Okay. Let me clear the fuck out of this shit, because it is REALLY pissing me off.
Psy was an extremely well-known, well-respected musician WELL before Gangnam Style was even fucking thought of. He’s one of the senior musicians of Korea and he gets a lot of respect for his fearless stages and the way he writes songs to say whatever the hell he wants and believes, regardless of the Korean public’s extremely judgmental eye. I’m so sick of the way he’s being treated all around the world ever since Gangnam Style went viral, he’s just being called here and there to do the dance and whatever and then being sent off like he’s just a comedy dud. When he came on Ellen, she didn’t even bother fucking introducing him, he had to interrupt and ask to introduce himself. He came out on stage and she literally just asked him to teach the dance before he even said anything. Like that is so flat out disrespectful are you kidding me.
Point being, before you ignorant ass little fucks decided he was the new laughingstock of the world and decided all on your own that he was just some annoying, talentless little comedy figure, get your fucking facts straight. Learn some respect, especially to the people that deserve/have already earned it.
SOMEONE FINALLY UNDERSTANDS PREACH IT
Not to mention how skewed this dumbass headline is. Yeah, let’s focus on the fact that a native Korean doesn’t know what herpes is rather than the fact that when it was explained to him, he took it like a champ. “He said I’m like the herpes… that keeps coming back. I think it’s really cool. Thank you.” That was Psy’s response to this incredibly rude shit BJA said. Let’s completely disregard the fact that he even knows enough English from studying in the US for some years to come on these shows and take this shitty treatment with such a good attitude. Psy is a satirist. Gangnam Style was satirical. But he has to come on these shows that only care about his funny faces, funny dances and funny personality and he can’t do anything about it.
Nobody takes him seriously just because he’s not singing in English, because it’s so easy to strip what they know him for of its significance and just look at the fat guy shaking his hips and think that’s all that matters. Nobody takes him seriously because they don’t “get it,” and they don’t want to try to get it, either. And it pisses me off.
Yes! I always get pissed off the media when they bash Psy. They seriously need to get rid of their stereotype for Asians and need to go back to kindergarten and learn about respecting others.
I Personally think this dude is the cancer of music along with countless others in the music industry totally cheap,tasteless,and unskilled so called “Music” but thats just what i think.
did you just ignore everything everyone else said
iis that you bja
It always struck me that men actually might benefit from the “bumbling idiot” stereotype. In very many of the dysfunctional heterosexual relationships I’ve observed, men basically only work then come home and do nothing, and women do a majority of the actual work and men use this learned or feigned helplessness to get women to do everything for them. They’re socialized this way, I think. I married this very equality talking, sensitive, feminist-ally, politically correct kind of man and yet the day we got back from our honeymoon, my ex husband suddenly became an infant who no longer knew how to operate an iron, pack a grocery bag, balance the budget, take a pee without splattering the entire bathroom, flush the toilet, cook his own meals, return phone calls, put his own dishes in the sink before they turned moldy, or even drop letters off at the post office.
The bumbling idiot stereotype doesn’t hurt men. Men are not being denied jobs or health care or legal rights because of being seen as bumbling idiots. They benefit from the stereotype because it means that women do everything."
every time i hear a dude say they dont understand women all i can think is
no shit, you were raised to think theyre a diff, separate sub-species from you
clearly its never occurred to you to try to understand women as individuals. you want a basic, easy formula thats going to work on every single woman because you dont actually believe theyre all diff humans w diff personalities and diff shit that makes them tick.
Many don’t often understand why dressing up as people from other races and cultures is perceived as offensive, beyond the fact that it “hurts people’s feelings.”
I have a story from last Halloween that illustrates the problem perfectly.
