-state building.

Progressive activists and scholars, while prepared to make critiques of the US and Canadian governments, are often not prepared to question their legitimacy. A case in point is the strategy of many racial justice organizations in the US or Canada, who have rallied against the increase in hate crimes since 9/11 under the banner, “We’re American [or Canadian] too.”

This allegiance to “America” or “Canada” legitimizes the genocide and colonization of Native peoples upon which these nation-states are founded. By making anti-colonial struggle central to feminist politics, Native women place in question the appropriate form of governance for the world in general. In questioning the nation-state, we can begin to imagine a world that we would actually want to live in. Such a political project is particularly important for colonized peoples seeking national liberation outside the nation-state.

Whereas nation-states are governed through domination and coercion, indigenous sovereignty and nationhood is predicated on interrelatedness and responsibility.

As Sharon Venne explains, “Our spirituality and our responsibilities define our duties. We understand the concept of sovereignty as woven through a fabric that encompasses our spirituality and responsibility. This is a cyclical view of sovereignty, incorporating it into our traditional philosophy and view of our responsibilities. It differs greatly from the concept of Western sovereignty which is based upon absolute power. For us absolute power is in the Creator and the natural order of all living things; not only in human beings… Our sovereignty is related to our connections to the earth and is inherent.”

REVOLUTION

A Native feminist politics seeks to do more than simply elevate Native women’s status - it seeks to transform the world through indigenous forms of governance that can be beneficial to everyone.

At the 2005 World Liberation Theology Forum held in Porto Alegre, Brazil, indigenous peoples from Bolivia stated that they know another world is possible because they see that world whenever they do their ceremonies. Native ceremonies can be a place where the present, past and future become copresent. This is what Native Hawaiian scholar Manu Meyer calls a racial remembering of the future.

Prior to colonization, Native communities were not structured on the basis of hierarchy, oppression or patriarchy. We will not recreate these communities as they existed prior to colonization. Our understanding that a society without structures of oppression was possible in the past tells us that our current political and economic system is anything but natural and inevitable. If we lived differently before, we can live differently in the future.

Native feminism is not simply an insular or exclusivist “identity politics” as it is often accused of being. Rather, it is framework that understands indigenous women’s struggle as part of a global movement for liberation. As one activist stated: “You can’t win a revolution on your own. And we are about nothing short of a revolution. Anything else is simply not worth our time.”

Andrea Smith is Cherokee and a professor of Native American Studies at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and co-founder of Incite! Women of Color Against Violence and the Boarding School Healing Project.

_____________________________

R.I.S.E.:
Radical
Indigenous
Survivance &
Empowerment


https://www.facebook.com/RISEIndigenous
___________________________________________.

(via guwap-dawg)


beemill:

koreaunderground:

cheezwhizchrist:

loversquest:

trillenaa:

redbellied-piranha:

mishasbootyisthebestbooty:

redbellied-piranha:

mishasbootyisthebestbooty:

thesoftghetto:

wifigirl2080:

samkidanuengirl:

koreaunderground:

globalpoetics:

The Violent Xenophobic Racism in Ireland

At 9pm last Tuesday, 44-year-old Chinese doctor, Wu Youzhong, went to investigate the sound of breaking glass outside his home in Coleraine, County Londonderry, in Ireland. When he arrived at his front door, he saw that the window had been smashed. An intruder then attacked him so violently that he had to be admitted to hospital for several days, and required consultation from an eye specialist. Dr Wu’s wife, Luo Ruoyin, said, “I heard he was just screaming in pain and I was scared. He was just holding his head and covering his eyes and blood was just running down everywhere.” The police are treating the attack as racially motivated; the couple, who have a two-year-old daughter, are reported to be intending to move away from the area.

The Chinese community in Ireland has long been a target of racial discrimination. Anna Lo, an Alliance Party politician born in Hong Kong who was elected to the Ireland Assembly in 2007, was the first politician from an ethnic minority at national level in Ireland, as well as the first East Asian to be elected anywhere in Britain. Her campaign was dogged by violent racism – including death threats – to the extent that she had to carry a panic alarm as a precaution. One far-Right website published pornographic images of Chinese women, alongside derogatory references to Anna Lo. “People from ethnic minorities are very frightened,” she said. “I have never seen ethnic minorities so fearful in Ireland.”

Read More: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jakewallissimons/100181659/sectarian-hatred-is-being-overtaken-by-xenophobic-racism-in-northern-ireland/

the crumbling myth of white supremacy. white supremacy is violent. white supremacy is destructive. white supremacy is pervasive. white supremacy kills.

white people disgust me

I hate them truly.

