peopleofthediaspora

medievalpoc:

miloucomehome:

medievalpoc:

beggars-opera:

I’ve seen a few fashion posts trying to expand the “Marie Antoinette is not Victorian” rant, but this stuff can get complicated, so here is a semi-comprehensive list so everyone knows exactly when all of these eras were.

Please note that this is very basic and that there are sometimes subcategories (especially in the 17th century, Jacobean, Restoration, etc)

And people wonder WHY I complain about History/Art History periodization. Note how much overlap there is to the above “eras”, and how many exceptions and extensions there are to these categories.

Oh, and by the way…

Tudor:

image

Elizabethan:

image

Stuart:

image

Georgian:

image

Regency:

image

Victorian:

image

Edwardian:

image

Because you wouldn’t want to be historically inaccurate.

Holy shi—the middle lady in the Victorian pic looks like my godmum! And the lady, on the right, in the Edwardian one looks almost like she could pass as one of my relatives!

…this is so eerie…but cool.

^^And that’s a big part of the reason why I do this. Everyone should be able to see images like these and feel like they, too, are a part of history.

People can quibble about minutiae as much as they’d like, and I honestly don’t mind the discussion, but when it comes down to it, medievalpoc is really about making an immediate visual impact that has changed how I view history, and I hope the same can be said for people who read these posts.

peopleofthediaspora

Anonymous asked:

Thoughts on Iggy Azalea?

gutsanduppercuts answered:

Where to start? Firstly, she doesn’t make music I want to listen to. Her music is pop bullshit to me and I have no interest in ever hearing her rap. But that’s not really her biggest crime.
I can’t stand that she promotes puppetry. Let me explain…

Hip hop, as well as being about skills on the M-I-C has always been about identity. Whether it be cultural or strictly personal, identity has been a consistent vertebrae in the backbone of hip hop.
Every dope emcee has established who they are from day one. If you don’t have an identity in hip hop, you call into this haze of grey matter where all the mediocre emcees reside. But good hip hop has always sought to identify itself. Look at every classic emcee…there’s something about them. They’re not just this face with words falling out of its mouth.
Now, hip hop identity can be split into two categories: the realness and the not-so-realness. The realness is for emcees who are themselves. Mos Def, Talib Kweli, modern day Nas etc.
The not-so-realness s the other part of hip hop. Hip hop has always had a pro-wrestling aspect about it. It begs the audience to suspend disbelief, right? We want to believe that M.O.P. are shooting people on the streets of Brownsville. Suga Free is a pimp.
Look at Dr. Dre. Dr. Dre just got three billion dollars and yet, if “Detox” ever drops, he’ll be rapping about cocking gats on the streets of Compton. A billionaire. It’s ludicrous but we suspend disbelief in order to enjoy the music.

Iggy Azalea fucked up by breaking the fourth wall. She’s a skinny white girl from Australia and, all of a sudden, she’s a big booty black girl from the Dirty South.
She waltzed into hip hop and seemingly laughed at the idea of identity. She just blatantly created a character that seemingly disrespected the culture. She openly allowed herself to be a puppet to society’s whims.
"But didn’t Lil’ Kim do the same? She rapped about sex to get a male audience." True, but beyond Kim’s sexiness, there was a strong woman there. Yes, Lil’ Kim would suck your dick but you better believe she’d make you cry afterwards. She rapped like her vagina had teeth.
Same with Nicki Minaj. I don’t care for her or her music but, beyond the colourful outfits and whatnot (which she has toned down), there’s this woman that seeks a unity for women in hip hop. When she says she’s a “boss bitch,” you see her striving for it.
"What about Eminem?" Eminem never tried to be black. Eminem was a dope rhymer who rapped about raping Christina Aguilera and killing his wife. Yes, he was a character but he wasn’t bowing down to a concept fashioned by the idea of popularity. He made his gimmick popular.
Iggy Azalea mocks hip hop. She’s a caricature who knows she’s a caricature and isn’t afraid to rub it in our faces.
Okay, so she has ghost writers. I don’t really care about that. Ghost writers are rife in hip hop. Allegedly, Dr. Dre’s never written a rhyme in his life. It’s not about that particular aspect of her facade.
It’s that being who she is - this ridiculous bullshit artist - implies that as long as you get a fat ass and rap about trapping, you’re all good to go. All she is is TI in a wig and dress. She has no identity whatsoever, whether it be an identity centered around realness or not-so-realness. She doesn’t want us to suspend disbelief. She’s making fun of the cultural significance of hip hop.
On top of that, she’s apparently a ridiculous racist. Eminem, years ago, got a shitload of grief when a few of his old songs were released and he was caught using the ‘N’ word. Iggy Azalea turns up on the rap scene, adopts an accent and aesthetic that she thinks makes her “more black” and then, on record - not an unreleased record but an actual on-the-charts record - calls herself a FUCKING SALVE MASTER.
You can’t just shit on hip hop like that. You can’t just borrow the aspects you feel make you more accepted and then say “Fuck you” to the aspects of hip hop that are the most important.