I was at a Halloween party in Westwood (UCLA’s college town), not dressed up as usual. In attendance was a guy (let’s call him Bob because he’s basic and I don’t remember his name) who I’d had an argument with the week before. En route to a different party, I had overheard him and a friend drunkenly laughing about just leaving a party because there were “too many Asians” in attendance. I called them out in front of everyone on the street, yelling at them and calling them racists. That’s obviously the worst thing you can call someone, so they followed me around that night desperately trying to convince me that they weren’t racist (Bob had done mission work in African apparently, so he was incapable of such tyranny!!1).
Fast forward to Halloween night, and it turns out Bob’s roommates was one of my friends. His roommate approached and tried to convince me to give Bob another chance, that he wasn’t racist, and that he felt really bad about what he did. He introduced Bob formally to me and then left us to become bffs.
There was only one problem. Bob’s costume that night was a large sombrero, furry black moustache, and an oversized poncho.
He tried to chat me up about different random topics, but I was visibly deadpan and uninterested in conversing with him. He then asked my why I wasn’t dressed up, and I told him that I’m not really into American holidays. Since we were now on the topic of costumes, I asked him what he was dressed up as.
He paused before answering, suddenly hesitant. Avoiding eye contact, he responded, “Umm… well… nothing.”
“Huh?” I replied. “You’re clearly dressed up as something—”
“Oh, yeah. Well I couldn’t really find anything, so I guess I sorta just threw this together and now… I’m kinda like a Mexican or something.”
“Right.” I turned away from him.
“Well are you going to dress up tomorrow?” He inquired. “There are so many more parties to attend!” No. I wasn’t. But he was persistent.
“Come on, man. You gotta dress up! Here, I’ll help - what have you always wanted to dress up as?”
I looked at him from top to bottom, my gaze stopping at a bottle of red hot sauce in his left hand. I turned toward him and finally gave him a welcoming smile. “Fine! I wanna dress up as a white person.”
He looked at me as if an eyeball had just popped out of its socket. “What? Dress up as a what?”
“You know, a white person. I’d love to be that. Can you help me out? What should I wear?”
He laughed, seemingly relieved that I was finally engaging him in a friendly manner. “Oh come on man, don’t be silly. You can’t just dress up as a white person.”
“Because, man… white people are diverse. You’ve got skater boys, hillbillies, businessmen, rich people, poor people, hipsters, bros, hippies, nerds… so many different types. There is no one way to just generally be ‘a white person.’”
I laughed incredulously. “Oh… but wait. You can dress up as a Mexican but I can’t be a white person? Is there just one way to be a Mexican, then?”
He froze. “Oh, no! There’s not just one way to be a Mexican…” his voice trailed off, unsure of itself.
“Ok. So what other ways could you have been a Mexican?”
I stared at him with a closed-mouth smile and arms crossed, patiently waiting for an answer. But Bob was struggling, scanning the room full of ghosts, goblins, and Indians for a politically correct answer.
“Well, to be a Mexican… I guess I could have been a gardener.”
Our conversation ended there. (I may or may not have told him to get out of my face.)
Bob did come back as the party ended to vaguely thank me for making him think. But I was once again cold and uninterested. And now when he sees me around campus, he makes sure to awkwardly look away or walk in a different direction.
I’m not in college anymore, but the saga continues - I’m writing this while at my corporate job, and one of my coworkers is dressed as a gangster, decked out in a red bandana, Dickies, and a checkered shirt only buttoned at the top. He’s a grown man dressed as a one-dimensional “Mexican.”
When you dress up as other races, you’re not only covering up your own identity — you risk covering up your mind’s ability to differentiate real people from their stereotypes and caricatures.
really, seriously hoping my facebook is free and clear tonight of blackface, drunk “Mexicans” in sombreros, girls in warbonnets and other Native American regalia, girls in geisha costumes, etc.
Chimamanda Adichie: “The danger of a single story”
I love, love, love this speech. Everything in it applies to everyone in some way, regardless of race, nationality, religion, etc. I’m sure we can all come up with instances where we assumed that a certain group of people were one way based on “a single story” we’d been told, and were surprised to discover that that group is more diverse than we thought and more similar to us than we thought.
