Last update
2021-04-03 02:15:40

    Professors give warnings of all sorts that, when not explicitly entangled in the national politics of political correctness, amount less to coddling than to minimizing chances of disengagement with material. “Block off more time this weekend than you usually do, since the reading for Monday is a particularly long one,” for instance, is a reasonable way of reducing the number of students who show up unprepared by issuing a warning. “Today we’re discussing a poem about rape, so be prepared for some graphic discussion, and come to office hours if you have things to say about the poem that you’re not comfortable expressing in class,” meanwhile, is a similarly reasonable way of relieving the immediate pressure to perform in class, which stresses out so many students… If you take away the media hysteria surrounding trigger warnings, you’re left with a mode of conversational priming that we all use: “You might want to sit down for this”; “I’m not sure how to say this, but…” It’s hardly anti-intellectual or emotionally damaging to anticipate that other people may react to traumatic material with negative emotions, particularly if they suffer from PTSD; it’s human to engage others with empathy. It’s also human to have emotional responses to life and literature, responses that may come before, but in no way preclude, a dispassionate analysis of a text or situation.

    The Trigger Warning Myth, Aaron R. Hanlon.

    it frankly baffles me that I’ve almost never seen people recognizing that “hey, here’s a preview of what we’re going to discuss next week” (’trigger warning’ buzzword optional) is good pedagogy, and so many of these professors who are very Defensive about being emotionally harmful to their students have a disproportionate sense of self-importance (and a really bad idea of what education is about). the material teachers use is not a surprise to be inflicted upon their students; classrooms are not places for them to “blow their students’ minds.” 

    (via locusimperium)

    Harry’s childhood affects him enormously, setting the stage for huge swathes of his behaviour throughout the books. It doesn’t start and end with exceptional reflexes and the ability to go for long periods of time on not much food. For example: Sirius Black is the first adult in whom Harry Potter willingly confides before he’s beaten the bad guys and taken care of the issue on his own. This happens in book four of seven. Look, Harry has trust issues: he lets very specific people in and they stay there. End of. Everyone else spends a lot of time bashing their heads against the brick wall that he throws up around those people he loves.   But noticeably, all of the people he loves in that way are teenagers like himself; all but Sirius. Never in five books does Harry ever confide in an adult other than Sirius. He accepts guidance from adults when it’s offered to him, but he does not take his troubles to grownups of his own volition. Ever. This character trait drives the entire plot of the first two books - Harry, Ron and Hermione solving mysteries on their own even though they are in a castle stuffed with teachers, among whose number is the man the Wizarding World acknowledges as the greatest wizard alive. They tell all, of course they do. But only when it’s over. Only when they’ve already won. Harry Potter does not trust people who are in a position of power over him. This isn’t a result of Snape, or Umbridge, or Skeeter-induced Ministry ridicule. This is a result of the Dursleys.


    something else is: he doesn’t strive academically. ron has low academic expectations for himself due to feeling like he can only either tie or lose, should he compete with his older siblings. hermione has painfully high expectations for herself because she’s compelled to prove she deserves her place at hogwarts every single semester of her stay. 

    meanwhile harry grew up being punished for ever doing as well or better than his favored cousin, but at the same time being derided for doing worse. it creates this frustratingly passive incuriosity in harry later on that’s all the more upsetting when you realize both his parents were intelligent, talented, and ambitious, accomplishing things in their preferred fields well ahead of their peer groups. 

    harry prefers to keep his head down and avoid trouble, attention, and making any kind of serious effort… except for flying and WAR. and even his innate love of flying gets harnessed, immediately, into the violent, clannish proxy-war of interhouse quiddich games. of course he never trusted authority: even the teachers who genuinely meant him well only pushed him deeper into a brutal, unforgiving world with expectations of him that he never asked for. their attention was never a good thing to attract.

    (via roachpatrol)

    I love writing about race, and I obviously would rather us write about it than white people, but there are also black people who want to write reviews of indie rock bullshit, there are Asian people who want to write about high fashion lipstick, there are native/indigenous people who want to write about tech, there are Latinx who want to do travel writing. White people aren’t just inherently more dynamic than people of color. Sometimes, we’re just not given the opportunity to show it.

