Showing posts tagged history

gradientlair:

christel-thoughts:

"only Nigeria has a larger Black population than Brazil"

yet when you hear “Brazilian”, is this who you think of?

Boom. 

(Source: lovedivika)

(Reblogged from gradientlair)
The opportunities my parents and I had were only possible because of the long fight for civil rights and political recognition led by black Americans.

Dr. Janelle Wong, Director of Asian American Studies at the University of Maryland.

Read her op-ed addressing Asian Americans who oppose affirmative action- Alice

(via apocalypsecanceled)

(Source: 18mr)

(Reblogged from kitoky)

materialworld:

The history of segregation in the United States is often seen in black and white. Leslie Bow, professor of English and Asian American studies, is interested in the experiences of communities that fell outside those color lines.

In her new book, Partly Colored: Asian Americans and Racial Anomaly in the Segregated South, Bow examines what segregation demanded of people who did not fall into the category of black or white — including Asians, American Indians and people of mixed race.

Wisconsin Week: What did segregation mean for people who — as you described it — stood outside the color lines? You posed the question, “Where did the Asian sit on the segregated bus?’

Leslie Bow: I think what’s most interesting to me about a project like this is that we often conflate race with African-Americans or see race as a black-white issue. When we say “multiculturalism” … we don’t think conceptually or theoretically about the challenge that poses to the way we think about racial history in the United States… …

WW: You mentioned your parents, who are Chinese-American. They attended white schools in Arkansas but didn’t socialize with and weren’t invited to the homes of their white classmates and I wondered how much their experience impacted your research interests?

LB: Definitely, because it was something that they themselves did not talk about. What I found was that they mediated that experience by creating a third level of segregation where there was limited social engagement with either whites or blacks. Their social context was wholly Chinese-American at the time. So, to me that was just the jumping off point for really an exploration of ambiguity…(via Mixed Race Studies » Leslie Bow)

(Reblogged from bananaleaves)

Diego Luna Plays It Safe in Disjointed “César Chávez” Movie

latinorebels:

Let’s face it: the initial push to get Latinos interested in attending the opening weekend of Diego Luna’s “César Chávez” worked. From White House trips to social media chats, everyone in my social circles was fully aware that Luna’s film about the heroic labor leader was coming out the weekend of March 28, just three days before Chávez’s birthday (March 31, 1927). Many said they would go catch the film in an actual movie theater, invite a few friends and make it a community event. We all also hoped that Luna’s film would triumph, that it could be a Latino “Malcolm X” movement, a defining stake to prove that more stories like Chávez’s need to be told.

Expectations were high. Really high.

Sadly, the execution was low, resulting in a safe and mediocre film.

image

Luna took the Hollywood route (no surprise there), instead of making a bolder choice—direct a more complexed and nuanced film about how a group of farmworkers in California made national and international news all because of grapes. THAT actual story was a big part of Luna’s film, but it was clouded and hidden by other story lines. The boycott story, from its origins to it victorious resolution, was by far the most gripping part of the movie. “How will they pull this off?” I kept asking myself as I watched, even though I already knew a lot about the strike and the boycott. THAT was the story and should have been the only one. Instead, Luna took us to other distracting (and boring) subplots, specifically the relationship Chávez (played admirably by Michael Peña) had with his son, Fernando (Eli Vargas). When I saw Fernando’s character on a golf course, I shook my head.

I can understand why such an artistic choice was made —trying humanize a historic figure is common in Hollywood biopics— but not at the expense of the bigger story. The best of “César Chávez” was great storytelling: when the focus was on the strike and the boycott. For example, when we see Peña’s character interacting with farm workers wanting better for their children (an opening scene all in Spanish) or when he confronted a sheriff over the Bill of Rights (boom). The struggle to strike, the in-fighting regarding strategy, the violence that occurred and even when Sen. Robert Kennedy (played by Jack Holmes with one of the most Kennedy-like accents ever) showed up to support the farm workers. These were the scenes that needed more exploration, more tension and ultimately, more drama. Cases in point: Luna never even had Peña as Chávez and Holmes as Kennedy talking to each other. Chávez’s fasting scenes lacked any emotional investment. There was no real interaction between the “good guys” and the “bad guys” (led by the always creepily talented John Malkovich). The scenes of workers getting gassed and shot at were so minimal, it’s as if Luna didn’t want to take the time to make us care about these atrocities. Great drama needs real tension. The movie never fully embraced such a basic tenet of storytelling.

