If you think After is not about an abusive relationship, I beg you, please watch this video and think again.
And then don’t forget to sign the petition!
Post with 1 note
By the way, I did the kid’s make-up event thingie at our store. It was a huuuuge success. The kids loved it.
I asked a little boy if he’d be interested to get his face painted and promised that “we’ll draw anything you want!” - and then almost had to kick myself for that comment, ‘cause he wanted to be spider-man.
Luckily he was wearing spider-man shoes and a spider-man watch, so I had a chance to peek at what the mask looks like on those. Whew. Drawing it from memory would have been impossible, because, as it turns out, I never pay attention to ANYTHING in the movies. -.-‘
Anyways, he LOVED it. As did all the other kids. It was so cool.
The only weird moment was when one of the little boys asked me to make him look like “an indian” (as in native american). That felt a bit uncomfortable because of cultural appropriation and all, but I couldn’t just go and say I wouldn’t, because it was my job to fulfill any of the kids’ wishes. So I basically just told him that all the natives that I know look just like anybody else (because I just HAD TO), and said I found it hard to paint him like a normal person because he already looked like one. And then I told him that I could paint his face exactly the way he wanted, if he described it to me in detail. Turned out he mostly wanted camouflage and didn’t care if it was war paint or hunter’s green, as long as he could hide in the bushes outside and scare his siblings. So we did that. But it still felt a bit weird, with the parents standing next to us watching and all.
And aside from that it was lots and lots of fairy and princess make-up with tons of pink and purple and sparkles and… I hate pink, but I like to make little kids smile. So there.
Anyway. It was a cool day, and some of my co-workers actually asked me to do the face-painting of the kids at their children’s birthday parties, because they liked my painting and the way I handled the little ones. So, YAY! XD XD XD
Anonymous said: Hi! I'm sorry to bother, but I have a question. I have a friend who looks white (blonde, light skin, green eyes) but was actually born and raised in India by her Hindu parents. She practices Hinduism and only recently moved to the states. She still wears traditional clothing, but the other day she posted a picture of herself in her traditional clothes and got a lot of hate for it, people saying it was cultural appropriation. She's bummed out about it and is now questioning her ethnicity. Help?
1. All those people screaming cultural appropriation at her are ignoramuses who are basically saying, “Wow, you don’t look like my ill-informed, narrow-minded stereotype of what people from this region actually look like!” and “I actually subscribe to horrible, reductionist stereotypes that Indian people can only have dark hair, skin and eyes. Light hair? Green eyes? European (origin) only!”
This is gonna be a tad long, because it’s gonna delve into biology and history- and it’s because I hope people realise how artificial the US paradigm of race is. It’s woefully incompetent at understanding the biological diversity of our species because it is a social construct. Modern scientists and historians generally refuse to categorise people on the amount of melanin they have because it’s just reductionist and oversimplistic- what they do is classify people by their geographic origin, linguistic and cultural ties.
2. India is an EXTREMELY diverse continent. It’s so genetically diverse that the only place more genetically diverse is the African continent, aka, the birthplace of humanity. And this is a big deal. I’ll explain why.
Surprise! People inhabiting an extremely large country that has more than 2000 ethnic groups, members of all the world’s religions, been the site of multiple ancient civilisations, been on the major crossroads of human migration and trade for thousands of years come in multiple colours!
- Presently, the most widely-accepted theory of our origins is the Recent African Origin, or Out of Africa Theory. This holds that originally, humans first appeared in Africa, thus all of us have African ancestors. All modern non-Africans are descended from much smaller groups of people who migrated out of Africa, anytime from 65,000 to 125,000 years ago. How do scientists know this? By looking at our DNA, in addition to fossil and archaeological records. They discovered that the differences in the DNA of non-African peoples like say, a German a Japanese and a New Zealand Maori was far less than the genetic differences between people from different African ethnic groups. (Somali, Dinka, Yoruba, San, Kikuyu, Luo etc- I’m BARELY scratching the surface)
- What this meant was that Africa had to be the original, diverse genetic pool where modern humans first appeared. Everybody else outside of Africa today is descended from much smaller groups of people who left Africa at various times- and that ancestral genetic “bottleneck” is why people who appear to have very different heritage (e.g European vs East Asian) actually have far less genetic variation than the various African peoples.
So, India being the second most genetically diverse place on this planet is a big deal- it’s basically second only to THE CRADLE OF HUMANITY. That’s why I’m pretty convinced your friend can have blonde hair and green eyes and still be 100% Made in India.