    Ashley Reese (@offbeatorbit) in @thecoalitionmag (via brujacore)

    I removed the flag not only in defiance of those who enslaved my ancestors in the southern United States, but also in defiance of the oppression that continues against black people globally in 2015, including the ongoing ethnic cleansing in the Dominican Republic. I did it in solidarity with the South African students who toppled a statue of the white supremacist, colonialist Cecil Rhodes. I did it for all the fierce black women on the front lines of the movement and for all the little black girls who are watching us. I did it because I am free.

     Bree Newsome Speaks For The First Time After Courageous Act of Civil Disobedience

    (via lipstick-feminists)

    Black people have to be invited into historically white spaces – in this case think ballet, opera, classical music, high fashion, white neighborhoods, etc. – and even then the invitations are extended very rarely. On the contrary, with no invitation whatsoever white people have not only inserted themselves in historically black spaces – hip hop, rap, R&B, jazz, soul, b-boy culture, gospel, rock n roll, the gay ballroom scene, neighborhoods facing gentrification, streetwear/“urban” fashion, etc. – but they exploit them for their own gains and agendas, and we’re all expected to oblige and just let them play… because everyone deserves to swim in our pool, right? So this is why you can’t change your race. That is some next-level white supremacist fuckery that no god written about thus far has the power to imbue you with. It is a white supremacist attempt to revise or erase not only our past, but a future that has never had a chance to escape you yet. The last thing we have for ourselves that can’t be raped or pillaged from us is our literal blackness. You can keep gentrifying the hood, but you will never gentrify blackness. You can’t fucking have it. End of story!

    aok (via afroofknowledge)

    “White feminism” does not mean every white woman, everywhere, who happens to identify as feminist. It also doesn’t mean that every “white feminist” identifies as white. I see “white feminism” as a specific set of single-issue, non-intersectional, superficial feminist practices. It is the feminism we understand as mainstream; the feminism obsessed with body hair, and high heels and makeup, and changing your married name. It is the feminism you probably first learned. “White feminism” is the feminism that doesn’t understand western privilege, or cultural context. It is the feminism that doesn’t consider race as a factor in the struggle for equality. White feminism is a set of beliefs that allows for the exclusion of issues that specifically affect women of colour. It is “one size-fits all” feminism, where middle class white women are the mould that others must fit. It is a method of practicing feminism, not an indictment of every individual white feminist, everywhere, always.

    This Is What I Mean When I Say “White Feminism” (via becauseiamawoman)

    When you are more concerned and upset over a burned down CVS owned by a multi-million dollar corporation than we are about dead bodies on the streets - you are the problem. When you can be proud of a young Palestinian standing up to a sniper/tank with a rock but chastise Black people for doing the same when they too are fighting state violence and oppression - then YOU are a HYPOCRITE.

    Linda Sarsour (via mp446-x)

    Today we honor Hollywood’s best and whitest— brightest!

    Neil Patrick Harris at the 87th annual Academy Awards (2/22/15)

    i REALLY want to appreciate this but u dont EVER see white actors taking a stand—-and i mean REALLY taking a stand—-to overturn the institutionalized racism behind casting practices in hollywood.

    like…ellen made a similar statement when she hosted. EVERY SINGLE AWARDS SHOW we see white actors/comedians get on stage and point out how fucking racist hollywood is but because it’s in this “comedic” setting exactly how SERIOUS r we supposed to take it?

    ESPECIALLY when OUTSIDE of that setting they be steady on their “exodus movie”—-taking roles that SHOULD go to actors of color without so much as a backwards glance to their often more deserving but less racially privileged colleagues.

    yeah we kno hollywood is racist but we’re not gonna REALLY talk about it. we’re not gonna question how viola davis waited two decades for an opportunity that a white actor can get within five years or less. we’re not gonna question why lupita nyong’o’s oscar win hasn’t given her anything CLOSE to the career trajectory of jennifer lawrence. we’re not gonna question why white directors can be hailed as “groundbreaking” without ever casting a single actor of color in a lead role their ENTIRE careers. 

    that’s PATHETIC.

    when actors of color get sat down and asked about the state of racism in hollywood they put their JOBS on the line. and the ppl who COULD speak in solidaritylike hollywood would EVER stop casting white men sit in complete silence—-lest it’s to chuckle at “jokes” about this issue during awards shows while comfortably knowing that whether they work hard or not they’ll always have a platform to stand on.

    i dunno…i just feel we need to stop giving white ppl applause for doing the bare fucking minimum.