The lack of a clear plot should not fall on Peña. He worked with what he had and portrayed Chávez as a quiet yet humble leader. Not giving Peña enough nuggets to portray several sides of Chávez falls on Luna and screenwriters Keir Pearson (“Hotel Ruwanda”) and Timothy J. Sexton (“Children of Men”). The screenplay lacked authenticity. It chose to gloss over some of the more dramatic parts of Chávez’s life during this period, and in the end, the movie soured. It’s almost as if Pearson and Sexton didn’t want to spend time about the more compelling challenges to La Causa: pragmatism vs. hero worship; “divide and conquer” vs. unity; violence vs. non-violence; Filipino vs. Chicano vs. Mexicano; “wetbacks” vs. union. The script read as if it the final ending was inevitable, a done deal. I wanted less of the done deal and more of how La Causa achieved its initial goals.

Which is the movie’s biggest problem. Key figures such as Dolores Huerta (played by Rosario Dawson), Helen Chávez (América Ferrera) and Delano’s Filipino workers just became outside observers to Luna’s Chávez character. Sure, there was tension here and there, but it was never sustained tension. For example, when Helen Chávez’s character offered to be arrested, we see a jealous César Chávez seeing his man pride armor getting chinked. It was a few interesting minutes between the Chávez couple, but after that, nothing. As for Huerta, her character was never developed, and that was a shame. In a movie about César Chávez, a character like Dolores Huerta is not a secondary character. You would think that Luna could have explored this relationship some more. I mean, Huerta is still alive. She was there. She lived it. (Oh yeah, I forgot that Huerta was reportedly never consulted to offer her insights to the film.)

In the end, the movie was only 101 minutes long, and maybe that explains why it never really satisfied. One of the biggest worker rights stories in the history of the United States got only 101 minutes of Hollywood air time. Given its long list of producers (Canana Films, Equipment & Film Design, Imagenation, Mr. Mudd, Participant Media), distributors (Lionsgate, Pantelion Films and Participant Media) and a big “Televisa Cine” who all had to be acknowledged even before the movie even began (awkward), you would think that some more money would have been raised to make this movie at least 120 minutes.

image

When Chávez declares predictable victory at the end of the movie, my reaction was, “That’s it?” I got more emotional watching Gene Hackman in “Hoosiers” or Kurt Russell in “Miracle.” The biggest moment of victory in “César Chávez” just got a shoulder shrug, and that is tragic, especially since Luna had a chance to take what happened in the 60s and early 70s and connect it to what is happening today. He could have confronted Chávez’s critics as well as how many neo-nativists want to remind everyone that Chávez was against undocumented workers and is just a hypocrite of the movement. That would have earned Luna some major props and it would have been fearless. Instead, a potential “Latino Malcolm X” turned into a straight-to-Netflix choice.

But I guess Luna’s choice was set from the very beginning. This was never about a history lesson:

I would start crying, because from Day 1 I said, ‘I’m not going to do a history lesson.’ … Every time [teachers] come to me and say, ‘Why did you leave this out? Why did you not talk about this?’ I go, ‘Listen, film is not a history lesson.’ Film is in fact about engaging emotionally … and it’s about having a good time in the cinema. It’s about entertaining. Cinema can bring some curiosity for people to go and investigate a little more about Cesar. But film shouldn’t be teaching you. At least that’s not the film I like watching.

In this case, Luna made the wrong decision, and maybe he was the wrong person to direct this film. “César Chávez” should have been more of a “history lesson,” because that was by far the most enjoyable and dramatic part of the movie.

Nonetheless, the one good thing that IS happening: people are talking. Here are just a few of the comments I have seen in the last few days that I would tend to agree with:

“It was an okay film. Michael Peña’s (Cesar Chavez) performance was kind of flat. Dolores Huerta and the Filipino farm workers were downplayed in this film. I encourage people to see it as it’s an important part of our history.”

