WOMANISM. Oh and realize she was speaking of structural power’s impact on gendered abuse which is disproportionately men abusing women. So this song is not the place for "but women and people who aren’t men say ‘bitch’ tooooo." Spare me. Context. The song is on domestic violence, street harassment etc. And the song was about Black life. It can be about Black life without "so, no one else abuses?" hyperbole being inferred, as it’s obvious that’s not true.
I know some folks don’t like context but I am here for it.
"Until you do right by me…"
I made these as a way to compile all the geographical vocabulary that I thought was useful and interesting for writers. Some descriptors share categories, and some are simplified, but for the most part everything is in its proper place. Not all the words are as useable as others, and some might take tricky wording to pull off, but I hope these prove useful to all you writers out there!
(save the images to zoom in on the pics)
Via Merf. Thinking is Hard.
When you discuss the wage gap, here are a few things to keep in mind:
- Only white women make $0.77 to a man’s dollar.
- Black women make about $0.68 to a man’s dollar.
- Latina women make about $0.58 to a man’s dollar.
*white man’s dollar
and Black and Latino men make less than white men AND white women so stop it
Sooooo, I don’t know if you knew this but Disney made a movie a while back based on Hans Christian Anderson’s The Snow Queen. Here’s a link to the original 1845 text. This tale was written in Denmark, but does not necessarily take place there.
Because, you know. It’s a fairy tale. Fiction.
Frozen is a film written and produced in the US for presumably American audiences, but Disney is loved by many all over the world, and shown/seen by people in a measurably global scale. Disney created a fictional story based on a work of fiction. They used The Snow Queen as source material, but the created films bears little resemblance to Anderson’s original tale, as is par for the course with most Disney productions.
They chose to depict all characters who speak and have names as what Americans would immediately recognize and categorize as white people. This was disappointing to many Disney fans of color-yet another film made in which no ones looks like them. A few fans made some artwork depicting some of these characters with brown skin.
And the internet exploded in outrage.
"But it’s a story from Denmark!" "That’s not historically accurate!!!" "You already have enough movies!!" "How DARE you!" Even worse, a group of indigenous Scandinavian people called the Saami were also dragged into this debate, and photographs of them were slung all over the internet by people NOT Saami, and their appearance and their race picked over with a fine-toothed comb, being lobbed as "proof" their race on either side, all because Disney chose character costume designs and certain other elements of Saami culture to show in their film, without any mention of their origin. Words from actual Saami people were drowned out in the uproar, for the most part.
The outrage over anyone suggesting the cast of the film could have been more diverse reached shockingly violent levels. Before anyone could blink, death threats were being lobbed at artists and just about anyone making cultural commentary involving the film.
In fact, there’s an entire page at knowyourmeme.com dedicated to discrediting anyone criticizing the film, it’s casting, character creation, or depictions of race therein. Almost every pop culture blog remotely related to any of the topics have covered this “debate”.
And I have received over 200 asks on this topic. Once again: I have received over 200 asks on this topic. Asks for commentary, requests that I “become involved” in some thread or another, messages begging me to “prove to my mom Elsa could have been a person of color!”, asks for my opinion on specific bloggers or their Facebook friends’ statement.
But the problem is, I know that no matter what I write, the “debate” will rage on. No “proof” can possibly compete with emotional investment in keeping these films white, and besides, in history, “proof” doesn’t work that way.
This is an Art History and Historiography blog, and while in factual reality, the debate over Frozen has almost nothing to do with the topics covered by this blog, in people’s perceptions, it has everything to do with it.
Because the response to people who would like to just make art of a Disney character with their skin color, is literally, “you aren’t allowed. It’s not historically accurate.”
This claim has nothing to do with the actual history of Denmark. People of color in Denmark have about the same amount of history as most Scandinavian nations do. There were some people of color of varying origin in most walks of life at any given time in Denmark. People of Color arrived in Denmark the same way white people did-with boats. But what on earth does that have to do with a Fantasy Film made in the United States, in the 21st Century? A film loosely based on a Danish story that is pure fantasy-it doesn’t even take place in Denmark?
But too many people think it does. The perception becomes reality. And the assumption of completely homogenous whiteness is so strong and so pervasive, it completely overrides any factual evidence to the contrary.
