Why was this lady shot in the back of the head as she was leaving a porch asking for help after an accident?! #RenishaMcBride
Portrait of Elizabeth Murray
England (c. 1650)
Oil on canvas, 124 x 119 cm
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.
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”:
The actual painting:
Your professor’s Powerpoint on Jean Chardin:
The actual painting:
PowerPoint on Maria Henriette Stuart (with some commentary about the Habsburg jaw):
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.
totalitarian dystopian future lit is like “what if the government got so powerful that all the bad stuff that’s already happening ALSO HAPPENED TO WHITE PEOPLE?”
Is it wrong , that I want to firebomb peru , because they eat guinea pigs?
It’s hard with countries using different animals in certain foods. I’m an avid horseback rider and many countries eat horse meat. While that’s something I would NEVER do - guinea pigs included - I can’t tell someone a cultural/ethnic dish is wrong for them because I don’t agree with it or I don’t view that animal as a source of food.
Chickens and cows are also wonderful sweet adorable animals who deserve much longer, happier lives than they get in the American meat industry. Being okay with eating them but hating people for eating your favorite pet animal is hypocritical and kind of racist.
But why would you even ask a Black historian to do this, though?
oh thats how they find tokens
yo they were really tryna find someone to coon for them huh?
So the next time you turn on the news and there’s a black “expert” saying that some racist thing a white person did wasn’t a big deal, consider the mass email that the network had to send to find that one person to wave away racism.
He didn’t want my Mohawk name, he wanted an English name. He said for the court records, we have to have another name, a Canadian name, so that they can check to see if I have a record… They said they would release all the women—except me. So we were all sent back downstairs to the holding cells and one lawyer came in and took me in another room. He says, “You’re gonna be the only woman left here. They’re gonna take you back to Farnham. There’s soldiers there, they can do things to you, beat you up or rape you or whatever. It doesn’t look like they’ll release you today.” I said, well, I’m here for a reason. I’m not here just to do what they want, just because the prosecutor wants to change my name! He left and I went back into the holding cell with the other women. The other lawyer came down, called me to the front of the cell. He says, “You! You could get out today, if you give an English name.” I said, they took enough from us! We’ve been through enough and you want me to give another name just to satisfy the courts?
I know it’s fun to think of Canada as that ‘sweet apartment above a meth lab,’ as Robin Williams recently put it, but they’re still just looking for any old excuse to kill First Nations people.
I mean, Aboriginal women are seven times more likely than other women to be killed, and even the UN has recommended "a national inquiry into the ‘disturbing phenomenon’ of missing and murdered Aboriginal women," but the government responded, “LOL, actually, it’s no biggie." The Canadian ambassador to the UN even had the gall to elaborate: "Canada is proud of its human-rights record, and our peaceful and diverse society."
See, that’s the thing about renting an apartment above a meth lab: nobody’s gonna notice if you’ve been cooking meth, too.
You can sign the petition to tell the RCMP to stop violently intervening in First Nations protests here.
Every nation has a creation myth, or origin myth, which is the story people are taught of how the nation came into being. Ours says the United States began with Columbus’s so-called “discovery” of America, continued with settlement by brave Pilgrims, won its independence from England with the American Revolution, and then expanded westward until it became the enormous, rich country you see today.
That is the origin myth. It omits three key facts about the birth and growth of the United States as a nation. Those facts demonstrate that White Supremacy is fundamental to the existence of this country.
A. The United States is a nation state created by military conquest in several stages. The first stage was the European seizure of the lands inhabited by indigenous peoples, which they called Turtle Island. Before the European invasion, there were between nine and eighteen million indigenous people in North America. By the end of the Indian Wars, there were about 250,000 in what is now called the United States, and about 123,000 in what is now Canada (source of these population figures from the book _The State of Native America_ ed. by M. Annette Jaimes, South End Press, 1992). That process must be called genocide, and it created the land base of this country. The elimination of indigenous peoples and seizure of their land was the first condition for its existence.