Yes, she has her fans and, hey, if you can look beyond all that bullshit, good for you. If you just want to listen her rhymes…cool.
But she is the ultimate puppet. She dances to whatever tune is playing at any time. She promotes cultural appropriation and, to me, that’s not cool.

On point.

peopleofthediaspora
How race matters in romance (x)

Responses to Black Women were far less than all races, including by their own race.

KEY FINDINGS OF THE AYI STUDY:

  • Men from all different races prefer a partner of another race over their own.
  • Black men and women get the lowest response rates to their messages.
  • Most men prefer Asian women (with the exception of Asian men).
  • All women (except black women) are most drawn to white men.
  • Asian women seem to most strongly favour advances from white men.
  • Men are least likely to respond to ‘likes’ from black women.
  • Men respond to women around there times more often than women reply to men’s messages.

Wow… That is madness.

peopleofthediaspora

medievalpoc:

heartsalchemy:

medievalpoc:

Peter Lely

Portrait of Elizabeth Murray

England (c. 1650)

Oil on canvas, 124 x 119 cm

[x] [x] [x] [x]

I think I have seen pictures of this before, in high school maybe, but I don’t remember there being a second person before. I seem to remember this image being cropped differently too, which is very disturbing because now that I see the entire painting, the way I remember it being cropped was very clearly and deliberately intended to remove the person holding the tray of flowers.

Since we’re throwing haymakers at the kyriarchy today, I think this is something that we should really be talking about too, because it happens

ALL. THE. TIME.

Level 1: People of Color from Medieval, Renaissance, and other Early Modern European works were often literally painted over in later decades or centuries.

For example: In this painting, Giulia de’Medici (the child) was painted over in the 19th century:

image

Level 2: It was very fashionable in a lot of 17th and 18th century paintings to have a Black servant featured in portraits of very important historical figures from European History.

Honestly? They’re practically ubiquitous. A lot of the very famous paintings you’ve seen of European and American historical figures have a Black servant in them that have been cropped out or painted over.

Those silly stock photos from your American History Professor’s Powerpoint?

Your Professor’s PowerPoint for “George Washington”:

image

image

The actual painting:

image

image

Your professor’s Powerpoint on Jean Chardin:

image

The actual painting:

image

PowerPoint on Maria Henriette Stuart (with some commentary about the Habsburg jaw):

image

Actual Painting:

image

But, because of whitewashed history curricula, teachers and professors continue to use the cropped images because they don’t want their lecture to get “derailed” by a discussion about race.

These images are also more commonly seen on stock photo sites, including ones for academic use.

I honestly can’t find anyone really writing about this, or even any analysis on how often the cropped photos are used.

The reason they are so easy to crop out is because of the the artistic conventions which reflect the power hierarchy:

Oil paintings of aristocratic families from this period make the point clearly. Artists routinely positioned black people on the edges or at the rear of their canvasses, from where they gaze wonderingly at their masters and mistresses. In order to reveal a ‘hierarchy of power relationships’, they were often placed next to dogs and other domestic animals, with whom they shared, according to the art critic and novelist David Dabydeen, ‘more or less the same status’. Their humanity effaced, they exist in these pictures as solitary mutes, aesthetic foils to their owners’ economic fortunes.

This is drastically oversimplified, but at least it addresses it directly.