3. Now, the genetics of India itself.
Genetic studies have shown that if you take a modern Indian from any part of India, no matter how dark or fair they are, his or her lineage will consist of mixing from two main ancestral groups. One is the Ancestral Northern Indians (ANI), and the other the Ancestral Southern Indians (ASI). You may have heard of the ancient Indian caste system which put a lot of social pressure that prohibited marrying outside your caste. Caste discrimination is banned today, but old attitudes do persist. However, even this caste rigidity wasn’t so 4000- 2000 years ago. ANI people married ASI pretty freely, so that’s why every modern Indian has heredity from both groups. So, already to start off, you got quite a fair bit of diversity hidden in people’s genes.
- And the next interesting part to explain why it IS possible for Indians to have features stereotyped as “European” is because while the ASI seemed to be genetically unique to the Indian subcontinent, the ANI people are genetically related to Middle-Easterns, Europeans and Caucasians (and I mean this not in the sense of “white” as often used in the US, but the actual region of Caucasus, which borders Europe and Asia).
- You mentioned she looks “white”- and the American-understanding of “white” being hurled at her by those people screaming cultural appropriation are actually ignorantly treating “white” as synonymous with “European-origin”. In reality, it’s completely useless in the realm of biology. Biologically, there is actually no real dichotomy where “European” suddenly ends and “Asia” begins.
- As I earlier pointed out, well, we’re all kinda related. And it’s not at all earth-shattering that some people from India look like they’re of “European-origin”. Because modern Europeans, Central Asians and the Ancestral Northern Indians are all believed to be descendants of a group of people called the Proto-Indo-Europeans. It’s believed they lived around 6000-7000 years ago. Some modern people that are descended from the Proto-Indo-Europeans are French, Germans, Iranians and Pashtuns (a major ethnic group in Afghanistan). It’s even been found that Europeans and Indians shared a gene for fair skin from a common ancestor- which is why there ARE people who look like your friend. Naturally, fair skin is just relatively rarer in India vs Europe because more parts of India are located in hotter regions. Therefore, there’s more selection pressure for darker skin which has more melanin to protect from the sun- making fair skin rarer, but still possible.
(This is a map of the Kurgan Hypothesis, which is currently the most popular theory for how the Proto-Indo-Europeans migrated from their homeland to settle Europe, Central Asia, Iran, India and Turkey etc)
- Saying Indians are descendants of the Proto-Indo-Europeans is NOT the same as saying they’re of “European origin”. For example, think of the Proto-Indo-Europeans as like the “mother” of Europeans, Central Asians and the Ancestral Northern Indians- they’re like “sibling” groups, not descendants. The original Indo-Europeans were not “European” in the modern sense. I am clarifying this because plenty of colonial-era scientific racism tried to attribute ancient India’s achievements to “European who left Europe for India”- you might have heard the phrase “Aryan” thrown around in Nazi Germany, which was used to mean “blonde hair, blue eyes”. Nazi scientists and historians also abused it to explain away the sophistication of non-European civilisations in Ancient Egypt and India. In reality, ”Aryan” is derived from the ancient Sanskrit word “Arya" which means "noble". Sanskrit is an ancient language still used in classical Indian texts, and is of Proto-Indo-European origin. For example, the name of the country “Iran” actually means “land of the Aryans”- it was the names ancient Iranians (another people descended from the Proto-Indo-Europeans) gave to what others called the Persian Empire for more than a thousand years before the Third Reich.
- Furthermore, many languages we often separate as “European” and “Asian” like German, English, French, Italian vs. Hindi, Farsi (Persian), Gujarati, Punjabi, Pashto, Sanskrit etc are ALL classified by linguists as belonging to the same Indo-European language family- which all evolved from the original language the Proto-Indo-Europeans spoke. See how artificial the Europe/Asia dichotomy really is, in terms of human genetics and origin of cultures?
4. Finally- there’s plenty of modern proof that the region we call Europe today does NOT have a monopoly on producing people with blonde hair, fair skin and green eyes.
This is Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, a popular Indian Bollywood actress who is also known for her striking blue-green eyes. She’s 100% Indian- she was born in Mangalore, India to Indian parents.
This is a girl from Darfur, Sudan- an area that has more than 30 ethnic groups.
5. And in the first place, what makes up a person’s identity IS NOT JUST HOW MUCH or HOW LITTLE MELANIN THEY HAVE.
- Tell your friend she is 100% Indian, because what makes up her identity is not just how she looks. Identity is what feels most natural to her, and if that identity is indeed very intertwined with major aspects of Indian culture- then well, she IS Indian and noone can say otherwise.
- Those people had no right to make her feel awful and “not-Indian enough” because it’s clear she identifies as such due to actually being born there and also practising major aspects of Indian culture. The best example I can think of to explain this is how in the US, people sometimes use the term “Latino” as a race category, with the stereotype that all latinos must have tanned skin and dark hair. In reality, it’s more of a cultural identity. The are fair haired-latinos and darker-skinned latinos whose ancestors included the African slaves brought to the Americas four hundred years ago. But what really makes them “Latino” or “Hispanic” is their upbringing- growing up in the environment of Latin America, which is culturally a syncretic fusion of Amerindian, African, Spanish, Portuguese and other European influences.