“I just saw the movie “CESAR CHAVEZ”
And I invite all my brothers and sisters
Please go see it and support the life
Of a powerful man that stood tall
For equality, fairness, and justice
And of course our champion of integrity
DOLORES HUERTA
La voz de Los invisibles speaks loud and clear
Viva la RAZA
Peace ”

– Carlos Santana”

In the end, Latinos should go and see this movie, and after that, have real discussions about it. My biggest concern is this: at what point do Latinos go beyond supporting mediocre movies and when will we get content that is outstanding and thought-provoking? “César Chávez,” as well-intentioned as it was, became just another ok film with poor plot choices.

I no longer want “ok.” I want “superior” and “top-notch.” I want “authentic.”

We will get there.

***

EDITOR’S NOTE: Julio (Julito) Ricardo Varela (@julito77) founded LatinoRebels.com in May, 2011 and proceeded to open it up to about 20 like-minded Rebeldes. His personal blog, juliorvarela.com, has been active since 2008 and is widely read in Puerto Rico and beyond. He pens columns on LR regularly. In the last two years, Julito represented the Rebeldes on CBS’ Face the NationNPR,  Univisionand The New York Times. Currently, he is a digital producer for Al Jazeera America’s The Stream. The views expressed in any of the LR columns written by Julito on this page do not reflect the editorial stance of Latino Rebels or Al Jazeera America. His opinions are his own and his alone.



via LatinoRebels.com http://ift.tt/1hPyzyw
(Reblogged from greatrunner)

maakomori:

anirresistiblysexyperson:

@tiara: the original story was about confucian values of filial piety and disney portrayed chinese men as misogynist backwards pigs (like THAT’S not already a stereotype) and the way she’s “going against tradition” is SUCH a western view of it omfg. mostly they place such a western perception on how sexism and how fucked up our culture is on this film which they don’t have a right to do. (i do not care that most of the VAs were asian especially since half of them were JAPANESE)

the hilarious thing was she wasn’t going against tradition at all

not only does china have a long tradition of female warriors, many of whom didn’t disguise their genders at all (杨家女将, 梁红玉), but the story of hua mulan is instilling confucian tradition in its listeners given that she does a doubly confucian act, which was 1) filial piety to her father and 2) loyalty to her country

moreover, in most adaptations and in the tang dynasty ballad (though ofc the folktale is much older than the tang dynasty) SHE reveals her gender through her OWN choice, by going home, taking off her armour, and letting down her hair, putting her makeup back on, and putting on her own clothes, and her friends from the army just accepted it, and had a good laugh about how they fought with her for 12 years but never noticed

her life was never threatened by the other soldiers. she was never scorned by them for being a woman. she was never kicked out of the army. she worked her way up from a weaver girl to a general. and what’s more, she was never at odds with the traditions of her society.

plus that scene where she cuts her hair in the disney film is so based on white understandings of gender expression and is so unconfucian i want to barf

(Reblogged from bananaleaves)

caribbeancivilisation:

The Taino names  of the Caribbean islands based on Jalil Sued-Badillo (ed.), ‘General History of the Caribbean, vol. 1: Autochthonous Societies’ (Paris: UNESCO Publishing/London: Macmillan 2003) Plate 8.

(Reblogged from lilacblossoms)

… when an image is presented as a work of art, the way people look at it is affected by a whole series of learnt assumptions about art. Assumptions concerning Beauty, Truth, Genius, Civilisation, Form, Status, Taste, etc.

Many of these assumptions no longer accord with the world as it is…Out of true with the present, these assumptions obscure the past. They mystify rather than clarify. The past is never there waiting to be discovered, to be recognised for exactly what it is.

History always constitutes the relation between a present and its past. Consequently fear of the present leads to mystification of the past.

The past is not for living in; it is a well of conciousness from which we draw in order to act.

Cultural mystification of the past entails a double loss. Works of art are made unnecessarily remote. And the past offers us fewer conclusions to complete in action.

When we ‘see’ a landscape, we situate ourselves in it. if we ‘saw’ the art of the past, we would situate ourselves in history.

When we are prevented from seeing it, we are being deprived of the history which belongs to us. Who benefits from this deprivation?

In the end, the art of the past is being mystified because a privileged minority is striving to invent a history which can retrospectively justify the role of the ruling classes, and such a justification can no longer make sense in modern terms.

And so, inevitably, it mystifies.

Ways of Seeing by John Berger

submitted by art—gallery

Hello! I came across this passage while reading ‘Ways of Seeing’ by John Berger. I wanted to share it with you as I felt it relates to your work and its very interesting. Do you agree?