If anyone knows more on any studies or statistical evidence on this tendency, feel free to add it.

rollership
america-wakiewakie:

Zionism & the Mainstream Press: Turn Off the TV Before You Become A Tool of Oppression | AmericaWakieWakie
Former Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, before the world at the United Nations Convention in 1951, spoke to expose Britain’s colonialist domination of his country. In his address he said, “They [the British government] are trying to persuade world opinion that the lamb has devoured the wolf.”
These sentiments reverberate in the mainstream media’s current portrayal of Israeli domination and occupation over Palestinians. In such a narrative life is preserved and life is taken. But we who digest the news fed to us do something sinister when we listen or read unquestionably: We become the silencer attached to the tip of a rifle invading Palestinian homes… the stealth by which genocide encroaches upon a people, executing them without a sound.
The press is supposed to keep us informed, aware and alert, critically engaged in the events of the world, so that when we object or want to change the course of happening-history, we can. In reality the mainstream press has acted more to misinform us, to make us the silencers of bombs, missiles and bullets, enablers of war and genocide, than wielders of knowledge and actors for justice.  
Keeping the blinders on at all times  
As events in Gaza grow increasingly lethal, as more and more Palestinians suffer or are displaced by Israeli forces — deaths now top more than 560 — the Western news machine drones on and on framing story after story in colonist narratives. Pro-Zionist coverage has and continues to dominate prominent Western news outlets. We are never meant to know the truth of Palestinian struggle — even if large protests about it are happening in our backyard. 
Sunday’s  march in San Francisco, and elsewhere in the United States, turned-out crowds of thousands. Counted together, tens of thousands. Still, not more than a bleep made it to airtime on local news. When the protests have gotten coverage, they have been misconstrued.
After the crowd mobilized in San Francisco to make their solidarity with Palestine known, passionately but peacefully occupying all lanes of traffic from the Ferry Building to City Hall, local news outlets reported the march as a “dueling protest” with another low-key, pro-Israel gathering in the city.
Da Lin, reporting for CBS San Francisco, per the usual course in mainstream coverage, committed the oft repeated fallacy of blaming both sides equally, or the act of creating similar culpability where it cannot possibly exist. In his follow-up to the station’s video coverage he stated:
“[S]upporters on both sides of the Middle East conflict chanted slogans outside the Jewish temple Congregation Emanuel.
Palestinian supporters called Israeli troops terrorists for killing dozens of women and children in recent days, while supporters of Israel denounced attacks by Hamas.”
And that’s it basically. Nothing was said of Israeli occupation, siege, or the ongoing blockade for which Hamas has taken to armed resistance. Not a word was spoken about the fact that Israel is the 4th largest military power in the world, or that it receives full backing AND billions in funding from the U.S. No mention of the Palestinian children actually killed by the Israeli Defense Force, or that “defense” against a people with no army who are resisting colonial domination, alien occupation, and a racist regime is not a “conflict” — it’s genocide. 
But this is what blaming both sides does: It ignores material reality. Atif Choudhury, in a recent op-ed for the Huffington Post, put it well:
"Sentiments like “it’s both sides fault” may be true in the strictest sense of the principle that it takes two parties to have a conflict, but in practice the gulf is stark.
One side routinely have their houses demolished, while another is building mansions in their place. One side are routinely expelled from their homes; the other side is adverse possessing them like it’s a monopoly game. One side has water use rationed down to the drop; the other draws upon the same water supply to support swimming pools and fountains in illegal settlements. One side routinely has pregnant women and/or their newly born children die while trying to get through a maze of checkpoints in order to get to their local hospital, the other has roads criss-crossing occupied territory exclusively for their own use. One side can be jailed, shot, and even killed for protesting, while the other can vandalize, harass, and assault with impunity and has the full resources of a sovereign state act as their personal security guards.
The list of disparities goes on and on, and again does not even take into account a stark reality of each and every phase of this six decade tragedy — that one side routinely loses far more of their sons, daughters, husbands, and wives than the other.”
Being fed information is easy, understanding resistance is not
There is a sort of defacto pro-Zionism happening when we accept the mainstream narrative. It is frighteningly easy to do too (because it is meant to be). It is easy to digest a story which says two opponents are hashing out differences with all ignorance to nuance. One is winning. One is losing. Some are dying. Some are not. One is moral. The other is evil. It is a binarization of history which when one side is chosen as truth, the other’s history and struggle is executed.
Less we want to be culpable in the onslaught of Gaza, this is a time when we must make a choice between what is right, and what is easy. We have to realize when we listen to and accept the Zionist narrative we facilitate the conditions of Palestinian oppression. As Malcolm X once said, “If you aren’t careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
(Photo Credit: AmericaWakieWakie) 

america-wakiewakie:

Zionism & the Mainstream Press: Turn Off the TV Before You Become A Tool of Oppression | AmericaWakieWakie

Former Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, before the world at the United Nations Convention in 1951, spoke to expose Britain’s colonialist domination of his country. In his address he said, “They [the British government] are trying to persuade world opinion that the lamb has devoured the wolf.”