B. The United States could not have developed economically as a nation without enslaved African labor. When agriculture and industry began to grow in the colonial period, a tremendous labor shortage existed. Not enough white workers came from Europe and the European invaders could not put indigenous peoples to work in sufficient numbers. It was enslaved Africans who provided the labor force that made the growth of the United States possible.
That growth peaked from about 1800 to 1860, the period called the Market Revolution. During this period, the United States changed from being an agricultural/commercial economy to an industrial corporate economy. The development of banks, expansion of the credit system, protective tariffs, and new transportation systems all helped make this possible. But the key to the Market Revolution was the export of cotton, and this was made possible by slave labor.
C. The third major piece in the true story of the formation of the United States as a nation was the take-over of half of Mexico by war — today’s Southwest. This enabled the U.S. to expand to the Pacific, and thus open up huge trade with Asia — markets for export, goods to import and sell in the U.S. It also opened to the U.S. vast mineral wealth in Arizona, agricultural wealth in California, and vast new sources of cheap labor to build railroads and develop the economy.
The United States had already taken over the part of Mexico we call Texas in 1836, then made it a state in 1845. The following year, it invaded Mexico and seized its territory under the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. A few years later, in 1853, the U.S. acquired a final chunk of Arizona from Mexico by threatening to renew the war. This completed the territorial boundaries of what is now the United States.
Those were the three foundation stones of the United States as a nation. One more key step was taken in 1898, with the takeover of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam and Cuba by means of the Spanish-American War. Since then, all but Cuba have remained U.S. colonies or neo-colonies, providing new sources of wealth and military power for the United States. The 1898 take-over completed the phase of direct conquest and colonization, which had begun with the murderous theft of Native American lands five centuries before.
Many people in the United States hate to recognize these truths. They prefer the established origin myth. They could be called the Premise Keepers.
In my screenwriting class this week, my instructor explained that if you do not signify a race or ethnicity, your character will be assumed to be white. There will be no clarification, no one will ask you to explain, the director and casting agent will create a whites-only casting call for auditions.
This obviously isn’t news. We know that the default for Hollywood is white even though mathematically, according to the demographics of California and the entire world, this is laughably illogical.
I asked him how you signify that you want open casting in your script for any race or ethnicity because you want the best actor for the character.
He didn’t understand and started talking about words like “eurasian” in the descriptive lines following your character’s introduction.
I explained that I wasn’t asking about how to denote racial ambiguity (which is another favorite of Hollywood), rather an actual open casting call that wasn’t limited to white and white passing people.
He said he had never come across this.
Never, in his entire decade+ career, had he ever come across an open casting call.
So when people say shit like, “oh well maybe they just got the best actor for the role!”, they deserve to have their faces slammed into the nearest available surface.
the thing about macklemore:
yes, i know he’s donating the proceeds from Same Love to lgbt charities. do i still suspect that he’s on that gay rights shit because it’s kind of a way for straight artists to seem cultured and cosmopolitan, but not in a way that requires a whole lot of self-reflection? yeah, i do. but i can see where some people would not feel that way.
however, when anyone mentions same love, they inevitably follow it to the same conclusion: macklemore is positive hip-hop. he raps about real stuff. about real issues. he’s so positive. now, jay-z and kanye rap about the state of black men in america, like, all the time, nicki minaj talks about being a black woman, and frank ocean and azealia banks talk about being black and queer at the same time, and yet, that doesn’t get regarded as “revolutionary” as a straight white man saying, amazingly, that he doesn’t hate gay people.
no, music critics say that he’s rapping about social issues while the rest of the genre is all about strippers & their big titties, as if white rock stars never sang about drugs or as if it’s surprising that a subgenre of music shaped by a group of people who have been routinely stripped of their wealth, agency, and power, would focus on flashy wealth, agency, and power.
Also can I just say how incredibly uncomfortable the song’s emphasis on the modern marriage equality movement being the same thing as the seventies Black Civil Rights movement makes me? That would be really touching coming from someone who actually is African American (it certainly was when Obama said something similar), but when Macklemore says it he isn’t extending a hand from one movement to another, he’s dictating to two minority groups he’s not a part of how they should view themselves and each other.