SmH

I have no words..

Ok this is fucking horrible but let me say something. You are fighting racism with racism. Clearly, not all white people are scum. Literally every racial group has been discriminated against in history. Even the Irish. When they first started immigrating to America they were discriminated against more than any other group in America. What’s happening in Ireland right now is fucking disgusting, but it is not an excuse to say that all white people are horrible nasty racist shitbags. I think i might throw up reading about this, fuck.

Stop your fucking lies about Irish people in America.

More than anyone in America ? Are you fucking kidding me?

When they first started immigrating, yes. Obviously not anymore but at one time they were the lowest of the low in America. However, that’s not really the point I was trying to make. My point was that fighting racism with racism will get us no where.

They were never the lowest of the low but ok.

never the lowest of the low

White people are something

just seeing all the whites reblogging this and trying to make turn it into their own platform to spew more bullshit about how “not ALL of us are like that!!!” is nauseating. so what? so even fucking what if not 100% of you whites are “like that”? there is enough of you that are EXACTLY like that for shit like this to happen to poc. you claim you’re one of the “good” ones. prove it then. call out those “bad” whites then. preach to your kind on how to stop being such racist scumbags. preach with the same energy you’re using right now to (vainly) convince us poc on what great upstanding citizens we can find amongst the white crowd. i dare you. at least then you might be halfway to achieving something fucking useful.

^^^^^^^

it’s really disturbing a lot of people commenting on this story and coming out and saying there isn’t a racism, a violent racism problem in ireland. it’s so fucked up.


lightspeedsound:

badassperger:

lightspeedsound:

official-mens-frights-activist:

the-real-goddamazon:

sourcedumal:

siddharthasmama:

yes. I am here for this - downplay Europe like they downplay Asia and Africa. I refuse to recognize Europe as a true continental mass. #notsorry

Europe is Far West Asia and will now be referred to as such.

Western Asia.

there’s no geological/tectonic reason for europe to be a different continent from asia; white people just wanted to feel special so they pretended to be a different continent
i’m all for this

bahahahahahahahahahaha

As a Far West Asian man I happily agree.

fuck well as long as white ppl don’t start saying shit like “well I’m far west asian so like that means I can comment on this asian fetishization thing” like uggh

lightspeedsound:

badassperger:

lightspeedsound:

official-mens-frights-activist:

the-real-goddamazon:

sourcedumal:

siddharthasmama:

yes. I am here for this - downplay Europe like they downplay Asia and Africa. I refuse to recognize Europe as a true continental mass. #notsorry

Europe is Far West Asia and will now be referred to as such.

Western Asia.

there’s no geological/tectonic reason for europe to be a different continent from asia; white people just wanted to feel special so they pretended to be a different continent

i’m all for this

bahahahahahahahahahaha

As a Far West Asian man I happily agree.

fuck well as long as white ppl don’t start saying shit like “well I’m far west asian so like that means I can comment on this asian fetishization thing” like uggh

(via goldstarprivilege)


dynastylnoire:

keltr0n:

bigmamag:

doctorwinchesterin221b:

locaoverloki:

prodigium-in-the-tardis:

amarilloo:

deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan:

we-avenge-if-we-want-to:

triggafiasco:

loki-cat:

iamladyloki:

C R Y I N G OMG

I DONT THINK YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND

HOW MUCH I LOVE THESE SPIDERMAN PICS

OH OH OHHH! I have some!!
 image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

oh shit not this fucking bullshit again oh my god jfklsdjflkj

THERE’S MORE WHERE THAT CAME FROM! 

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

HOLY FUCK HE’S BACK OMG

I’M ACUTALLY CRYING HERE OH GOD

image

image

image

can’t forget these

THESE ARE GOLDEN

MORE MORE

That time when Deadpool cosplayed Spiderman

(via captainsaveyamammy)


micdotcom:

One statistic sums up why The New York Times suddenly stood up for legal marijuana

 The racial bias of marijuana arrests is one of the New York Times editorial board’s key arguments for repealing prohibition.
The logic is simple. In the 40 years since the current ban was enacted, black and white Americans have used cannabis at comparable rates.
Bad for everyone. Worse for black people.

micdotcom:

One statistic sums up why The New York Times suddenly stood up for legal marijuana

 The racial bias of marijuana arrests is one of the New York Times editorial board’s key arguments for repealing prohibition.

The logic is simple. In the 40 years since the current ban was enacted, black and white Americans have used cannabis at comparable rates.

Bad for everyone. Worse for black people.

(via reverseracism)