OH MY GOD I LOVE IT. I could wish it was a bit less dense, but if you take it one sentence at a time, it has so many layers of meaning, and it explores a lot of the ideas I’m trying to express here. Especially this little haymaker:

In the end, the art of the past is being mystified because a privileged minority is striving to invent a history which can retrospectively justify the role of the ruling classes, and such a justification can no longer make sense in modern terms.

I almost want to break it up into separate one-sentence quotes and dole them out bit by bit, but I think the impact of them all in context is pretty intense if you brace yourself! Thank you SO much for sharing this!

(Reblogged from medievalpoc)

Ancient times table hidden in Chinese bamboo strips

archaeologicalnews:

image

From a few fragments out of a collection of 23-century-old bamboo strips, historians have pieced together what they say is the world’s oldest example of a multiplication table in base 10.

Five years ago, Tsinghua University in Beijing received a donation of nearly 2,500 bamboo strips. Muddy, smelly and teeming with mould, the strips probably originated from the illegal excavation of a tomb, and the donor had purchased them at a Hong Kong market. Researchers at Tsinghua carbon-dated the materials to around 305 bc, during the Warring States period before the unification of China.

Each strip was about 7 to 12 millimetres wide and up to half a metre long, and had a vertical line of ancient Chinese calligraphy painted on it in black ink. Historians realized that the bamboo pieces constituted 65 ancient texts and recognized them to be among the most important artefacts from the period. Read more.

(Reblogged from bananaleaves)

It is my guiding thesis that people who claim a serious interest in America but consider racism to be a niche topic are divided against themselves. You can’t understand American politics, without understanding the Civil War. You can’t understand the suburbs, without understanding redlining. You can’t understand the constitution, without understanding slavery. In effect if you are an American who avoids understanding the force of racism, you are avoiding an understanding of yourself and your country.

Perhaps you are even avoiding something more.

(Reblogged from broadlybrazen)
melanatedcontributions:

Gaspar Yanga When students learn about slavery in school, a lot of them often ask this question: “Why didn’t they fight back?” It’s a question that often remains unanswered because lesson plans don’t always address the grittier elements of history, particularly the slave trade.But they did fight back. And one of them, Gaspar Yanga, changed history forever.Often referred to as the “first liberator of the Americas,” Yanga was a leader of a slave rebellion in Mexico during the early period of Spanish colonial rule around 1570. By the year 1609, the large number of escaped slaves had reduced much of rural Mexico to desperation, especially in the mountains in the state of Veracruz.Taking refuge in the difficult terrain of the highlands, Yanga and his people built a small maroon colony, or “Palenque”—a community of runaway slaves living on mountaintops. The colony grew for more than 30 years, partially surviving by capturing caravans bringing goods to Veracruz. In 1609, the Spanish colonial government decided to try to regain control of the territory.Spanish troops, numbering around 550, set out from Puebla in January 1609. The maroons facing them were an irregular force of 100 fighters with some type of firearm and 400 more with primitive weapons such as stones, machetes, and bows and arrows. These maroon troops were led by Francisco de la Matosa, an Angolan. Yanga—who was quite old by this time—decided to use his troops’ superior knowledge of the terrain to resist the Spaniards. His goal was to cause the Spaniards enough pain to draw them to the negotiating table.Upon the approach of the Spanish troops, Yanga sent terms of peace, including an area of self-rule. The Spaniards refused the terms and the two groups fought a battle that lasted for many years. Finally, unable to win indefinitely, the Spaniards agreed to give Yanga’s followers their freedom in exchange for ending the constant raids in the area and gain their help in tracking down other escaped slaves.Additional conditions were also met, including:1. Upon surrender, Yanga and his people would receive a farm as well as the right of self-government;2. Only Franciscan priests would tend to the people; and3. Yanga’s family would be granted the right of rule.In 1618, the treaty was signed, and by 1630, the town of San Lorenzo de los Negros de Cerralvo was established. The town name of “San Lorenzo de los Negros” was officially changed to Yanga, Veracruz in 1956. This town of more than 20,000 people remains under the name of Yanga today.» Contributed by Raymond Ward, DuSable Museum of African American History.

melanatedcontributions:

Gaspar Yanga 

When students learn about slavery in school, a lot of them often ask this question: “Why didn’t they fight back?” It’s a question that often remains unanswered because lesson plans don’t always address the grittier elements of history, particularly the slave trade.