These sentiments reverberate in the mainstream media’s current portrayal of Israeli domination and occupation over Palestinians. In such a narrative life is preserved and life is taken. But we who digest the news fed to us do something sinister when we listen or read unquestionably: We become the silencer attached to the tip of a rifle invading Palestinian homes… the stealth by which genocide encroaches upon a people, executing them without a sound.

The press is supposed to keep us informed, aware and alert, critically engaged in the events of the world, so that when we object or want to change the course of happening-history, we can. In reality the mainstream press has acted more to misinform us, to make us the silencers of bombs, missiles and bullets, enablers of war and genocide, than wielders of knowledge and actors for justice.  

Keeping the blinders on at all times  

As events in Gaza grow increasingly lethal, as more and more Palestinians suffer or are displaced by Israeli forces — deaths now top more than 560 — the Western news machine drones on and on framing story after story in colonist narratives. Pro-Zionist coverage has and continues to dominate prominent Western news outlets. We are never meant to know the truth of Palestinian struggle — even if large protests about it are happening in our backyard. 

Sunday’s  march in San Francisco, and elsewhere in the United States, turned-out crowds of thousands. Counted together, tens of thousands. Still, not more than a bleep made it to airtime on local news. When the protests have gotten coverage, they have been misconstrued.

After the crowd mobilized in San Francisco to make their solidarity with Palestine known, passionately but peacefully occupying all lanes of traffic from the Ferry Building to City Hall, local news outlets reported the march as a “dueling protest” with another low-key, pro-Israel gathering in the city.

Da Lin, reporting for CBS San Francisco, per the usual course in mainstream coverage, committed the oft repeated fallacy of blaming both sides equally, or the act of creating similar culpability where it cannot possibly exist. In his follow-up to the station’s video coverage he stated:

[S]upporters on both sides of the Middle East conflict chanted slogans outside the Jewish temple Congregation Emanuel.

Palestinian supporters called Israeli troops terrorists for killing dozens of women and children in recent days, while supporters of Israel denounced attacks by Hamas.”

And that’s it basically. Nothing was said of Israeli occupation, siege, or the ongoing blockade for which Hamas has taken to armed resistance. Not a word was spoken about the fact that Israel is the 4th largest military power in the world, or that it receives full backing AND billions in funding from the U.S. No mention of the Palestinian children actually killed by the Israeli Defense Force, or that “defense” against a people with no army who are resisting colonial domination, alien occupation, and a racist regime is not a “conflict” — it’s genocide. 

But this is what blaming both sides does: It ignores material reality. Atif Choudhury, in a recent op-ed for the Huffington Post, put it well:

"Sentiments like “it’s both sides fault” may be true in the strictest sense of the principle that it takes two parties to have a conflict, but in practice the gulf is stark.

One side routinely have their houses demolished, while another is building mansions in their place. One side are routinely expelled from their homes; the other side is adverse possessing them like it’s a monopoly game. One side has water use rationed down to the drop; the other draws upon the same water supply to support swimming pools and fountains in illegal settlements. One side routinely has pregnant women and/or their newly born children die while trying to get through a maze of checkpoints in order to get to their local hospital, the other has roads criss-crossing occupied territory exclusively for their own use. One side can be jailed, shot, and even killed for protesting, while the other can vandalize, harass, and assault with impunity and has the full resources of a sovereign state act as their personal security guards.

The list of disparities goes on and on, and again does not even take into account a stark reality of each and every phase of this six decade tragedy — that one side routinely loses far more of their sons, daughters, husbands, and wives than the other.”

Being fed information is easy, understanding resistance is not

There is a sort of defacto pro-Zionism happening when we accept the mainstream narrative. It is frighteningly easy to do too (because it is meant to be). It is easy to digest a story which says two opponents are hashing out differences with all ignorance to nuance. One is winning. One is losing. Some are dying. Some are not. One is moral. The other is evil. It is a binarization of history which when one side is chosen as truth, the other’s history and struggle is executed.