“The single story creates stereotypes, and the problem with stereotypes in not that they are untrue, but that they are incomplete. They make one story become the only story.” -Chimamanda Adichie
Please watch and enjoy! :-)
I’ve had this bookmarked for ages, and seen several people refer to it, so I finally sat down and watched it. It is utterly brilliant.
I wanted my first-year film students to understand what happens to a story when actual human beings inhabit your characters, and the way they can inspire storytelling. And I wanted to teach them how to look at headshots and what you might be able to tell from a headshot. So for the past few years I’ve done a small experiment with them.Some troubling shit always occurs.
It works like this: I bring in my giant file of head shots, which include actors of all races, sizes, shapes, ages, and experience levels. Each student picks a head shot from the stack and gets a few minutes to sit with the person’s face and then make up a little story about them.
Namely, for white men, they have no trouble coming up with an entire history, job, role, genre, time, place, and costume. They will often identify him without prompting as “the main character.” The only exception? “He would play the gay guy.” For white women, they mostly do not come up with a job (even though it was specifically asked for), and they will identify her by her relationships. “She would play the mom/wife/love interest/best friend.” I’ve heard “She would play the slut” or “She would play the hot girl.” A lot more than once.
For nonwhite men, it can be equally depressing. “He’s in a buddy cop movie, but he’s not the main guy, he’s the partner.” “He’d play a terrorist.” “He’d play a drug dealer.” “A thug.” “A hustler.” “Homeless guy.” One Asian actor was promoted to “villain.”
For nonwhite women (grab onto something sturdy, like a big glass of strong liquor), sometimes they are “lucky” enough to be classified as the girlfriend/love interest/mom, but I have also heard things like “Well, she’d be in a romantic comedy, but as the friend, you know?” “Maid.” “Prostitute.” “Drug addict.”
I should point out that the responses are similar whether the group is all or mostly-white or extremely racially mixed, and all the groups I’ve tried this with have been about equally balanced between men and women, though individual responses vary. Women do a little better with women, and people of color do a little better with people of color, but female students sometimes forget to come up with a job for female actors and black male students sometimes tell the class that their black male actor wouldn’t be the main guy.
Once the students have made their pitches, we interrogate their opinions. “You seem really sure that he’s not the main character – why? What made you automatically say that?” “You said she was a mom. Was she born a mom, or did she maybe do something else with her life before her magic womb opened up and gave her an identity? Who is she as a person?” In the case of the “thug“, it turns out that the student was just reading off his film resume. This brilliant African American actor who regularly brings houses down doing Shakespeare on the stage and more than once made me weep at the beauty and subtlety of his performances, had a list of film credits that just said “Thug #4.” “Gang member.” “Muscle.” Because that’s the film work he can get. Because it puts food on his table.
So, the first time I did this exercise, I didn’t know that it would turn into a lesson on racism, sexism, and every other kind of -ism. I thought it was just about casting. But now I know that casting is never just about casting, and this day is a real teachable opportunity. Because if we do this right, we get to the really awkward silence, where the (now mortified) students try to sink into their chairs. Because, hey, most of them are proud Obama voters! They have been raised by feminist moms! They don’t want to be or see themselves as being racist or sexist. But their own racism and sexism is running amok in the room, and it’s awkward.
This for every time someone criticizes how characters of color and female characters of color especially are treated in text and by subsequent fandoms. It’s never “just a television/movie/book”. It’s never been ”just”.
Do some reading about it.
What’s wrong with cultural appropriation? I mean, I know it’s bad, but I need this one kind of spelled out for me. Is it always bad? Are some cases worse than others? I want to be a good anti-racist, but I fear I’m not educated enough.
Cultural appropriation exists because of centuries of:
- Imperialism: more specifically, cultural imperialism which is essentially one cultural dominating another. (IE: white folks and everyone we’ve ever invaded ever. Including each other.)