But they did fight back. And one of them, Gaspar Yanga, changed history forever.

Often referred to as the “first liberator of the Americas,” Yanga was a leader of a slave rebellion in Mexico during the early period of Spanish colonial rule around 1570. By the year 1609, the large number of escaped slaves had reduced much of rural Mexico to desperation, especially in the mountains in the state of Veracruz.

Taking refuge in the difficult terrain of the highlands, Yanga and his people built a small maroon colony, or “Palenque”—a community of runaway slaves living on mountaintops. The colony grew for more than 30 years, partially surviving by capturing caravans bringing goods to Veracruz. In 1609, the Spanish colonial government decided to try to regain control of the territory.

Spanish troops, numbering around 550, set out from Puebla in January 1609. The maroons facing them were an irregular force of 100 fighters with some type of firearm and 400 more with primitive weapons such as stones, machetes, and bows and arrows. These maroon troops were led by Francisco de la Matosa, an Angolan. Yanga—who was quite old by this time—decided to use his troops’ superior knowledge of the terrain to resist the Spaniards. His goal was to cause the Spaniards enough pain to draw them to the negotiating table.

Upon the approach of the Spanish troops, Yanga sent terms of peace, including an area of self-rule. The Spaniards refused the terms and the two groups fought a battle that lasted for many years. Finally, unable to win indefinitely, the Spaniards agreed to give Yanga’s followers their freedom in exchange for ending the constant raids in the area and gain their help in tracking down other escaped slaves.

Additional conditions were also met, including:

1. Upon surrender, Yanga and his people would receive a farm as well as the right of self-government;
2. Only Franciscan priests would tend to the people; and
3. Yanga’s family would be granted the right of rule.

In 1618, the treaty was signed, and by 1630, the town of San Lorenzo de los Negros de Cerralvo was established. The town name of “San Lorenzo de los Negros” was officially changed to Yanga, Veracruz in 1956. This town of more than 20,000 people remains under the name of Yanga today.

» Contributed by Raymond Ward, DuSable Museum of African American History.

(Reblogged from diasporicroots)

medievalpoc:

cultureunseen:

http://society6.com/artist/replaceface

You know what’s funny? I think a lot of people view these images as interesting because they’re “unrealistic” or specifically because they feature men of color, anachronistic. I do like them, but I just wanted to add something….

For each of these implied anachronisms, there is a real painting of a real Man of Color from European Art History. (The text for each image is a link to learn more!)

A French Gentleman, c. 1800

image

Toussaint L’Ouverture, c. 1790s

image

Alexander Pushkin, 1899

image

Portrait of Général Thomas Alexandre Dumas (father of author Alexandre Dumas)

image

Raden Syarif Bustaman Saleh, Javanese Aristocrat and Artist in the Netherlands, 1840

image

Olaudah Equiano, c. 1840s

image

Abram Petrovich Gannibal, c. 1690s

image

Chevalier de Saint-Georges, c. 1780s

image

Ira Aldridge, Victorian Actor, c. 1840

image

János Bihari, Composer, c. 1840

image

The Postillion of Erddig House, 1730

image

Jack Black of Ystumllyn, Wales, 1754

image

A Young Eastern European Man c. 1750:

image

P.S. my favorite from the OP is will.i.am!!!

(Reblogged from rosezemlya)

vintage-chicana:

Sylvia Mendez and her family won a class action lawsuit in 1946 against the Orange County School district that dismantled the segregated school system. This was eight years before the well-known Brown v. Board of Education case.

(Reblogged from lati-negros)
(Reblogged from gnarlybynature)

fuati:

March on Washington August 28, 1963 
(Photo by AFP Photo)
(via fuati)

(Reblogged from malariamonsters)

blackhistoryalbum:

PHILLIS WHEATLEY, THE PHILOSOPHER  POET
The statue is part of the Boston Women’s Memorial on Commonwealth Avenue, a series of three statues of Bostonian women by Meredith Bergmann: Wheatley, Abigail Adams, and Lucy Stone.

Phillis Wheatley (ca. 1753-1784), an eighteenth-century African-American woman who was a slave and a poet, was the first black American to be published. She is also credited with originating the genres of African-American poetry and African-American women’s literature.

(Reblogged from irresistible-revolution)