The fact is, there were people of all races in Denmark throughout history. Denmark is one of the oldest nations that still exist, and part of how it got that way was via trade, travel, immigration, intermarriage, alliances, and existing as a part of a global political environment.
But the bottom line is, historical documents cannot compete with a false idea that so many people are this emotionally invested in. The history of Denmark has nothing to do with Frozen, but the near-ubiquitous whiteness of children’s media is one of the most polarizing issues in American/U.S. culture today.
Too many have looked to this blog to somehow “settle” this debate once and for all, or “fix” it, to prove to the people who say mean and often racist things that it’s okay to draw a version of a brown-skinned character from Frozen.
That’s not how History works. There is evidence, and there are interpretations. One might imagine that “absolutely every single last person in the entire nation of Denmark for a thousand years was white with no exceptions whatsoever” seems like a very extreme position to take, and yet MY position, which is merely that there are some exceptions and they are notable, is still framed by many people as “extreme”, apparently to a laughable degree.
I’m sorry, but for people who are emotionally invested in the whiteness of Frozen, there is no proof because there can’t be proof. No evidence is strong enough. Nothing they see or read will change their minds. A cultural promise was made to them that they are the owners and arbiters of history, of fantasy, of imagination. You only have to look at the demographics of children’s literature to see how that promise has been fulfilled.
For those who still believe that somehow that emotional investment in white supremacy can be “fixed” by education, or that those who shriek death threats at bloggers who post their fan art online are “just ignorant” and need to be “educated”, here are some resources documenting the presence of people of color, mostly Black people because that is where the most research has so far been done, in the visual arts of Europe and Denmark itself. I, however, am pretty sure that this post will not change anything at all for most of the people who have a huge problem with even asking, “why was everyone in Frozen white?”
Girolamo Romani Romanini, Visit of King Christian of Denmark to Bartolomeo Colleoni at Malpaga; Return of Bartolomeo Colleoni and King Christian to Malpaga after the hunting party. 1474. Fresco in Colleoni Collection, Castello di Malpaga, Bergamo (near), Italy.
The fresco is enormous and in several parts, documenting arrival, departure, and many activities in between. There are plenty of Black and Arab soldiers, pages, attednants, minor gentry and others in attendance to both the Danish King and the Italian nobleman hosting his visit.
The depiction of Saint Maurice as a Black man came to Scandinavia and Denmark specifically, via Germany. The importance of Saint Maurice to the Holy Roman Empire has already been documented at length here. Many claim that the depiction of Saint Maurice as a Black man is meaningless, because Saint Maurice wasn’t Danish. Almost all depictions of biblical figures and saints from the European middle ages are shown as anachronisms…they are dressed in the fashions of when the images were created, not in the time they “belong” to.
I honestly have no clue how the hundreds of depictions of Saint Maurice as a white man (there are plenty, trust me!) fits into this paradigm, but the following two depictions of the Roman Soldier Saint and commander of the Theban Legion are wearing 15th century Danish armor and carrying Danish arms.
Saint Maurice, Anonymous Danish Artist. Mural painting. Full-length figure of St. Maurice with a halo in full armor carrying a lance and a shield. Denmark, 1462. Jean Devisse, The Image of the Black in Western Art, vol. II, From the Early Christian Era to the “Age of Discovery” (Cambridge, MA and London, 1979), pt. 1, From the Demonic Threat to the Incarnation of Sainthood, pp. 175—76, fig. 136.
Saint Maurice, Anonymous Danish Artist. Mural painting. Standing figure of St. Maurice with a tortil around his head, holding a lance. Nationalmuseet, Copenhagen. Gude SUCKALE-REDLEFSEN and Robert SUCKALE. Mauritius: Der heilige Mohr / The Black Saint Maurice (Houston, Munich, and Zurich, 1986).
A lot of people seem to think that unless a surviving record with drawings, dates, and times of enclaves of peasants with features or words we would recognize as racial can be produced, this means that everyone who ever lived in Denmark was white, historically, forever. I suppose anything in life is possible, but these depiction of Saint Maurice are more meaningful that some would give them credit for, considering most artists in this time belonged to Guilds that required using live models for artistic depictions in their method bylaws. Also, there was relatively little artwork depicting “average” people, and religious images are the most likely to have survived.
