This is the picture that is being spread around Twitter that “proves” Michael was charging the officer.
1. Michael Brown wasn’t a skinny athletic white woman running the fucking 100m dash off blocks.
2. He had on flips flops. You ever tried running in some flops? Even if he had on sneakers, they aren’t track cleats that weigh next to nothing.
3.He had to have weighed an easy 200+ lbs. Do you think he could match the angle of her body considering THEY WERE DIFFERENT HEIGHTS AND WEIGHTS?
4. THIS ISN’T HOW PHYSICS AND GUN TRAJECTORY WORK AND COMMON SENSE WORK.
Stop it. Stop proving how stupid you are. It’s hilarious to see you try.
(TW: It’s on of the most idiotic anti-liberal Twitter pages I’ve had the unfortunate luck to come across)
dumbest post ive seen. OBVIOUSLY mike brown wasnt a skinny white woman, but he was a BIG 300 lbs black male. Everyone pumps their arms when they run. It’s how running works. so i dont see your argument in that. positioning all the same, except he was most likely standing up taller, not so bent over. If gun shots couldnt stop Brown advancing toward the officer, please tell me how his lack of adequate footwear would. You’re a liberal, how would you even know how guns work? How can you be so ignorant to this? All this new evidence is coming out, and you still refuse to acknowledge it.
Okay, Bethany, I’m going to call you Bethany because fuck you. And I’m going to explain this in a very slow and simple way for you to digest, okay, babydoll?
Alright! Let’s Go! We will start with a picture.
It’s the muthafucking scientific method! You remember this right? I’m kind of getting the feeling that you might not by the unstructured blogglob of a paragraph you spewed from your mouthhole, but we’ll just assume you do.
How this science thing works:
1. Ask a question. Could a 200lb+ be shot as the autopsy photos show if he was charging towards someone else?
Well, gee! I don’t know. Let’s continue to the next step!
2. Background research: What angle would he have to be in for the bullets to land in the places he was shot?
I still don’t know! Let’s try it out! We have to find a model for the problem….
(Finds picture of a athletic white woman frozen in one position.)
HOL UP HOL UP HOL UP WHOA DERE!
CLASS WE HAVE A PROOOBLEM!
You see! The way science works is, when you’ve asked yourself a question and are trying to prove it, YOU FIRST MUST REPLICATE THE PROBLEM.
You wouldn’t ask “Why white people age the way that they do” by studying an Asian. You would study a white person.
So, if the picture is of a skinny athletic white person and they are using that to prove how a 200+ lbs man was shot in the same place (with the assumption that 6 shots could be fired at the SAME DAMN TIME or timed so precisely that they land EXACTLY how the picture has it), GUESS WHAT? The square peg wouldn’t fit in the round hole.
DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUUUN.
Okay, class (and Bethany) what did we learn today. TO PROVE YOUR POINT, you can’t use an abstract example! (or be stupid enough to FALL FOR IT).
Now sit your silly ass down and shut up.
'Why white people age the way they do'
A snatching of a lifetime, bruh. Bethany, go home.
White people really need to understand that Nicki Minaj is not for them. She’s not talking to them or living an experience that they experience even in a small percentage. She is not for them, she is no talking to them.
All of these thinkpieces and policymic posts with white people (esp white women) acting like the Anaconda song and video are the most sexist things to ever exist, these posts acting like Nicki is hurting black people (black women specifically) by shaking her ass and talking about sex, need to be erased from the internet.
It is not for you. She is not talking to you, white people. She is not talking about you.
Get over yourselves and quit making those ridiculous ass, concern-trolling “oh well hip hop is the most sexist genre ever and Nicki is as appropriative/exploitative as Katy/Miley/Madonna” posts and go educate yourself as to why Black women’s bodies and what they do with them are none of your damn business if you’re not a fucking black woman.
Nicki Minaj grew up, at least partially, in a country where the establishment was post colonial black and artists related to a black audience. Then she moved and got involved with hiphop, where again the originators are black and spoke to a black audience.
Yt ppl want everything. And mad as hell they can’t claim her, cause they don’t understand even half of what she says. So instead they want to vilify her.
But she ain’t talking to you. She’s not here for you. Like, you can buy a gluten-free cookie, but it wasn’t made for you unless you’ve got gluten allergies, wheat allergies or celiac or maybe even Crohn’s.