    *kanye shrug*

    (via emptylighters)

    (there are mountains inside your skull garden and chaos, ocean and hurricane; certain corners of rooms, portraits of great-grandmothers, curtains of a particular shade; your deserts; your private dinosaurs; the first woman) all I need to know: tell me everything just as it was from the beginning.

    Margaret Atwood, from “Against Still Life,” The Circle Game: Poems (via ethiopienne)

    To the Editor: (NY Times) There are times when the white critic must sit down and listen. If he cannot listen and learn, then he must not concern himself with black creativity. A children’s story I wrote speaks of a black male child that dreamed of a strong white golden haired prince who would come and save him from being black. He came, and as time passed and the relationship moved forward, it was discovered that indeed the black child was the prince and he had saved himself from being white. That, too, is possible. I have always tried to imagine the producers waiting anxiously for the black reviewers’ opinions of “The Sound of Music” or “A Clockwork Orange.” I want to say that it is a terrible thing to be a black artist in this country – for reasons too private to expose to the arrogance of white criticism. One white critic left my film “Ganja and Hess,” after 20 minutes and reviewed the entire film. Another was to see three films in one day and review them all. This is a crime. Three years of three different people’s lives grades in one afternoon by a complete stranger to the artist and to the culture. A.H. Weiler states in his review of “Ganja and Hess” that a doctor of anthropology killed his assistant and is infected by a blood disease and becomes immortal. But this is not so, Mr. Weiler, the assistant committed suicide. I know this film does not address you, but in that auditorium you might have heard more than you were able to over the sounds of your own voice. Another critic wondered where was the race problem. If he looks closely, he will find it in his own review. If I were white, I would probably be called “fresh and different. If I were European, “Ganja and Hess” might be “that little film you must see.” Because I am black, do not even deserve the pride that one American feels for another when he discovers that a fellow countryman’s film has been selected as the only American film to be shown during “Critic’s Week” at the Cannes Film Festival, May 1973. Not one white critic from any of the major newspapers even mentioned it. I am very proud of my ancestors in “Ganja and Hess.” They worked hard, with a dedication to their art and race that is obviously foreign to the critics. I want to thank them and my black sisters and brothers who have expressed only gratitude and love for my effort. When I first came into the “theatre,” black women who were actresses were referred to as “great gals” by white directors and critics. Marlene Clark, one of the most beautiful women and actresses I have ever known, was referred to as a “brown-skinned looker” (New York Post). That kind of disrespect could not have been cultivated in 110 minutes. It must have taken a good 250 years. Your newspapers and critics must realize that they are controlling black theater and film creativity with white criticism. Maybe if the black film craze continues, the white press might even find it necessary to employ black criticism. But if you can stop the craze in its tracks, maybe that won’t be necessary.

    Bill Gunn, author and director of “Ganja and Hess”, New York, 1973 | Celebrating Ganja & Hess
    (via nefertiti)

    The hatred of Black women IS taught. Whether it’s buying into Strong Black Woman narratives that dehumanize us, believing that we are “unrapeable” because our sexuality is deemed inherently “deviant,” accepting the message that the further away from Black that a woman is, the more beautiful, kind and worthwhile she is, that Black women, not imperialist White supremacist capitalist patriarchy destroy Black families and an incredibly long, could fill a book list of anti-Black woman propagandist myths, misinterpretations and lies, Black men and the rest of the world are actively taught to hate Black women. And since so many Black men already don’t love Black women and can’t unlearn the hatred of Black women because they don’t have the tools to even recognize they’ve absorbed White supremacist propaganda as absolute truth, they can’t recognize how misogynoir shapes their dating preferences and how they proliferate misogynoir.

    gradientlair (via dontbeabrat)

    Selma’s chances may have been hurt by the success of Steve McQueen’s 12 Years A Slave last year.

    The Hollywood Reporter.

    I am fucking disgusted. Two ENTIRELY different movies, set in different time periods, different casts and directors, different stories…but the committee is apparently looking at it through some sort of narrow racial lense? Like, they gave due recognition and acclaim to a movie centered around African Americans last year, so they can’t do so the following year? I can’t…I can’t even articulate how terrible this attitude is. added to this is the fact that all 20 acting nominations have ALL gone to whites, not to mention that these awards come at a time when there is a great deal of racial tension and unrest in the US. Hollywood’s racism is beyond unbelievable. 

    (via mrsmelchiorgabor)