For those who wonder about depictions of average Black Danish people in service, whether military, in a household’s service, or those subjected to the depredations of colonialism, all exist. There are many, many paintings of various important Danish nobility with Black servants.
Portrait of a man and his page, Anonymous Danish Artist. Painting. Portrait of a naval officer in a garden with his pet dog and a turbaned black page holding the reins of his rearing horse. Old Master Paintings, Sale catalogue, New York, Sotheby’s, 10 October 1991 (New York, 1991), no. 164A (color reprod.) and cover illus. (color detail). Image of the Black in Western Art database, Harvard University.
Martinus Christian Wesseltoft Roerbye. Portrait of a smiling black man, seated at the edge of a pool, wearing a sort of fez and shorts and smoking a cigarette. Denmark, 1839. Dyveke HELSTED et al., Martinus Rørbye 1803—1848, Exhibition catalogue, Copenhagen, Thorvaldens Museum, 18 June—30 September 1981 (Copenhagen, 1981), p. 120, no. 82.
So, something about Denmark that parallels British History is the “there a giant ocean right there” factor. Sailors from all over the world found homes in Denmark though many circumstances. Sailors from Asia, Africa, and eventually the Americas were common in the oceans of the world for centuries before global air travel became possible.
Shipwrecks were quite common on the rocky shores in Northern Europe, and the following painting is a depiction of the aftermath of a shipwreck, with the sailors being cared for by the Danish (and a man from the Danish company the ship belonged to).
Niels Simonson, After a Shipwreck on the West Coast of Jutland (detail). Denmark, 1864. (Black sailor seated at left.) Inscriptions: Signed and inscribed lower left: “Niels Simonsen / Kjöbenhavn 1864.”Nineteenth Century European Paintings, Drawings and Watercolours, Sale catalogue, London, Sotheby’s, 25 March 1987 (London, 1987), no. 144 (color reprod.).
In fact, the history of shipping companies in Denmark document seafaring and trade for centuries. What did these average Danish sailors look like? Just like many sailors in the British navy, they were often East and South Asian, Middle Eastern or Arab, and often Black or of African descent.
Unfortunately, not all people of color reached Denmark through their own volition. African people were kidnapped and shipped all over the world during the transatlantic slave trade. The following is a scene in which an English slaving ship is under attack from a (possibly) Danish ship, and a Danish fort is visible in the background. The fort is still there.
After George Webster. Painting. English slave ships off the shore of the Gold Coast with a view of the Danish fort Christiansborg in the background. Denmark, c. 1800. HELSINGØR, Handels- og Søfartsmuseet på Kronborg.Christian DEGN, Die Schimmelmanns im atlantischen Dreieckshandel: Gewinn und Gewissen (Neumünster, 1974), color reprod. facing p. 128.
But there were also servants of the Danish royal family who were people of African descent. Portraits of these people survive today. It is also unlikely they were enslaved, because they lived in Denmark, and most of the wealth Denmark made from enslaving African people was chattel slavery in the West Indies. Even enslaved people on Danish soil would not have been without certain rights. But a royal household servant would have been a wealthy and respected member of society.
Karel Van Mander III. Prince George of Denmark (1653-1708) son of Frederick III. Denmark, 1667. Image of the Black in Western Art (Harvard University).
Karel van Mander III. Queen Anne of Denmark (?-1611), wife of Christian IV (1577-1648), king of Denmark and Norway. Denmark, 1672. Image of the Black in Western Art (Harvard University).
As an additional consideration, Karel Van Mander III, The court painter responsible for some of the portraits of royalty above, did a series of ten paintings from a tale known as The Aethiopica, which used models living in Denmark at that time. Here are some figures from the paintings:
Sheldon Creek, writing for TheRoot.com:
He brings this ancient tale to life through a vigorous, unrestrained treatment of action and facial expression, and a lively portrayal of the black protagonists. In fact, there is evidence that at least some of the figures were based on actual models — that is, black people living in northern Europe, most likely Denmark, where Van Mander was serving as court painter when the series was created.
Is there more evidence? Yes, I am sure there is. But how much evidence does it take? Where is the limit?
And more importantly, why are hours of research necessary to even consider making films with people of color in them for a diverse audience of children? Why are the overwhelming majority of Disney films based on European Fairy Tales? Why are people of color excluded from representation in these films? Why should hours of meticulous research be necessary to say “this film COULD be more representative of its audience”?