It’s the same deal where in the US you tell people under 21 how “The booze isn’t here for you. Yes you see the commercials, and yes it’s in stores you frequent, but it ain’t for you.”
In this case, it’ll NEVER be for yt ppl. They’re just around when it’s happening.
Also I’m apt to slap anyone talking about Minaj as appropriative, cause do you know what an ACTUAL melting pot Trinidad is? There’s lots of things that can be referenced that speak more towards the island than the originating culture - I can’t even.
Yt ppl can’t stand the fact that she’ll take their money, but she ain’t here for them. They never like to see that shit turned around on them.
This drives me mad. I used to work in a bookstore, and was talking to my coworker and he just yelled out “stop flirting with me!” at this ridiculous volume and it was humiliating because
1. I wasn’t
2. I got in trouble for acting unprofessional
3. He embarrassed me in front of a line of people
4. And he only stopped insisting that I was flirting when my boyfriend (who is now my husband) said, “dude, trust me, she’s not flirting with you” to him
That asshole respected my BOYFRIEND saying I wasn’t flirting more than he respected me saying it and I was the one who was talking! The whole scene got me in trouble at work. And the most ridiculous part is we were talking about a fucking book. In a bookstore.
One time, my ex boyfriend had a crush on some girl, and said that he thought he might have “a chance” with her.
When I asked him what made him think that, he said “Well, she talks to me.”
And this is why it is so difficult to be a girl and be friends with men who are attracted to women.
Can we also add that this is why a lot of women do the resting bitch face when out in public. Cause dudes swear a glance or a smile is flirting.
So yesterday something that perfectly illustrates this happened. I work at a fast food place and this guy comes in at 7am on a Sunday, still probably drunk from the night before, and when I smiled and said goodmorning he said “Did you just say that because you’re being paid to say that?”
I repressed my urge to sarcastically answer, and said “Nope, I just enjoy saying hi to everyone!” To which he responded, “Oh, so you weren’t flirting with me then.”
Dude, I’m not flirting with your gross 7am-on-a-Sunday-ass, trust me.
My defense mechanism when I’m uncomfortable at work is to smile, so I did that and said “Is there anything I can get you this morning?” to which he responded,
"There, you just smiled! What does that mean?"
At this point I was fed up, so I said,
"I smile at everyone sir, its just what I do. What can I get you, coffee, a bagel?"
And he said “I’m gonna be watching to see if you smile at everyone. I don’t like it when girls lie to me” and then ordered a coffee and a muffin like he hadn’t just said something at 11 on the “Is this guy a serial rapist” scale (where 0 is ‘no’ and 10 is ‘Yes, run away as fast as you can right now.”).
Then he sat there for another hour and a half, staring at me from his table. When he got up and left he came back to the counter, and said “You do smile at everyone. That’s fucked up.” and walked out.
I can’t even be innocuously polite and pleasant to people at my job (where customer service is the number one thing we are supposed to be focusing on) for fear of this shit happening. What happens if he had decided to wait until my shift was over?
New Rule: If she’s at work, SHE’S NOT FLIRTING WITH YOU.
there are a lot of good takeaways from this thread, but mainly it reinforces my belief that hitting on servers (especially women) while at work is all sorts of screwed up because emotional labor is a very big part of their job and reading too much into that is presumptuous as hell.
No one’s mentioned it in thread here (perhaps in the comments if I check?) but this is so rape culture it’s terrifying. Women must SO be available to all men all the time that ANY interaction between a woman and a man MUST equal flirting if it’s remotely pleasant or polite.
Which gets compounded with the hetero guys and girls can’t ‘just’ be friends and ‘don’t trust your girl if she’s friends with a guy’. Which some try to say is; ‘Oh I trust her, I just don’t trust him’. But the WHY of not trusting the guy is the same. The knowledge and awareness that women are meant to be available to all men at all times, until such time as a singular man stamps a claim on her and ‘good’ men will respect the ‘no trespassing’ sign.
And of course, this aspect of rape culture, this BEDROCK of rape culture explains ‘gay panic’ with hetero dudes. The thought that another guy could be interpreting anything polite or remotely pleasant THEY do as flirting…
The current era panic so high men and boys are throwing out that awful ‘no homo’ in order to ‘set the record straight’ - Pun intended. So much misogyny just embedded in culture.
One last note:
Expectation of Service From Black People - Particularly Black Women + Rape Culture Mentality That Lack of Hostility Means Flirting = Sexual Objectification + Harassment on a Monumental Scale.