Less we want to be culpable in the onslaught of Gaza, this is a time when we must make a choice between what is right, and what is easy. We have to realize when we listen to and accept the Zionist narrative we facilitate the conditions of Palestinian oppression. As Malcolm X once said, “If you aren’t careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”

(Photo Credit: AmericaWakieWakie) 

thepoliticalfreakshow

thepoliticalfreakshow:

On Tuesday, two conservative judges essentially decided to defund Obamacare, ruling that the 36 states with federally-run insurance marketplaces can’t extend tax credits to help their residents purchase health care because of a technicality in the way the law is worded. Although it’s not the final word on the matter, the Halbig v. Burwell decision does represent asetback to the health reform law.

Now, the case will likely head to the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and could eventually make its way up to the Supreme Court. There are several reasons to be optimistic that Halbig won’t actually survive, particularly because Democrats have a 7-4 majority on the DC Circuit. But it’s important to remember that supporters of the case are pushing for a policy change that would have catastrophic results for Americans across the country. Here’s what will happen to the insurance industry if Halbig wins:

Almost 90 percent of Obamacare enrollees in states with federal marketplaces will lose their tax credits.

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, 87 percent of the Obamacare enrollees in the states that would be impacted by the Halbigdecision are currently relying on federal subsidies to help them afford the cost of their plan. But that financial assistance would disappear if the case is approved. That number rises even higher in some states with higher rates of poverty; in Mississippi, for instance, 94 percent of the people who signed up for Obamacare could be affected.

Premiums in those states could increase by more than 75 percent.

recent analysis by the consulting firm Avalere Health calculated that the cost of health care would increase by an average of 76 percent in the 36 states that would no longer be allowed to extend tax subsidies under Halbig. That will make insurance simply too unaffordable for many of the low-income Americans who were supposed to benefit from health reform. In some states, premiums could jump by nearly $400, according a recent analysis by Greg Sargent.

The average person with the cheapest plan on a federal marketplace would have to spend a quarter of their income on insurance.

Obamacare intends to limit how much money Americans have to spend on their insurance, and tax subsidies are precisely the mechanism that the law uses to accomplish that goal. But without those subsidies, the people in the 36 states affected by Halbig would return to an insurance industry that locks them out of affordable health care. According to MIT health economist Jon Gruber, the average person who buys a bronze plan — the cheapestinsurance option — would be forced to devote 24 percent of their income to cover the premiums for that plan.

The number of uninsured Americans would increase by about 6.5 million.

Altogether, millions of Americans will see their premiums rise if federal marketplaces can’t provide tax subsidies anymore. Because so many of them won’t be able to foot a higher monthly bill for their Obamacare plans, they’ll likely be forced to drop their new health insurance. According to Gruber’s projections, eliminating financial assistance in the 36 states with federal marketplaces would swell the ranks of the uninsured by anestimated 6.5 million people.

Obamacare premiums as a whole would be sent into a “death spiral.”

If so many people drop their health insurance because it’s suddenly become unaffordable, Obamacare’s marketplaces likely will be left with an unbalanced pool of enrollees that are disproportionately older and sicker. That will lead insurers to raise their premiums even further to make up for their lost revenue and cover those costly beneficiaries. According to a brief filed in opposition to Halbig by several economists, that would result in a “death spiral” that would ultimately put affordable insurance out of reach for more than 99 percent of the people who are currently eligible for subsidies in the federal exchanges.

Source: Tara Culp-Ressler for ThinkProgress

democracynow

democracynow:

“The level of violence is really ramping up instead of de-escalating,” says correspondent Sharif Abdel Kouddous on Democracy Now! today, reporting live from Gaza City. So far today, Israel has struck more than 70 sites inside Gaza, including five mosques and a football stadium. Three weeks of Israeli attacks have killed more than 600 civilians in the past few weeks.

"There’s no sirens. There’s really nowhere to run. You don’t know where is safe," Kouddous says. "These calls for a ceasefire, these calls for an end to the bloodshed, only seem to be fueling the violence."

"Gaza is a place of indescribable loss.” 

Click here to watch additional Democracy Now! coverage of Gaza in our archives.