And if this post gets anyone at all thinking about those things, then I suppose it might have been worth it after all.
If all discussions about Frozen (and to a larger extent, Disney as a whole) were as mature and rational as this one I don’t think I would be nearly as annoyed by the entire thing.
That’s what I want, I don’t want emotional blindness on either side. I’d much rather have an objective, mature discussion on the topic about various cultural influences and race representation. This task seems to be absolutely above and beyond the majority of the internet. We can’t even GET to the point of “is this a problem or not?” because of all the blind emotional mudslinging and irrationality.
This was absolutely lovely and wonderfully informative, bravo!
Actually, you totally missed the point.
The entire point of the article I wrote is that people are framing the debate as if it must be argued on the grounds of “historical facts”, when actually, it has NOTHING to do with historical facts and everything to do with racism in modern society, and how it affects our media and discussions of media.
It’s honestly a cultural fallacy that “emotion” and “reason” are opposites, as is the concept that being emotionally and personally detached to the degree that anyone could be described as “objective” is ridiculous.
This makes you sound like someone who will refuse to look at or acknowledge a blatant injustice/inequality that exists unless it’s presented in a way that doesn’t make them feel accused or uncomfortable. Complimenting me for not making you uncomfortable is not a compliment I value.
You see, on the one hand, it seems as though you’re complimenting me, but on the other, what you’re really doing is insulting anyone who might be understandably upset by a really obvious form of systematic racism. Exclusion is a form of racism. You can SAY you don’t want “emotional blindness on either side”, but all this does is reinforce the notion that anger at being subjected to racism and emotional investment in white supremacy are morally equivalent, and they are NOT.
Framing anger at being subjected to racism as “irrational” is a form of racism.
In the OP, I talk about emotional investment in white supremacy, versus understandable rage by people who are disenfranchised by white supremacy.
It is NOT an excuse to bash people who are subjected to racism and angry about it.
This post isn’t a call for “maturity and objectivity”. It is literally the opposite of that: a call for the acknowledgement that this has more to do with human emotional attachment to stories and how we internalize messages in the media we see, that either does or does not represent us, and the quality of that representation.
Since I know a lot of people aren’t going to read my post on The Disney Debate regarding race and representation for many different (and frequently understandable) reasons, if there’s anything you take away from it, let it be this:
You can SAY you don’t want “emotional blindness on either side”, but all this does is reinforce the notion that anger at being subjected to racism and emotional investment in white supremacy are morally equivalent, and they are NOT.
Framing justified anger at being subjected to racism as “irrational” is a form of racism.
This blog is not objective, and neither are you, and neither is your professor. Waving your hands around and yelling “History!!!” is not objective; it’s invoking cultural beliefs and assumptions that often have nothing to do with facts that can be proved or disproved. Most positions can be argued for and supported in academic disciplines that have anything to do with the study of humanity.
Why we choose to believe some ideas and reject others has less to do with facts than it does our own emotional investment in ourselves and our relationship to/in our society.
Why do we know what we know? Where do these ideas come from? That is the heart of knowledge. Because if you want to get close to the truth, you have to give a crap in the first place.
“Sylvia Rivera kicking ass on stage after some radfems & transphobes tried to refuse her the right to speak at the 1973 Christopher Street Liberation Day rally. Said radfems then had their own march in part protesting trans participation in Pride. A precursor to today’s Dyke March.”
It is women like Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson who started the Stonewall riots and queer liberation. 43 years later, trans women of color, the people who started the movement, are the people maligned and left behind by it.
In Sylvia’s words, “What the FUCK is wrong with you all?”
[[Trigger warning: suicide]]
Sylvia went home that night and attempted suicide.
Marsha Johnson came home and found her in time to save her life.