- Racism: justifies the appropriation by making various cultural/racial/ethic groups marginalised, oppressed and seen as inferior by the privileged group.
- Exoticism: justifies commodification and objectification.
- Entitlement: thinking that oppressed people’s culture, society, and spirituality are up for grabs.
- Unawareness of privilege: based on misunderstanding of power dynamics, entitlement, exoticism and racism
Why is cultural appropriation harmful?:
Cultural appropriation reinforces oppression because it invalidates and commodifies marginalised groups.
- Invalidates: the culture/society/the people
- Homogenizes: lets look at the white girls wearing warbonnets and mukluks. War bonnets are worn traditionally only by various Native plains tribes and mukluks are boots made of usually seal skin warn/made traditionally by Alaskan/Arctic natives. This haphazard and disrespectful throwing together different pieces of two completely different Native cultures which is portraying an image of homogeneity and reinforces the stereotype that there is just one Native American culture and they are all the same, which reinforces oppression and racism.
- Commodifies: putting a monetary value on something that should not be sold or purchased or marketed in any way, eg. spiritual practices.
- Reinforces stereotypes: which reinforce oppression and racism-a tool of colonisation.
- Distorts traditions into inaccurate and offensive caricatures
- Romanticises cultures: often this is something that results in entire groups of people being seen as ‘something that used to exist’ as opposed to people with lives and cultures that exist and flourish today. You get this a lot with Native American and Canadian culture.
- Eroticises/exoticizes people: this is incredibly dehumanising.
Here are some awesome people who talk about appropriation and how it is shitty- linked is all their posts tagged appropriation. Please look through their archives, and do not just message them asking the same question, they are people not encyclopaedias.
These are just the first four who lept to mind- there are doubtless many, many more.
do you have any guidelines on how a white (not english or american) person can appreciate other (especially the indian) culture(s)? or can’t we? where does the border between appreciating and appropriating lie exactly?
To be honest, I’m not the go-to source for questions of appropriation, an agony column for you to feel better about things. But since you asked so verynicely :)
Not everything white people do is appropriation by default, it’s how they do it. Now, I don’t know how your interaction with [desi] culture is going to pan out specifically, & nor shall my word absolve you if you do cross the line.
1) Is it marketed to you as an object/custom from a marginalised culture without any context? If yes/unsure, don’t do it.
2) What are your reasons? Are you appreciating it because you feel bored, or because it’s cool, or you think it’s aesthetically pleasing (“exotic”)? If the answer to any of these is yes/unsure, then don’t do it.
3) What is the history/meaning of objects/languages/rituals in the culture? Are you aware of the meanings/history of these things? Will you be using them in a way that misrepresents them, or diminishes their power? If yes/unsure, don’t do it.
4) Are you comfortable with the understanding that as someone benefiting from imperialism, even if your local history does not have any, you may be contributing to the suppression of others’ cultural symbols, & that by your actions there is a strong possibility of further oppression? Are you willing to work through the nuances of privilege that occur when the question of cultural appropriation is brought up? If your answer to the second is no, and to the first is yes, then don’t do it.
5) If someone from calls you out on appropriation/racism, are you going defend your perceived right to appreciate their heritage, & how they shouldn’t be offended? If the answer is yes/unsure, you definitely shouldn’t do it.
1. If someone with a mental illness does something violent, the mental illness is assumed to be the cause of the violence.
2. If someone without mental illness does something violent, they are assumed to have a mental illness. [Perceived] Sanity is conditional, in this sense.
3. The exception to the rule is when the perpetrator does not have a mental illness and they belong to another marginalized group that is stereotyped as being violent, such as being Black or Muslim. However, this often still overlaps with ableism.
4. Privileged aspects of someone’s identity are never blamed for violence or other wrongdoing. If a person who is white, Christian, and male engages in violence, they must be “crazy”, because whiteness, Christianity, and maleness are not considered stereotypically violent by the dominant culture, but mental illness is.*
Example: Most people who engage in violence are men, but men are not stereotyped to be dangerous simply because they are male.** The men that are violent are isolated, and viewed as deviations from the norm—this would happen even if 90% of men engaged in violence, because of male privilege. This is not a defense of stereotyping; it is evidence of how privilege prevents stereotyping.