(This is the Brazilian football team that won the 1970 World Cup- you can see Pelé- second from the bottom right. He is an Afro-Brazilian. If you look at his teammates, you can see how latinos come in ALL COLOURS.)
6. Your friend should not be questioning her identity, but those people attacking her should be questioning their utterly myopic worldview. The history of human genetics and migrations makes it abundantly clear how DIVERSE India is- so it’s perfectly possible for her to be Indian but have blonde hair and green eyes, even if it may be less common.
7. On a more general note, I cannot stress this enough to everyone- DO NOT GO AROUND ATTACKING PEOPLE for “cultural appropriation” when you are NOT even from that culture in question and/or don’t actually know in detail the history and genetics of that region.
- If you suspect cultural appropriation: DO YOUR RESEARCH FIRST or ASK SOMEBODY you know who actually belongs to that group. You may be attacking mixed-race people or people like the anon’s friend, who simply has features that are less genetically dominant- blonde hair shows up less easily in countries with a bigger pool of people with dark hair because dark hair is dominant. Even if her parents had dark hair, it’s possible they both carried a recessive gene for blonde hair that was suppressed by their dark-hair gene. Their child would be blonde if she happened to get both copies of the blonde gene instead of the dark hair gene.
- Also, even if you think the person isn’t of that group, please bear in mind they might have been invited to dress in that clothing by a friend, or because they’re at an event. (I.e let’s say, at an Indian wedding)
- I can’t stress how infuriating this “white knight” complex is. Speaking as someone pretty familiar with colonialism, I’ve had people who didn’t grow up in my culture condescendingly insist that if I’m okay with somebody doing something from my culture, it’s “self-internalised oppression”. I’ve studied African colonial literature, and the way people insist on defining what people should be alright with is very reminiscent of 19th century imperialists high-handedly saying, “oh, we have to bring the light of civilisation to save those backwards colonial subjects from themselves!”
This is Reese Witherspoon, wearing a kimono in Japan, where she is being taught by JAPANESE people how to perform the traditional tea ceremony. This is not reducing a culture to a caricature because she’s actually learning stuff respectfully and wearing a bona fide kimono.
- Fighting against cultural appropriation is to prevent cultures from being cheapened, made into jokes, sexual fetishes or ugly caricatures. Part of returning power to people to define themselves is ALSO by allowing them to set the parameters of what they want to share with others- and many cultures are perfectly willing to share aspects that are non-sacred or do not have to be earned. So, for example, do not go around insisting a Japanese person should not be allowed to teach non-Japanese people to wear a kimono- because a kimono, unlike a Navajo war bonnet (akin to veteran’s medals), is something anybody can wear. Recognise this difference.
Know the difference.
Very long p cool post
So, I had signed up for email notifications on TV boradcasts of “Growing Pains” (the 90s sitcom around the Seaver family). Usually I only get notifications about the movie specials being aired or re-runs of the old episodes…
But, today I got one saying that there’s gonna be NEW episodes of the show, with the kids all grown up, having their own families. I checked IMDB and Wikipedia, but there’s nothing on there confirming this, so I’m guessing it’s just one of the reunion movies, then followed by a re-run of the show.
But, on the off chance that there ARE new episodes… Does anybody know anything about this? O.O?
loner, more interested in intellectual pursuits than relationships or family, not very altruistic, not very complimentary, would rather be friendless than jobless, observer, values solitude, perfectionist, detached, private, not much fun, hidden, skeptical, does not tend to like most people, socially uncomfortable, not physically affectionate, unhappy, does not talk about feelings, hard to impress, analytical, likes esoteric things, tends to be pessimistic, not spontaneous, prone to discontentment, guarded, does not think they are weird but others do, responsible, can be insensitive or ambivalent to the misfortunes of others, orderly, clean, organized, familiar with darkside, tends not to value organized religion, suspicious of others, can be lonely, rarely shows anger, punctual, finisher, prepared
I really really needed this wow
i caNNOT STOP LAUGHING
LOOK AT THOSE POSITIVE ROLE MODELS
SAY NO TO PEER PRESSURE
OH MY GOD NEO VS SMITH LOL
Yeah, it’s funny here. But it’s not at all funny when the US anime censorship ruins a TV show like that:
Anonymous said: You should really make a master post because I post my place and it's hard to go through your WHOLE feed to find my place :( MASTER POSTTTssss!! 😘
I don’t know what you mean by that? There’s already a masterpost where all the chapters are posted here - (X)
Also, in case they meant that they’re looking for the bigger picture versions (instead of the smaller ones in the masterpost links), they can easily find those all in order by searching your “larry comic” or “larry manga” tags within your post.
i.e. this link here.