Sylvia left the movement after that day and didn’t come back for twenty years.
this is incredible, she is incredible, I highly recommend watching it
but I think the addendum re: the effect of this day on sylvia is really important
so often we valorise decontextualised moments of tough, articulate resistance and rage
and the suffering of the people who embodied them is not acknowledged, it’s uncomfortable, it’s not inspiring, we want them to stay tough and cool and stylish forever
which is particularly terrible when I think about how sylvia felt like that because of women like me — women who are now watching this video and feeling inspired and impressed and maybe a bit pleased with ourselves for finally having watched a speech by the famous and really cool to name-drop sylvia rivera
rebloggin for the true as fuck commentary (bolding mine)
n like, on one hand this moment is decontextualized as fuck, but on the other hand a lot of ppl try to hyper-contextualize it to make it “history” and a very specific historical moment, so we (cis women) can be like “oh so sad that’s how it was in the 1970s, radfems were so awful, but it was only the whole second-wave scene that was the problem, glad that’s over.”
Like have we forgotten the fact that Sylvia only died in 2002? And she died young, if she were still alive she wouldn’t even be 65 yet. I know hella older ppl in NYC who knew her personally, and hella “leaders” of the NYC queer scene pulled horrific shit on her constantly in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s, like literally until the day she died (ppl from Empire State Pride agenda literally went to St. Vincents to beef with her on her death bed) Where are the video tapes/memorializing of that shit?
N now the Manhattan LGBT center on 13th st has a room dedicated to her memory, despite the fact that very center permanently banned her in 1995 for daring to suggest they should let homeless QTPOC sleep there in sub-zero weather.
N now there’s a whole homeless trans youth shelter on 36th st named after her, Sylvia’s Place, that kicked my TWOC friend out on the streets for testing positive for marijuana; failing to recognize how fucked up that is in a shelter named after a woman who struggled with addiction all her life, and was very vocal about the relationship between drug use and the stress of living under constant threats of violence.
N from the late 90s onward rich gays and lesbians openly fought against Sylvia to try to shut down 24/7 access to the piers that she n hella other QTPOC cruised and lived on bc they were bringing down the property values of their multi-million west village apartments.
N like 90% of the individual people who perpetuated fucked up violence against Sylvia are still alive and high-profile leaders in the NYC LGBT “community” today.
So like yes, good, remember the oppressive weight of our history of transmisogyny…but also remember that this shit specifically ain’t even history, it’s the current reality of the NYC queer/trans hierarchy today—like not even figuratively, literally the same people who pulled shit like this on Sylvia are still alive n well n all over NYC cutting the ribbons to the newest Sylvia Rivera memorial n eulogizing her like they never tried to fucking kill her themselves.
Incredible commentary all over this post
i know i reblogged this before, but check out all this on point commentary
important historical knowledge.
Via Big Barda's Black Baby Girl
White people be like “please don’t call us crackers.” and people of color be like “please stop killing us”
and white people be like “dont you mean stop killing ALL OF US”
The documentary - Apartheid Did Not Die by John Pilger.
Mandela’s Greatness May Be Assured, but Not His Legacy
John Pilger recalls an interview with Nelson Mandela in the 1990s, painting a portrait of a leader whose African National Congress had been in struggle and exile for so long, they were willing to collude with forces that had been the people’s enemy.
When I reported from South Africa in the 1960s, the Nazi admirer Johannes Vorster occupied the prime minister’s residence in Cape Town. Thirty years later, as I waited at the gates, it was as if the guards had not changed. White Afrikaners checked my ID with the confidence of men in secure work. One carried a copy of Long Walk to Freedom, Nelson Mandela’s autobiography. “It’s very eenspirational,” he said.
Mandela had just had his afternoon nap and looked sleepy; his shoelaces were untied. Wearing a bright gold shirt, he meandered into the room. “Welcome back,” said the first president of a democratic South Africa, beaming. “You must understand that to have been banned from my country is a great honor.” The sheer grace and charm of the man made you feel good. He chuckled about his elevation to sainthood. “That’s not the job I applied for,” he said drily.
Still, he was well used to deferential interviews, and I was ticked off several times - “You completely forgot what I said,” and, “I have already explained that matter to you.” In brooking no criticism of the African National Congress (ANC), he revealed something of why millions of South Africans will mourn his passing but not his “legacy.”
I had asked him why the pledges he and the ANC had given on his release from prison in 1990 had not been kept. The liberation government, Mandela had promised, would take over the apartheid economy, including the banks - and “a change or modification of our views in this regard is inconceivable.” Once in power, the party’s official policy to end the impoverishment of most South Africans, the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP), was abandoned, with one of his ministers boasting that the ANC’s politics were Thatcherite.