[Image: a series of tweets by justified agitator (@Awkward_Duck) on August 19, 2014.
1:23 AM: We literally laid in someone’s backyard for what seemed like an eternity while tanks rolled down the streets #Ferguson
1:26 AM: I’m live tweeting because there’s a media blackout. #Ferguson
1:33 AM: I’m so shaken. They’re literally just rolling around throwing tear gas into neighborhoods-not aggressive crowds. #Ferguson
1:34 AM: I was pouring milk over one guys eyes when they came back around and threw another at us. #Ferguson
1:51 AM: Let me repeat, THEY ARE GASSING NEIGHBORHOODS not crowds of protestors.There was only a few of us walking. there is no curfew, so why?]
Sir Joshua Reynolds
George Clive and his Family with an Indian Maid
Oil on canvas
Height: 140 cm (55.1 in). Width: 171 cm (67.3 in).
From Simple English Wikipedia:
Lord George Clive was cousin of Robert Clive, founder of the empire of British India. He made his fortune there. Clearly the painter found the Indian nurse’s depiction his greatest pleasure.
Is it just me or do the white family look unreal and vacant despite contrasting the dark shades of the back drop. Yet the nurse pops and looks tangible and alive.
A lot of people have responded similarly about the contrast between the white colonial family and the indigenous woman in this painting. Even the child is nearly as white and stiff as a corpse…and yet, these images were intentionally idealized in this manner; their very whiteness can be seen as a rebuke to the Indian woman’s vivid, tangible presence here.
This has everything to do with Color, Chromophobia, and Colonialism.
Chromophobia is marked, not just by the desire to eradicate color, but also to control and to master its forces. When we do use color, there’s some sense that it needs to be controlled; that there are rules to its use, either in terms of its quantity or its symbolic applications (e.g., don’t paint your dining room blue because it suppresses appetite). Please note that I’m not arguing against color psychology; it’s undeniable that certain colors carry certain cultural assumptions and associations, a fact that has led anthropologist Michael Taussig to argue that color should be considered a manifestation of the sacred.
But what I am arguing is that there is a pervasive idea that color gets us in the gut: it’s seductive, emotional, compelling. Color, in the words of nineteenth-century art theorist Charles Blanc, often “turns the mind from its course, changes the sentiment, swallows the thought.”
According to some art critics, sensory anthropologists, and historians, this mutual attraction and repulsion to color has centuries-old roots, bound up in a colonial past and fears of the unknown.
Michael Taussig has recounted that from the seventeenth century, the British East India Company centered much of its trade on brightly colored, cheap, and dye-fast cotton textiles imported from India. Because of the Calico Acts of 1700 and 1720, which supported the interests of the wool and silk weaving guilds, these textiles could only be imported into England with the proviso that they were destined for export again, generally to the English colonies in the Caribbean or Africa.These vibrant textiles played a key part in the African trade, and especially in the African slave trade, where British traders would use the textiles to purchase slaves. According to Michael Taussig, these trades are significant not only because they linked chromophilic areas like India and Africa, but also because“color achieved greater conquests than European-instigated violence during the preceding four centuries of the slave trade. The first European slavers, the Portuguese in the fifteenth century, quickly learned that to get slaves they had to trade for slaves with African chiefs and kings, not kidnap them, and they conducted this trade with colored fabrics in lieu of violence.”
Where I differ with Taussig is that there is very little doubt in my mind that using the concept of aesthetics in the manner can absolutely be a form of violence, and that art can be used to subjugate.
Say what you will about this being an exaggeration, but I wasn’t the one cleaning the Elgin marbles in acid in the 1800s to better fit a misconception of whiteness…after all, Greek marbles originally looked something like this, much to the chagrin of western aestheticism everywhere:
So when you consider the historical context of the painting in the original post, it becomes entirely likely that the stiffness and whiteness of the colonial family is meant as a desirable contrast to the vibrantly alive Indian woman.
And you should also consider what kind of ideas you have about her from the painting, and think on how your view of her is affected by the context. Is she somehow more “natural” or “wild” than the family? Is she “earthy”? How is her existence affected by the fact that she is situated below even the child in the composition…do her arms ache from holding her up?
I had never seen this painting before it was submitted, and I wonder why that is. There are a lot of things about it that are unpleasant, but the ideas in it influence us anyways.