You know that sudden jolt of pain you sometimes get in one of your joints, maybe a finger or your ankle or something? And, if you just turn it a liiiiittle bit, it’s gonna pop and then the pain will be gone completely?
I’ve had that in my right hip/upper thigh joint all week. And I can’t get it to freaking pop.
It’s driving me up the wall, really.
just because im antifeminist doesnt mean i dont believe in equal rights for women.
Anonymous said: Stones anon - In response to what you wrote, yes, Keef truly is a music man to his core. And he & Mick have a crazy, unique bond that Keef grasps but Mick doesn't. From the '88 article: "I'll be totally honest: I love Mick. I've GOT to make him happy! To me, I've failed if I can't eventually get my mate to feel good about himself. Even though he's very autocratic and he can be a real asshole. But who can't be an asshole at times?"
Awwww, man, now I kinda wanna hug Keith. What a legend…
Seriously, can you please get me a scan of the article? Please? O.O
Anonymous said: Stones anon here: Crazy stuff, but right after I sent that, I found a Rolling Stone magazine that had a reprint of an article with Keith from about 1988. So it was Dirty Work (not Undercover) that Mick bailed on touring for bc he wanted to pursue more solo stuff, including a mini solo tour in Australia & Japan. And when his 2nd solo venture was a humiliating failure, he had to call Keith to get the band back together. This interview though is GOLD. Keef is so articulate and candid.
Ooooh, ooohh, oooohh! Can you scan the article and upload it to some image hoster? I would love to read that.
Question with 1 note
Anonymous said: 1. Ooooo, the Stones in the 80s was quite a time! I am rubbing my hands. (I have no idea why I took such an interest in the RS in my younger years, but hey ho.) Forgive my lengthy dissertation, but no human person has ever been interested in this before!! So in 1983, the RS had released their album Undercover (essentially the last album when they were still a relevant top 20 sort of band). As a backgrounder, Mick & Keef had been Louis & Harry tight in the 60s. . .
#2 (resend) grew apart a little in the 70s, but were still very close e.g. Mick was Keith’s best man at his wedding in 1983. So there’s Keith thinking that Mick’s his bestie and that they’re going to tour to support Undercover. Then it comes out that the contract they’d signed after Undercover had included a solo option. And that Mick was going to work on his debut solo record instead of touring with the Stones. Keith was floored. And then when Mick’s album came out in early ’85,
3. it was basically Mick trying to do a Stones-type album minus the Stones. (It was somewhat successful, but follow ups were dismal failures and that’s why Mick followed the money back to the RS.) Keith took great offense to this and was like the proverbial woman scorned, airing his grievances in public and then actually releasing his OWN solo album called “Talk is Cheap” that could teach Taylor Swift about 300 things about writing poison pen songs…
4. Interestingly, Keith says he played his album for Mick before it was released and Mick was poker-faced. I believe Keith’s album was a little more critically acclaimed. I bought it. It has some good tracks that hold up. I had Mick’s too. It had some good tracks for the time, but the kind of thing that doesn’t age well. As for how the rest of the band reacted, well, the Stones is all about Mick & Keith. Bill & Ronnie aren’t relevant and Charlie would always rather be playing in a jazz band…
5. (And he was too drunk to care at that point in his life.) So for most of the mid-80s, it seemed like the Stones were going to break up, but of course they had contractual obligations to produce records. So they had to head back to the studio with Mick & Keef fighting like dogs and eventually came out with an embarrassment of an album (Dirty Work) which, IMO, buried them as far as new music goes. Perhaps it would have happened anyway, but after Undercover, . .
6… Mick just lost his ability to write compelling lyrics (either for the RS or for his solo material). My theory is that he & Keith used to collaborate more and he needs that friction to be more creative. But Mick & Keith’s relationship never fully recovered either. Keith talks about it in his memoirs. Keith forgave Mick, but Mick wouldn’t ever let him get close again. He’s a bit cold & spiteful. He loves performing & he loves making money, so he sticks with the RS, but alas, …
#7 (resend) it’s more of a co-worker situation. So you’re probably in a coma by now, but as you can tell, the Glimmer Twins (M&K) were once my Larry Stylinson! But that’s the story of how Mick’s shady solo deal went down, with plenty of editorializing from me! Mick isn’t one to make true confessions, so he’s never acknowledged the sketchy side of how it came about. I would love to know if he thought it was worth it.
Alright, whew, finally all the asks got through. Yay!I’ll put my reply under a read more, because the post is gonna be endless otherwise.
Page 1 of 21