"You can put any label on it if you like," he replied. " … But, for this country, privatization is the fundamental policy."
"That’s the opposite of what you said in 1994."
"You have to appreciate that every process incorporates a change."
Few ordinary South Africans were aware that this “process” had begun in high secrecy more than two years before Mandela’s release, when the ANC in exile had, in effect, done a deal with prominent members of the Afrikaaner elite at meetings in a stately home, Mells Park House, near Bath. The prime movers were the corporations that had underpinned apartheid.
Around the same time, Mandela was conducting his own secret negotiations. In 1982, he had been moved from Robben Island to Pollsmoor Prison, where he could receive and entertain people. The apartheid regime’s aim was to split the ANC between the “moderates” they could “do business with” (Mandela, Thabo Mbeki and Oliver Tambo) and those in the frontline townships who led the United Democratic Front (UDF). On July 5, 1989, Mandela was spirited out of prison to meet P.W. Botha, the white minority president known as the ‘Groot Krokodil’ (‘Big Crocodile’). Mandela was delighted that Botha poured the tea.
With democratic elections in 1994, racial apartheid was ended, and economic apartheid had a new face. During the 1980s, the Botha regime had offered black businessmen generous loans, allowing them set up companies outside the Bantustans. A new black bourgeoisie emerged quickly, along with a rampant cronyism. ANC chieftains moved into mansions in “golf and country estates.” As disparities between white and black narrowed, they widened between black and black.
The familiar refrain that the new wealth would “trickle down” and “create jobs” was lost in dodgy merger deals and “restructuring” that cost jobs. For foreign companies, a black face on the board often ensured that nothing had changed. In 2001, George Soros told the Davos Economic Forum, “South Africa is in the hands of international capital.”
In the townships, people felt little change and were subjected to apartheid-era evictions; some expressed nostalgia for the “order” of the old regime. The post-apartheid achievements in desegregating daily life in South Africa, including schools, were undercut by the extremes and corruption of a “neoliberalism” to which the ANC devoted itself. This led directly to state crimes such as the massacre of 34 miners at Marikana in 2012, which evoked the infamous Sharpeville massacre more than half a century earlier. Both had been protests about injustice.
Mandela, too, fostered crony relationships with wealthy whites from the corporate world, including those who had profited from apartheid. He saw this as part of “reconciliation.” Perhaps he and his beloved ANC had been in struggle and exile for so long they were willing to accept and collude with the forces that had been the people’s enemy. There were those who genuinely wanted radical change, including a few in the South African Communist Party, but it was the powerful influence of mission Christianity that may have left the most indelible mark. White liberals at home and abroad warmed to this, often ignoring or welcoming Mandela’s reluctance to spell out a coherent vision, as Amilcar Cabral and Pandit Nehru had done.
Ironically, Mandela seemed to change in retirement, alerting the world to the post-9/11 dangers of George W. Bush and Tony Blair. His description of Blair as “Bush’s foreign minister” was mischievously timed; Thabo Mbeki, his successor, was about to arrive in London to meet Blair. I wonder what he would make of the recent “pilgrimage” to his cell on Robben Island by Barack Obama, the unrelenting jailer of Guantanamo.
Mandela seemed unfailingly gracious. When my interview with him was over, he patted me on the arm as if to say I was forgiven for contradicting him. We walked to his silver Mercedes, which consumed his small grey head among a bevy of white men with huge arms and wires in their ears. One of them gave an order in Afrikaans, and he was gone.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
Via In Their Journey Thru Space and Time
Marina Sirtis talks about Deanna Troi and the inverse relation between cleavage and brains in TNG
There are certain rules in Hollywood. One of the rules is not written anywhere, but you just know: if you’re doing an action-adventure show, you gotta have chicks on the show for the boys to look at when they’re not blowing up other spaceships. Second rule: if the chick has a cleavage, she cannot have a brain.
So, [after wearing a uniform in the first episode] I got a cleavage, and all my gray matter departed. Which was sad, because originally (I know this is gonna shock you), Troi was supposed to be the brains of the Enterprise. So when the cleavage came, all that left, and I became decorative, like a potted palm on the bridge.
Then of course came the second season, and I was the only young one left. We had me and we had Diana, and so I had to become all things to all men. And so I got the red outfit, and and then we got the lilac outfit and then we got the green dress. Under the green dress I got to wear a corset, a satin corset, with bones in, like Scarlet O’Hara.