5. If someone violent is mentally ill, all other potential motivations for their violence fly out the window. The scapegoating of mental illness shifts the blame and focus away from other reasons why someone might be violent or engage in “criminal” or “bad” activities. Example: Violence toward marginalized groups is encouraged and is used as a weapon to keep them oppressed. By automatically blaming mental illness, even if it is partially to blame, we fail to criticize (and hold accountable) the power structures that may have contributed to the violence. (It’s also common for a victim of violence to be blamed along with assumed mental illness on the part of the aggressor.)
6. When a person with mental illness engages in violence or other “criminal” activity, it should be used as an example of how the mental health system has failed them, not as an example of how “all schizophrenics/crazy people are violent” or other damaging, ableist rhetoric. This is especially the case in a country such as the United States.
7. People with mental illnesses are sometimes quite vulnerable (more so than the rest of the population) to being indoctrinated by political extremism. See: Jared Lee Loughner, who is schizophrenic. The violence that was encouraged by the American right-wing was widely dismissed as not being potentially responsible for Gabrielle Gifffords’ shooting, because Loughner is mentally ill. Yet, it is absolutely possible for someone with a mental illness to also have political motivations—or to be more likely to take such rhetoric too literally. People with mental illness are still people and having a mental illness does not mean they are unable to think, have opinions, motivations, etc.
8. When people refer to violent or otherwise deviant people as “crazy”, they are not saying “crazy” to mean “strange” or “unusual” or “extraordinary”. They mean crazy, as in “mentally deranged” or “insane”, which is the actual definition of the word. It is impossible to separate the word from its definition, even if you think you are using it in a different sense, ie.to mean “their behavior deviates from the norm” because that means the same thing. It is associating negative characteristics with mental illness. It is ableist and it is a slur, especially if the person you’re describing actually has psychiatric disabilities that are considered forms of “insanity”, such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and certain personality disorders. This slur, and the attitudes behind it, have been used (historically and currently) to discredit, dehumanize and dismiss people with mental illnesses. They have also been used to justify institutionalization, ableist violence, and the general oppression of the mentally ill.
*There is no evidence to back up the assertion that mentally ill people are more prone to violence, and in fact, there is evidence proving that this is nothing but a strongly enforced ableist stereotype. The percentage of mentally ill people who do violent things is the same as the percentage of non-mentally ill people who do violent things. People often argue this point with “well a person MUST be crazy to do that [violent act]!” Again, this is not based in fact but in ableist lines of thinking and the construction of mental illness as being the reason for any non-normative or “unreasonable” behaviors. Violent behavior (self injury excluded) is not a given for any mental illness, and just because it can be a symptom of mental illness is not a valid reason for the automatic assumption that mental illness is to blame for any violent act. Also, people with psychiatric conditions are actually more likely to be victimized by violence.
**We do live in a culture that encourages male aggression, and masculinity is generally considered to be more inherently violent than femininity. However, excusing oppressive male violence against marginalized people on the basis of it being a part of masculinity is not the same as stereotyping. If one looks at the way Black maleness in particular is constructed as being violent (see #3) and contrasts that against white maleness and maleness as a general category, it’s much easier to see how maleness by itself is not stereotyped as violent.
Calling violent people “psychos” “sociopaths” “crazy” “insane” or any variation thereof is always ableist. It is harmful, it is factually inaccurate and based on deeply embedded ableist stereotyping and social beliefs about the mentally ill.
Sarah and Obaid and their infinitely adorable Nusaybah are three lovely Pakistanis who know how hate rolls: It’s taught so it has to be unlearned.
Stop stereotyping. Stop the hate.
P.S. Nusaybah’s smile wins without a doubt.