Now, as you know, with a corset everything gets pushed up or down. What was pushed down was kind of enclosed in the skirt and what was pushed up was enclosed in what I named “the Industrial Strength Starfleet Brassiere”, which was a wonder of modern engineering. I mean, I used to take it off at night and go "oh blimey, where did they go?". In fact, we had guest stars - and I’m no Twiggy - who would come and see me in the morning as Marina and then they would see me two hours later as Troi, and they’d go to costume and go "I want that bra!"
So then we got to season six, and there was the episode “Chain of Command" where we were trying out the new captain, Captain Jellico (just in case Patrick wanted too much money for next season, we were auditioning other captains), and he said to Troi “Go put on a uniform”. And lo and behold, there was one in her closet. So I put it on, and by then I was skinny, and the director and all the producers were like "she looks good in that, why wasn’t she been wearing that for the last six years?"
So I started to wear my spacesuit. I was thrilled to finally be in a spacesuit. First of all, my pips - cause I had a rank, you know. And then, it was very flattering actually, it looked really good.
Suddenly, I was smart again. My cleavage had gone. My gray matter came flooding back. I was on away teams! I was the leader of one away team! I had a medical tricorder! And unlike Beverly, I seemed to know what was wrong with people.
And, in this one particular episode, where we were on the Romulan ship - because suddenly I am the expert in Romulan technology - I had this line: "That’s impossible. The Romulans use an artificial quantum singularity as their power source". Who did I say it to? Geordi and Data! They didn’t know this. To be honest, when we were shooting the scene and I was saying the line, I was sneaking looks to my right and left to make sure they hadn’t developed a cleavage while I wasn’t looking.
~ The brilliant and hilarious Marina Sirtis at DragonCon 2010: Star Trek TNG Panel (Abridged from this video. The panel begins here, go check it out, it’s totally worth it).
Via A Six Sided Curse
Why the hell do people want fucking person of color, bi gendered, handicapped, asexual, pink haired fucking people in everything? THATS KINDA EXCESSIVE DONT YOU THINK???
Actually, you know what I think is MUCH better described as excessive? Reality, which is the opposite of what you’re fucking complaining about:
Having 90% of people in media white, straight, cis, able bodied, and mostly male isn’t excessive?
At the Dark End of the Street: Sexual Violence and the Civil Rights Movement
In 1944, in Abbeville, Alabama, a black woman named Recy Taylor walked home from a church revival. A car full of white men kidnapped her off the street, drove her to the woods and gang raped her at gunpoint. When they finished, they dropped her off in the middle of town and told her they would kill her if she told anyone what happened. But that night, she told her husband, father and the local sheriff about the assault. A few days later the Montgomery NAACP called to say they were sending their best investigator.
It was Rosa Parks.
Rosa Parks carried Taylor’s story back to Montgomery where she and the city’s most militant activists organized the Committee for Equal Justice for Mrs. Recy Taylor, and launched what the Chicago Defender called the strongest campaign for equal justice in a decade. Eleven years later this group of homegrown activists would become better known as the Montgomery Improvement Association, vaunting it’s president, Martin Luther King Jr. to international prominence and launching a movement that would help change the world. But when the coalition first took root, King was still in High School.
The 1955 Montgomery bus boycott, often heralded as the opening scene of the civil rights movement, was in many ways, one of the last acts of a decades-long struggle to protect black women, like Taylor, from sexualized violence and rape. Indeed, major civil rights campaigns in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and North Carolina had roots in organized resistance to sexual violence.
At the Dark End of the Street: Black Women, Rape, and Resistance-A New History of the Civil Rights Movement from Rosa Parks to the Rise of Black Power
Danielle L. McGuire
Via Knowing Coves
“Killed 99 bears”
a fact that if actually accomplished, should be put on a tombstone.
My favorite part is “We hope he has gone to rest.” What, like… they weren’t sure? Maybe, if ever the bear uprising should start again, he would rise from the ground to finish what he started and slay that 100th bear?
Was this man so powerful they are concerned he might not have decided to rest at all and is simply biding his time?
The bears made that tombstone.
A warning, and a prayer.
That he really, truely stays down.
This is too badass not to reblog.
Reblog for last comment